posted
Most mammals have light skin that is covered by fur, and biologists believe that early human ancestors started out this way also. Dark skin probably evolved after humans lost their body fur, because the naked skin was vulnerable to the strong UV radiation as would be experienced in Africa. Therefore, evidence of when human skin darkened has been used to date the loss of human body hair, assuming that the dark skin was needed after the fur was gone.
Dr. Alan R. Rogers, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Utah, used mutations in the MC1R gene to estimate when human skin darkened. He said early humans may have gone through several genetic "clean sweeps" with light-skinned individuals dying off and dark-skinned individuals surviving. He estimates the last of these clean sweeps took place 1.2 million years ago.[19] Therefore, apparent bareness in humans, likely has existed at least since that time. Later when humans began to live in more northerly latitudes, however, light skin became an advantage for the absorption of vitamin D and the recessive gene began to become more dominant in those populations.
Balding, where terminal hair switches to vellus hair, usually occurs at around thirty to forty years of age. In prehistoric times, most individuals were not as likely to live past 30, with few reaching their fourth decade,[20] and thus it wasn't likely that this trait was subject to selection. The soft, fine hair found on many nonhuman mammals typically is called fur.
Most species evolved as the climate in Africa changed, to adjust their thermoregulation to the intense UV and sunlight at the equator, mostly by panting. Early hominids likely possessed fur similar to other large apes, but about 2.5 million years ago they developed a greater distribution of sweat glands that enabled them to perspire over most of the body. It is not clear whether the change in body hair appearance occurred before or after the development of sweat glands. Humans have eccrine sweat glands all over our body.[21] Aside from the mammary glands that produce a specialized sweat called, milk, most mammals just have apocrine sweat glands on their armpits and loin. The rest of their body is covered in eccrine glands. There is a trend in primates to have increased eccrine sweat glands over the general surface of the body.[21] It is unclear to what degree other primates sweat in response to heat, however.
The thermoregulatory hypothesis (developed by Dr. Peter Wheeler, 1984, 1985) suggests that when human ancestors started living on the savanna, humans began sweating more to stay cool.[22] It is posited that thick hair got in the way of the sweat evaporating, so humans evolved a sparser coat of fur. Although hair provides protection against harmful UV radiation, since our hominin ancestors were bipedal, only our heads were exposed to the noonday sun.[23] Humans kept the hair on our head which reflects harmful UV rays, but our body hair was reduced. Opponents of the thermoregulatory hypothesis would say that losing hair added an extreme weakness to cold, but, seeing as how humans figured out cutlery around 2.6 million years ago, our ancestors easily could have found clothing within the 1.4 million years between cutting up their kills and losing their hair.
Another hypothesis for the thick body hair on humans proposes that Fisherian runaway sexual selection played a role (as well as in the selection of long head hair), (see types of hair and vellus hair), as well as a much larger role of testosterone in men. Sexual selection is the only theory thus far that explains the sexual dimorphism seen in the hair patterns of men and women. On average, men have more body hair than women. Males have more terminal hair, especially on the face, chest, abdomen, and back, and females have more vellus hair, which is less visible. The halting of hair development at a juvenile stage, vellus hair, would also be consistent with the neoteny evident in humans, especially in females, and thus they could have occurred at the same time.
________________________________________
Why Humans and Their Fur Parted Ways By NICHOLAS WADE Published: August 19, 2003
* Sign In to E-Mail * Print * Single-Page
One of the most distinctive evolutionary changes as humans parted company from their fellow apes was their loss of body hair. But why and when human body hair disappeared, together with the matter of when people first started to wear clothes, are questions that have long lain beyond the reach of archaeology and paleontology.
Ingenious solutions to both issues have now been proposed, independently, by two research groups analyzing changes in DNA. The result, if the dates are accurate, is something of an embarrassment. It implies we were naked for more than a million years before we started wearing clothes.
Dr. Alan R. Rogers, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Utah, has figured out when humans lost their hair by an indirect method depending on the gene that determines skin color. Dr. Mark Stoneking of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, believes he has established when humans first wore clothes. His method too is indirect: it involves dating the evolution of the human body louse, which infests only clothes.
Meanwhile a third group of researchers, resurrecting a suggestion of Darwin, has come up with a novel explanation of why humans lost their body hair in the first place.
Mammals need body hair to keep warm, and lose it only for special evolutionary reasons. Whales and walruses shed their hair to improve speed in their new medium, the sea. Elephants and rhinoceroses have specially thick skins and are too bulky to lose much heat on cold nights. But why did humans, the only hairless primates, lose their body hair?
One theory holds that the hominid line went through a semi-aquatic phase -- witness the slight webbing on our hands. A better suggestion is that loss of body hair helped our distant ancestors keep cool when they first ventured beyond the forest's shade and across the hot African savannah. But loss of hair is not an unmixed blessing in regulating body temperature because the naked skin absorbs more energy in the heat of the day and loses more in the cold of the night.
Dr. Mark Pagel of the University of Reading in England and Dr. Walter Bodmer of the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford have proposed a different solution to the mystery and their idea, if true, goes far toward explaining contemporary attitudes about hirsuteness. Humans lost their body hair, they say, to free themselves of external parasites that infest fur -- blood-sucking lice, fleas and ticks and the diseases they spread.
Once hairlessness had evolved through natural selection, Dr. Pagel and Dr. Bodmer suggest, it then became subject to sexual selection, the development of features in one sex that appeal to the other. Among the newly furless humans, bare skin would have served, like the peacock's tail, as a signal of fitness. The pains women take to keep their bodies free of hair -- joined now by some men -- may be no mere fashion statement but the latest echo of an ancient instinct. Dr. Pagel's and Dr. Bodmer's article appeared in a recent issue of The Proceedings of the Royal Society.
Dr. Pagel said he had noticed recently that advertisements for women's clothing often included a model showing a large expanse of bare back. ''We have thought of showing off skin as a secondary sexual characteristic but maybe it's simpler than that -- just a billboard for healthy skin,'' he said.
The message -- ''No fleas, lice or ticks on me!'' -- is presumably concealed from the conscious mind of both sender and receiver.
There are several puzzles for the new theory to explain. One is why, if loss of body hair deprived parasites of a refuge, evolution allowed pubic hair to be retained. Dr. Pagel and Dr. Bodmer suggest that these humid regions, dense with sweat glands, serve as launching pads for pheromones, airborne hormones known to convey sexual signals in other mammals though not yet identified in humans.
Another conundrum is why women have less body hair than men. Though both sexes may prefer less hair in the other, the pressure of sexual selection in this case may be greater on women, whether because men have had greater powers of choice or an more intense interest in physical attributes. ''Common use of depilatory agents testifies to the continuing attractions of hairlessness, especially in human females,'' the two researchers write.
Why Humans and Their Fur Parted Ways Published: August 19, 2003
* Sign In to E-Mail * Print * Single-Page
(Page 2 of 3)
Dr. David L. Reed, a louse expert at the University of Utah, said the idea that humans might have lost their body hair as a defense against parasites was a ''fascinating concept.'' Body lice spread three diseases -- typhus, relapsing fever and trench fever -- and have killed millions of people in time of war, he said.
But others could take more convincing. ''There are all kinds of notions as to the advantage of hair loss, but they are all just-so stories,'' said Dr. Ian Tattersall, a paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
Causes aside, when did humans first lose their body hair? Dr. Rogers, of the University of Utah, saw a way to get a fix on the date after reading an article about a gene that helps determine skin color. The gene, called MC1R, specifies a protein that serves as a switch between the two kinds of pigment made by human cells. Eumelanin, which protects against the ultraviolet rays of the sun, is brown-black; pheomelanin, which is not protective, is a red-yellow color.
Three years ago Dr. Rosalind Harding of Oxford University and others made a worldwide study of the MC1R gene by extracting it from blood samples and analyzing the sequence of DNA units in the gene. They found that the protein made by the gene is invariant in African populations, but outside of Africa the gene, and its protein, tended to vary a lot.
Dr. Harding concluded that the gene was kept under tight constraint in Africa, presumably because any change in its protein increased vulnerability to the sun's ultraviolet light, and was fatal to its owner. But outside Africa, in northern Asia and Europe, the gene was free to accept mutations, the constant natural changes in DNA, and produced skin colors that were not dark.
Reading Dr. Harding's article recently as part of a different project, Dr. Rogers wondered why all Africans had acquired the same version of the gene. Chimpanzees, Dr. Harding had noted, have many different forms of the gene, as presumably did the common ancestor of chimps and people.
As soon as the ancestral human population in Africa started losing its fur, Dr. Rogers surmised, people would have needed dark skin as a protection against sunlight. Anyone who had a version of the MC1R gene that produced darker skin would have had a survival advantage, and in a few generations this version of the gene would have made a clean sweep through the population.
There may have been several clean sweeps, each one producing a more effective version of the MC1R gene. Dr. Rogers saw a way to put a date on at least the most recent sweep. Some of the DNA units in a gene can be changed without changing the amino acid units in the protein the gene specifies. The MC1R genes Dr. Harding had analyzed in African populations had several of these silent mutations. Since the silent mutations accumulate in a random but steady fashion, they serve as a molecular clock, one that started ticking at the time of the last sweep of the MC1R gene through the ancestral human population.
From the number of silent mutations in African versions of the MC1R gene, Dr. Rogers and two colleagues, Dr. David Iltis and Dr. Stephen Wooding, calculate that the last sweep probably occurred 1.2 million years ago, when the human population consisted of a mere 14,000 breeding individuals. In other words, humans have been hairless at least since this time, and maybe for much longer. Their article is to appear in a future issue of Current Anthropology.
The estimated minimum date for human hairlessness seems to fall in reasonably well with the schedule of other major adaptations that turned an ordinary ape into the weirdest of all primates. Hominids first started occupying areas with few shade trees some 1.7 million years ago. This is also the time when long limbs and an external nose appeared. Both are assumed to be adaptations to help dissipate heat, said Dr. Richard Klein, an archaeologist at Stanford University. Loss of hair and dark skin could well have emerged at the same time, so Dr. Rogers' argument was ''completely plausible,'' he said.
From 1.6 million years ago the world was in the grip of the Pleistocene ice age, which ended only 10,000 years ago. Even in Africa, nights could have been cold for fur-less primates. But Dr. Ropers noted that people lived without clothes until recently in chilly places like Tasmania and Tierra del Fuego.
Chimpanzees have pale skin and are born with pale faces that tan as they grow older. So the prototype hominid too probably had fair skin under dark hair, said Dr. Nina Jablonski, an expert on the evolution of skin color at the California Academy of Sciences. ''It was only later that we lost our hair and at the same time evolved an evenly dark pigmentation,'' she said.
Remarkable as it may seem that genetic analysis can reach back and date an event deep in human history, there is a second approach to determining when people lost their body hair, or at least started to wear clothes. It has to do with lice. Humans have the distinction of being host to three different kinds: the head louse, the body louse and the pubic louse. The body louse, unlike all other kinds that infect mammals, clings to clothing, not hair. It presumably evolved from the head louse after humans lost their body hair and started wearing clothes.
Dr. Stoneking, together with Dr. Ralf Kittler and Dr. Manfred Kayser, report in today's issue of Current Biology that they compared the DNA of human head and body lice from around the world, as well as chimpanzee lice as a point of evolutionary comparison. From study of the DNA differences, they find that the human body louse indeed evolved from the louse, as expected, but that this event took place surprisingly recently, sometime between 42,000 and 72,000 years ago. Humans must have been wearing clothes at least since this time.
Modern humans left Africa about 50,000 years ago. Dr. Stoneking and his colleagues say the invention of clothing may have been a factor in the successful spread of humans around the world, especially in the cooler climates of the north.
Dr. Stoneking said in an interview that clothing could also have been part of the suite of sophisticated behaviors, such as advanced tools, trade and art, that appear in the archaeological record some 50,000 years ago, just before humans migrated from Africa.
The head louse would probably have colonized clothing quite soon after the niche became available -- within thousands and tens of thousands of years, Dr. Stoneking said. So body lice were probably not in existence when humans and Neanderthals diverged some 250,000 or more years ago. This implies that the common ancestor of humans and Neanderthals did not wear clothes and therefore probably Neanderthals didn't either.
But Dr. Klein, the Stanford archeologist, said he thought Neanderthals and other archaic humans must have produced clothing of some kind in order to live in temperate latitudes like Europe and the Far East. Perhaps the body lice don't show that, he suggested, because early clothes were too loose fitting or made of the wrong material.
Dr. Stoneking said he got the idea for his louse project after one of his children came home with a note about a louse infestation in school. The note assured parents that lice could only live a few hours when away from the human body, implying to Dr. Stoneking that their evolution must closely mirror the spread of humans around the world.
The compilers of Genesis write that as soon as Adam and Eve realized they were naked, they sewed themselves aprons made of leaves from the fig tree, and that the Creator himself made them more durable skin coats before evicting them. But if Dr. Rogers and Dr. Stoneking are correct, humans were naked for a million years before they noticed their state of undress and called for the tailor.
Photos: There are few hairless mammals other than humans, but they include the naked mole rat, above, the hippopotamus and the elephant. It is believed that mammals lose their hair only for particular evolutionary reasons. (Photo by Neil Bromhall/Photo Researchers); (Photo by Paul Smith for The New York Times); (Photo by Agence France-Presse/Getty Images)(pg. F4) Chart/Photos: ''A Million Years of Nakedness'' A new theory suggests that early humans shed their body hair not to bare shoulders or ankles, but to avoid parasites. They couldn't shake these bugs altogether, though; one parasite may have evolved to bother human hosts again. PRIMATES DIVERGE -- The hominid line splits from a common chimp ancestor. STANDING UPRIGHT -- Hominids become bipedal, walking on two legs (above left). OUT OF THE WOODS -- Early hominids left forested areas for the savanna about 1.7 million years ago. They developed the more familiar features of modern humans, including external noses and longer limbs suited for walking. DATING FUR LOSS -- The last mutation in the gene that causes dark skin color was about 1.2 million years ago. The gene came to predominate in Africa, where it was necessary to protect the small early hominid population from harsh sunlight (above right). FASHION CAME LATE -- Humans may have been naked for most of the time since body hair loss, dated to the arrival of body lice that cling only to clothes, about 70,000 years ago. Before -- An Australopithecus, sporting full-bodied fur about four million years ago. After -- An archaic human walked fur-free about 1.2 million years ago, carrying fire on the savanna. (The New York Times; illustrations by Michael Rothman) (Sources by Dr. Mark Pagel and Dr. Walter Bodmer, The Royal Society)
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rogers, Iltis and Wooding (2004) indicate that fur-less human ancestors of pre 1.2MYA had white skin. The white skin later [d]evolved into black skin to block the scorthing rays of Africa's sun. So yes, we had white ancestors before black ones. White skin is the oldest, naked skin. When God said, "Let there be light..." our ancestors shed their fur to reveal and expose their light skin ;-)
ref.:
Rogers, A R.; Iltis, D; Wooding, S (2004). "Genetic variation at the MC1R locus and the time since loss of human body hair". Current Anthropology 45: pp.105–108.
posted
^white women are easier prey... that is why..
Them always horny easy to lay!
And then, they spend billions of Dollars on Gillette Razors and hot waxes seeking the redemptive gloss of smooth skin
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: Few facts: Pink girls are easy lay.
Pseudo-fact.
quote: They also make good sex-slaves!
Because all men desire a white woman.
quote: The Pornography industry is almost 85% pink-white.
Oh? White porn stars are emblamatic of an entire population huh? There are less than 2000 female porn stars, of which the majority is white women and you think that means the entire population of white women is an e-z lay huh? The fact is white women are the sexual archtype. Just face it buddy guy, white women are the universal symbol of beauty.
Posts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dont have problem with pale women All women are nice if they r not bitches
I find Pale pink women a bit too hairy and too rought skined though. Too much dry skin problem, just too much colour and tanning hassles..
Its ok for you to like your pale sisters. They are your mothers and your sisters after-all
But since their skin is not as smooth and silky as the black woman's I find no other woman can satisfy me like my brown and black sisters...
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^You are an idiot. White people naturally have softer and smoother skin (that's why they experience quicker skin breakage than darker people) because they have more fatty layer under their skin.
Posts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: Rogers, Iltis and Wooding (2004) indicate that fur-less human ancestors of pre 1.2MYA had white skin. The white skin later [d]evolved into black skin to block the scorthing rays of Africa's sun. So yes, we had white ancestors before black ones. White skin is the oldest, naked skin. When God said, "Let there be light..." our ancestors shed their fur to reveal and expose their light skin ;-)
ref.:
Rogers, A R.; Iltis, D; Wooding, S (2004). "Genetic variation at the MC1R locus and the time since loss of human body hair". Current Anthropology 45: pp.105–108.
You know what this means, while da original African created civilization our ancestors invaded it and painted all the Artifacts as black..Africans are Reverse Albino Turk Mutts..
Hotep Fam..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gigantic MORON says The white skin later [d]evolved into black skin to block the scorthing rays of Africa's sun
So let's see if these white racial fantasies make scientific or common sense. When humanity/anthropoids rose was during the middle of an ice age. So the places in the world where paleskins come from would have been FAR colder than they are today. This is why these places were impassable for so long, because there were WALLS of ice that blocked humanity in (see area of Bering straits for one example of why nobody populated the Americas until a mere 50,000 years ago (and those were BLACKS might I add).
Now, are we to believe that humanity STARTED off in Europe as white, though there are no examples of a caucasoid before 20,000 years ago, in cold conditions when everybody (except Gigantic Moron and lioness) knows that humans are warm-blooded? Or does it make more sense that humanity began in the HOTTEST region on the planet because humans need constant warmth?
Or perhaps we should believe that humanity in Africa STARTED off as white people, even though that idiotic assertion demands we believe that man, having been born with a fatal vulnerability to high-UV, somehow would have lasted MILLIONS of years from Lucy to Cro-Magnon and during that time would have managed to evolve into blacks who are the ONLY ones with the requisite melanin to survive such conditions? Doubly ludicrous when you consider that Africa's intense sunlight is killing caucasoids in Africa today, as well as the Middle East, and even America!
I swear you trolls aren't even trying anymore!
And it's "scorching" you idiot. "Scorthing" is what your mother did on the street corners back in the day that eventually resulted in the tragedy of you being brought into the world.
Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: He said early humans may have gone through several genetic "clean sweeps" with light-skinned individuals dying off and dark-skinned individuals surviving. He estimates the last of these clean sweeps took place 1.2 million years ago.[19] Therefore, apparent bareness in humans, likely has existed at least since that time.
Stop quoting wikipedia child...
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107)Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Repetition overkill is the way to go for the slow-minded, and to that end, it is worth repeating that even if one were to entertain a fantasy of "dark skin having probably evolved after humans lost their body fur, because the naked skin was vulnerable to the strong UV radiation" to mean that original humans were "white", this event could not have occurred in anatomically modern humans; it would have had to have occurred in the hominid ancestors of anatomically modern humans. Anatomically modern humans would have already inherited 'black skin' attained earlier in said hominid ancestors. There is a difference between hominid ancestors and anatomically modern humans. The use of the term "dark skin evolving after humans lost their fur" would therefore be misleading, as it could give the impression that anatomically modern humans are the subjects here, which would be incorrect. So, the idea of 'white' humans as the default human is a loosing battle.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the articles I posted are correct than the fossil record which indicates that modern humans (Homo sapiens) evolved from Homo erectus in Africa about 1.8 million years ago would not have had hair like this:
but would have had hair more like this:
Humans are probably most closely related to chimpanzee species.
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps the loss of hair was a gradual and slowly-compensating event.
What I mean is that humans did not lose their hair in one fell swoop. It was gradual and the melanin index slowly increased.
This probably explains why the skin colour of Africans is rather variable: from the brown/yellow of the Khoisan and reddish-brown of the Twa of the Congo to the very dark of South Sudan. West Africans on the near-coastal areas tend to be somewhat brown[Ibos and Calabaris in Nigeria are examples].
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107)
This one has always troubled me whenever it is used to prove a point. Yet no one has seen fit to address it; especially MindoverMatter718 since it is he who routinely uses it to prove his or somebody's point. Maybe that paragraph isn't troubling to him and others and it is clear as a sunlit day. But it isn't clear as day to me. And since it is used to prove a point then I'm certainly willing and, from a layman's perspective, admittedly, receptive to an explanation that involves scientific answers that are free from religious overtones.
From what I can see, at this point, blacks have the capacity, from that mutational variation, to actually turn into white boys and girls but with help from solar radiation. Then it follows the sun has supernatural powers in addition to maintaining a selection ''advantage'' for that receptor protein... to manifest itself thousands of years later at higher latitudes?
As per the article it all goes back to whiter skin being destroyed because of the intense sun. So wherein lies the power of the receptor to escape death while residing in its host... who has just been killed because of the sun's intense rays, or heat, or whatever. If this be the case then how did black people turn into white folks at higher latitudes. And don't drag the vitamin D back here because it isn't needed: the host is dead, right?
I see no way around this question. Either the offered explanation is riddled with uncertainty or there simply is no explanation because of the lack of scientific proof.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107)
This one has always troubled me whenever it is used to prove a point. Yet no one has seen fit to address it; especially MindoverMatter718 since it is he who routinely uses it to prove his or somebody's point.
First of all you've never asked me to address anything so stop your lies oldman.
Secondly, if you would've asked me I would've provided the following;
quote: [I]However, over 1.2 million years ago, judging from the numbers and spread of variations among human and chimpanzee MC1R nucleotide sequences, the human ancestors in Africa began to lose their hair and they came under increasing evolutionary pressures that killed off the progeny of individuals that retained the inherited whiteness of their skin. By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein (Rogers 2004:107).
However, the progeny of those humans who migrated North away from the intense African sun were not under the evolutionary constraint that keeps human skin black generation after generation in Africa. Tracking back the statistical patterns in variations in DNA among all known people sampled who are alive on the earth today, Rogers concluded the following: 1) from 1.2 million years ago for a million years, the ancestors of all people alive today were as black as today's Africans, 2) for that period of a million years, human ancestors lived naked without clothing, and 3) the descendants of any people who migrate North from Africa will mutate to become white over time because the evolutionary constraint that keeps Africans' skin black generation after generation decreases generally the further North a people migrates (Rogers 2004).
^^^If you can't figure out what Rogers is saying, then I don't know what else to tell you.
The point in me posting the quote Grumman if you had actually asked is to show that if indeed our non anatomically modern human ancestors (homo erectus) were light like other primates under their fur, by 1.2 mya these non AMH ancestors of ours were indeed black before A.M.H arose. Point being that A.M.H who first appears around 200kya in the fossil record descended from Homo Erectus who were already black.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Before 1.2 the skin may have been lighter. The hominids that had lost hair and become darker in a long term evolutionary time frame would have individuals at a given moment who had mutated lighter or darker on a minute scale imperceptible to the eye at a given moment. This tiny change would not have "killed off the progeny". All the people of a given tribe might have looked a one particular shade. Yet there are microscopic differences because these microscopic mutations occur for no reason connected to the environmental conditions, nature just makes slight variations all the time. If most of the tribe were 90% dark. Because of random mutation some were 90.05 %, darker than most. Others were 89.95 %, lighter than most When some of this tribe migrated into different areas with significant UV differences then some of these individuals might have had a .05 % advantage over others. Nobody would notice this. But over hundreds of thousands of years this advantage would compound. If the tribe moved into a higher UV area over hundreds of thousands of years there would be more people who had mutated slightly darker. Then from their stating point each generation mutates slightly darker than the already slightly darker people become a greater proportion until they are at the best adaptation for the given environment.
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: "By 1.2 million years ago" Before 1.2 the skin may have been lighter.
This is what your idol Jablonski states...
Humans skin is the most visible aspect of the human phenotype. It is distinguished mainly by its naked appearance, greatly enhanced abilities to dissipate body heat through sweating, and the great range of genetically determined skin colors present within a single species. Many aspects of the evolution of human skin and skin color can be reconstructed using comparative anatomy, physiology, and genomics. Enhancement of thermal sweating was a key innovation in human evolution that allowed maintenance of homeostasis (including constant brain temperature) during sustained physical activity in hot environments. Dark skin evolved pari passu with the loss of body hair and was the original state for the genus Homo. Melanin pigmentation is adaptive and has been maintained by natural selection. Because of its evolutionary lability, skin color phenotype is useless as a unique marker of genetic identity. In recent prehistory, humans became adept at protecting themselves from the environment through clothing and shelter, thus reducing the scope for the action of natural selection on human skin.Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ and that light color is only comparatively recent..
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
''First of all you've never asked me to address anything so stop your lies oldman.''
No lies involved at all. But it has been nearly two years since you/Rogers mentioned white skin progeny being killed of by the sun. And you are probably right when I said I didn't ask you directly. But I responded to one of the posts and attached your name to it while you were arguing with someone else. But I don't expect you to recall it now that you're on record saying I never asked.
''Secondly, if you would've asked me I would've provided the following:
However, over 1.2 million years ago, judging from the numbers and spread of variations among human and chimpanzee MC1R nucleotide sequences, the human ancestors in Africa began to lose their hair and they came under increasing evolutionary pressures that killed off the progeny of individuals that retained the inherited whiteness of their skin.
Didn't Rogers say in the same body of his information that the sun's intense heat caused this ''killing off.''? So now evolution is the killing vehicle of this ''inherited whiteness'' instead of the sun? Which one is it?
Is 'inherited whiteness' and the mutational variation in the receptor protein that caused the whiteness the same thing? Isn't inherited specific in this case and mutational random? Well I guess they could be the same thing but it looks different according to what Rogers is saying. What do you say Rogers is saying?
However, the progeny of those humans who migrated North away from the intense African sun were not under the evolutionary constraint that keeps human skin black generation after generation in Africa.
How could there be any progeny when the sun's intense heat supposedly killed off the parents before they left Africa?
''...if indeed our non anatomically modern human ancestors (homo erectus) were light like other primates under their fur, by 1.2 mya these non AMH ancestors of ours were indeed black before A.M.H arose. Point being that A.M.H who first appears around 200kya in the fossil record descended from Homo Erectus who were already black.''
But you are saying the non-anatomically modern ancestors were light before they were black? Is that right?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: "By 1.2 million years ago" Before 1.2 the skin may have been lighter.
This is what your idol Jablonsky states...
Humans skin is the most visible aspect of the human phenotype. It is distinguished mainly by its naked appearance, greatly enhanced abilities to dissipate body heat through sweating, and the great range of genetically determined skin colors present within a single species. Many aspects of the evolution of human skin and skin color can be reconstructed using comparative anatomy, physiology, and genomics. Enhancement of thermal sweating was a key innovation in human evolution that allowed maintenance of homeostasis (including constant brain temperature) during sustained physical activity in hot environments. Dark skin evolved pari passu with the loss of body hair and was the original state for the genus Homo. Melanin pigmentation is adaptive and has been maintained by natural selection. Because of its evolutionary lability, skin color phenotype is useless as a unique marker of genetic identity. In recent prehistory, humans became adept at protecting themselves from the environment through clothing and shelter, thus reducing the scope for the action of natural selection on human skin.
Mindover I find her statement unclear:
"Dark skin evolved pari passu with the loss of body hair and was the original state for the genus Homo."
Are we to assume that she is referring to the whole Homo genus? -but the original earlier Homo genus types were covered in body hair. Yet she says dark skin evolved in relation to loss of body hair. You will need to explain this or refer to other Jablonsky quotes to clarify.
BTW is there anything you have heard Jablonsky say you disagree with?
hairless chimp
uncle Larry is that you?
These chimps have alopecia (a skin condition causing total hair loss).
there you have it he's a whatever
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: MindoverMatter718 says,
''First of all you've never asked me to address anything so stop your lies oldman.''
No lies involved at all. But it has been nearly two years since you/Rogers mentioned white skin progeny being killed of by the sun. And you are probably right when I said I didn't ask you directly. But I responded to one of the posts and attached your name to it while you were arguing with someone else. But I don't expect you to recall it now that you're on record saying I never asked.
Figures. I usually pay no mind to you grumpyman, thats why.
Although I doubt you've ever asked me anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: ''Secondly, if you would've asked me I would've provided the following:
However, over 1.2 million years ago, judging from the numbers and spread of variations among human and chimpanzee MC1R nucleotide sequences, the human ancestors in Africa began to lose their hair and they came under increasing evolutionary pressures that killed off the progeny of individuals that retained the inherited whiteness of their skin.
Didn't Rogers say in the same body of his information that the sun's intense heat caused this ''killing off.''?
Yea, and is exactly what he is saying above. LOL
Increasing evolutionary pressure = THE SUN!!!!
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: So now evolution is the killing vehicle of this ''inherited whiteness'' instead of the sun? Which one is it?
Ahh we revert back to your fragile mind and its misunderstanding of evolution, noones fault but that of your own.
Evolution can be driven by climatological situations, such as say, umm, the SUN!! Yea genius the sun can cause evolution to occur. Ever heard of adaptation? LOL
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Is 'inherited whiteness' and the mutational variation in the receptor protein that caused the whiteness the same thing?
1)Inherited whiteness to our ancestors is in reference to homo erectus quite possibly having white skin, due to the fact that other hominids (our closest non human relatives) also have this lighter pigmentation under their fur.
2)Mutation in the receptor protein causing any whiter skin thereafter, is most likely in reference to albinism, which is not suitable in the environment where A.M.H arose, Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Isn't inherited specific in this case and mutational random?
Explained above.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Well I guess they could be the same thing but it looks different according to what Rogers is saying. What do you say Rogers is saying?
Explained above.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: However, the progeny of those humans who migrated North away from the intense African sun were not under the evolutionary constraint that keeps human skin black generation after generation in Africa.
How could there be any progeny when the sun's intense heat supposedly killed off the parents before they left Africa?
Wow lol.
That is a question I would've thought an elementary child would ask me.
What Rogers is talking about, is the progeny of the already black A.M.H., who would've then moved north.
Remember grumpyman, the point here is to internalize the fact that Homo Erectus in Africa who was the direct ancestor to Anatomically modern humans today, was already black skinned and carried the same MC1R gene that modern Africans carry today by 1.2mya.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: ''...if indeed our non anatomically modern human ancestors (homo erectus) were light like other primates under their fur, by 1.2 mya these non AMH ancestors of ours were indeed black before A.M.H arose. Point being that A.M.H who first appears around 200kya in the fossil record descended from Homo Erectus who were already black.''
But you are saying the non-anatomically modern ancestors were light before they were black? Is that right?
I'm saying, if indeed they were light, as the example from our closest primate relatives being lighter under their fur.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [qb] "By 1.2 million years ago" Before 1.2 the skin may have been lighter.
This is what your idol Jablonsky states...
Humans skin is the most visible aspect of the human phenotype . It is distinguished mainly by its naked appearance, greatly enhanced abilities to dissipate body heat through sweating, and the great range of genetically determined skin colors present within a single species. Many aspects of the evolution of human skin and skin color can be reconstructed using comparative anatomy, physiology, and genomics. Enhancement of thermal sweating was a key innovation in human evolution that allowed maintenance of homeostasis (including constant brain temperature) during sustained physical activity in hot environments. Dark skin evolved pari passu with the loss of body hair and was the original state for the genus Homo. Melanin pigmentation is adaptive and has been maintained by natural selection. Because of its evolutionary lability, skin color phenotype is useless as a unique marker of genetic identity. In recent prehistory, humans became adept at protecting themselves from the environment through clothing and shelter, thus reducing the scope for the action of natural selection on human skin .
Mindover I find her statement unclear:
"Dark skin evolved pari passu with the loss of body hair and was the original state for the genus Homo."
Are we to assume that she is referring to the whole Homo genus?
You're a joke. The study is clearly in reference to HUMANS.
You do know who and what humans are right lyinass?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
He lifts weights?? that's one buffed up ape. he needs work on the chest area though..
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: You're a joke. The study is clearly in reference to HUMANS.
You do know who and what humans are right lyinass? [/QB]
The functional human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to that of chimpanzees.
The word "human" is applied to an arbitrary point on an evolutionary continuum. Classifying the Homo genus types is hypothetical.
It is the lack of skeletal remains that when one is found, it represents some random stage of development and then gets a name. The fossil record of the Homo genus and human "homo sapien" ancestry is very incomplete.
So as these creatures are evolving it is arbitrary to point to one section and decide that's the point where we call it a different name. It's an abstraction. It's easy to have a cut off point with so called "humans" because the "common ancestor" has not been found.
In other words nature did not put her finger on the continuum and say this is human and this is not human, much less base it on body hair. It's an extremely gradual process and the names are made up. The definition of what scientist called human is not "hairless" though humans are not hairless at all but have relatively less hair than other primates. It is impossible to tell with bones of that age how much hair they had. It is impossible to tell when the hair loss started.
It's completely speculative.
Skin is not preserved in the fossil record and we have little direct evidence of its evolution.
The fact remains we are beings on a continuum. If you go back you find a point where our skin was lighter because we were covered in hair like chimpanzees. But you say our ancestors at that point were not "human" at that point, the term is artificial they were still our ancestors.
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: ^You are an idiot. White people naturally have softer and smoother skin (that's why they experience quicker skin breakage than darker people) because they have more fatty layer under their skin.
What an infidel dog!
Pink skin is rough, hairy and dry. Makes insufficient natural oil.
I have had my share of bitches like, lyinass real pink-white, and fucked up girls... No good bro, they are just easy to lay I talk from experience! Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: ^You are an idiot. White people naturally have softer and smoother skin (that's why they experience quicker skin breakage than darker people) because they have more fatty layer under their skin.
What an infidel dog!
Pink skin is rough, hairy and dry. Makes insufficient natural oil.
I have had my share of bitches like, lyinass real pink-white, and fucked up girls... No good bro, they are just easy to lay I talk from experience!
are you admitting to being greasy?
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Please direct me to the study that proves what you are saying. Keep in mind I'm not talking about the sun's role in making plants grow and its general beneficence to everything on this planet.
''Ever heard of adaptation? LOL''
Is this the kind where complex organisms change into something else, that is, the smoke and mirror explanation?
Your explanations MindoverMatter718 are as close to the supernatural as one can get.
And be advised my comments (way above) have nothing to do with the length of time our ancestors were human. Not at all.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: ^You are an idiot. White people naturally have softer and smoother skin (that's why they experience quicker skin breakage than darker people) because they have more fatty layer under their skin.
What an infidel dog!
Pink skin is rough, hairy and dry. Makes insufficient natural oil.
I have had my share of bitches like, lyinass real pink-white, and fucked up girls... No good bro, they are just easy to lay I talk from experience!
And yuh deh yah brag bout it like yuh proud and ah good ting fe bed up di Beckys dem Black Man you shuda shamed of yourself.....
...about "all man want a 'white' ooman" him seh (ano yuh I talkin here)....please iyah... mi know nuff Black Man who wuda bop dem fist before dem wuda dagga ah 'white' gyal....
There are good conscious Black Men out here who recognize the beauty and importance of Black Love and Unity and want not a thing to do with 'white' women...
htp
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: MindoverMatter says:
'Increasing evolutionary pressure = THE SUN!!!!
Please direct me to the study that proves what you are saying. Keep in mind I'm not talking about the sun's role in making plants grow and its general beneficence to everything on this planet.
Are you serious? LOL. Please direct you to a study saying what I said? Why direct you anywhere else, when the quotes provided explain exactly what it means...wow, the elevator doesn't go all the way to the top anymore huh grumps?
The intense sun killed off any progeny with lighter skin; increasing evolutionary pressure killed off the progeny with any lighter skin, are you really that dimwitted?
The increasing evolutionary pressure that killed off the progeny with any lighterskin is the SUN, grumps.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Evolution can be driven by climatological situations, such as say, umm, the SUN!! Yea genius the sun can cause evolution to occur.''Ever heard of adaptation? LOL''
Is this the kind where complex organisms change into something else, that is, the smoke and mirror explanation?
It's the kind where uhh, evolution causes adaptations to the sun, genius.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Your explanations MindoverMatter718 are as close to the supernatural as one can get.
You're simply just a dunce is the real problem.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: And be advised my comments (way above) have nothing to do with the length of time our ancestors were human. Not at all.
Your comments anywhere they are make no sense.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
I recommend all real Black folks here watch that video at the link; note the Horus Lock at approximately 1:29...note the hair styling in the statues/artifacts/paintings....note the beautiful hair styles of our people both ancient and modern and their similarities... how it's styled in so many ways not only for beauty purposes, but for meanings...symbolic and ritualistic as well as spiritual....ethnic identification...status...an important identifier within African societies... the use of extensions/wigs/false hair by Africans prior to white colonialism is discussed at 5:52 it was used to extend the hair "to create long flowing lock-like hair styles"..6:52 the origins of locks are discussed, as well as photos of several African cultures who wear them....
We have the most manipulative and beautiful hair when not killing its Natural texture...there is just sooo much we can do with it...
htp
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: ^You are an idiot. White people naturally have softer and smoother skin (that's why they experience quicker skin breakage than darker people) because they have more fatty layer under their skin.
What an infidel dog!
Pink skin is rough, hairy and dry. Makes insufficient natural oil.
I have had my share of bitches like, lyinass real pink-white, and fucked up girls... No good bro, they are just easy to lay I talk from experience!
And yuh deh yah brag bout it like yuh proud and ah good ting fe bed up di Beckys dem Black Man you shuda shamed of yourself.....
...about "all man want a 'white' ooman" him seh (ano yuh I talkin here)....please iyah... mi know nuff Black Man who wuda bop dem fist before dem wuda dagga ah 'white' gyal....
There are good conscious Black Men out here who recognize the beauty and importance of Black Love and Unity and want not a thing to do with 'white' women...
htp
Sweetheart, Nothing to brag about.
Once I was lost. Now I am found. You would never catch a pink bitch in my sack these days.
Been clean and off them for more than 10 years now... and going
Me love me brownings them and the black woman Empress! Now I am found..
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
''Are you serious? LOL. Please direct you to a study saying what I said? Why direct you anywhere else, when the quotes provided explain exactly what it means...wow, the elevator doesn't go all the way to the top anymore huh grumps?''
Yes and the elevator will stay stuck until you come clean.
No MindoverrMatter718 you nor Rogers can produce the proof you say you have to document what it is you believe in when it comes to this sun business. That's why I asked you. And yet here you are flailing your arms in denial about my audacity to ask you about it. Yes I asked you and you have yet to respond except with a rolling of the eyes type of attitude; which doesn't produce anything in the way of an answer.
Jackoff when I asked you for proof I was referring to the scientific community as a whole not one man. If you can't get this through your thick skull then you are wallowing in an ocean full of ignorant bliss.
Have you set in on a room full of scientists discussing this matter. If so, do all the scientists in that discussion believe it. Have they all produced scientific papers documenting what it is you say is the truth? I'm calling you out fundamentalist goofball. See to it.
And yes you have every right to be mad at me, because you want to be spoonfed what you think is the absolute truth and you don't have a clue how *any* of this can be produced in a scientific laboratory to demonstrate results. You say it is true because you want to believe it. You're no better than a creationist who says God did it. They don't need proof and you don't either. It's called faith clown; and you're ate up with it.
So, until your flim flammin' ass can produce scientific results then you had better track Rogers down and put your foot in his ass for leaving the scientific experiment out of this comical explanation of an answer because he sure didn't provide it.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: He said early humans may have gone through several genetic "clean sweeps" with light-skinned individuals dying off and dark-skinned individuals surviving. He estimates the last of these clean sweeps took place 1.2 million years ago.[19] Therefore, apparent bareness in humans, likely has existed at least since that time.
Stop quoting wikipedia child...
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107)
That's quoted in wikipedia also are you now going to retract on that basis?
The quote is a misleading exaggeration of the evolutionary process. Unless the children have rare birth defects, people don't have progeny that include progeny with the degree of variation where they and but not the parent and other progeny would die off. Their disadvantage in a certain environments would only manifest gradually over many generations. They would not be dying off, just having less kids and over time being a lesser percentage of the population.
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
She came at me all high horses and did not realize what hit her. She learnt a few new things from me, like: that Romans had many black Emperors.
That Romans used to bleach their skin and wear hair wigs and straighten their hair, whereas pink Goths never ever bleach and have straight hair due to the effect of the chromosomal gene THADA and MC1R.
That Romans were not racist; and that Romans did not like the tribes of Goths and Parthians because they were human vermins and thieves.
Expect Lyingass to be bleating and babbling about Roman civilization and straigh hair genes all week.
I aggravated her mental illness with that brutal intellectual beat-down!
Not her alone but her goat, Jari the gwoat, and Hammer the welder from Texa. I beat them down all together with one arm, until they fled in confusion.
posted
Revisionism at its finest. Black women wear weaves made of white and asian hair texture, idiot. That is indicative of emulation; they are trying to look like they have white/asian hair. I sincerely doubt prior to colonialism they were doing this. Self-hate is a mother!
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: the use of extensions/wigs/false hair by Africans prior to white colonialism is discussed at 5:52 it was used to extend the hair "to create long flowing lock-like hair styles"..6:52 the origins of locks are discussed,
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What ah way some people love the internet- great way for them to hide and talk their f**kry; all the things they're never bold enough to say when actually outta road, lol.....
-------------------- "TRUTH IS LIKE LIGHTNING WITH ITS ERRAND DONE BEFORE YOU HEAR THE THUNDER" - Gerald Massey "TRUTH IS FINAL" -Mumia Abu-Jamal Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: ^You are an idiot. White people naturally have softer and smoother skin (that's why they experience quicker skin breakage than darker people) because they have more fatty layer under their skin.
What an infidel dog!
Pink skin is rough, hairy and dry. Makes insufficient natural oil.
I have had my share of bitches like, lyinass real pink-white, and fucked up girls... No good bro, they are just easy to lay I talk from experience!
And yuh deh yah brag bout it like yuh proud and ah good ting fe bed up di Beckys dem Black Man you shuda shamed of yourself.....
...about "all man want a 'white' ooman" him seh (ano yuh I talkin here)....please iyah... mi know nuff Black Man who wuda bop dem fist before dem wuda dagga ah 'white' gyal....
There are good conscious Black Men out here who recognize the beauty and importance of Black Love and Unity and want not a thing to do with 'white' women...
htp
Sweetheart, Nothing to brag about.
You got that right, lmao.
quote: Once I was lost. Now I am found. You would never catch a pink bitch in my sack these days.
Been clean and off them for more than 10 years now... and going
Me love me brownings them and the black woman Empress ! Now I am found..
OK!
htp
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: MindoverMatter718:
''Are you serious? LOL. Please direct you to a study saying what I said? Why direct you anywhere else, when the quotes provided explain exactly what it means...wow, the elevator doesn't go all the way to the top anymore huh grumps?''
Yes and the elevator will stay stuck until you come clean.
No MindoverrMatter718 you nor Rogers can produce the proof you say you have to document what it is you believe in when it comes to this sun business.
Grumps, if you can't understand that Rogers is saying the increasing evolutionary forces (due to the loss of body hair) which was put on the naked skin (remember, these people were naked under the intense equatorial African sun), killed off any progeny with whiter skin, wherein the next few lines he's pretty clear stating the intense sun killed off any progeny with any whiter skin, then you must be suffering from some kind of mental disorder.
I really don't understand what you don't get about this.
However, over 1.2 million years ago, judging from the numbers and spread of variations among human and chimpanzee MC1R nucleotide sequences, the human ancestors in Africa began to lose their hair and they came under increasing evolutionary pressures that killed off the progeny of individuals that retained the inherited whiteness of their skin. By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein (Rogers 2004:107).
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: That's why I asked you. And yet here you are flailing your arms in denial about my audacity to ask you about it. Yes I asked you and you have yet to respond except with a rolling of the eyes type of attitude; which doesn't produce anything in the way of an answer.
Grumps I take it you have a reading comprehension level equal to that of a child, because if you hadn't, you would've been able to interpret what was said right away. He didn't speak in riddles.
The intense sun killed off any progeny with naked whiter skin, since sun very very bad for white skin (especially naked white skin), and the ones with darkerksin prevailed, its called natural selection.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Jackoff when I asked you for proof I was referring to the scientific community as a whole not one man. If you can't get this through your thick skull then you are wallowing in an ocean full of ignorant bliss.
Grumpy old man, it's one man here specifically stating that the intense sun killed off any progeny with any whiter skin being that Homo-Erectus lost their body hair around 1.2mya. and were naked under the hot African sun. Of course the scientific community agrees with this, this is all part of natural selection a driving force of evolution.
You're telling me, that you need proof from the scientific community that the intense equatorial sun could or would've killed off any progeny with naked whiter skin? LOL
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Have you set in on a room full of scientists discussing this matter. If so, do all the scientists in that discussion believe it.
Believe what grumpy old man, be specific, what is "it"? That intense sun is bad for naked white skin?
That intense African sun would kill off any progeny with naked white skin and leave those with darker skin to prevail under the hot African sun?
Which of course is why anatomically modern humans arose as a darkskinned people.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Have they all produced scientific papers documenting what it is you say is the truth? I'm calling you out fundamentalist goofball. See to it.
Of course papers have been written about it, it's called natural selection, part of evolution.
Grumps, you are hardpressed to try and show me to be a fool, and it's not happening.
What was stated from Rogers is common sense in evolution.
But I can see where I am going wrong here since you have been schooled many times before on different occasions by several different posters about evolution, yet you still have the same dissenting denial, well of course since you fail to even grasp the simple concept of natural selection.
Under the intense sun, the need for increased melanin is apparent, under less intense sun, just the opposite. Therefore in the environments those bet fit to survive, will survive. It's called natural selection, old man.
Plain and simple.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: And yes you have every right to be mad at me, because you want to be spoonfed what you think is the absolute truth and you don't have a clue how *any* of this can be produced in a scientific laboratory to demonstrate results.
I'm not mad at you, I'm laughing at you.
Why would I need to spoonfed and go into a laboratory to understand the common damn sense that intense sun would kill off any progeny with naked white skin under the intense equatorial African sun and leave those with darkerskin to prevail?
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: You say it is true because you want to believe it.
I say its true because its common sense, and natural selection, and we can see it happening everyday, people with whiter skin are at a greater risk under intense heat from the sun, just imagine naked, or you didn't know this?
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: You're no better than a creationist who says God did it. They don't need proof and you don't either. It's called faith clown; and you're ate up with it.
You're an idiot. LOL. It is scientifically proven.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: So, until your flim flammin' ass can produce scientific results then you had better track Rogers down and put your foot in his ass for leaving the scientific experiment out of this comical explanation of an answer because he sure didn't provide it.
Wow, you really need a scientific explanation to tell you why intense heat is extremely bad for people with pale skin and that the people white darker skin would've prevailed in the environment?
This just gets better and better, keep the laughs coming grumpy old man.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: He said early humans may have gone through several genetic "clean sweeps" with light-skinned individuals dying off and dark-skinned individuals surviving. He estimates the last of these clean sweeps took place 1.2 million years ago.[19] Therefore, apparent bareness in humans, likely has existed at least since that time.
Stop quoting wikipedia child...
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107)
That's quoted in wikipedia also are you now going to retract on that basis?
My point was for you to stop quoting the wikipedia version of what Rogers meant, and instead read what Rogers said for himself. Get it?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: The quote is a misleading exaggeration of the evolutionary process.Unless the children have rare birth defects, people don't have progeny that include progeny with the degree of variation where they and but not the parent and other progeny would die off.
It's friggin natural selection genius. If our Homo-Erectus ancestors were light under their fur 1.2mya. The increasing evolutionary pressure of having naked skin under intense sunrays would've selected for darker skin, in turn any whiter skin would be selected against. This is evolution
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although it is true alot of mammalian fur and skin is straight and light ..
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Perhaps the loss of hair was a gradual and slowly-compensating event.
What I mean is that humans did not lose their hair in one fell swoop. It was gradual and the melanin index slowly increased.
This probably explains why the skin colour of Africans is rather variable: from the brown/yellow of the Khoisan and reddish-brown of the Twa of the Congo to the very dark of South Sudan. West Africans on the near-coastal areas tend to be somewhat brown[Ibos and Calabaris in Nigeria are examples].
Yes, and though as a mean now and probably then, the color is about milk to dark chocolate.
And the hair is a total mystery ..
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Black Man you shuda shamed of yourself.....![[Smile]](smile.gif)
how it's styled in so many ways not only for beauty purposes, but for meanings...symbolic and ritualistic as well as spiritual....ethnic identification...status...an important identifier within African societies... the use of extensions/wigs/false hair by Africans prior to white colonialism is discussed at 5:52 it was used to extend the hair "to create long flowing lock-like hair styles"..6:52 the origins of locks are discussed, as well as photos of several African cultures who wear them....![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic