This is topic Shedding light on skin color in forum Deshret at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000268

---

Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
 
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_region/20080330_Shedding_light_on_skin_color.html


Shedding light on skin color

Inquirer Staff Writer

At the beginning of anthropologist Nina Jablonski's lecture yesterday at the Wagner Free Institute of Science, it appeared her audience of about 100 was composed of several different races.
By the end of the free lecture, titled "The Evolution of Human Skin Color," the Pennsylvania State University professor had made a case that we are all just people with varying levels of melanin.

As author of the book Skin: A Natural History, Jablonski has studied all aspects of skin, perhaps none more important than why it appears in such a puzzling array of hues. It all comes down to the planet's uneven distribution of sunlight and the universal human need for two vitamins, she explained.

This knowledge was very recently acquired. "Only in the last decade or so has our data allowed us to crack open the mystery," Jablonski said as she began her lecture at the 152-year-old science museum near Temple University.

Nature has painted human skin using one major brown pigment, melanin, which evolved in many species. "It's a natural sunscreen," she said, which is important because humans have a troubled relationship with the sun.

Since we are relatively hairless creatures, our skin gets bombarded by ultraviolet light, which can burn us, destroy the DNA in skin cells, and lead to cancer. Hence an advantage of dark skin.

But there is more to melanin than protection from skin cancer and sunburn. Scientists recently realized that ultraviolet rays penetrating skin destroy the B-vitamin folate. With too little folate, or folic acid, men cannot make adequate sperm and women cannot start healthy pregnancies. So in very sunny places, any genetic mutations that created light skin would likely die out with their owners.

But with melanin offering so many advantages, the question was why anyone would evolve light skin.

Lighter shades came about because humans need some sunlight to penetrate skin and trigger a chemical reaction that produces vitamin D.

To illustrate the devastating effects of vitamin D deficiency, Jablonski showed slides of children with badly bowed legs and softened bones. In women, a lesser deficiency can lead to a narrowed pelvis, making childbirth impossible.

The original skin color was almost certainly very dark, since scientific evidence points to sunny Africa as the cradle of humanity. But once some branches of the human family starting moving north to Asia and Europe, the need for vitamin D gave those with lighter skin an advantage in absorbing the meager sunlight in winter.

Because vitamins lie at the heart of our color differences, locally consumed foods also play a role. Whales and fatty fish can give people some vitamin D, Jablonski said, so diet may explain why the Inuit, who live in Alaska and Greenland, are much darker than people from Northern Europe.

Recent findings from genetics labs show that there are many roads to what we think of as white and black skin - both of which, or course, are really shades of brown. In 2005, for example, scientists found that Europeans became light-skinned through a different combination of mutations than did Northern Asians.

Last year, scientists scraped enough DNA from the bones of a Neanderthal man to show that this extinct branch of humanity carried genes associated with fair skin and red hair.

Currently, Jablonski said, researchers are seeking genetic variants that led to dark skin in far-flung peoples - those from Australia, New Guinea and southern India as well as Africa.

While Jablonski hopes that examining skin through science can help defuse racism and racial tension, she said, she is also concerned with what she calls colorism. Colorism has more to do with perception of beauty, she said. Its primary victims are women.

With a slide of people frying on the beach and an advertisement for bronzer, she explained that colorism has white women thinking they look sickly without a tan. More dangerous still, dark-complexioned women in some countries are driven to use dangerous skin-lightening products, many containing arsenic, mercury and other poisons.

"Why are we always trying to change the way we appear?" Jablonski asked. "Skin color is a beautiful product of evolution. . . . We should revel in it."
 

---

Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
 
Nice article, explains the obvious which is: "It all comes down to the planet's uneven distribution of sunlight and the universal human need for two vitamins"

Everyone living close to the equator will become darker relative to their position, and those positioned remote of the equator will become relative lighter depending on their native habitat (excluding factors as diet as in the case of the inuits.)

Thats what makes all this talk of "black" and "white" people so nonsensical since populations positioned relative to the equator (and their development of/ or lack of melanin) doesn't take into consideration other variables that illustrates kinship more accuratly.
 

---

Posted by Habari (Member # 14738) on :
 
I think we shouldn't spend too much time on colorism since we were all Black in the first place as indicated by the article, Europeans were Black, Asians were Black and Africans were all Black(not anymore for some groups)...one race ...one family...the human race...
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 
LOL. Note that Jablonski speculates that dark skin must have been the first because they came from Sunny Africa. and yet the Sandawe are one of the oldest populations od Sunny Africa in Tanzania and they were not as dark.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Jablonski is not speculating but stating a fact as the genes for melonoderm Black denotes the original underived skin color condition of all humans.

Of course you know this, as Jablonski humiliated you on this issue before, so you appear to be venting your frustrations at her.

Better that you should get a girlfriend instead.

Sandawe Tanzania.....







dark skin is the original skin color condition of all humans - Nina Jablonski.


Igbo.... Nigeria:

quote:

---

Habari: We were all Black in the first place as indicated by the article, Europeans were Black, Asians were Black and Africans were all Black(not anymore for some groups)...one race ...one family...the human race...

---

^ True. But Jamie is unable to cope with this reality, which apparently makes him a little crazy....
 

---

Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
LOL. Note that Jablonski speculates that dark skin must have been the first because they came from Sunny Africa. and yet the Sandawe are one of the oldest populations od Sunny Africa in Tanzania and they were not as dark.

---

She didn't speculate about anything, she plainly stated that the original humans were very dark, stop trying to twist things around with your double talk.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Woooooops!!! There goes the Nordic idea of AE.


----------------------------------
But there is more to melanin than protection from skin cancer and sunburn. Scientists recently realized that ultraviolet rays penetrating skin destroy the B-vitamin folate. With too little folate, or folic acid, men cannot make adequate sperm and women cannot start healthy pregnancies. So in very sunny places, any genetic mutations that created light skin would likely die out with their owners.
-------------------------------
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Here is more – adding fuel to the flame.

---------------------------------------

Significant evidence for a genetic basis explaining variation in constitutive skin color exists on a molecular level. Various human pigmentation genes have been identified, such as tyrosinase-related protein family members, melanocyte-stimulating hormone, melanocyte-stimulating hormone receptor, and the melanocortin 1 receptor (D'Orazio et al., 2006). Tyrosinase-related protein 1 expression appears to increase tyrosinase activity, melanogenesis, and melanosome size, and causes the expression of substantially more protein in darkly pigmented African and Indian skin types than Caucasians. Such differences may explain why the same number of melanocytes in different skin types results in differential responses to UV light and injury. The intersection of pigmentation and immunology is likely to generate substantial future interest; already there are data that melanocyte-stimulating hormone appears to confer enhanced repair ability beyond simply increasing the sun protection factor by increasing the number of DNA repair proteins several fold (Bohm et al., 2005).


In terms of structure and function of the skin, an observed reduction in susceptibility to irritation in black and hispanic versus white subjects has been historically attributed to reduced permeability of the stratum corneum in the black population (Robinson, 1999).


In terms of structure and function of the skin, an observed reduction in susceptibility to irritation in black and hispanic versus white subjects has been historically attributed to reduced permeability of the stratum corneum in the black population (Robinson, 1999). Some studies suggest that Asian subjects may be slightly more sensitive than Caucasians, but the differences do not appear to be large (Robinson, 2002). Differences in skin resistance and other biophysical properties have also been noted. Epidermal structure and function, however, is also likely substantially affected by UV exposure, as the sun-exposed epidermis of lighter-skinned people shows more atrophy, cellular atypia, and disorderly differentiation (Taylor, 2002). Differences in the dermis have been described: in one small study, black women were found to have more and larger fibroblasts than white women, with a tendency toward multinucleation. In addition, collagen fiber bundles in black subjects were smaller, more closely stacked, and ran more parallel to the epidermis with a greater number of macrophages identified in the papillary dermis (Montagna and Carlisle, 1991). Taking an immunological perspective of barrier function, multiple studies have demonstrated an increased risk of developing a latex allergy among the non-white populations (Grzybowski et al., 2002; Zeiss et al., 2003), but patch testing studies have not shown a significant difference between black and white populations (Dickel et al., 2001; DeLeo et al., 2002).

Similarly, skin aging does appear to be delayed in darker skin types due to increased protection. In darker skin, aging tends to manifest as deepening folds (primarily naso-labial fold) rather than the fine lines and wrinkling seen in lighter skin.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie Bass:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
LOL. Note that Jablonski speculates that dark skin must have been the first because they came from Sunny Africa. and yet the Sandawe are one of the oldest populations od Sunny Africa in Tanzania and they were not as dark.

---

She didn't speculate about anything, she plainly stated that the original humans were very dark, stop trying to twist things around with your double talk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argyle104:
Chimu, I heard you got arrested in a Safeway market.....


For stealing butter. : )

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argyle104:
Chimu, I heard you got arrested in a Safeway market.....


For stealing butter. : )

---

LOLOLOL!!!!!!!! That was actually funny
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ Jablonski is not speculating but stating a fact as the genes for melonoderm Black denotes the original underived skin color condition of all humans.

---

quote:

---

Of course you know this, as Jablonski humiliated you on this issue before, so you appear to be venting your frustrations at her.

---

LMAO. Keep trying to project your frustrations on others. Can't ask Ausar to ban me on this forum. Jablonski seems to cater to whom she talk to. But all her quotes are valid and show that she is not certain.

Try again.
 

---

Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Chimu wrote:

--------------------
--------------------


Hey dude you need to tell your mama to quit playing with her titties in public.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 
So basically no response except that of a moron to represent the Afrocentric logic.
 

---

Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Chimu you were in a beauty contest and you wound up making it to the finals against one other competitor.


It was between you and the biggest, baddest Komodo Dragon in the country.


You won, but you really didn't win.


A panel of 10 judges gave you the victory by 1 vote. However one of the judges selected your name by accident and he couldn't make a correction because he had to abide by the contest rules.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 
Still deluded into thinking your comedy is good. So long as the food stamps keep on working you are fine.
 

---

Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Chimu wrote

------------------
------------------


Your daddy was the one who went nuts at the food stamps office because he thought they cheated him out of a $1 worth of stamps.


LOL : )
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

 

---

Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Dialup, im a ges turned off. LOL, LOL : )
 

---

Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Hey Chimu,


Your girlfriend has................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................... ..............................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................


...green toes.


AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
I wonder if the hypertension theory is true?? See below

Climatic adaptation
Early migration out of Africa exposed ancestral populations to colder environments, with less incident sunlight. The most obvious response is in pigmentation, due to the quantity, type, and distribution of melanin. Skin colour is strongly geographically differentiated, with darker-skinned populations concentrated in the tropics, and lighter-skinned populations in more northerly latitudes. In tropical climates the melanin in dark skins protects against sunburn by scattering and absorbing UV radiation; it may also limit photodegradation of nutrients such as folate. Where sunlight is low, depigmentation may be favoured because UV penetration is necessary for vitamin D synthesis (26).
A balance between these factors can largely explain the global pattern of pigmentation (27). However, there are discrepancies: while these could be due to recent migration or admixture, an alternative view (downplaying the importance of light skin in vitamin D synthesis) suggests that they may reflect sexual selection, in particular male preference for light-skinned females (28). The last idea predicts that sexual dimorphism should increase with increasing latitude, but in practice this is not borne out (29).
The genetic basis of pigmentation variation is complex (30). Candidate gene approaches based on information about melanosome development, abnormal pigmentation phenotypes and orthologs in other species, together with analyses of selection signals in HapMap, have identified a set of about twenty genes that are likely to play important roles (18,30–32). The finding of selection signatures in Europeans and East Asians suggests that there really is some selective advantage for light skin, and the fact that they are in different genes shows that evolutionary routes to similar phenotypes were distinct – convergent evolution (30,32,33).
Residence of ancestral populations in tropical Africa also necessitated heat adaptation, including cooling through efficient sweating. The considerable salt loss, combined with low dietary salt availability, led to selection for salt retention; at the same time, there was likely selection for increased arterial tone and cardiac contraction force when blood volume was depleted by water loss. After migration into temperate climates, these adaptations became maladaptive, and may be responsible for increased blood pressure.
In the CEPH-HGDP samples, the global distribution of the functional (heat-adapted) alleles of seven genes involved in blood pressure regulation shows a latitudinal cline (34) unmatched by neutral markers. Furthermore, a combination of latitude and the frequency of one of these alleles in the G protein ß3 subunit gene explains a remarkable 64% of global variation in blood pressure.
Initially, heat-adapted African populations expanded northward, undergoing selection for cold adaptation. Subsequently, cold-adapted north Asians expanded southward into the Americas less than 20 KYA, undergoing selection for heat adaptation, so that Native Americans show similar salt retention and cardiovascular phenotypes to Africans living at the same latitudes. In more recent migrations, particularly that of Africans to the temperate climate and high-salt environment of North America (Fig. 1C), previously adapted genes may be particularly maladapted, leading to high frequencies of hypertension (35).
Dietary adaptation
The diversity of environments occupied by hunter–gatherer humans after the early migrations are mirrored by a diversity of diets. Early heterogeneity of resources may still have an impact today: for example, as judged by modern Y chromosome diversity (36), population expansions occurred earlier in the northern part of East Asia, probably because of the abundant megafauna of the ‘Mammoth Steppe’, but later in the south, due to poorer resources.
In terms of influence on diet, the most important development in human prehistory was agriculture, beginning 10 KYA in the Near East, with distinct varieties emerging later in China, the Americas and West Africa (Fig. 1B). Increased population densities, reduced dietary diversity, sedentary lifestyle and exposure to animal pathogens together represented a major set of challenges. A common view is that post-Neolithic humans are adapted, through a ‘thrifty genotype’ (37,38) to a hunter–gatherer lifestyle of feast and famine (39), and that the arrival of agriculture signalled the start of an era of dietary maladaptation, leading to high incidences of type 2 diabetes. Later colonization events, like those of the Pacific islands (Fig. 1C), may have involved particularly strong selection for thrifty genotypes (40) – possibly causing subsequent extreme levels of diabetes. These views have not gone unopposed, however (41,42), and recent studies of diabetes susceptibility loci suggest that reality is not so simple.
A variant in the transcription factor 7-like 2 gene (TCF7L2) is responsible for 17–28% of the risk of type 2 diabetes in Europeans (43), but, contrary to expectations of the thrifty genotype hypothesis, is associated with reduced body mass index (BMI) in diabetics (44). In the HapMap samples, the frequency of another variant of the same gene, associated with increased BMI, has been driven by selection to near fixation (95%) in East Asians, with lower frequencies elsewhere. The ages of the variant in the different populations correspond approximately to the times of origin of agriculture, suggesting that it conferred some advantage in the post-agricultural environment. However, the nature of this advantage is unclear.
A clear example of genetic adaptation to cultural innovation is the selection of alleles of LCT permitting persistence of lactase expression into adulthood. This allows the drinking of milk without adverse effects, and the distribution of the phenotype correlates well with that of populations with a history of cattle domestication and milk drinking (45). In the HapMap samples (16), LCT in Europeans shows the strongest signal of positive selection, reflecting a powerful advantage that may have been more related to milk as a source of uninfected water than as a source of nutrition.
Studies in European populations identified a causative regulatory variant 14 kb upstream of the LCT gene (46), with an estimated age of 2000–20 000 years (47). However, lactase-persistent populations elsewhere, including Africa, do not carry this variant. Studies of Tanzanians, Kenyans and Sudanese (48,49) reveal three further nearby variants causing lactase persistence. Examination of surrounding haplotypes show that the three African variants arose independently of each other and of the European variant (a further example of convergent evolution), within the last 7000 years. The known variants still do not account for all of lactase persistence; so further examples are likely to exist.
Further dietary adaptations remain to be discovered, and signals of selection around genes involved in the metabolism of other carbohydrates, fat and alcohol (18) are interesting.
Cognitive adaptation?
While many factors have been crucial to the success of Homo sapiens, the defining innovation has been culture – the capacity to communicate and transfer knowledge, and to deal with novel environments by creating new technologies, including the development and exploitation of new food resources. Some have made the argument that the out of Africa migration entailed novel challenges that favoured the selection of enhanced cognitive ability, and have supported this using comparisons of IQ and brain size (50). However, it is unclear why the cognitive challenges in this gradual migration should be greater than those facing non-migrants subsisting in the diverse and changing environments of Africa.
Genetic studies in this area differ from those in, for example, pigmentation, because the interest in a particular gene is stimulated not by any known phenotypic effect, but simply by its expression in the brain, and some unexpected pattern of population differentiation. The identification of an underlying selected phenotype may not be straightforward, or without controversy.
Undoubtedly, brain size (and presumably associated cognitive capabilities) increased rapidly in the human lineage over the past 3–4 million years. A long list of functional candidate brain genes has been produced (51), though few have been studied.
Most interest has focused on two genes that, when mutated, result in microcephaly – a small brain, but with normal neural architecture. Both abnormal spindle-like microcephaly associated (ASPM) and Microcephalin (MCPH1) show signatures of adaptive selection both during the emergence of the human lineage (52,53), and subsequently (54,55). Globally, both genes show young, high frequency haplotypes that are rare in Africa, and could reflect recent regional selection. There has been argument over whether these patterns could be explained by demographic processes rather than selection (56,57).
Selection on these genes is expected to be through some aspect of intelligence, rather than brain size (58). However, the common derived alleles for both genes are unlinked to standard measures of IQ (59), suggesting either that the gene variants were not being selected at all, or that the selected phenotype is something other than intelligence, as measured by the simple single metric of IQ. Information about the transcript and protein expression patterns of the different allelic variants would be helpful.


http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/16/R2/R134#SEC3
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/3/710

Human skin pigmentation shows a strong positive correlation with ultraviolet radiation intensity, suggesting that variation in skin color is, at least partially, due to adaptation via natural selection. We investigated the evolution of pigmentation variation by testing for the presence of positive directional selection in 6 pigmentation genes using an empirical FST approach, through an examination of global diversity patterns of these genes in the Centre d'Etude du Polymorphisme Humain (CEPH)-Diversity Panel, and by exploring signatures of selection in data from the International HapMap project. Additionally, we demonstrated a role for MATP in determining normal skin pigmentation variation using admixture mapping methods. Taken together (with the results of previous admixture mapping studies), these results point to the importance of several genes in shaping the pigmentation phenotype and a complex evolutionary history involving strong selection. Polymorphisms in 2 genes, ASIP and OCA2, may play a shared role in shaping light and dark pigmentation across the globe, whereas SLC24A5, MATP, and TYR have a predominant role in the evolution of light skin in Europeans but not in East Asians. These findings support a case for the recent convergent evolution of a lighter pigmentation phenotype in Europeans and East Asians.


At OCA2 355, the derived allele (linked with lighter pigmentation) occurs at its highest frequencies across Europe and Asia but is also relatively common among Native American populations (18–34%) and is present at much lower frequencies (0–10%) among Bantu-speaking African groups. In contrast, the ancestral allele associated with dark pigmentation has a shared high frequency in sub-Saharan African and Island Melanesians. A notable exception is the relatively lightly pigmented San population of Southern Africa where the derived allele predominates (93%).

The photoprotective properties of a highly melanized skin and the recent African origin of modern humans suggest that the ancestral phenotype is one of the relatively dark skin (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000; Rogers et al. 2004).

Given the relatively recent arrival and divergence of humans in and across Europe and Asia, the most parsimonious evolution of light skin would involve such mutations arising in a proto-Eurasian population soon after humans left Africa. Consequently, these mutations should be shared between modern Asian and European populations.

Alternatively, if separate existing functional variants were driven to high frequency in East Asian and Europeans or independent de novo mutations arose and were selected in each population after the divergence of Europeans and Asians, then these would be obvious as high allele frequency differences between modern European and East Asian populations. Reduced levels of heterozygosity surrounding the SLC24A5 A111G polymorphism in the European, but not East Asian, HapMap populations support the latter hypothesis

 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The photoprotective properties of a highly melanized skin and the recent African origin of modern humans suggest that the ancestral phenotype is one of the relatively dark skin (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000; Rogers et al. 2004).

---

Rogers: Over 1.2 million years ago, 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.

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.

Jablonski: Dark skin evolved in conjunction with the loss of 'fur' and is the original condition of homo sapiens.
 

---

Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
 
So what is the explanation for San having lighter skin?
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.

Brothers. About 10 years ago I started filing evidence away about the San and their lighter skin tones and accumulated a fair amount of material on this from different sources.

Then, in the last five years, I started to see pictures of San; and more-and-more of them. What surprised me was that the ones I saw (maybe not the same ones others saw) were not as light as I expected them to be: they were brown to dark brown and rarely ever yellow. Actually, I don't remember yellow San and I have a collection of maybe 18 to 20 photos.


I'm not saying that the researchers who wrote this fact are mistaken. But. Well, just food for thought.


http://www.beforebc.de/Made.by.Humankind/Real.People/02-17Mx-02.html

.
.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolofi:
So what is the explanation for San having lighter skin?

---

There are two African allelles ASIP and OCA2 that have ancestral and derived versions.

The ancestral versions are more common in darker African populations - the derived version is more common in lighter African populations.

This has nothing to do with Khoi or San. All Africans have the same allelles which far predate the existence of non Africans, which is why they are found around the world.

Darker San and Bantu of Tanzania have more underived allelles, lighter San and Bantu of South Africa have more derived allelles.

All are equally AFrican and generally have melanin frequencies concordant to the AFrican latitudes at which the live.

The reason the darkest melanoderms [San and non San alike] have the most ancient allelles is because the original human poulations lived near the equator - before - migrating to southern Africa.

Europeans and some North East Asians have far more recent mutations on their skin color receptors which evolved -after- the split between Europeans and Asians, and so are not shared with either each other or any other peoples that do not have recent ancestry from these groups.


There is no skin color allelle specific to 'san', nor is there a melanin level specific to san. They share the same allelles as all other Africans, and Blacks of Asia and Australia.


The Sandawe of Tanzania.....







dark skin is the original skin color condition of all humans - Nina Jablonski.


Igbo.... Nigeria:


 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
At OCA2 355, the derived allele (linked with lighter pigmentation) occurs at its highest frequencies across Europe and Asia but is also relatively common among Native American populations (18–34%) and is present at much lower frequencies (0–10%) among Bantu-speaking African groups. In contrast, the ancestral allele associated with dark pigmentation has a shared high frequency in sub-Saharan African and Island Melanesians. A notable exception is the relatively lightly pigmented San population of Southern Africa where the derived allele predominates (93%).

The photoprotective properties of a highly melanized skin and the recent African origin of modern humans suggest that the ancestral phenotype is one of the relatively dark skin (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000; Rogers et al. 2004).

---

quote:

---

The lightly pigmented hunter–gatherer San population of Southern Africa is exceptional in having a high frequency of the derived allele relative to geographically proximate and more darkly pigmented African populations (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000)

---

quote:

---

Thanks for your note. Frank has some good points. Clearly more work needs to be done on the variation within continents in particular Africa. We do have one recent paper that shines some light on these questions (The genetic architecture of normal variation in human pigmentation: an evolutionary perspective and model, McEvoy et al, 2006). Note that we did not find many genes with signatures of natural selection on the West African branch and thus no clear indication that the West Africans have gotten darker since their separation from the East Asians and Europeans. This fact, although interesting in and of its own, does not address the issue of the lighter skinned African populations. Good questions, clearly, but there is not data yet to even let us speculate intelligently.

Best Regards,
Mark

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fsweet
Comments on "Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians" by Heather L. Norton, Rick A. Kittles, Esteban Parra, Paul McKeigue, Xianyun Mao, Keith Cheng, Victor A. Canfield, Daniel G. Bradley, Brian McEvoy, and Mark D. Shriver in Molecular Biology and Evolution (2007) 24(3):710–722.

We have obtained and made available here a pre-publication copy of what is by far the most comprehensive study to date of the genetic adaptations that have produced different skin tones in populations around the world. It shows that Europeans and East Asians both got paler after the Diaspora due to natural selection, but they did so by different independent adaptations. Readers interested in the subject are urged to read the study.

The following comments do not summarize the study. Instead, they focus on aspects of the study of that are of interest to subject at hand.

The study does not address the unique depigmentation of northern Europeans. The study's European reference sample was twenty residents of Valencia, Spain. Consequently, the study explains the evolution of the intermediate skin tones of Mediterraneans as well as those of East Asians. But it ignores the extraordinary depigmentation of people native to the region with 300 miles of the Baltic and North Seas and discussed in the essay The Paleo-Etiology of Human Skin Tone. This is a bit disappointing, but the study's authors may have had no choice. It would have been good to learn more about the evolution of the pink "Nordic" skin tone as well as that of the tanned beige "Spanish" skin tone. But one cannot identify the mutations that produced the former without first identifying those that produced the latter, since the former may well have evolved from the latter. Perhaps a future study will take the next step.

The study does not try to date the paleness mutations. Although the study does not speculate when the paleness adaptations took place, the time frame can be deduced. Given that Europeans and East Asians underwent different independent paleness mutations, the mutations must have happened after the two populations split around 40 kya. At the other extreme, classical Egyptian art from about 4 kya shows pink-skinned people (as well as brown- and black-skinned subjects). Hence, Mediterranean Europeans must have become pale sometime between 4 kya and 40 kya. Other evidence suggests a date of about 5 kya for the appearance of Nordic paleness, pushing the lower limit out by another thousand years. And Paleolithic cave art showing brown-skinned Cro-Magnons brings the upper limit in to about 12 kya.

The study speculates, but offers little evidence as to the skin tone of the Diaspora band. An often-discussed topic in the OneDropRule discussion group is the skin tone of the small group that crossed the Straits of Bab El Mandeb 75 kya to colonize the planet. The only pertinent evidence uncovered by the study is that the dark skin tone of Melanesians (Papua-New Guinea) and that of the darkest sub-Saharan Africans use the same genetic system. Hence, this system must be older than the European/East Asian split (older than 40 kya). At first glance, this seems to indicate that the Diaspora band was dark, and the study speculates that this is the case. The study then uses this assumption to suggest that the relatively light skin tones of some sub-Saharans (ancient Ethiopians, Khoi San) result from recent admixture.

The problem is that no evidence suggests that ancient Ethiopians and Khoi San (who are genetically closely related remnants of the hunter-gatherers who populated the continent before the Bantu agricultural expansion) are either admixed or recent adaptations. Indeed, there is much evidence that they are the oldest phylogenetic clade of H. sap. on the planet. Furthermore, the study found that the allele that makes these ancient sub Saharans paler than other sub Saharans (MATP C374G) is common in Europeans and East Asians but rare in other sub Saharans. Taking this into account leaves three possibilities:

(1) The Diaspora band were uniformly dark brown (like today's Bantus) by chance because they did not happen to include any ancestors of today's ancient Ethiopians or Khoi San with MATP C374G in their group. The MATP C374G that appears today in Europeans, East Asians, as well as in Khoi San and ancient Ethiopians must be explained by convergent evolution -- that two later independent mutations (in Europeans and East Asians) precisely re-created the ancient MATP C374G allele left behind in Africa (in the ancestors of Khoi San and ancient Ethiopians). This is exceedingly implausible.

(2) The Diaspora band were uniformly light brown (like today's Khoi San and Ancient Ethiopians) by chance, because they all happened to have MATP C374G. That Melanesians and Bantus today both have dark brown skin via the identical complex genetic mechanism must be explained by convergent evolution -- that Melanesians' dark brown skin tone uses the identical system as that of today's Bantus due to a later independent mutation that precisely re-created the ancient dark-brown system left behind in Africa. This is also exceedingly implausible.

(3) The Diaspora band comprised a mix of dark-brown, light-brown, and medium-brown skin tones due to a mix of the same light- and dark-skin alleles found throughout most of sub-Saharan Africa today. The light-skin alleles provided the variants (including MATP C374G) that mutated into European and East Asian traits, while the dark-skin alleles remained unchanged in Melanesia. This is the simplest explanation of the facts at hand.

The most praiseworthy aspect of the study is its meticulous attention to detail in avoiding misleading measurements. For example, if you want to measure the relative impact on skin tone of different alleles in an admixed population, you must use a population that is reasonably close to Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Testing random US Americans, for instance, would not give accurate results because US Americans have a notoriously bimodal admixture distribution due to the 300-year-old endogamous color line. And so the study's authors first made sure that their sample had a normal Gaussian distribution -- a vital detail that few other researchers would have taken the trouble to ensure. Another example is that as a backup sample of West Africans, the authors actually used subjects from the Geechee/Gullah population of the U.S. Sea Islands. This is because today's West Africans are more admixed with European and Middle Eastern genes than are the Geechee/Gullahs, who due to historical coincidences are still genetically 100 percent West African today.

The least justifiable conclusion of the study, contradicted by its own data, is its marginalizing the two most ancient populations on earth (Khoi San and Ancient Ethiopians). The study does this through circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). It says that most sub Saharans today are very dark (leaving out the two oldest populations). From this it concludes that extreme darkness must be adaptive in Africa. From this it concludes that extreme darkness must always have been adaptive. From this it concludes that the Diaspora band must have been very dark. From this it concludes that the presence of MATP C374G in the Khoi San and Ancient Ethiopians must be the result of recent European or East Asian admixture -- a conclusion contradicted by the fact that MATP C374G is identical in Europeans and East Africans, even though their paleness adaptations are independent.

All in all, this is a deeply important study by some of the most talented researchers in the field. It should be read by anyone interested in the evolutionary history of skin tone variation around the world.

---

quote:

---

Mark Shriver's study makes an assumption. That the derived OCA2 355, the derived allele is predominant in the San. But they never sampled the San.

---

quote:

---

Note that we did not find many genes with signatures of natural selection on the West African branch and thus no clear indication that the West Africans have gotten darker since their separation from the East Asians and Europeans

---

quote:

---

Good questions, clearly, but there is not data yet to even let us speculate intelligently.

---

quote:

---

all in all, this is a deeply important study by some of the most talented researchers in the field.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Mark Shriver's study makes an assumption. That the derived OCA2 355, the derived allele is predominant in the San. But they never sampled the San.

---

FIG. 3.— Distribution of allele frequencies in the CEPH-Diversity Panel for the 5 SNP showing elevated pairwise FST values for at least one population pair in our original population screen: (A) ASIP A8818G, (B) OCA2 A355G, (C) TYR A192C, (D) MATP C374G, and (E) SLC24A5 A111G. On all maps, gray shading corresponds to the frequency of the allele associated with lighter pigmentation. The numbered populations correspond to the following: 1) Biaka pygmies, 2) Mbuti pygmies, 3) Mandenka, 4) Yoruba, 5) Bantu N.E., 6) San, 7) Bantu S.E., 8) Bantu S.W., 9) Mozabite, 10) Bedouin, 11) Druze, 12) Palestinian, 13) Brahui, 14) Balochi, 15) Hazara, 16) Makrani, 17) Sindhi, 18) Pathan, 19) Kalesh, 20) Burusho, 21) Han, 22) Tujia, 23) Yizu, 24) Miaozu, 25) Orogen, 26) Daur, 27) Mongola, 28) Hezhen, 29) Xibo, 30) Uygur, 31) Dai, 32) Lahu, 33) She, 34) Naxi, 35) Tu, 36) Yakut, 37) Japanese, 38) Cambodian, 39) Papuan, 40) NAN Melanesian, 41) French, 42) French Basque, 43) Sardinian, 44) Northern Italian, 45) Tuscan, 46) Orcadian, 47) Adygei, 48) Russian, 49) Pima, 50) Maya, 51) Columbian, 52) Karitiana, 53) Surui.

---

quote:

---

The least justifiable conclusion of the study, contradicted by its own data, is its marginalizing the two most ancient populations on earth (Khoi San and Ancient Ethiopians). The study does this through circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). It says that most sub Saharans today are very dark (leaving out the two oldest populations). From this it concludes that extreme darkness must be adaptive in Africa. From this it concludes that extreme darkness must always have been adaptive. From this it concludes that the Diaspora band must have been very dark. From this it concludes that the presence of MATP C374G in the Khoi San and Ancient Ethiopians must be the result of recent European or East Asian admixture -- a conclusion contradicted by the fact that MATP C374G is identical in Europeans and East Africans, even though their paleness adaptations are independent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QB]

quote:

---

Note that we did not find many genes with signatures of natural selection on the West African branch and thus no clear indication that the West Africans have gotten darker since their separation from the East Asians and Europeans

---

^ Exactly. Indeed, the relevant separation is not between East Asian and Europeans on the one hand and "West" Africa on the other, but rather between Africans and non Africans, and subsquently between East Asians and Europeans. European depigmentation is the recent adaptive response. Black skin is the original underived state.

---

quote:

---

^ NICE TRY, but you are misrepresenting again.

That is actually a response to Frank Sweets faulty assertion that West Africans grew darker recently, for which he begs for corroboration that does not exist.

It is Sweets, and you, whose remarks are rooted in unintelligent speculation, and who are so debunked. As usual

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QB]

quote:

---

all in all, this is a deeply important study by some of the most talented researchers in the field.

---

translation: you and frank sweets are both debunked, and cannot refute the facts, you can only try to spin them to minimize the damage to your racist idiology.

---

quote:

---

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.
^ case closed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
[QUOTE]Skin is not just Black and White.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evergreen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
[QUOTE]Skin is not just Black and White.

---

Evergreen Writes:

Chimu, please define in quantitative terms the melanin level that makes one Black or White?

---

quote:

---

My fault, misunderstood the second quote.

---

quote:

---

But Frank addressed that as well.

---

quote:

---

As Frank never stated that Africans grew darker since the migration out of Africa.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evergreen:
Chimu, please define in quantitative terms the melanin level that makes one Black or White?

---

quote:

---

Chimpu writes: Throwing my question back at me eh?

---

quote:

---

Rasol asks -> Chumpu: what 'spectrometer' level can delimit 'MIXED'? Do you even know what a spectrometer is, you idiot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Understand this: You're and idiot who is too busy making stupid remarks to actually read the study or have any idea of what you're talking about.

---

Oh please. I made an honest mistake. But contrary to you I can admit when I do one.

quote:

---

he's and idiot too, but not as stupid as you.

---

quote:

---

please bring him here so we can destroy him too.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

As Frank never stated that Africans grew darker since the migration out of Africa.

---

yes he did, actually. so you are now a liar as well as and idiot - trying to save Sweets from embarrassment by denying his statements.

---

quote:

---

Sweets made this dumb claim, and then attempted to beg the question to Shriver, who threw it back in his pathetic lying face.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
But the real question for Chimpu is - tell us what 'spectrometer' level can delmit 'MIXED' as he advocates (??)

---

More silly strawmen. No such thing as a color for being Mixed.

quote:

---

This is because it's his silly idea, and so for him to quantify, which of course he has no intention of doing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
Oh please. I made an honest mistake.

---

quote:

---

The guy has ten times more brain than you and is not as immature.

---

Megencephaly, enlarged brain, occurs in several acquired and inherited human diseases including Sotos syndrome, Robinow syndrome, Canavan's disease, and Alexander disease. This defect can be distinguished from macrocephaly, an enlarged head, which usually occurs as a consequence of congenital hydrocephalus.

Yes, he's a 'swell head' alright, and a coward too, so there's no chance of him showing up outside of his guilded cage forum for emotionally unstable 'kemophobic' mulattos.

And you're the fan-boy loser sniffing Frank's fecal material and repeating after his stench, but at much lower [if possible] intellectual level.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Banned troll writes: More silly strawmen. No such thing as a color for being Mixed.

---

quote:

---

I never have mentioned any standard for Black or White.

---

^ We didn't ask you about black or white, idiot.

WE asked you about your standard of mixture.

You know, your pet term.

It's hilarious that you can't answer even the most basic questions pertaining to it.

You seem to be too afraid to even try?

{Is Greece mixed?
Is Japan mixed?
Is Swedan mixed?
Is 'everyone' mixed, if yes, then 'what' pray tell does mixed qualify?
If no then explain what "qualifies" mixed?
If mixed means not 'black' and not 'white', then what colour is mixed?
If mixed is not a colour then what relevance can it have for terms that denote colour?}


Your ridiculous query regarding qualification of ethnic color terms by spectrometer [repettition of Frank Sweets retardedness], requires that you supply a spectrometer value for mixed, since mixed is 'your preferred term', and spectrometer is your supposed method for denoting it.

If you can't answer these questions then your posts - all of them - are utterly pointless.

lol. Keep running you cowardly metizoo misanthrope, it's all you can do, since you never have any answers.

Maybe you should run back to Frank Sweets and sniff up some more troll responses - via his enlarged brain, or his rear end, *which-ever* end you sniff your silly troll replies from..

Lastly, I gather you want to take another beating on the topic of the meaning of Km.t [Rm.t] "The Blacks"?

Go here.

 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rashole:
Yes, he's a 'swell head' alright, and a coward too, so there's no chance of him showing up outside of his guilded cage forum for emotionally unstable 'kemophobic' mulattos.

And you're the fan-boy loser sniffing Frank's fecal material and repeating after his stench, but at much lower [if possible] intellectual level. QUOTE]
LOL. Your emotional outbursts and childish posts exemplify the reason why you can't be on a serious forum. You could never hang in a forum where only polite discourse, facts and evidence are required. You need a buddy moderator to coddle you. LOL

quote:

---

Originally posted by rashole:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Chimu:
Oh please. I made an honest mistake.

---

^ Get real. You're a miserable loser who spreads lies like a diseased hooker spreads stds.

---

quote:

---

You just got caught, which is the only reason you own up to it.

---

quote:

---

"honest mistake" is the same excuse you made when you misrepresented the work of Jablonski.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rashole:
It's your strawman idiot. You just explained why 'mixed' cannot qualify color. Therefore your and Sweeets idiotic babblements about "mixture" are non-sequitur as qualifiers of color.

You continue to humiliate yourself.

You pose stupid questions and scream 'strawman' when you're asked to answer them.

What and idiot you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rashole:
We didn't ask you about black or white, idiot.
WE asked you about your standard of mixture.

---

quote:

---

Is Greece mixed?

---

quote:

---

Is Japan mixed?

---

quote:

---

Is Swedan mixed?

---

quote:

---

If mixed means not 'black' and not 'white', then what colour is mixed?

---

quote:

---

If mixed is not a colour then what relevance can it have for terms that denote colour?

---

quote:

---

Your ridiculous query regarding qualification of ethnic color terms by spectrometer

---

quote:

---

[repettition of Frank Sweets retardedness]

---

quote:

---

requires that you supply a spectrometer value for mixed, since mixed is 'your preferred term', and spectrometer is your supposed method for denoting it.

---

quote:

---

lol. Keep running you cowardly metizoo misanthrope, it's all you can do, since you never have any answers.

---

I never run from a pendejo like you. Try again.


 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Question: Are Greece, Japan and Sweden mixed? Are some mixed and other not mixed?

---

quote:

---

Go look up the genetic studies. It will give you the level of admixture.

---

quote:

---

I never run

---

quote:

---

As Black and White are adopted ethnic terms for many groups, Mixed would just indicate ancestry from two groups such as those.

---

quote:

---

Ridiculous because it would show the foolishness of your supposed ability to quantify what Blackness

---

hence: The very idea that such terms can be quantified is ridiculous. Which makes Chimpu's question ridiculous.

It's the question and person who asks it that is foolish.

By asking you to quantify your ideology of mixture...the ridiculousness of your premise is exposed.

When you run away and fail to answer, you tacitly admit as much.

So keep running...
 

---

Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

As Black and White are adopted ethnic terms for many groups, Mixed would just indicate ancestry from two groups such as those.

---

This remark does not answer any question.

All Black and White groups have ancestry.

So what distinguishes 'mixed' from 'pure'.

Please provide a list of pure groups....


Please provide list of mixed groups....

---

quote:

---

Is Greece mixed?

Is Japan mixed?

Is Sweden mixed?

Is 'everyone' mixed, if yes, then 'what' pray tell does mixed qualify?

If no then explain what "qualifies" mixed?

If mixed means not 'black' and not 'white', then what colour is mixed?

If mixed is not a colour then what relevance can it have for terms that denote colour?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evergreen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

As Black and White are adopted ethnic terms for many groups, Mixed would just indicate ancestry from two groups such as those.

---

This remark does not answer any question.

All Black and White groups have ancestry.

So what distinguishes 'mixed' from 'pure'.

Please provide a list of pure groups....


Please provide list of mixed groups....

---

Evergreen Writes:

Chimu will not give you a direct answer to this question because his theory is non-sensical at root.

---

Of course and he knows it.

This is why no one should ever allow banned troll Chimu to bait them by asking absurd questions based on ridiculous premise.

Rather insist that he answer his own question based on his own terms.

When he fails to do so, the discussion is effectively over.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 
LOL. These morons keep on trying to argue strawm en. A mixed population is obviously one where the two populations saw themselves as distinct and then mixing occured. If you can't identify any lore that speaks of mixing in the population, then they don't have a mixed identity.

Note that I never mentioned a Pure population. Only the people here obsess in dichotomies. One doesn't have to be Black if they are not White. That a population shows some admixture doesn't mean it had a major effect on their identity. But for cultures that existed in crossprads of two distinct populations that mixing plays a bigger role in their identity
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL. These morons keep on trying to argue strawm en

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Is Greece mixed?

Is Japan mixed?

Is Sweden mixed?

Is 'everyone' mixed, if yes, then 'what' pray tell does mixed qualify?

If no then explain what "qualifies" mixed?

If mixed means not 'black' and not 'white', then what colour is mixed?

If mixed is not a colour then what relevance can it have for terms that denote colour?

---

^ What's taking so long?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grumman f6f:
Rasol asks:
Is Greece mixed?

Is Japan mixed?

Is Sweden mixed?

Is 'everyone' mixed, if yes, then 'what' pray tell does mixed qualify?

---

quote:

---

By the way, you aren't denying out of Africa are you?

---

quote:

---

there ain't one shred of evidence to show how this diversity arose without mixing the gene pool in Africa, even though indigenous

---

quote:

---

Looks like to me this E3b and other technical talk isn't about explaining anything.

---

quote:

---

Since everyone was dark or so the theory goes, then some of that E3b stuff ought to be laying around in such density all over the flippin' world that you can use a shovel to dig it out and prove a point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Lastly, I gather you want to take another beating on the topic of the meaning of Km.t [Rm.t] "The Blacks"?

Go here.
[/QB]

---

LMAO


 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Lastly, I gather you want to take another beating on the topic of the meaning of Km.t [Rm.t]
The Blacks.

---

quote:

---

Chimpu writes: LMAO

---

Lacking Meaningful Answers Often.

--->

Is Greece mixed?

Is Japan mixed?

Is Sweden mixed?

Is 'everyone' mixed, if yes, then 'what' pray tell does mixed qualify?

If no then explain what "qualifies" mixed?

If mixed means not 'black' and not 'white', then what colour is mixed?

If mixed is not a colour then what relevance can it have for terms that denote colour?

More non answers to follow....


 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
If so, then you should be able to answer the question, not tell the person asking you to 'look it up'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
This remark does not answer any question.

---

quote:

---

All Black and White groups have ancestry.

---

quote:

---

Or...write a another reply that doesn't answer the question, which is what we expect from a conniving coward like you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QB]

quote:

---

Ridiculous because it would show the foolishness of your supposed ability to quantify what Blackness

---

hence: The very idea that such terms can be quantified is ridiculous. Which makes Chimpu's question ridiculous.

It's the question and person who asks it that is foolish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M at 31 March, 2008 07:02 PM:
Black is not subjective. It is a physical description of a persons skin colorhttp://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000142;p=6#000290

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QB]

quote:

---

people like to quirm around a lot with their definition of black

---

Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
What's taking so long?

---

Contrary to you, I have a life outside this board.


And like I said look who will post next becuase he has no life outside this board

 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
Lacking Meaningful Answers Often.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
As it is a strawman I have no need to address it farther.

---

quote:

---

But all Black and White groups don't have two different recognized ancestries that are a part of their cultural history

---

Really? So which whites have only "1" ancestry and "1" cultural history. (???)
Lacking Meaningful Answers Often.

quote:

---

My question was made specifically to examplify the ridiculousness of the claim that you can quantify blackness.

---

quote:

---

Chimpu writes: Now let me see, if Black is not subjective....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Rogers: Over 1.2 million years ago, 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.

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.

Jablonski: Dark skin evolved in conjunction with the loss of 'fur' and is the original condition of homo sapiens.

---

quote:

---

But all Black and White groups don't have two different recognized ancestries that are a part of their cultural history

---

Which whites have only "1" ancestry and "1" cultural history. (???)

Germans?

French?

Italian?

Saxons?

Anglo-Saxons?

Is Spain mixed?

Is Sweden mixed?

Is Greece mixed?

Is 'everyone' mixed?

If yes, then 'what' pray tell does mixed qualify?

If no then explain what "qualifies" mixed?

If mixed means not 'black' and not 'white', then what colour is mixed?

If mixed is not a colour then what relevance can it have for terms that denote colour?

If you admit mixed is of no relevance to colour then why try to use mixed to qualify colours?


Lacking Meaningful Answers Online.

Come on Chimu, you're obviously vexed, but Egyptsearch awaits your next round of desparate non-answers...
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
As it is a strawman I have no need to address it farther.

---

^ Translation: LMAO Lacking Meaningful Answers Often.

quote:

---

But all Black and White groups don't have two different recognized ancestries that are a part of their cultural history

---

Really? So which whites have only "1" ancestry and "1" cultural history. (???)
Lacking Meaningful Answers Often.

quote:

---

My question was made specifically to examplify the ridiculousness of the claim that you can quantify blackness.

---

^ For the last time: this is your phony claim, and therefore *your* strawman argument, to begin with.

quote:

---

Chimpu writes: Now let me see, if Black is not subjective....

---

^ All color is subjective, so you are making yet another strawman argument. Only kind you ever make really.

You're pathetic. Is this the best Frank Sweets had to teach you?

What you're running from...

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Rogers: Over 1.2 million years ago, 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.

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.

Jablonski: Dark skin evolved in conjunction with the loss of 'fur' and is the original condition of homo sapiens.

---

^ Case closed. Keep running.

---

quote:

---

From: ngj2@psu.edu
Subject: RE: Last clarification?
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:36:22 -0400

The populations changed because of the regions in which they lived. Those living closer to the equator were subjected to more UVR, and evolved darker skin.

From: Pretell, Jaime
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 2:49 PM
To: Nina Jablonski
Subject: Last clarification?

I don’t want to misconstrue you. You are stating that the ancestors of the Khoisan and the Bantu where somewhere in-between in complexion and the KhoiSan got lighter and the positive selection of the Bantu lead to even darker people. In other words both changed in opposite directions?

From: Nina Jablonski [mailto:NJablonski@la.psu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:12 AM
To: Pretell, Jaime
Subject: RE: How dark was skin when it evolved from hairy skin?

Dear Jaime,

Thanks for your message and your good questions.

Several of your questions will be answered If you read our original paper on the evolution of human skin coloration (see attached). It is important to distinguish between the skin color of the earliest members of the hominid lineage who lived about 6 myr ago, and the earliest members of the genus Homo who lived about 2 myr ago. The skin color of the former was relatively light, as in most other catarrhine primates, and covered with dark hair. When most body hair was lost, about 2 myr ago, strong positive selection for higher concentrations of protective melanin pigmentation brought about the evolution of darkly pigmented skin. The Khoi San of southern Africa originally evolved in southern Africa, under reduced UVR conditions (as compared to the equator) and have predictably lighter skin. There is some evidence to indicate that Bantu language group speakers living in equatorial latitudes have undergone continued positive selection to maximize the melanin content of their skin since they diverged from Khoi San stock. The exact coloration of the common ancestor of these two main living lineages of African peoples is not certain, but is probably considerably darker than the Khoi San.

I hope this is helpful.

All the best,

Nina Jablonski

---

quote:

---

Considerably darker than Khoi San is very dark.

---

quote:

---

But all Black and White groups don't have different ancestries that are a part of their cultural history

---

quote:

---

Which whites have only "1" ancestry and "1" cultural history. (???)

Germans?

French?

Italian?

Saxons?

Anglo-Saxons?

Is Spain mixed?

Is Sweden mixed?

Is Greece mixed?

Is 'everyone' mixed?

If yes, then 'what' pray tell does mixed qualify?

If no then explain what "qualifies" mixed?

If mixed means not 'black' and not 'white', then what colour is mixed?

If mixed is not a colour then what relevance can it have for terms that denote colour?

If you admit mixed is of no relevance to colour then why try to use mixed to qualify colours?

---

Hey Chimpu. What's the point of making these retarded claims when you end up humiliated because you can never back them up??

It's good that you have no real culture or ethnic identity other than 'mixed [up]', because you'd be and embarrassment to your 'peoples', if you had a 'people' to call your own that is.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Reconstructing the phylogeny of African
mitochondrial DNA lineages in Slavs

Boris A Malyarchuk et. al

To elucidate the origin of African-specific mtDNA lineages, we completely sequenced eight African genomes belonging to haplogroups L1b, L2a, L3b, L3d and M1 gathered from Russians, Czechs, Slovaks and Poles.

---

 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
Lacking Meaningful Answers Online. LMAO

But all Whites don't have different ancestries that are a part of their cultural history - Chimu wails!

^ Really, which ones? Looks like we can rule-out Russians, Czechs, Slovaks and Poles.


^ Chimu waves the white flag....of surrender.
 

---

Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
[QB] ^^Considerably darker than Khoi San is exceptionally dark and given that these said "ancients" adapted such a phenotype near the earth's equator, it would be foolish to suggest a "wide range" when such would be reflective of groups today who still reside near the equator more so than those who don't. Illogical inference.

---

quote:

---

By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was black

---

quote:

---

Whereas most of the tribes in Tanzania are Bantu people, the Sandawe are San. They have lighter skin and are smaller
http://endor.hsutx.edu/~obiwan/profiles/sandawe.html

---

quote:

---

The original Sandawe were lighter in skin colour than are those of today
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2844536

---

quote:

---

In appearance, the Sandawe are noted for their lighter skin
http://books.google.com/books?id=gMoJj-0Z94UC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=Sandawe+lighter&source=web&ots=ArYkPTfSR-&sig=eisW66ppmQIikyqO2H5MkT_iZqE&hl=en

---

quote:

---

Many Sandawe are small, light-boned, and light skinned, or as Lt. Prince would have it 'small and yellowish', have thin lips, an epicathic eye fold, excessive wrinkling of the skin in old age, and some have steatopygia (the accumulation fat in the buttocks and haunches.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandawe_people

---

quote:

---

The Sandawe live right in Tanzania
"Many Sandawe are small, light-boned, and light skinned" - This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

^ On the one hand, the claim that Sandawe have light skin, on the other, the claim that the light ones have *disappeared* and been *replaced* by the dark ones, which is supposed to explain Chimo's inability to produce his 'light' skinned Sandawe.

LMAO, LMAO, LMAO,


Lacking Meaningful Answers Online.

---

Sandawe Tanzania.....







^ You lose again.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

But all Whites don't have different ancestries that are a part of their cultural history - Chimu wails!

^ Really, which ones? Looks like we can rule-out Russians, Czechs, Slovaks and Poles.


^ Chimu waves the white flag....of surrender.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grumman f6f:
[QB] Rasol asks:
''So a gene pool can be indigenous and mixed with respect to the same entity? In this case Africa?''

---

quote:

---

Yes. Since there is a wide amount of diversity on the continent and the evidence shows that phenotypes aren't the same on that continent then yes, as it regards the total entity of Africa.

---

quote:

---

No need to get scared, I'm not talking about white people... yet.

---

White people don't scare me. Niether does rhetorical bluffing that fails to answer my questions.

quote:

---

rasol:''Explain - when is and African indigenous gene pool mixed?''

---

quote:

---

I answered this above.

---

quote:

---

rasol asks: ''When is it not mixed?''

---

quote:

---

If you are referencing this Adam and Eve.....then no there can be no mixture; this assumes African origins is true of course. But this one isn't my issue either.

---

quote:

---

Would you be so kind as to direct me to a source that says unequivocably, absolutely and positively without a doubt

---

quote:

---

rasol writes: ''Depigmented Europeans and some North East Asians have very recent [12 thousand years at most] and non African, distinct mutations which disable melanin production.''

''Without these mutations - there are no white people.

''Before these mutations - there were no white people.''

---

quote:

---

What kind of circular stuff is this Rasol! You mean those depigmentation mutations had a choice....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimu:
LOL. Note that Jablonski speculates that dark skin must have been the first because they came from Sunny Africa. and yet the Sandawe are one of the oldest populations od Sunny Africa in Tanzania and they were not as dark.

---

"Not as dark?" What do you mean by that? Because this Sandawe below looks very melanin-enriched to me.



Also, just because a population is one of the "oldest in the world" does not mean it is completely unchanged or pure, it just means that it hasn't changed as much as others in the last 150,000 years. If the Sandawe are actually as fair-skinned as you claim, then for all we know that could be because, thousands of years ago, they assimilated a back-migration of somewhat de-pigmented southern Bushpeople who moved into their territory.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Another of Chimu's contradictions is that he wants the Sandawe to represent the oldest population - in order to claim that they are light skin indiginenes, but then they are not light skinned, so he claims they are not indigenous but 'mixed.', which causes them to be dark, which defeats the purpose of his claim.

^ This is typical of his perverted petty-ideological use of 'mixture'.

It also explains why mixture is such a failed catagory as and ethnic self reference.

Notice carefully that Chimu, in spite of his -advocasy of mixture- considers mixture an illigitamising agency.

In fact he uses mixture to impune the ancestry of various peoples.

The only people largely exempt 'oddly' are the Europeans.

He exempts the notion of European, which is somehow 'unassailable' by 'mixture'.

When made to confront his hypocrisy on this subject, he runs away.

- Misquoting scientists.
- Misrepresenting their work.
- Miscomprehending studies.
- Backtracking, bait and switch, warping geography, rather than simply admitting to being wrong.

Lacking Meaningful Answers Online. LMAO

This is his legacy on ES.

What he can't do, is answer questions...

Chimu's claim: But all Whites don't have different ancestries that are a part of their cultural history

^ Really, which ones?

Now...If you can't answer this question, your claims, all of them, are shown to be phony, are they not?


^ Chimu waves the white flag, the troll flag....of surrender.
 

---

Posted by Habari (Member # 14738) on :
 
History of Click-Speaking Populations of Africa Inferred from mtDNA and Y Chromosome Genetic Variation.
[My paper] Sarah A Tishkoff, Mary Katherine Gonder, Brenna M Henn, Holly Mortensen, Neil Fernandopulle, Christopher Gignoux, Godfrey Lema, Thomas B Nyambo, Peter A Underhill, Uma Ramakrishnan, Floyd A Reed, Joanna L Mountain
Little is known about the history of click-speaking populations in Africa. Prior genetic studies revealed that the click-speaking Hadza of eastern Africa are as distantly related to click speakers of southern Africa as are most other African populations. The Sandawe, who currently live within 150 km of the Hadza, are the only other population in eastern Africa whose language has been classified as part of the Khoisan language family. Linguists disagree on whether there is any detectable relationship between the Hadza and Sandawe click languages. We characterized both mtDNA and Y chromosome variation of the Sandawe, Hadza, and neighboring Tanzanian populations. New genetic data show that the Sandawe and southern African click speakers share rare mtDNA and Y chromosome haplogroups; however, common ancestry of the two populations dates back >35,000 years. These data also indicate that common ancestry of the Hadza and Sandawe populations dates back >15,000 years. These findings suggest that at the time of the spread of agriculture and pastoralism, the click-speaking populations were already isolated from one another, and are consistent with relatively deep linguistic divergence among the respective click languages.

Hadzabe, Sandawe and Khoisan speaking people carry ancient genes compare to other Africans(more than 52% among the Hadzabe), I don't know why Chimu is making a big case about skin color, Hadza are pretty dark, maybe that's human ancestors look like given the UV index level in East Africa, they must have been pretty dark like the Hadzabe, although we don't really know:





 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't know why Chimu is making a big case about skin color, Hadza are pretty dark, maybe that's human ancestors look like given the UV index level in East Africa, they must have been pretty dark like the Hadzabe, although we don't really know:

---

^ This all began because Chimu's uninformed hero - frank sweets, claimed that the original African populations weren't black.

He claimed that melanoderms [dark skinned people] evolved recently.

In this view - rooted in wishful thinking - light brown skin - would be the original phenotype, non africans would supposedly descend from light brown skin Africans, and then... Africa would -turn black- after the fact of non African outmigration.

This view has very attractive -wanna believe- value, so some white supremacists and mulatto centrists gravitate towards it.

However it is completely debunked by genetics.

Based upon genetics - the common ancestral phenotype of all peoples - is very dark - like the Hadza, some Southern Sudanese, East African Afrisan speakers like Borana and Hamar, and many others.

"Some" North Africans can qualify this - because some of them, such as Algerian Berber have significant European ancestry, and share recent mutations on skin color allelles, with them.

The non Africans who are ultra dark, like the Andamin Islanders - also have the ancestral state/skin color allelles.

Africans - West, East and South, who are less dark, have a derived allelle as well as and ancestral allelle.

Derived means comes from. By definition - ancestral is parent and derived is child. It is a direct and specific relationship.

So there is no question that the darkest skin melanoderm are most ancient, followed by lighter skinned melanoderm, with leucoderms being the most recent product of mutations on ancestral and derived states perhaps 12~ thousand years or so.

Frank Sweets and Jamie/Chimu are simply wrong.

There is no shame in that, but there is shame in the depths they sink to, to lie about it, and the depths of hatred [and self loathing] within them it reveals.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
The funniest thing is that the whites used to agree with this view, believing that recent white mutations reflected an evolutionary development which resulted in whites being a superior "race". However, now that scientists have found that ancient Africans were the first to develop "higher" intelligence in the human species as well as many of the tools and traits that would typify modern human behavior, these whites have tried to make white skin an ancient "aboriginal" trait, in order to claim that white skin is a sign of "special" intelligence and development among humans.
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
Man To hear that there is others like Jamie out there just makes me wonder why they refuse to accept facts. Frank Sweet saying Africans were not Originally Black is just pathetic reaching. But it goes to show you how desperate and Hateful people are of Black to begin with.

Peoples hatred for Blacks will make them believe in the stupidest ideas as long as they argue against Black. Jamie is no Fool, he just detest Black so much that he found a person(Frank Sweet) who speaks against Blacks and he gravitated to him. It's too bad. All you can hope is that they wake up from there brainwashing. Hatred for something will make people believe anything against it no matter how false it is.

Peace
 

---

Posted by Habari (Member # 14738) on :
 
I don't think it is a hatred of Black people but it is the mind of a confused person with a mixed background who is looking for some kind of identity...his problem is that he views himself as a mixed person but realize that the white part was originally Black...so he's identity is destroyed...That's what hurting him that the other part that made him mixed was actually as Black originally as his other half...so he can't live with the fact that he's Black on both sides of his heritage at the end of the day....since white were originally Black...and they became lighter very recently in the human history...same thing with Norther Eastern Asians...he's just confused about he's identity like many people of mixed backgrounds...I remember a poster here: half Korean and White American who hated so much the other White part of himself that he found refuge in this forum and was making derogatory comments about Euro-American girls because they have less fine features and are less attractive compare to Eastern Africans girls like Ethiopians girls he met...well that's what happens sometime....you can hate a part of yourself because you are confused..
 

---

Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
 
Rasol asked:
''So a gene pool can be indigenous and mixed with respect to the same entity? In this case Africa?''

I said this:
''Yes. Since there is a wide amount of diversity on the continent and the evidence shows that phenotypes aren't the same on that continent then yes, as it regards the total entity of Africa.''

...then Rasol rebutted with:
If you define entity X, and claim that X is mixed -

''The you must either define a separate entity Y, or you must divide X into more than one entity, X sub 1, X sub 2, X sub 3.

''Certainly it might be possible to do so - for example Africa is the home of the 3 basicl mtdna lineages L1, L2, and L3.

''But that's *not* what you've done.

''You simply talk in circles about "indigenous
mixture" - which is and oxymoron when applied to a singular entity.''

I'll jump immediatey to that last paragraph, because that's where the bone of contention arises. What, exactly, is oxymoronic about differences in phenotype in Africa even while being indigenous... and singular? It doesn't matter whether the indigenous aspect is today or thousands of years ago, the phenotype in Africa is different though indigenous. That difference can only have arisen by mixing the gene pool and you should know that. On the other hand if you're still clinging to this mythical view that holds this difference radiates outward from ''known'' type environments which have nothing but speculation to prop up the argument, which also indicates to those so inclined to believe that humans somehow miraculously changed into something else, then I don't know what to say to you.

Returning to your ''no such thing'' as an outside entity as it regards your saying there is no mixture indigenously except the outside aspect, then maybe you can explain how it is the differences in phenotype arose on the continent; keeping in mind I'm not talking about white people and Chinese here. You and others say the environment produced the tremendous variation in phenotype, I say phenotype can only come from gametogenesis. And I'm sure most evolutionary biologists and surely geneticists will tell you the same thing... even while accepting the environment explanation, which is a whole other story from my position. With that in mind my attitude is to stick with what we know works; not that the search shouldn't be ongoing of course.

You seem to be afraid whites are going to pop up on the continent in remote times—even though ''all'' humans originated there. Expresed another way at what point will two very dark Sudanese, male and female, reproduce, generationally, and come up with chinese? Right, that is an extreme, or is it? Well according to some views here then it is quite possible for Sudanese to have Chinese offspring with no intermingling of the genes from the Chinese; even while not admitting it. Now this would be Rasol's outside variety of course but this still doesn't solve how two Sudanese procreating generationally and not coming up with anything other than a very strong resemblance to the Sudanese parents.

Simply stated this means that two humans, say from inner Africa, with an empirical look will not reproduce any offspring that will look totally foreign to them. This is where Rasol's mixture doesn't come into play. By now it should be obvious to all reading this what mixing of the gene pool will show. If this explanation falls short to some here then the burden of proof is on those to show how phenotypes came into being.

''I do know what my question is, and regarding this, you seem to be admitting that the 'mixed race' model of anthropology cannot be rendered intelligible.''

Dam brother clean that up for me. Honestly I had trouble comprehending it.

Perchance you mean:
If the anthropological explanation follows suit with the evolutionary environment scenario without a full reasoned argument sans the snake oil then no it cannot be rendered intelligible.

''Science is about doubt and skepticism and cautious proof.

''Only faith can claim to have -no doubt-.

''To ask for proof beyound scientific doubt is to commit a burdan of proof fallacy.''

Then some scientists are beyond the fallacy? You indicate there are none, or at least you seemingly do, yet some scientists are just as dogmatic as the creationists. The latter appeal to nearly blind faith, the former couch their faith in consensus which is by no stretch empiricism in all corners of investigation.

Rasol writes: [b]''Depigmented Europeans and some North East Asians have very recent [12 thousand years at most] and non African, distinct mutations which disable melanin production.''

''Without these mutations - there are no white people.

''Before these mutations - there were no white people.''

I retorted with:
What kind of circular stuff is this Rasol! You mean those depigmentation mutations had a choice....

Why did you see need to eliminate the rest of the sentence? Is it you may not have seen what was intended but instead mangled it to your satisfaction to say this:

''Reading comprehension error. Reread until you comprehend that nowhere is -intent/choice- ascribed to mutations, but rather only cause and effect.''

''Now, if you don't know the difference between cause and effect - and intent, then just say so, and I will explain futher.''

Anything else?''

Sure there is brother, now that you ask.

Why are you separating cause and effect from intent in a biological sense. In case you've forgotten mutations are accidents; evolutionarily speaking, some are negative, some positive, some neutral. A car colliding with another is cause and effect; yet there can be intent on one of the driver's part. So yes, definitely, you have those three intertwined. It depends on how you quantify it. So mutations, benefical or neutral, it still implies intent via the cause and effect route.

C'mon back wid it dawg.

By the way, no need to expect better from me, because given some dogmatic fixation to a couple of areas of contention on how humans came to be then nothimg I will say in the near future will be better.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

What, exactly, is oxymoronic about differences in phenotype in Africa even while being indigenous... and singular?

---

quote:

---

C'mon back wid it dawg.

---

quote:

---

The diversity of Africans, is real and largely indigenous. Admixture probably does not explain the bulk of [African] variation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grumman f6f:
Rasol you're accusing me of rewording comments with no evidence to support it.

---

quote:

---

Witness this entire paragraph Rasol.

---

quote:

---

That difference can only have arisen by mixing the gene pool and you should know that.

---

quote:

---

When you posted the below from Mr. Keita you didn't even look at how he worded it and it's painfully obvious you didn't.

Your quote From Mr. Keita:
The diversity of Africans, is real and largely indigenous. Admixture probably does not explain the bulk of [African] variation.

The difference in his wording and mine.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
ANSWERS:

quote:

---

The diversity of Africans, is real and largely indigenous. Admixture probably does not explain the bulk of [African] variation.

---

- SOY Keita

---

quote:

---

Will you say Keita made a mistake?

---

^ That's funny. No, Dr. Keita did not make a mistake. You did. You still are. You misuse words and concepts you don't understand.

You were provided the answer - from Dr. Keita.

I don't let you waste my time while arguing in circles, in order to evade and education.

You may have the last words, or pointless paragraphs in your case, pertaining 'whatever it is you think you are trying to say'.

I will give you this, because it amounts to giving you nothing, and is better than letting you hijack the thread into a nowhere land of rheotrical oblivion, by responsing needlessly to you.

You're welcome, in advance...
 

---

Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
 
From Rasol:
''As I said in the prior post, I will *wait* for you to repeat your fallacy, I will not allow you to play bait and switch, by removing the error and asking me 'what's wrong with it'. Clearly you detected your own error, else why remove it?''

Reposting ''my error'' shouldn't be a difficult task for you. Repost everything I said, from the particular you are wrestling with. Repost it Rasol! Show this entire board where I removed or inserted something that changed meaning. Repost it Rasol. You've posted twice since you took specific but erroneous issue and I reposted what I said verbatim. You are still ignoring what I said and claiming dishonesty from me. Now, I will ask you again, repost what it is I removed. Now don't tell me how can you prove something I removed because there is no removal by me, only dishonesty from yourself. I stand behind everything I posted, you took issue with some aspects of it, fine. But don't claim dishonesty from me. Twit.

But let me tell you this, the anger emoticon you placed in your response, yes you should be mad at yourself for getting caught lying— and boldly too. If there is anything for you to salvage from your now useless participation then at least admit your dishonesty.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Reposting ''my error'' shouldn't be a difficult task for you. Repost everything I said

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

As Black and White are adopted ethnic terms for many groups, Mixed would just indicate ancestry from two groups such as those.

---

This remark does not answer any question.

All Black and White groups have ancestry.

So what distinguishes 'mixed' from 'pure'.

Please provide a list of pure white and pure black groups....

Please provide a list of mixed groups...

Explain what makes a pure group pure and a mixed group mixed.

Or...write a another reply that doesn't answer the question, which is what we expect from a conniving coward like you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Reposting ''my error'' shouldn't be a difficult task for you. Repost everything I said

---

^ It's a very diffucult task in fact because, you bore me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

As Black and White are adopted ethnic terms for many groups, Mixed would just indicate ancestry from two groups such as those.

---

This remark does not answer any question.

All Black and White groups have ancestry.

So what distinguishes 'mixed' from 'pure'.

Please provide a list of pure white and pure black groups....

Please provide a list of mixed groups...

Explain what makes a pure group pure and a mixed group mixed.

Or...write a another reply that doesn't answer the question, which is what we expect from a conniving coward like you.

---

In a few months Jamie/Chimu coward will return to this forum, repeating the same garbage and still having no answers.

---

Yeh, I’ve seen the Salassin, Jamie troll advancing the same KhoiSan-aint-black position before on Youtube. Poor fella.

But I noticed you referenced Lt. Prince, correct me if I’m wrong but I remember watching a Ashra Kwesi DVD were he quoted this guy saying “pygmies” were Caucasian. Is it the same person or did I hear wrong?
 

---

Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KING:
[QB] One thing I will say about the past weeks. I slowly see how real informative these posts can be. I know the veterans don't like to repeat themeslves but I cannot help but be greatful that they take the time to school others on these *important* subjects. I am learning more and more everyday.

I agree. I've been here only couple days and it's helped to teach and clarify a lot.
 

---

Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 
bump
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 

 

---