Theory: somewhere in the Middle East/South West Asia straight straight hair became predominant in most humans. For instance closer to Africa en route to Australia includes countries such as Iraq, Iran and Pakistan.
People there have mainly straight hair. This may have been an adaptation to colder tempratures (esp nightime)
This is before people even got to India. Many Arabs already have dark skin (Arabia had a lot of intermingling between people coming frorm North and South, including Africans)
The adaptation of skin and hair are too separate things and each may change at different rates of time.
if you have people like Iraqis/Iranians with straight hair and medium light skin and they were to go South, for example settle in Southern India, they could have straight hair but their skin would darken. It is theorized that afro kinky hair is an adpatation to humidity. South India is not as humid as a tropical rain forest. So this is how you can have straight hair and dark skin. People start out in a tropical hot humid environment, they leave and are transformed by the realtively colder/drier climate like Iraq or Iran but later go agian into a higher UV environment like South India (same latitude as Sudan) They retain the straight hair from before but acquire dark skin. The same would be true of Austrailians. As people pass through different climates they can retain some traits before reaching a final destination.
.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
straight hair is predominant in regions much closer to Africa
Straight hair is predominant in regions very distant from Africa as well. Artic peoples have straight hair for example.
Theory: somewhere in the Middle East/South West Asia straight straight hair became predominant in most humans
^^Do you have any credible scholarship to back up this "theory" of yours?
People there have mainly straight hair. This may have been an adaptation to colder tempratures (esp nightime)
^^Sources in support? And if straight hair depends on colder temperatures, then the cold nighttime temperatures of African deserts would fit the bill based on your own argument, as well as the cooler high altitude zones as in many places of East Africa.
It is theorized that afro kinky hair is an adpatation to humidity.
There is also a flaw in your theory. If humidity is responsible for kinky hair, why do peoples in hot, humid tropical jungle environments as in parts of Asia and South America have straight hair? Parts of Ecuador, Columbia and Brazil, and in Asia- Indonesia, sit on the equator for example, in the tropical zone, yet many of the native peoples of these regions have straight hair. How do you explain this? Provide credible scholarly sources with your response.
People start out in a tropical hot humid environment, they leave and are transformed by the realtively colder/drier climate like Iraq or Iran but later go agian into a higher UV environment like South India (same latitude as Sudan) They retain the straight hair from before but acquire dark skin. The same would be true of Austrailians. As people pass through different climates they can retain some traits before reaching a final destination.
According to your theory, everyone started out with kinky hair in Africa, left Africa and "switched" to straight hair, and never go back kinky evermore. But if so, why do populations in Papua New Guinea and other parts of the pacific and even India have kinky hair, in proximity with straight hair populations? Papuans and Indonesians are a few hundred miles apart depending on the territory analyzed but a highly variable hair mix exists. Why? According to your theory, when they left Africa and "switched" to straight hair, they should not have "gone back" to kinky. And why would they lose dark skin, yet retain straight hair? What gene or envuironmental variable is responsible for this strange mismatch? Please elucidate with credible sources to explain this mystic theory, not just your "feelings" about it...
Across the web assorted "biodiversity" proponents, wage a 'racial war' using hair studies of ancient Egyptians to prove a "Caucasian Egypt". But in fact the hair of Africans is highly variable, debunking their simplistic claims.
The hair of Africans is highly variable, ranging from tight curls of South African Bantu, to the loose curls and straight hair of peoples of East and NE Africa, all indigenously evolved over millennia as part of Africa’s high genetic diversity. This diversity undermines and ultimately dismisses simplistic "racial" claims based on hair.
Inconsistencies of the skewed "true negro" model and definitions of African hair
Dubious assertions, double standards and outmoded racial hair claims: Czech anthropologist Strouhal's 1971 study touched on hair, and advanced the most extreme racial definitions, claiming Nubians to be white Europids overrun by later waves of Negroes, and that few Negroes appeared in Egypt until the New Kingdom. Indeed, Strouhal went so far as to argue that 'Negroes' failed to survive long in Egypt, because they were ill-adapted to its arid climate! Tell that to the Saharans, Sudanese and Nubians! Such dubious claims have been thoroughly debunked by modern scholarship, however they continue in various guises by those who attempt to use "hair" to assign race 'percents' and categories to the ancients. Attempts to define racial categories based on the ancient hair rely heavily on extreme definitions, with "Negroids" typically being defined as narrowly as possible. Everything not meeting the extreme "type" is then classified as something else, such as "Caucasian".
Kieta (1990, Studies of Crania from Northern Africa) notes that while many scholars in the field have used an extreme "true negro" definition for African peoples, few have attempted to apply the same model in reverse and define a "true white." Such racial double standards are typical of much scholarship on the ancient Nile Valley peoples. A consistent approach for example would define the straight hair in Strouhal's hair sample as an exclusive Caucasian marker (10 out of 49 or approximately 20%) and make the rest (wavy and curled) hybrid or negro, at >80%. Assorted writers who support the Aryan race percent model however, are careful to avoid such consistency and typically only run the comparison one way.
QUOTE: "Strouhal (1971) microscopically examined some hair which had been preserved on a Badarian skull. The analysis was interpreted as suggesting a stereotypical tropical African-European hybrid (mulatto). However this hair is grossly no different from that of Fulani, some Kanuri, or Somali and does not require a gene flow explanation any more than curly hair in Greece necessarily does. Extremely "wooly" hair is not the only kind native to tropical Africa.." (S. O. Y. Keita. (1993). "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54)
Disturbing attempts to use hair to prove race theories: Fletcher (2002) in Egyptian Hair and Wigs, gives an example of what she calls "disturbing attempts to use hair to prove assumptions of race and gender" involving 1800s European researcher F. Petrie, who sometimes sought to use excavation reports to prove his theories of Aegean settlers flowing into Egypt. Such disturbing attempts continue today in the use of hair for race category or percentage claims involving the ancient peoples, such as the "racial" analysis seen on several Internet blogs and websites, some thinly disguised fronts for neo-nazi groups or sympathizers.
Hair study applied a stereotyped "true negro" model and used late period samples of Egypt, after the coming of Greeks, Hyskos, etc as "representative" excluding the previous 2500 years of ancient civilization. A study of the hair of Egyptian mummies by Czech anthropologists Titlbachova and Titllbach (1977) (reported in Strouhal 1977) using only late period samples found a wide range of hair in mummies. Of the 14 samples, only 4 were from the south of Egypt, and none of the 14 samples were earlier than the 18th Dynasty. Essentially the previous 2,000 years + of Egyptain civilization and peopling are not represented. Only the narrowest definition is used to identify 'true negro' types'. All other intermediate types were deemed 'non-negroid.' If a similar procedure is used in reverse and designates only straight hair as a marker of a European, then only 4 out of 14 or 29% of the samples can be deemed "Caucasoid." Below is a breakdown of the Czech data:
Sample# 5- 18th-21st dynasties- Deir el medina- curly Sample# 8- 21st-25th dynasties- hair looks straight Sample# 11- Late to Greek Period- hair partly wavy Sample# 18- Late period Egypt- hair fine diameter Sample# 19- Greek period- wavy hair Sample# 29- 18-21st Dynasties- Deir El Medina- hair shape unascertainable - south Sample# 31- 18-21st dynasties- Deir El Median- wavy to curly - south Sample# 33- 21st-25th dynasties- appears straight Sample# 34- 21st-25th dynasties- shape difficult to determine Sample# 35- 21st-25th dynasties- wavy shape Sample# 40- 21-25th Dynasties- hair curly, Sample# 44- 21-25th Dynasties- appears straight Sample# 45- 21-25th Dynasties- appears wavy Sample# 46- Kharga Oasis- 4th-5th centuries AD
Using modern technology, the same Aryan Race models are undercut with the data actually showing that Egyptians group closer to Africans than vaunted white Nordics.
[1]"Nordic hair measurements"[/i]
Neo-Nazis and sympathizers tout the work of German researcher Pruner-Bey in the 1800s which derived racial indexes of hair including Negroes, Egyptians and Germans. Germanic hair is closer to that of the Egyptians they assert. But is it as they claim?
(Data of Bruner-Bey 1864- 'On human hair as a race character') - Negroid index: 57.40 - Egyptian index: 69.94 - White Germans: 66.33 Neo-Nazi conclusion: White German Nordics are 'closer' to Egyptians
Modern data using electron microscopes- Conti-Fuhrman & Massa (1972). Massa and Masali (1980)
Compare to Pruner Bey's 1864 data: - Negroid index: 57.40 - Egyptian index: 60.02 (modern electron microscope data) White Germans: 66.33 ______________________________________________________________________________ Conclusion using modern microscope data: Negroes much ‘closer’ to Egyptians than Nordics _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Using hair for race identification as older research does can be shaky, but even when used, it undercuts ‘Aryan” clams as shown above.
Fletcher 2002 decries “"disturbing attempts to use hair to prove assumptions of race and gender..” Other credible scientists note:
"The reader must assume, as apparently do the authors, that the "coarseness" or "fineness" of hair can readily distinguish races and that hair is dichotomized into these categories. Problematically, however, virtually all who have studied hair morphology in relation to race since the 1920’s to the present have rejected such a characterization .. Hausman, as early as 1925, stated that it is "not possible to identify individuals from samples of their hair, basing identification upon histological similarities in the structure of scales and medullas, since these may differ in hairs from the same head or in different parts of the same hair". Rook (1975) pointed out nearly 50 years later out that "Negroid and Caucasoid hair" are "chemically indistinguishable". --Tom Mieczkowsk, T. (2000). The Further Mismeasure: The Curious Use of Racial Categorizations in the Interpretation of Hair Analyses. Intl J Drug Testing 2000;vol 2
Environmental factors can influence hair color, and the Egyptians routinely placed hair from different sources in mummy wrappings, making claims of "Nordic-haired" or "white" Egyptians dubious.
Mummification practices and dyeing of hair. Hair studies of mummies note that color is often influenced by environmental factors at burial sites. Brothwell and Spearman (1963) point out that reddish-brown ancient color hair is usually the result of partial oxidation of the melanin pigment. Other causes of hair color "blonding" involve bleaching, caused by the alkaline in the mummification process. Color also varies due to the Egyptian practice of dyeing hair with henna. Other samples show individuals lightening the hair using vegetable colorants. Thus variations in hair color among mummies do not necessarily suggest the presence of blond or red-haired Europeans or Near Easterners flitting about Egypt before being mummified, but the influence of environmental factors.
Egyptian practice of putting locks of hair in mummy wrappings. Racial analysis is also made problematic by the Egyptian practice of burying hair, in many "votive or funerary deposits buried separately from the body, a practice found from Predynastic to Roman times despite its frequent omission from excavation reports." (Fletcher 2002) In examining hair samples Fletcher (2004) notes that care is needed to determine what is natural scalp hair, versus hair from a wig, versus hair extensions to natural locks. Tracking the exact source of hair is also critical since the Egyptians were known to have placed locks of hair from different sources among mummy wrappings. (The Search for Nefertiti, By Joann Fletcher, HarperCollins, 2004, p. 93-94, 96)
Egyptians shaved much of their natural hair off and used wigs extensively as covering, obtaining much of the hair for wigs through trade. Discoveries" of "Aryan" or 'Nordic" hair are thus hardly 'proof' of incoming Caucasoids, but may be simply hair purchased from some source and made into a wig. This is much less dramatic than the exciting picture of inflowing 'Aryan' hordes.
The ancient Egyptians shaved off much of their own natural hair as a matter of personal hygiene and custom, and wore wigs in public. According to the Encyclopedia of body adornment (Margo DeMello, 2007, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 101), "Boys and girls until puberty wore their hair shaved except for a side locl left on the side of their head. Many adults- both men and women- also shaved their hair as a way of coping with heat and lice. However, adults did not go about bald, and instead wore wigs in public and in private.. Wigs were initially worn by the elites, but later worn by women of all classes.."
The widespread use of wigs in ancient Egypt thus complicates and contradicts attempts at 'racial' analysis. Fletcher (2002) shows that many Egyptian wigs have been found with what is defined as straighter 'cynotrichous' hair. This however is hardly a marker of massive European or Near Eastern presence or admixture. Fletcher notes that the Egyptians often eschewed their own personal hair, shaving carefully and using wigs widely. The hair for these wigs was often obtained through trade. Indeed, "hair itself being a valuable commodity ranked alongside gold and incense in account lists from the town of Kahun." Image gallery | Articles | Google
Egyptian trading links with other regions is well known, and a commodity like straighter 'cynotrichous' hair could have been easily obtained via the Sahara, Levant, the Maghreb, Mediterranean contacts, or even the hair of Asiatic war captives or casualties from Egypt's numerous conflicts. There is little need to postulate mass influxes of European admixtures or populations to account for hair types in wigs. The limb proportion studies of the ancient Egyptians showing them to be much more related to tropical types than to Europids, is further demonstration of the fallacy of using hair as 'proof' of a 'Aryan' or predominantly European admixed Egypt.
Nubian wigs and wigs in Egypt
Such exchanges or use of hair appear elsewhere in the Nile valley. Tomb finds show Nubians themselves wearing wigs of straight hair. But one Nubian from the Royal valley, of the 12th century, named Maherpra, was found to be wearing a wig himself, made up of tightly curled 'negroid' hair, on top of his natural covering (Fletcher 2002). The so-called "Nubian wig" also appears in Egyptian art relief's depicting daily life, a stylistic arrangement thought to imitate those found in southern Egypt or Nubia. Such wigs appear to have been popular with both Egyptians and Nubians. Fletcher 2004 notes that the famous queen Nefertiti made frequent use of the Nubian wig: "Nefertiti and her daughter seem to have set a trend for wearing the Nubian wig.. a coiffure first worn by Nubian mercenaries and clearly associated with the military." A detail of a wall scene in Theban tomb TT.55 shows the queen wearing the Nubian wig. Infantrymen from the Nubia. Note both bow and battle-axe carried into combat.
Nubian infantrymen shown with distinctive Nubian wig. From Deir el-Bahri, Temple of Hatshepsut New Kingdom, Eighteenth Dynasty, 1480 B.C.
Hair studies of Nubians show built-in African genetic variability
Hair studies of Nubians have also been undertaken. One study at Semna, in Nubia (Daniel Hrdy 1978- Analysis of Hair Samples of Mummies from Semna South, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, (1978) 49: 277-262), found curling patterns intermediate between Northwest European and African samples. The X-group, especially males, showed more African elements than the Meroitic in the curling variables. Crimping and curvature data patterned in a northwest Europe direction. These data plots however do not necessarily indicate race admixture or percentages, or the presence of European migrants or colonists (see Keita 2005 below), but rather a data pattern of variation in how hair curls, and native African diversity which cases substantial overlap with non-African groups. This is a routine occurrence within human groups.
Africa has the highest phenotypic variation, just as it has the highest geentic variation- accommodating a wide range of features for its peoples without the need for any "race mix: Relethford (2001) shows that ".. methods for estimating regional diversity show sub-Saharan Africa to have the highest levels of phenotypic variation, consistent with many genetic studies." (Relethford, John "Global Analysis of Regional Differences in Craniometric Diversity and Population Substructure". Human Biology - Volume 73, Number 5, October 2001, pp. 629-636) Hanihara 2003 notes that [significant] "..intraregional diversity are present in Subsaharan Africans.." While ancient Egypt had gene flow in various eras, hair variations easily fall under this pattern of built-in, indigenous diversity, as well as the above noted cultural practice of using wigs with hair from different places obtained through trade.
Among Europeans for example, some people have curlier hair and some have straighter hair than others. Various peoples of East and West Africa also have narrow noses, which are different from other peoples elsewhere in Africa, nevertheless they still remain Africans. DNA studies also note greater variation within selected populations that without. Since Africa has the highest genetic diversity in the world, such routine variation in characteristics such as hair need not indicate any racial percentage or admixture, but simply part of the built-in genetic diversity of the ancient peoples on the continent. Indeed, the Semna study author notes that blondism, especially in young children, is common in many dark-haired populations (e.g., Australian, Melanesian), and is still found in some Nubian villages. As regards hair color variation, reddish type hair is associated with the presence of pheomelanin, which can also be found in persons with dark brown or even black hair as well. See "Rameses" below. Albinism is another source of red hair.
Dubious attempts at 'racial analysis' using Nubian hair and crania. Assorted supporters of the stereotypical Aryan 'race' model attempt to use hair to argue for a predominantly 'white' Nubia. But as noted above, such attempts are dubious given built-in African genetic diversity. Often 'racial' hair claims attempt to link on with cranial studies purporting to match ancient Nubians with Swedes, Frenchmen, etc. But such claims are also dubious. In a detailed analysis of the Fordisc computer program used to put forward such claims, Williams, Armelagos, et al. (2005) found that the program created ludicrous "matches" between the ancient Nubian crania and peoples from Hungary, Japan, Easter Island and a host of others in far-flung regions! Their conclusion was that the diversity of human populations in the databank explained such wide ranging matches. Such objective mainstream analyses debunk obsolete and improbable claims of 'racial' migrations of alleged Frenchman, Hungarians, or other whites into ancient Nubia, or equally improbable racial 'percentages' supposedly quantifying such claims. (Frank l'engle Williams, Robert L. Belcher, and George J . Armelagos, "Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions about Human Variation," Current Anthropology, volume 46 (2005), pages 340-346)
Alleged massive influx of Europeans and Middle Easterners to give the ancient peoples hair variation did not happen. Such variation was already in place as part of Africa' built in genetic and phenotypic diversity. As regards diameter, the average diameter of the Semna sample was close to both the Northwest European and East African samples. This again suggests a range of built-in African indigenous variability, and calls into questions various migration theories to the Nile Valley. One study for example (Keita 2005) tested the model of C. Loring Brace (1993) as to the notion of incoming European migrants replacing indigenous peoples of the Nile Valley. Brace's work had also suggested a relationship between northwest Europeans such as Scandanavians and African peoples of the Horn. Data analysis failed to support this model, instead clustering samples much closer to African series than to Europeans. Keita concluded that similarities between African data in his survey (skulls, etc) and non-Africans was not due to gene flow, but a subset of built-in African variability.
Ancient Egyptians cluster much closer to other Egyptians and Nubians. A later study by Brace, (Brace 2005- The questionable contribution..) groups ancient Egyptian populations like the Naqada closer to Nubians and Somalis than European, Mediterranean or Middle Eastern populations, and places various Nubians samples closer to Tanzanian, Dahomeian, and Congoid data points than to Europeans and Middle easterners. The limb proportion studies of Zakrzewski (2003) (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (3): 219-229.) showing the tropical body plan of the ancient Egyptians also undercuts theories of inflowing European or near Eastern colonists, or the 'native Europid' model of Strouhal (1971).
The yellowish-red-hair of Rameses: proof of a Nordic Egypt?
Red hair itself is within the range of African diversity or that of dark-skinned peoples. Native black Australoids for example routinely produce blonde hair:
Detailed microscopic analysis during the 1980s (Balout 1985) identified some of the hair of Egyptian Pharoah Rameses II as being a yellowish-red. Such a finding should not be surprising given the wide range of physical variability in Africa, the most genetically diverse region on earth, out of which flowed other population groups. Indeed, blondism and various other hair shades are not unknown in East Africa or Nubia, particularly in children, nor are such hair color variants uncommon in dark-haired or dark skinned populations like the Australians. (Hrdy 1978) Given the range of genetic variability in Africa, a red-haired Rameses is hardly unusual. Rameses' reign, in the 19th Dynasty, came over 1,500 years after the Egyptian state had been established, and after the Hyskos interlude. Such latecomers to Egypt, like the Hyskos, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs etc would add their own genetic strands to the nation’s mix. Whatever the blend of genes that occurred with Rameses, his hair offers little supposed "proof" of a "white" or "Nordic" Egypt. If anything, X-rays of the royal mummies from earlier Dynasties by mainstream scientists show that the Egyptians pharaohs and other royals had varied 'Negroid' leanings. See X-Rays of the Royal mummies here, or here.
Pheomelanin and Rameses- found in light and dark-haired populations: The finding of Rameses “red” hair also deserves further scrutiny. The analysis found evidence of dyeing to make the hair yellowish-red, but some elements were untouched by the dye. These elements of yellowish-red hair in Balout’s study, were established on the basis of the presence of pheomelanin, a red-brown polymeric pigment in the skin and hair of humans. However, pheomelanin can also be found in persons with dark brown or even black hair as well, which gives it a reddish hue. Most natural melanins contain sulfur, which is typically associated with pheomelanin. In scientific tests of melanin, black hair contained as much as 5% sulfur, 3% lower than the 8.8% found in Irish red hair, but exceeding the 2.3% found in Scandinavian blond hair. (Jolles, et al. 1996) Thus the yellowish-red hair discovered on Rameses is well within the range of human variation for dark haired people, whatever the exact gene combination that led to the condition.
Rameses hair was not a typical European red, but yellowish-red, within African variation. It was also not ultra straight, further undermining claims of "Nordic" influence. Somalians and Ethiopians are SUB-SAHARANS and they routinely produce straight-haired people without the need for any "race mix" to explain why. The analysis on Rameses also did not show classic "European" red hair but hair of a light red to yellowish tinge. Black haired or dark-skinned populations are quite capable of producing such yellowish-red color variants on their own, as can be seen in today's east and northeast Africa (see child's photo above). Nor is such color variation unusual to Africa. Native dark-skinned populations in Australia, routinely produce people with blond or reddish hair. As noted above, ultra diverse Africa is the original source of such variation.
The analysis also found the hair to be cymotrich or wavy, again a characteristic quite within the range of overall African or Nile valley physical and genetic diversity. A "pure" Nordic type of straight hair was thus not established for Rameses. Hence the notion of white Europeans or red-headed Caucasoids from other areas flowing into ancient Egypt to add hair variation, particularly the early centuries of the dynastic state is unlikely. Such flows may have occurred most heavily in the Greek and Roman era but say nothing about the thousands of years preceding. The presence of pheomelanin conditions or other genetic combinations also explains how the different hair used in Egyptian wigs could vary in color, aside from environmental oxidation, bleaching and dyeing.
Red hair is rare worldwide, and history shows little evidence of Northern Europeans or "Nordics" sweeping into Egypt to give the natives a bit of hair coloring or variation. Most red hair is found in northern and western Europe, especially in the British Isles, and even then it appears in minor frequencies in Europe- some 4% of the population. It is unlikely such populations had any major contact or influence in the ancient Nile Valley. As noted above, red hair is comparatively rare in the world’s populations and pheomelanin conditions are found in dark-haired populations, and thus is well within the range of variation from the Sahara, East Africa and the Nile valley. “White Aryan” theories of Egypt are seen in the works of HFK Gunther (1927), Archibald Sayce (1925) and Raymond Dart (1939), and still find traction on a number of 'Aryan', neo-nazi and "race" websites and blogs which purport to show a "white Nordic Egypt" using Rameses' "red" hair as an example. Today's scientific research however, has debunked these dubious views, showing that red hair, while not common world wide, is a well known variant within human populations, even those with dark hair.
Straight or curly hair is also routine among sub-Saharans like Somalians, who are firmly part of the East African populations. As regards Somalians for example, Somali DNA overwhelmingly links much more heavily with other Africans including Kenyans & Ethiopians (85%), than with Europeans & Middle Easterners. (15%) On Y-chromosome markers (E3b1), Somalis (77%) and other African populations dwarf small European (5.1%) or Middle Eastern (6.3%) frequencies. “The data suggest that the male Somali population is a branch of the East African population..” (Sanchez et al., High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages.. in Somali males (2005)
As one mainstream researcher notes about the dubious value of "racial" hair analysis:
"The reader must assume, as apparently do the authors, that the "coarseness" or "fineness" of hair can readily distinguish races and that hair is dichotomized into these categories. Problematically, however, virtually all who have studied hair morphology in relation to race since the 1920’s to the present have rejected such a characterization .. Hausman, as early as 1925, stated that it is "not possible to identify individuals from samples of their hair, basing identification upon histological similarities in the structure of scales and medullas, since these may differ in hairs from the same head or in different parts of the same hair". Rook (1975) pointed out nearly 50 years later out that "Negroid and Caucasoid hair" are "chemically indistinguishable". --Tom Mieczkowsk, T. (2000). The Further Mismeasure: The Curious Use of Racial Categorizations in the Interpretation of Hair Analyses. Intl J Drug Testing 2000;vol 2
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^don't bother with this irrelevant to the topic spam
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
^^Whatsa matta? Getting cold feet? Can't defend your BS "theory"? I don't know what makes you so dumb but it really works.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: ^^Whatsa matta? Getting cold feet? Can't defend your BS "theory"? I don't know what makes you so dumb but it really works.
I don't read your stuff, when I see that much spam, I just skip it
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
^Now I am second guessing myself. Are you a man or woman?
BTW : the question should be, Why do Andaman Islanders, Papua New Guineans etc have kinky hair? LOL!!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
As I said- Once you graduate from kindergarten ie crayons, coloring book and pictures etc – you will discover a whole new world out there. LOL!!
You will learn about genes, geography, archeology, anthropology, scientific journals etc.
Keep at it!!! LOL! AND drop C-Ass as a study partner. He is stifling your growth. He! He! He!
He(C-ass) is like a broken record. . .blah! blah! blah! Caucasoid! blah! blah! blah! Caucasoid! blah! blah! blah! Caucasoid! blah! blah! blah! Negroid!
Most posters are now ignoring him.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: BTW : the question should be, Why do Andaman Islanders, Papua New Guineans etc have kinky hair? LOL!!
They are the small exception to a very large pattern of straight haired people in Eurasia. Why is there such a pattern? Answer this first. After that deal with exceptions, exceptions which do not disprove the larger rule. For example some Eskimos have somehwat dark skin. Why is this what happened to lower sunlight exposure and depigmenation? Answer, satisfactorily explained exception: they eat a lot of fish. Similarly I asked AGÜEYBANÁ why don't many American Indians of the North who live inland and don't eat a lot of fish have dark skin?
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): Migrating from Asia, they reached the Americas before the gene for lightskin amongst northeast Asians became widespread, therefore the allele is not present amongst these people you question at high frequencies as that of those who stayed in Asia.
Source...
Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians-- Heather L. Norton*,1, Rick A. Kittles
A similar explanation could be made about Andaman Islanders, Papua New Guineans. They reached these areas before the allele for straight hair. They were probably a group of people that stayed strictly along the coast whereas other people settled at times slightly more Northward their hair straightening then migrated again later South (Austrailians) who look somewhat different from Andaman Islanders and Papua New Guineans. We are not dealing with historical timeframes, prehistorical is many times longer.
The simple fact that demolishes all of this is that you do not find tribes of people with long straight laying hair like Asians have in Africa. The best that can be done is produce ancedotal examples of individual people who live in Africa of which the ancestry of these individuals unknown. The fact that Eurasians have 99% straight hair and Africans have 99% afro kinky hair cannot be explained by saying that diverse mutations are all completely random and hair type has nothing to do with climate.
No one knows the exact migrations routes that people took to far off places like Australia. There are many settling points in between Africa and Australia and there is no reason to believe that people migrating out of Africa made a continous very long journey until the got there, to a place they didn't even know existed until they got there.
I don't know why people like Papua New Guineans are being brought up, we don't even have to get into debates about the migration routes. The fact that Papua New Guineans have afro kinky hair only further attests to evidence that it is an adpatation to humid tropical environments. If you found such people living up North that might be a problem.
another feather in the cap of the lioness
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Lyinass f*ckup #6,001:
quote:the lyinass posted elsewhere this factual statement: the chart doesn't only describe wavy hair it also distinguishes wavy hair from straight hair.
And yet Australian aborigines have wavy to curly hair NOT straight.
Let lyinass worms wriggle!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Lyinass f*ckup 6,002: straight haired are indigenous to areas geographically closer to Africa than people in India let alone Australian Aborigines.
Europeans:
Keep wriggling. Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
We covered the Eskimo thing already. Unlike what KIK and some others post, the Eskimos are dark not because of fish. I posted many times. The food did NOT make Europeans depigmented.
The Eskimos and similar groups are NEW migrants to the region. They are from the south hence DARK. See study posted on ESR. I believe it was the Holliday et al study comparing Europeans and Eskimo groups limb proportion. They(Eskimos) haven't been in the region long enough to be depigmented. Don't know why some here keep parroting that Jablonski nonsense. "the food made them white".
Mekova, Kittles et al have the collar on this one.
BUT!!! I applaud your effort posting stuff other than pictures. Now read some more and soon you will be worthy to stimulate my interest.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: BTW : the question should be, Why do Andaman Islanders, Papua New Guineans etc have kinky hair? LOL!!
After that deal with exceptions, exceptions which do not disprove the larger rule. For example some Eskimos have somehwat dark skin. Why is this what happened to lower sunlight exposure and depigmenation? Answer, satisfactorily explained exception: they eat a lot of fish.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
But back on topic.. . . hair
You are looking at this all wrong like so many. The key is as I have said many times is. ..
1. WHEN and 2. WHERE.
Looking at percentages don't mean DICK. Frequency is simply a function of who has more babies.
WHERE - is kinky hair found.(indegenous populations). ie Environment
WHEN - did these populations get there ie how old is the population.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Again unlike many of my brothas here I do not believe kinky hair was the original hair of first Modern Man. The evidence point to the first Africans having maybe curly straigtish hair.
WHY!!!!??? - Kinky hair seems to be a forest phenotype(not tropical). Did AMH evolve in the forest? No! Therefore there is no need for AMH to develop kinky hair.
I posted what AMH probably looked like when he left Africa.. . . based on the environment of the region.
Noticed I said "based upon the environment". I am using hard science to come up with an image of AMH. This is what others should do.
The problems is when we hear "Africans" many imagine the stereotypical "negroids".
Eg look at the Bantus vs Baka study. Both groups are 90,000yrs apart and genetically very different. But without the aid of genetics many of the old school scholars thought the Bantus were an off-shoot of the Baka(pygmy) groups. That is where dunce like C-Ass is missing the boat. Bantus and Pygmy is an example, AGAIN, of convergent evolution.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] We covered the Eskimo thing already. Unlike what KIK and some others post, the Eskimos are dark not because of fish. I posted many times. The food did NOT make Europeans depigmented. The Eskimos and similar groups are NEW migrants to the region. They are from the south hence DARK.
Scientists with relevant disciplines agree that native people came to Alaska from North Asia and Siberia at the close of the last Ice Age.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
See study posted on ESR. I believe it was the Holliday et al study comparing Europeans and Eskimo groups limb proportion. They(Eskimos) haven't been in the region long enough to be depigmented.
non sequiter, limb proportions and skin depigmenation are adaptations to different conditions
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Don't know why some here keep parroting that Jablonski nonsense. "the food made them white".
there is reasonable speculation that skin depigmentation is a result from inland settlement in low UV areas due to vitamin D deprivation, possibly also due to more grain based agricultural diets. If you disagee what is your explantion for lighter skin in these areas?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] Again unlike many of my brothas here I do not believe kinky hair was the original hair of first Modern Man. The evidence point to the first Africans having maybe curly straigtish hair.
WHY!!!!??? - Kinky hair seems to be a forest phenotype(not tropical). Did AMH evolve in the forest? No!
in what type of environemnt, in your opinion did AMH develop?
.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
As I said you haven't read enough for me to get into a discussion on the subject of depigmentation. As usual you are either mis-reading or deliberately mis-representing what I posted.
There are two schools of thought on how humans became depigmented. I will leave at that for now.
But on the AMH question. The question to ask is...did AMH evolve in the forest?
As usual many don't ask the RIGHT question.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: As I said you haven't read enough for me to get into a discussion on the subject of depigmentation. As usual you are either mis-reading or deliberately mis-representing what I posted.
There are two schools of thought on how humans became depigmented. I will leave at that for now.
But on the AMH question. The question to ask is...did AMH evolve in the forest?
As usual many don't ask the RIGHT question.
you already said you believe that AMH did not evolve from the forest. So in what type of environment, in your opinion, did AMH develop?"
or are you playing games?
(I will leave at that for now)
Posted by asante (Member # 18532) on :
the lioness thinks that aboriginals are not black just because of there hair lol what a joke
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by asante: the lioness thinks that aboriginals are not black just because of there hair lol what a joke
If you mean by black "dark skinned" yes the aboriginals were dark skinned. But if the data is correct showing some Nubians with long straight hair it could be possible that they were not exclusively abroginal to Africa in their ancestry. I say this because tribes of people in North Africa today do not have long straight hair. You may find some anecdotal examples of individuals but not a whole tribe of dark skinned people with long straight hair. Individuals you do find often have bushy or wavy hair not the type you find in many Indians. How could there be tribes of North African indigenous people with afro-kinky hair and in the same climate tribes of North African indigenous people with long straight hair? That would suggest that hair type has no correlation to climate. It doesn't seem believable becasue the world is not evenly sprinkled with people who have afro-kinky hair and straight hair. Afro kinky hair is much much less in Eurasia. Khosians don't have straight hair or near narrow noses.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: .
why do Australian Aborigenes have straight hair?
for the same reason Arabs, Iranians, Iraqis, Pakistanis and Indians have straight hair.
example:
all of these regions are along the route between Africa and Australia and are much closer to Africa.
No need to bother pondering Australia, straight hair is predominant in regions much closer to Africa some with very dark skin.
Theory: somewhere in the Middle East/South West Asia straight straight hair became predominant in most humans. For instance closer to Africa en route to Australia includes countries such as Iraq, Iran and Pakistan.
People there have mainly straight hair. This may have been an adaptation to colder tempratures (esp nightime)
This is before people even got to India. Many Arabs already have dark skin (Arabia had a lot of intermingling between people coming frorm North and South, including Africans)
The adaptation of skin and hair are too separate things and each may change at different rates of time.
if you have people like Iraqis/Iranians with straight hair and medium light skin and they were to go South, for example settle in Southern India, they could have straight hair but their skin would darken. It is theorized that afro kinky hair is an adpatation to humidity. South India is not as humid as a tropical rain forest. So this is how you can have straight hair and dark skin. People start out in a tropical hot humid environment, they leave and are transformed by the realtively colder/drier climate like Iraq or Iran but later go agian into a higher UV environment like South India (same latitude as Sudan) They retain the straight hair from before but acquire dark skin. The same would be true of Austrailians. As people pass through different climates they can retain some traits before reaching a final destination.
.
Australian aboriginal blood groups show links with Dravidian speakers so they probably got it through contact with them at some point in the last 5,000 years.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And yet Australian aborigines have wavy to curly hair NOT straight.
Several of those you posted are not Australoid, but have Tasmanid admixture.
Tasmanids are physically Negrito-Australoid, though there are no pure-blooded ones left. You still see though Negrito traits in some Australian Aborigines.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: ]Australian aboriginal blood groups show links with Dravidian speakers so they probably got it through contact with them at some point in the last 5,000 years.
^^^and where did this man get this type of hair?
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
To answer the OP.
Australoids are wavy non-wooly haired because they have retained their Pleistocene phenotype and morphology.
Australoids look the closest thing to archaic homo - huge eye sockets and prominent ridges, large teeth, prognathism. The pigmentation however may have been different per region.
Although Caucasoids also have wavy hair, they don't have these other Pleistocene traits such as large teeth (they have the smallest) or prognathism (Caucasoids are orthognathic).
In some older scientific literature, Australoids are regarded as 'proto-Caucasoid' (Sonia Mary Cole, Reginald Ruggles Gates etc).
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
I'm revising the title of this thread:
Why do many dark skinned people from India have straight hair?
.
Posted by asante (Member # 18532) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by asante: the lioness thinks that aboriginals are not black just because of there hair lol what a joke
If you mean by black "dark skinned" yes the aboriginals were dark skinned. But if the data is correct showing some Nubians with long straight hair it could be possible that they were not exclusively abroginal to Africa in their ancestry. I say this because tribes of people in North Africa today do not have long straight hair. You may find some anecdotal examples of individuals but not a whole tribe of dark skinned people with long straight hair. Individuals you do find often have bushy or wavy hair not the type you find in many Indians. How could there be tribes of North African indigenous people with afro-kinky hair and in the same climate tribes of North African indigenous people with long straight hair? That would suggest that hair type has no correlation to climate. It doesn't seem believable becasue the world is not evenly sprinkled with people who have afro-kinky hair and straight hair. Afro kinky hair is much much less in Eurasia. Khosians don't have straight hair or near narrow noses.
So your saying that black people are not real blacks unless they have curly hair and a wide nose? lol
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by asante: So your saying that black people are not real blacks unless they have curly hair and a wide nose? lol
No, if "black" means anyone with dark skin.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The Eskimos and similar groups are NEW migrants to the region. They are from the south hence DARK. See study posted on ESR. I believe it was the Holliday et al study comparing Europeans and Eskimo groups limb proportion. They(Eskimos) haven't been in the region long enough to be depigmented. Don't know why some here keep parroting that Jablonski nonsense. "the food made them white".
Are you slow?
You're like a crackbaby with bad memory.
You repeat this same bullshit every time, and even though I come and smack you around some, you still come back months or however long and repeat the same BS like it never happened. lol
Back to the facts now, perhaps you can tell us why the Eskimos exhibit more cold adapted, in fact the most cold adapted body plans of all humans if they haven't been in the present area for enough time?
You never make sense as usual.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Mekova, Kittles et al have the collar on this one.
^^Click link, watch 9 minute 20 second video from geneticist Rick Kittles.
After that come back and tell me Kittles agrees with you. Same thing I've been telling your dumbass for years now.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] There are two schools of thought on how humans became depigmented. I will leave at that for now.
Yea the right one wherein I presented many times, and the other albino theory which is pseudo-scientific. Which school of thought are you speaking of?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): the other albino theory which is pseudo-scientific. Which school of thought are you speaking of?
Apart from the theory that you think is better, what aspect of the albino theory do you think is least plausible about it?
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
Firstly, what I think is from established scientific facts...the rest you can figure out on your own I'm not gonna help you out. Put it this way everything about the numerous albino theory promoters is implausible. If you see something plausible let me know. I already refuted all their points numerous times, that's why Mike has changed the albino theory which pre-dates him now into a derivation from Dravidian albinos. Check the archives.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
^^^and where did this man get this type of hair?
From his daddy?? I must say this for ya Lioness ya sure lov your Indians.. Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
^^Lol she sure does, perhaps she really is Indian.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
^ sigh!!!. . . Everytime I get out you drag me back in.
to be continued. . . .
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
^^You fool, if you wanted out you shouldn't have mentioned me, damn you are slow aren't ya?
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by asante: So your saying that black people are not real blacks unless they have curly hair and a wide nose? lol [/QB]
Negroids (Blacks) have wooly hair and wide/flat noses.
Afronuts however have a different racial classification regarding who Black people are and they base it solely on dark pigmentation. The obvious problem with doing this is that you end up clusting non-Negroid races as Negroid (Black). The main reason afronuts do this is because they self-hate Negroid features such as wooly hair and wide noses so it comforts them when they extend their race to include dark skinned non-negroid races who have straighter hair and thin noses.
Posted by MissJennifer (Member # 16083) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Originally posted by asante: So your saying that black people are not real blacks unless they have curly hair and a wide nose? lol
Negroids (Blacks) have wooly hair and wide/flat noses.
Afronuts however have a different racial classification regarding who Black people are and they base it solely on dark pigmentation. The obvious problem with doing this is that you end up clusting non-Negroid races as Negroid (Black). The main reason afronuts do this is because they self-hate Negroid features such as wooly hair and wide noses so it comforts them when they extend their race to include dark skinned non-negroid races who have straighter hair and thin noses. [/QB]
I happen to agree with this. Online, I notice a lot of Black poeple are very hypersenstive when you classify black as being darkskin, wide noses, and kinky hair; they get very upset and try to prove lighterskin, straight hair, and narrow features as being just as black, when the vast majority of people who have those features are of mixed race. I have yet to see a tribe in Africa of black people who have these features with no mixing from other races involved.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by MissJennifer:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Originally posted by asante: So your saying that black people are not real blacks unless they have curly hair and a wide nose? lol
Negroids (Blacks) have wooly hair and wide/flat noses.
Afronuts however have a different racial classification regarding who Black people are and they base it solely on dark pigmentation. The obvious problem with doing this is that you end up clusting non-Negroid races as Negroid (Black). The main reason afronuts do this is because they self-hate Negroid features such as wooly hair and wide noses so it comforts them when they extend their race to include dark skinned non-negroid races who have straighter hair and thin noses.
I happen to agree with this. Online, I notice a lot of Black poeple are very hypersenstive when you classify black as being darkskin, wide noses, and kinky hair; [/QB]
It's not so much as noting one phenotype amongst Africans as much as it's trying to hold all Africans throughout Africa to this specific phenotype and only this phenotype which in turn is stereotyping Africans with a "true Negroid" parameter when in actuality it's well known amongst the bio-anthropological community that in Africa, a vast continent where modern humans have lived for 200ky and have accumulated so much phenotypic and genetic diversity there are many different phenotypes that are all indigenous to Africa the Negroid phenotype is just one of many.
Note the following for example...
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): The Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in **physical attributes**.
Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained: "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population.
"However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world. We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in Sub-saharan Africa."
The research team found that genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were - a result of 'bottlenecks' or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration.
They then studied an exceptionally large sample of human skulls. Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team showed that not only was variation highest amongst the sample from south eastern Africa but that it did decrease at the same rate as the genetic data the further the skull was away from Africa.
Posted by MissJennifer (Member # 16083) on :
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
quote:Originally posted by MissJennifer:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Originally posted by asante: So your saying that black people are not real blacks unless they have curly hair and a wide nose? lol
Negroids (Blacks) have wooly hair and wide/flat noses.
Afronuts however have a different racial classification regarding who Black people are and they base it solely on dark pigmentation. The obvious problem with doing this is that you end up clusting non-Negroid races as Negroid (Black). The main reason afronuts do this is because they self-hate Negroid features such as wooly hair and wide noses so it comforts them when they extend their race to include dark skinned non-negroid races who have straighter hair and thin noses.
I happen to agree with this. Online, I notice a lot of Black poeple are very hypersenstive when you classify black as being darkskin, wide noses, and kinky hair;
It's not so much as noting one phenotype amongst Africans as much as it's trying to hold all Africans throughout Africa to this specific phenotype and only this phenotype which in turn is stereotyping Africans with a "true Negroid" parameter when in actuality it's well known amongst the bio-anthropological community that in Africa, a vast continent where modern humans have lived for 200ky and have accumulated so much phenotypic and genetic diversity there are many different phenotypes that are all indigenous to Africa the Negroid phenotype is just one of many.
Note the following for example...
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): The Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in **physical attributes**.
Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained: "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population.
"However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world. We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in Sub-saharan Africa."
The research team found that genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were - a result of 'bottlenecks' or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration.
They then studied an exceptionally large sample of human skulls. Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team showed that not only was variation highest amongst the sample from south eastern Africa but that it did decrease at the same rate as the genetic data the further the skull was away from Africa.
[/QB]
The other phenotypes aren't as common though. you all make it seem as if its the majority when its not. the negroid phenotype is the most common one. I haven't see any black africans who have narrow features and fine wavy hair that are not mixed.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by MissJennifer: The other phenotypes aren't as common though. you all make it seem as if its the majority when its not. the negroid phenotype is the most common one. I haven't see any black africans who have narrow features and fine wavy hair that are not mixed.
I applaud you for your honesty since you claimed to be black yourself. Problem is though most other blacks on this forum are self-haters who hate the typical Negroid features such as wooly hair and wide noses that through insecurity they project this fantasy that Negroes are naturally straight haired etc.
The user bettyboo is the worst self-hater i have yet encountered. They claim blacks have natural straight blonde hair. Never though can they show a photo. Instead you get picture spams of Australian Aborigine children (a minority who are blonde), but Australoids are not Negroids.
Posted by MissJennifer (Member # 16083) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Originally posted by MissJennifer: The other phenotypes aren't as common though. you all make it seem as if its the majority when its not. the negroid phenotype is the most common one. I haven't see any black africans who have narrow features and fine wavy hair that are not mixed.
I applaud you for your honesty since you claimed to be black yourself. Problem is though most other blacks on this forum are self-haters who hate the typical Negroid features such as wooly hair and wide noses that through insecurity they project this fantasy that Negroes are naturally straight haired etc.
The user bettyboo is the worst self-hater i have yet encountered. They claim blacks have natural straight blonde hair. Never though can they show a photo. Instead you get picture spams of Australian Aborigine children (a minority who are blonde), but Australoids are not Negroids.
I am a Black American and I notice this mindset on many African Americans forums. It irritates me so I don't visit them very much.
IRL, black poeple tend to be very honest about what is black; if you ask the average Black American what black looks like to you, they will explain the Negroid phenotype; it is the most common one.
Online black people act as if we cannot define what black is but every other race has no problem with doing so but us..silly questions like "what is black" "there is no black look" come on get the hell out of here. if we didn't know what black looked like then there would be no racism
However, online, black poeple live in a fantasy world where they try to claim they have more mixed heritage than they do, and their features are more mixed than what they are.
I live in the midwest where many of the black people like me, still look like our ancestors, we have kinky hair, dark brown skin, flat noses/some have narrow noses, full lips/thin/medium etc. Our look is not that much different from our ancestors. There are some Black Americans who are mixed looking, and lightskin in the bunch, but they are not the vast majority and those features are not natural to our race.
I feel as though many black poeple online try to act like people who look like me don't exist or are not the majority and it is very hurtful to read.
Look at the clips of Hurricane Katrina, did you see all of those very darkskin to brownskin Black poeple who still look like thier ancestors?? Yes, you did. I didn't see a whole lot of mixed looking, racially ambiguous looking black poeple like so many like to claim online.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by MissJennifer: The other phenotypes aren't as common though.
So you mean to tell me you've traversed the whole of Africa seen all people and places, if not what are you going by to note this?
Anyway, doesn't matter what you think is common or not, they exist and that's the point here.
At one time there was this thing called scientific racism which would stereotype Africans to be the least diverse despite the fact that Africa is the homeplace of anatomically modern humans.
This is what you're adhering to.
quote:Originally posted by MissJennifer: you all make it seem as if its the majority when its not.
I've never stated anything was the majority instead it's clearly noted that there's not the single phenotype throughout all of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by MissJennifer: the negroid phenotype is the most common one.
Accordong to whom Carelton Coon? lol
Certainly not according to mainstream bio-anthroplogy.
quote:Originally posted by MissJennifer: I haven't see any black africans who have narrow features and fine wavy hair that are not mixed.
Then you need to do some more research before you post, tell me in your words who are these Africans with narrow features and wavy hair that are mixed and how, evidence please...
Do you mean to tell me that magically some non Africans passed on genes only for nose and hair, but none for limb proportions which are noted amongst some to be more tropically adapted than many other African peoples and skin very dark in complexion? Doesn't sound logical now does it?
There's many different environmental conditions throughout Africa different environments breed different cranio-facial phenotypes.
Posted by MissJennifer (Member # 16083) on :
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
quote:Originally posted by MissJennifer:
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
quote:Originally posted by MissJennifer:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Originally posted by asante: So your saying that black people are not real blacks unless they have curly hair and a wide nose? lol
Negroids (Blacks) have wooly hair and wide/flat noses.
Afronuts however have a different racial classification regarding who Black people are and they base it solely on dark pigmentation. The obvious problem with doing this is that you end up clusting non-Negroid races as Negroid (Black). The main reason afronuts do this is because they self-hate Negroid features such as wooly hair and wide noses so it comforts them when they extend their race to include dark skinned non-negroid races who have straighter hair and thin noses.
I happen to agree with this. Online, I notice a lot of Black poeple are very hypersenstive when you classify black as being darkskin, wide noses, and kinky hair;
It's not so much as noting one phenotype amongst Africans as much as it's trying to hold all Africans throughout Africa to this specific phenotype and only this phenotype which in turn is stereotyping Africans with a "true Negroid" parameter when in actuality it's well known amongst the bio-anthropological community that in Africa, a vast continent where modern humans have lived for 200ky and have accumulated so much phenotypic and genetic diversity there are many different phenotypes that are all indigenous to Africa the Negroid phenotype is just one of many.
Note the following for example...
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): The Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in **physical attributes**.
Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained: "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population.
"However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world. We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in Sub-saharan Africa."
The research team found that genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were - a result of 'bottlenecks' or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration.
They then studied an exceptionally large sample of human skulls. Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team showed that not only was variation highest amongst the sample from south eastern Africa but that it did decrease at the same rate as the genetic data the further the skull was away from Africa.
The other phenotypes aren't as common though.
So you mean to tell me you've traversed the whole of Africa seen all people and places, if not what are you going by to note this?
quote:Originally posted by MissJennifer: you all make it seem as if its the majority when its not.
I've never stated anything was the majority instead it's clearly noted that there's not the single phenotype throughout all of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by MissJennifer: the negroid phenotype is the most common one.
Accordong to whom Carelton Coon? lol
Certainly not according to mainstream bio-anthroplogy.
quote:Originally posted by MissJennifer: I haven't see any black africans who have narrow features and fine wavy hair that are not mixed.
Then you need to do some more research before you post, tell me in your words who are these Africans with narrow features and wavy hair that are mixed and how, evidence please... [/QB]
You cannot claim that you have tranversed the entire continent to conclude that the negroid phenotype is NOT the most common one.
But anyone with common sense and eyes can see that it IS the most common phenotype. Nobody needs some silly study done by anthropologists to know that the vast majority of black people with very little to NO mixing have kinky hair.
Why are we trying to claim a certain look that is not even dominant in our race anyway??? Are you trying to say those with the common Negroid phenotype are inferior and ugly? Do you realize how you are offending ME and poeple in my family who look like this??
I am tired of African Americans online trying to argue that white is right, trying so hard to argue a certain phenotype that is not dominant or natural to our race. There is no tribe in Africa where the black poeple have lightskin, narrow features, and fine hair with no mixing. There are none and no one can name a tribe or show any proof that there is.
I feel like you all are just self hating, you are ashamed to have the Negroid phenotype represent us because you have a deeply embedded inferiority complex. Instead you want to prove to non black races that our poeple can have straight hair, narrow noses and lightskin just like they do to feel better about yourselves. I see this same mentality on every forum when African Americans are discussing race; they start showing photos of colored people with mixed features and trying to pass them off as 'black' or saying they are just as 'black' as the pure west africans when it's a complete lie.
quote:Then you need to do some more research before you post, tell me in your words who are these Africans with narrow features and wavy hair that are mixed and how, evidence please...
Do you mean to tell me that magically some non Africans passed on genes only for nose and hair, but none for limb proportions which are noted amongst some to be more tropically adapted than many other African peoples and skin very dark in complexion? Doesn't sound logical now does it?
There's many different environmental conditions throughout Africa different environments breed different cranio-facial phenotypes.
That look is NOT dominant though (especially w/o mixing). It represents a very small percentage of the black racial phenotype.
There are still MANY Ethiopians who have broad facial features; I was under the impression that they all had narrow features and fine hair but many do not. The narrow featured Ethiopians get noticed more obviously because of White supremacy but there are a lot who look like West Africans.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by MissJennifer: You cannot claim that you have tranversed the entire continent to conclude that the negroid phenotype is NOT the most common one.
I never said I have, bu you made a bold enough statement as if you have.
There are many anthropologists who have though, and they have something totally different to say than what you "think" with your limited knowledge on the subject.
quote:Originally posted by MissJennifer: But anyone with common sense and eyes can see that it IS the most common phenotype.
Like I said, have you traversed the whole of Africa to come to this conclusion?
Btw, common doesn't mean the only, like I said, it's not a battle of what's more common or not, instead it's the point of its NOT THE ONLY PHENOTYPE , get that through your head please.
quote:Originally posted by MissJennifer: Nobody needs some silly study done by anthropologists to know that the vast majority of black people with very little to NO mixing have kinky hair.
Ok, and nobody needs a layperson such as yourself to know that the numerous anthropological studies that have analyzed world populations saying the same for those Africans who do not into your box have little or no mixing and holds more weight than your emotional replies with no counter evidence.
You choose to ignore it if you want, but you're feeding right into the outdated stereotype from old European racist scholars saying that Africans are the least diverse people in this world despite the fact that its been shown (to you) Africa is the home place of modern humans and that they are most genetically and phenotypically diverse in Africa.
quote:Originally posted by MissJennifer: Why are we trying to claim a certain look that is not even dominant in our race anyway???
Nobody is trying to claim a certain look besides yourself, lol stop projecting.
Besides Africa is too big of a continent with a vast amount of people that don't fit into your little box.
quote:Originally posted by MissJennifer: Are you trying to say those with the common Negroid phenotype are inferior and ugly? Do you realize how you are offending ME and poeple in my family who look like this??
Umm, how?
You're the one making this interpretation on your own because you don't understand what's being discussed.
When in fact as told to you yes there are Africans who fit a Negroid phenotype but there also others that don't it's not a mater of which one is better or not or makes one more African or not, it's the point that Africans are more diverse than you're are trying to pigeonhole.
quote:Originally posted by MissJennifer: I am tired of African Americans online trying to argue that white is right, trying so hard to argue a certain phenotype that is not dominant or natural to our race.
Who the hell says whie is right? You keep repeating the same things it's nobodies fault but your own that you don't understand what's discussed here, nobody is denying Africans don't look this way, but hello, they don't all fit a single phenotype throughout the whole of Africa. Ad nauseum.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Miss Jennifer what is at stake here is ancient Egypt. Many black people feel ancient Egypt is the height of African Civilization and are proud to be associated with it. They insist it was 99% indigenous African and that blacks are capabale of the hightest achievements without having to have Middle Eastern or Eureapan people helping us. If you look at the ancient Egyptians many had narrow features, possibly straight hair and some of the women in particular can tend toward lighter skin. As a person of African descent I would like to believe that they wer 99% African this but I see other possibilities, particularly in the ways some of the dynastic Phaoraohs are depicted. Straight hair also raises issues.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
^Like I asked Jen;
Do you mean to tell me that magically some non Africans passed on genes only for nose and hair, but none for limb proportions?
Which are noted amongst Ancient Egyptians to be more tropically adapted than many other African peoples and skin dark in complexion? Doesn't sound logical now does it?
You choose to ignore what the professionals have to say on the subject and instead invoke your own feelings into the science, sorry but that's just not how it works. Get over it already.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
^ Note how AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) when debating MissJennifer about Negroids (Blacks) changes the terminology to 'Africans'.
This is why, here is his trick:
Here are some native African Kayble Berbers -
Quite evidently these Kabyles are not Black but Caucasoid but AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) will cluster them as 'African' alongside the Negroids who look like this:
The above are evidently two completely seperate races. But AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) considers them to all be indigenous 'african' and the same.
MissJennifer has it spot on about self-hatred. AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) is clustering Caucasoids as African with Negroids into the same race/people because he hates his own Negroid features.
There is no single african race.
There are seperate races that have inhabited africa for thousands of years - Capoids (Bushmen), Caucasoids and Negroids.
All are genetically and phenotypically distinct.
Afronutters though think they are all one single african group.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
^^When the hell have you ever seen me state that those individuals you posted as Kabyle Berbers would be classified as African? Many coastal north Africans are predominately Eurasian on their mtDNA and also carry the derived European SLC24A5 allele, which makes those people not purely indigenous African fool.
You already admitted that you adhere to Coon and Seligmen even though you know they're outdated, and refuse to step into the modern era of reality. You're a quack.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
You repeatedly claim Africans have lighter skin, straighter hair and thin noses. That is what the North African Berbers have because they are Caucasoid.
Can you then show a photo of a light skinned, straight haired, thin nosed 'indigenous african' which doesn't have Caucasoid ancestry?
What are these people meant to then look like? Where are they?
I expect again you will just picture spam East Africans (who have Caucasoid genes).
As MissJennifer said, you need to get out of fantasy land and embrace some reality.
Black people don't have the white features such as straighter hair you crave. You are the only one who shows your emotions here. Instead just look in the mirror and accept what your own racial traits are.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: You repeatedly claim Africans have lighter skin, straighter hair and thin noses. That is what the North African Berbers have because they are Caucasoid.
Again, where have I ever claimed lightskin such as those obviously mixed coastal north Africans to be indigenous? Nowhere.
I know individuals like those possess high levels of Eurasian gene flow, not only maternally but the SLC24A5 derived allele is present as well.
A thinner nose, lips and straighter hair has already been shown and proven to you a million times over.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): You already admitted that you adhere to Coon and Seligmen even though you know they're outdated, and refuse to step into the modern era of reality. You're a quack.
The modern era of reality is where Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid are still scientifically valid within forensic science, racial profiling (FBI, Police etc) and some physical anthropologists.
Race denialists like yourself are the real quacks and cranks.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
So what's taking you so long to answer the following?
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): ^^So can one of those southwest Asian or Indian carcassoids move into Europe and intermix with you white carcassoid folk up north? Would it do well with bone marrow transplants? lol
I'd love to hear this one. [/QB]
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): So can one of those southwest Asian or Indian carcassoids move into Europe and intermix with you white carcassoid folk up north? Would it do well with bone marrow transplants? lol
I'd love to hear this one.
^^lol... lets see what other bogus claims he can come up with now...
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): A thinner nose, lips and straighter hair has already been shown and proven to you a million times over.
Those are not leptorrhine (thin) noses as found in Caucasoids. Those are mesorrhine, medium, as found in people of mixed race (Caucasoid and Negroid) or Mongoloids.
You can look up the nasal index online to see what qualifies as leptorrhine (thin), but none you posted do just by looking at them.
A thin Caucasoid nose looks like as follows -
Negroids get nowhere near this.
I would agree also with Perahu who commentated on these photos before that numerous of who you have posted have clear Caucasoid admixture.
Caucasoid genes are all across Africa. We know East Africans are more Eurasian (Caucasoid) than Sub-Saharan African (Negroid) hence they have straighter hair.
What's funny is that you accept North African Caucasoid/Eurasian admixture, but not East African... Its because without the East Africans your ''blacks are phenotypically diverse'' argument crumbles.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): So what's taking you so long to answer the following?
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): ^^So can one of those southwest Asian or Indian carcassoids move into Europe and intermix with you white carcassoid folk up north? Would it do well with bone marrow transplants? lol
I'd love to hear this one.
[/QB]
No.
Most Indians are not pure-blooded Caucasoid. They are a mix of Veddoid, Mongoloid, Negrito etc.
My comments on disease and bone marrow are all well backed up.
Mixed race people cannot find bone marrow or blood matches and secondly they are more prone to health risks.
Article: Bone Marrow Transplants: When Race Is an Issue
Here we have the story of a White (Caucasoid) father and an Indian mother who have a 4 year old son but he can't get a bone marrow transplant because he is mixed race.
Another article: '' Finding bone-marrow donors a problem for mixed-race patients| NowPublic News Coverage''
Nick Glasgow is sufferring from leukemia and he has not been able to find a donor yet because he is one-quarter Japanese. If he were white, he would have a nearly 90 percent chance of finding a matching bone marrow donor who could cure his leukemia
- So here we have another story of a mixed race (this time Mongoloid/Caucasoid) who cannot cure his leukemia because of his hybrid racial origins.
Its exactly the same for blood transfusions.
Bieng mixed race has serious health risks and its therefore a good thing that they are only a minority.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
No dunce, it's because in contrast to north Africans who show this admixture in the maternal gene pool and SLC24A5 derived allele East africans and others on the other hand who have thinner nose lips et..do not show the same geneflow. As noted if there were geneflow there would be the derived SLC245 allele highly present amongst these Africans you say are mixed, but it's not present. Sorry kid.
Like I said you believe a fantasy that non Africans magically passed on genes for nose and hair but not for skin complexion nor limb proportions, makes no damn sense Fool.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): So what's taking you so long to answer the following?
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): ^^So can one of those southwest Asian or Indian carcassoids move into Europe and intermix with you white carcassoid folk up north? Would it do well with bone marrow transplants? lol
I'd love to hear this one.
No.
Most Indians are not pure-blooded Caucasoid. They are a mix of Veddoid, Mongoloid, Negrito etc.[/QB]
What's the differences genetically between these Indians whom you classify into three different races by phenotypes?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@KIK
I will start charging you soon . . if you keep this up. This is a freebie!!! It is only so much I will do to help you out. Three times is a trend. And get off that Jablonski nonsense. Have you read Kittles, Harding et al latest study on the subject(2010?). I posted it here recently, don’t have time to repost. Now get to work. Remember I had to explain it to you when it was posted. First e1b1c , then Kittles. Next time you pay full price. Lol!
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Wassermann HP, and Heyl T - Quantitative data on skin pigmentation in South African races =====
In the Bantu, black and brown eyes occurred in all our cases. Blue or intermediately coloured eyes do, in fact, occur but are extremely rare.
DISCUSSION The results agree closely with those reported by other investigators. The female group tends to be lighter in colour than the male group in all 3 races, but this does not attain statistical significance in our study.
An opportunity occurred in this study to measure reflectance from a virtually completely depigmented patch of vitiligo in a Cape Coloured woman and from a corresponding area of normaily pigmented skin. The reflectance curves presented in Fig. 3 . . . .
====== see also . .
Relethford JH. Hemispheric difference in human skin color.
Relethford JH. Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations.
Steegmann A Jr. Frostbite of the human face as a selective force.
Zihlman AL, Cohn BA. 1988. The adaptive response of human skin to the savanna.
Hiernaux J (1976) Skin color and climate in central Africa: A comparison of three populations.
Hiernaux J (1977) Long-term biological effects of human migration from the African savanna to the equatorial forest: A case study of human adaptation to a hot and
wet climate.
Huizinga J (1968) Human biological observations on some African populations of the thorn savanna belt.
Hulse FS (1969) Skin color among the Yemenite Jews of the isolate from Habban.
Jaswal IJS (1979) Skin color in North Indian populations.
Rebato E (1987) Skin colour in the Basque populations.
Wassermann HP, and Heyl T (1968) Quantitative data on skin pigmentation in South African races.
Weiner JS, Harrison GA, Singer R, Harris R, and Jopp Skin colour in southern Africa.
======
AHHH!!! The point is Europeans and all other populations outside of Africa came from a small group(subset) of Africans that left the continent. PERIOD.
Only the ignorant or disingenuous will say otherwise.
very little of the European phenotype originated IN Europe OR the Asian Steppes. Africans carry the 6-8 genetic markers that make the human skin "white". Light/white skin came from Africans. As unbelievable as it may sound. It is essentialy increase of these genetic markers that lead to white skin. Africans and Europeans have the same amount and capability for dark skin ie MC1R.98-99% each. (Kittles, Harding, Yakahama etc). It is the quantity of the OTHER genetic markers that are different.(called selective sweep/or purifying In the northern(AND SOUTHERN) hemishpere the levels of these other markers increased. Why? Read the studies.
Sorry boys, bottomline, light skin came first. Never thought I would here my-self say that.
They got their light skin AND Blue eyes from us.
Maybe the sunless, dark niches in Europe is where they refined their phenotype. Africans carry the all the genes that make Europeans. . .Europeans. That said. They are our long lost African brothers(wink).
Research has shown about 94%[commonality, identical DNA between human beings and chimpanzees, with some of the difference occurring in non-coding DNA.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: ^ sigh!!!. . . Everytime I get out you drag me back in.
to be continued. . . .
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
more. . .You owe me big time. Read the study then get back to me. Don't waste my time. . .please.
For the newbies. . .this is one of two point of view on how humans became depigmented.
Jablonski's is the 2nd which KIK and others have a hard-on for and keep quoting. In Kittles latest paper he no longer agrees with Jablonski. I am tired schooling this half-breed. No offence. LOL! I have blood relatives who are Mt-DNA hg-A
======== Review Worldwide polymorphism at the MC1R locus and normal pigmentation variation in humans Kateryna Makova a,∗, Heather Norton b a Department of Biology, The Pennsylvania State University, 518 Mueller Lab, University Park, PA 16802, USA b Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, 409 Carpenter Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA Received 20 August 2004; accepted 16 December 2004 Available online 23 June 2005
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: And get off that Jablonski nonsense.
Nitwit, what I said comes from Kittles and Norton, Jablonski just so happens to agree and further confirm it.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Africans carry the 6-8 genetic markers that make the human skin "white". Light/white skin came from Africans.
Wrong, Africans carry the genes in an ancestral state which keeps their skin dark in turn Europeans carry the alleles in a derived state which makes them white. You're slow at this.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Jablonski's is the 2nd which KIK and others have a hard-on for and keep quoting. In Kittles latest paper he no longer agrees with Jablonski.
Where's Kittles latest paper? Are you talking about the one he co-authored with Norton?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
This is a sample. . .now please ssssshhhh!!!! the "do not disturb sign is up". Raise your hands when you have a question. LOL!!
You dummies think that Jablonski is the see all end all on this. . . there are several views on this. READ READ then come to a conclusion. As I said Makova has the collar on this. Her hypothesis is more logical than this "food made Europeans white" nonsense by Jablonski.
===== Signatures of Positive Selection in Genes Associated with Human Skin Pigmentation as Revealed from Analyses of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms O. Lao1,2, J. M. de Gruijter1,2, K. van Duijn1,2, A. Navarro3 and M. Kayser1∗ 1Department of Forensic Molecular Biology, Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands 2Departments of Biology, Netherlands Forensic Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands 3Institucio Catalana de Reserca i Estudis Avancats (ICREA), and Unitat de Biologia Evolutiva, Departament de Ciencies de la vida i de la salut, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain Summary Phenotypic variation between human populations in skin pigmentation correlates with latitude at the continental level. A large number of hypotheses involving genetic adaptation have been proposed to explain human variation in skin colour, but only limited genetic evidence for positive selection has been presented.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
You dunce, try again. That study agrees with Norton and Kittles et. al. Wow you're slow. lol They all confirm the same damn thing.
quote:Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians Heather L. Norton*,1, Rick A. Kittles
Abstract
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.
Now the one you posted which is from 2007 and also has been used to actually refute your dumbass and others lol...
quote: Signatures of positive selection in genes associated with human skin pigmentation as revealed from analyses of single nucleotide polymorphisms.
Lao O, de Gruijter JM,
Abstract
Phenotypic variation between human populations in skin pigmentation correlates with latitude at the continental level. A large number of hypotheses involving genetic adaptation have been proposed to explain human variation in skin colour, but only limited genetic evidence for positive selection has been presented. To shed light on the evolutionary genetic history of human variation in skin colour we inspected 118 genes associated with skin pigmentation in the Perlegen dataset, studying single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and analyzed 55 genes in detail. We identified eight genes that are associated with the melanin pathway (SLC45A2, OCA2, TYRP1, DCT, KITLG, EGFR, DRD2 and PPARD) and presented significant differences in genetic variation between Europeans, Africans and Asians. In six of these genes we detected, by means of the EHH test, variability patterns that are compatible with the hypothesis of local positive selection in Europeans (OCA2, TYRP1 and KITLG) and in Asians (OCA2, DCT, KITLG, EGFR and DRD2), whereas signals were scarce in Africans (DCT, EGFR and DRD2). Furthermore, a statistically significant correlation between genotypic variation in four pigmentation candidate genes and phenotypic variation of skin colour in 51 worldwide human populations was revealed. Overall, our data also suggest that light skin colour is the derived state and is of independent origin in Europeans and Asians, whereas dark skin color seems of unique origin, reflecting the ancestral state in humans.
And another...
quote: The genetic architecture of normal variation in human pigmentation: an evolutionary perspective and model
Skin pigmentation varies substantially across human populations in a manner largely coincident with ultraviolet radiation intensity. This observation suggests that natural selection in response to sunlight is a major force in accounting for pigmentation variability. We review recent progress in identifying the genes controlling this variation with a particular focus on the trait's evolutionary past and the potential role of testing for signatures of selection in aiding the discovery of functionally important genes. We have analyzed SNP data from the International HapMap project in 77 pigmentation candidate genes for such signatures. On the basis of these results and other similar work, we provide a tentative three-population model (West Africa, East Asia and North Europe) of the evolutionary–genetic architecture of human pigmentation. These results suggest a complex evolutionary history, with selection acting on different gene targets at different times and places in the human past. Some candidate genes may have been selected in the ancestral human population, others in the ‘out of Africa’ proto European-Asian population, whereas most appear to have selectively evolved solely in either Europeans or East Asians separately despite the pigmentation similarities between these two populations. Selection signatures can provide important clues to aid gene discovery. However, these should be viewed as complements, rather than replacements of, functional studies including linkage and association analyses, which can directly refine our understanding of the trait.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
As I said it is only so much I can do to help you out.. .
A large number of hypotheses involving genetic adaptation have been proposed to explain human variation in skin colour,
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: This is a sample. . .now please ssssshhhh!!!! the "do not disturb sign is up". Raise your hands when you have a question. LOL!!
You dummies think that Jablonski is the see all end all on this. . . there are several views on this. READ READ then come to a conclusion. As I said Makova has the collar on this. Her hypothesis is more logical than this "food made Europeans white" nonsense by Jablonski.
===== Signatures of Positive Selection in Genes Associated with Human Skin Pigmentation as Revealed from Analyses of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms O. Lao1,2, J. M. de Gruijter1,2, K. van Duijn1,2, A. Navarro3 and M. Kayser1∗ 1Department of Forensic Molecular Biology, Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands 2Departments of Biology, Netherlands Forensic Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands 3Institucio Catalana de Reserca i Estudis Avancats (ICREA), and Unitat de Biologia Evolutiva, Departament de Ciencies de la vida i de la salut, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain Summary Phenotypic variation between human populations in skin pigmentation correlates with latitude at the continental level. A large number of hypotheses involving genetic adaptation have been proposed to explain human variation in skin colour, but only limited genetic evidence for positive selection has been presented.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: As I said it is only so much I can do to help you out.. .
A large number of hypotheses involving genetic adaptation have been proposed to explain human variation in skin colour,but only limited genetic evidence for positive selection has been presented.
Yea dunce, the genetic evidence for it was lacking now there's all the genetic evidence needed as shown...as shown to you Kittles agrees with everything I say, so next time don't use Kittles as if he agreed with you.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You dummies think that Jablonski is the see all end all on this. . . there are several views on this. READ READ then come to a conclusion. As I said Makova has the collar on this. Her hypothesis is more logical than this "food made Europeans white" nonsense by Jablonski.
Wow, how many times must it be told to your dumbass that Jablosnki doesn't say food made them white, yet you keep repeating this same nonsense, why, because that's the only leg you can stand on? Your own misinterpretation. lol
The study you posted even notes what's Jablosnki main point is, that skin color correlates with lattitude. You don't even know what it is Jablosnki promotes to even try to refute her.
Quote Jablosnki or anyone saying food magically made Europeans white, I'll wait.
Here I'll make it simple for you;
1) If it's solely due to latitude and sun intensity than why did it take tens of millenia for Europeans to turn white, why didn't they turn white once they reached Europe if its solely due to latitude at the continental level?
^^I dare you to answer this..
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ Lioness. PDF did not convert properly. But you will get the theme. Read the paper.
=====
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY Vol. 4, n. 1-2: 61-74, 1989
Four Cameroonian populations were studied for a large set of anthropometric measurements. Three groups live in the forest (two Bantu speaking, and one pygmoid tribe) 'and the fourth one in the savanna plateau. Multivariate analysis'of 'thd'morphological features showed that the two Bantu groups have veryksimilarb ody morphology. This is interpreted to be a result-of-common genetic origin and of the fact that they inhabit the sameLenvkonment Whereas the Pygmoids segregate apart. The savanna dwellers'he morphologically equidistint from the two former groups, and when compared to other savanna peoples living in Burkina-Faso, are deen to be more similar to forest populations. Some dimatic influences-CaTbejidentified, mainly on limb proportions and nose and face dimensions. They seem to play a larger part in body differentiation than do.,nutritional and/or pathological conditions. Differences be&eenkthekforest Bantu and the savannadwellers are mostly due to a shape compdnent, whereas the Pygmoids display an overall reduction in$& Savanna highlanders also exhibit a 'size reduction, which rbults:in tۓ.ei&being more similar in shape to the Pygmies than are &elbther,groups compared. A fruitful approach to morphological differentiation must take advantage of opportunities to compare peoples sharini'thth;t"kdgenetoicr igin but having migrated to occupy contrastin$e.nvirbnments. The hypothesis is raised that a common African stock has differentiated in contrasting ecosystems.
CLASS IS OVER!!. . . . .
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
^What's taking you so long? Watch xyy run away for months now, only to come back and say the same BS again...
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
Here I'll make it simple for you;
1) If it's solely due to latitude and sun intensity than why did it take tens of millenia for Europeans to turn white, why didn't they turn white once they reached Europe if its solely due to latitude at the continental level?
^^I dare you to answer this.. [/QB]
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ KIK. We all know that Latitude/UV intensity is the trigger.
Still don't get it. . .the differences in the hypotheses, huh? All scholar agrees UV and melanin levels is the trigger.
They disgree on the "HOW" but agree on the "why". Damn man!!
Jablonski says the "how" is vit D ie food/diet changes due to the Neolithic revolution.
Makova said it is "natural" ie the "ancestral" state of humans. And she is talking primates. Hence her conclusion that Southern African Bantus are already depigmenting maybe even AAs aside from admixtures. That futher explains why central americans are also darker than the northerns and southerners.
Man! you are thicker than the lunatic. You owe me thrice!!!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You are lucky this Green Bay/Vikings game is boring. . .I can spend time on the net.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: @ KIK. We all know that Latitude/UV intensity is the trigger.
Still don't get it. . .the differences in the hypotheses, huh? All scholar agrees UV and melanin levels is the trigger.
I agree that latitude and UV intensity play a role (there is no difference in hypothesis) but both go hand in hand, latitude and the vital need of Vitamin D in humans, as lighterskin can synthesize the absorption of UV in the body for a process that makes Vitamin D naturally, which occurs quicker than darkerskin can.
Seems to be much more scientific than what you have to say about it, which is "I don't know" lol.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: They disgree on the "HOW" but agree on the "why". Damn man!! Jablonski says the "how" is vit D ie food/diet changes due to the Neolithic revolution.
Jablosnki agree that lattitude at the continental level plays a role, she authored a whole study with her husband. She also explains the need of vitamin D. Not only Jablosnki but also Kittles, Norton, Sforza et al...
Again, if it was solely due to latitude why did it take them tens of millenia to actually turn white? They should have turned white once not too long after reaching Europe.
To anyone with a brain, this makes clear sense that it's NOT solely due to latitude at the continental but other factors are at play which have been scientifically proven.
You can play stupid all you want, but others can learn from your stupidity.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
Why don't you actually read what Jablosnki has to say about it instead of acting like you did, which from your time here and responses you obviously didn't.
See here...
quote:Nina G. Jablonski and George Chaplin 2000
The evolution of human skin coloration
Skin color is one of the most conspicuous ways in which humans vary and has been widely used to define human races. Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration in the integument and its direct and indirect effects on fitness. Using remotely sensed data on UV radiation levels, hypotheses concerning the distribution of the skin colors of indigenous peoples relative to UV levels were tested quantitatively in this study for the first time. The major results of this study are: (1) skin reflectance is strongly correlated with absolute latitude and UV radiation levels. The highest correlation between skin reflectance and UV levels was observed at 545 nm, near the absorption maximum for oxyhemoglobin, suggesting that the main role of melanin pigmentation in humans is regulation of the effects of UV radiation on the contents of cutaneous blood vessels located in the dermis. (2) Predicted skin reflectances deviated little from observed values. (3) In all populations for which skin reflectance data were available for males and females, females were found to be lighter skinned than males. (4) The clinal gradation of skin coloration observed among indigenous peoples is correlated with UV radiation levels and represents a compromise solution to the conflicting physiological requirements of photoprotection and vitamin D synthesis.
^Seems like you're stuck at one (1) saying "duhhhhh but where do I go now" while Jablosnki and everyone else is already on four (4).
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
sigh. . . .KIK. My patience is running out. You are confusing the "how" with the "why".
QUOTE: Jablosnki says the HOW is lattitude. .
that's the "why". Look at it this way. ==
WHY did human depigment? - answer: because as humans moved north there was less UV.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
^Yes it does have to do with latitude nobody argues this in fact I've been saying this for years, but this is where you get stuck and I move forward with the science of it.
The how and why are the same in this instance.
How did they turn white?
Answer; The clinal gradation of skin coloration observed among indigenous peoples is correlated with UV radiation levels and represents a compromise solution to the conflicting physiological requirements of photoprotection and vitamin D synthesis.
Why did they turn white?
Answer; The clinal gradation of skin coloration observed among indigenous peoples is correlated with UV radiation levels and represents a compromise solution to the conflicting physiological requirements of photoprotection and vitamin D synthesis.
If Europeans turned white solely due to low UV levels logically it wouldn't have taken them tens of millenia do so.
Get it?
You have nothing to refute the Vitamin D synthesis explanation.
Either way you put it same conclusions, go hand in hand. You lose. Again.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: sigh. . . .KIK. My patience is running out. You are confusing the "how" with the "why".
QUOTE: Jablosnki says the HOW is lattitude. . that's the "why".
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: They disgree on the "HOW" but agree on the "why". Damn man!!
Jablonski says the "how" is vit D ie food/diet changes due to the Neolithic revolution.
You're clearly confused lol.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
Again, if it was solely due to latitude why did it take them tens of millenia to actually turn white? They should have turned white once not too long after reaching Europe.
I would like to know what is the proof that it took tens of millenia how does anyone know they didn't turn light skinned quicker not too long after reaching Europe.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
^^Keep up you've been shown this information before yet you still ask and ask and ask...
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS MEETING
European Skin Turned Pale Only Recently, Gene Suggests
Ann Gibbons
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA-- At the American Association of Physical Anthropologists meeting, held here from 28 to 31 March, a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggested that Europeans acquired pale skin quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ this is reasonable theory but far from being accepted by all evolutionary biologists at this point
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ KIk
Tsk! Tsk. The how and the why would NEVER be the same. Did you graduate from college? I will dig out that Kittles paper I schooled you on earlier this year. Google search is not getting it. As Kittles stated in that paper there are TWO, yes TWO, conventional views on the HOW. Of course the paper I cited above says there are more than two. Nevertheless the leaders are Jablonski in one camp and Makova in the other. In that paper Kittles and his co-author is leaning towards Makova.
Just to be clear. All agree it was migration north ie latitude was the WHY. And in case you still don’t get it. Native Americans entered the Americas light skin NOT dark.
Here is an exercise for you. Correlate the time line of Native Americans entry into the Americas and THEIR Agricultural Revolution. As I said Jablonski ‘s Theory is nonsense. The problem with some of you is you read but do not entertain opposing or different views. To build a strong argument you need to read up on what the other side is saying. As usual what is popular at the time is what you parrot. Hence you and others keep coming back to that stupid Penn study.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I will do you one better. Assuming – Native Americans entered North America dark approx 12ya. Educate us on how selective sweep occurred among this group. Keep in mind central Americans are dark while those to the north and south are light. And if you don’t know what I am talking about then get out of this discussion.
Problem with some of you, you still look at the world through European eyes. Europeans were not the only ones that depigmented. Asians did also.
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): [ Again, if it was solely due to latitude why did it take them tens of millenia to actually turn white?
.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You and others (like many racist)need to keep up. You keep going back to that archaic Penn study. We now know that SLC24A45 is just ONE of MANY genes that impact skin color. You guys seem to have a hard on for that study . . . . .and that gene. There are several genes that impact skin color. SLC24A45 is just one of many. Europeans have a higher frequency, yes, but Asians and Native Americans have ZERO. Asians and Native Americans have a higher frequency of ASIP. Khoi-San has OCA2. Note Europeans also has high frequency of ASIP and OCA2 and other “depigmentation” genes.
Now please don’t waste my time.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Let us get back to the hair discussion. Zaharan cited some papers I am looking into now. Lioness should follow those leads.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Penance – Read the entire study 10 times then get back to me. . . .
Genetic evidence for the convergent evolution of light skin in Europeans and East Asians. By Norton and Kittles Norton HL, Kittles RA, Parra E, McKeigue P, Mao X, Cheng K, Canfield VA, Bradley DG, McEvoy B, Shriver MD. Source Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, PA, USA. hnorton@email.arizona.edu Abstract 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 F(ST) 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. Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Who is your daddy???
From the study. Now If I mention your name in a post just salute me.
====
There are [u]2 primary explanations for the evolution of lighter skin in regions of low UVR[/u]. The first suggests that light skin is merely due to the relaxation of functional constraint and that derived alleles associated with lighter pigmentation may have simply drifted to high frequency in the absence of strong purifying selection (Brace 1963). ****edit by xyyman-now Makova 2006**** The [u]second explanation [/u]suggests that in lowerUVRregions, positive selection would have favored mutations leading to lighter skin as a way to maximize cutaneous vitamin D synthesis (Rana et al. 1999; Jablonski and Chaplin 2000).
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^ this is reasonable theory but far from being accepted by all evolutionary biologists at this point
Uhh what's not accepted?
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: @ KIk As Kittles stated in that paper there are TWO, yes TWO, conventional views on the HOW. Of course the paper I cited above says there are more than two. Nevertheless the leaders are Jablonski in one camp and Makova in the other. In that paper Kittles and his co-author is leaning towards Makova.
You mean as Norton and Kittles note in the paper. Either way, you're an idiot, as Jablosnki noted both of these as the explanation back in 2000...
The clinal gradation of skin coloration observed among indigenous peoples is correlated with UV radiation levels and represents a compromise solution to the conflicting physiological requirements of photoprotection and vitamin D synthesis. --Jablonki, Chaplin
Again, if it's solely due to latitude and UV exposure, why did it take Europeans tens of millenia before turning pale? What's your scientific explanation for this?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Native Americans entered the Americas light skin NOT dark.
Nope, Native Americans enterted the Americas before lightskin became widespread as noted below...
Interestingly, derived allele frequencies at this locus are quite different between Native American (15%) and East Asian populations (45%), suggesting that perhaps the derived allele at this locus did not reach very high frequencies in East Asians until after the colonization of the Americas.--Norton, Kittles Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You and others (like many racist)need to keep up. You keep going back to that archaic Penn study. We now know that SLC24A45 is just ONE of MANY genes that impact skin color. You guys seem to have a hard on for that study . . . . .and that gene. There are several genes that impact skin color. SLC24A45 is just one of many. Europeans have a higher frequency, yes, but Asians and Native Americans have ZERO. Asians and Native Americans have a higher frequency of ASIP. Khoi-San has OCA2. Note Europeans also has high frequency of ASIP and OCA2 and other “depigmentation” genes.
Now please don’t waste my time.
Are you acting like you're somehow teaching me that there's more than one gene identified? Lmao you're hilarious. I've known about the other derived alleles for years, you make no point.
See below, I've long discussed all alleles involved..
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: [QB] The ancestral state being at TYR A192C, MATP C374G, and SLC24A5 A111G which predominates in sub-Saharan Africa and Island Melanesia, the derived state of these alleles on the other hand which are TYR, 192*A, MATP 374*G and SLC24A5 111*A, predominate in Europe, which is consistent with the FST results of the the distributions of both ancestral and derived, indicating that the derived version is strongly a European specific divergent at these loci.
^^You're not teaching me anything new kid.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I give tutorials in case you are interested.. . .
yeah that's right play dumb.
You missed it? I am with Makova NOT Jablonski. I thought I made that clear.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Who is your daddy???
From the study. Now If I mention your name in a post just salute me.
====
There are [u]2 primary explanations for the evolution of lighter skin in regions of low UVR[/u]. The first suggests that light skin is merely due to the relaxation of functional constraint and that derived alleles associated with lighter pigmentation may have simply drifted to high frequency in the absence of strong purifying selection (Brace 1963). ****edit by xyyman-now Makova 2006**** The [u]second explanation [/u]suggests that in lowerUVRregions, positive selection would have favored mutations leading to lighter skin as a way to maximize cutaneous vitamin D synthesis (Rana et al. 1999; Jablonski and Chaplin 2000).
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Who is your daddy???
From the study. Now If I mention your name in a post just salute me.
====
There are [u]2 primary explanations for the evolution of lighter skin in regions of low UVR[/u]. The first suggests that light skin is merely due to the relaxation of functional constraint and that derived alleles associated with lighter pigmentation may have simply drifted to high frequency in the absence of strong purifying selection (Brace 1963). ****edit by xyyman-now Makova 2006**** The [u]second explanation [/u]suggests that in lowerUVRregions, positive selection would have favored mutations leading to lighter skin as a way to maximize cutaneous vitamin D synthesis (Rana et al. 1999; Jablonski and Chaplin 2000).
Again, Jablosnki says it's both, her explanation is much more scientific than you simply saying "I don't know why it took then tens of millenia if it's merely due to relaxation of functional constraint "...as it's proven that lighterskin populations synthesize UV rays and turn it in vitamin D quicker than darkerskin, along with the fact that high intake of vitamin D rich foods keeps Eskimos darker than Europeans despite inhabiting a lower UV environment.
For centuries, Inuit living in Canada's Arctic spent months without sunlight, and lifetimes wearing thick, fur clothing that blocked the sunlight from their dark skin.
Mother Nature provided vitamin D in other ways. Instead of making it through sun exposure, the Inuit got a healthy dose from traditional foods that happen to be rich in vitamin D: the skin of Arctic char; seal liver; the yolks of bird and fish eggs; and seal, walrus and whale blubber.
But as the Arctic has changed, so have eating habits. While seal and char (trout) are still staples in Nunavut's isolated communities, walrus and whale consumption have been in decline for 30 years.
The result is ****vitamin D deficiency***, which surfaces as ***rickets*** , a disease most Canadians might be surprised to hear still exists in Canada. Thirty-one new cases of rickets were discovered in the first five years of Nunavut's creation.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
1. There is strong evidence of the harms of exposure to UV radiation from the sun and other sources, including skin cancer, melanoma and some cataracts. Based on expert consensus, sun protection is required when the UV index is 3 (moderate) or higher.
2. There is strong evidence of the benefits of adequate vitamin D status on musculoskeletal health and prevention of fractures in the elderly. There is also a growing body of evidence that vitamin D may have beneficial effects on some types of cancer, in particular colorectal cancer. Experts are concerned that vitamin D status may be too low in the general population to achieve these health benefits.
3. Vitamin D is obtained through skin exposure to UVB radiation, and also through diet (particularly fortified foods) and supplementation. To minimize the health risks associated with UVB radiation exposure while maximizing the potential benefits of optimum Vitamin D status, supplementation and small amounts of sun exposure are the preferred methods of obtaining vitamin D.
The known risks associated with unprotected UVB exposure must be weighed against its benefits as a source of vitamin D. For example, it is possible that just a few minutes a day of unprotected sun exposure will increase vitamin D status, but for some, may also increase the risk of skin damage. Factors such as age, diet, skin pigmentation, geographic location and intensity of the sun will affect the amount of sun exposure needed to produce adequate vitamin D. More research is needed in this area before any more specific recommendations can be made.
4. Groups at risk of not obtaining adequate amounts of vitamin D include:
· the elderly;
· exclusively breast-fed babies;
· individuals with dark skin pigmentation;
· individuals with limited skin exposure to the sun (e.g. housebound, or those who wear clothing covering most of the skin for cultural/religious reasons); and
· those who during the winter are living above 37 degrees latitude (Canada and Northern US). Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Another quote parroted by the brainless
Quote: “fact that high intake of vitamin D rich foods keeps Eskimos darker than Europeans despite inhabiting a lower UV environment.”
The “dark Asian” populations are NEW to the area. I thought I made that clear. Do you want me to post the study? Com’on man! READ!!!! Give up and on that food nonsense already!!!
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
If they're new to the area, how come they exhibit the most cold adapted body plans of all humans? I'm still waiting on you to answer this...how come they suffer from vitamin D deficiency if their diets change from traditional fish, whale blubber etc..which is high in vitamin d?
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I am with Makova NOT Jablonski. I thought I made that clear.
Jablonski says the same thing jackass...so you do agree with her,
The clinal gradation of skin coloration observed among indigenous peoples is correlated with UV radiation levels and represents a compromise solution to the conflicting physiological requirements of photoprotection and vitamin D synthesis. --Jablonki, Chaplin
^^you just don't agree with the Vitamin D synthesis.
But what other explanation would there be for Europeans to spend tens of millenia in Europe before turning white? Of course you have no answer for this but Jablonski does.
And as shown to you we can get an example of this from the Eskimos who retain their pigment despite inhabiting a lower UV environment than Europe, which due to high levels of vitamin D intake.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Two good questions. Let me correct that. One dumb and one good question. You answered your own dumb question “how come they suffer from vitamin D deficiency if their diets change from traditional fish, whale blubber etc..which is high in vitamin d?” Answer: “suffer from vitamin D deficiency. . . diets change. . which is high in vitamin d?” Duh. And of course their dark skin. Still don’t get, huh? Yes, dark skin is NOT advantageous in the North. . .or far South but Vit D deficiency did NOT trigger the mutation to light skin per Makova now Norton/Kittles. The food/diet had nothing to do with it.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
So again, what keeps Eskimos pigmented despite inhabiting lower UV environments than Europe?
Why is their darkskin not advantageous? Is it because it prohibits the absorption of vitamin D through UV exposure? Of course it is lol.
If vitamin D deficiency didn't trigger the mutation to become pale in Europe, then why did it take tens of millenia for humans to turn pale in Europe?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Finally. . . . now you are catching on. . . .
If I did not knw any better I swear you and the lunatic is the same
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I am with Makova NOT Jablonski. I thought I made that clear.
^^you just don't agree with the Vitamin D synthesis.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I believe it was the Halliday/Trenton study on the Aleuts etc that put the Eskimos about 2000yrs in the region. Not enough time to depigment.
Get it!!!!!!
Man if I had a penny for every time I saved your asssh. . .
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Finally. . . . now you are catching on. . . .
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I am with Makova NOT Jablonski. I thought I made that clear.
^^you just don't agree with the Vitamin D synthesis.
Yea and you have no way of refuting it though, you just simply whine about how you disagree with it.
In turn what other explanation would there be for humans in Europe to spend tens of millenia in Europe before turning pale?
We know early Europeans were hunter gatherers hence their whole diet consisted of high vitamin D rich foods, and when agriculture came around the switch involved a lower vitamin D intake from fish and animal meat to grains etc...
We know Eskimos are more pigmented than Europeans despite inhabiting lower UV environments, and we know the traditional Eskimo diet involved immensely high amounts of vitamin D rich foods.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
KIK I will make it simple for you. Read the Makova study. There are many more that disagree with Jablonski/Chaplin and this vit D/diet change nonsense.
In a nutshell Makova and others are saying that light skin is the “natural state” IF there is NO physical pressure. In other words ALL population will lighten when the stimulus is removed ie high UV. See the study on San and Bantus in South Africa. There is also another study on South East Asians which confirmed this. So please stop parroting this Jablonski nonsense. We have moved on from that… “old” Penn Study.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I believe it was the Halliday/Trenton study on the Aleuts etc that put the Eskimos about 2000yrs in the region. Not enough time to depigment.
Get it!!!!!!
Man if I had a penny for every time I saved your asssh. . .
Nope, arctic small tool tradition dates back further than that about 5kya, and there are artifacts found in Siberia going back to perhaps 18,000 years ago.
You can post the Holliday study though...
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: KIK I will make it simple for you. Read the Makova study. There are many more that disagree with Jablonski/Chaplin and this vit D/diet change nonsense. In a nutshell Makova and others are saying that light skin is the “natural state” IF there is NO physical pressure. In other words ALL population will lighten when the stimulus is removed ie high UV. See the study on San and Bantus in South Africa. There is also another study on South East Asians which confirmed this. So please stop parroting this Jablonski nonsense. We have moved on from that… “old” Penn Study.
Well then you should have no trouble explaining how come it took tens of millenia for Europeans to turn pale right?
Obviously you know your dumbass is wrong, which is why you keep on ducking and dodging directly answering this question.
Its not solely due to relaxation otherwise it wouldn't have taken Europeans tens of millenia to turn pale. Plain and simple, get it???
Also Eskimos would be just as pale as Europeans are, but they're not... if you can't see that there's something else at play here you're an idiot.
If they disagree with Jablonski then quote their explanation for why Europeans spent tens of millenia in Europe before turning pale?
What's taking you so long?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman: [qb] Finally. . . . now you are catching on. . . .
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
We know early Europeans were hunter gatherers hence their whole diet consisted of high vitamin D rich foods, and when agriculture came around the switch involved a lower vitamin D intake from fish and animal meat to grains etc...
Virtually the only vitamin D rich diet is fish based. Hunter gatherer populations that were inland and not near rivers would not be included. Their depigmenation could have been thosuands of years faster than coastal or river based populations if the vitamin D hypothesis is correct
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
^^The information is out there and been posted before you just have to look...
Feb, 2001 - Three years ago, Jablonski and Chaplin took the spectrometer's global ultraviolet measurements and compared them with published data on skin color in indigenous populations from more than 50 countries. To their delight, there was an unmistakable correlation: The weaker the ultraviolet light, the fairer the skin. Jablonski went on to show that people living above 50 degrees latitude have the highest risk of vitamin D deficiency. "This was one of the last barriers in the history of human settlement," Jablonski says. "Only after humans learned fishing, and therefore had access to food rich in vitamin D, could they settle these regions."
quote:
The Biology of Skin Color: Black and White
The evolution of race was as simple as the politics of race is complex By Gina Kirchweger
Ten years ago, while at the university of Western Australia, anthropologist Nina Jablonski was asked to give a lecture on human skin. As an expert in primate evolution, she decided to discuss the evolution of skin color, but when she went through the literature on the subject she was dismayed. Some theories advanced before the 1970s tended to be racist, and others were less than convincing. White skin, for example, was reported to be more resistant to cold weather, although groups like the Inuit are both dark and particularly resistant to cold. After the 1970s, when researchers were presumably more aware of the controversy such studies could kick up, there was very little work at all. "It's one of these things everybody notices," Jablonski says, "but nobody wants to talk about."
No longer. Jablonski and her husband, George Chaplin, a geographic information systems specialist, have formulated the first comprehensive theory of skin color. Their findings, published in a recent issue of the Journal of Human Evolution, show a strong, somewhat predictable correlation between skin color and the strength of sunlight across the globe. But they also show a deeper, more surprising process at work: Skin color, they say, is largely a matter of vitamins.
Jablonski, now chairman of the anthropology department at the California Academy of Sciences, begins by assuming that our earliest ancestors had fair skin just like chimpanzees, our closest biological relatives. Between 4.5 million and 2 million years ago, early humans moved from the rain forest and onto the East African savanna. Once on the savanna, they not only had to cope with more exposure to the sun, but they also had to work harder to gather food. Mammalian brains are particularly vulnerable to overheating: A change of only five or six degrees can cause a heatstroke. So our ancestors had to develop a better cooling system.
The answer was sweat, which dissipates heat through evaporation. Early humans probably had few sweat glands, like chimpanzees, and those were mainly located on the palms of their hands and the bottoms of their feet. Occasionally, however, individuals were born with more glands than usual. The more they could sweat, the longer they could forage before the heat forced them back into the shade. The more they could forage, the better their chances of having healthy offspring and of passing on their sweat glands to future generations.
A million years of natural selection later, each human has about 2 million sweat glands spread across his or her body. Human skin, being less hairy than chimpanzee skin, "dries much quicker," says Adrienne Zihlman, an anthropologist at the University of California at Santa Cruz. "Just think how after a bath it takes much longer for wet hair to dry."
Hairless skin, however, is particularly vulnerable to damage from sunlight. Scientists long assumed that humans evolved melanin, the main determinant of skin color, to absorb or disperse ultraviolet light. But what is it about ultraviolet light that melanin protects against? Some researchers pointed to the threat of skin cancer. But cancer usually develops late in life, after a person has already reproduced. Others suggested that sunburned nipples would have hampered breast-feeding. But a slight tan is enough to protect mothers against that problem.
During her preparation for the lecture in Australia, Jablonski found a 1978 study that examined the effects of ultraviolet light on folate, a member of the vitamin B complex. An hour of intense sunlight, the study showed, is enough to cut folate levels in half if your skin is light. Jablonski made the next, crucial connection only a few weeks later. At a seminar on embryonic development, she heard that low folate levels are correlated with neural-tube defects such as spina bifida and anencephaly, in which infants are born without a full brain or spinal cord.
Jablonski and Chaplin predicted the skin colors of indigenous people across the globe based on how much ultraviolet light different areas receive. Graphic by Matt Zang, adapted from the data of N. Jablonski and G. Chaplin
Jablonski later came across three documented cases in which children's neural-tube defects were linked to their mothers' visits to tanning studios during early pregnancy. Moreover, she found that folate is crucial to sperm development -- so much so that a folate inhibitor was developed as a male contraceptive. ("It never got anywhere," Jablonski says. "It was so effective that it knocked out all folate in the body.") She now had some intriguing evidence that folate might be the driving force behind the evolution of darker skin. But why do some people have light skin?
As far back as the 1960s, the biochemist W. Farnsworth Loomis had suggested that skin color is determined by the body's need for vitamin D. The vitamin helps the body absorb calcium and deposit it in bones, an essential function, particularly in fast-growing embryos. (The need for vitamin D during pregnancy may explain why women around the globe tend to have lighter skin than men.) Unlike folate, vitamin D depends on ultraviolet light for its production in the body. Loomis believed that people who live in the north, where daylight is weakest, evolved fair skin to help absorb more ultraviolet light and that people in the tropics evolved dark skin to block the light, keeping the body from overdosing on vitamin D, which can be toxic at high concentrations.
By the time Jablonski did her research, Loomis's hypothesis had been partially disproved. "You can never overdose on natural amounts of vitamin D," Jablonski says. "There are only rare cases where people take too many cod-liver supplements." But Loomis's insight about fair skin held up, and it made a perfect complement for Jablonski's insight about folate and dark skin. The next step was to find some hard data correlating skin color to light levels.
Until the 1980s, researchers could only estimate how much ultraviolet radiation reaches Earth's surface. But in 1978, NASA launched the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer. Three years ago, Jablonski and Chaplin took the spectrometer's global ultraviolet measurements and compared them with published data on skin color in indigenous populations from more than 50 countries. To their delight, there was an unmistakable correlation: The weaker the ultraviolet light, the fairer the skin. Jablonski went on to show that people living above 50 degrees latitude have the highest risk of vitamin D deficiency. "This was one of the last barriers in the history of human settlement," Jablonski says. "Only after humans learned fishing, and therefore had access to food rich in vitamin D, could they settle these regions."
Humans have spent most of their history moving around. To do that, they've had to adapt their tools, clothes, housing, and eating habits to each new climate and landscape. But Jablonski's work indicates that our adaptations go much further. People in the tropics have developed dark skin to block out the sun and protect their body's folate reserves. People far from the equator have developed fair skin to drink in the sun and produce adequate amounts of vitamin D during the long winter months.
Jablonski hopes that her research will alert people to the importance of vitamin D and folate in their diet. It's already known, for example, that dark-skinned people who move to cloudy climes can develop conditions such as rickets from vitamin D deficiencies. More important, Jablonski hopes her work will begin to change the way people think about skin color. "We can take a topic that has caused so much disagreement, so much suffering, and so much misunderstanding," she says, "and completely disarm it."
In other words. . . these groups, Eskimos etc, will lighten, in time, even if they ate fish for breakfast, lunch and dinner. LOL! according to opposing views to Jablonski/Chaplin.
Not sure WHEN Europeans depigmented but populations to take about 3-5000yrs to depigment. See the Central Americans and South African Bantus timeline. Remember northern Europe (low UV – with the palest people) did not have people till about 5000bc.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Keep in mind central Americans are dark while those to the north and south are light. And if you don’t know what I am talking about then get out o
many of the North American Indians are dark
Teton Sioux Indians
Canadian
Mrs. Maria Ayuluk of Chevak, Alaska
Inuit
Inuit
Eskimo
When I look at various Northern Indians there seem to be a lot of inconsistencies of skin pigmenation
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
^^Lol! Fairy tales of Jablonski
Sorry, but you are drinking kool-aid..
quote:Jablonski, now chairman of the anthropology department at the California Academy of Sciences, begins by assuming that our earliest ancestors had fair skin just like chimpanzees, our closest biological relatives...
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] You and others (like many racist)need to keep up. You keep going back to that archaic Penn study.
you addressed this to AGÜEYBANÁ. This implies you think the vitamin D hypothesis is racist. If that's what you think explain why
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: In other words. . . these groups, Eskimos etc, will lighten, in time, even if they ate fish for breakfast, lunch and dinner. LOL! according to opposing views to Jablonski/Chaplin.
In Jablsonki's view they would retain the pigment levels that they possess if were to keep to traditional diet high in Vitamin D, in turn if changed, suffer vitamin D deficiency.
On the other hand, according to your train of thought that it was simply the relaxation that human skin was already white in its ancestral state blah blah blah, then Eskimos would be just as pale as Europeans, or other East Asians (whom they share recent common ancestry with).
Which they don't hence why we know something else is here at play, not simply the relaxation, play ignorant all you want.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Not sure WHEN Europeans depigmented but populations to take about 3-5000yrs to depigment. See the Central Americans and South African Bantus timeline. Remember northern Europe (low UV – with the palest people) did not have people till about 5000bc.
Humans have been in northern to southern Europe beginning with the Upper Paleolithic some 40kya, I don't know where you get your info from. But as noted they didn't become pale until tens of millenia later, and if they weren't under intense cold stress then they wouldn't have been gradually adapting cold body plans by the late upper paleolithic which they were see below...
quote: Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins. T W Holliday
Results reveal a clear tendency for the EUP sample to cluster with recent Africans, while LUP and MES samples cluster with recent Europeans. These results refute the hypothesis of local continuity in Europe, and are consistent with an interpretation of elevated gene flow (and population dispersal?) from Africa, followed by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions.
^^So we know they were undergoing lower UV and cold stress by their limb proportions, but why no pale skin until tens of millenia later after the paleolithic xyy?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ Lioness.
Just can’t resist .. .those pictures huh? LOL!!! QUOTE: “When I look at various Northern Indians there seem to be a lot of inconsistencies of skin pigmention”
I am not sure WHO are in those picture. . .get it. This is more meaningful. THIS is a better representation of what to expect of the phenotype of native Americans throught-out the Americas. Don’t put up arbitrary picture and tell me these are native Americans.
According to the chart those in the North and South are lighter than those to the central. Just as in Euro-Africa . . .and Asia. Infact it applies through-out the globe. That should tell you something. .
quote:
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
xyyman this chart proves nothing. The proof is when you look at photographs old and new to see if the theory checks out against actual people. The people are the proof. Many North American Indians were dark, this is obvious.
Any competant person wishing to varify this would start looking at old photographs of American Indians. I had a thread in AE about this. Do your own research, see if your light skinned North American Indians theory pans out, The proof is in the pudding
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ Lioness I am not saying Vit D theory is racist. My point is racialist tend NOT to keep up with new scientific studies . They cite outdated material. They hold on to outdated belief. Good example is C-Ass and his love for Coon.
But come to think of it the vit D theory may be racist. Since they keep beating that drum that AA are deficient in Vit D. Those that live in the Northern Hemisphere that is . We know that is BS.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
While we're on the subject of Vitamin D and skin pigmentation...
Some people argue that since Egypt is not within the latitudinal tropics, the Egyptians would have lost enough melanin to be non-Black. Putting aside the limb-proportion research suggesting that the Egyptians were perfectly adapted for a tropical environment anyway, it occurred to me that if Vitamin D synthesis was the real selective force against darker skin in high latitudes, then we must consider that most Egyptians them ate fish from the Nile on a daily basis:
quote:Fish, mostly dried, were part of most Egyptians' daily diet, despite the fact, that they were considered unclean by a few of the better-off Egyptians.
If Egyptians were eating so much fish, I would think they would have obtained enough Vitamin D in their diet to retain dark skin.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Will you people give it a rest. This VitD nonsense..
Looking at the chart above, yes, indegenous Lower Egyptian may be a tard lighter than Upper Egyptian. But most of Egyptians should be very dark. Infact most indegenous Arabs, Yemenies etc are very dark.
Which lends credence to Dana's and Mike's view that the indegenous Arabs, Persians etc were most likely black. There is also genetics evidence that "recent" SSA occupied Arabia and Persia.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Will you people give it a rest. This VitD nonsense..
What's wrong with it? It's a perfectly valid hypothesis you've yet to refute.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Makova and a few other researchers concluded through genetic and statistical analysis that humans depigmented NOT due to Vit D deficiency. There are many research papers out there that shows this. She poined out that Rana and some of the EARLIER work by Kittles had sampling flaws. As usual. The earlier work sampled Bantus from west Africa. When samples are taken from Southern Bantus an entirely different picture emerges.
Severeal things were concluded from these studies. I will paraphrase.
1. By including other primates in her studies she concluded that depigmented skin is not only ancestral but the "natural" state of humans. Pigmeneted skin is a "forced" state. ie when the constraint(UV) is removed, human populations will drift back to a lighter skin.
2. Depigmentation can take place through several processes. All involve the MC1r gene acting in conjunction(opposing) with one or more genes eg. OCA, ASIP, SLCA45, MTAP etc.
3. No food, Vit D deficiency etc is needed for humans to depigment. That is why the Global UV distribution correlates perfectly with the skin distribution map above.
4. There are indegenous light brown Africans. No admixture needed. That does not mean admixture did not occur in the past. But looking at the chart above it is obvious that of the 200,000yrs of humans existence 195,000 humans and Africans were black.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Correction: Of the 200,000yrs of human existence 195, 000yrs, humans and African were Black. It is only within the last 5000yrs returning depigmented Africans/(AMH) re-entered Africa. LOL!
To further clarify. Although depigmentation is ancestral/natural it is due to blackness we became “human”. It is due to Blackness/melanin that we evolved into AMH. Because as MK pointed out melanin not only protects from harmful UV rays( without it we would of died out as a species) but there may be a dozen or so other benefits of melanin. Such as so many psychological and genetic diseases suffered by depigmented people. As you can see the Melanin Theory has some good points. But I don’t concur with the Albino Theory thing. The genetic evidence(both Haplo-groups and MC1r pathway) do not support this.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: No food, Vit D deficiency etc is needed for humans to depigment. That is why the Global UV distribution correlates perfectly with the skin distribution map above.
Right back to square one where you keep running away from.
If it's solely due to relaxation of UV constraint and has nothing to do with the need to synthesize vitamin D then how come Eskimos are darker than Europeans despite inhabiting a lower UV environments?
And how come it took humans in Europe after reaching some 40kya (give or take), tens of millenia afterwards to depigment?
You don't realize how little sense you make.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: There are indegenous light brown Africans. No admixture needed. That does not mean admixture did not occur in the past. But looking at the chart above it is obvious that of the 200,000yrs of humans existence 195,000 humans and Africans were black.
Why would all humans be black until 5kya if humans reached above 50 degrees latitude atleast 30,000 years beforehand? Surely the low UV in Europe should have turned them pale a long time before, but why didn't it?
Stop running.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Some people argue that since Egypt is not within the latitudinal tropics, the Egyptians would have lost enough melanin to be non-Black.
^^Its a bogus argument for 3 reasons:
(1) Tropical Africans are not static entities and can and did move out of tropical zones into sub-tropical ones at will over the span of history. Hence the very distinctive limb proportions in temperate Egypt show that it was populated by groups from tropical areas.
(2) The tropic zone itself contains numerous varying micro-climes allowing more than enough scope for phenotypic variation based on local climates.
3) A part of Egypt itself (almost 10-20% depending on the map you use), falls within the tropical zone, so its peoples have "the tropics" right there and then in place, WITHIN Egypt
If Egyptians were eating so much fish, I would think they would have obtained enough Vitamin D in their diet to retain dark skin.
^^ who knows, but based on the 3 items above, the fish would make no difference. If the tropicals could just walk over from the Sahara or Sudan.. or just chill out in the tropical zone - itself WITHIN Egypt- , fish consumption would not matter.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^How long does it take to lighten up anyways?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Some people argue that since Egypt is not within the latitudinal tropics, the Egyptians would have lost enough melanin to be non-Black.
^^Its a bogus argument for 3 reasons:
(1) Tropical Africans are not static entities and can and did move out of tropical zones into sub-tropical ones at will over the span of history. Hence the very distinctive limb proportions in temperate Egypt show that it was populated by groups from tropical areas.
^^ the crural index of many of the ancient Egyptians remains found average around 83.6-83.8%. That's sub tropical. Very similar to the San, 83.75 Tropical limb proportions are around 85%
You never here the term "sub tropical limb proportions" that's because people often generalize about Africa as being tropical when compared to Europe.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ That's because Africans are by and large tropical, nitwit! By the way, why is this silly off-topic thread that has nothing to do with ancient Egypt in this section of the forum to begin with??
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
How long does it take to de-pigment ? Good question. I haven’t come across any research investigating specifically that issue. I have read about 1 ½ dozen papers on the issue.
The Penn paper that KIK and other keep citing suggest a time about 6-12ky for “selective sweep” to occur?. Again this is another flaw with the study. The change in diet(vit D deficiency) occurred AFTER the Neolithic revolution ie about 6 thousand BC.. Therefore a comfortable conclusion is 2-6000y for de-pigmentation.
The Makova studies on South African Bantus and Khoi-San inferred that the Khoi-San has been in the area(low UV) > 30ky and therefore well adjusted in skin tone. The new Bantus are already showing signs of de-pigmenting compared to the Central African Bantus. .These Bantus have been in South Africa about 2ky.
When we go to the Americas. The Native Americans entered about 10-12kya., from the north. Whether they entered light is dark is another issue. But currently they skin tone correlates perfectly to the level of UV radiation. So depending on demic diffusion ie migration rate and skin adaption I will calculate adjustment to UV took 3-6Ky.
In another study, Harding et al(?), on AA. There were signs that AA are maybe de-pigmenting via the ASIP loci and not SLCA45. In other words although there maybe admixture with Europeans(SLCA45) even within mono-ethnic relationship skin lightening may be occurring(ASIP).
“Nature finds a way”. . . . Jurassic Park
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
IF Jablonski’s hypothesis is true then selective sweep took place LESS than 4kya(ie AFTER the Vit D problems developed LOL!!). Norton and Kittles chuckled at that. If Jablonski theory is true then ALL humans(in the North) were dark like tropical Africans and only turned light when they changed their diet. LOL. ie less than 4kya. Which means all aboriginal groups that survives by hunting and eating fish should be as dark as tropical Africans. Ie remain unchanged. AND we know that is NOT the case!!!!
That is why removal of constraint makes more sense.
“The defendant rest your honor” . . . LOL!!
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
The Penn paper that KIK and other keep citing suggest a time about 6-12ky for “selective sweep” to occur?. Again this is another flaw with the study.
No, it doesn't say 6-12ky for the selective sweep to occur, it states 6-12kya is when the sweep occurred. Again this is another flaw in your reading, this is why you continue to make a fool out of yourself.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: IF Jablonski’s hypothesis is true then selective sweep took place LESS than 4kya(ie AFTER the Vit D problems developed LOL!!). Norton and Kittles chuckled at that.
Don't know wth you're talking about but Jablosnki doesn't make any hypotheses about when selective sweep occurred. She instead puts out the argument very well that humans are vitally dependent on Vitamin D and the sun is a natural source so lighter skin was a way to get more from the source under lower UV environments since lighterskin allows quicker synthesis.
Norton is the one who says the sweep occurred 6-12kya get your **** together, dumbo.
Meanwhile back in reality;
"Norton, who worked on the Cheng study as a graduate student decided to find out when that mutation swept through Europeans. Working as a postdoc with geneticist Michael Hammer, at the university of Arizona she sequenced 9300 base pairs of DNA in the SLC24A5 gene in 41 Europeans, Africans, East Asians and American Indians. Using variations in the gene that did not cause paling she calculated the background mutation rate of SLC24A5 and thereby determined that 18,000 years had passed before the light-skin allele was fixed in Europeans. But the error margins were large, so she also analyzed variation in the DNA flanking the gene. She found that Europeans with the allele had a striking lack of diversity in the flanking DNA--a sign of a very recent genetic change, because not enough time has passed for new mutations to arise. The data suggest a selective sweep occurred 5300 to 6000 years ago, but given the imprecision of the method the real date can be as far back as 12,000 years ago, "Norton Said
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Which means all aboriginal groups that survives by hunting and eating fish should be as dark as tropical Africans. Ie remain unchanged. AND we know that is NOT the case!!!!
Err wrong, Eskimos are hunter and gatherers and they are darker than Europeans but not even close to equitorial Africans.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: That is why removal of constraint makes more sense.
Meanwhile it took tens of millenia for humans in Europe to become pale, yea sure it's just removal of constraint and nothing else. I didn't know Europe was much hotter back in those days thanks for reminding us. Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Agreed, reading and understanding may not be your strong suite. LOL!
I will explain it to you like you are a six year old.
1. You haven’t read enough to have this discussion with me. 2. Reading one or two papers doesn’t cut it. 3. As I said, you may be as thick as the lunatic. Point is NON-Agriculturialist should be UNCHANGED. Damn man!!! That is those in the north. They should be as dark as their African ancestors. ALL OF THEM not just the Eskimos. 4. The Skin pigmentation map should also correlate with the spread of agriculture and it does not. It correlates with the UV distribution map only. 5. I can go on and on 6. Chose another subject you are more competent in. 7. bye
If the stimulus to become light(in the north,. . . and south) was a switch in diet then ALL aboriginal groups (non-agriculturialist) would be unnchanged that is as dark as their tropical African forefathers.
Oa la inversa, los Khoi-San debe ser oscuro, como todos los africanos tropicales. Usted sabe que nunca se desarrolló la agricultura.
En pocas palabras - vit D / Dieta / Alimentos nada que ver con la pigmentación de la piel
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
AGÜEYBANÁ what would explain North Europeans who live in coastal areas not being dark if they do eat a lot of fish?
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Point is NON-Agriculturialist should be UNCHANGED.
No, if it was just due to the need of synthesis of Vitamin D then everyone who obtained adequate amounts would be dark, if it was just due to relaxation of UV constraint then even Eskimos would be as pale as Euroepans.
But it's both factors as told to your imbecilic ass. Both the fact that it's lower UV so not enough to keep the skin as dark as in Africa along with the need to obtain adequate amounts of vitamin D as lightskin absorbs and synthesizes quicker.
In living populations we can see a clear example from the Eskimos who despite inhabiting a lower UV environment than Europe are darker in complexion than Europeans. Ad Nauseum, damn boy you're slow.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: AGÜEYBANÁ what would explain North Europeans who live in coastal areas not being dark if they do eat a lot of fish?
The selective sweep of the alleles across Europe.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: AGÜEYBANÁ what would explain North Europeans who live in coastal areas not being dark if they do eat a lot of fish?
The selective sweep of the alleles across Europe.
what determines when and how a selective sweep will occur, comparing Eskimos and Coastal N. Europeans?
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
Natural selection, gene flow, sexual selection....
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: AGÜEYBANÁ what would explain North Europeans who live in coastal areas not being dark if they do eat a lot of fish?
The selective sweep of the alleles across Europe.
wouldn't this sweep have to have occured before North Europeans reached coastal areas to settle in those areas?
Also, where is the origin point in Eskimo ancestry where they acquired darker skin?
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: AGÜEYBANÁ what would explain North Europeans who live in coastal areas not being dark if they do eat a lot of fish?
The selective sweep of the alleles across Europe.
wouldn't this sweep have to have occured before North Europeans reached coastal areas to settle in those areas?
Why? An allele doesn't care where you live if you have it you have it.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Also, where is the origin point in Eskimo ancestry where they acquired darker skin?
Who said they acquired darker skin? They've retained darker skin.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
I guess you get it now... Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Ancient Egyptian hair
Across the web assorted "biodiversity" proponents, wage a 'racial war' using hair studies of ancient Egyptians to prove a "Caucasian Egypt". But in fact the hair of Africans is highly variable, debunking their simplistic claims.
The hair of Africans is highly variable, ranging from tight curls of South African Bantu, to the loose curls and straight hair of peoples of East and NE Africa, all indigenously evolved over millennia as part of Africa’s high genetic diversity. This diversity undermines and ultimately dismisses simplistic "racial" claims based on hair.
Inconsistencies of the skewed "true negro" model and definitions of African hair
Dubious assertions, double standards and outmoded racial hair claims: Czech anthropologist Strouhal's 1971 study touched on hair, and advanced the most extreme racial definitions, claiming Nubians to be white Europids overrun by later waves of Negroes, and that few Negroes appeared in Egypt until the New Kingdom. Indeed, Strouhal went so far as to argue that 'Negroes' failed to survive long in Egypt, because they were ill-adapted to its arid climate! Tell that to the Saharans, Sudanese and Nubians! Such dubious claims have been thoroughly debunked by modern scholarship, however they continue in various guises by those who attempt to use "hair" to assign race 'percents' and categories to the ancients. Attempts to define racial categories based on the ancient hair rely heavily on extreme definitions, with "Negroids" typically being defined as narrowly as possible. Everything not meeting the extreme "type" is then classified as something else, such as "Caucasian".
Kieta (1990, Studies of Crania from Northern Africa) notes that while many scholars in the field have used an extreme "true negro" definition for African peoples, few have attempted to apply the same model in reverse and define a "true white." Such racial double standards are typical of much scholarship on the ancient Nile Valley peoples. A consistent approach for example would define the straight hair in Strouhal's hair sample as an exclusive Caucasian marker (10 out of 49 or approximately 20%) and make the rest (wavy and curled) hybrid or negro, at >80%. Assorted writers who support the Aryan race percent model however, are careful to avoid such consistency and typically only run the comparison one way.
QUOTE: "Strouhal (1971) microscopically examined some hair which had been preserved on a Badarian skull. The analysis was interpreted as suggesting a stereotypical tropical African-European hybrid (mulatto). However this hair is grossly no different from that of Fulani, some Kanuri, or Somali and does not require a gene flow explanation any more than curly hair in Greece necessarily does. Extremely "wooly" hair is not the only kind native to tropical Africa.." (S. O. Y. Keita. (1993). "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54)
Disturbing attempts to use hair to prove race theories: Fletcher (2002) in Egyptian Hair and Wigs, gives an example of what she calls "disturbing attempts to use hair to prove assumptions of race and gender" involving 1800s European researcher F. Petrie, who sometimes sought to use excavation reports to prove his theories of Aegean settlers flowing into Egypt. Such disturbing attempts continue today in the use of hair for race category or percentage claims involving the ancient peoples, such as the "racial" analysis seen on several Internet blogs and websites, some thinly disguised fronts for neo-nazi groups or sympathizers.
Hair study applied a stereotyped "true negro" model and used late period samples of Egypt, after the coming of Greeks, Hyskos, etc as "representative" excluding the previous 2500 years of ancient civilization. A study of the hair of Egyptian mummies by Czech anthropologists Titlbachova and Titllbach (1977) (reported in Strouhal 1977) using only late period samples found a wide range of hair in mummies. Of the 14 samples, only 4 were from the south of Egypt, and none of the 14 samples were earlier than the 18th Dynasty. Essentially the previous 2,000 years + of Egyptain civilization and peopling are not represented. Only the narrowest definition is used to identify 'true negro' types'. All other intermediate types were deemed 'non-negroid.' If a similar procedure is used in reverse and designates only straight hair as a marker of a European, then only 4 out of 14 or 29% of the samples can be deemed "Caucasoid." Below is a breakdown of the Czech data:
Sample# 5- 18th-21st dynasties- Deir el medina- curly Sample# 8- 21st-25th dynasties- hair looks straight Sample# 11- Late to Greek Period- hair partly wavy Sample# 18- Late period Egypt- hair fine diameter Sample# 19- Greek period- wavy hair Sample# 29- 18-21st Dynasties- Deir El Medina- hair shape unascertainable - south Sample# 31- 18-21st dynasties- Deir El Median- wavy to curly - south Sample# 33- 21st-25th dynasties- appears straight Sample# 34- 21st-25th dynasties- shape difficult to determine Sample# 35- 21st-25th dynasties- wavy shape Sample# 40- 21-25th Dynasties- hair curly, Sample# 44- 21-25th Dynasties- appears straight Sample# 45- 21-25th Dynasties- appears wavy Sample# 46- Kharga Oasis- 4th-5th centuries AD
Using modern technology, the same Aryan Race models are undercut with the data actually showing that Egyptians group closer to Africans than vaunted white Nordics.
"Nordic hair measurements"
Neo-Nazis and sympathizers tout the work of German researcher Pruner-Bey in the 1800s which derived racial indexes of hair including Negroes, Egyptians and Germans. Germanic hair is closer to that of the Egyptians they assert. But is it as they claim?
(Data of Bruner-Bey 1864- 'On human hair as a race character') - Negroid index: 57.40 - Egyptian index: 69.94 - White Germans: 66.33 Neo-Nazi conclusion: White German Nordics are 'closer' to Egyptians
Modern data using electron microscopes- Conti-Fuhrman & Massa (1972). Massa and Masali (1980)
Compare to Pruner Bey's 1864 data: - Negroid index: 57.40 - Egyptian index: 60.02 (modern electron microscope data) White Germans: 66.33 ______________________________________________________________________________ Conclusion using modern microscope data: Negroes much ‘closer’ to Egyptians than Nordics _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Using hair for race identification as older research does can be shaky, but even when used, it undercuts ‘Aryan” clams as shown above.
Fletcher 2002 decries “"disturbing attempts to use hair to prove assumptions of race and gender..” Other credible scientists note:
"The reader must assume, as apparently do the authors, that the "coarseness" or "fineness" of hair can readily distinguish races and that hair is dichotomized into these categories. Problematically, however, virtually all who have studied hair morphology in relation to race since the 1920’s to the present have rejected such a characterization .. Hausman, as early as 1925, stated that it is "not possible to identify individuals from samples of their hair, basing identification upon histological similarities in the structure of scales and medullas, since these may differ in hairs from the same head or in different parts of the same hair". Rook (1975) pointed out nearly 50 years later out that "Negroid and Caucasoid hair" are "chemically indistinguishable". --Tom Mieczkowsk, T. (2000). The Further Mismeasure: The Curious Use of Racial Categorizations in the Interpretation of Hair Analyses. Intl J Drug Testing 2000;vol 2
Environmental factors can influence hair color, and the Egyptians routinely placed hair from different sources in mummy wrappings, making claims of "Nordic-haired" or "white" Egyptians dubious.
Mummification practices and dyeing of hair. Hair studies of mummies note that color is often influenced by environmental factors at burial sites. Brothwell and Spearman (1963) point out that reddish-brown ancient color hair is usually the result of partial oxidation of the melanin pigment. Other causes of hair color "blonding" involve bleaching, caused by the alkaline in the mummification process. Color also varies due to the Egyptian practice of dyeing hair with henna. Other samples show individuals lightening the hair using vegetable colorants. Thus variations in hair color among mummies do not necessarily suggest the presence of blond or red-haired Europeans or Near Easterners flitting about Egypt before being mummified, but the influence of environmental factors.
Egyptian practice of putting locks of hair in mummy wrappings. Racial analysis is also made problematic by the Egyptian practice of burying hair, in many "votive or funerary deposits buried separately from the body, a practice found from Predynastic to Roman times despite its frequent omission from excavation reports." (Fletcher 2002) In examining hair samples Fletcher (2004) notes that care is needed to determine what is natural scalp hair, versus hair from a wig, versus hair extensions to natural locks. Tracking the exact source of hair is also critical since the Egyptians were known to have placed locks of hair from different sources among mummy wrappings. (The Search for Nefertiti, By Joann Fletcher, HarperCollins, 2004, p. 93-94, 96)
Egyptians shaved much of their natural hair off and used wigs extensively as covering, obtaining much of the hair for wigs through trade. Discoveries" of "Aryan" or 'Nordic" hair are thus hardly 'proof' of incoming Caucasoids, but may be simply hair purchased from some source and made into a wig. This is much less dramatic than the exciting picture of inflowing 'Aryan' hordes.
The ancient Egyptians shaved off much of their own natural hair as a matter of personal hygiene and custom, and wore wigs in public. According to the Encyclopedia of body adornment (Margo DeMello, 2007, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 101), "Boys and girls until puberty wore their hair shaved except for a side locl left on the side of their head. Many adults- both men and women- also shaved their hair as a way of coping with heat and lice. However, adults did not go about bald, and instead wore wigs in public and in private.. Wigs were initially worn by the elites, but later worn by women of all classes.."
The widespread use of wigs in ancient Egypt thus complicates and contradicts attempts at 'racial' analysis. Fletcher (2002) shows that many Egyptian wigs have been found with what is defined as straighter 'cynotrichous' hair. This however is hardly a marker of massive European or Near Eastern presence or admixture. Fletcher notes that the Egyptians often eschewed their own personal hair, shaving carefully and using wigs widely. The hair for these wigs was often obtained through trade. Indeed, "hair itself being a valuable commodity ranked alongside gold and incense in account lists from the town of Kahun." Image gallery | Articles | Google
Egyptian trading links with other regions is well known, and a commodity like straighter 'cynotrichous' hair could have been easily obtained via the Sahara, Levant, the Maghreb, Mediterranean contacts, or even the hair of Asiatic war captives or casualties from Egypt's numerous conflicts. There is little need to postulate mass influxes of European admixtures or populations to account for hair types in wigs. The limb proportion studies of the ancient Egyptians showing them to be much more related to tropical types than to Europids, is further demonstration of the fallacy of using hair as 'proof' of a 'Aryan' or predominantly European admixed Egypt.
Nubian wigs and wigs in Egypt
Such exchanges or use of hair appear elsewhere in the Nile valley. Tomb finds show Nubians themselves wearing wigs of straight hair. But one Nubian from the Royal valley, of the 12th century, named Maherpra, was found to be wearing a wig himself, made up of tightly curled 'negroid' hair, on top of his natural covering (Fletcher 2002). The so-called "Nubian wig" also appears in Egyptian art relief's depicting daily life, a stylistic arrangement thought to imitate those found in southern Egypt or Nubia. Such wigs appear to have been popular with both Egyptians and Nubians. Fletcher 2004 notes that the famous queen Nefertiti made frequent use of the Nubian wig: "Nefertiti and her daughter seem to have set a trend for wearing the Nubian wig.. a coiffure first worn by Nubian mercenaries and clearly associated with the military." A detail of a wall scene in Theban tomb TT.55 shows the queen wearing the Nubian wig. Infantrymen from the Nubia. Note both bow and battle-axe carried into combat.
Nubian infantrymen shown with distinctive Nubian wig. From Deir el-Bahri, Temple of Hatshepsut New Kingdom, Eighteenth Dynasty, 1480 B.C.
Hair studies of Nubians show built-in African genetic variability
Hair studies of Nubians have also been undertaken. One study at Semna, in Nubia (Daniel Hrdy 1978- Analysis of Hair Samples of Mummies from Semna South, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, (1978) 49: 277-262), found curling patterns intermediate between Northwest European and African samples. The X-group, especially males, showed more African elements than the Meroitic in the curling variables. Crimping and curvature data patterned in a northwest Europe direction. These data plots however do not necessarily indicate race admixture or percentages, or the presence of European migrants or colonists (see Keita 2005 below), but rather a data pattern of variation in how hair curls, and native African diversity which cases substantial overlap with non-African groups. This is a routine occurrence within human groups.
Africa has the highest phenotypic variation, just as it has the highest geentic variation- accommodating a wide range of features for its peoples without the need for any "race mix: Relethford (2001) shows that ".. methods for estimating regional diversity show sub-Saharan Africa to have the highest levels of phenotypic variation, consistent with many genetic studies." (Relethford, John "Global Analysis of Regional Differences in Craniometric Diversity and Population Substructure". Human Biology - Volume 73, Number 5, October 2001, pp. 629-636) Hanihara 2003 notes that [significant] "..intraregional diversity are present in Subsaharan Africans.." While ancient Egypt had gene flow in various eras, hair variations easily fall under this pattern of built-in, indigenous diversity, as well as the above noted cultural practice of using wigs with hair from different places obtained through trade.
Among Europeans for example, some people have curlier hair and some have straighter hair than others. Various peoples of East and West Africa also have narrow noses, which are different from other peoples elsewhere in Africa, nevertheless they still remain Africans. DNA studies also note greater variation within selected populations that without. Since Africa has the highest genetic diversity in the world, such routine variation in characteristics such as hair need not indicate any racial percentage or admixture, but simply part of the built-in genetic diversity of the ancient peoples on the continent. Indeed, the Semna study author notes that blondism, especially in young children, is common in many dark-haired populations (e.g., Australian, Melanesian), and is still found in some Nubian villages. As regards hair color variation, reddish type hair is associated with the presence of pheomelanin, which can also be found in persons with dark brown or even black hair as well. See "Rameses" below. Albinism is another source of red hair.
Dubious attempts at 'racial analysis' using Nubian hair and crania. Assorted supporters of the stereotypical Aryan 'race' model attempt to use hair to argue for a predominantly 'white' Nubia. But as noted above, such attempts are dubious given built-in African genetic diversity. Often 'racial' hair claims attempt to link on with cranial studies purporting to match ancient Nubians with Swedes, Frenchmen, etc. But such claims are also dubious. In a detailed analysis of the Fordisc computer program used to put forward such claims, Williams, Armelagos, et al. (2005) found that the program created ludicrous "matches" between the ancient Nubian crania and peoples from Hungary, Japan, Easter Island and a host of others in far-flung regions! Their conclusion was that the diversity of human populations in the databank explained such wide ranging matches. Such objective mainstream analyses debunk obsolete and improbable claims of 'racial' migrations of alleged Frenchman, Hungarians, or other whites into ancient Nubia, or equally improbable racial 'percentages' supposedly quantifying such claims. (Frank l'engle Williams, Robert L. Belcher, and George J . Armelagos, "Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions about Human Variation," Current Anthropology, volume 46 (2005), pages 340-346)
Alleged massive influx of Europeans and Middle Easterners to give the ancient peoples hair variation did not happen. Such variation was already in place as part of Africa' built in genetic and phenotypic diversity. As regards diameter, the average diameter of the Semna sample was close to both the Northwest European and East African samples. This again suggests a range of built-in African indigenous variability, and calls into questions various migration theories to the Nile Valley. One study for example (Keita 2005) tested the model of C. Loring Brace (1993) as to the notion of incoming European migrants replacing indigenous peoples of the Nile Valley. Brace's work had also suggested a relationship between northwest Europeans such as Scandanavians and African peoples of the Horn. Data analysis failed to support this model, instead clustering samples much closer to African series than to Europeans. Keita concluded that similarities between African data in his survey (skulls, etc) and non-Africans was not due to gene flow, but a subset of built-in African variability.
Ancient Egyptians cluster much closer to other Egyptians and Nubians. A later study by Brace, (Brace 2005- The questionable contribution..) groups ancient Egyptian populations like the Naqada closer to Nubians and Somalis than European, Mediterranean or Middle Eastern populations, and places various Nubians samples closer to Tanzanian, Dahomeian, and Congoid data points than to Europeans and Middle easterners. The limb proportion studies of Zakrzewski (2003) (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (3): 219-229.) showing the tropical body plan of the ancient Egyptians also undercuts theories of inflowing European or near Eastern colonists, or the 'native Europid' model of Strouhal (1971).
The yellowish-red-hair of Rameses: proof of a Nordic Egypt?
Red hair itself is within the range of African diversity or that of dark-skinned peoples. Native black Australoids for example routinely produce blonde hair:
Detailed microscopic analysis during the 1980s (Balout 1985) identified some of the hair of Egyptian Pharoah Rameses II as being a yellowish-red. Such a finding should not be surprising given the wide range of physical variability in Africa, the most genetically diverse region on earth, out of which flowed other population groups. Indeed, blondism and various other hair shades are not unknown in East Africa or Nubia, particularly in children, nor are such hair color variants uncommon in dark-haired or dark skinned populations like the Australians. (Hrdy 1978) Given the range of genetic variability in Africa, a red-haired Rameses is hardly unusual. Rameses' reign, in the 19th Dynasty, came over 1,500 years after the Egyptian state had been established, and after the Hyskos interlude. Such latecomers to Egypt, like the Hyskos, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs etc would add their own genetic strands to the nation’s mix. Whatever the blend of genes that occurred with Rameses, his hair offers little supposed "proof" of a "white" or "Nordic" Egypt. If anything, X-rays of the royal mummies from earlier Dynasties by mainstream scientists show that the Egyptians pharaohs and other royals had varied 'Negroid' leanings. See X-Rays of the Royal mummies here, or here.
Pheomelanin and Rameses- found in light and dark-haired populations: The finding of Rameses “red” hair also deserves further scrutiny. The analysis found evidence of dyeing to make the hair yellowish-red, but some elements were untouched by the dye. These elements of yellowish-red hair in Balout’s study, were established on the basis of the presence of pheomelanin, a red-brown polymeric pigment in the skin and hair of humans. However, pheomelanin can also be found in persons with dark brown or even black hair as well, which gives it a reddish hue. Most natural melanins contain sulfur, which is typically associated with pheomelanin. In scientific tests of melanin, black hair contained as much as 5% sulfur, 3% lower than the 8.8% found in Irish red hair, but exceeding the 2.3% found in Scandinavian blond hair. (Jolles, et al. 1996) Thus the yellowish-red hair discovered on Rameses is well within the range of human variation for dark haired people, whatever the exact gene combination that led to the condition.
Rameses hair was not a typical European red, but yellowish-red, within African variation. It was also not ultra straight, further undermining claims of "Nordic" influence. Somalians and Ethiopians are SUB-SAHARANS and they routinely produce straight-haired people without the need for any "race mix" to explain why. The analysis on Rameses also did not show classic "European" red hair but hair of a light red to yellowish tinge. Black haired or dark-skinned populations are quite capable of producing such yellowish-red color variants on their own, as can be seen in today's east and northeast Africa (see child's photo above). Nor is such color variation unusual to Africa. Native dark-skinned populations in Australia, routinely produce people with blond or reddish hair. As noted above, ultra diverse Africa is the original source of such variation.
The analysis also found the hair to be cymotrich or wavy, again a characteristic quite within the range of overall African or Nile valley physical and genetic diversity. A "pure" Nordic type of straight hair was thus not established for Rameses. Hence the notion of white Europeans or red-headed Caucasoids from other areas flowing into ancient Egypt to add hair variation, particularly the early centuries of the dynastic state is unlikely. Such flows may have occurred most heavily in the Greek and Roman era but say nothing about the thousands of years preceding. The presence of pheomelanin conditions or other genetic combinations also explains how the different hair used in Egyptian wigs could vary in color, aside from environmental oxidation, bleaching and dyeing.
Red hair is rare worldwide, and history shows little evidence of Northern Europeans or "Nordics" sweeping into Egypt to give the natives a bit of hair coloring or variation. Most red hair is found in northern and western Europe, especially in the British Isles, and even then it appears in minor frequencies in Europe- some 4% of the population. It is unlikely such populations had any major contact or influence in the ancient Nile Valley. As noted above, red hair is comparatively rare in the world’s populations and pheomelanin conditions are found in dark-haired populations, and thus is well within the range of variation from the Sahara, East Africa and the Nile valley. “White Aryan” theories of Egypt are seen in the works of HFK Gunther (1927), Archibald Sayce (1925) and Raymond Dart (1939), and still find traction on a number of 'Aryan', neo-nazi and "race" websites and blogs which purport to show a "white Nordic Egypt" using Rameses' "red" hair as an example. Today's scientific research however, has debunked these dubious views, showing that red hair, while not common world wide, is a well known variant within human populations, even those with dark hair.
Straight or curly hair is also routine among sub-Saharans like Somalians, who are firmly part of the East African populations. As regards Somalians for example, Somali DNA overwhelmingly links much more heavily with other Africans including Kenyans & Ethiopians (85%), than with Europeans & Middle Easterners. (15%) On Y-chromosome markers (E3b1), Somalis (77%) and other African populations dwarf small European (5.1%) or Middle Eastern (6.3%) frequencies. “The data suggest that the male Somali population is a branch of the East African population..” (Sanchez et al., High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages.. in Somali males (2005)
As one mainstream researcher notes about the dubious value of "racial" hair analysis:
"The reader must assume, as apparently do the authors, that the "coarseness" or "fineness" of hair can readily distinguish races and that hair is dichotomized into these categories. Problematically, however, virtually all who have studied hair morphology in relation to race since the 1920’s to the present have rejected such a characterization .. Hausman, as early as 1925, stated that it is "not possible to identify individuals from samples of their hair, basing identification upon histological similarities in the structure of scales and medullas, since these may differ in hairs from the same head or in different parts of the same hair". Rook (1975) pointed out nearly 50 years later out that "Negroid and Caucasoid hair" are "chemically indistinguishable". --Tom Mieczkowsk, T. (2000). The Further Mismeasure: The Curious Use of Racial Categorizations in the Interpretation of Hair Analyses. Intl J Drug Testing 2000;vol 2
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Keep in mind central Americans are dark while those to the north and south are light. And if you don’t know what I am talking about then get out o
many of the North American Indians are dark
Teton Sioux Indians
Canadian
Mrs. Maria Ayuluk of Chevak, Alaska
Inuit
Inuit
Eskimo
When I look at various Northern Indians there seem to be a lot of inconsistencies of skin pigmenation
That is because Native America was probably very early on influenced by the coming of dark Africans or Afro-Asiatics YOur NeanderHighness. Some of course may have already been plenty dark coming over from Asia though. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: That is because Native America was probably very early on influenced by the coming of dark Africans or Afro-Asiatics Your NeanderHighness. Some of course may have already been plenty dark coming over from Asia though.
what do you mean Native America was probably very early on influenced by the coming of dark Africans or Afro-Asiatics?
what coming of dark Africans or Afro-Asiatics into the Americas are you referring to?
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Its because without the East Africans your ''blacks are phenotypically diverse'' argument crumbles.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)