quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This is bull****. We don't really know how skin color originated. The Eskimos have lived in an Artic environment for thousands of years and yet they remain dark. If environment causes skin color why are the Eskimos still dark.
The answer to why Inuit (Eskimo is pejorative) remained dark is simple. The Inuit diet consists of fishmeat and marine mammal blubber which is rich in vitamin D. Since dark skin impedes the synthesis of vitamin D, many populations that live in less sunny latitudes evolved light skin. Europeans are a perfect example of this. However, since the ancestors of the Inuit supplemented their vitamin D in their diet *there was no need to evolve lighter skin* hence Inuit are an exception.
LOL indeed was the first thing I though. I must admit it was hilarious imagining him actually saying that in an old Clyde Winters voice.
I too was going to post why, as the reason for such a query is simply scientific ignorance when it comes to skin color.
However something told me that by now (meaning this length in the page) someone likely already had, and that I should just read. Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
All hail to Jablonski. Tens of thousands of scientists on this earth and not one of them came up with her explanation? Then again maybe they did but figured the time wasn't right to say it until someone else took the plunge.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Europeans only recently entered Europe. They are not the descendents of the original People of Europe who were dark skinned and carried different genes.
The science is out there people. And it is up to you to go out there and educate yourselves on the subject and not simply refuse the material out of ignorance.
You are wrong. Marc is doing what any good researcher would do . Yes, the evidence is out there he is just making an independent interpretation of the evidence.
The archaeological evidence and skeletal record make it clear that Blacks entered Europe numerous times and Indo-European speakers or Kurgan folk entered the area only recently. The fact that the first carriers of many genes common to Europeans are found in Cameroon make it obvious that Europeans only acquired these genes recently through intermarriage etc., with recent Africans--not the ancient Blacks who lived in this area who carried haplogroups N and are associated with the CroMagnon people of 40,000-28,000BC. Another group entered Europe via the Levant between 20,000-18,000 BC who probably carried haplogroup M and were associated with Ethiopian speakers or Natufians according to most researchers.
Recent genetic research indicates that the contemporary Europeans are not related to the ancient Europeans. quote:
Science 11 November 2005: Vol. 310. no. 5750, pp. 1016 - 1018 DOI: 10.1126/science.1118725 Prev | Table of Contents | Next
REPORTS Ancient DNA from the First European Farmers in 7500-Year-Old Neolithic Sites Wolfgang Haak,1* Peter Forster,2 Barbara Bramanti,1 Shuichi Matsumura,2 Guido Brandt,1 Marc Tänzer,1 Richard Villems,3 Colin Renfrew,2 Detlef Gronenborn,4 Kurt Werner Alt,1 Joachim Burger1 The ancestry of modern Europeans is a subject of debate among geneticists, archaeologists, and anthropologists. A crucial question is the extent to which Europeans are descended from the first European farmers in the Neolithic Age 7500 years ago or from Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who were present in Europe since 40,000 years ago. Here we present an analysis of ancient DNA from early European farmers. We successfully extracted and sequenced intact stretches of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 24 out of 57 Neolithic skeletons from various locations in Germany, Austria, and Hungary. We found that 25% of the Neolithic farmers had one characteristic mtDNA type and that this type formerly was widespread among Neolithic farmers in Central Europe. Europeans today have a 150-times lower frequency (0.2%) of this mtDNA type, revealing that these first Neolithic farmers did not have a strong genetic influence on modern European female lineages. Our finding lends weight to a proposed Paleolithic ancestry for modern Europeans.
This DNA found in the ancient Europeans was N1(a).
It seems to me that we may be asking the wrong question. Instead of trying to explain why the Old Europeans were not Indo-European speakers, or contemporary Europeans, we should be asking the question who these Old Europeans were. It appears to me that they may have been Africans.
This is based on the reality that the haplogroup N1(a) is common to Senegambians, modern Ethiopians and the Dravidian speaking people of India (Richards et al, 2005; Toomas et al, 2004). The Old Europeans may be related to African cattle raising farming groups, originally from Africa and the Middle East who may have planted the seeds of agriculture in ancient Europe, especially descendants of the Natufians.
Many Researchers see Africans spreading into Europe in ancient times. Brace et al (2006) recognized Sub-Saharan Africans as associates of the Nufian farmers that introduced farming to Europe.
Chris Stringer and Robin McKie wrote:
"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some looked more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by OBJECTIVE anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China."
Africa in a sense kept pumping out migrations and dispersals of people and this included people like the Neanderthals who, equally, it doesn't seem were our ancestors.
CL Brace (2006)– “When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa. Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.”
The main problem with Brace et al’s attempt to make the Late Pleistocene inhabitants of Europe = contemporary Europeans is that these people were Negroes or Blacks.
There have been numerous "Negroid skeletons" found in Europe. Marcellin Boule and Henri Vallois, in Fossil Man, provide an entire chapter on the Africans/Negroes of Europe Anta Diop also discussed the Negroes of Europe in Civilization or Barbarism, pp.25-68. Also W.E. B. DuBois, discussed these Negroes in the The World and Africa, pp.86-89. DuBois noted that "There was once a an "uninterrupted belt' of Negro culture from Central Europe to South Africa" (p.88).
Boule and Vallois, note that "To sum up, in the most ancient skeletons from the Grotte des Enfants we have a human type which is readily comparable to modern types and especially to the Negritic or Negroid type" (p.289). They continue, "Two Neolithic individuals from Chamblandes in Switzerland are Negroid not only as regards their skulls but also in the proportions of their limbs. Several Ligurian and Lombard tombs of the Metal Ages have also yielded evidences of a Negroid element. Since the publication of Verneau's memoir, discoveries of other Negroid skeletons in Neolithic levels in Illyria and the Balkans have been announced. The prehistoric statues, dating from the Copper Age, from Sultan Selo in Bulgaria are also thought to protray Negroids. In 1928 Rene Bailly found in one of the caverns of Moniat, near Dinant in Belgium, a human skeleton of whose age it is difficult to be certain, but seems definitely prehistoric. It is remarkable for its Negroid characters, which give it a reseblance to the skeletons from both Grimaldi and Asselar (p.291).
Boule and Vallois, note that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe. Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group.
Trenton W. Holliday, tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa, "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of the Levant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area.
Keita notes that: quote:
"Epipaleolithic "mesolithic" Nile Valley remains have these characteristics and diverge notably from their Maghreban and European counterparts in key cranio-facial characteristics (see comments in Keita 1990) although late Natufian hunters and early Anatolian farmers (Angel 1972) shared some of these traits, suggesting late Paleolithic migration out of Africa, as supported by archeology **(Bar Yosef 1987)**. - Keita, 1993.
Holliday confirmed his hypothesis that the replacement of the Neanderthal people were Sub-Saharan Africans. The founders of civilization in South West Asia were the people, archaeologists call Natufians. By 13,000 BC, according to J.D. Clark (1977) the Natufians were collecting grasses which later became domesticated crops in Southwest Asia. In Palestine the Natufians established intensive grass collection. The Natufians used the Ibero-Maurusian tool industry (Wendorf, 1968). These Natufians , according to Christopher Ehret Natufians were small stature folk who spread agriculture throughout Nubia into the Red Sea. The Natufians took the Ibero-Maurusian tools into Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.
Some researchers believe that Natufian, or some related population took the E3b alpha cluster to Europe.
The Proto-Magyar were one of the many ethnic groups which formerly lived in the Fertile African Crescent. They offered prayers to *kan, e.g., Magyar kan, konyorog, Manding kani, and Dravidian ka-n. They also worshipped the god Amon, who they called Anya (Winters, 1986).
The name Maa is found in many Proto-Saharan ethnonyms. For example the Manding called themselves Ma-nde (the children of Ma), the Sumerians called themselves Mah-Gar-ri (exalted God's children), and the Magyar of ancient times referred to themselves as Muh-ger-ri , or Ma-ka-r (exalted children) (Winters,1986).
According to David MacRitchies the most ancient Uralic speakers were called czernii ugris or 'Black Ugris'. The Ugris were also called Hunni. The name Ugrian, is the origin for the word Hungarian. The Hungarians were also called Sabatocospali ,"the Blacks".
The Carpathian blacks arrived in the area in the 4th millennium B.C. The Tripolye culture dates from 3800 to 2100 B.C. The Tripolye culture was established in the Ukraine, Moldavia and Romania along the Siret River in the Ukraine. The Tripolye people may have collected/cultivated barley, millet and wheat. They also had domesticated cattle, sheep-goats and pigs. As in Africa, their principle domesticate at this time was cattle .
During the middle Neolithic copper was being exploited in several mountainous regions of Europe. The center for copper mining in Europe was the Carpathian mountains. Many copper objects have been found on Tripolyean sites .
Many animal and human figurines have been found on Tripolyean sites. The Tripolye rotund ceramic female figurines are analogous to the rotund female figurines found in ancient Nubia.
It appears that for over a millennium the Linear Pottery and Cris farming groups practiced agriculture in the core region of Tripolyean culture. The middle Neolithic Tripolye people on the other hand are associated with cattle herding and mining.
The Vinca Tordos culture is very interesting because of the evidence of writing found in this culture. The famous Tartaria tablets were produced by the Vinca Tordos culture. The Vinca Tordos culture is associated with western Bulgaria, southwest Romania and Yugoslavia.
The Vinca people in addition to possessing writing were also engaged in copper metallurgy. They also made clay and stone figurines and fine pottery. As among the contemporary Nubians and Tripolyeans culture the Vinca people made fine human and animal figurines .
This means that the original Africans carrying halogroups R1 and K had to have entered the area much later during the Neolithic sometime after 8kya. I would speculate that these Africans were the archaeological group called the Old European who have left us many works of art like the stick people that acknowledge their African origin.
There is disagreement over where the Europeans originated and when they spread across Europe. Dr. M. Gimbutas maintains that Europeans had their origin in the Pontic steppe country on the north coast of the Black Sea and began to expand into Europe as Kurgan nomads after 4000 BC In 1987, Dr. C. Renfrew hypothesized that the Indo-Europeans lived in eastern Anatolia and spread into Europe around 7000 years ago with the spread of agriculture. Both of these views have little support based upon the ancestral culture terms used by the Proto-Indo-European which are predominately of non Indo-European (I-E) origin. After a comparison of the linguistic, agricultural and genetic evidence researchers have found little support for both of these theories. Sokal et al, noted that: "If the IEs originated in situ by local differentiation only, there should be no significant partial correlation , since geography should fully explain the observed genetic and linguistic distances. This was not the case. If the genetics-language correlation were entirely due to the spread of populations accompanying the origin of agriculture, then the origin-of-agriculture model should suffice, or at least there should be some effect due to origin of agriculture. But we saw that origin-of-agriculture distances (OOA) cannot reduce the partial correlations remaining after geography has been held constant."
The genetic evidence supporting the absence of an Indo-European origin in the Anatolian region is supported by the historical and archaeological evidence. The north and east of Anatolia was inhabited by non-Indo-European speakers.
It appears that Indo-Europeans did not enter Anatolia until sometime between 2000 -1800 BC At this time we note the appearance of Indo-European (Hittite) names in the literary records of the Old Kingdom of Hatti, a Kushite people. And at least as late as 1900 BC Anatolia was basically still Hattian (i.e., occupied by mainly by Blacks).
An important group in Anantolia in addition to the Hatti, were the Hurrians. The Hurrians enter Mesopotamia from the northeastern hilly area[1]. They introduced horse-drawn war chariots to Mesopotamia[2].
Hurrians penetrate Mesopotamia and Syria-Palestine between 1700-1500 BC. The major Hurrian Kingdom was Mitanni, which was founded by Sudarna I (c.1550), was established at Washukanni on the Khabur River. The Hurrian capital was Urkesh, one of its earliest kings was called Tupkish.
Linguistic and historical evidence support the view that Dravidians influenced Mittanni and Lycia. (Winters 1989a) Alain Anselin is sure that Dravidian speaking peoples once inhabited the Aegean. For example Anselin (1982, pp.111-114) has discussed many Dravidian place names found in the Aegean Sea area.
Two major groups in ancient Anatolia were the Hurrians and Lycians. Although the Hurrians are considered to be Indo-European speakers, some Hurrians probably spoke a Dravidian language.
The Hurrians lived in Mittanni. Mittanni was situated on the great bend of the Upper Euphrates river. Hurrian was spoken in eastern Anatolia and North Syria.
Most of what we know about Hurrian comes from the Tel al-Armarna letters. These letters were written to the Egyptian pharaoh. These letters are important because they were written in a language different from diplomatic Babylonian.
The letters written in the unknown language were numbered 22 and 25. In 1909 Bork, in Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatische Gesellschaft, wrote a translation of the letters.
In 1930, G.W. Brown proposed that the words in letters 22 and 25 were Dravidian especially Tamil. Brown (1930), has shown that the vowels and consonants of Hurrian and Dravidian are analogous. In support of this theory Brown (1930) noted the following similarities between Dravidian and Hurrian: 1) presence of a fullness of forms employed by both languages; 2) presence of active and passive verbal forms are not distinguished; 3) presence of verbal forms that are formed by particles; 4) presence of true relative pronouns is not found in these languages; 5) both languages employ negative verbal forms; 6) identical use of -m, as nominative; 7) similar pronouns; and 8) similar ending formations:
Dravidian Hurrian
a a
-kku -ikka
imbu impu
There are analogous Dravidian and Hurrian terms:
English Hurrian Dravidian
mountain paba parampu
lady,woman aallay ali
King Sarr,zarr Ca, cira
god en en
give tan tara
to rule irn ire
father attai attan
wife,woman asti atti
Many researchers have noted the presence of many Indo-Aryan words in Hurrians. This has led some researchers to conclude that Indo –Europeans may have ruled the Hurrians. This results from the fact that the names of the Hurrian gods are similar to the Aryan gods:
Hurrian Sanskrit
Mi-it-va Mitra
Aru-na Varuna
In-da-ra Indra
Na-sa-at-tiya Nasatya
There are other Hurrian and Sanskrit terms that appear to show a relationship:
English Hurrian Sanskrit Tamil
One aika eke okka `together'
Three tera tri
Five panza panca añcu
Seven satta sapta
Nine na nava onpatu
Other Hurrian terms relate to Indo-Aryan:
Enlglish Hurrian I-A Tamil
Brown babru babhru pukar
Grey parita palita paraitu `old'
Reddish pinkara pingala puuval
English Mitanni Vedic Tamil
Warrior marya marya makan, maravan
Although researchers believe that the Hurrians-Mitanni were dominated by Indo-Aryans this is not supported by the evidence. Bjarte Kaldhol found that only 5 out of 500 Hurrian names were I-A sounding[3].
The linguistic evidence discussed above is consistent with the view that the only Indian elements in Anatolian culture were of Dravidian ,rather than Indo-Aryan origin. This evidence from Mittanni adds further confirmation to the findings of N. Lahovary in Dravidian Origins and the West, that prove the earlier presence of Dravidian speakers in Anatolia.
But none of the Hurrian terms are related to Kurdish.
Origin Indo-European Speakers
The usual method of Indo-European and Chinese invasion was two-fold. First, they settle in a country in small groups and were partly assimilated.
Over a period of time their numbers increased. Once they reach a numerical majority they joined forces with other Indo-European speaking groups to militarily overthrow the original inhabitants in a specific area and take political power. Since these communities occupied by the blacks often saw themselves as residents of a city-state, they would ignored the defeat of their neighbors. This typified their second form of invasion of the countries formerly ruled by the Proto-Saharans/ Kushites/Blacks.
Blacks have failed even today to recognize that even though whites are highly nationalistic and engaged in numerous fratricidal wars, they will unify temporarily to defeat non-European people. As a result in case where the Blacks have been politically organized into states or Empires, rather than isolated city-states, the large political units have lasted for hundreds of years as typified by ancient Egypt, Axum, Mali and ancient Ghana.
D'iakonov on the other hand, believes that the Indo-Europeans (I-E) homeland was the Balkan-Carpathian region. He has shown that the culture terms of the I-E group indicate that they made their way across forest-steppe and deciduous forest zones to settle other parts of the world. This view is highly probable.
The view that these people were farmers seem unlikely, since the ideal farming areas in Europe were already settled by the Black people carrying haplogroups N, M, K and R1. Instead of being farmers the I-E people were originally nomads.
The steppes could not have been the homeland of the Indo-Europeans because it was heavily occupied by the Proto-Saharan people who entered Europe after 3000BC and remained the dominant people in the area until after 1300 B.C.
In support of an early presence of Indo-European speakers on the steppes many scholars maintain that the Andronovo cultures and wheeled vehicles are markers of Indo-European "High" culture.
But this theory has been proven to be unsupportable by the archeological and linguistic data. The civilizations and economy that characterized "Old Europeans" are foreign to the Indo-European culture portrayed in the Indo-Aryan literature.
As outlined above the I-E speakers learned much about horsemenship from the Mitanni. Many scholars use the chariot and horsemanship as an ethnic marker for the Indo-Europeans. But it can not be proven that the horse drawn chariot was an exclusive Indo-European marker. Wheeled vehicles were used in Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley before the 3rd millennium. The presence of pre-Dynasty and early Dynasty wheeled toy animals from Egypt and elsewhere support the view that the wheel was a well known technology to the Kushites before the expansion of the Indo Europeans.
This view is further supported by the fact that the IE roots for "wheel" number four. Use of a number of terms to signify the "wheel" illustrates that this technological innovation must have come from elsewhere and was later adopted by the Proto-Indo-Europeans after there dispersal.
The horse can not be a marker for the Indo-European dispersal either. It would appear that in the steppes, the horse was not intensively used until the Iron age. V.M. Masson believes that horse domestication and riding developed in the 1st millennium BC, on the steppes.
The early I-E were Kurgan nomadic warriors. Kurgan is a name used by archaeologist for the early Europeans.The term I-E does not refer to a racial type, because many of the ancient I-E speakers may have been black , given the fact that among the depictions of the People of the Sea on Egyptian monuments their are African people. But today the only I-E people we have are Caucasian.
The Iranian and Indian speaking people belong to the Indo-Aryan group which is not closely related to the I-E.
Evolving in the Caucasus mountains, the Kurgan folk were pastoralist. They herded cattle, pigs and sheep.
The original whites or Kurgan people were a very destructive people. They destroyed vast regions of forest across Europe. By the Fourth millennium BC, wide tracts of forests were gone in Europe. Upon their encounter with civilized Africoid communities, the latter were enslaved while the Kurgans adopted their culture. The Kurgan warriors used these slaves to grow grain.
The Indo-Europeans remained an insignificant group until they learned the art of metal working from the Hittites of Asia Minor. This along with natural disasters that took place around the world after 1600 BC, helped the Kurgans to infiltrate civilized areas in the Aegean and Indus Valley.
The Kurgan people are also known as the Battle Axe/ Corded Ware Folk. By the Third millennium BC, the Kurgan were breeding horses and organized themselves into militarized chiefdoms. The symbol of the warrior class was the horned helmet common to the Sea Folk and later Vikings. Their common weapon was the double axe.
The Kurgan folk in small numbers slowly migrated into the centers of civilization, first in northern Mesopotamia, then India. By 3500 BC, the Kurgans were invading the Caucasus region. Beginning in 3700 B.C., Old European settlements had walls built around them to keep out the Kurgan warriors.
These early I-E people practiced human sacrifice. At the death of a man his wife was often killed and buried with him.
The Kurgan people mixed with the indigenous Africoid people. Some of them were made slaves by the warrior elites. If black communities were more powerful than the Kurgans, they formed an alliance between themselves and conquered weaker groups. Once the Kurgan tribe became stronger it would knock off its former ally.
No matter how you may want to get other forum members to ignore Marc's work his posters are compelling and put the lie to your comments. The research supporting an extra European origin for whites can not be ignored.
In conclusion the archaeological evidence suggest that The Old Europeans may have been Blacks who carried the N1 lineage to Europe that were later replaced by Indo-European speaking populations. There were probably no ancient white foragers of farmers in ancient Europe.
Years of research on the origin of the Indo-European speakers place there origin outside western Europe. Genetics can not change this history which is also supported by the ostelogical and iconographic evidence Marc has presented throughout this thread.
For once, Stop being jealous of Marc and try to learn something.
References:
[1] Timothy Potts, Mesopotamia and the East. Oxford Unversity Committee for Archaeology. Monograph 37.
[2] H.W.F. Sagy, Peoples of the Past: Babylonians. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995.
Cavalli-Sforza LL (1995) Demographic history of India and mtDNA-sequence diversity. Am J Hum Genet 56:979–992 [PubMed].
Christopher Ehret,C. (1979).On the antiquity of agriculture in Ethiopia", Jour. of African History 20, p.161.
Richards M. 2003. The Neolithic invasion of Europe. Annu Rev Anthropol 32:135-162. Full text
Richards M, Macaulay V, Hickey E, Vega E, Sykes B, Guida V, Rengo C, et al (2000) Tracing European founder lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA pool. Am J Hum Genet 67:1251–1276 [PubMed] [Free Full Text].
Richards M, Rengo C, Cruciani F, Gratrix F, Wilson JF, Scozzari R, Macaulay V, Torroni A (2003) Extensive female-mediated gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa into Near Eastern Arab populations. Am J Hum Genet 72:1058–1064 [ Free Full text in PMC].
Toomas Kivisild,1 Maere Reidla,1 Ene Metspalu,1 Alexandra Rosa,1 Antonio Brehm,2 Erwan Pennarun,1 Jüri Parik,1 Tarekegn Geberhiwot,3 Esien Usanga,4 and Richard Villems.(2004)1 Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow Across and Around the Gate of Tears. Am J Hum Genet. 2004 November; 75(5): 752–770.
Wendorf,F. (1968).The History of Nubia,( Dallas,1968) pp.941-46).
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: All hail to Jablonski. Tens of thousands of scientists on this earth and not one of them came up with her explanation? Then again maybe they did but figured the time wasn't right to say it until someone else took the plunge.
Not quite. From A.H. Robins, 1991 Biological Perspectives on Human Pigmentation Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press. pp .200-201
" A obvious weakness in the hypothesis is the case of the Inuit (Eskimo), who has a darker skin color than the European Caucasoid and yet inhabits regions even farther north which are sunless for much of the year. Murray (1934) explained that the Inuit diet was rich in fish and fish oils (foods with a high vitamin D value) and that this diet provided adequate vitamin D to forestall rickets. Thus there was no need for skin whitening in the Inuit to compensate for UV impoverishing in the Artic..."
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is bull****. We don't really know how skin color originated. The Eskimos have lived in an Artic environment for thousands of years and yet they remain dark. If environment causes skin color why are the Eskimos still dark.
Eskimo
We know this is bull because the Saami people live in the Arctic and eat fish:
quote:
Saemieh, the reindeerpeople.
The Sami's language, traditional clothing, handicraft, and music, are distinctively different from other ethnic groups in Scandinavia. In Sweden there is 44 native communitys where the familys derives most of the income from their reindeers, an economy that in most cases is combined with fishing, hunting and crafts. A majority of the Sami population pursue other careers however, since there isn't enough space for everyone in a habitat that is constantly shrinking due to mining operations, clean-cutting of the forests and the construction of hydroelectric powerplants.
....But the Saami remain white as noted in the picture below.
If this theory was correct the Saami people would be dark skinned not white:
.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Djehuti
quote:
When most folks think of evolution, they think of macro-evolution which is evolution on a grand scale like speciation which is the development of new species. What they fail to understand is that macro-evolution is the result of multiple occurances of micro-evolution which is evolution in a small scale, or biological changes that occur among populations. A perfect example of that is skin color among humans. We have genetic evidence that not only verifies that *all* humans were originally black since they originated in sub-saharan Africa, but that some populations became lighter as they left the tropics and into less sunny climates. There are also other changes such as from tropical adopted bodies to more cold adapted bodies like you see among the Inuit (Eskimo) peoples.
This is bull****. We don't really know how skin color originated. The Eskimos have lived in an Artic environment for thousands of years and yet they remain dark. If environment causes skin color why are the Eskimos still dark.
posted
Thanks, Dr. Winters. For the sake of other readers, I have posted the page below to remind that truth doesn't matter to whites and never has. If there is anything to gain materially, socially, or in terms of higher social status, they will lie and steal. They have murdered, committed genocide against, hundreds of millions of blacks during the Bronze, Iron, Medieval, and modern Africa and today (with gun sales in a continent that doesn't make bullets of guns - Africans kill one another. They take land and resources while they fight and die). They do this to gain land and resources owned by blacks.
It's a perverse compliment that they saw/see value we had or created and envied/envy it to the extent that they did/do whatever was/is necessary by means of cajols and violence to obtain it. They have stolen African riches and even been involved in thefts of African identity and history. As the below page shows they did not only with claiming they peopled early Western Europe (and they didn't) but African legends and heroes of the past:
I've said before and say it again, one must take what whites say with a grain of salt.
To stay on focus with this thread, I've modified my claim that whites were late-comers to Europe as a whole. They were late-comers to Western Europe: a place, along with the whole of Eurasia, that had indigenous African peoples. Indigenous in the sense that they may not have originated there as they originated in Africa but were there for over a million years through early migrations.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: All hail to Jablonski. Tens of thousands of scientists on this earth and not one of them came up with her explanation? Then again maybe they did but figured the time wasn't right to say it until someone else took the plunge.
Not quite. From A.H. Robins, 1991 Biological Perspectives on Human Pigmentation Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press. pp .200-201
" A obvious weakness in the hypothesis is the case of the Inuit (Eskimo), who has a darker skin color than the European Caucasoid and yet inhabits regions even farther north which are sunless for much of the year. Murray (1934) explained that the Inuit diet was rich in fish and fish oils (foods with a high vitamin D value) and that this diet provided adequate vitamin D to forestall rickets. Thus there was no need for skin whitening in the Inuit to compensate for UV impoverishing in the Artic..."
That's and understatement. Jablonski originated nothing in terms of fundamental theory, nor does she claim otherwise.
However, even if she had, it would in no way descredit her obviously.
Someone has to be 1st to forward a theory, you can't attack a theory just because the person who forwards it is the 1st.
It's like arguing Einsteins theory of relativity based on the fact that of all the thousands of scienticist before him, no one else thought of it.
Actually this is a formal logical fallacy known as "Appeal to Tradition".
It's when you either claim that and argument is right, because traditionally that's what most beleive [ie - the world is flat], or you claim and argument is wrong, because it is new, or that no one else thought of it earlier [time is a constant, as opposed to Einstein's radical notion that time is relative].
Logical fallacies are commonly resorted to, when the facts are against you, and that is the case with Dr. Winters/Marc et. al on this issue.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tens of thousands of scientists on this earth and not one of them came up with her explanation?
....and yet you can't even name a single one who disagrees with Jablonski's theory of skin color.
Dr. Winters: we want a name.
We do not ask for another blob-of-spam-distraction post, filled with bibilographic listings of people like Underhill and Sforza who AGREE WITH Jablonski, and equally completely refute you.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yet more evidence of African movement into Europe – the present evidence being a manned ship with a central figure in the form of a gondalier standing in the center of the ship. This for not only for the African ship in Scandinavia which was there previously but this is found thousands of years earlier in Saharan Desert rock art. The new addition you’ll find on my poster above entitled:
Prehistoric African presence in R1b, I, and R1a Regions of Eurasia
I think this is particularly strong evidence being the uniqueness of the subject material: 1) manned ships, 2) etched into rock art, 3) during middle Neolithic times, 4) with a gondalier who is, 5) standing in the center of the ship, 6) and proportionally is larger than the rowers, in addition to 7) it being art in miniature – a very tiny sketch. This is the kind of evidence which has so many identical correlations that it is nearly 100% certain not to be accidental.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tens of thousands of scientists on this earth and not one of them came up with her explanation?
....and yet you can't even name a single one who disagrees with Jablonski's theory of skin color.
Dr. Winters: we want a name.
We do not ask for another blob-of-spam-distraction post, filled with bibilographic listings of people like Underhill and Sforza who AGREE WITH Jablonski, and equally completely refute you.
If Jablonski's theory is correct please answer this question. If eating fish while living in the Artic helped the Eskimos remain dark, why is it that the Saami live in the Artic, and eat fish but their skin has turned white?
The Jalonski theory has holes in it:
quote:
The tone of human skin can vary from a dark brown to nearly a colorless pigmentation, which appears pale pink due to the blood in the skin. Europeans have lighter skin, hair, and eyes than any other group on Earth.[3] In attempting to discover the mechanisms that have generated such a wide variation in human skin tone, Nina Jablonski and George Chaplin (2000) discovered that there is a high correlation between the tone of human skin of indigenous peoples and the average annual ultraviolet (UV) radiation available for skin exposure where the indigenous peoples live. Accordingly, Jablonski and Chaplin plotted the skin tone (W) of indigenous peoples who have stayed in the same geographical area for the last 500 years versus the annual UV available for skin exposure (AUV) for over 200 indigenous persons and found that skin tone lightness W is related to the annual UV available for skin exposure AUV according to
(Jablonski and Chaplin (2000), p. 67, formula coefficients have been rounded to one-figure accuracy) where the skin tone lightness W is measured as the percentage of light reflected from the upper inner arm at which location on humans there should be minimal tanning of human skin due to personal exposure to the sun; a lighter skinned human would reflect more light and would have a higher W number. Judging from the above linear fit to the empirical data, the theoretical lightness maximum of human skin would reflect only 70 per cent of incident light for a hypothetical indigenous human-like population that lived where there was zero annual UV available for skin exposure (AUV = 0 in the above formula). Jablonski and Chaplin evaluated average annual UV available for skin exposure AUV from satellite measurements that took into consideration the measured daily variation in the thickness of the ozone layer that blocked UV hitting the earth, measured daily variation in opacity of cloud cover, and daily change in angle at which the sunlight containing UV radiation strikes the earth and passes through different thicknesses of earth's atmosphere at different latitudes for each of the different human indigenous peoples' home areas from 1979 to 1992.
Jablonski and Chaplin proposed an explanation for the observed variation of untanned human skin with annual UV exposure. By Jablonski and Chaplin's explanation, there are two competing forces affecting human skin tone:
1. the melanin that produces the darker tones of human skin serves as a light filter to protect against too much UV light getting under the human skin where too much UV causes sunburn and disrupts the synthesis of precursors necessary to make human DNA; versus 2. humans need at least a minimum threshold of UV light to get deep under human skin to produce vitamin D, which is essential for building and maintaining the bones of the human skeleton.
Jablonski and Chaplin note that when human indigenous peoples have migrated, they have carried with them a sufficient gene pool so that within a thousand years, the skin of their descendants living today has turned dark or turned light to adapt to fit the formula given above--with the notable exception of dark-skinned peoples moving north, such as to populate the seacoast of Greenland, to live where they have a year-round supply of food rich in vitamin D, such as fish, so that there was no necessity for their skin to lighten to let enough UV under their skin to synthesize the vitamin D that humans need for healthy bones.
[b] A major problem with this theory is that it claims that people will lose their color within 1000 years. This is false. Southeast Asians live in countries where the UV levels are higher than Africa yet these people fail to be as dark as many African groups.
Arabs have lived in Iraq for thousands of years yet they remain light skin, eventhough the UV levels are as high as Africa. Amerindians live in the Amazon basin for thousands of years where the UV levels are as high as Africa and they are not as dark as Africans. If this theory was valid, the people mentioned in above would all be as dark as Africans . The fact that they are not, disconfirms their theory.
quote:Tens of thousands of scientists on this earth and not one of them came up with her explanation?
....and yet you can't even name a single one who disagrees with Jablonski's theory of skin color.
Dr. Winters: we want a name.
We do not ask for another blob-of-spam-distraction post, filled with bibilographic listings of people like Underhill and Sforza who AGREE WITH Jablonski, and equally completely refute you.
Copyright ã 2000 James Michael Howard, Fayetteville, Arkansas, U.S.A. I have added some new material, February, 2006, below (Look for red color text.)
In October of 1996, I first posted (to some internet news groups) my hypothesis that skin color evolved as a result of testosterone. It was entitled "Skin color …perhaps Testosterone." My explanation of human evolution suggests increased testosterone in human males and females, compared to chimpanzee males and females, is directly involved in human evolution. Therefore, I decided testosterone could be linked to skin color. (If you wish to explore my explanation of human evolution in more detail, please read "New Theory of Human Evolution Involving DHEA, Melatonin, and Testosterone" and "Androgens in Human Evolution: A New Explanation of Human Evolution," at the main DHEA page.) In 1996, I found limited support of a connection, so I left further work on this connection for later. The July, 2000, issue of "The Journal of Human Evolution," included an article, "Evolution of Human Skin Coloration," which caused me to look again at a connection between testosterone and human skin color (Jablonski, NG and Chaplin, G, J Human Evolution 2000; 39: 57-106). Jablonski and Chaplin state: "Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration in the integument and its direct and indirect effects on fitness." The article concerns UV light and skin color. They also state: "In all populations for which skin reflectance data were available for males and females, females were found to be lighter skinned than males." This indicates to me that testosterone, as I first suggested in 1996, may be directly involved in skin color.
July 12, 2000, I posted "Evolution of Skin Color" to some news groups. This consisted of "Long ago, I decided skin coloration is due to levels of testosterone. Blacks produce more testosterone than other races, hence, blacks have darker skin. (I derived this from my explanation of human evolution.) Jablonski and Chaplin just found that ‘In all populations for which skin reflectance data were available for males and females, females were found to be lighter skinned than males.’ This would support my hypothesis." The obvious question quickly returned in response at the news group. Why are black women darker than white men? The following is my answer to the question and is an extension of my original hypothesis that testosterone is directly involved in skin color and human evolution. I suggest the difference results from effects of testosterone on melanocytes in utero.
It is known that testosterone and ultraviolet light work together in stimulating melanocyte structure and function. "Cultured skin receiving both UVL [ultraviolet light] and testosterone illustrates a synergistic effect." (J Exp Zoo 1978; 204: 229, "Organ culture of mammalian skin and the effects of ultraviolet light and testosterone on melanocyte morphology and function," Gilmcher, ME, et al.). This could account for the findings of Jablonski and Chaplin, mentioned in my July 12 post that "In all populations for which skin reflectance data were available for males and females, females were found to be lighter skinned than males." This may be a tanning effect, however, testosterone is definitely involved in melanocyte function.
Healthy black males produce significantly more testosterone than healthy white males (J Nat Cancer Instit 1986; 76: 421). Melanocyes from black males grow differently from melanocytes from white males, in culture. In this study, melanocytes are derived from foreskins, an area of skin directly affected by testosterone. "At the ultrastructural level, cultured melanocytes derived from black (negroid) neonatal skin (B-M) had numerous mature rod-shaped stage IV melanosomes, while white (caucasoid) skin-derived melanocytes (W-M) in culture contained no mature melanosomes. Growth rate, cell yield, and in vitro lifespan for B-M were more than twice that for W-M in pure melanocyte cultures in the presence of MGF [melanocyte growth factor]. Our results suggest that MGF-dependent growth of B-M differs from that of W-M." (J Cell Physiol 1988; 135: 262-8, "Growth characteristics of human epidermal melanocytes in pure culture with special reference to genetic differences," Hirobe, T, et al.). Melanocytes grown in culture, without testosterone added to the culture media, inherently express a difference in growth potential between black and white males.
Melanocytes derived from neonates already exhibit differences in growth rate according to race. "Differences in size and number of melanosomes attributable to race of the tissue donor were readily apparent, and pigment content of melanocytes from both black and Caucasian donors appeared to increase with time in culture. Newborn melanocytes proliferated more rapidly and survived longer than did adult melanocytes, but there were no consistent morphologic differences as a function of donor age." (J Invest Dermatol 1984; 83: 370-6, "Selective cultivation of human melanocytes from newborn and adult epidermis," Gilchrest, BA, et al.).
I think the effects of testosterone on melanocytes first occurs in utero. In utero, black fetuses are exposed to higher levels of testosterone. "Serum testosterone was modestly, but significantly, greater in the black than in the white women." (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1996; 81: 1023-6, "Demonstration of a lack of racial differences in secretion of growth hormone despite a racial difference in bone mineral density in premenopausal women—a Clinical Research Center study," Wright, NM, et al.). Therefore, I suggest melanocytes are stimulated by increased testosterone during gestation in blacks. In respect to the specific question, this would result in increased melanocyte stimulation in female, black fetuses. Male fetuses are exposed to testosterone, from the fetal gonads, at a critical period in utero that exerts effects on reproductive development. I make the assumption that this period of exposure of male, fetal-derived testosterone does not coincide with the constant supply of maternally-derived testosterone that stimulates melanocytes. If that is the case, then it is possible that black women exhibit darker skin than white males because of a difference in timing of exposure of developing melanocytes to testosterone in utero. The color of offspring of interracial unions would depend upon testosterone levels of the mother and embryonic/fetal melanocytes, that is, the propensity of melanocytes for producing melanin and the stimulation of melanocytes by testosterone during the critical period. According to my explanation of human evolution, lower testosterone groups migrated away from the equator. Therefore, it is the lower levels of testosterone that resulted in lighter skin in groups living away from the equator. Advantages of darker skin near the equator and advantages of lighter skin away from the equator are simply secondary advantages.
I did not use this citation:
Am J Physiol 1987 Jan;252(1 Pt 2):R166-80
Morphology and development of an apoeccrine sweat gland in human axillae.
Sato K, Leidal R, Sato F
Evidence is presented that in adult human axillae there exists a third type of sweat gland tentatively designated as the apoeccrine sweat gland. This type of gland shows a segmental or diffuse apocrinelike dilatation of its secretory tubule but has a long and thin duct which does not open into a hair follicle. The electron microscopy of its dilated segment is often indistinguishable from that of the classical apocrine gland. The less remarkably dilated segment of the apoeccrine gland tends to retain intercellular canaliculi and/or dark cells. These apoeccrine glands are consistently present in adult human axillae regardless of sex or race. In the axillae of the two 6-yr-old subjects, both classical apocrine and eccrine glands were present but no apoeccrine glands were found. Between 8-14 yr of age, the number of large eccrine glands with or without partial segmental dilatation gradually increased. At 16-18 yr of age, the number of apoeccrine glands increased to as high as 45% of the total axillary glands. The data support the notion that apoeccrine glands develop during puberty in the axillae from eccrine or eccrinelike sweat glands.
New Material:
Copyright 2006:
Testosterone activates tyrosine hydroxylase (Neurosci Lett 2006; 396: 57-61). “Testosterone replacement therapy immediately following castration prevents the decrease in TH [tyrosine hydroxylase] levels.” (Brain Res Mol Brain Res 1992; 14: 79-82). Tyrosine hydroxylase is involved in human pigmentation: “Our results support a direct function for tyrosine hydroxylase in the melanosome via a concerted action with tyrosinase to promote pigmentation.” (Exp Dermatol 2003; 12: 61-70). Tyrosine hydroxylase has been “suggested” to be “tightly coupled to melanin synthesis” (J Invest Dermatol 1990; 95: 9-15).
(Jablonski, NG and Chaplin, G, J Human Evolution 2000; 39: 57-106). Jablonski and Chaplin state: "Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration in the integument and its direct and indirect effects on fitness." The article concerns UV light and skin color. They also state: "In all populations for which skin reflectance data were available for males and females, females were found to be lighter skinned than males."
This indicates to me that testosterone is involved in skin color.
If Jablonski's theory is correct please answer this question. If eating fish while living in the Artic helped the Eskimos remain dark, why is it that the Saami live in the Artic, and eat fish but their skin has turned white?
^ Good post. It is the 1st one you've written that actually addresses the evidence with no grandstanding or distraction/spam.
However you have failed to properly digest the information that has already been presented.
1) the Saami have not always lived in the artic. During the ice age, the arctic was depopulated. All Europeans are descendant from groups who sheltered in one of 3 glacial refuges in the south.
The Sami have up to 60% Haplotype I, indicating that their ancestry comes significantly out of the Balkans refugeum from which they spread north after the ice age.
This period of time is concordant to the development in melanin production disabling mutations on European skin color receptors.
All white Europeans have these recent mutations in common.
Thus the depigmented Sami have the same Y chromosome lineages and the same skin color disabling mutations as other leucoderm Europeans.
That's the basis for article cited below, and the picture of the Findlander Sami in the article.
Obviously the picture does not *disprove* the articles thesis.
^ I suggest you read this again. Try to understand it 1st, and not just try to attack it without understanding it.
Ask more questions if you have any.
note: Sami are not genetically or physically homogeneous. They also have haplotype N3A, which comes out of North East Asia, and some Sami do have an appearance that more closely remembles north East Asians...including significantly darker skin, than the Europeans who came out of the Ice age refugeum.
quote:(Jablonski, NG and Chaplin, G, J Human Evolution 2000; 39: 57-106). Jablonski and Chaplin state: "Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration in the integument and its direct and indirect effects on fitness." The article concerns UV light and skin color. They also state: "In all populations for which skin reflectance data were available for males and females, females were found to be lighter skinned than males."
quote:This indicates to me that testosterone is involved in skin color.
^ I agree.
I've written about this before.
Jablonski also agrees.
How does this help you?
ps -
You quote James Michael Howard, who claims that he 1st posted his idea to a newsgroup.
What is his educational background?
His simplistic hypothesis predates genetic evidence of the causes of skin color and has many obvious flaws.
He runs into the problem that black females obviously do not produce more male hormone [testosterone] than non black males.
He tries to resolve this by suggesting that testosterone is passed on in-utero.
However, skin color can't be sustained by in utereo testosterone levels in 'female fetus' because said effect would not last after birth.
Melanin must constantly be produced in order for skin to remain dark.
Anyway, his hypothesis is mooted by genetic study of the actual cause of skin color in humans.... good luck trying to make a white person black by feeding them steroid [fake testosterone], it won't work because their skin color receptors are disabled. No amount of testosterone can make them black.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol this does not help your theory. You claim that the Sami entered the Artic area after the ice. If they entered the Artic around this time they would have still been dark, not white since the white gene did not originate according to your sources until 12kya.
Since the Sami make fish a major part of their diet--the principal source of vitamin D that alledgely keep the Eskimos dark---- they would have maintained their blackness once they entered the Artic. This is based on Jablonski's theory that skin color can change within 500-1000 years if vitamin D is absent.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
If Jablonski's theory is correct please answer this question. If eating fish while living in the Artic helped the Eskimos remain dark, why is it that the Saami live in the Artic, and eat fish but their skin has turned white?
^ Good post. It is the 1st one you've written that actually addresses the evidence with no grandstanding or distraction/spam.
However you have failed to properly digest the information that has already been presented.
1) the Saami have not always lived in the artic. During the ice age, the arctic was depopulated. All Europeans are descendant from groups who sheltered in one of 3 glacial refuges in the south.
The Sami have up to 60% Haplotype I, indicating that their ancestry comes significantly out of the Balkans refugeum from which they spread north after the ice age.
This period of time is concordant to the development in melanin production disabling mutations on European skin color receptors.
All white Europeans have these recent mutations in common.
Thus the depigmented Sami have the same Y chromosome lineages and the same skin color disabling mutations as other leucoderm Europeans.
That's the basis for article cited below, and the picture of the Findlander Sami in the article.
Obviously the picture does not *disprove* the articles thesis.
^ I suggest you read this again. Try to understand it 1st, and not just try to attack it without understanding it.
Ask more questions if you have any.
note: Sami are not genetically or physically homogeneous. They also have haplotype N3A, which comes out of North East Asia, and some Sami do have an appearance that more closely remembles north East Asians...including significantly darker skin, than the Europeans who came out of the Ice age refugeum.
posted
This does not mute Howard's research he list articles written recently which supports his research.
.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:(Jablonski, NG and Chaplin, G, J Human Evolution 2000; 39: 57-106). Jablonski and Chaplin state: "Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration in the integument and its direct and indirect effects on fitness." The article concerns UV light and skin color. They also state: "In all populations for which skin reflectance data were available for males and females, females were found to be lighter skinned than males."
quote:This indicates to me that testosterone is involved in skin color.
^ I agree.
I've written about this before.
Jablonski also agrees.
How does this help you?
ps -
You quote James Michael Howard, who claims that he 1st posted his idea to a newsgroup.
What is his educational background?
His simplistic hypothesis predates genetic evidence of the causes of skin color and has many obvious flaws.
He runs into the problem that black females obviously do not produce more male hormone [testosterone] than non black males.
He tries to resolve this by suggesting that testosterone is passed on in-utero.
However, skin color can't be sustained by in utereo testosterone levels in 'female fetus' because said effect would not last after birth.
Melanin must constantly be produced in order for skin to remain dark.
Anyway, his hypothesis is mooted by genetic study of the actual cause of skin color in humans.... good luck trying to make a white person black by feeding them steroid [fake testosterone], it won't work because their skin color receptors are disabled. No amount of testosterone can make them black.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Rasol this does not help your theory.
I don't have a theory. Don't try to twist the facts. You are trying to refute, Underhill and Wells and Kittles, and Tiskhoff and Jablonski and most every scientist who has studied skin color, and European ancestry.
It is their work you must refute, not 'my' theory.
Pretending it's mine just allows you to keep running away from them.
Now, for the rest.....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You claim that the Sami entered the Artic area after the ice.
Of course.
What do you think they did in the artic during the LGM when central and northern Europe was a giant ICE cube? They could not hunt, for there was no game, they could not fish for the artic sea was perennially frozen.
quote:If they entered the Artic around this time
They didn't because the artic was still frozen.
quote:They would have still been dark, not white since the white gene did not originate according to your sources until 12kya.
At 12kya Northern Europe was still largely depopulated glacier. By 10 kya forest returned and Europeans begin repopulating the region.
Also, there is no 'white' gene, per se, only mutations on skin colour receptors that prevent melanin production.
Since all Europeans who are white share these mutations, then by definition, they share this genetic history.
quote:Since the Sami make fish a major part of their diet
Today yes. So do most Scandanavians, since fish is a major resource for Nordic people. But not during the LGM when the Scandanavia was uninhabited.
quote:the principal source of vitamin D that alledgely keep the Eskimos dark---- they would have maintained their blackness
Eskimo aren't black, they are just darker than most other native North Americans.... it's clear that they are related to lighter North Americans who also came over the bearing straight, and have maintained their skin color due to diet, which is the *one* distinction between themselves and related lighter toned North Americans.
This furthers the evidence that white skin is recent, since Native North Americans descend from common Pre-LGM central Asian populations with all East Asians and Europeans from 40 + kya.
In other words - when the Eskimo crossed the bearing straights - there were no whites, anywhere. White skin is recent. This furthe validates the work of Rich Kittles, Jablonski and et. al.
You've cast no doubt on anything accept whether or not you actually understand the history of populations and climate.
You seem especially lost on the chronology of the Ice Age and it's implications for Northern Eurasian people-movement.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Nice parody but some anthropologists seriously did include Greeks among coloured people. And as silly as it sounds, in the USA the civil rights act of 1964 gave Greeks (other north Meds, east Meds, east Europeans, all Jews and all orthodox Christians) protection against discrimination in the workplace.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is based on Jablonski's theory that skin color can change within 500-1000 years if vitamin D is absent.
Can, yes, but she does not conclude that it *must*. This is simply a calculous based upon the amount of time it would take a highly postive selected for trait to sweep thru a small population.
It is not at all clear that leucoderma is *always* that highly selected for, which is why only Europeans have lost enough skin color that the ethnonym 'white' is appended to them.
However virtually all sub-tropical to arctic northern populations have lost their original black skin color.
Unless you are saying that Eskimo are Black?
One of the points of the article is that NorthEast Asians lost their original dark skin independantly, due to the same environmental cause, and hense have unique indigenous mutations on skin color receptors:
[Mutation] SLC425 causes paleness in Europeans, but not in Asians.
This is powerful proof of convergent evolution due to environmental selection.
Did you not read this, or do you simply not understand it?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
That's why I asked you about his educational background, you did not answer, so I conclude that you do not know.
You also didn't explain to me how testosterone passed to a fetus from the mother, would keep the skin of women who produces little testosterone black for the rest of her life.
Nor did you explain why testosterone [steroid] does not make the skin of adult whites black, or by what biological mechanism it possibly could, given skin color disabling mutations in the leucoderm -GENETIC STRUCTURE.
quote: he list articles written recently which supports his research.
No, Howard just did what you do -> list citations from scholars who don't support his conclusions: INCLUDING JABLONKSI, ironically enough.
The schizoid mentality seems to reason as follows:
* I chose to cite you, therefore it proves that you agree with me. lol.
The above approach is invalid and usually meant to convince simpletons, which we are not, so this can't help you either.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While part of Jablonsky's theory does hold water (her UV, W, and AUV data) Dr. Winters is correct that as a whole it fails to explain skin colour of polar populations vs sub-Arctic ones.
Jablonski allows for as little as 500 years for skin colour to either increase or decrease. Dr. Winters has shown Saami consume fish regularly in their diet. An underlying assumption is that they have done so for the last 500 - 1000 years. Their partial (60% of population) migration from NRY I originating regions is irrelevant as far as her theory goes.
Also, other studies were posted here holdig that pigment may be lost but not regained due to environmental factors. Then, the "colourless" genetic factor (as laid out in the article picturing the pink faced Saami -- hey, that's like pink flesh salmon --) that kicked in 6 - 12kya, Jablonsky doesn't factor into her theory. Another dint in its armor.
But, as Rasol has posted, pink skinned thin facial featured light haired Saami are not necessarily the norm.
Norse mythology seems to lend credence to the relatively darker and broader facial boned Saami being the ones that Germanic(?) speakers encountered upon entering Scandinavia. Per the mythos, interbreeding occured between the two populations but each one prefered quite different environments and retreated to habitats based on those longings.
Rasol also posted that Saami aren't NRY homogeneous. While they may culturally be an ethny, they are of various phenotypes. My take is the more commonly Euro phenotype Saami probably are more heavily of partial once presumably Germanic speaking ancestry than their kin resembling a more commonly Asian phenotype. This explains why some of them are white much better than Jablonski's pigmentation theory to me.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jablonski and Chaplin note that when human indigenous peoples have migrated, they have carried with them a sufficient gene pool so that within a thousand years, the skin of their descendants living today has turned dark or turned light to adapt to fit the formula given above -- with the notable exception of dark-skinned peoples moving north, such as to populate the seacoast of Greenland, to live where they have a year-round supply of food rich in vitamin D, such as fish, so that there was no necessity for their skin to lighten to let enough UV under their skin to synthesize the vitamin D that humans need for healthy bones.
Implies dark Inuit were already dark and light Saami were already light before either trekked toward the pole.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: While part of Jablonsky's theory does hold water (her UV, W, and AUV data) Dr. Winters is correct that as a whole it fails to explain skin colour of polar populations vs sub-Arctic ones.
Jablonski allows for as little as 500 years for skin colour to either increase or decrease. Dr. Winters has shown Saami consume fish regularly in their diet. An underlying assumption is that they have done so for the last 500 - 1000 years. Their partial (60% of population) migration from NRY I originating regions is irrelevant as far as her theory goes.
Also, other studies were posted here holdig that pigment may be lost but not regained due to environmental factors. Then, the "colourless" genetic factor (as laid out in the article picturing the pink faced Saami -- hey, that's like pink flesh salmon --) that kicked in 6 - 12kya, Jablonsky doesn't factor into her theory. Another dint in its armor.
But, as Rasol has posted, pink skinned thin facial featured light haired Saami are not necessarily the norm.
Norse mythology seems to lend credence to the relatively darker and broader facial boned Saami being the ones that Germanic(?) speakers encountered upon entering Scandinavia. Per the mythos, interbreeding occured between the two populations but each one prefered quite different environments and retreated to habitats based on those longings.
Rasol also posted that Saami aren't NRY homogeneous. While they may culturally be an ethny, they are of various phenotypes. My take is the more commonly Euro phenotype Saami probably are more heavily of partial once presumably Germanic speaking ancestry than their kin resembling a more commonly Asian phenotype. This explains why some of them are white much better than Jablonski's pigmentation theory to me.
Great points. I can't argue the matter further you seem to ahve hit the nail on the head.
Jablonski allows for as little as 500 years for skin colour to either increase or decrease.
It is not posited as a rule or requirement of her theory, but rather as a minimum boundary.
quote: Dr. Winters has shown Saami consume fish regularly in their diet.
Most Scandinavians do, not just Saami.
quote: An underlying assumption is that they have done so for the last 500 - 1000 years.
How is this relevant given that the disabling mutations on European skin color receptors took place thousands of years ago?
quote:Their partial (60% of population) migration from NRY I originating regions is irrelevant as far as her theory goes.
lol. Wrong. Your comments about them eating fish for the past 500 to 1000 years is completely irrelevant to skin color history and theory.
It's almost as if you are implying that given that white people have mutations on their skin color receptors that disable melanin production - these mutations should have theoretically disappeared in the last 1000 years, returning their skin color to it's original dark state.
Mutations don't -undo-.
It's very clear, that you don't understand what Kittles, or Shriver, or Jablonski are saying.
[for they are all saying the same thing, so pretending that this is Jablonski's theory alone won't aid you]
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, other studies were posted here holdig that pigment may be lost but not regained due to environmental factors.
Yes, and Jablonski is among those who have denoted this.
If you understood how the genetics work then you would understand why this is so, and why your previous comments about eating fish for the past 500 to 1000 years are completely irrelevant.
It's like asking why African Americans who have lived in North America for the past 300 years and do not eat fish, have not turned white by now.
And then positing this as a -hole- in theory of skin color as opposed to a failure to understand.
Fact is, te question shows complete miscomprehension of the genetics involved.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Implies dark Inuit were already dark and light Saami were already light before either trekked toward the pole.
Yes, of course. Dark Inuit were -relatively- dark because all people were at the time, and this goes back to before any humans were living at the North Pole.
Saami turned light after the LGM and before the re-peopling of Northen Europe, therefore before migrating to the poles.
Again - Saami also have N3a1 ancestory, from East Asia [as do other Nordics], not just I from the Balkans refugeum, however they have the same mesolithic ice-age refugeum skin color mutations as other Europeans, mutations not found in NorthEast Asians, so their light skin has the same genetic history as other Europeans.
quote:My take is the more commonly Euro phenotype Saami probably are moreheavily of partial once presumably Germanic speaking ancestry than their kin resembling a more commonly Asian phenotype. This explains why some of them are white much better than Jablonski's pigmentation theory to me.
You haven't offered and alternative explanation.
Their skin color is the product of the same mesolithic genetic mutations as found in other Europeans, regardless of what language you presume they spoke.
The theory of skin color in question is genetic, not linguistic.
In fact, no aspect of the cited study has been refuted or challenged in any way...
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I clearly understand what Jablonsky has said. It has holes when taking other skin colour theories into consideration. I need not reiterate them as they were pointed out above.
If you can't see the relevancy of Jablonski's own statement (about 500 - 1000 years is all that's needed to effect skin colour change) to her theory then something's seriously wrong as far as understanding that the theory has components and time is indeed one of them.
Introducing other Scandinavians is a poor red herring. This discussion has dwelt on two populations, the Inuit and the Saami. Nor am I examining Kittles or Shriver. The pinpoint focus is on Jablonsky.
The darker Saami and lighter Saami originate from different exodes. That both are Saami is due to their ancestors interbreeding with the resulting offspring taking up Saami culture regardless of colour or phenotype.
My goal is not to offer any alternative explanation. My goal is to look at all components of Jablonski's theory and determine if, as she presents it from the limited source posted here, it accounts for relatively dark skinned polar populations vis-a-vis a both white and relatively dark sub-arctic people of one ethnicity.
It doesn't else there wouldn't be white and dark Saami. They'd all be the same general colour.
Now if you can offer explanations and teach me more on the subject, fine. But if all you're going to do is proclaim nobody but you and those in agreement with you have any understanding then I have nothing further to discuss because your opinion on who lacks understanding is the subject at hand.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ By the way, the Jablonski obsession is somewhat off point, here is the list of scientists responsible for this study, note the contributions of African and Asian Americans Rick Kittles and Keith Cheng.
Rebecca L. Lamason, Manzoor-Ali P.K. Mohideen, Jason R. Mest, Andrew C. Wong, Heather L. Norton, Michele C. Aros, Michael J. Jurynec, Xianyun Mao, Vanessa R. Humphreville, Jasper E. Humbert, Soniya Sinha, Jessica L. Moore, Pudur Jagadeeswaran, Wei Zhao, Gang Ning, Izabela Makalowska, Paul M. McKeigue, David O'Donnell, Rick Kittles, Esteban J. Parra, Nancy J. Mangini, David J. Grunwald, Mark D. Shriver, Victor A. Canfield, and Keith C. Cheng
quote:I clearly understand what Jablonsky has said.
If you believe she *requires* light skinned people to turn dark after 500 to 1000 years of eating fish, then clearly you do not.
quote:It has holes when taking other skin colour theories into consideration. I need not reiterate them as they were pointed out above.
Good move.
I wouldn't reiterate them either if I were you, because you'd just be reiterating your failure to understand the study cited.
quote:The pinpoint focus is on Jablonsky.
Uh no, the pinpoint focus is on European skin color history. The study cited does not even involve Jablonski, whose ideas about skin color are not unique in any case.
Don't get caught up in personalities and attacking them or defending them [same issue occurs with Obenga in another thread], try to focus on the facts instead.
Otherwise your perspective *will* became skewed due to bias.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ... here is what a leading scientist on the topic of skin color says:
"Looking at Alaska, one would think that the native people should be pale as ghosts," Jablonski says. One of the reasons they're not is that these populations have not lived in the region very long in terms of geological time. But more importantly, their traditional diet is rich in fish and other seafood.... "What's really interesting is that if these people don't eat their aboriginal diets of fish and marine mammals, they suffer tremendously high rates of vitamin D-deficiency diseases such as rickets in children and osteoporosis in adults,"
Jablonski and Chaplin concluded that modern humans... evolved in the tropics, where they were exposed to high UV levels. But... away from the equator, where UV levels are lower, humans became fairer so as to allow enough UV radiation to penetrate their skin and produce vitamin D, the "sunshine vitamin," also obtained from eating fish and marine mammals... essential for maintaining healthy blood levels of calcium and phosphorous, and thus promoting bone growth. Skin color... becomes a balancing act between the evolutionary demands of photo-protection and the need to create vitamin D in the skin.
- Nina Jablonski
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Jalonski theory has holes in it:
quote:
The tone of human skin can vary from a dark brown to nearly a colorless pigmentation, which appears pale pink due to the blood in the skin. Europeans have lighter skin, hair, and eyes than any other group on Earth.[3] In attempting to discover the mechanisms that have generated such a wide variation in human skin tone, Nina Jablonski and George Chaplin (2000) discovered that there is a high correlation between the tone of human skin of indigenous peoples and the average annual ultraviolet (UV) radiation available for skin exposure where the indigenous peoples live. Accordingly, Jablonski and Chaplin plotted the skin tone (W) of indigenous peoples who have stayed in the same geographical area for the last 500 years versus the annual UV available for skin exposure (AUV) for over 200 indigenous persons and found that skin tone lightness W is related to the annual UV available for skin exposure AUV according to
(Jablonski and Chaplin (2000), p. 67, formula coefficients have been rounded to one-figure accuracy) where the skin tone lightness W is measured as the percentage of light reflected from the upper inner arm at which location on humans there should be minimal tanning of human skin due to personal exposure to the sun; a lighter skinned human would reflect more light and would have a higher W number. Judging from the above linear fit to the empirical data, the theoretical lightness maximum of human skin would reflect only 70 per cent of incident light for a hypothetical indigenous human-like population that lived where there was zero annual UV available for skin exposure (AUV = 0 in the above formula). Jablonski and Chaplin evaluated average annual UV available for skin exposure AUV from satellite measurements that took into consideration the measured daily variation in the thickness of the ozone layer that blocked UV hitting the earth, measured daily variation in opacity of cloud cover, and daily change in angle at which the sunlight containing UV radiation strikes the earth and passes through different thicknesses of earth's atmosphere at different latitudes for each of the different human indigenous peoples' home areas from 1979 to 1992.
Jablonski and Chaplin proposed an explanation for the observed variation of untanned human skin with annual UV exposure. By Jablonski and Chaplin's explanation, there are two competing forces affecting human skin tone:
1. the melanin that produces the darker tones of human skin serves as a light filter to protect against too much UV light getting under the human skin where too much UV causes sunburn and disrupts the synthesis of precursors necessary to make human DNA; versus 2. humans need at least a minimum threshold of UV light to get deep under human skin to produce vitamin D, which is essential for building and maintaining the bones of the human skeleton.
Jablonski and Chaplin note that when human indigenous peoples have migrated, they have carried with them a sufficient gene pool so that within a thousand years, the skin of their descendants living today has turned dark or turned light to adapt to fit the formula given above -- with the notable exception of dark-skinned peoples moving north, such as to populate the seacoast of Greenland, to live where they have a year-round supply of food rich in vitamin D, such as fish, so that there was no necessity for their skin to lighten to let enough UV under their skin to synthesize the vitamin D that humans need for healthy bones.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Winters: Nina Jablonski can not teach me anything.
quote: rasol:^ If Jablonksi, Sforza, Rick Kittles, Keita, Underhill, Kivisld and Wells can't teach you anything, who can?
Professor Rick Kittles, University of Chicago.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: All hail to Jablonski. Tens of thousands of scientists on this earth and not one of them came up with her explanation? Then again maybe they did but figured the time wasn't right to say it until someone else took the plunge.
Not quite. From A.H. Robins, 1991 Biological Perspectives on Human Pigmentation Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press. pp .200-201
" A obvious weakness in the hypothesis is the case of the Inuit (Eskimo), who has a darker skin color than the European Caucasoid and yet inhabits regions even farther north which are sunless for much of the year. Murray (1934) explained that the Inuit diet was rich in fish and fish oils (foods with a high vitamin D value) and that this diet provided adequate vitamin D to forestall rickets. Thus there was no need for skin whitening in the Inuit to compensate for UV impoverishing in the Artic..."
^ The Vitamin D theory goes back to 1934.
Modern genetics supports this theory....
quote: Rebecca L. Lamason, Manzoor-Ali P.K. Mohideen, Jason R. Mest, Andrew C. Wong, Heather L. Norton, Michele C. Aros, Michael J. Jurynec, Xianyun Mao, Vanessa R. Humphreville, Jasper E. Humbert, Soniya Sinha, Jessica L. Moore, Pudur Jagadeeswaran, Wei Zhao, Gang Ning, Izabela Makalowska, Paul M. McKeigue, David O'Donnell, Rick Kittles, Esteban J. Parra, Nancy J. Mangini, David J. Grunwald, Mark D. Shriver, Victor A. Canfield, and Keith C. Cheng
^ There may very well be holes in the work of the above scholars, but none have beeen identified in this thread.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ [QUOTE]Winters: Nina Jablonski can not teach me anything.
quote: rasol:^ If Jablonksi, Sforza, Rick Kittles, Keita, Underhill, Kivisld and Wells can't teach you anything, who can?
She can't teach me anything. This woman believes the original Egyptians were not Black and made this clear on NPR. Since she has this opinion --which is false--why should I believe her other theories/hypotheses are valid and reliable.
Moreover, many researchers have had nothing to do with a particular article but they will add their name to a publication just because they have name recognition. It is normal for PhD students to write articles and their professors names are added as authors, because it may help in getting the article published if the readers see the name of an established scholar on the paper.
quote:Why should I believe her other theories/hypotheses are valid and reliable.
Here is why:
Rick Kittles, Rebecca L. Lamason, Manzoor-Ali P.K. Mohideen, Jason R. Mest, Andrew C. Wong, Heather L. Norton, Michele C. Aros, Michael J. Jurynec, Xianyun Mao, Vanessa R. Humphreville, Jasper E. Humbert, Soniya Sinha, Jessica L. Moore, Pudur Jagadeeswaran, Wei Zhao, Gang Ning, Izabela Makalowska, Paul M. McKeigue, David O'Donnell, Esteban J. Parra, Nancy J. Mangini, David J. Grunwald, Mark D. Shriver, Victor A. Canfield, and Keith C. Cheng
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most say that the Ainu are indigenous to Japan and near 2500 BC or so began to displace the Jomon whose presence is recorded back at least until 10,500 BC or so. In any case, the Ainu live in Hokkaido. Following is what is found when browsing about Hokkaido from two different sites:
1) Hokkaido's weather is harsh in winter with lots of snowfall, below zero temperatures and frozen seas
2) Temperatures plummet and sleet and snow begin to fall. There are many days on which the temperature drops below zero all day long.
Clothes: You will need heavy overcoats, caps, gloves, scarves, etc. in addition to sweaters and jackets. Since the heating is on indoors, however, you will find some places warm.
Since the ground is generally frozen and slippery, please take care not to fall by wearing shoes that are suitable for walking on snow or ice or attaching simple anti-skid devices to your shoes.
I have Japanese friends and the woman speaks with horror about how bitter-cold and uncomfortable the weather is. This is why she doesn't want to go back to Hokkaido. Her sister was frostbitten and frostbite is not uncommon. But, Africans lived there.
In the picture above, we see two generations of men: father and son and clearly African. It's not a color photo but the skin tone is at least dark.
The picture below shows the original Ainu. Africans and not white:
posted
That the Ainu, while African, have adapted to the cold can be seen in the following statement - and I won't comment on the tone:
"Less appealing is the pose of the older man who seems to have been asked to hold his robe open to reveal his hairy legs."
For an African, a hairy body is generally an anomaly. But, the Ainu have this adaptation to the cold attesting to their length of stay there, it would seem.
But, what about the Jablonski theory and the Ainu? It seems the "dark-skinnedness" of the Ainu would be related to the Inuit and other presently dark-skinned Northern people and those who have been preserved in mummy form sometimes for thousands of years that we can see in photos.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: But, what about the Jablonski theory and the Ainu?
Ainu skin color is comparable to other Japanese. Japanes Ainu and non Ainu vary in color from quite brown to nearly white. This is also true of Mongolians, Koreans, Thai and other East Asians, so there is no point in singling out the Ainu.
It's odd that you try to associate the Ainu with Africa [genetics have shown conclusively that they have been in East Asia for 10's of thousands of years], because Eurocentrists have long used the Ainu to argue for a so called 'caucaZoid' population in East Asia.
This too is a myth, derived from the fact that some Ainu have lots of facial hair, thin noses and fair skin.
But genetics has shown that Ainu are no more closely related to Europeans than other Japanese.
The Ainu were not Mongolians, but closely related to the Caucasian race.
^ Ethnocentrism causes people to see what they want to see, and blind themselves to all else. At it's worst, it leads to a pathological state, where the mind is immune to reason.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ...^ Ethnocentrism causes people to see what they want to see, and blind themselves to all else. At it's worst, it leads to a pathological state, where the mind is immune to reason.
I would suggest you take this quote, frame it, and put it on a wall. Preferably, opposite a wall with an mirror and read your other words below again:
quote:Originally posted by rasol For those who are interested in the history of race-mythology as pertains to Japan and the Ainu:
'Lighter than Yellow, but not Enough': Western Discourse on the Japanese 'Race', 1854-1904
The Ainu were not Mongolians, but closely related to the Caucasian race.
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: Most say that the Ainu are indigenous to Japan and near 2500 BC or so began to displace the Jomon whose presence is recorded back at least until 10,500 BC or so. In any case, the Ainu live in Hokkaido. Following is what is found when browsing about Hokkaido from two different sites:
1) Hokkaido's weather is harsh in winter with lots of snowfall, below zero temperatures and frozen seas
2) Temperatures plummet and sleet and snow begin to fall. There are many days on which the temperature drops below zero all day long.
Clothes: You will need heavy overcoats, caps, gloves, scarves, etc. in addition to sweaters and jackets. Since the heating is on indoors, however, you will find some places warm.
Since the ground is generally frozen and slippery, please take care not to fall by wearing shoes that are suitable for walking on snow or ice or attaching simple anti-skid devices to your shoes.
I have Japanese friends and the woman speaks with horror about how bitter-cold and uncomfortable the weather is. This is why she doesn't want to go back to Hokkaido. Her sister was frostbitten and frostbite is not uncommon. But, Africans lived there.
In the picture above, we see two generations of men: father and son and clearly African. It's not a color photo but the skin tone is at least dark.
The picture below shows the original Ainu. Africans and not white:
posted
Nose and lips are African. Hair is wiry. Whites and Asians don't have those features. [D] and [E] below are Ainu from earlier centuries looking more African - this was before the Dutch arrived in Japan in the 1600's and started intermingling with the Ainu and before the British came in relative force in the 1800's. Ainu women were encouraged to have children from white and Japanese men. This shifted their look from African more to white and Japanese.
posted
If the Japanese believe they descendend from an ancient people known as the "Ainu" they could be refering to the super ancient Black Africans known as the Ancient "Anu/Oru" people. Google it up for more details.
Human history and relationship is much older than European/Jewish specialists and authors have fooled enough people to believe.
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Whatever, mealy-mouth! LOL Just kidding. I don't know what you Rasol are arguing about if you agree with the facts.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: So a more advanced people from the middle east brought farming with them and gave it to some hunter gatherer dumbasses in Europe who took it and somehow turned it into rocket science? Sced of that.
To call hunter-gatherers "dumbasses" is an insult to not only those hunter-gathering groups who still exist today but to YOUR ancestors as well since *all* humans were originally hunter-gatherers.
As for turning agriculture into "rocket science", I don't know where you got that!
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Rasol this does not help your theory. You claim that the Sami entered the Artic area after the ice. If they entered the Artic around this time they would have still been dark, not white since the white gene did not originate according to your sources until 12kya.
Since the Sami make fish a major part of their diet--the principal source of vitamin D that alledgely keep the Eskimos dark---- they would have maintained their blackness once they entered the Artic. This is based on Jablonski's theory that skin color can change within 500-1000 years if vitamin D is absent.
Actually Clyde, your problem is you assume that the Saami have always maintained a vitamin D rich diet in fish. All you cite is a source stating what the Saami diet is today. The source even includes reindeer domestication and of course animal domestication is quite recent in terms of European bio-history, especially northern Europe.
In fact most historical sources we have show that the Saami were hunter-gatherers just like other Europeans were before the Neolithic. Hence they are white while the Inuit who ate *not only* fish meat but marine mammal blubber (which is an even greater source of vitamin D) are not! Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KemsonReloaded: If the Japanese believe they descendend from an ancient people known as the "Ainu" they could be refering to the super ancient Black Africans known as the Ancient "Anu/Oru" people. Google it up for more details.
Uh, no! And I don't even bother to google what it truely bull****.
quote:Human history and relationship is much older than European/Jewish specialists and authors have fooled enough people to believe.
So your saying not only Europeans but Jews are involved in fooling people. Well if what you say is true, sorry that you're one of those fooled. Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KemsonReloaded: would suggest you take this quote, frame it, and put it on a wall. Preferably, opposite a wall with an mirror and read your other words below again:
Your laughable leuco-phobic obsession with the foolish-fear that I am white, is even more stupid than your pathetic claim that Charlemagne is black.
quote: Human history and relationship is much older than European/Jewish specialists and authors have fooled enough people to believe.
^ Why not add anti-semitism into the picture as well.
Then you can delude yourself by claiming Geneticists Rick Kittles is and evil-Jew.....,
posted
Obviously you didn't pick up on the important message. I made a point with European/Jewish specialists and writers because of their influential but human destructive works throughout modern history; which is a fact and isn't anti-Semitism, unless you are part of an attack crew who purpose is to attack every time someone mentions the word "Jew" or "Jewish". In fact, I don't even think you can define what anti-Semitism is.
I begin to wonder why moderators aren't warning you of your insults. Not only are they cheap and poorly delivered, I've noticed how hard work on finding new vocabulary as if to keep up with your self-styled but amusing momentum going.
I almost misspelled your name without the "r". What was I thinking? Come to think of it, the “would be” misspelling might have been more appropriate in addressing you, but since I am refraining myself from engaging in direct insults and cussing with the likes of you, I guess you figured you’d get as much insults in towards me as much as you possibly can and take advantage of Kemson’s calm mode status. So go ahead and insult away, but please, you're killing me with the boredom. At least make your insults more interesting and not seem like you’re trying too hard. Even if they lack any effectiveness, make them clever.
You already made your point on your race by claiming “I’m Black”. And I admitted my initial error in assumption and said you should learn of Keith Richburg remember? Now why would you make such naïve, self gloating statement that I somehow fear that you’re White? Is this an indirect revelation, a confession, that you’re a Black but want to be White? If so, again, I highly recommend you learn of Keith Richburg and perhaps work on your racial pride and self-esteem. Keith Richburg seems to suffer from the same symptom you may be suffering from. I believe the symptom is called "I'm Black, I hate Blacks, I want to be White". If so, I fully understand where your tasteless insults come from now and I can only offer you sympathy and help Ma BrOtHa.
posted
At least you read all my sentences to believe they add up to one. And no, I didn't make a mistake. I asked a question. Now if you're too shy or embarrassed to answer just say so.
What sense does it make calling a person stupid whose words you've read and actually took the advice suggested to you.
"...since virtually every sentence you write contains one." trying to be more clever huh? Is this your way of thanking me? And you're actually correct, every sentence I write contains one because they must in order to be sentences in the first place. I believe you meant to say "all your sentenses equal one". Nice try, but between you and I, maybe you should leave the clever stuff to me. Hell, if you like, I can be a ghost insult writer for you. What do you say?
Anyway, I'm sure by now you must be tired of trying to prove something with your insults. Relax, calm down and move on to other topics that may be less, you know, "noxious".
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tacitus speaks to migration of the Germanic peoples to Europe for as mentioned earlier, they are new to (not the Steppes - which has been pointed out is in Eurasia and I certainly accept the fact) they are new to Western Europe. They entered as violent, war-bent people who were given to plunder to gain wealth. And as they gained dominance in the world and rule it today on each square foot of land they now own worldwide, it is with the same character that they went through history and act today (as with the unprovoked so-called War in Iraq to gain oil and power) even down to periodic war rituals: i.e. going to war for its own sake or, it seems, for entertainment.
It is said blacks are lazy but it's ironic that the Germanic tribes were hired as soldiers (the indigenous Africans in India too hired incoming Europeans as soldiers for the same reason and the same result) so the Africans (generically also called those of Gaul, Celts, and Moors) could tend to their farms, trade, and building crafts - they didn't want to "waste" their time in activities committed to hostility and violence. And this is one reason African-dominated Europe fell into Germanic hands. The following just supports some of the statements just made.
This is what Tacitus says:
…The tribes which first crossed the Rhine and drove out the Gauls ... were ... called Germans ... which the conquerors had first employed to inspire terror.
...In former times it was not by land but on shipboard that those who sought to emigrate would arrive.
They are less able to bear laborious work. Heat and thirst they cannot in the least endure; to cold and hunger their climate and their soil inure them. (Marc's note: this is because of an origin in a bitter-cold climate - the Steppes).
If their native state sinks into the sloth of prolonged peace and repose, many of its noble youths voluntarily seek those tribes which are waging some war, both because inaction is odious to their race, and because they win renown more readily in the midst of peril, and cannot maintain a numerous following except by violence and war (Marc's note: the Iliad and the Odyessy recounts this same behavior for whites new to Greece). Indeed, men look to the liberality of their chief for their war-horse and their bloodstained and victorious lance. Feasts and entertainments, which, though inelegant, are plentifully furnished, are their only pay. The means of this bounty come from war and rapine. Nor are they as easily persuaded to plough the earth and to wait for the year's produce as to challenge an enemy and earn the honour of wounds. Nay, they actually think it tame and stupid to acquire by the sweat of toil what they might win by their blood.
To pass an entire day and night in drinking disgraces no one. Their quarrels, as might be expected with intoxicated people, are seldom fought out with mere abuse, but commonly with wounds and bloodshed.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Uh, no! And I don't even bother to google what it truely bull****. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic