Your Family May Once Have Been A Different Color Listen Now [7 min 19 sec] add to playlist
Enlarge
Courtesy George Chaplin Click to see a global skin color map, adapted from 2004 data.
Morning Edition, February 2, 2009 · To begin, please point your elbow to the ceiling.
Then imagine yourself naked.
Then look at the patch of skin on the inside of your upper arm, the part of you that almost never sees the sun. Whatever color you see there is what experts call your basic skin color, according to professor Nina Jablonski, head of the Penn State Department of Anthropology.
And that color, the one you have now, says Jablonski, is very probably not the color your ancient ancestors had — even if you think your family has been the same color for a long, long time.
A Different Place, Different Color
Skin has changed color in human lineages much faster than scientists had previously supposed, even without intermarriage, Jablonski says. Recent developments in comparative genomics allow scientists to sample the DNA in modern humans.
By creating genetic "clocks," scientists can make fairly careful guesses about when particular groups became the color they are today. And with the help of paleontologists and anthropologists, scientists can go further: They can wind the clock back and see what colors these populations were going back tens of thousands of years, says Jablonski. She says that for many families on the planet, if we look back only 100 or 200 generations (that's as few as 2,500 years), "almost all of us were in a different place and we had a different color."
Over the last 50,000 years, populations have gone from dark pigmented to lighter skin, and people have also gone the other way, from light skin back to darker skin, she says. "People living now in southern parts of India [and Sri Lanka] are extremely darkly pigmented," Jablonski says. But their great, great ancestors lived much farther north, and when they migrated south, their pigmentation redarkened.
"There has probably been a redarkening of several groups of humans."
Why We Change Color
The repigmenting process is increasingly well understood. "Humans started in Africa," Jablonski says, the part of Africa near the equator where it is intensely sunny with lots of ultraviolet light.
Ultraviolet light, or UV, in high doses can age the skin and damage the DNA molecule, which makes it harder to build a fetus. Not to mention that ultraviolet light can sometimes cause skin cancer.
On the other hand, if a human is plopped down in, say, Norway, where the days can be short and there is precious little ultraviolet light, this creates problems, too. All vertebrate animals need ultraviolet light to help produce vitamin D. Vitamin D helps us absorb calcium from our food to build strong bones. If we don't get enough ultraviolet light, we're less likely to survive to reproductive age to produce strong-boned babies.
Thus the dilemma: People who live in sunny climes around the equator have too much UV. People who move away from the equator eventually have too little UV. Hooray For Melanin
The solution is what Jablonski calls "a really cool molecule": melanin. In different concentrations, melanin makes skin lighter or darker. Kind of like a Venetian blind, it can let UV light in or keep it out.
Melanin has evolved in many different animals. Humans have had it for a long, long time and what Jablonski and others have learned is that when early humans migrated from the equator, their melanin levels changed. That doesn't mean they lost their tans. It means they had very specific genetic changes that allowed them to live and successfully reproduce in less sunny places. Darwin teaches that these changes began randomly. Somebody in the population at some point had a baby, and that baby, just by chance, had a little change in its DNA that made her skin, for example, a little lighter. When that baby moved north to Europe, lighter skin gave her an advantage as a grown-up, because it helped her produce strong-boned babies who could survive and have babies of their own.
Successive mutations created successive generations of lighter and lighter people as they moved north.
"This, in short, really created the gradation of skin color that we see in modern humans today," says Jablonski. Her map of UV radiation levels on Earth closely mirrors the array of skin colors on Earth.
Skin Color Is A Fleeting Thing
The big surprise is how fast these changes can occur. "Our original estimates were that [skin color changes] occurred perhaps at a more stately pace," Jablonski says. But now they're finding that a population can be one color (light or dark) and 100 generations later — with no intermarriage — be a very different color.
Figuring 25 years per generation (which is generous, since early humans walked naked through the world — clothes slow down the rate), that's an astonishingly short interval.
It's "a blink of an eye," she says.
Jablonski is the author of Skin: A Natural History, published in 2006. These newer findings are mentioned, in a preliminary way, in that book.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Looking at the map and seeing how black skin radiates from Africa, can we say; All Blackness comes from Africa?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Ultraviolet light, or UV, in high doses can age the skin and damage the DNA molecule, which makes it harder to build a fetus. Not to mention that ultraviolet light can sometimes cause skin cancer.
She's stealing and repackaging my stuff! What she is "implying" is that UV exposure led to Albinism, which in turn created havoc on European immunization and productive capabilities.
What she left out is that the lack of melanin in those past generations is what allows UV to cause damage to DNA since Albinos lack the basic protective coating of melanin nature provided to protect DNA from exposure and damage. 50-100 generations ago in Jablonski's family were very likely strong OCA1 Albinos. Over the generations, she has decreased these symptoms to sub-clinical OCA2 levels.
Look how much sun screen Jablonski squirts on her face before getting in the sun. Looks like she uses half a bottle and she has very little skin melanin.
quote: "People living now in southern parts of India [and Sri Lanka] are extremely darkly pigmented," Jablonski says. But their great, great ancestors lived much farther north, and when they migrated south, their pigmentation redarkened.
Is absolute nonsense. The people of Sri Lanka are part of the aboriginal populations that migrated out of Africa and have been black SINCE that migration. But of course, whites just cannot stand to admit that they descend from blacks so they have to make up nonsense to make everything seem equal or that whites are as ancient as blacks when they aren't. South Asia is one of the oldest places first colonized by early humans, including Sri Lanka and therefore it is HIGHLY doubtful that any ancient Sri Lankan turned black from being white in the North because the first Sri Lankans did NOT come from the North. The earliest remains from Sri Lanka are of Australoid aboriginal type people that were the ancestors of those who moved north or at least their close cousins as the earliest populations in the North Also had the same features. If anything, the modern Sri Lankans are a combination of the aboriginal dark inhabitants with a range of populations some of whom were lighter skinned people from the North. They are not the same people as the aboriginal Sri Lankans of long ago. In fact, the aborigines of Sri Lanka are almost extinct according to some sources. Developing dark skin due to intermarriage is not the same as developing dark skin as a process of evolution. And it is certainly unlikely that the aboriginal black populations of South India and Sri Lanka ever disappeared or got there AFTER some light skinned migrants from the North.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^Another White persons theory on why White people exist. And like all the rest, they are quite plausible, if you don't think too deeply. The parts about melanin and the bodies metabolic requirements are true, but however, that convenient little scenario does NOT account for the obvious differences in phenotype.
In very general terms; Negroid or Black is characterized by tightly curled hair to straight hair, broad and flat to small and narrow noses, long heads and broad heads, very full to thin lips, dark hair and eyes - with rare exceptions, some with eye folds, and ALWAYS dark skin.
On the other end, Mongols are characterized by broad heads and very straight hair, dark hair and eyes, White skin - and some with eye folds.
And the "Typical White" person is of the "Nordic" type - Germanic peoples of northern Europe and especially of Scandinavia" or "of or relating to a group or physical type of the Caucasian race characterized by tall stature, long head, White skin and hair, and blue eyes".
From phenotypes we can easily discern the originating Black race, because it encompasses the traits of all the others except for skin color.
The Mongol race shows affinity with the Black race in that all of its types such as eye folds, straight hair, broad head, and nose types, can be found in Black populations. The exceptions being very full lips and White skin. Thus the scenario put forth by Nina Jablonski could very well work for MONGOLS!
Whites however are another story; the exaggerated phenotype differences in the White race cannot be explained away by geographical displacement. If that were true, then Mongols who experienced the same displacement, would display the same exaggeration, they do not.
In addition, it has been genetically determined that the White race started with as little as seven breeding pairs. This of course explains the tight phenotype range. But it also indicates a separate, unique and unusual circumstance for these founding breeders. To date, only the theory of an Albino colony explains the narrow range of physical attributes and phenotype for White people.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Ultraviolet light, or UV, in high doses can age the skin and damage the DNA molecule, which makes it harder to build a fetus. Not to mention that ultraviolet light can sometimes cause skin cancer.
She's stealing and repackaging my stuff! What she is "implying" is that UV exposure led to Albinism, which in turn created havoc on European immunization and productive capabilities.
What she left out is that the lack of melanin in those past generations is what allows UV to cause damage to DNA since Albinos lack the basic protective coating of melanin nature provided to protect DNA from exposure and damage. 50-100 generations ago in Jablonski's family were very likely strong OCA1 Albinos. Over the generations, she has decreased these symptoms to sub-clinical OCA2 levels.
Look how much sun screen Jablonski squirts on her face before getting in the sun. Looks like she uses half a bottle and she has very little skin melanin.
Jablonsky lives in a fantansy world. She talks about the evolution of genes and even implies that their is a specific gene for ranges in color. Then she implies in the interview that people have confirmed that there are color specific genes.
This is a lie. They have only recently confirmed that the Cro-Magnon people of Europe carried non-contemporary European genes. I have not seen any article outlining the discovery of genes for color in which they have been compared to ancient populations.
Presently, they describe ancient populations based on craniometrics--not genetics.
This whole idea of the origin of color as proposed by this researcher and others is false. Look at the map above. As we know the Eskimos are dark skinned yet they are labled in the same category as Europeans.
.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote: "People living now in southern parts of India [and Sri Lanka] are extremely darkly pigmented," Jablonski says. But their great, great ancestors lived much farther north, and when they migrated south, their pigmentation redarkened.
Is absolute nonsense. The people of Sri Lanka are part of the aboriginal populations that migrated out of Africa and have been black SINCE that migration. But of course, whites just cannot stand to admit that they descend from blacks so they have to make up nonsense to make everything seem equal or that whites are as ancient as blacks when they aren't. South Asia is one of the oldest places first colonized by early humans, including Sri Lanka and therefore it is HIGHLY doubtful that any ancient Sri Lankan turned black from being white in the North because the first Sri Lankans did NOT come from the North. The earliest remains from Sri Lanka are of Australoid aboriginal type people that were the ancestors of those who moved north or at least their close cousins as the earliest populations in the North Also had the same features. If anything, the modern Sri Lankans are a combination of the aboriginal dark inhabitants with a range of populations some of whom were lighter skinned people from the North. They are not the same people as the aboriginal Sri Lankans of long ago. In fact, the aborigines of Sri Lanka are almost extinct according to some sources. Developing dark skin due to intermarriage is not the same as developing dark skin as a process of evolution. And it is certainly unlikely that the aboriginal black populations of South India and Sri Lanka ever disappeared or got there AFTER some light skinned migrants from the North.
I agree with you. But they feel they can propagate this idea because of the limited genetic evidence that correlate some Indians with Eurasians. But this may change given the fact that some researchers believe that R1a1* is of Indian origin.
quote:
J Hum Genet. 2009;54(1):47-55. Epub 2009 Jan 9.Related Articles, Links The Indian origin of paternal haplogroup R1a1(*) substantiates the autochthonous origin of Brahmins and the caste system.
Sharma S, Rai E, Sharma P, Jena M, Singh S, Darvishi K, Bhat AK, Bhanwer AJ, Tiwari PK, Bamezai RN.
Many major rival models of the origin of the Hindu caste system co-exist despite extensive studies, each with associated genetic evidences. One of the major factors that has still kept the origin of the Indian caste system obscure is the unresolved question of the origin of Y-haplogroup R1a1(*), at times associated with a male-mediated major genetic influx from Central Asia or Eurasia, which has contributed to the higher castes in India. Y-haplogroup R1a1(*) has a widespread distribution and high frequency across Eurasia, Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent, with scanty reports of its ancestral (R(*), R1(*) and R1a(*)) and derived lineages (R1a1a, R1a1b and R1a1c). To resolve these issues, we screened 621 Y-chromosomes (of Brahmins occupying the upper-most caste position and schedule castes/tribals occupying the lower-most positions) with 55 Y-chromosomal binary markers and seven Y-microsatellite markers and compiled an extensive dataset of 2809 Y-chromosomes (681 Brahmins, and 2128 tribals and schedule castes) for conclusions. A peculiar observation of the highest frequency (up to 72.22%) of Y-haplogroup R1a1(*) in Brahmins hinted at its presence as a founder lineage for this caste group. Further, observation of R1a1(*) in different tribal population groups, existence of Y-haplogroup R1a(*) in ancestors and extended phylogenetic analyses of the pooled dataset of 530 Indians, 224 Pakistanis and 276 Central Asians and Eurasians bearing the R1a1(*) haplogroup supported the autochthonous origin of R1a1 lineage in India and a tribal link to Indian Brahmins. However, it is important to discover novel Y-chromosomal binary marker(s) for a higher resolution of R1a1(*) and confirm the present conclusions.Journal of Human Genetics (2009) 54, 47-55; doi:10.1038/jhg.2008.2; published online 9 January 2009.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^Another White persons theory on why White people exist. And like all the rest, they are quite plausible, if you don't think too deeply. The parts about melanin and the bodies metabolic requirements are true, but however, that convenient little scenario does NOT account for the obvious differences in phenotype.
In very general terms; Negroid or Black is characterized by tightly curled hair to straight hair, broad and flat to small and narrow noses, long heads and broad heads, very full to thin lips, dark hair and eyes - with rare exceptions, some with eye folds, and ALWAYS dark skin.
On the other end, Mongols are characterized by broad heads and very straight hair, dark hair and eyes, White skin - and some with eye folds.
And the "Typical White" person is of the "Nordic" type - Germanic peoples of northern Europe and especially of Scandinavia" or "of or relating to a group or physical type of the Caucasian race characterized by tall stature, long head, White skin and hair, and blue eyes".
From phenotypes we can easily discern the originating Black race, because it encompasses the traits of all the others except for skin color.
The Mongol race shows affinity with the Black race in that all of its types such as eye folds, straight hair, broad head, and nose types, can be found in Black populations. The exceptions being very full lips and White skin. Thus the scenario put forth by Nina Jablonski could very well work for MONGOLS!
Whites however are another story; the exaggerated phenotype differences in the White race cannot be explained away by geographical displacement. If that were true, then Mongols who experienced the same displacement, would display the same exaggeration, they do not.
In addition, it has been genetically determined that the White race started with as little as seven breeding pairs. This of course explains the tight phenotype range. But it also indicates a separate, unique and unusual circumstance for these founding breeders. To date, only the theory of an Albino colony explains the narrow range of physical attributes and phenotype for White people.
The Abino theory would fit into Jablonski's theory about people of the same color living together and breeding others of the same type.
.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ The Albinism theory is the most plausible of all. Especially considering Tanzania has within it's population upwards of some 75,000 Albinos, the migrating group of Albinos theory is not only realistic, but the best theory explaining the severe lack of melanin in present day Europeans. This cannot be explained by skin Lightening due to UV absorption anymore then African Albinism can be traced to the same. Jablonski is clear that she is opposes the Albinism component but provides no adequate counter argument to dismiss it.
Jablonski's theory falls in line with the pseudo-science Rasol and KIK tried to pass off as scholarship entitled, Europeans recently turned White in Europe due to evolving Magical "White" Gene. Pure non-sense!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Quote: This is a lie. They have only recently confirmed that the Cro-Magnon people of Europe carried non-contemporary European genes. I have not seen any article outlining the discovery of genes for color in which they have been compared to ancient populations.
Clyde - there are many studies that allude to this, but I have not seen any that specifically discredit it. If there is a new one that does, please post it.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ They only "Allude" to this because as in the above referenced study, they are the same gene sequences responsible for Albinism.
In normal operation, these genes act analogous to an electrical Dimmer type switch, regulating melanin density as a Dimmer switch regulates electrical flow (light).
In Europeans, the genes are not regulated in an analog sense, but switched full off, or partially leaking (barely "On". Rasol's article (posted in Marc's, Europeans are recent to Europe thread) labeled this as, European evolution. In reality, it is scientifically described as, Albinism.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^It would seem to be a simple thing to prove. I can't help but wonder how much of this ambiguity has to do with a lack of science, and how much of it has to do with embarrassment.
Anyone who has ever read the insulting and demeaning things that they have written about Black people, under the title "science" will understand their reluctance to admit that they are nothing more than "Defective" facsimiles of that very same "Negro". Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ They understand it very well. Which is the reason behind them labeling any person of color as a racist as soon as the word Albinism is mentioned.
The truth is, the world wide budget on Melanin, Albinism, and genetic research only falls second to weapons research.
Mongrels, based on their established low rate of skin cancer incident, in spite of their low melanin densities, appear to be pretty well environmentally adjusted. Europeans, on the other hand, appear to be a very unstable mutate form of human that has nowhere to hide from the earth's UV levels. They appear to be susceptible to excessive UV exposure everywhere on earth. Either their true origins are from a migrating colony of Albinos, or their ancestors were deep cave dwellers. These are the only two credible options.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Deep cave dwellers! That's a good one. LOL!
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Deep cave dwellers! That's a good one. LOL!
What's wrong with this idea? We know that the Europeans prior to the last Ice Age used caves as santuaries and religious locales.
We also know that the last Ice Age in Europe came suddenly. Who are we to deny the possibility that when the last Ice Age came many Blacks retreated to the caves.
In the caves they lived in darkness and the melenin migrated to the hair and out of the skin cells. Then over time they became depigmented and after the Ice Age ended and Europeans left the caves they were "white" like most things that live in caves.
Note the cave fish on the left and regular fish on the right
.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ interesting.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Clyde - I was going to lampoon you, by asking how far could they have gone on Mushrooms - now I'm not so sure.
Vitamins in Mushrooms. Mushrooms are one of the few natural sources of vitamin D, which is essential for healthy bones and teeth. One serving of 4-5 mushrooms provides 15 IU of this important nutrient, which many people do not get enough of1,2. Factors affecting your vitamin D intake include your age, skin color, where you live and whether you use sunscreen or not8,9,11. Mushrooms are also a good source of the B vitamins riboflavin (B2), niacin (B3) and pantothenic acid (B5). These vitamins help break down proteins, fats and carbohydrates so they can be used for energy1,5. Mushrooms can be an important source of B-vitamins for people who don’t eat meat. One serving of crimini mushrooms provides nearly one-quarter of the Daily Value for riboflavin, and mushrooms are one of the best plant-based sources of niacin around1,2.
* Pantothenic acid helps with the production of hormones and also plays an important role in the nervous system5. * Riboflavin helps maintain healthy red blood cells5. * Niacin promotes healthy skin and makes sure the digestive and nervous systems function properly5.
Minerals in Mushrooms. The focus on the nutritional value of brightly colored fruits and vegetables has unintentionally left mushrooms in the dark. Mushrooms provide a similar number of nutrients as brightly colored fruits and vegetables.
* Selenium is a mineral that works as an antioxidant to protect body cells from damage that might lead to heart disease, some cancers and other diseases of aging5. It also has been found to be important for the immune system and fertility in men6. Many foods of animal origin and grains are good sources of selenium, but mushrooms are among the richest sources of selenium in the produce aisle and provide 8-22 mcg per serving1. This is good news for vegetarians, whose sources of selenium are limited. * Ergothioneine is a naturally occurring antioxidant that also may help protect the body’s cells. Mushrooms provide 2.8-4.9 mg of ergothioneine per serving of white, Portabella or crimini mushrooms7. * Copper helps make red blood cells, which carry oxygen throughout the body. Copper also helps keep bones and nerves healthy1,2,5. * Potassium is an important mineral many people do not get enough of. It aids in the maintenance of normal fluid and mineral balance, which helps control blood pressure. It also plays a role in making sure nerves and muscles, including the heart, function properly. Mushrooms have 267- 407 mg of potassium per serving, which is 9 percent of the Daily Value 1,2,5,8.
PLUS you can increase the vitamin D content!
The Vitamin D Download Mushrooms are the only natural fresh vegetable or fruit with vitamin D; a serving of 4-5 white button mushrooms provides 15 IU. Preliminary research suggests that the ultraviolet light found in sunlight may boost levels of vitamin D in mushrooms. The natural process of “enriching” mushrooms by briefly exposing mushrooms grown in the dark to light for 5 minutes may boost existing vitamin D levels from 15 IU (4 percent of Daily Value) to as much as 100 percent of the Daily Value (400 IU). Currently, the industry is investigating ways to make mushrooms enriched with vitamin D through light enhancement commercially available.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote: "People living now in southern parts of India [and Sri Lanka] are extremely darkly pigmented," Jablonski says. But their great, great ancestors lived much farther north, and when they migrated south, their pigmentation redarkened.
Is absolute nonsense. The people of Sri Lanka are part of the aboriginal populations that migrated out of Africa and have been black SINCE that migration. But of course, whites just cannot stand to admit that they descend from blacks so they have to make up nonsense to make everything seem equal or that whites are as ancient as blacks when they aren't. South Asia is one of the oldest places first colonized by early humans, including Sri Lanka and therefore it is HIGHLY doubtful that any ancient Sri Lankan turned black from being white in the North because the first Sri Lankans did NOT come from the North. The earliest remains from Sri Lanka are of Australoid aboriginal type people that were the ancestors of those who moved north or at least their close cousins as the earliest populations in the North Also had the same features...
I agree with your comment about aboriginal populations of south Asia retaining dark skin from their African ancestors. Don't know if this article is George Chaplin's own work, or someone else's interpretations thereof, but even it acknowledged the original state of humanity being that of 'dark skin'...
"Humans started in Africa," Jablonski says, the part of Africa near the equator where it is intensely sunny with lots of ultraviolet light.
Ultraviolet light, or UV, in high doses can age the skin and damage the DNA molecule, which makes it harder to build a fetus. Not to mention that ultraviolet light can sometimes cause skin cancer...
Thus the dilemma: People who live in sunny climes around the equator have too much UV. People who move away from the equator *eventually* have too little UV...
That doesn't mean they lost their tans. It means they had very specific genetic changes that allowed them to live and successfully reproduce in less sunny places. Darwin teaches that these changes began randomly. Somebody in the population at some point had a baby, and that baby, just by chance, had a little change in its DNA that made her skin, for example, a little lighter. When that baby moved north to Europe, lighter skin gave her an advantage as a grown-up, because it helped her produce strong-boned babies who could survive and have babies of their own.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
This article pretty much put Jablonski's article in it's proper place, the circular file.
This is truly amazing stuff. It indicates that like any sophisticated active feedback & control system, each Melanocyte, Fibroblast, and Keratinocyte form a constantly communicating network providing active feedback to each other and between layers for implementing adaptive control for regulating melanin in response to external stimuli, heat regulation, and immunization.
Note that White subject shows no real increase in Melanin density following prolonged irradiation opposed to Black and Latin who show a marked increase.
The "Subjects examined here are; "W" White, "A" Asian, "B" Black
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
meninarmer – at the bottom of page one, it says: melanocytes can produce three distinct types of melanin’s; two types of eumelanin’s, which are associated with dark skin and hair, and pheomelanin which is associated with Red hair and Freckles.
This has me confused; it appears to be saying that pheomelanin though different, is a normal and healthy melanin. From my own observations, thought light-skinned Black people have freckles and Reddish hair, I always thought the trait to be associated primarily with White people – and that the trait in Blacks, was the result of Black/White admixture. But even there, freckled and Red haired White people do not tend to be as pale as Red haired and un-freckled White people.
Then there are the studies that suggest that some Neanderthal’s were red haired - Please Help if you can - what the hell is the deal with Red hair, and how is it different from Blonde hair and Blue eyes.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Melanocytes, melanosomes, and melanin
Melanin biosynthesis is a complex pathway that appears in highly specialized cells, called melanocytes, within membrane-bound organelles referred to as melanosomes (7) . Melanosomes are transferred via dendrites to surrounding keratinocytes, where they play a critical role in photoprotection. The anatomical relationship between keratinocytes and melanocytes is known as "the epidermal melanin unit" and it has been estimated that each melanocyte is in contact with ~40 keratinocytes in the basal and suprabasal layers (8) .
Several important steps must occur for the proper synthesis and distribution of melanin, as follows (9) .
1. The development of melanocyte precursor cells (melanoblasts) and their migration from the neural crest to peripheral sites Prospective melanocytes, known as melanoblasts, derive from the neural crest beginning in the second month of human embryonic life and migrate throughout the mesenchyme of the developing embryo. They reach specific target sites, mainly the dermis, epidermis, and hair follicles, the uveal tract of the eye, the stria vasculare, the vestibular organ and the endolymphatic sac of the ear, and leptomeninges of the brain. In humans, this migration process takes place between the 10th and the 12th wk of development for the dermis and ~2 wk later for the epidermis (1) .
The survival and migration of neural crest-derived cells during embryogenesis is highly dependent on interactions between specific receptors on the cell surface and their extracellular ligands. For example, steel factor, formerly known as mast cell growth factor, KIT ligand, or stem cell factor (SCF), binds the KIT receptor on melanocytes and melanoblasts. Mutations in the KIT gene decrease the ability of the KIT receptor to be activated by the steel factor and are responsible for at least one type of human piebaldism (10) . See http://albinismdb.med.umn.edu for other examples of genes that regulate pigmentation and, when mutant, are involved in pigmentary disorders.
2. Differentiation of melanoblasts into melanocytes Once melanoblasts have reached their final destinations, they differentiate into melanocytes, which at about the sixth month of fetal life are already established at epidermal-dermal junction sites (1) .
3. Survival and proliferation of melanocytes Melanocytes have been identified within fetal epidermis as early as 50 days of gestation. Dermal melanocytes decrease in number during gestation and virtually disappear by birth, whereas epidermal melanocytes established at the epidermal-dermal junction continue to proliferate and start to produce melanin.
4. Formation of melanosomes and production of melanins Once established in situ, melanocytes start producing melanosomes, highly organized elliptic membrane-bound organelles in which melanin synthesis takes place. They can be detected using electron microscopy (EM) as early as during the fourth month of gestation.
Melanosomes are typically divided into four maturation stages (I–IV) determined by their structure and the quantity, quality, and arrangement of the melanin produced (Fig. 2 ) (11 , 12) . Nascent melanosomes are assembled in the perinuclear region near the Golgi stacks, receiving all enzymatic and structural proteins required for melanogenesis. Stage I melanosomes are spherical vacuoles lacking tyrosinase (TYR) activity (the main enzyme involved in melanogenesis) and have no internal structural components. However, TYR can be detected in the Golgi vesicles, and it has been shown that it is subsequently trafficked to stage II melanosomes. At this point, the presence and correct processing of Pmel17, an important melanosomal structural protein, determine the transformation of stage I melanosomes to elongated, fibrillar organelles known as stage II melanosomes (12 , 13) ; they contain tyrosinase and exhibit minimal deposition of melanin. After this, melanin synthesis starts and the pigment is uniformly deposited on the internal fibrils, at which time the melanosomes are termed as stage III. Their last developmental stage (IV) is detected in highly pigmented melanocytes; these melanosomes are either elliptical or ellipsoidal, electron-opaque due to complete melanization, and have minimal TYR activity. The developmental stages detailed above refer mainly to eu-melanosomes (containing black-brown pigments); however, they are quite similar to pheo-melanosomes (containing yellow-reddish melanin), the only difference being that the latter remain round and are not fibrillar during maturation.
Within melanosomes, at least three enzymes are absolutely required to synthesize different types of melanin. While tyrosinase is responsible for the critical steps of melanogenesis (including the rate-limiting initial step of tyrosine hydroxylation), tyrosinase-related protein 1 (TYRP1) and DOPAchrome tautomerase (DCT) are further involved in modifying the melanin into different types. Besides these, melanosomes contain other melanocyte-specific proteins that have structural functions (e.g., Pmel17, as mentioned above) or probably are involved in regulating the pH within melanosomes , such as P protein- or membrane-associated transporter protein (MATP), or that play as yet unclear roles, such as the melanoma antigen recognized by T cells 1 (MART1) or oculocutaneous albinism-1 (OA-1) protein (14) .
TYR (monophenol, 3,4-ß-dihydroxyphenylalanine oxygen oxidoreductase, EC 1.14.18.1) is a single chain type I membrane glycoprotein catalyzing the hydroxylation of tyrosine to ß-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine (DOPA) (which is the initial rate-limiting step in melanogenesis) and the subsequent oxidation of DOPA to DOPAquinone. TYR, TYRP1, and DCT share numerous structural similarities and follow quite similar biosynthetic, processing, and trafficking pathways (15) . Their maturation is assisted by chaperones, calnexin being the most important one due to its involvement in the correct folding of tyrosinase (16 17 18) . The subsequent metabolism of DOPA and its derivatives by various melanocyte-specific enzymes, including TYRP1 and DCT, results in the synthesis of eumelanin, a black-brown pigment. Briefly, 5,6-dihydroxyindole (DHI) melanins are generated from DOPAquinone after several steps of decarboxylation, oxidation, and polymerization. However, in the presence of DCT, the carboxylic acid group of 5,6-dihydroxyindole-2-carboxylic acid (DHICA) is retained when derived from DOPAchrome, and therefore the so-called DHICA melanins are produced. The synthesis of pheomelanin involves the production of cysteinyldopa conjugates from DOPAquinone after the production of DOPA from tyrosine. TYRP1 is important for the correct trafficking of tyrosinase to melanosomes (19) , and DCT also seems to be involved in the detoxification processes (20) taking place within melanosomes.
Melanins are polymorphous and multifunctional biopolymers that include eumelanin, pheomelanin, mixed melanins (a combination of the two), and neuromelanin. Mammalian melanocytes produce two chemically distinct types of melanin pigments: black-brown eumelanin and yellow-reddish pheomelanin (21) . Although they contain a common arrangement of repeating units linked by carbon-carbon bonds, melanin pigments differ from each other with respect to their chemical, structural, and physical properties. Eumelanin is a highly heterogeneous polymer consisting of DHI and DHICA units in reduced or oxidized states, as detailed above; pheomelanin consists mainly of sulfur-containing benzothiazine derivatives (22) . Due to their chemical structure, both eumelanin and pheomelanin are involved in binding to cations, anions, drugs, and chemicals, etc., and therefore play an important protective role within melanocytes (23) . Neuromelanin, which is produced in dopaminergic neurons of the human substantia nigra, can also chelate redox active metals (Cu, Mn, Cr) and toxic metals (Cd, Hg, Pb), and thus protects against their ability to promote neurodegeneration (24) .
Given their complexity, melanosomes can be used as a model to study organelle biogenesis, protein trafficking and processing, organelle movement, and cell-cell interactions (like those occurring during melanin transfer between melanocytes and keratinocytes) (25) . Therefore, even minor changes in the cellular environment affect melanosomes and pigmentation. Numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors, including body distribution, ethnicity/gender differences, variable hormone-responsiveness, genetic defects, hair cycle-dependent changes, age, UV-R, climate/season, toxin, pollutants, chemical exposure and infestations, are responsible for a whole range of responses in melanosome structure and distribution under different types of stress.
Cutaneous pigmentation is the outcome of two important events: the synthesis of melanin by melanocytes and the transfer of melanosomes to surrounding keratinocytes (26) . Although the number of melanocytes in human skin of all types is essentially constant, the number, size, and manner in which melanosomes are distributed within keratinocytes vary. The melanin content of human melanocytes is heterogeneous not only between different skin types but also between different sites of the skin from the same individual. This heterogeneity is highly regulated by gene expression, which controls the overall activity and expression of melanosomal proteins within individual melanocytes (27) . It has been shown that melanocytes with a low melanin content synthesize TYR more slowly and degrade it more quickly than melanocytes with a higher melanin content and TYR activity (28) . In general, highly pigmented skin contains numerous single large melanosomal particles (0.5–0.8 mm in diameter), which are ellipsoidal and intensely melanotic (stage IV). Lighter pigmentation is associated with smaller (0.3–0.5 mm in diameter) and less dense melanosomes (stages II and III), which are clustered in membrane-bound groups (29) . These distinct patterns of melanosome type and distribution are present at birth and are not determined by external factors (such as sun exposure). They are responsible for the wide variety of skin complexions.
UV-B is responsible for causing the sunburn reaction within the skin and is absorbed mainly by the epidermis and upper dermis. Like UV-A, UV-B stimulates the production of melanin, which constitutes the basis for tanning. UV-B has great potential to induce erythema, and therefore its influence on the skin has been thoroughly investigated in vitro and in vivo (64) . The UV-B portion of the spectrum can promote skin cancer, especially if the exposure has been repeated and prolonged. However, recent studies have shown that the use of narrow-band UV-B (NB-UVB ~311 nm) is a better choice for phototherapy than frequently used psoralen and UV-A therapy (PUVA), which can cause undesirable side effects, including cutaneous cancers (67 , 68 69 70) .
The only known beneficial effect of UV-B is the stimulation of vitamin D synthesis in the epidermis. Vitamin D promotes the absorption of calcium from the intestine and ensures the proper mineralization of bones. However, exposure of just a small area of the body to a small amount of UV-B (5% of that required for erythema) is all that is needed for adequate synthesis of the vitamin D in the skin (64) .
One role of melanin in the skin is to neutralize the ROS generated by a variety of factors, including UV-B (23) , therefore functioning like a natural sunscreen. Until recently it was thought that the higher the melanin content, the less chance of DNA damage resulting from UV-R exposure. In a recent study, the effects of melanin on UV responses in different racial/ethnic groups were investigated for the first time. Despite the general public assumption that dark skin types are UV resistant and therefore not adversely affected by UV, this study showed that even the darkest UV-resistant skin types accumulated significant DNA damage at levels ≤1 minimal erythema dose (MED) (71) . The authors demonstrated that even very low UV exposures cause measurable damage to DNA in all skin types, although it was obvious that the most severe DNA damage was in lightly pigmented skin.
There is no doubt that visual impressions of body form and color are important in interactions within and between human communities. Variation in human skin color is clearly a multifactorial trait with a number of major genetic determinants, several modifier genes, and environmental influences such as exposure to UV-R and gender effects. The pathological role of pigmentation originates mainly from the fact that melanin pigments serve not only as the major determinant of skin color but also as the major source of skin protection against UV-R, preventing sun-induced skin damage as well as skin cancer development. It is well known that repeated exposures to UV-R during an individual’s lifetime are responsible not only for skin aging, but also for the appearance of skin cancer. Various types of skin cancers are responsible today for 50% of all new cancer cases in the U.S. Melanoma, which accounts for > 85% of all skin cancer deaths within the U.S., is the sixth most common type of cancer in men and the seventh in women; over the past 20 years the incidence of melanomas has more than doubled.
Melanogenesis is a highly regulated process that is modified by transcriptional, translational, and post-translational mechanisms. Melanin production results from strong cellular and molecular connections between all cell populations in the skin, the key players being fibroblasts, keratinocytes, and melanocytes. Minor changes in the cellular physiology of the skin can dramatically affect pigment production in positive or negative manners.
The purpose of this review was to provide an overview of the mechanisms by which external or internal factors up-regulate melanin production in either transitory (such as in pregnancy) or permanent (such as aging) fashion. The action of UV-R has been extensively investigated, and there is a great amount of literature available to explain its mechanism of action on the skin and its involvement in hyperpigmentation. Those studies are the basis for research focused on understanding the contribution of sun exposure to the appearance of solar lentigines and other age-related factors in the hyperpigmentation so often seen in older individuals.
The mechanisms of actions of other factors on the skin are less completely understood, such as those involving drugs or certain compounds in increasing melanin production, but studies are ongoing in this direction, trying to provide a scientific rationale for such effects seen in different clinical treatments.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: meninarmer – at the bottom of page one, it says: melanocytes can produce three distinct types of melanin’s; two types of eumelanin’s, which are associated with dark skin and hair, and pheomelanin which is associated with Red hair and Freckles.
This has me confused; it appears to be saying that pheomelanin though different, is a normal and healthy melanin. From my own observations, thought light-skinned Black people have freckles and Reddish hair, I always thought the trait to be associated primarily with White people – and that the trait in Blacks, was the result of Black/White admixture. But even there, freckled and Red haired White people do not tend to be as pale as Red haired and un-freckled White people.
Then there are the studies that suggest that some Neanderthal’s were red haired - Please Help if you can - what the hell is the deal with Red hair, and how is it different from Blonde hair and Blue eyes.
You may find this study on Hair Color and Diet of interest. The Neanderthal's may have been red headed primarily due to their low tyrosine diets.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Ultraviolet light, or UV, in high doses can age the skin and damage the DNA molecule, which makes it harder to build a fetus. Not to mention that ultraviolet light can sometimes cause skin cancer.
She's stealing and repackaging my stuff! What she is "implying" is that UV exposure led to Albinism, which in turn created havoc on European immunization and productive capabilities.
Wow lol, so much ignorance.
What she is actually implying here, is that in Africa under the intense ultraviolet light, original humans had to be dark in order to protect from the intense ultraviolet light or else the over UV exposure can age the skin and damage the DNA molecule, which makes it harder to build a fetus, and causes skin cancer etc..
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ LOL, can't you READ junior, or if a picture is worth a thousand words, can't you see which races ADAPT in real time to environmental exposure, and which ONE doesn't. While what you say is ALMOST true, you miss the point that the absence of this control and protection mechanism is a very serious affair and leaves Europeans WIDE OPEN for susceptibility to sun burn, skin cancer, and drastic reproductive mutations. Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Hey, you're the imbecile who thought she was implying UV exposure causes albinism after reading the following...
quote: "Humans started in Africa," Jablonski says, the part of Africa near the equator where it is intensely sunny with lots of ultraviolet light.
Ultraviolet light, or UV, in high doses can age the skin and damage the DNA molecule, which makes it harder to build a fetus. Not to mention that ultraviolet light can sometimes cause skin cancer.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Hey, you're the imbecile who thought she was implying UV exposure causes albinism after reading the following...
quote: "Humans started in Africa," Jablonski says, the part of Africa near the equator where it is intensely sunny with lots of ultraviolet light.
Ultraviolet light, or UV, in high doses can age the skin and damage the DNA molecule, which makes it harder to build a fetus. Not to mention that ultraviolet light can sometimes cause skin cancer.
UV induced DNA damage is a very likely candidate for the introduction of Albinism. Albinism is very likely the cause of the introduction of the European (sic) "Race", not some "evolved" magical gene or as Jablonski proposes. sweat.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Of course all the while blatantly ignoring the immediate following, in which I see Explorer has already pointed out..
quote:On the other hand, if a human is plopped down in, say, Norway, where the days can be short and there is precious little ultraviolet light, this creates problems, too. All vertebrate animals need ultraviolet light to help produce vitamin D. Vitamin D helps us absorb calcium from our food to build strong bones. If we don't get enough ultraviolet light, we're less likely to survive to reproductive age to produce strong-boned babies.
Thus the dilemma: People who live in sunny climes around the equator have too much UV. People who move away from the equator eventually have too little UV......
Hooray For Melanin
That doesn't mean they lost their tans. It means they had very specific genetic changes that allowed them to live and successfully reproduce in less sunny places. Darwin teaches that these changes began randomly. Somebody in the population at some point had a baby, and that baby, just by chance, had a little change in its DNA that made her skin, for example, a little lighter. When that baby moved north to Europe, lighter skin gave her an advantage as a grown-up, because it helped her produce strong-boned babies who could survive and have babies of their own.
Successive mutations created successive generations of lighter and lighter people as they moved north.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: UV induced DNA damage is a very likely candidate for the introduction of Albinism.
Lol, so now people can become albinos? But aren't albinos born this way?
I guess that you're saying UV must be getting through mommies belly and causing these babies to become albinos?
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Albinism is very likely the cause of the introduction of the European (sic) "Race", not some "evolved" magical gene or as Jablonski proposes. sweat.
Poor you and your feeble mind. What's actually funny is you thought this article somehow helped your theory. Lol.
Where did you come to the idea that Jablonski said Europeans turned white because of sweat? Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Skin cancer also occurs in Norwegian whites. Therefore, the UV levels are not at all as low as you propose. More reading and less blabbing please.
Look at this NONSENSE.
Jablonski writes; She says that for many families on the planet, if we look back only 100 or 200 generations (that's as few as 2,500 years), "almost all of us were in a different place and we had a different color."
This nonsense must have been published in Discover or one of those other pseudo-science monthlies. 2,500 years ago, my ancestors were most likely the same hue as I am today. Where does Jablonski offer any real proof of her nonsensical statements?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^That I propose; or that of which the scientific community proposes; the one you actually thought agreed with you? Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
I care not that Jablonski's nonsense is in obvious contradiction. The REAL scientific data posted by real scientists is in line with reality, but you will likely not see it published in Discover magazine.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
So far you've failed in showing any contradictions.
All the while being caught in a million of your own.
Therefore this article like everything else, debunks your albinism theory yet again.
quote:"Humans started in Africa," Jablonski says, the part of Africa near the equator where it is intensely sunny with lots of ultraviolet light.
Ultraviolet light, or UV, in high doses can age the skin and damage the DNA molecule, which makes it harder to build a fetus. Not to mention that ultraviolet light can sometimes cause skin cancer.
On the other hand, if a human is plopped down in, say, Norway, where the days can be short and there is precious little ultraviolet light, this creates problems, too. All vertebrate animals need ultraviolet light to help produce vitamin D. Vitamin D helps us absorb calcium from our food to build strong bones. If we don't get enough ultraviolet light, we're less likely to survive to reproductive age to produce strong-boned babies.
Thus the dilemma: People who live in sunny climes around the equator have too much UV. People who move away from the equator eventually have too little UV......
Hooray For Melanin
That doesn't mean they lost their tans. It means they had very specific genetic changes that allowed them to live and successfully reproduce in less sunny places. Darwin teaches that these changes began randomly. Somebody in the population at some point had a baby, and that baby, just by chance, had a little change in its DNA that made her skin, for example, a little lighter. When that baby moved north to Europe, lighter skin gave her an advantage as a grown-up, because it helped her produce strong-boned babies who could survive and have babies of their own.
Successive mutations created successive generations of lighter and lighter people as they moved north.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Look at this NONSENSE.
Jablonski writes; She says that for many families on the planet, if we look back only 100 or 200 generations (that's as few as 2,500 years), "almost all of us were in a different place and we had a different color."
This nonsense must have been published in Discover or one of those other pseudo-science monthlies. 2,500 years ago, my ancestors were most likely the same hue as I am today. Where does Jablonski offer any real proof of her nonsensical statements? [/qb]
Obviously she is talking about some families who moved from place to place traveling (North, South etc..) not everybody absolutely in the world.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Look at this NONSENSE.
Jablonski writes; She says that for many families on the planet, if we look back only 100 or 200 generations (that's as few as 2,500 years), "almost all of us were in a different place and we had a different color."
This nonsense must have been published in Discover or one of those other pseudo-science monthlies. 2,500 years ago, my ancestors were most likely the same hue as I am today. Where does Jablonski offer any real proof of her nonsensical statements?
Obviously she is talking about some families who moved from place to place traveling (North, South etc..) not everybody absolutely in the world. [/QB]
Of course it's not everyone. Only Europeans. Africans are the same color today they were 10,000 years ago. Obviously she is speaking more about admixed populations such as India. Yet, she still fails to offer any real evidence for her narrow European claim, or why Europeans share the same genetic history as Albinos.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Boys, boys; There is no need to argue. The truth or lie of Jablonski's theory can be easily TESTED.
Between 332 B.C. when Alexander took Egypt, and about 600 A.D. when the Turks began their ascension: Millions upon Millions of White people, from every Asian locality, found their way to North Africa and the middle-east, to seek their fortunes.
Since the timeframe is the same as that required by Jablonski's theory, all we have to do to test Jablonski's theory, is to see if any of them are still White. (Of course we must allow for those who are the result of admixture).
So everybody; lets see if we can find pictures of any White North Africans and Middle-easterners.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Skin cancer also occurs in Norwegian whites. Therefore, the UV levels are not at all as low as you propose. More reading and less blabbing please.
Look at this NONSENSE.
Jablonski writes; She says that for many families on the planet, if we look back only 100 or 200 generations (that's as few as 2,500 years), "almost all of us were in a different place and we had a different color."
This nonsense must have been published in Discover or one of those other pseudo-science monthlies. 2,500 years ago, my ancestors were most likely the same hue as I am today. Where does Jablonski offer any real proof of her nonsensical statements?
The nonsense in that statement is that families as a unit cannot be traced over 2,500 years. Not to mention that families consist of various people of different backgrounds intermarrying and therefore adding different ancestries every generation, which means tying that family to any one place historically impossible over 2000 years ago.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Boys, boys; There is no need to argue. The truth or lie of Jablonski's theory can be easily TESTED.
Between 332 B.C. when Alexander took Egypt, and about 600 A.D. when the Turks began their ascension: Millions upon Millions of White people, from every Asian locality, found their way to North Africa and the middle-east, to seek their fortunes.
Since the timeframe is the same as that required by Jablonski's theory, all we have to do to test Jablonski's theory, is to see if any of them are still White. (Of course we must allow for those who are the result of admixture).
So everybody; lets see if we can find pictures of any White North Africans and Middle-easterners.
MOverM Is just so convinced of the nonsensical articles he posts that provide no real proof of their claims. Even with photos their linage cannot be traced back 2500 years. Also, whites who live in Northern Africa would be susceptible to rapid skin aging and genetic defect as can be seen in this Berber woman who is perhaps 50 years old. Sun exposure has made her no darker, nor does the infant she is holding show any marked signs of acquiring addition melanin density.
This correlates well with the results of this study which conclusively shows Whites acquire no increase in melanin density when exposed for prolonged periods of UV radiation.
Europeans have always be fascinated white the concept of Whites in early Africa. So much so that in 1867 the juvenile market writer, William Graydon's fantasy novel, The White King Of Africa, about a white man who ruled a tribe of African cannibals became a bestseller in England, Europe, and America. The book then went on to form Edgar Burroughs Tarzan fantasy.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
MindoverMatter718 - meninarmer's proof seems conclusive. Shall we agree that Jablonski's theory is total horsesh1t, or will you produce proof to the contrary? Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Gringo is right, Europeans are not albinos. They are products of Bay Area Chinese-looking European Asians that mixed with incoming Forest Negro Pygmy-looking Africans. Ain't that right gringo?! LOL
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Sun exposure has made her no darker, nor does the infant she is holding show any marked signs of acquiring addition melanin density.
This correlates well with the results of this study which conclusively shows Whites acquire no increase in melanin density when exposed for prolonged periods of UV radiation.
They turned white due to low UV levels, hence obviously they lost natures sun screen (dark skin) hence they are now susceptible to harmful UV rays when in higher UV environments that darker skin protected against.
Since as explained lighterskin is evolved to allow UV to penetrate the skin under darker cloudier skies to synthesize and produce Vitamin D.
Darkerskinned populations are not able to acquire this UV under darker skies (hence why darkskinned populations suffer from Vitamin D deficiencies in northern latitudes), as lighterskinned humans are. Plain and simple.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
All evidence seems to be on my side; not any of yours.
Darkskin is natures sunscreen; hence blocks out the sun, and in northern latitudes, darker skinned populations need to take Vitamin D supplements, or have an immense Vitamin D intake through diet.
THE COLOR IN BONES - WHY BLACK WOMEN ARE AT HIGHER RISK
A variety of factors can cause calcium and vitamin D deficiency in African-American women. *****The high melanin content in darker skin reduces the skin's ability to produce vitamin D from sunlight.**** ****In fact, experts note that people with darker skin may need 20 to 30 times as much exposure to sunlight as fair-skinned individuals to generate the same amount of vitamin D.****** Inadequate intake of vitamin D in diet is another factor. Studies confirm that African Americans consume the lowest amounts of vitamin D from food alone among different ethnicities. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as many as 75 percent of African Americans are lactose intolerant, possibly further limiting the consumption of calcium and vitamin D fortified dairy products.
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.
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 Horet (Member # 16217) on :
Why is this black supremacist trash allowed to propogate so much here?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horet: Why is this black supremacist trash allowed to propogate so much here?
What makes this discussion "black supremist"?
The articles being discussed were all written by Europeans. Are you saying whites are racist?
.
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Horet: Why is this black supremacist trash allowed to propogate so much here?
What makes this discussion "black supremist"?
The articles being discussed were all written by Europeans. Are you saying whites are racist?
.
Because it's largely about lauding the idiotic black supremacist rhetoric on how whites are some sort albinic mutants?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
meninarmer - What we are dealing with here, is at once pernicious and pervasive. Note this quote from Oregon State Univ.
"Linus Pauling Institute (OSU) Quote: One U.S. study reported that 42% of African American women between 15 and 49 years of age were vitamin D deficient compared to 4% of White women"
Isn't it customary to give the name of the study and it's author when citing it? Without knowing the specifics, my guess would be that this is a totally bogus study, much like the one cited by MindoverMatter718, which was done by a Drug company trying to sell their product.
And if there is a problem with vitamin D deficiency, it is easily explained by two things that we already know have an impact on many Black communities - Nutrition and Obesity.
Obesity: Obesity increases the risk of vitamin D deficiency. Once vitamin D is synthesized in the skin or ingested, it is deposited in body fat stores, making it less bioavailable to people with large stores of body fat.
So why did I say "pernicious and pervasive"? Because this is just another example of White people using their power of information to misinform Black people. Before they used guns and dogs, now they use information. The tool is different, the intent is not. BTW - a visit to the National Medical Association (the association of Black doctors), fails to turn up any mention of this supposed "Health Crisis".
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: "Linus Pauling Institute (OSU) Quote: One U.S. study reported that 42% of African American women between 15 and 49 years of age were vitamin D deficient compared to 4% of White women"
Mike,
The high melanin content in darker skin reduces the skin's ability to produce vitamin D from sunlight in northern latitudes. This is a biological fact.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Isn't it customary to give the name of the study and it's author when citing it? Without knowing the specifics, my guess would be that this is a totally bogus study, much like the one cited by MindoverMatter718, which was done by a Drug company trying to sell their product.
Speaks for itself. To you I guess they're all trying to sell their products..
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 Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Horet - So far, everyone with a point of view on this matter has provided some sort of logic or documentation to support their position. Even MindoverMatter718 provided something, weak as it was.
Though I am sure that you are the brightest Whiteboy to ever walk the planet, I would still be nice if you were to provide some manner of support for your no-doubt brilliant position.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
MindoverMatter718
Mike, The high melanin content in darker skin reduces the skin's ability to produce vitamin D from sunlight in northern latitudes. This is a biological fact.
SHOW ME THE DATA!!!
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^Ad hominem remarks do nothing for your erroneous theory.
Face facts, or get lost.
Darkskin is natures sunscreen; hence blocks out the sun, and in northern latitudes, darker skinned populations need to take Vitamin D supplements, or have an immense Vitamin D intake through diet.
In turn lighterskin allows for UV to penetrate the skin in northern latitudes under darker skies; where there is less sun, and hence lighterskin people are not as much at risk as darkerskinned populations for Vitamin D deficiencies in northern latitudes.
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Horet - So far, everyone with a point of view on this matter has provided some sort of logic or documentation to support their position. Even MindoverMatter718 provided something, weak as it was.
Though I am sure that you are the brightest Whiteboy to ever walk the planet, I would still be nice if you were to provide some manner of support for your no-doubt brilliant position.
Cut the sarcastic BS. What are you trying to prove with all of this talk about melanin?
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^Ad hominem remarks do nothing for your erroneous theory.
Face facts, or get lost.
Darkskin is natures sunscreen; hence blocks out the sun, and in northern latitudes, darker skinned populations need to take Vitamin D supplements, or have an immense Vitamin D intake through diet.
Not necessarily. While they would need to do things like get more sunlight, they wouldn't require such ridiculous amounts of vitamin D. Vice versa holds true of light-skinned populations and sunlight.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^Surely it should be easy for you to explain why Inuit hunter gatherers are totally dependent on an immense intake of Vitamin D, and suffer from rickets if not reaching the adequate amounts..?
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 Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^Surely it should be easy for you to explain why Inuit hunter gatherers are totally dependent on an immense intake of Vitamin D, and suffer from rickets if not reaching the adequate amounts..?
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.
31 cases in 5 years isn't anything special.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
You totally missed the point and question.
The point and question is why do Inuit depend on this immense Vitamin D intake, and since their diets have changed they have been developing Vitamin D deficiencies?
Btw, research in this area hasn't been studied until recently.
quote:Nunavut taps into the Canada Prenatal Nutrition Program - a federal fund - to get vitamin D supplements to all pregnant and nursing mothers, babies and children under 2. The Canadian Paediatric Society's Indian and Inuit health committee recommends that pregnant and nursing mothers living above the 55th parallel take 800 international units of vitamin D a day from October to April.
New mothers also get lessons in thrifty shopping at the local grocery store. Modern sources of vitamin D - such as fortified milk, yogurt, canned fish and mayonnaise - are readily available in Nunavut, but can be expensive.
While vitamin D deficiency might seem an obvious problem for Arctic dwellers, there is a surprising lack of research on what that means for Inuit, Geraldine Osborne, Nunavut's associate medical officer of health, said.
Dr. Osborne said she found several articles linking vitamin D shortages to rickets and bone development. Some of them point to lower levels of vitamin D in Indian and Inuit children, and one, from 1984, proposes vitamin deficiency as a possible cause of northern infant syndrome, a complicated sickness then found in 16 Indian and Inuit babies.
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: You totally missed the point and question.
The point and question is why do Inuit depend on this immense Vitamin D intake, and since their diets have changed they have been developing Vitamin D deficiencies?
Btw, research in this area hasn't been studied until recently.
quote:Nunavut taps into the Canada Prenatal Nutrition Program - a federal fund - to get vitamin D supplements to all pregnant and nursing mothers, babies and children under 2. The Canadian Paediatric Society's Indian and Inuit health committee recommends that pregnant and nursing mothers living above the 55th parallel take 800 international units of vitamin D a day from October to April.
In all of Nunavut's 25 communities, expectant mothers are invited to cooking and sewing classes in their local wellness centres and community halls.
Nurses and community health representatives lead lessons in cooking healthy food, emphasizing basic nutrition and using traditional recipes for foods such as bannock, seal stew and fish soup.
New mothers also get lessons in thrifty shopping at the local grocery store. Modern sources of vitamin D - such as fortified milk, yogurt, canned fish and mayonnaise - are readily available in Nunavut, but can be expensive.
While vitamin D deficiency might seem an obvious problem for Arctic dwellers, there is a surprising lack of research on what that means for Inuit, Geraldine Osborne, Nunavut's associate medical officer of health, said.
Dr. Osborne said she found several articles linking vitamin D shortages to rickets and bone development. Some of them point to lower levels of vitamin D in Indian and Inuit children, and one, from 1984, proposes vitamin deficiency as a possible cause of northern infant syndrome, a complicated sickness then found in 16 Indian and Inuit babies.
No I didn't. I'm not denying the fact that dark-skin people require more vitamin D intake in the north, but you act as if they'd suffer horribly if they wern't consuming it constantly. You're being no better than the people who think people with white skin burn the moment they enter sunlight.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^Cut the sarcastic BS. What are you trying to prove with all of this talk about melanin?
That the genesis of White people is an Albino colony of ostracized Blacks from Southern Africa.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horet: No I didn't. I'm not denying the fact that dark-skin people require more vitamin D intake in the north, but you act as if they'd suffer horribly if they wern't consuming it constantly. You're being no better than the people who think people with white skin burn the moment they enter sunlight.
If you call Vitamin D deficiencies something fun, hey then that's on you.
I'm stating facts how they are. Inuit are totally dependent on this intake and if not getting the adequate amounts, will indeed suffer from Vitamin D deficiencies.
This is because the melanin content in darkerskin was to protect against the harmful UV rays; hence dark skin blocks out the ability to synthesize UV in northern latitudes, therefore humans become lighter in order to allow UV into the skin for production of Vitamin D.
The amount of time needed in the sun to synthesize UV and produce Vitamin D, differs in such factors as age, geographical area, and skin color.
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^Cut the sarcastic BS. What are you trying to prove with all of this talk about melanin?
That the genesis of White people is an Albino colony of ostracized Blacks from Southern Africa.
Yeah. That's just a ridiculous, revolting little piece of black supremacist mythology. Where's your evidence for this trash?
If you call Vitamin D deficiencies something fun, hey then that's on you.
I'm stating facts how they are. Inuit are totally dependent on this intake and if not getting the adequate amounts, will indeed suffer from Vitamin D deficiencies.
This is because the melanin content in darkerskin was to protect against the harmful UV rays; hence dark sin blocks out the ability to synthesize UV in northern latitudes, therefore humans become lighter in order to allow UV into the skin for production of Vitamin D.
Again, I'm not denying that people with darker skin require more vitamin D in northern climates. You're just grossly exxagerating it. Inuits aren't even that dark to begin with.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horet: Again, I'm not denying that people with darker skin require more vitamin D in northern climates.
Noted.
quote:Originally posted by Horet: Inuits aren't even that dark to begin with.
That's correct. Inuit are not that dark to begin with, but they do retain some melanin.
They turned lighter in order to produce Vitamin D through synthesis under darker skies; but note, Inuit still depend on an immense intake of Vitamin D, also note that this immense intake of Vitamin D is what keeps their skins darker than Europeans.
So any darkerskinned population living in these areas would suffer from way more Vitamin D deficiencies than that of the Inuit.
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Horet: Again, I'm not denying that people with darker skin require more vitamin D in northern climates.
Noted.
quote:Originally posted by Horet: Inuits aren't even that dark to begin with.
That's correct. Inuit are not that dark to begin with, but they do retain some melanin. Tey turned lighter in order to produce Vitamin D through synthesis under darker skies; but note, Inuit still depend on an immense intake of Vitamin D.
So any darkerskinned population living in these areas would suffer from way more from Vitamin D deficiencies than that of the Inuit.
But do you really know how much? There's other factors to consider in vitamin D intake levels, such as vitamin D metabolism and absorption rates. I don't think they would differ that much if you corrected for those factors.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horet: But do you really know how much?
..how much what?
quote:Originally posted by Horet: There's other factors to consider in vitamin D intake levels, such as vitamin D metabolism and absorption rates. I don't think they would differ that much if you corrected for those factors.
Understand, again, the high melanin content in dark skin disables from letting in any sunlight to the skin in northern climates.
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 Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
MindoverMatter718 and Horet, you just don't get it do you. Melanin is a FILTER not a BLOCK.
UV-B is responsible for causing the sunburn reaction within the skin and is absorbed mainly by the epidermis and upper dermis. Like UV-A, UV-B stimulates the production of melanin, which constitutes the basis for tanning. UV-B has great potential to induce erythema, and therefore its influence on the skin has been thoroughly investigated in vitro and in vivo (64) . The UV-B portion of the spectrum can promote skin cancer, especially if the exposure has been repeated and prolonged. However, recent studies have shown that the use of narrow-band UV-B (NB-UVB ~311 nm) is a better choice for phototherapy than frequently used psoralen and UV-A therapy (PUVA), which can cause undesirable side effects, including cutaneous cancers (67 , 68 69 70) .
The only known beneficial effect of UV-B is the stimulation of vitamin D synthesis in the epidermis. Vitamin D promotes the absorption of calcium from the intestine and ensures the proper mineralization of bones. However, exposure of just a small area of the body to a small amount of UV-B (5% of that required for erythema) is all that is needed for adequate synthesis of the vitamin D in the skin (64) .
One role of melanin in the skin is to neutralize the ROS generated by a variety of factors, including UV-B (23) , therefore functioning like a natural sunscreen. Until recently it was thought that the higher the melanin content, the less chance of DNA damage resulting from UV-R exposure. In a recent study, the effects of melanin on UV responses in different racial/ethnic groups were investigated for the first time. Despite the general public assumption that dark skin types are UV resistant and therefore not adversely affected by UV, this study showed that even the darkest UV-resistant skin types accumulated significant DNA damage at levels ≤1 minimal erythema dose (MED) (71) . The authors demonstrated that even very low UV exposures cause measurable damage to DNA in all skin types, although it was obvious that the most severe DNA damage was in lightly pigmented skin.
Bottom line, Blacks absorb the same amount of Sunlight. Their bodies are just better at responding to it metabolically and in the production of Melanin. Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Horet: [qb] But do you really know how much?
..how much what?
Exactly how much more vitamin D someone with dark skin would require in northern climates than someone with light skin. I remember a study comparing white and black subjects in a mountain region- the himalayas, maybe- and saw only a moderate difference between the 2 groups.
As a note, there's plenty of dark skinned people in Tibet, despite the cold climate.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Bottom line, Blacks absorb the same amount of Sunlight. Their bodies are just better at responding to it metabolically and in the production of Melanin.
Not in northern latitudes.
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: MindoverMatter718 and Horet, you just don't get it do you. Melanin is a FILTER not a BLOCK.
UV-B is responsible for causing the sunburn reaction within the skin and is absorbed mainly by the epidermis and upper dermis. Like UV-A, UV-B stimulates the production of melanin, which constitutes the basis for tanning. UV-B has great potential to induce erythema, and therefore its influence on the skin has been thoroughly investigated in vitro and in vivo (64) . The UV-B portion of the spectrum can promote skin cancer, especially if the exposure has been repeated and prolonged. However, recent studies have shown that the use of narrow-band UV-B (NB-UVB ~311 nm) is a better choice for phototherapy than frequently used psoralen and UV-A therapy (PUVA), which can cause undesirable side effects, including cutaneous cancers (67 , 68 69 70) .
The only known beneficial effect of UV-B is the stimulation of vitamin D synthesis in the epidermis. Vitamin D promotes the absorption of calcium from the intestine and ensures the proper mineralization of bones. However, exposure of just a small area of the body to a small amount of UV-B (5% of that required for erythema) is all that is needed for adequate synthesis of the vitamin D in the skin (64) .
One role of melanin in the skin is to neutralize the ROS generated by a variety of factors, including UV-B (23) , therefore functioning like a natural sunscreen. Until recently it was thought that the higher the melanin content, the less chance of DNA damage resulting from UV-R exposure. In a recent study, the effects of melanin on UV responses in different racial/ethnic groups were investigated for the first time. Despite the general public assumption that dark skin types are UV resistant and therefore not adversely affected by UV, this study showed that even the darkest UV-resistant skin types accumulated significant DNA damage at levels ≤1 minimal erythema dose (MED) (71) . The authors demonstrated that even very low UV exposures cause measurable damage to DNA in all skin types, although it was obvious that the most severe DNA damage was in lightly pigmented skin.
Bottom line, Blacks absorb the same amount of Sunlight. Their bodies are just better at responding to it metabolically and in the production of Melanin.
So what does this have to do with you clinging to that black supremacist fairy tale of the albino exodus? I mean, your'e even admitting that black skin is also prone to DNA damage from UV remains. Amazing coming from the likes of you.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horet:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Horet: [qb] But do you really know how much?
..how much what?
Exactly how much more vitamin D someone with dark skin would require in northern climates than someone with light skin. I remember a study comparing white and black subjects in a mountain region- the himalayas, maybe- and saw only a moderate difference between the 2 groups.
As a note, there's plenty of dark skinned people in Tibet, despite the cold climate.
Your question was answered here. Which it stated more research is needed in this area before any more specific recommendations can be made.
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).
...also note;
quote: The Canadian Paediatric Society's Indian and Inuit health committee recommends that pregnant and nursing mothers living above the 55th parallel take 800 international units of vitamin D a day from October to April.
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:The Canadian Paediatric Society's Indian and Inuit health committee recommends that pregnant and nursing mothers living above the 55th parallel take 800 international units of vitamin D a day from October to April.
Do you know how much that compares to what would be required of whites in the same climate?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^What do you think? Would they require more or less?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
No answer?
Well here's a hint, since they're lighter, and in turn lighter skin allows UV to penetrate the skin under darker skies to synthesize and produce Vitamin D, what do you think?
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^What do you think? Would they require more or less?
Uh, more of course. I just meant specifics. I doubt that information would be easy to find off-hand though.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^Why would they have to acquire more; if their skin is lighter which actually gives one the ability to synthesize UV under darker skies better than darker skinned populations?
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^Why would they have to acquire more; if their skin is lighter which actually gives one the ability to synthesize UV under darker skies better than darker skinned populations?
Look, I've already said I don't deny darker-skinned people would require more vitamin D in climates with more cloud cover. I just have contention with you because you act as if they'd require PROFOUNDLY more. That's all.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
MindoverMatter718 and Horet, For sure, you just don't get it
This quote proves that the "vitamin D" thing is a RED HERRING. Quote: "However, exposure of just a small area of the body to a small amount of UV-B (5% of that required for erythema) is all that is needed for adequate synthesis of the vitamin D in the skin"
According to that, everyone, other than Eskimo's who may go for months without ANY sunlight, will get enough sunlight for normal production of vitamin D. Therefor vitamin D has NOTHING to do with White people turning White!
Therefore there must be ANOTHER explanation - SUCH as, DEFECTIVE Melanin producing genes - SUCH as in Albinism. Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Well Horet it seems that you're the one using "PROFOUNDLY", not me.
I said what I said, and I proved it. Darker skinned populations are at higher risk of Vitamin D deficiencies in northern latitudes, and in turn lighter skinned populations are more at risk of being affected by harmful UV rays causing skin cancer etc.. In more southerly climates.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: MindoverMatter718 and Horet, For sure, you just don't get it
This quote proves that the "vitamin D" thing is a RED HERRING. Quote: "However, exposure of just a small area of the body to a small amount of UV-B (5% of that required for erythema) is all that is needed for adequate synthesis of the vitamin D in the skin"
This depends on factors such as age, diet, skin pigmentation, geographic location and intensity of the sun for amount of sun exposure needed to produce adequate vitamin D.
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QB] MindoverMatter718 and Horet, For sure, you just don't get it
This quote proves that the "vitamin D" thing is a RED HERRING. Quote: "However, exposure of just a small area of the body to a small amount of UV-B (5% of that required for erythema) is all that is needed for adequate synthesis of the vitamin D in the skin"
According to that, everyone, other than Eskimo's who may go for months without ANY sunlight, will get enough sunlight for normal production of vitamin D. Therefor vitamin D has NOTHING to do with White people turning White!
....You can't be serious. That study you quoted was just talking about SKIN DAMAGE, IE the kind that occurs via sunburn, not vitamin D production. Are you saying that people with blue-black skin absorb vitamin D just as well as people with pale white skin?
quote:Therefore there must be ANOTHER explanation - SUCH as, DEFECTIVE Melanin producing genes - SUCH as in Albinism.
Do you even know how albinism actually works?
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Well Horet it seems that you're the one using "PROFOUNDLY", not me.
I said what I said, and I proved it. Darker skinned populations are at higher risk of Vitamin D deficiencies in northern latitudes, and in turn lighter skinned populations are more at risk of being affected by harmful UV rays causing skin cancer etc.. In more southerly climates.
I know you didn't say profoundly, but that's just how you've been coming off in regards to this.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Well, I never made it seem as anything other than what I said. I never said ridiculously or profoundly more. Again I said; darkskin is natures sunscreen; hence blocks out the sun, and in northern latitudes, darker skinned populations need to take Vitamin D supplements, or have an immense Vitamin D intake through diet.
You just immediately assumed I was....
quote:Originally posted by Horet:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^Ad hominem remarks do nothing for your erroneous theory.
Face facts, or get lost.
Darkskin is natures sunscreen; hence blocks out the sun, and in northern latitudes, darker skinned populations need to take Vitamin D supplements, or have an immense Vitamin D intake through diet.
Not necessarily. While they would need to do things like get more sunlight, they wouldn't require such ridiculous amounts of vitamin D. Vice versa holds true of light-skinned populations and sunlight.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: MindoverMatter718 and Horet, For sure, you just don't get it
This quote proves that the "vitamin D" thing is a RED HERRING. Quote: "However, exposure of just a small area of the body to a small amount of UV-B (5% of that required for erythema) is all that is needed for adequate synthesis of the vitamin D in the skin"
According to that, everyone, other than Eskimo's who may go for months without ANY sunlight, will get enough sunlight for normal production of vitamin D. Therefor vitamin D has NOTHING to do with White people turning White!
Therefore there must be ANOTHER explanation - SUCH as, DEFECTIVE Melanin producing genes - SUCH as in Albinism.
Mike, it's fairly obvious neither of them bothered to read the reports I posted. They both seem to miss all the significant portions of the reports.
We explained to Rasol and sidekick months ago that melanin is does not "block" UV. It seems these guys fail to understand the difference between block and absorb. These whites are getting natural melanin confused with their specially designed Sun Screen ointment which indeed does what it's developed to do, which is, block UV. Rather than block, Melanin absorbs UV (and other radiations) and radiates it in heat or uses any other portion for Vitamin D conversion.
A very Dark African in Europe will acquire his/her daily requirement of Vitamin D from UV exposure in approx. 2 hours. In a Northern region such as Alaska, that same dark skinned black would need to double to approx. 4 hours of sunlight to acquire the same amount. INUITS would acquire their allotment in approx. half this time.
The recommended dosage (based on White needs) is 400IU/day. A pregnant women requires more, perhaps 50% more, because she is carrying or nursing a baby and feeding two. A black pregnant woman will require approx. 30% less than a white woman, or approx.350-380IU/day.
According to WHO data, Not only do blacks require less Vitamin D than whites, but they also convert Calcium more effectively than whites producing bone formation up to 40% stronger and more durable than whites, less prone to breakage.
After all this time, following dozens of reports confirming this and melanin's role, MindOverMatter still doesn't get it. AMAZING! If still in school, I would strongly suggest remedial reading comprehension classes.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^None of the reports you ever posted agreed with you; ever!
In fact, they actually always wind up backfiring and debunking you instead. Now that's definitely amazing. Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ MOMatter, You've successfully demonstrated that your reading comprehension skills are very wanting. You even fail to understand your own CutNPasted documents. For example, 800IU of Vitamin D would be toxic to a pregnant woman. A pregnate woman does require additional Vitamin D intake, but not double her own adult body weight.
Without basic reading interpretation skills, this thinking stuff is just beyond your grasp. After 3 months, you still don't understand what melanin is, or how it works. It seems these concepts are just beyond your level of comprehension.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
I'll tell you like I told Mike.
Ad hominem remarks do nothing for your erroneous theory.
Face facts, or get lost.
Darkskin is natures sunscreen; it protects against harmful UV rays, and hence blocks out the ability to absorb UV rays in northern latitudes to produce Vitamin D through synthesis.
Lighterskin allows for UV rays to penetrate the skin under darker skies, and hence synthesize UV to produce Vitamin D better than darkerskinned populations.
Darker skinned populations need to take Vitamin D supplements, or have an immense Vitamin D intake through diet.
So far you've flailed your arms ranting for no reason because you haven't disproved anything.
Fact; darkskinned populations are at risk for Vitamin D deficiencies in northern latitudes more than lighterskinned populations.
Pay attention...
Even your precious World Health Organization Collaborative Centre for the Promotion of Sun Protection (WHO), doesn't agree with you.
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 MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: For example, 800IU of Vitamin D would be toxic to a pregnant woman. A pregnate woman does require additional Vitamin D intake, but not double her own adult body weight.
Really?
Is this an established fact or just your opinion; or perhaps it's your lack of reading comprehension skills?
quote:The Canadian Paediatric Society's Indian and Inuit health committee recommends that pregnant and nursing mothers living above the 55th parallel take 800 international units of vitamin D a day from October to April.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ No harm intended but, you fail to grasp basic concepts. Do me a favor and post that "Whites recently Turned White In Europe Newsweek article again. The one with the Albino woman on the front.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Right here kid, right here.....
Even your precious World Health Organization Collaborative Centre for the Promotion of Sun Protection (WHO), doesn't agree with you.
Like I said, all of your reports, they always wind up backfiring and debunking you instead.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: I'll tell you like I told Mike.
Ad hominem remarks do nothing for your erroneous theory.
Face facts, or get lost.
Darkskin is natures sunscreen; it protects against harmful UV rays, and hence blocks out the ability to absorb UV rays in northern latitudes to produce Vitamin D through synthesis.
Lighterskin allows for UV rays to penetrate the skin under darker skies, and hence synthesize UV to produce Vitamin D better than darkerskinned populations.
Darker skinned populations need to take Vitamin D supplements, or have an immense Vitamin D intake through diet.
So far you've flailed your arms ranting for no reason because you haven't disproved anything.
Fact; darkskinned populations are at risk for Vitamin D deficiencies in northern latitudes more than lighterskinned populations.
Pay attention...
Even your precious World Health Organization Collaborative Centre for the Promotion of Sun Protection (WHO), doesn't agree with you.
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 meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: For example, 800IU of Vitamin D would be toxic to a pregnant woman. A pregnate woman does require additional Vitamin D intake, but not double her own adult body weight.
Really?
Is this an established fact or just your opinion; or perhaps it's your lack of reading comprehension skills?
quote:The Canadian Paediatric Society's Indian and Inuit health committee recommends that pregnant and nursing mothers living above the 55th parallel take 800 international units of vitamin D a day from October to April.
Naw, that's too much, and could be toxic.
Moms, Babies found Deficient in Vitamin D Children without enough of the vitamin have low bone mass By ANDRÉ PICARD
March 15, 2005 Globe and Mail
The new study, published in today's edition of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, found that children with inadequate levels of vitamin D had low bone mass.
None of the children developed rickets -- a painful and once common bone-wrenching condition -- because they were all provided with vitamin D supplements, Dr. Weiler said.
A daily intake of at least 200 international units of vitamin D is recommended as part of a healthy diet; pregnant women should get double that level, 400 IU.
Because the Alaskan Winter has temperatures of -56C (-70F) and also heavy ice fog which blocks sunlight like a dust storm, now born infants will be kept in doors and receive little to no direct sunlight during the Winter period. Still the 800IU is SUGGESTED ONLY FOR WOMEN IN NORTHERN ALASKA, WHO ARE BREAST FEEDING, and ONLY during the Winter months.
IMHO, at 400% above the normal dosage, 800IU is too much and one needs to be careful of taking an over-dosage of Vitamin D. The human body can tolerate too much Vitamin C, but too much Vitamin D can be toxic.
Still, you lack the kind of mind for this type of research. Sometimes, even with the best education, a person cannot be taught to paint or be an artist. That person may be very good at something different, like accounting.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Naw, that's too much, and could be toxic.
Moms, Babies found Deficient in Vitamin D Children without enough of the vitamin have low bone mass By ANDRÉ PICARD
March 15, 2005 Globe and Mail
The new study, published in today's edition of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, found that children with inadequate levels of vitamin D had low bone mass.
None of the children developed rickets -- a painful and once common bone-wrenching condition -- because they were all provided with vitamin D supplements, Dr. Weiler said.
A daily intake of at least 200 international units of vitamin D is recommended as part of a healthy diet; pregnant women should get double that level, 400 IU.
Is this specifically in recommendation towards pregnant and nursing mothers living above the 55th parallel?
Btw, that study you posted is from March 15 2005, the one I posted is from 10 June 2007, and note there is a surprising lack of research in this area so we are becoming more informed as research continues.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ They are from the same study. Your author just made a late publication.
The Winter above the 55th parallel are more severe. Not many people linger in -56C weather for the adequate length of time required to absorb Vitamin D. Plus, ice storms limit UV exposure even more.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ They are from the same study. Your author just made a late publication.
Same study; but published 2 years later and have totally different results?
Btw, remember...
Even your precious World Health Organization Collaborative Centre for the Promotion of Sun Protection (WHO), doesn't agree with you.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ LOL, it has to agree with me since I quoted their study verbatim, same as the MAYO, International Center For Albinism, and other major medical publications. I've been sure to provide their links, so what I posted is easily verified.
The studies are the same, and the data is also.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ LOL, it has to agree with me since I quoted their study verbatim, same as the MAYO, International Center For Albinism, and other major medical publications.
Like I said before, none of what you posted agrees with you at all.
None of them agrees that Europeans are albinos or that they migrated from Africa as albinos. Sorry kid.
Pay attention...
Even your precious World Health Organization Collaborative Centre for the Promotion of Sun Protection (WHO), doesn't agree with you.
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 MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: The studies are the same, and the data is also.
Really?
So why is one article entitled
Changes in Arctic Diet Put Inuit at Risk for Rickets (Mine)
Moms, Babies found Deficient in Vitamin D Children without enough of the vitamin have low bone mass (Yours)
and....
Why does one say 800IU for pregnant women above the 55th parallel compared to your 400 IU?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ LOL, simply because the two articles were written by different authors who accessed and referenced the same study.
This is how I concluded, the 800IU is SUGGESTED ONLY FOR WOMEN IN NORTHERN ALASKA, WHO ARE BREAST FEEDING, and ONLY during the Winter months.
Although the two articles are different, they both reference and include the same data from the same Canadian Medical Association Journal study .
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: This is how I concluded, the 800IU is SUGGESTED ONLY FOR WOMEN IN NORTHERN ALASKA, WHO ARE BREAST FEEDING, and ONLY during the Winter months.
Where would humans be if above the 55th parallel; and from October to April mean, genius?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Don't know,, but it's seems awful cold. Perhaps you can help me out?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Oh so now you don't know; but I thought you knew what you were talking about?
So is Alaska above the 55th parallel?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
You're making yet another mistake posting The Explorer/Supercars thread , as he does not agree with you either
Are you willing to to point out what you posted the thread for?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Have you read it?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
I have; and?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Did you understand it?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Did you understand it?
Matter of fact; do you understand?
Are you willing to to point out what you posted the thread for? That's the real question.
Don't worry, you can take your time.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Did you understand it?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Yes; and....what's your point? It seems you don't have one at all.
You're obviously posting a thread by The Explorer/Supercar of which you actually don't understand, or just too scared to say....
Note;
Why did you post the thread when I asked YOU ..
Where would humans be if above the 55th parallel; and from October to April mean, genius?
and..
Is Alaska above the 55th parallel?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Well, in spite of my doubt, I'll have to believe there is a first.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Well, in spite of my doubt, I'll have to believe there is a first.
Elaborate.. if you can. I'm pretty sure you can't/won't.
I definitely expect to see more ad hominem remarks from you, purely pitiful.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
So far, I have yet to see you completely comprehend anything you or anyone else has posted. Besides basic reading comprehension, your understanding of basic longitude and latitude has also been shown to be lacking. So, based on these observations, I'm quite (doubtfully) surprised you understood the post in question.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^Ad hominems on cue, of course.
Anyway,
Are you willing to to point out what you posted the thread for; kid?
It's obvious ever since I asked you...
Where would humans be if above the 55th parallel; and from October to April mean, genius?
and..
Is Alaska above the 55th parallel?
You appeared to be dumbfounded.
I asked You a question; kid, no one else. No one else here to save you kid.
If not...
Just remember ; Even your ever so precious World Health Organization Collaborative Centre for the Promotion of Sun Protection (WHO), doesn't even agree with you.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: I'll tell you like I told Mike.
Ad hominem remarks do nothing for your erroneous theory.
Face facts, or get lost.
Darkskin is natures sunscreen; it protects against harmful UV rays, and hence blocks out the ability to absorb UV rays in northern latitudes to produce Vitamin D through synthesis.
Lighterskin allows for UV rays to penetrate the skin under darker skies, and hence synthesize UV to produce Vitamin D better than darkerskinned populations.
Darker skinned populations need to take Vitamin D supplements, or have an immense Vitamin D intake through diet.
So far you've flailed your arms ranting for no reason because you haven't disproved anything.
Fact; darkskinned populations are at risk for Vitamin D deficiencies in northern latitudes more than lighterskinned populations.
Pay attention...
Even your precious World Health Organization Collaborative Centre for the Promotion of Sun Protection (WHO), doesn't even agree with you.
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 akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: So far, I have yet to see you completely comprehend anything you or anyone else has posted. Besides basic reading comprehension, your understanding of basic longitude and latitude has also been shown to be lacking. So, based on these observations, I'm quite (doubtfully) surprised you understood the post in question.
Then there is genetic vs "phenotypic intermediatness"; hybridisation vs local evolution; Asian derived humans living in Europe for thousands of years; cranial studies vs DNA studies; fundamental units as types/races and the list goes on and on for gringo and his lack of basic comprehension.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Yes, I don't mean to be hard, but I think Junior should perhaps switch his major to a field where he would be better suited. Perhaps, administration, but that entails correct interpretation of written procedures and policies which may prove to be problematic.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Darn it; I was looking forward to where this latest twist of the "debate" would lead. Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Has anyone noticed how MindoverMatter718 is much more courteous, cordiale, docile, reserved, and passive when he deals with white posters?
Look at his interactions with Horet, whose initial post on this thread would lead one to conclude that he is white.
Just more proof of what most people already know. That MindoverMatter718 believes in the euroctrist's racial hierarchy ruse and it shows in his interactions with Africans and what he posts about Africans, especially certain Africans.
MindoverMatter718, how did you get this fucked up?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
As correctly pointed out by meninarmer, MindoverMatter718 and others do not actually read or perhaps, really comprehend the material that they post. The result has been to bog us down by having to constantly go over debunked points, and having to suffer through the constant re-posting of the same material.
MindoverMatter718’s latest obsession is with the bogus piece of conjecture below. In an effort to move things along, I will explain the gist of their statements.
Key Findings Released from UV, Vitamin D and Health Conference National Health Groups Recognize Benefits of Vitamin D
Key findings
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.
This relates ONLY to White people.
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.
This OBVIOUSLY relates ONLY to White people.
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.
Again: This OBVIOUSLY relates ONLY to White people.
4. Groups at risk of not obtaining adequate amounts of vitamin D include: • the elderly; • exclusively breast-fed babies; • individuals with dark skin pigmentation;
As demonstrated by meninarmer’s post, this B.S. was completely debunked.
• 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 370 latitude (Canada and Northern US).
The rest is disclaimers to cover the fact that this is almost total B.S. when non-Whites are included.
If you are concerned about adequate vitamin D levels, discuss supplementation with your health care practitioner. For breast-fed babies, vitamin D drops are available on their own (only in Canada), or as part of a multi-vitamin drop, and are recommended as a supplementation source by health authorities both in Canada and the USA. For adults, current recommendations are 200 IU/day up to age 50, 400 IU for 50-70 and 600IU over age 70. These recommendations are now considered too low by many experts for optimal health. The most appropriate supplementation level is likely to be above this but below the safe upper level of 2000 IU/day for adults. More research is needed to determine the optimal amount of vitamin D supplementation required to prevent health problems.
More research is needed to clarify the following issues: • the optimum level of blood concentration and daily intake of vitamin D needed to maintain health; • the amount of UVB exposure needed to synthesize optimum vitamin D in the skin; in particular, the appropriate recommendation given skin pigmentation, age and latitude. It appears that recommendations must be individualized based on age, skin pigmentation, geographic location and other factors; • the long-term risks, if any, of lifetime ingestion of large quantities of vitamin D; and • the level of vitamin D sufficiency that is clinically relevant, decreasing the risk of health problems, such as cancer.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
More research is needed to clarify the following issues: • the optimum level of blood concentration and daily intake of vitamin D needed to maintain health; • the amount of UVB exposure needed to synthesize optimum vitamin D in the skin; in particular, the appropriate recommendation given skin pigmentation, age and latitude. It appears that recommendations must be individualized based on age, skin pigmentation, geographic location and other factors; • the long-term risks, if any, of lifetime ingestion of large quantities of vitamin D; and • the level of vitamin D sufficiency that is clinically relevant, decreasing the risk of health problems, such as cancer.
Intake reference values for vitamin D and other nutrients are provided in the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) developed by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) at the Institute of Medicine of The National Academies (formerly National Academy of Sciences) [5]. DRI is the general term for a set of reference values used to plan and assess nutrient intakes of healthy people. These values, which vary by age and gender [5], include:
* Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA): average daily level of intake sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (97-98%) healthy people. * Adequate Intake (AI): established when evidence is insufficient to develop an RDA and is set at a level assumed to ensure nutritional adequacy. * Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL): maximum daily intake unlikely to cause adverse health effects [5].
The FNB established an AI for vitamin D that represents a daily intake that is sufficient to maintain bone health and normal calcium metabolism in healthy people. AIs for vitamin D are listed in both micrograms (mcg) and International Units (IUs); the biological activity of 1 mcg is equal to 40 IU (Table 2). The AIs for vitamin D are based on the assumption that the vitamin is not synthesized by exposure to sunlight [5].
Table 2: Adequate Intakes (AIs) for Vitamin D
Age Birth to 13 year(200IU) 14-18 years (200IU) 19-50 years (200 IU) 51-70 years (400 IU) 71+ years (600 IU)
Sun Exposure
The factors that affect UV radiation exposure and research to date on the amount of sun exposure needed to maintain adequate vitamin D levels make it difficult to provide general guidelines. It has been suggested by some vitamin D researchers, for example, that approximately 5-30 minutes of sun exposure between 10 AM and 3 PM at least twice a week to the face, arms, legs, or back without sunscreen usually lead to sufficient vitamin D synthesis and that the moderate use of commercial tanning beds that emit 2-6% UVB radiation is also effective [11,28]. Individuals with limited sun exposure need to include good sources of vitamin D in their diet or take a supplement.
Osteoporosis
African Americans have lower levels of 25(OH)D than Caucasians, yet they develop fewer osteoporotic fractures. This suggests that factors other than vitamin D provide protection [57]. African Americans have an advantage in bone density from early childhood, a function of their more efficient calcium economy, and have a lower risk of fracture even when they have the same bone density as Caucasians. They also have a higher prevalence of obesity, and the resulting higher estrogen levels in obese women might protect them from bone loss [57]. Further reducing the risk of osteoporosis in African Americans are their lower levels of bone-turnover markers, shorter hip-axis length, and superior renal calcium conservation. However, despite this advantage in bone density, osteoporosis is a significant health problem among African Americans as they age.
Health Risks from Excessive Vitamin D
Vitamin D toxicity can cause nonspecific symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, poor appetite, constipation, weakness, and weight loss [74]. More seriously, it can also raise blood levels of calcium, causing mental status changes such as confusion and heart rhythm abnormalities [8]. The use of supplements of both calcium (1,000 mg/day) and vitamin D (400 IU/day) by postmenopausal women was associated with a 17% increase in the risk of kidney stones over 7 years in the Women's Health Initiative [75].
Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Vitamin D Office of Dietary Supplements • National Institutes of Health http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Having “HOPEFULLY” dispatched MindoverMatter718’s latest Red Herring;
Now would be a good time to access our position as relates to solving the riddle of where or what White people come from.
As we have just seen, meninarmer debunked the “Whites turned White to avoid a vitamin D deficiency” fairytale.
And Jablonski’s “White girl dreaming” fantasy was debunked by the simple process of LOOKING at current North Africans and Middle-easterners and discovering (he he) that they were STILL WHITE. (LMAO that one was really stupid).
The laughable “Whites recently turned White in Europe” B.S. was debunked by the simple fact that when Whites got to Europe FROM Asia – They were ALREADY WHITE.
The nonsense of White people in Europe descending from Cro-Magnon in Europe has finally gone away. Having been debunked by the simple truth that since White people didn’t originate in Europe, how could they descend from a creature in Europe? Of course, it was also very inconvenient that Cro-Magnon was a Black skinned creature. (Here I want to be careful to leave Cro-Magnon in Asia out of the equation).
So if we can all agree on the above, what say we move forward.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Darn it; I was looking forward to where this latest twist of the "debate" would lead.
Lol, I was too, but it doesn't seem as if the individual was able or willing to explain or follow up on why he posted your thread. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
So having done away with the Red Herrings (I hope), let us return to a logical contemplation of the matter. If White people were originally normal healthy Black people, who in some way “Turned” White because of their environment, there should be some other similar occurrence in nature.
Of the Humanoid creatures, only Neanderthal shows a physical adaptation to cold climates. Problem is; Neanderthal is demonstrably STILL BLACK.
In the animal world, the Polar Bear is undoubtedly well adapted to a cold climate. But here again; though the Polar Bears fur appears quite White (it’s actually colorless), the Polar Bears SKIN under the fur, IS JET BLACK!
This “Turning” White theory does not seem to have ANY support in nature!!
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
My point exactly.
It has absolutely nothing to do with this distraction false claim of Black Superiority, but points out very obvious holes in existing theories being aggressively promoted by pseudo -scientists such as Jablonski. The only other historic record running parallel to such a major deviation in human anatomy are the emergence of Albinos in all primary ethnic groups (African, Asians, Indian, Latino) on earth. No one has yet discovered the cause(s) of Albinism, but so far, there are 125 identified genes responsible for influencing skin pigmentation, for approx. 3.4×10^38 possible permutations.
Posted by JarHed (Member # 16254) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Of the Humanoid creatures, only Neanderthal shows a physical adaptation to cold climates. Problem is; Neanderthal is demonstrably STILL BLACK.
What? Are you saying that Neanderthals are black because some people made a reconstruction of a neanderthal with dark skin?(Likely because they secretly think dark skin is a primitive trait.) A better reconstruction that actually is colored based on neanderthal genes show that they had reddish hair and probably light skin as well.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
JarHed - You're new, so I will explain. When serious people post on this board, they don't just pull any bullsh1t off of the internet. They use material from some more-or-less accredited source.
And THEN, you are expected to have actually read and understood the material that you referrence (except if you're MindoverMatter718) - he has a permanant exemption - we had no choice.
This (below) is not a scientific study, It is the typical bullsh1t produced by lying White boys trying to cling to the White Lie (pardon the pun), as is the photograph that you posted - which is not attributed. If you intend to stay on the board, please try to do better in the future.
ScienceDaily (Oct. 26, 2007) — Ancient DNA retrieved from the bones of two Neanderthals suggests that at least some of them had red hair and pale skin, scientists report in the journal Science. The international team says that Neanderthals' pigmentation may even have been as varied as that of modern humans, and that at least 1 percent of Neanderthals were likely redheads. Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
So, Mike111, could you get back to me on the idea of whites being an albino colony from Africa? What exactly is going on with this discussion now?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^I am trying to dispense with all of the quack theories, and hold close, those that cannot be debunked. The logic being, that when the B.S. ones are all debunked and removed, then that which is left should provide an approach to the truth. So far - the Albino theory is holding up.
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^I am trying to dispense with all of the quack theories, and hold close, those that cannot be debunked. The logic being, that when the B.S. ones are all debunked and removed, then that which is left should provide an approach to the truth. So far - the Albino theory is holding up.
.....Where is your evidence for this? You do know it's impossible for albinism to become a fixed trait among all members of a population in any organism, right?
I could go further into this, but could you tell me why whites don't suffer from the innumerable ocular problems that albinos typically have?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Horet - I know that you came in at the middle of thread, but I had hoped that you would have by now, read the thread from the beginning.
BTW - meninarmer is the resident expert because of his extensive research. I am relegated to being something of a logical referee.
And NO; I do not know that any of that is impossible.
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Horet - I know that you came in at the middle of thread, but I had hoped that you would have by now, read the thread from the beginning.
Because barely any evidence has been provided for it outside of purely speculatory BS like comparing humans to polar bears?
quote:BTW - meninarmer is the resident expert because of his extensive research. I am relegated to being something of a logical referee.
And NO; I do not know that any of that is impossible.
Great. Tell me why it's not impossible. Hey, could you cite some genetic evidence on this perhaps? Where's the evidence of all europeans carrying genes for albinism?
In some south african ethnic groups, the carrier rate for albino alleles are as high as 1 in 40, leading to incidence rates of 1 in 1,000. Even if all members of an ethnic group carried albino alleles, not all members of an ethnic group would be albinos.
So please tell me how this would work for europeans. You also didn't get back to me on that tidbit about albinos and their ocular problems.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Horet - Being new to the board, it occurs to me that you might not be familiar with the parameters of our discussions.
The question is; What are White people, and to a lesser extent - Mongols, and how did they evolve.
This is what we think that we know. (Since we know that the genesis of Whites and Mongols is in Asia, following the movements of Homos to Asia is key).
Homo-erectus Homo-erectus, he seems to have been restricted to the African tropics for the first several hundred thousand years of his existence, but eventually, By about 500,000 years ago, he began to gradually migrate into Asia and parts of Europe. Homo erectus or 'upright man', was the first creature to stand fully upright. He was probably also the first to use fire. We think that Homo erectus built campfires and may have made simple ovens with hot stones.
Homo-erectus appears to have ranged widely over the Earth. Erectus fossils were first found at Trinil on the island of Java; other finds were near Peking in China, at Ternifine in Algeria, and at Olduvai Gorge and Koobi Fora in eastern Africa. In northwestern Africa at Salé, Sidi 'Abd ar-Rahman, and Rabat, all in Morocco. Specimens from Europe were discovered at Bilzingsleben and Mauer (both in Germany), and Petralona (Greece).
There are other fossils, that seem to represent subspecies of Homo-sapiens (the next in line) dating from the late Middle or early Late Pleistocene, and these are found in Africa at Kabwe (Broken Hill), Elandsfontein - the Cave of Hearths, Lake Ndutu, Omo, and Bodo, and in Europe at Swanscombe, Steinheim, Biache, Ehringsdorf, La Chaise, and Vértesszollos. It is among these that the line of distinction between Homo-erectus and Homo-sapiens becomes dim, for it seems that these are the creatures that represent the gradual progression from Homo-erectus to Homo-sapien.
Neanderthal Neanderthal, was an early form of Homo-sapien that inhabited much of Europe and the Mediterranean lands during the late Pleistocene Epoch, (about 100,000 to 30,000 years ago). Neanderthal remains have also been found in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia.
Cro-Magnon
The skull is longheaded, the forehead is straight, the brow ridges only slightly projecting, the cranial vault noticeably flattened, and the occipital bone (at the back of the head) projects backward. The cranial capacity is large, about 100 cubic inches. Although the skull is relatively long and narrow, the face appears quite short and wide. This combination is often regarded as a common feature of the Cro-Magnon race.
Cro-Magnon is found all over Europe, Asia and the Mediterranean, The tendency now is to locate the origin of the Cro-Magnon type Humanoid in the Middle-east:
Ancient Homo-sapien-sapiens (Modern Man), began to leave Africa about 70-60,000 B.C. There were two great migrations east; the first occurred about 70-60,000 B.C. This group followed a coastal route and eventually reached Australia. The second wave of migration occurred about 60-50,000 B.C. These may have been big game hunters who followed an inland route in search of game; they reached China by about 50-45,000 B.C. At about 45,000 B.C. the Khoisan Grimaldi entered Europe through the straits of Gibraltar. The humanoid Cro-Magnon followed at about 35,000 B.C.
So we have Homo-erectus, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, and Modern Man; All of them Black and All of them migrating to Asia.
Fast forward to about 2,000 B.C. and we find a COMPLETELY NEW creature exiting Asia - One who is White!!
How the hell did that happen - That's what we are trying to figure out! Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Horet - Just to add a little more mystery to the problem, here are a few more things to think about.
As I mentioned before, the Khoisan Grimaldi entered Europe at about 45,000 B.C. He then migrated East, as far as Mal'ta Siberia - about 22-25,000 B.C. (Just north of modern Mongolia), maybe even further.
We know from current numbers that Whites were numerous, so Why do we NOT seen evidence of Whites migrating WEST before the great migration at 2,000 B.C. Did they not exist much before then?
Speaking of the great migration; What caused it? Why did Whites so SUDDENLY decide to leave the Steppes of Asia. Between about 2,000 B.C. to about 700 A.D. Millions upon millions of Whites, left the Steppes of Asia and migrated into India, Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East - Why?
Contrast that with the Mongols; Who did not completely absorb Black South Asia (which is much closer), until the 17th century A.D. - with the fall of the Black Champa kingdom in Vietnam.
For those wondering why Africans seemed to have made a bee-line for Asia; the Glaciation map below from the Ice Age 18,000 years ago might give a clue. As you can see, unlike North America and Europe, Asia was pretty-well Ice free.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Is anyone prepared to support the NOI's contention that the reason Whites appeared so suddenly, is because they are "White Devils from Outer Space?"
He he - just having fun.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Good post Mike!
LOL, the MAD black scientist story.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
I keep telling you guys whites are hybrids of Bay Area Chinese-looking European Asians that mixed with incoming Forest Negro Pygmy-looking Africans. Gringo is right and y'all are just wrong. Geeez! Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: So we have Homo-erectus, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, and Modern Man; All of them Black and All of them migrating to Asia.
How do you know not one of these had white skin? Why do you disagree with the notion that neanderthals had white skin, despite subsiding in europe for so long?
quote:Fast forward to about 2,000 B.C. and we find a COMPLETELY NEW creature exiting Asia - One who is White!!
White skin didn't appear until 4,000 years ago?
quote:How the hell did that happen - That's what we are trying to figure out!
So you've thrown out virtually all other sane theories and are going with ones pretty much found almost entirely in the realms of black supremacist ideologies?
quote:As I mentioned before, the Khoisan Grimaldi entered Europe at about 45,000 B.C. He then migrated East, as far as Mal'ta Siberia - about 22-25,000 B.C. (Just north of modern Mongolia), maybe even further.
How do you know they were khoisan?
quote:We know from current numbers that Whites were numerous, so Why do we NOT seen evidence of Whites migrating WEST before the great migration at 2,000 B.C. Did they not exist much before then?
Speaking of the great migration; What caused it? Why did Whites so SUDDENLY decide to leave the Steppes of Asia. Between about 2,000 B.C. to about 700 A.D. Millions upon millions of Whites, left the Steppes of Asia and migrated into India, Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East - Why?
What great migration are you talking about? Does this relate to turkic migrations or something?
quote:Contrast that with the Mongols; Who did not completely absorb Black South Asia (which is much closer), until the 17th century A.D. - with the fall of the Black Champa kingdom in Vietnam.
Oh god. Don't tell me you also believe south indians and the like are black. While the aboriginal inhabitants of india and southeast asia were obviously african, modern-day south indians are NOT. While southern asia is already very mixed, the vast majority of south indians are closely related to middle easterners and other caucasian, and they've acquired many of their african-looking features via tropical adaption.
quote:Is anyone prepared to support the NOI's contention that the reason Whites appeared so suddenly, is because they are "White Devils from Outer Space?"
He he - just having fun.
With your insistence on the idea of whites being albinos, I really wouldn't be surprised.
So could someone please give me hard evidence on the idea of whites being fixed albinos, whatever the hell that would be?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horet: So could someone please give me hard evidence on the idea of whites being fixed albinos, whatever the hell that would be?
You need to read through the thread and also Marc's Here, The Explores Here Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^How do you know not one of these had white skin? Why do you disagree with the notion that neanderthals had white skin, despite subsiding in europe for so long?
Even the most racist White scientist agree that Neanderthal was NOT White, so the fringe element make-up the phoney studies like above. Didn't you notice the attribute on the picture that I posted above? So now you know more about it than that bastion of White Bullsh1t - The American Museum of natural History? Come-on wake up.
White skin didn't appear until 4,000 years ago?
I have put no age on White people - are you hallucinating?
So you've thrown out virtually all other sane theories and are going with ones pretty much found almost entirely in the realms of black supremacist ideologies?
Which sane theories would that be?
How do you know they were khoisan?
You need to read a book.
What great migration are you talking about? Does this relate to turkic migrations or something?
You REALLY need to read a book
Oh god. Don't tell me you also believe south indians and the like are black. While the aboriginal inhabitants of india and southeast asia were obviously african, modern-day south indians are NOT. While southern asia is already very mixed, the vast majority of south indians are closely related to middle easterners and other caucasian, and they've acquired many of their african-looking features via tropical adaption.
You are a FVCKING ignoramus!
So could someone please give me hard evidence on the idea of whites being fixed albinos, whatever the hell that would be?
I think that I told you that the point of all of this was to determine that. Don't you understand the concept and process of scientific investigation.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
akoben - The scientific process requires us to fiddle and faddle BEFORE we can agree with you. I wonder if that is one of the "Sane" theories that Horet was talking about.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Horet: So could someone please give me hard evidence on the idea of whites being fixed albinos, whatever the hell that would be?
You need to read through the thread and also Marc's Here, The Explores Here
Marc is a contradicting black supremacist, who is also married to a white woman (albino to me-no-narmer).
As for The explorer; he definitely does not agree with you at all; so why did you post his thread as if he does?
This just goes to show you have a limited comprehension, and for the people who refer to you as an expert in this field, just goes to show their limited intellectuality as well.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ shut the **** up boy, no one takes you seriously.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: akoben - The scientific process requires us to fiddle and faddle BEFORE we can agree with you. I wonder if that is one of the "Sane" theories that Horet was talking about.
^ it's rasolowitz, Ausarienstein and gringos theory. lol
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^I wouldn't expect to be taken seriously by someone (a distraught stalker) like you, or any of the other imbecilic posters in this thread. So, oh well.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
As for me-no-narmer...
Just remember ; Even your ever so precious World Health Organization Collaborative Centre for the Promotion of Sun Protection (WHO), doesn't even agree with you.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: I'll tell you like I told Mike.
Ad hominem remarks do nothing for your erroneous theory.
Face facts, or get lost.
Darkskin is natures sunscreen; it protects against harmful UV rays, and hence blocks out the ability to absorb UV rays in northern latitudes to produce Vitamin D through synthesis.
Lighterskin allows for UV rays to penetrate the skin under darker skies, and hence synthesize UV to produce Vitamin D better than darkerskinned populations.
Darker skinned populations need to take Vitamin D supplements, or have an immense Vitamin D intake through diet.
So far you've flailed your arms ranting for no reason because you haven't disproved anything.
Fact; darkskinned populations are at risk for Vitamin D deficiencies in northern latitudes more than lighterskinned populations.
Pay attention...
Even your precious World Health Organization Collaborative Centre for the Promotion of Sun Protection (WHO), doesn't even agree with you.
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 meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Horet: So could someone please give me hard evidence on the idea of whites being fixed albinos, whatever the hell that would be?
You need to read through the thread and also Marc's Here, The Explores Here
Marc is a contradicting black supremacist, who is also married to a white woman (albino to me-no-narmer).
As for The explorer; he definitely does not agree with you at all; so why did you post his thread as if he does?
This just goes to show you have a limited comprehension, and for the people who refer to you as an expert in this field, just goes to show their limited intellectuality as well.
LOL, I don't see Marc as a black supremacist. I think he is pretty moderate in support of the integration model. That he is married to a white woman pretty much confirms this.
If The Explorer agrees with me or not is not the issue or at all relevant. In fact, I don't think either of us (Explorer or I) has firmly settled on one theory or another. The purpose of these discussions (at least for me) is to explorer probable possibilities by evaluating tested and verified data. Of course, one has to comprehend the data being presented in an objective way, and make a determination based on the theory's validity before enabling the assignment of any relative weight.
That you make such a big deal of Marc being married to a white woman kind of points the racist finger in YOUR direction, or can't you refute Marc's position without the introduction of non-relevant personal attacks.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: If The Explorer agrees with me or not is not the issue or at all relevant.
So why did you post his thread as if he had answers for your erroneous theory?
I am definitely sure that Explorer does not agree with your albino theory at all.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Horet: So could someone please give me hard evidence on the idea of whites being fixed albinos, whatever the hell that would be?
You need to read through the thread and also Marc's Here, The Explores Here
Marc is a contradicting black supremacist, who is also married to a white woman (albino to me-no-narmer).
As for The explorer; he definitely does not agree with you at all; so why did you post his thread as if he does?
This just goes to show you have a limited comprehension, and for the people who refer to you as an expert in this field, just goes to show their limited intellectuality as well.
LOL, I don't see Marc as a black supremacist. I think he is pretty moderate, and that he is married to a white woman pretty much confirms this.
If The Explorer agrees with me or not is not the issue or at all relevant. In fact, I don't think either of us (Explorer or I) has firmly settled on one theory or another. The purpose of these discussions (at least for me) is to explorer probable possibilities by evaluating tested and verified data. Of course, one has to comprehend the data being presented in an objective way, and make a determination based on the theory's validity before enabling the assignment of any relative weight.
That you make such a big deal of Marc being married to a white woman kind of points the racist finger in YOUR direction, or can't you refute Marc's position without the introduction of non-relevant personal attacks.
^ so in other words it's still "according to"; and it's still gringo the retard for not comprehending this. lol
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: The purpose of these discussions (at least for me) is to explorer probable possibilities by evaluating tested and verified data. Of course, one has to comprehend the data being presented in an objective way, and make a determination based on the theory's validity before enabling the assignment of any relative weight.
Well it seems you don't have any idea of what is promoted by actual geneticists.
Just yesterday you thought Jablonski said Europeans turned white because of sweat. Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Akoben; Of course it is. No one has yet presented non-refutable data. All except MindOverMatter who fails to understand the weight (or lack of) of his CutAndPastes.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^Is this why you thought Jablonski said Europeans turned white because of sweat?
or...
Is this why you thought Jablonski explaining why original humans were dark, was a correlation for your albino theory?
Tell me; how can you refute something that you don't even understand?
Anyway, of course your own source even debunked you...
Just remember ; Even your ever so precious World Health Organization Collaborative Centre for the Promotion of Sun Protection (WHO), doesn't even agree with you. Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: The purpose of these discussions (at least for me) is to explorer probable possibilities by evaluating tested and verified data. Of course, one has to comprehend the data being presented in an objective way, and make a determination based on the theory's validity before enabling the assignment of any relative weight.
Well it seems you don't have any idea of what is promoted by actual geneticists.
Just yesterday you thought Jablonski said Europeans turned white because of sweat.
There are many areas of genetics. Some make their livings by proposing wild unsupported proposals (Jablonski) while some hold people's health and lives in their hands, and therefore must report the scientific truth. I've merely reviewed, interpreted and presented the research from thelatter versus your sole CutAndPastes sans comprehension of the former.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Tell me; how can you refute something that you don't even understand?
Can you even explain what Jablonskis theory is actually about?
Or....
Is this why you thought Jablonski said Europeans turned white because of sweat?
or...
Is this why you thought Jablonski explaining why original humans were dark, was a correlation for your albino theory?
Bwahahahaha Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^Is this why you thought Jablonski said Europeans turned white because of sweat?
or...
Is this why you thought Jablonski explaining why original humans were dark, was a correlation for your albino theory?
Tell me; how can you refute something that you don't even understand?
There is a good reason why DJ The Robot, the first to submit one of Jablonski's unsupported papers choose to post the paper and run away without attempting to defend it. LOL, we haven't seen or heard from him since except to make personal attacks. That's too bad for you because with his assistance, you merely spin around in circles reminding me of my dog Rex, when he chases his tail.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^Is this why you thought Jablonski said Europeans turned white because of sweat?
or...
Is this why you thought Jablonski explaining why original humans were dark, was a correlation for your albino theory?
Tell me; how can you refute something that you don't even understand?
There is a good reason why DJ The Robot, the first to submit one of Jablonski's unsupported papers choose to post the paper and run away without attempting to defend it.
^^A non answer....
So, again
Tell me; how can you refute something that you don't even understand?
Can you even explain what Jablonskis theory is actually about?
Or....
Is this why you thought Jablonski said Europeans turned white because of sweat?
or...
Is this why you thought Jablonski explaining why original humans were dark, was a correlation for your albino theory?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:You need to read through the thread and also Marc's Here, The Explores Here
That first thread is 68 pages long. The second one is extremely convoluted. Care to break-down why you think whites are "fixed albinos" again?
quote:Even the most racist White scientist agree that Neanderthal was NOT White, so the fringe element make-up the phoney studies like above. Didn't you notice the attribute on the picture that I posted above? So now you know more about it than that bastion of White Bullsh1t - The American Museum of natural History? Come-on wake up.
It's a fringe element to think neanderthals had white skin?
quote:I have put no age on White people - are you hallucinating?
You said this:
quote:Fast forward to about 2,000 B.C. and we find a COMPLETELY NEW creature exiting Asia - One who is White!!
How is that not putting an age on whites?
quote:Which sane theories would that be?
Pretty much what the vast majority of the scientific community believes? Why do I only see the idea of whites being albinos among black supremacist pseudoscientists?
quote:You need to read a book.
Wonderful. Instead of proceeding with actual debate, tell me to screw off and read a book. Which books would I have to look at, in this case?
quote:You REALLY need to read a book
No, I think you should be qualified enough to just tell me.
quote:You are a FVCKING ignoramus!
Hahaha, sure. Show some fucking genetic evidence to support the idea of modern south indians being related to africans. That's just another afrocentrist fairy tale.
quote:I think that I told you that the point of all of this was to determine that. Don't you understand the concept and process of scientific investigation.
So WHERE is your evidence?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^Exactly as I thought; you have absolutely no idea of what Jablonski even proposes, and hence of course you have no ability to refute it.
You're just like Mike111, an ad hominem remarking, unintellectual clown.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Is this why you thought Jablonski said Europeans turned white because of sweat?
They turn white as a result of being hybrids of Pygmies and Chinese don't you remember gringo? LOL
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horet:
quote:You need to read through the thread and also Marc's Here, The Explores Here
That first thread is 68 pages long. The second one is extremely convoluted. Care to break-down why you think whites are "fixed albinos" again?
Don't expect a direct answer to this question, becuase you'll never receive one.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
If you'd go to page one of this thread, you may see the nonsense Jablonski presents. On the same page we refute her data. Rex, stop running in circles and expecting others to follow you.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: If you'd go to page one of this thread, you may see the nonsense Jablonski presents. On the same page we refute her data.
Oh ok, so now you think your opinion (which actually misinterpreted the data in the first place), refutes science kid?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Hey, you're the imbecile who thought she was implying UV exposure causes albinism after reading the following...
quote: "Humans started in Africa," Jablonski says, the part of Africa near the equator where it is intensely sunny with lots of ultraviolet light.
Ultraviolet light, or UV, in high doses can age the skin and damage the DNA molecule, which makes it harder to build a fetus. Not to mention that ultraviolet light can sometimes cause skin cancer.
From your misinterpretation of the above, it's definitely clear that you don't even understand that of which you are trying to refute.
Also... the fact that you posted Explorers thread as if it helped or agreed with you definitely further shows your incompetence.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: [qb] If you'd go to page one of this thread, you may see the nonsense Jablonski presents. On the same page we refute her data.
So, now you think your opinion refutes science kid?
You're confused. It's not MY opinion, but opinions of the world's leading authorities on Albinism in a field where people's lives depend on the accuracy of their research. That Jablonski's theories fall into contradiction with the world's leading Albinism experts is no fault of mine.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: You're confused. It's not MY opinion, but opinions of the world's leading authorities on Albinism in a field where people's lives depend on the accuracy of their research.
Actually kid, you're the only one confused.
As none of the albinism reports you ever posted contradicted Jablosnki, in fact they actually agree with Jablonski, and totally disagree with you.
None of the reports you presented kid; NONE!!
But; pay attention... how in fact they actually disagree with you.
Even your precious World Health Organization Collaborative Centre for the Promotion of Sun Protection (WHO), doesn't even agree with you.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: I'll tell you like I told Mike.
Ad hominem remarks do nothing for your erroneous theory.
Face facts, or get lost.
Darkskin is natures sunscreen; it protects against harmful UV rays, and hence blocks out the ability to absorb UV rays in northern latitudes to produce Vitamin D through synthesis.
Lighterskin allows for UV rays to penetrate the skin under darker skies, and hence synthesize UV to produce Vitamin D better than darkerskinned populations.
Darker skinned populations need to take Vitamin D supplements, or have an immense Vitamin D intake through diet.
So far you've flailed your arms ranting for no reason because you haven't disproved anything.
Fact; darkskinned populations are at risk for Vitamin D deficiencies in northern latitudes more than lighterskinned populations.
Pay attention...
Even your precious World Health Organization Collaborative Centre for the Promotion of Sun Protection (WHO), doesn't even agree with you.
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 meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote: "Humans started in Africa," Jablonski says, the part of Africa near the equator where it is intensely sunny with lots of ultraviolet light.
Ultraviolet light, or UV, in high doses can age the skin and damage the DNA molecule, which makes it harder to build a fetus. Not to mention that ultraviolet light can sometimes cause skin cancer.
Basically, what Jablonski is saying in a round about way is; People originated in Africa, and they were black. I agree.
Secondly, in a round about way she misleads people to believe these Africans were susceptible to reproductive mutations which affected their birth rate. She is incorrect. Africans show none of the reproductive "problems" seen today in Whites. In Vitro and Fertility Clinics world wide cater to a 98% white customer base. According to the CDC, average birth rate for blacks and Hispanics are; 190/10000 & 200/10000 For whites; 90/10000 Therefore, reading between the lines of Jablonski's mealy mouthed speech, she is referring to DNA damage in Whites.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote: "Humans started in Africa," Jablonski says, the part of Africa near the equator where it is intensely sunny with lots of ultraviolet light.
Ultraviolet light, or UV, in high doses can age the skin and damage the DNA molecule, which makes it harder to build a fetus. Not to mention that ultraviolet light can sometimes cause skin cancer.
Basically, what Jablonski is saying in a round about way is; People originated in Africa, and they were black. I agree.
You're a fibbing, face saving imbecilic troll; here just read your own post for your original misinterpretation....
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Ultraviolet light, or UV, in high doses can age the skin and damage the DNA molecule, which makes it harder to build a fetus. Not to mention that ultraviolet light can sometimes cause skin cancer.
She's stealing and repackaging my stuff! What she is "implying" is that UV exposure led to Albinism, which in turn created havoc on European immunization and productive capabilities
This was your original misinterpretation; which is quite telling, and basically confirms you don't even understand the theory that you're trying to refute. Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: You're a fibbing, face saving imbecilic troll; here just read your own post for your original misinterpretation....
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Ultraviolet light, or UV, in high doses can age the skin and damage the DNA molecule, which makes it harder to build a fetus. Not to mention that ultraviolet light can sometimes cause skin cancer.
She's stealing and repackaging my stuff! What she is "implying" is that UV exposure led to Albinism, which in turn created havoc on European immunization and productive capabilities
Of course she doesn't mean Africans, because hopefully she is intelligent enough to realize birth statistics don't support her, EXCEPT when evaluating WHITE reproduction.
Once again, for the slow;
According to the CDC, average birth rate for blacks and Hispanics are; 190/10000 & 200/10000 For whites; 90/10000
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Secondly, in a round about way she misleads people to believe these Africans were susceptible to reproductive mutations which affected their birth rate. She is incorrect. Africans show none of the reproductive "problems" seen today in Whites. In Vitro and Fertility Clinics world wide cater to a 98% white customer base.
Another retarded misinterpretation.
Tell me genius, if Jablonski is implying that original humans were dark skinned which actually helped to protect against these reproductive problems etc..
..how can she be contradicting herself when what she actually said (dark skin) helps Africans protect against it (harmful UV rays) like she said; which is why Africans don't suffer from said reproductive problems?
Wow, you're fricken slow kid.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Of course she doesn't mean Africans,
Actually, when Jablonski said the following, she was in fact talking about Africans, this is the reason original man was in fact black.
quote: "Humans started in Africa," Jablonski says, the part of Africa near the equator where it is intensely sunny with lots of ultraviolet light.
Ultraviolet light, or UV, in high doses can age the skin and damage the DNA molecule, which makes it harder to build a fetus. Not to mention that ultraviolet light can sometimes cause skin cancer.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Because dark skin protects against DNA damage. If she is mentioning DNA damage in Africa, in the most UV intense section of Africa, she must be speaking of African Albinos, who would be susceptible to DNA damage by solar radiation. Of course, the more intense the UV, the darker the skin, and more protection against UV, IN A NORMAL WORKING SYSTEM. An African Albino exhibiting OCA1 traits would exhibit the same lack of radiation sensitivity and inability to adapt, as today's whites. Therefore, making them susceptible to possible DNA compromise. Note, even today, African reported cases of Skin Cancer among Africans (Black) is zero. In the following graph, you can overlay African Albino a point or two above White. Their movement would be closely traced to Asian.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ Because dark skin protects against DNA damage. If she is mentioning DNA damage in Africa, in the most UV intense section of Africa, she must be speaking of African Albinos,
Another retarded misinterpretation.
She is actually saying that if original humans were lightskinned after they lost their fur, for the ability to sweat, (as some suggest, because some apes are pink under their fur) then automatically being in this intense sun, they would adapt and become darker (black) to protect against these harmful UV rays.
This is why original man, had to be black; no exceptions.
Like I said; you don't even understand that of which you thought you refuted.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: You're a fibbing, face saving imbecilic troll
^ ^
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ Because dark skin protects against DNA damage. If she is mentioning DNA damage in Africa, in the most UV intense section of Africa, she must be speaking of African Albinos,
Another retarded misinterpretation.
She is actually saying that if original humans were lightskinned after they lost their fur, for the ability to sweat, (as some suggest, because some apes are pink under their fur) then automatically being in this intense sun, they would adapt and become darker (black) to protect against these harmful UV rays.
This is why original man, had to be black; no exceptions.
Like I said; you don't even understand that of which you thought you refuted.
That's funny! As funny as a fine tuned closed loop system compromising critical protection for calcium, and doing so BEFORE the adaption is made. You need to read more diverse texts, than perhaps you can make sense of what you read.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ Because dark skin protects against DNA damage. If she is mentioning DNA damage in Africa, in the most UV intense section of Africa, she must be speaking of African Albinos,
Another retarded misinterpretation.
She is actually saying that if original humans were lightskinned after they lost their fur, for the ability to sweat, (as some suggest, because some apes are pink under their fur) then automatically being in this intense sun, they would adapt and become darker (black) to protect against these harmful UV rays.
This is why original man, had to be black; no exceptions.
Like I said; you don't even understand that of which you thought you refuted.
That's funny! As funny as a fine tuned closed loop system compromising critical protection for calcium. You need to read more diverse texts, than perhaps you can make sense of what you read.
It's funny becuase you have a 3rd grade reading comprehension level.
The following from Jablonski, explains exactly why original humans would have had to have been dark in order to protect against these intense UV rays
quote: "Humans started in Africa," Jablonski says, the part of Africa near the equator where it is intensely sunny with lots of ultraviolet light.
Ultraviolet light, or UV, in high doses can age the skin and damage the DNA molecule, which makes it harder to build a fetus. Not to mention that ultraviolet light can sometimes cause skin cancer.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
This is why Europeans, and humans in general turned lighter when they left Africa for more northern latitudes.
quote:On the other hand, if a human is plopped down in, say, Norway, where the days can be short and there is precious little ultraviolet light, this creates problems, too. All vertebrate animals need ultraviolet light to help produce vitamin D. Vitamin D helps us absorb calcium from our food to build strong bones. If we don't get enough ultraviolet light, we're less likely to survive to reproductive age to produce strong-boned babies.
Thus the dilemma: People who live in sunny climes around the equator have too much UV. People who move away from the equator eventually have too little UV......
Hooray For Melanin
That doesn't mean they lost their tans. It means they had very specific genetic changes that allowed them to live and successfully reproduce in less sunny places. Darwin teaches that these changes began randomly. Somebody in the population at some point had a baby, and that baby, just by chance, had a little change in its DNA that made her skin, for example, a little lighter. When that baby moved north to Europe, lighter skin gave her an advantage as a grown-up, because it helped her produce strong-boned babies who could survive and have babies of their own.
Successive mutations created successive generations of lighter and lighter people as they moved north.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Horet - If I said that Obama became President in 2009 that is not the same as saying that he was born in 2009.
The stuff about Albinism, nobody knows for sure - and if the do know, they're not telling.
The rest of the stuff could have been easily checked by simply using your browser search - THAT IS WHY YOU ARE A FVCKING IGNORAMUS!
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ Because dark skin protects against DNA damage. If she is mentioning DNA damage in Africa, in the most UV intense section of Africa, she must be speaking of African Albinos,
Another retarded misinterpretation.
She is actually saying that if original humans were lightskinned after they lost their fur, for the ability to sweat, (as some suggest, because some apes are pink under their fur) then automatically being in this intense sun, they would adapt and become darker (black) to protect against these harmful UV rays.
This is why original man, had to be black; no exceptions.
Like I said; you don't even understand that of which you thought you refuted.
That's funny! As funny as a fine tuned closed loop system compromising critical protection for calcium. You need to read more diverse texts, than perhaps you can make sense of what you read.
It's funny becuase you have a 3rd grade reading comprehension level.
The following from Jablonski, explains exactly why original humans would have had to have been dark in order to protect against these intense UV rays
quote: "Humans started in Africa," Jablonski says, the part of Africa near the equator where it is intensely sunny with lots of ultraviolet light.
Ultraviolet light, or UV, in high doses can age the skin and damage the DNA molecule, which makes it harder to build a fetus. Not to mention that ultraviolet light can sometimes cause skin cancer.
First they were light" under their fur and subject to DNA damage, but now they are dark. Which is it? Jablonski's statement; "Not to mention UV light CAN SOMETIMES cause skin cancer." The statement is only true IN WHITES, and in their case, there is no question that UV DOES cause skin cancer in whites. Not "can".
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: First they were light" under their fur and subject to DNA damage, but now they are dark. Which is it?
Listen kid,
If original humans were originally lightskinned under their fur, then being in the intense sun, in equatorial Africa. These original humans in equatorial East Africa, would have had to adapt, and turn dark (black) .
Jablonski is confirming that regardless of what anyone says about apes being light under their fur; that original would have had to have adapted and turned darker black regardless, in order to protect against these harmful UV rays.
This is why original humans were in fact; BLACK!
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: First they were light" under their fur and subject to DNA damage, but now they are dark. Which is it?
Listen kid,
If original humans were originally lightskinned under their fur, then being in the intense sun, in equatorial Africa. These original humans would had adapted and turned dark (black).
Jablonski is confirming that regardless of what anyone says about apes being light under their fur; that original would have had to have adapted and turned darker black regardless, in order to protect against these armful UV rays.
This is why original humans were black.
Ridiculous! What happens between the time of shedding fur and the skin transformation to black, or skin turning from white to black? Severe DNA damage and massive deaths by skin cancer is what.
You can't state original humans had fur and white skin and say they were black all in the same paragraph. Neither is there any evidence to prove any of Jablonski's pie-in-the-sky theories.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Jablonski's statement; "Not to mention UV light CAN SOMETIMES cause skin cancer." The statement is only true IN WHITES, and in their case, there is no question that UV DOES cause skin cancer in whites. Not "can".
This is why, if original humans were lighterskinned (pink), they would have not survived.
Darkskin is natures sunscreen kid.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ I said this twenty posts ago Junior.
and whites are pink which is why they are susceptible to skin cancer.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Ridiculous! What happens between the time of shedding fur and the skin transformation to black, or skin turning from white to black? Severe DNA damage and massive deaths by skin cancer is what.
What do you think Jablonski is saying?
She is saying the reason original humans had to be dark, is in fact to protect against these harmful UV rays.
Pay attention kiddo....
quote:Dark skin evolved with the loss of 'fur' in hominids and is the original state of all homo sapiens. - Jablonski. [2000]
The original human population would have been very dark , similar to, today's equatorial Africans. - Jablonski [2006]
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Jablonski writes baloney;
And that color, the one you have now, says Jablonski, is very probably not the color your ancient ancestors had — even if you think your family has been the same color for a long, long time.
A Different Place, Different Color
Skin has changed color in human lineages much faster than scientists had previously supposed, even without intermarriage, Jablonski says. Recent developments in comparative genomics allow scientists to sample the DNA in modern humans. By creating genetic "clocks," scientists can make fairly careful guesses about when particular groups became the color they are today. And with the help of paleontologists and anthropologists, scientists can go further: They can wind the clock back and see what colors these populations were going back tens of thousands of years, says Jablonski. She says that for many families on the planet, if we look back only 100 or 200 generations (that's as few as 2,500 years), "almost all of us were in a different place and we had a different color." Over the last 50,000 years, populations have gone from dark pigmented to lighter skin, and people have also gone the other way, from light skin back to darker skin, she says.
"People living now in southern parts of India [and Sri Lanka] are extremely darkly pigmented," Jablonski says. But their great, great ancestors lived much farther north, and when they migrated south, their pigmentation redarkened. Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Jablonski's statement; "Not to mention UV light CAN SOMETIMES cause skin cancer." The statement is only true IN WHITES, and in their case, there is no question that UV DOES cause skin cancer in whites. Not "can".
This is why, if original humans were lighterskinned (pink), they would have not survived.
Darkskin is natures sunscreen kid.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ I said this twenty posts ago Junior.
and whites are pink which is why they are susceptible to skin cancer.
Lighterskin was adapted in northern latitudes, under less intense UV rays.
Humans are vitally dependent on Vitamin D for strong bones etc....
If humans never evolved lighter skin then they would have never survived, since they are dependent on Vitamin D absorption, which in turn can only be synthesized adequately ( and in a lesser time frame) by lighterskin in northern latitudes.
A population darker than the Inuit hunter gatherers, would need more intake of Vitamin D than the Inuit actually consume.
Note; Inuit, as light as they are, are still totally dependent on Vitamin D intake (as all humans) either through diet or, clinical vitamin D supplements.
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.
Not as much Vitamin D supplements would be needed for northern Europeans, in fact, N. Europeans developed the tolerance for lactose which also gave them an advantage during the Neolithic.
So, lighterskin, and tolerance of lactose, possibly among others, gave Europeans an advantage against the darker skies (less UV).
quote:Early Europeans Unable To Stomach Milk
Dr Mark Thomas, UCL Biology, said: "The ability to drink milk is the most advantageous trait that's evolved in Europeans in the recent past. Without the enzyme lactase, drinking milk in adulthood causes bloating and diarrhoea. Although the benefits of milk tolerance are not fully understood yet, they probably include: the continuous supply of milk compared to the boom and bust of seasonal crops; its nourishing qualities; and the fact that it's uncontaminated by parasites, unlike stream water, making it a safer drink. All in all, the ability to drink milk gave some early Europeans a big survival advantage."
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Jablonski writes baloney;
[i]And that color, the one you have now, says Jablonski, is very probably not the color your ancient ancestors had — even if you think your family has been the same color for a long, long time.
Another retarded misinterpretation; after reading this, would be attributed by you to Jablonski.
What she is saying is that people who have migrated to different parts of the world (north south etc..) have adapted, and skin color has changed.
This is not in reference to every single human population.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
Mindover Matter 718 says: ''This is why, if original humans were lighterskinned (pink), they would have not survived.''
...then
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sunkilled off the progeny with any whiter skin''that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).
Then there were white folks in Africa over a million years ago (but that mutational variation in the receptor protein let them down)? But I thought everyone was black? So white people did get jump started in africa─but the sun screwed 'em up so bad they had to wait until 6-12 thousand years ago to get started again?
Gimme some of dat ol' time religion...
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: The stuff about Albinism, nobody knows for sure - and if the do know, they're not telling
There are plenty of sites that appropriately explain what Albinism is.
Albinism is an inherited condition present at birth, characterized by a lack of pigment that normally gives color to the skin, hair, and eyes. Many types of albinism exist, all of which involve lack of pigment in varying degrees. The condition, which is found in all races, may be accompanied by eye problems and may lead to skin cancer later in life.
Description
Albinism is a **rare disorder** found in fewer than **five people per 100,000 in the United States and Europe**. Other parts of the world have a much higher rate; for example, albinism is found in about **20 out of every 100,000 people in southern Nigeria**.
There are 10 types of the most common form of the condition, known as "oculocutaneous albinism," which affects the eyes, hair, and skin. In its most severe form, hair and skin remain pure white throughout life. People with a less severe form are born with white hair and skin, which turn slightly darker as they age. Everyone with oculocutaneous albinism experiences abnormal flickering eye movements (nystagmus) and sensitivity to bright light. There may be other eye problems as well, including poor vision and crossed or "lazy" eyes (strabismus).
The second most common type of the condition is known as "ocular" albinism, in which only the eyes lack color; skin and hair are normal. There are five forms of ocular albinism; some types cause more problems--especially eye problems--than others.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Then there were white folks in Africa over a million years ago (but that mutational variation in the receptor protein let them down)? But I thought everyone was black?
Poor kid; and yet another incompetent misinterpretation, just like me-no-narmer, you lack basic reading comprehension skills.
Why is it that all you trolls lack the comprehension of which you are actually trying to refute or dissent against?
It's pretty hilarious...
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by me-no-narmer: ^ Because dark skin protects against DNA damage. If she is mentioning DNA damage in Africa, in the most UV intense section of Africa, she must be speaking of African Albinos,
Another retarded misinterpretation.
She is actually saying that if original humans were lightskinned after they lost their fur, for the ability to sweat, (as some suggest, because some apes are pink under their fur) then automatically being in this intense sun, they would adapt and become darker (black) to protect against these harmful UV rays.
This is why original man, had to be black; no exceptions.
Like I said; you don't even understand that of which you thought you refuted.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
''Poor kid; and yet another incompetent misinterpretation, just like me-no-narmer, you lack basic reading comprehension skills.
Why is it that all you trolls lack the comprehension of which you are actually trying to refute?''
I take it this is an admission you are befuddled by what you wrote. All you have to do is delete it; I won't complain,
''It's pretty hilarious...''
Looks like it don't it.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ LOL
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Pretty funny how gaykoben (the distraught stalker) appears right after you; literally, all of the time.
Anyway,
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Mindover Matter 718 says: ''This is why, if original humans were lighterskinned (pink), they would have not survived.''
...then
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sunkilled off the progeny with any whiter skin''that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).
Then there were white folks in Africa over a million years ago (but that mutational variation in the receptor protein let them down)? But I thought everyone was black? So white people did get jump started in africa─but the sun screwed 'em up so bad they had to wait until 6-12 thousand years ago to get started again?
If original humans were lightskinned after they lost their fur, for the ability to sweat, (as some suggest, because some apes are pink under their fur) then automatically being in this intense sun, they would have to adapt and become darker (black) to protect against these harmful UV rays.
This is why original man, had to be black; no exceptions.
Now let's hear your imbecilic response.....
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Pretty funny how gaykoben appears right after you; literally, all of the time.
Anyway,
Uh oh, gringo is becoming aware! Abort experiment!
Actually gringo to be brutally honest you're the only "other" poster on ES. Its all an illusion. In fact you don't really exist. Your brain is really in a jar being fed impulses by a mega computer. Your every retarded thought and interpretation of recieved data is an illusion! This is why you are so stupid, it's just your programming. LOL
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: I take it this is an admission you are befuddled by what you wrote. All you have to do is delete it; I won't complain
Of course, with an easy observation anyone can see you're the one befuddled by science.
In fact, you most likely can't explain what Jablonski says either; can you?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: ''It's pretty hilarious...''
Looks like it don't it.
Indeed, your lack of comprehension towards the data in question of which you are trying to dissent from, is fricken hilarious. Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ give it up gringo, you don't really exist. lol
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^Go see a psych, they'll tell you it's not well to stalk me, kid.
While you're at it, you might want to speak with a language arts instructor, since your ability to completely type a grammatically correct sentence, is obviously lacking.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Horet: So could someone please give me hard evidence on the idea of whites being fixed albinos, whatever the hell that would be?
You need to read through the thread and also Marc's Here, The Explores Here
Extremely hilarious as to how you thought Explorer/Supercar agreed with you. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by gofuckyourself:
it's rasolowitz, Ausarienstein and gringos theory. lol
Good; AssOpen, cite me on this, without delay:
I keep telling you guys whites are hybrids of Bay Area Chinese-looking European Asians that mixed with incoming Forest Negro Pygmy-looking Africans. Gringo is right and y'all are just wrong. Geeez! - by AssOpen
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ go **** yourself...without delay! lol
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
If The Explorer agrees with me or not is not the issue or at all relevant.
So why did you post his thread as if he had answers for your erroneous theory?
I am definitely sure that Explorer does not agree with your albino theory at all.
While entertaining [for laughter sake, that is] in the way it is presented here, it is just as good as "Santa is real" fairytale to me.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ or "six million Jews died in Nazi gas chambers" fairytale... Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by me-no-narmer:
If The Explorer agrees with me or not is not the issue or at all relevant.
So why did you post his thread as if he had answers for your erroneous theory?
I am definitely sure that Explorer does not agree with your albino theory at all.
While entertaining [for laughter sake, that is] in the way it is presented here, it is just as good as "Santa is real" fairytale to me.
Gee, I hope me-no-narmer doesn't read this, especially since he thinks you agreed with him.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by gofuckyourself:
^ seeking to fvck me-self...and getting plugged by any male I come across on 'chat rooms', which is why I've made a career out of stalking them
Can't argue with you.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben the distraught stalker: ^ or "six million Jews died in Nazi gas chambers" fairytale...
Damned distraught stalker...
quote:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So when did a thread on the definition of black skin become about 'Jews'? Better yet why is there even a thread about 'black skin define' let alone one that has gone on about 8 pages?
Because this is all gaykobens limited intellect allows him to discuss.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Indeed, with OpenAss around, does anyone have to ask how every thread becomes about Jews or about Sforza and Bowcock?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
As I have often said over the years; The lies and bullsh1t being taught by White People, would come back to haunt them in later generations, in the form of ignorant children. That was not Horets fault, he was TAUGHT that sh1t. How was he to know that his own people would lie to him? Black children on the other hand, have NO excuse; they should already know that White people would and do, lie to them.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
This is old news, but since the conversation seems to have drifted, this seems a good time to revisit old bullsh1t. I remember thinking when I first read this, of how similar the treatment of the “BLACK” mummy found in southern Chad several years ago. And how truly bullsh1t White people are, they have NO shame.
How in the hell could it be strange for a Black mummy to be found in North Africa, the place has been populated by Black people since the beginning of Mankind. But of course, White people were still in the “Egyptians were White” phase of their development at that time, so they had to make like this was a big surprise.
Same thing with these White Mummies in Western China; what in the hell could be strange about finding White people in the place where White people EVOLVED??? But of course, White people were still in the “Whites are from Europe” phase of their development when this story broke. Fvcking lying assholes.
Mummies Prove It: Once, China Was Inhabited by White PeopleThese people also knew marijuana
Chinese people are maybe the symbol for the Mongoloid race. The first question that emerges in our mind when we see an Asian face is: are you Chinese?
Even if many are Japanese, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese and so on.
But what people do not know is that during the Antiquity, while Egyptians were building their impressive pyramids and Greeks were fighting for Troy, Western China was in fact inhabited by blond-haired blue-eyed white people.
Now, a group of Chinese archaeologists is attempting to identify a 2,800-year-old mummy of an Caucasian man found in an ancient tomb from Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (Northwest China), another from a long series.
The well-preserved mummy is likely the one of a shaman and has been under examination since it has been found in 2003.
The scientists were puzzled by the presence of a sack of marijuana leaves that archaeologists found buried with the leather-coat bound mummy.
"From his outfit and the marijuana leaves, which have been confirmed by international specialists to be ingredients for narcotic, we assume the man had been a shaman and had been between 40 and 50 years old when he died," noted historian Li Xiao explained.
The 2003 exploration on the area brought to light 600 mummies from 2,000 area tombs.
These mummies of the white people that once inhabited Western China were not embalmed, like the Egyptian ones, but they were unwittingly preserved from decay by local climate: extreme summer heat and aridity, bitter winter cold, and salty soil.
When researchers first discovered the mummies, they were astonished by their certain European appearance, with blond or red hair, prominent noses, mustaches and beards, tartan-weave garments, and jaunty feathered caps.
The mummy people, called the Tocharians, left even a written language that is clearly Indo-European.
Also, in old Chinese chronicles, contacts with red-haired people from the west are depicted.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Now I'm not saying that the NOI's contention that Whites are "Devils from Outer Space" is true: is it?
But why do we NOT find ANCIENT SKELETONS of WHITE people, even in West Asia? As far as I know (I could be wrong), but the mummies are about the oldest.
Lots of Black skeletons have been found there, but no White ones. What does this mean?
Grass does inpair driving ability, maybe flying ability too? SLAP! what am I thinking, no way - never mind - I think! Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^Go see a psych, they'll tell you it's not well to stalk me, kid.
While you're at it, you might want to speak with a language arts instructor, since your ability to completely type a grammatically correct sentence, is obviously lacking.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Horet: So could someone please give me hard evidence on the idea of whites being fixed albinos, whatever the hell that would be?
You need to read through the thread and also Marc's Here, The Explores Here
Extremely hilarious as to how you thought Explorer/Supercar agreed with you.
There you go again displaying your deficiencies. LOL, highlight where I say or imply Explorer agrees with me, or confess you don't have a clue.
My guess is you are attempting to recruit as a fill in for DJ The Robot. On your own you are running around in circles.
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote: Note, even today, African reported cases of Skin Cancer among Africans (Black) is zero.
And could someone please, please get back to me on the idea of whites being albinos again? Why has nobody answered me on little tidbits on how whites don't suffer from the extreme ocular problems that albinos do?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Horet - Why are you such a dimwit? The statement "Fairer-skinned people may notice a change in a sun-exposed mole, whilst darker-skinned people might develop the cancer on areas protected from the sun such as the soles of the feet."
Clearly indicates that the CAUSE of skin cancer in White People is overexposure to SUNLIGHT!
On the other hand, it also CLEARLY indicates that Black people get skin cancer for NON-SUNLIGHT related reasons. (Did you get the areas protected from the sun such as the soles of the feet" part??? What a ditz.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horet:
quote: Note, even today, African reported cases of Skin Cancer among Africans (Black) is zero.
And could someone please, please get back to me on the idea of whites being albinos again? Why has nobody answered me on little tidbits on how whites don't suffer from the extreme ocular problems that albinos do?
Reading this CDC Skin Cancer Incident Chart, By Race, what are the total number of death by skin cancer cases listed for Africans/African/Americans?
As for Albinism in Whites, read the links I posted and all your answers are there. Without repeating myself for the hundredth time, there are 4 levels of Albinism, from extreme to sub-clinical. These are listed in the links I provided. All levels of Albinism as subject to sun burn, skin cancer, and melanoma indicating all forms of Albinism suffer from varying degrees of immunization compromise. This graph is for white subjects who have not been diagnosed with Albinism, yet as can clearly be seen from UV sensitivity and adaptation curves, they display same protection and immunization system compromises as sub-clinical OCA2 albinism.
Why this condition in the majority of whites is not acknowledged and commonly known is beyond me. However, it also isn't widely acknowledged and known that the VAST majority of Ashkenazim Jews (97%) have the genetic defect that causes Cystic Fibrosis either.
Cystic Fibrosis (CF) is a multi-system disorder that causes the body to produce a thick mucus.The mucus accumulates primarily in the lungs and the digestive tract, resulting in chronic lung infections and poor growth.CF does not affect intelligence.The carrier rate for CF among all Caucasian individuals is approximately 1 in 25.The CF carrier test has a detection rate of 97% in the Ashkenazi Jewish population.
Victor Center for Jewish Genetic Diseases, Philadelphia, PA
Perhaps it is felt that if commonly known these groups would have some type of stigma attached to them when considering integration of races".
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
meninarmer - In that piece posted by Horet, it said: "There are over 70,000 new cases of skin cancer diagnosed each year in the UK, making it the most common type of cancer".
Damn, north Scotland is in the Arctic region, go much further and you will leave the "Treeline". How much further north do White people need to go, to be safe from our Sun?
Damn, I'm starting to freak-out, what if they are from someplace else.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ The highest incident rate of melanoma and skin cancer are; Australia, Israel, America, UK, Africa, Europe, Russia. There is no place of earth where whites can reside where they are not susceptible to UV burn, skin cancer, and melanoma. They are susceptible even in Canada, Alaska, and Siberia.
Even worst, as the CDC graph above clearly indicates, the incident rate in whites is increasing at approximately 3%/year.
Regardless of how Jablonski "spins" the facts, this level of compromise is only possible in severe genetic mutation that is NOT a part of a planned adaption to environment.
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Horet - Why are you such a dimwit? The statement "Fairer-skinned people may notice a change in a sun-exposed mole, whilst darker-skinned people might develop the cancer on areas protected from the sun such as the soles of the feet."
Clearly indicates that the CAUSE of skin cancer in White People is overexposure to SUNLIGHT!
On the other hand, it also CLEARLY indicates that Black people get skin cancer for NON-SUNLIGHT related reasons. (Did you get the areas protected from the sun such as the soles of the feet" part??? What a ditz.
No it doesn't, you idiot. It just says that skin cancer appears in DIFFERENT AREAS on people with dark skin compared to those with white skin.
quote:Reading this CDC Skin Cancer Incident Chart, By Race, what are the total number of death by skin cancer cases listed for Africans/African/Americans?
Were blacks even included in this study? Did this study take into account how skin cancer is harder to diagnose and detect in those with dark skin? Are you seriously saying black skin is 100% invulnerable to skin cancer? What a fucking joke.
quote:As for Albinism in Whites, read the links I posted and all your answers are there.
You provided me a SIXTY-EIGHT PAGE thread and another one that was extremely convoluted. How am I supposed to get anything out of those?
quote:This graph is for white subjects who have not been diagnosed with Albinism, yet as can clearly be seen from UV sensitivity and adaptation curves, they display same protection and immunization system compromises as sub-clinical OCA2 albinism.
Where's proof of this? How is this even possible when albinos can't tan at all?
quote:Why this condition in the majority of whites is not acknowledged and commonly known is beyond me.
Probably because it's not true at all, and is just some ridiculous black supremacist pseudoscience fantasy?
quote:meninarmer - In that piece posted by Horet, it said: "There are over 70,000 new cases of skin cancer diagnosed each year in the UK, making it the most common type of cancer".
Damn, north Scotland is in the Arctic region, go much further and you will leave the "Treeline". How much further north do White people need to go, to be safe from our Sun?
Damn, I'm starting to freak-out, what if they are from someplace else.
Oh god yes. Those pitiful white albino cavemen just can't survive anywhere from the sun. Let's also take this tidbit from some random UK article without any other skepticism, despite it indicating a skin cancer rate higher than in australia.
You know, you have to give white supremacists credit for one thing- they almost NEVER put emphasis on skin color outside of aestethic factors. You black supremacists are disgusting.
quote:^ The highest incident rate of melanoma and skin cancer are; Australia, Israel, America, UK, Africa, Europe, Russia. There is no place of earth where whites can reside where they are not susceptible to UV burn, skin cancer, and melanoma. They are susceptible even in Canada, Alaska, and Siberia.
Even worst, as the CDC graph above clearly indicates, the incident rate in whites is increasing at approximately 3%/year.
Regardless of how Jablonski "spins" the facts, this level of compromise is only possible in severe genetic mutation that is NOT a part of a planned adaption to environment.
That article I posted shows how many, many people with dark skin go completely undiagnosed with skin cancer. I wonder how those rates would look like if you took all of them into account?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Horet - Whether or not Black people CAN get skin cancer is not the issue. The issue is WHY they get skin cancer. The COMMON locations of the cancers that Black people get, CLEARLY INDICATE that exposure to Sunlight was NOT a factor.
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Horet - Whether or not Black people CAN get skin cancer is not the issue. The issue is WHY they get skin cancer. The COMMON locations of the cancers that Black people get, CLEARLY INDICATE that exposure to Sunlight was NOT a factor.
Dear god you're pathetic. What other reason do you think black-skinned people are getting skin cancer on the de-pigminted parts of their bodies?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horet: Where's proof of this? How is this even possible when albinos can't tan at all?
As I said before, read the links and you would know FOR SURE, Albinos CAN tan, CAN have black hair, Can have brown eyes, Can have close to normal vision, and Can appear normal like an average white person. This is called, SUB-CLINICAL Albinism!
Yes, the CDC study did include blacks. Their incident rate is so low it doesn't register on the charts. Yes, it is TRUE that black people are pretty much immune to skin cancer. If a black person contracts skin cancer, it is extremely rare, and as Mike correctly shared with you, melanoma will develop on the soles of their feet. Once removed, it is self repaired and incidents of death are non-existent. Black may suffer sun burn, but unlike whites, their immunization and repair facilities are intact, and any and all damage done by sun burn is readily repaired by their DNA repair facility, avoiding skin cancer.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Horet - Quote: "You Black supremacists are disgusting".
We are NOT Black supremacists; We are truth seekers. Whatever Black supremacy there might be, is totally Incidental. Brotherhood of man, Hurrah hurrah, geez I hope aliens count.
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote: As I said before, read the links and you would know FOR SURE, Albinos CAN tan, CAN have black hair, Can have brown eyes, Can have close to normal vision, and Can appear normal like an average white person. This is called, SUB-CLINICAL Albinism!
You're asking me to sift through a 68-page thread and another extremely convoluted one. Why the hell can't you just show me?
quote:Yes, the CDC study did include blacks. Their incident rate is so low it doesn't register on the charts.
If this is true, are you just attributing this to dark skin alone and not ignoring numerous other genetic factors, along with how, for so long, many with dark skin have gone undiagnosed with skin cancer?
quote:Yes, it is TRUE that black people are pretty much immune to skin cancer. If a black person contracts skin cancer, it is extremely rare,
That's a load of ****. Everywhere I go, it says clearly that people with black skin can get skin cancer. Nor do they say it's "extremely rare".
quote:They can burn, but unlike whites, their immunization and repair facilities are intact, and damage done by sun burn is readily repaired avoiding skin cancer.
And where do you have proof of this as well?
Throughout this entire discussion, what not one of you has provided is the smoking gun- GENETIC EVIDENCE. Something to support the insane, scientifically implausible notion that every single white person has fixed albino traits. Where the hell is it? Here's another one- europeans are able to produce albinos. How are a people who universally fixed as albinos able to produce a trait like that in such a redundant fashion?
quote:
We are NOT Black supremacists; We are truth seekers. Whatever Black supremacy there might be, is totally Incidental. Brotherhood of man, Hurrah hurrah, geez I hope aliens count.
Ok, so you're people who think light skin is grossly inferior to dark skin in almost every regard when it comes to handling simple everyday environments. Happy now?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horet:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Horet - Whether or not Black people CAN get skin cancer is not the issue. The issue is WHY they get skin cancer. The COMMON locations of the cancers that Black people get, CLEARLY INDICATE that exposure to Sunlight was NOT a factor.
Dear god you're pathetic. What other reason do you think black-skinned people are getting skin cancer on the de-pigminted parts of their bodies?
Can you say reading comprehension?
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by Horet:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Horet - Whether or not Black people CAN get skin cancer is not the issue. The issue is WHY they get skin cancer. The COMMON locations of the cancers that Black people get, CLEARLY INDICATE that exposure to Sunlight was NOT a factor.
Dear god you're pathetic. What other reason do you think black-skinned people are getting skin cancer on the de-pigminted parts of their bodies?
Can you say reading comprehension?
You think there's another reason as to why they're getting skin cancer. What the hell is it? What could it possibly be when people almost always contract skin cancer via UV exposure?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horet: Probably because it's not true at all, and is just some ridiculous black supremacist pseudoscience fantasy?
LOL, Now you are getting emotional. This isn't about Black/White superiority/Inferiority, but an examination of universally acknowledged FACTS regarding White genetic composition. It is no more racially biased then it is to examine the occurrence of Sickle Cell in Blacks/Jews. If Sickle Cell were traceable in human remains over time, would not it be a useful method of narrowing the ethnicity of the subject?
I think it is YOU who are making this an white inferiority issue when instead, you should be reviewing the data from an objective, scientific viewpoint.
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Horet: Probably because it's not true at all, and is just some ridiculous black supremacist pseudoscience fantasy?
LOL, Now you are getting emotional. This isn't about Black/White superiority/Inferiority, but an examination of universally acknowledged FACTS regarding White genetic composition. It is no more racially biased then it is to examine the occurrence of Sickle Cell in Blacks/Jews. If Sickle Cell were traceable in human remains over time, would not it be a useful method of narrowing the ethnicity of the subject?
I think it is YOU who are making this an white inferiority issue.
So, it's not an inferiority issue when you act as if white skin is hilariously vulnerable compared to dark skin, and that all white people are albinos? That sounds kind of off.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horet:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Horet: Probably because it's not true at all, and is just some ridiculous black supremacist pseudoscience fantasy?
LOL, Now you are getting emotional. This isn't about Black/White superiority/Inferiority, but an examination of universally acknowledged FACTS regarding White genetic composition. It is no more racially biased then it is to examine the occurrence of Sickle Cell in Blacks/Jews. If Sickle Cell were traceable in human remains over time, would not it be a useful method of narrowing the ethnicity of the subject?
I think it is YOU who are making this an white inferiority issue.
So, it's not an inferiority issue when you act as if white skin is hilariously vulnerable compared to dark skin, and that all white people are albinos? That sounds kind of off.
As I said, it may very well feel "Off" to you due to the negative imagery media has attached to Albinos.
Albinism is merely a set of similar traits associated with someone who has a genetic disorder effecting melanin production. Because melanin's role in skin is primarily to protect against UV exposure, those without it, or with very low levels will be susceptible to solar burn or damage.
In the extreme case (OCA1), it is the opposite of black (white), and in less extreme cases (OCA2, OCA3, OCA4) the afflicted may exhibit some low level of melanin production to achieve a pink, or even slightly tanned complexion.
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Horet:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Horet: Probably because it's not true at all, and is just some ridiculous black supremacist pseudoscience fantasy?
LOL, Now you are getting emotional. This isn't about Black/White superiority/Inferiority, but an examination of universally acknowledged FACTS regarding White genetic composition. It is no more racially biased then it is to examine the occurrence of Sickle Cell in Blacks/Jews. If Sickle Cell were traceable in human remains over time, would not it be a useful method of narrowing the ethnicity of the subject?
I think it is YOU who are making this an white inferiority issue.
So, it's not an inferiority issue when you act as if white skin is hilariously vulnerable compared to dark skin, and that all white people are albinos? That sounds kind of off.
As I said, it may very well feel "Off" to you due to the negative imagery media has attached to Albinos.
Albinism is merely a set of similar traits associated with someone who has a genetic disorder effecting melanin production.
In the extreme case, it is the opposite of black (white), and in less extreme cases the afflicted may exhibit some low level of melanin production to achieve a pink, or even slightly tanned complexion.
So what about you painting white skin as so vulnerable compared to dark skin? And again, and again, and again, I've asked this- where is your real genetic evidence for this, along with all sorts of other claims you've made about skin color differences?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horet:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Horet:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Horet: Probably because it's not true at all, and is just some ridiculous black supremacist pseudoscience fantasy?
LOL, Now you are getting emotional. This isn't about Black/White superiority/Inferiority, but an examination of universally acknowledged FACTS regarding White genetic composition. It is no more racially biased then it is to examine the occurrence of Sickle Cell in Blacks/Jews. If Sickle Cell were traceable in human remains over time, would not it be a useful method of narrowing the ethnicity of the subject?
I think it is YOU who are making this an white inferiority issue.
So, it's not an inferiority issue when you act as if white skin is hilariously vulnerable compared to dark skin, and that all white people are albinos? That sounds kind of off.
As I said, it may very well feel "Off" to you due to the negative imagery media has attached to Albinos.
Albinism is merely a set of similar traits associated with someone who has a genetic disorder effecting melanin production.
In the extreme case, it is the opposite of black (white), and in less extreme cases the afflicted may exhibit some low level of melanin production to achieve a pink, or even slightly tanned complexion.
So what about you painting white skin as so vulnerable compared to dark skin? And again, and again, and again, I've asked this- where is your real genetic evidence for this, along with all sorts of other claims you've made about skin color differences?
Clearly you refuse to prepare yourself by reading posted text, starting with this thread lead in from Ms. Jablonski, who also correctly confirms the advantage of dark skin in high UV exposed areas.
Why is it you show such negative emotion regarding White genetic skin defect, and none regarding Ashkenazi Jews having a 97% hit rate for Cystic Fibrosis, another very serious genetic defect?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^Go see a psych, they'll tell you it's not well to stalk me, kid.
While you're at it, you might want to speak with a language arts instructor, since your ability to completely type a grammatically correct sentence, is obviously lacking.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Horet: So could someone please give me hard evidence on the idea of whites being fixed albinos, whatever the hell that would be?
You need to read through the thread and also Marc's Here, The Explores Here
Extremely hilarious as to how you thought Explorer/Supercar agreed with you.
There you go again displaying your deficiencies. LOL, highlight where I say or imply Explorer agrees with me, or confess you don't have a clue.
Simple question; why did you post the Explorers thread, when you were asked to give hard evidence of whites being albinos?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Me-no-narmer can you tell us why you still think you're refuting something you obviously don't even understand?
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Clearly you refuse to prepare yourself by reading posted text, starting with this thread lead in from Ms. Jablonski, who also correctly confirms the advantage of dark skin in high UV exposed areas.
You have the audacity to tell others to read meanwhile you didn't even know what Jablonksi was saying, and I had to inform you. Now you think you're knowledgeable?
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Ultraviolet light, or UV, in high doses can age the skin and damage the DNA molecule, which makes it harder to build a fetus. Not to mention that ultraviolet light can sometimes cause skin cancer.
She's stealing and repackaging my stuff! What she is "implying" is that UV exposure led to Albinism, which in turn created havoc on European immunization and productive capabilities
This was your original misinterpretation; which is quite telling, and basically confirms you don't even understand the theory that you're trying to refute.
...me-no-narmer, kid; you're dismissed!
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^Go see a psych, they'll tell you it's not well to stalk me, kid.
While you're at it, you might want to speak with a language arts instructor, since your ability to completely type a grammatically correct sentence, is obviously lacking.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Horet: So could someone please give me hard evidence on the idea of whites being fixed albinos, whatever the hell that would be?
You need to read through the thread and also Marc's Here, The Explores Here
Extremely hilarious as to how you thought Explorer/Supercar agreed with you.
There you go again displaying your deficiencies. LOL, highlight where I say or imply Explorer agrees with me, or confess you don't have a clue.
Simple question; why did you post the Explorers thread, when you were asked to give hard evidence of whites being albinos?
I posted it for your review to avoid answering your chase the tail questioning. You have the habit of repetitiously asking the same question over & over. When someone takes time to answer, you simply ask it again in the next post. Read the thread, answer your own question and try to elevate the conversation.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: I posted it for your review to avoid answering your chase the tail questioning.
Wrong, you posted it because you had no answers, and you thought Explorer agreed with you.
Which is also why you, when asked for hard evidence that Europeans are albinos, again, posted Explorers thread as if it agreed with you.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Read the thread, answer your own question and try to elevate the conversation.
If you don't understand what the thread is about, then how can we progress?
I had to correct you atleast 5 times on what the thread was about, on the previous page.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
If you want me to leave because I am embarrassing you, then ok; I'll let you live.
But just remember.....
Even your precious World Health Organization Collaborative Centre for the Promotion of Sun Protection (WHO), doesn't even agree with you.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: I'll tell you like I told Mike.
Ad hominem remarks do nothing for your erroneous theory.
Face facts, or get lost.
Darkskin is natures sunscreen; it protects against harmful UV rays, and hence blocks out the ability to absorb UV rays in northern latitudes to produce Vitamin D through synthesis.
Lighterskin allows for UV rays to penetrate the skin under darker skies, and hence synthesize UV to produce Vitamin D better than darkerskinned populations.
Darker skinned populations need to take Vitamin D supplements, or have an immense Vitamin D intake through diet.
So far you've flailed your arms ranting for no reason because you haven't disproved anything.
Fact; darkskinned populations are at risk for Vitamin D deficiencies in northern latitudes more than lighterskinned populations.
Pay attention...
Even your precious World Health Organization Collaborative Centre for the Promotion of Sun Protection (WHO), doesn't even agree with you.
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 Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Clearly you refuse to prepare yourself by reading posted text, starting with this thread lead in from Ms. Jablonski, who also correctly confirms the advantage of dark skin in high UV exposed areas.
I wouldn't deny they'd be more advantageous. Just not to the extremes you push them off as, which you've barely provided any evidence to back them up on.
quote:Why is it you show such negative emotion regarding White genetic skin defect, and none regarding Ashkenazi Jews having a 97% hit rate for Cystic Fibrosis, another very serious genetic defect?
Because such a disorder is dependent on simple breeding patterns within a population to propogate. Skin color, on the other hand, takes thousands of years to change on its own.
So, why haven't you answered any of my other questions?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: [qb] I posted it for your review to avoid answering your chase the tail questioning.
Wrong, you posted it because you had no answers, and you thought Explorer agreed with you.
Which is also why you, when asked for hard evidence that Europeans are albinos, again, posted Explorers thread as if it agreed with you.
LOL, You have trouble reading your own posted articles, and now you are a mind reader.
You cannot show anywhere, or anytime when I stated any so-and-so, agreed with the theory.
You are shown once again as a liar grasping at invisible straws. Sinking deep in a pool of Quicksand grabbing in the air trying to be saved by grabbing hold of a fly's butt. Give it up and save yourself further embarrassment.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Obviously you want me to embarrass you some more...
Simple question; Why did you post Explorers thread as if it agreed with you, and ultimately disagreed with me?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Just another unanswered post....
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Jablonski's statement; "Not to mention UV light CAN SOMETIMES cause skin cancer." The statement is only true IN WHITES, and in their case, there is no question that UV DOES cause skin cancer in whites. Not "can".
This is why, if original humans were lighterskinned (pink), they would have not survived.
Darkskin is natures sunscreen kid.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ I said this twenty posts ago Junior.
and whites are pink which is why they are susceptible to skin cancer.
Lighterskin was adapted in northern latitudes, under less intense UV rays.
Humans are vitally dependent on Vitamin D for strong bones etc....
If humans never evolved lighter skin then they would have never survived, since they are dependent on Vitamin D absorption, which in turn can only be synthesized adequately ( and in a lesser time frame) by lighterskin in northern latitudes.
A population darker than the Inuit hunter gatherers, would need more intake of Vitamin D than the Inuit actually consume.
Note; Inuit, as light as they are, are still totally dependent on Vitamin D intake (as all humans) either through diet or, clinical vitamin D supplements.
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.
Not as much Vitamin D supplements would be needed for northern Europeans, in fact, N. Europeans developed the tolerance for lactose which also gave them an advantage during the Neolithic.
So, lighterskin, and tolerance of lactose, possibly among others, gave Europeans an advantage against the darker skies (less UV).
quote:Early Europeans Unable To Stomach Milk
Dr Mark Thomas, UCL Biology, said: "The ability to drink milk is the most advantageous trait that's evolved in Europeans in the recent past. Without the enzyme lactase, drinking milk in adulthood causes bloating and diarrhoea. Although the benefits of milk tolerance are not fully understood yet, they probably include: the continuous supply of milk compared to the boom and bust of seasonal crops; its nourishing qualities; and the fact that it's uncontaminated by parasites, unlike stream water, making it a safer drink. All in all, the ability to drink milk gave some early Europeans a big survival advantage."
[/QB]
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Early Europeans Unable To Stomach Milk
Dr Mark Thomas, UCL Biology, said: "The ability to drink milk is the most advantageous trait that's evolved in Europeans in the recent past. Without the enzyme lactase, drinking milk in adulthood causes bloating and diarrhoea. Although the benefits of milk tolerance are not fully understood yet, they probably include: the continuous supply of milk compared to the boom and bust of seasonal crops; its nourishing qualities; and the fact that it's uncontaminated by parasites, unlike stream water, making it a safer drink. All in all, the ability to drink milk gave some early Europeans a big survival advantage."
Early Europeans have ALWAYS had the ability to digress Goat's milk. It's been shown that Early Europeans livestock consisted of up to 85% Goats. Goat's milk is at minimum 50% higher Vitamin D content relative to Cow's milk. Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Early Europeans Unable To Stomach Milk
Dr Mark Thomas, UCL Biology, said: "The ability to drink milk is the most advantageous trait that's evolved in Europeans in the recent past. Without the enzyme lactase, drinking milk in adulthood causes bloating and diarrhoea. Although the benefits of milk tolerance are not fully understood yet, they probably include: the continuous supply of milk compared to the boom and bust of seasonal crops; its nourishing qualities; and the fact that it's uncontaminated by parasites, unlike stream water, making it a safer drink. All in all, the ability to drink milk gave some early Europeans a big survival advantage."
Early Europeans have ALWAYS had the ability to digress Goat's milk.
What evidence do you have that Europeans independently domesticated goats before the Neolithic?
You never seem to learn.
I've already explained to you over and over; goats were not independently domesticated in Europe, neither were cattle etc.., they were all brought by incoming migrants from the so called near east or Africa during the Neolithic.
Before the Neolithic these Early Europeans were hunter gatherers/foragers, similar to the Inuit.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
MindoverMatter718 - What on earth are you trying to say? ALL Nomadic pastoralist DRINK and digest MILK; whether they be Black, White, or Yellow. Since White people come from the Asian steppes, they HAD to be Nomadic pastoralist, there was not much choice. Therefore how could they develop something that they already had? I would have thought that by now, you would be able to recognized people like Dr Mark Thomas, UCL Biology for the bullsh1ting White boys that they are.
If you want the truth ONLY listen to Black or other non-White people. It's the only way!
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: MindoverMatter718 - What on earth are you trying to say? ALL Nomadic pastoralist DRINK and digest MILK; whether they be Black, White, or Yellow.
I'm saying your incompetent, and don't understand that for humans living in northern latitudes this tolerance of lactose would be advantageous for humans against the long winter months when there is very little UV.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Since White people come from the Asian steppes, they HAD to be Nomadic pastoralist, there was not much choice.
According to what data did you conclude this?
Since according to numerous published data Europeans are descended from humans who started to reach Europe ever since 40-45 thousand years ago.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Therefore how could they develop something that they already had?
Again, according to what data; did humans in Europe domesticate any animals before migrants from the so called near east, and Africa brought them in the Neolithic?
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: If you want the truth ONLY listen to Black or other non-White people. It's the only way!
This would definitely leave your jackass out.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
MindoverMatter718 - I see that you have regressed back to the Whites are from Europe myth, how nice. It indicates total desperation, but I do understand your reason for trying to do that; without that myth, the other myths do not work. So is that how you are going to answer the tough questions. Is your answer to always be, Whites are from Europe so that other stuff does not apply?
Okay then; lets try the current White Boy myth that you are discussing.
This from;
The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) is part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health
Quote: Between 30 and 50 million Americans are lactose intolerant and certain ethnic and racial populations are more affected than others. Up to 80 percent of African Americans, 80 to 100 percent of American Indians, and 90 to 100 percent of Asian Americans are lactose intolerant. The condition is least common among people of northern European descent.
Now most of us have been trained to believe and accept the findings of such an august body, even to the exclusion of our own experiences .
But you know what, after thinking about it. I have witnessed thousands upon thousands of Blacks have milk with their coffee and tea, milk in their scotch, Kahlua, and Baileys, eat cheese and ice cream like it's going out of style, and never once have I heard anyone say - man, I gotta lay off the dairy. Moreover, I have never meant anyone that was lactose intolerant, or been told about anyone who was lactose intolerant.
So there seems to be a disconnect between what White people say about Black people, and that which Black people actually experience. Wonder what that means.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Just to drive home the insidious nature of the White boys lies:
That piece of White boy bullsh1t above, as dispensed by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, clearly indicates a racial component to the myth of lactose intolerance. As everyone should know, pastoralist people live mostly on milk and milk products. Lets learn about pastoralist people and where they live.
pastoralism takes place mainly in marginal areas, where cultivation (and the higher energy achieved per area) is not possible. Animals feed on the forage of these lands; an energy source which humans cannot directly utilize. The herds convert the energy into sources available for human consumption: milk, blood and sometimes meat.
Some Pastoralist People
* Aromanians of Balkans * Bedouin of North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula * Dhangars of India * Kuchis of Afghanistan * Maasai of East Africa * Navajo of North America * Sarakatsani of Greece * Somalis of the Horn of Africa * Tuvans of Mongolia * Yörük of Turkey * Gaddis of Himachal Pradesh * Raikas of TamilNadu
Well what do you know, seems ALL RACES have pastoralist in their populations. Wonder what that means.
MindoverMatter718 - If you want the truth ONLY listen to Black or other non-White people. It's the only way! Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horet:
So, it's not an inferiority issue when you act as if white skin is hilariously vulnerable compared to dark skin,
'white skin' is indeed more vulnerable to intense UV radiation levels than 'dark skin'.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Just to drive home the insidious nature of the White boys lies:
That piece of White boy bullsh1t above, as dispensed by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, clearly indicates a racial component to the myth of lactose intolerance. As everyone should know, pastoralist people live mostly on milk and milk products. Lets learn about pastoralist people and where they live.
pastoralism takes place mainly in marginal areas, where cultivation (and the higher energy achieved per area) is not possible. Animals feed on the forage of these lands; an energy source which humans cannot directly utilize. The herds convert the energy into sources available for human consumption: milk, blood and sometimes meat.
Some Pastoralist People
* Aromanians of Balkans * Bedouin of North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula * Dhangars of India * Kuchis of Afghanistan * Maasai of East Africa * Navajo of North America * Sarakatsani of Greece * Somalis of the Horn of Africa * Tuvans of Mongolia * Yörük of Turkey * Gaddis of Himachal Pradesh * Raikas of TamilNadu
Well what do you know, seems ALL RACES have pastoralist in their populations. Wonder what that means.
MindoverMatter718 - If you want the truth ONLY listen to Black or other non-White people. It's the only way!
I think what Mark Thomas meant to say was developing the ability to digest Cow's milk was the most important advance for Europeans, although he makes no distinction.
Although highly lactose intolerant myself, I've consumed my fair share of Ice Cream, milk & Cereal,, ect. Lately (years), I have stopped drinking Cow's milk because today, with their greed, whites have ruined it by subjecting Cows to steroids and Anti-biotics which makes the milk contain up to 20% Cow Snot/Pus from their allergic reaction.
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: MindoverMatter718 - I see that you have regressed back to the Whites are from Europe myth, how nice. It indicates total desperation, but I do understand your reason for trying to do that; without that myth, the other myths do not work. So is that how you are going to answer the tough questions. Is your answer to always be, Whites are from Europe so that other stuff does not apply?
Okay then; lets try the current White Boy myth that you are discussing.
This from;
The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) is part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health
Quote: Between 30 and 50 million Americans are lactose intolerant and certain ethnic and racial populations are more affected than others. Up to 80 percent of African Americans, 80 to 100 percent of American Indians, and 90 to 100 percent of Asian Americans are lactose intolerant. The condition is least common among people of northern European descent.
Now most of us have been trained to believe and accept the findings of such an august body, even to the exclusion of our own experiences .
But you know what, after thinking about it. I have witnessed thousands upon thousands of Blacks have milk with their coffee and tea, milk in their scotch, Kahlua, and Baileys, eat cheese and ice cream like it's going out of style, and never once have I heard anyone say - man, I gotta lay off the dairy. Moreover, I have never meant anyone that was lactose intolerant, or been told about anyone who was lactose intolerant.
So there seems to be a disconnect between what White people say about Black people, and that which Black people actually experience. Wonder what that means.
Maybe you've just been encountering the 15% or so lactose tolerant blacks instead of this being another evil whitey conspiracy?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: I think what Mark Thomas meant to say was developing the ability to digest Cow's milk was the most important advance for Europeans, although he makes no distinction.
Gee kid, you never cease to amaze me with your genius wit. Btw, he did say it; not meant to.
quote:Early Europeans Unable To Stomach Milk;
Dr Mark Thomas, UCL Biology, said: "The ability to drink milk is the most advantageous trait that's evolved in Europeans in the recent past. Without the enzyme lactase, drinking milk in adulthood causes bloating and diarrhoea. Although the benefits of milk tolerance are not fully understood yet, they probably include: the continuous supply of milk compared to the boom and bust of seasonal crops; its nourishing qualities; and the fact that it's uncontaminated by parasites, unlike stream water, making it a safer drink. All in all, the ability to drink milk gave some early Europeans a big survival advantage."
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Hey Dimwit Showing off your reading comprehension skills again. He doesn't mention Cow's milk in either of your highlighted sections. Perhaps he is speaking about Pigeon's milk.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Horet - Quote: Maybe you've just been encountering the 15% or so lactose tolerant blacks instead of this being another evil whitey conspiracy?
Mathematically, what do you think the chances of that are? Let me answer for you "0". It's just more Whitey propaganda aimed at discrediting the natural superiority and adaptability of Black genes. (Not that Blacks are superior).
BTW - I notice that you completely ignored the Pastoral people data, which clearly showed the false and racist nature of the whole debate. What happened there?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
meninarmer - You seem to be accepting the premise that early White European could not digest milk. That is IMPOSSIBLE! All agree that they were Horseman, even if they kept no other animals, Mares milk would have had to be a major part of their diet.
This whole milk debate is pure White Boy foolishness.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ I don't accept it. I see no good reason for Europeans to value Cow's milk above Goat's milk. As I stated, 85% of European livestock consisted of Goats, while ~10% consisted of cows. If Europeans placed such a high value on Cow's milk, I would expect those livestock ratio's to be reversed. Thus, Goat milk was much more abundant, and what Europeans had been consuming 100s of years prior to the introduction of cows.
From my understanding, human consumption of goat milk is superior to Cow's milk in every aspect.
This cow digestion evolutionary gene is pure BS!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
The Persian Wars by Herodotus Written 440 BCE
Translated by George Rawlinson
Book 1 - CLIO
[1.215] In their dress and mode of living the Massagetae resemble the Scythians. They fight both on horseback and on foot, neither method is strange to them: they use bows and lances, but their favourite weapon is the battle-axe. Their arms are all either of gold or brass. For their spear-points, and arrow-heads, and for their battle-axes, they make use of brass; for head-gear, belts, and girdles, of gold. So too with the caparison of their horses, they give them breastplates of brass, but employ gold about the reins, the bit, and the cheek-plates. They use neither iron nor silver, having none in their country; but they have brass and gold in abundance.
Scythia - An area in Eurasia whose location and extent varied over time. Scythians at various times inhabited: the Caucasus area, including Azerbaijan, Georgia - The central Asian steppes: Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan.
Massagetae - South of the Aral sea
[1.216] The following are some of their customs; - Each man has but one wife, yet all the wives are held in common; for this is a custom of the Massagetae and not of the Scythians, as the Greeks wrongly say. Human life does not come to its natural close with this people; but when a man grows very old, all his kinsfolk collect together and offer him up in sacrifice; offering at the same time some cattle also. After the sacrifice they boil the flesh and feast on it; and those who thus end their days are reckoned the happiest. If a man dies of disease they do not eat him, but bury him in the ground, bewailing his ill-fortune that he did not come to be sacrificed. They sow no grain, but live on their herds, and on fish, of which there is great plenty in the Araxes. Milk is what they chiefly drink. The only god they worship is the sun, and to him they offer the horse in sacrifice; under the notion of giving to the swiftest of the gods the swiftest of all mortal creatures.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Before the Neolithic these Early Europeans were hunter gatherers/foragers, similar to the Inuit.
Don't you mean early Asians here? LOL
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
For those not familiar with the B.S. of Herodotus, I though you might get a laugh out of this.
The Persian Wars by Herodotus Written 440 BCE
Translated by George Rawlinson
Book 1 - CLIO
The Scythians, having thus invaded Media, were opposed by the Medes, who gave them battle, but, being defeated, lost their empire. The Scythians became masters of Asia.
[1.105] After this they marched forward with the design of invading Egypt. When they had reached Palestine, however, Psammetichus the Egyptian king met them with gifts and prayers, and prevailed on them to advance no further. On their return, passing through Ascalon, a city of Syria, the greater part of them went their way without doing any damage; but some few who lagged behind pillaged the temple of Celestial Venus. I have inquired and find that the temple at Ascalon is the most ancient of all the temples to this goddess; for the one in Cyprus, as the Cyprians themselves admit, was built in imitation of it; and that in Cythera was erected by the Phoenicians, who belong to this part of Syria. The Scythians who plundered the temple were punished by the goddess with the female sickness, which still attaches to their posterity. They themselves confess that they are afflicted with the disease for this reason, and travellers who visit Scythia can see what sort of a disease it is. Those who suffer from it are called Enarees.
Licorice plant (Glycyrrhiza Glabra) According to Greek authors, nomad tribes of Scythia used widely licorice. Greeks imported this herb as a medicine and called it 'Scythian root'. Scythians used This herb because of its ability to retain water in human body. This property was very useful in natural conditions of arid Scythia. Since this property was secured by phytoestrogens, so it's no wonder that warrior women described by Herodotus another Greek authors among Scythian tribes. Also famous Greek physician Hippocrates observed mass amenorrhea (menstrual dysfunction) among the same tribes. Physical weakness of Scythians stemmed from limited diet. Benefits of any nutrient turn unavoidably into harm when it is used immoderately at poor variety of board, which necessarily takes place in any arid area.
Phytoestrogenic action of licorice among Scythian population was exhibited distinctly in the phenomenon of Enarees — feminized Scythian men mentioned by Herodotus in his passage on the pillage of the temple of Celestial Venus in Syrian city Ascalon:
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Before the Neolithic these Early Europeans were hunter gatherers/foragers, similar to the Inuit.
Don't you mean early Asians here? LOL
They will never stop trying to slip that in, no matter how many times you disprove it - it's all that they have to hold on to.
Did you read the Herodotus pieces? That's what miserable creatures they really were. They don't want to admit that when Black people were living in great and beautiful cities, they were wretched creatures living on human remains and horse milk. My guess is that the primal memories of those times is the reason for their resentment of us.
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote: Mathematically, what do you think the chances of that are? Let me answer for you "0".
That'd be about 1 in 6, jackass.
quote: It's just more Whitey propaganda aimed at discrediting the natural superiority and adaptability of Black genes. (Not that Blacks are superior).
OH MY GOD YES. The evil whiteman is now twisting data on lactose tolerance among americans to keep the mighty black man down! (who isn't superior)
Get the **** out.
quote:BTW - I notice that you completely ignored the Pastoral people data, which clearly showed the false and racist nature of the whole debate. What happened there?
I didn't ignore it, because it didn't show ANYTHING. What hell are you trying to prove now? I still haven't gotten anything from either you black supremacist lowlifes on this insane idea of whites being albinos. None. Absolutely nothing.
quote:Did you read the Herodotus pieces? That's what miserable creatures they really were. They don't want to admit that when Black people were living in great and beautiful cities, they were wretched creatures living on human remains and horse milk.
Ok, so you're not a black supremacist or a racist, yet now you're calling whites "miserable creatures".
Hey, what race were the greeks like heredotus who recorded this? Black?
quote: My guess is that the primal memories of those times is the reason for their resentment of us.
Yeah that makes alot of sense. White people universally hate blacks, and that's because, at one point, most of europe was undeveloped while black egypt was.
Wait. There was barely anything else throughout the whole of SS africa resembling advanced civilization during the time of AE.
And now most black countries are poor, while white ones aren't. Where's the envy now?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ I don't accept it. I see no good reason for Europeans to value Cow's milk above Goat's milk. As I stated, 85% of European livestock consisted of Goats, while ~10% consisted of cows. If Europeans placed such a high value on Cow's milk, I would expect those livestock ratio's to be reversed. Thus, Goat milk was much more abundant, and what Europeans had been consuming 100s of years prior to the introduction of cows.
From my understanding, human consumption of goat milk is superior to Cow's milk in every aspect.
This cow digestion evolutionary gene is pure BS!
Ok let's entertain your Goat milk claim for the hundredth time, you still know that Europeans did not have any of these animals domesticated before the Neolithic; right?
quote: Early Europeans Unable To Stomach Milk
The first direct evidence that early Europeans were unable to digest milk has been found by scientists at UCL (University College London) and Mainz University.
In a study, published in the journal 'PNAS', the team shows that the gene that controls our ability to digest milk was missing from Neolithic skeletons dating to between 5840 and 5000 BC.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: The Persian Wars by Herodotus Written 440 BCE
Wow Mike 440 BCE?
Early Europeans, meaning around the Neolithic you dummy. 440 BCE is well after pastoralists brought cattle to Europe, many thousands of years after.
Mike, just like me-no-narmer; you have absolutely no understanding of which you're trying to refute.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horet: Yeah that makes alot of sense. White people universally hate blacks, and that's because, at one point, most of europe was undeveloped while black egypt was.
Not sure if this is why they hate us; but this would be true in that there was no civilization in Europe at the time of Egypt and not for another few thousand years.
When Southern Europe would advance it was definitely because receiving advancements from Africans and so called near Easterners.
quote:Originally posted by Horet: Wait. There was barely anything else throughout the whole of SS africa resembling advanced civilization during the time of AE.
The region that these Africans migrated to when they did, (the Nile) is because it was better suitable and fit.
Before this, they were spread across the then green, and lush Sahara.
Btw, there were no civilizations in N.Europe, for the simple fact that there was no influence from Africans or SW. Asians, hence those N. Europeans never advanced.
quote:Originally posted by Horet: And now most black countries are poor, while white ones aren't. Where's the envy now?
...and this has nothing to do with European exploitation?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
That'd be about 1 in 6, jackass.
If 8 out of 10 Blacks are intolerant, and out of thousands up thousands I find none, then statistically that is impossible, therefore the equation or the data must be defective, therefore it can be considered "0"
Hey, what race were the greeks like heredotus who recorded this? Black?
No White. The hellenes were the first Whites in What we call Greece. They arrived at about 1,200 B.C.
Yeah that makes alot of sense. White people universally hate blacks, and that's because, at one point, most of europe was undeveloped while black egypt was.
No ignorant one. Black Crete and Mycenae, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia, Indus valley, may well have been more advanced that Egypt.
Wait. There was barely anything else throughout the whole of SS africa resembling advanced civilization during the time of AE.
That is true.
And now most black countries are poor, while white ones aren't. Where's the envy now?
On the other side.
Wow Mike 440 BCE? Early Europeans, meaning around the Neolithic you dummy. 440 BCE is well after pastoralists brought cattle to Europe, many thousands of years after.
During the neolithic Europeans were Black - whats your lie?
440 BCE is a good indication of how Whites originally lived.
Posted by Horet (Member # 16217) on :
quote: If 8 out of 10 Blacks are intolerant, and out of thousands up thousands I find none, then statistically that is impossible, therefore the equation or the data must be defective, therefore it can be considered "0"
So we're gonna go with the evil whitey lactose data conspiracy again?
quote:No ignorant one. Black Crete and Mycenae, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia, Indus valley, may well have been more advanced that Egypt.
Oh my god. NONE of those civilizations were black. I'm done with you.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Blacks are the most racist people in the world. That may not have always been the case but it is the case in 2009.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^What a hypocrite!!
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: During the neolithic Europeans were Black - whats your lie?
No lie except your own. Europeans were not black during the Neolithic.
Hopefully you will present atleast some scientific evidence to refute the below....
quote:Trenton W. Holliday
Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins
Abstract
Body proportions covary with climate, apparently as the result of climatic selection. Ontogenetic research and migrant studies have demonstrated that body proportions are largely genetically controlled and are under low selective rates; thus studies of body form can provide evidence for evolutionarily short-term dispersals and/or gene flow. Following these observations, competing models of modern human origins yield different predictions concerning body proportion shifts in Late Pleistocene Europe. Replacement predicts that the earliest modern Europeans will possess “tropical” body proportions assuming Africa is the center of origin) (, while Regional Continuity permits only minor shifts in body shape, due to climatic change and/or improved cultural buffering. This study tests these predictions via analyses of osteometric data reflective of trunk height and breadth, limb proportions and relative body mass for samples of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP), Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) and Mesolithic (MES) humans and 13 recent African and European populations. 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. These data do not, however, preclude the possibility of some (albeit small) contribution of genes from Neandertals to succeeding populations, as is postulated in Bräuer’s “Afro-European Sapiens” model.
and....
quote: Gough's Cave 1 (Somerset, England): an assessment of body size and shape
TRENTON W. HOLLIDAY a1 and STEVEN E. CHURCHILL a2
Abstract Stature, body mass, and body proportions are evaluated for the Cheddar Man (Gough's Cave 1) skeleton. Like many of his Mesolithic contemporaries, Gough's Cave 1 evinces relatively short estimated stature (ca. 166.2 cm [5′ 5′]) and low body mass (ca. 66 kg [146 lbs]). In body shape, he is similar to recent Europeans for most proportional indices. He differs, however, from most recent Europeans in his high crural index and tibial length/trunk height indices. Thus, while Gough's Cave 1 is characterized by a total morphological pattern considered ‘cold-adapted’, these latter two traits may be interpreted as evidence of a large African role in the origins of anatomically modern Europeans.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
So we're gonna go with the evil whitey lactose data conspiracy again?
Yes.
Oh my god. NONE of those civilizations were black. I'm done with you.
One of these days you are going to get tired of being an ignorant little White Boy, and you will read a book or use your browser search.
If you want the truth ONLY listen to Black or other non-White people. It's the only way! Your high school history teacher was a lying bitch, taught by lying White Boys - get wise, read. Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Blacks are the most racist people in the world. That may not have always been the case but it is the case in 2009.
Now that is definitely the pot calling the kettle black.
That's like a thief calling the police after being robbed.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Hey pattie, long time no see. That's not true, we love everybody. In the immortal words of Rodney: Can't we all just get along honkey. Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Horet: And now most black countries are poor, while white ones aren't. Where's the envy now?
...and this has nothing to do with European exploitation?
Whoret, I would like to see you answer this question. Thanks.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ I don't accept it. I see no good reason for Europeans to value Cow's milk above Goat's milk. As I stated, 85% of European livestock consisted of Goats, while ~10% consisted of cows. If Europeans placed such a high value on Cow's milk, I would expect those livestock ratio's to be reversed. Thus, Goat milk was much more abundant, and what Europeans had been consuming 100s of years prior to the introduction of cows.
From my understanding, human consumption of goat milk is superior to Cow's milk in every aspect.
This cow digestion evolutionary gene is pure BS!
Ok let's entertain your Goat milk claim for the hundredth time, you still know that Europeans did not have any of these animals domesticated before the Neolithic; right?
quote: Early Europeans Unable To Stomach Milk
The first direct evidence that early Europeans were unable to digest milk has been found by scientists at UCL (University College London) and Mainz University.
In a study, published in the journal 'PNAS', the team shows that the gene that controls our ability to digest milk was missing from Neolithic skeletons dating to between 5840 and 5000 BC.
DAIRY FOOD
There is little doubt that dairy foods were an important part of the prehistoric diet of Northern Europe, from as early as Neolithic times. The Secondary Products Revolution a term created by Andrew Sherratt categorises the secondary uses of draught animals for milk.
'Milk has several advantages. From a dietary point of view, it supplies the amino-acid lysine, which is missing in a cereal-based food. It contains fat, protein and sugar in a balanced form, and is a useful source of calcium. Being liquid it is easily handled, and can be converted into a variety of storable products.'(Sherratt 1981 : 276)
Archaeology has now concrete evidence that milk products were consumed throughout Europe from Neolithic times due to a new testing technique developed by R.P.Evershed and S.N.Dudd ' The stable carbon isotope compositions of individual fatty acid components of remnant fats preserved in archaeological pottery vessels show that dairying was a component of archaeological economies' (Evershed & Dudd 1998 : 1478). At many causeway camps in Southern Britain, a high proportion of the bones excavated, were of calves.
Figure 4. Stave bucket containing bog butter, Ireland
(Royal Cornwall Museum, Truro)
Stave Bucket containing bog butter
'The cattle bones from Hambledon Hill are primarily those of older females and young calves. One archaeologist has interpreted these as the kill residue from a dairying herd kept in the settlement enclosure of Hambledon Hill' (Parker Pearson 1993 : 48 ) This indicates not just the consumption of veal, but a need for a large supply of milk for the community. The management of cattle herds continued through the Bronze Age and in some way took on a ritual significance at various burial mounds. Perhaps it was an indication of a person’s prestige and wealth as to how many cattle were consumed at the burial feast. Displaying the quantity consumed by covering the tomb with the heads of the cattle consumed. At Irthlingborough one of these mounds excavated revealed 184 cattle skulls (Parker Pearson 1993 : 78). Also, Strabo tells us that one of the trade goods exported to Europe from Britain prior to the Roman invasion was that of Hides (Strabo 1 1: 253)' It bears grain, cattle, gold, silver, and iron. These things are exported from the island as also hides, slaves, and dogs) Strabo also comments on the cattle in Britain when he talks about the inhabitants of the Cassiderides though to be the Scilly Isles and Cornwall (Strabo
1 1 :157) 'They live off their herds . ........ As they have mines of tin and lead, they give these metals and the hides from their cattle to the sea traders'. These quotations support the conclusion that large herds of cattle were a common sight in ancient Britain. Milk would have been available all year round due to good animal husbandry. Although the milk would have been more plentiful, sweet and rich in the Spring. The storing of surplus dairy produce would have been important to such a culture, as plentiful supplies of milk would subside during the Winter months. This problem was overcome in part by storing Butter in wooden containers and burying them in marshlands or peat bogs. Deep in the peat levels of the marsh the surplus Butter would keep fresh during the Summer months. Only to be removed when required during the Winter. Archaeologists in Ireland have discovered large quantities of this Bog Butter. 'Many discoveries of this 'bog butter' have been made, ranging in quantity from a few pounds to as much as a hundredweight' (Renfrew 1985: 1 5 ). I have held a wooden stave bucket containing at least 5 kilo of Ancient Butter from the Royal Cornwall Museum store, in Truro. Mr H. Maulslay found this butter in the neighbourhood of Ougherard, County Galway in 1906. He reported 'This cask containing Irish Butter was found when turf was being cut five feet below the surface in solid peat.' ( See Fig 4 ). It is a pale yellow in colour and a grainy consistency, and it smells quite dreadful. Fascinating though to think that this particular bucket full of rancid butter was churned by someone in Ireland, a couple of thousand years ago, when the map of Europe was dominated by Roman legions. The Northern European taste for Butter is still with us, no matter how many health warnings there may be about its consumption. We have a tradition of eating butter for possibly 6,000 years from Neolithic times. So it is not surprising it is a habit hard to rid ourselves of Strabo thought it warranted mentioning that the Celtiberians ate butter instead of olive oil with their bread even though they had access to olive oil in the south of Spain (Strabo 1 1 :75) 'instead of olive oil they use butter'.
mtDNA lineages of goats in an Early Neolithic site, far from the initial domestication areas
After the initial plant and animal domestications in the Near East, ca. 11,500 and 10,500, respectively, years ago (ya) (1, 2), Neolithic culture diffused into Europe along two main routes (3, 4) (Fig. 1). From their initial domestication areas (5–7), goats were introduced into Europe by following these routes. Archaeological data and radiocarbon dates on seeds or bones provide support for an earlier arrival in western Europe (namely France) via the Mediterranean route rather than the “Danubian” route (4, 8, 9).
To investigate whether extensive mixing had taken place at the beginning of the Neolithic or during subsequent historical times, we analyzed 24 ancient goat bone samples originating from Southern France (Ardèche) at the Early Neolithic site of Baume d’Oullen (22). This site is very well suited to test for ancient mixing among goat populations because the two earliest Neolithic layers (C6 and C5) have yielded >5,000 identified animal bone specimens associated with a large number of human artifacts dating to the Cardial and Epicardial periods, respectively (22–24). These Early Neolithic cultures are dated from the middle of the 8th millennium to the very beginning of the 7th millennium before present (B.P.) (8, 9) and represent the second step of the Neolithic in this area, just after the Impressa wave, dated in this area to 7,700–7,600 cal. B.P.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ I don't accept it. I see no good reason for Europeans to value Cow's milk above Goat's milk. As I stated, 85% of European livestock consisted of Goats, while ~10% consisted of cows. If Europeans placed such a high value on Cow's milk, I would expect those livestock ratio's to be reversed. Thus, Goat milk was much more abundant, and what Europeans had been consuming 100s of years prior to the introduction of cows.
From my understanding, human consumption of goat milk is superior to Cow's milk in every aspect.
This cow digestion evolutionary gene is pure BS!
Ok let's entertain your Goat milk claim for the hundredth time, you still know that Europeans did not have any of these animals domesticated before the Neolithic; right?
quote: Early Europeans Unable To Stomach Milk
The first direct evidence that early Europeans were unable to digest milk has been found by scientists at UCL (University College London) and Mainz University.
In a study, published in the journal 'PNAS', the team shows that the gene that controls our ability to digest milk was missing from Neolithic skeletons dating to between 5840 and 5000 BC.
DAIRY FOOD
There is little doubt that dairy foods were an important part of the prehistoric diet of Northern Europe, from as early as Neolithic times.
You're learning kid. Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
A little note on European cattle...
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Prehistoric contacts over the Straits of Gibraltar indicated by genetic analysis of Iberian Bronze Age cattle
The geographic situation of the Iberian Peninsula makes it a natural link between Europe and North Africa. However, it is a matter of debate to what extent African influences via the Straits Gibraltar have affected Iberia’s prehistoric development. Because early African pastoralist communities were dedicated to cattle breeding, a possible means to detect prehistoric African–Iberian contacts might be to analyze the origin of cattle breeds on the Iberian Peninsula. Some contemporary Iberian cattle breeds show a mtDNA haplotype, T1, that is characteristic to African breeds, generally explained as being the result of the Muslim expansion of the 8th century A.D., and of modern imports. To test a possible earlier African influence, we analyzed mtDNA of Bronze Age cattle from the Portalo´ n cave at the Atapuerca site in northern Spain. Although the majority of samples showed the haplotype T3 that dominates among European breeds of today, the T1 haplotype was found in one specimen radiocarbon dated 1800 calibrated years B.C. Accepting T1 as being of African origin, this result indicates prehistoric African–Iberian contacts and lends support to archaeological finds linking early African and Iberian cultures. We also found a wild ox haplotype in the Iberian Bronze Age sample, reflecting local hybridization or backcrossing or that aurochs were hunted by these farming cultures.
The geographical proximity of the Iberian Peninsula to Africa makes the Straits of Gibraltar a likely contact zone between the two continents. Early human communities are known to have existed simultaneously on both sides of the Straits, and it seems possible that interaction between these communities took place with an interchange of populations, ideas, goods, and livestock (1, 2). The hypothesis that such contacts took place, resulting in an African influence on Iberia’s prehistoric development, is thus not a recent one (3) but was overshadowed in the early 1960s by new ideas claiming a Near Eastern origin for the Iberian Neolithic (4). Evidence of human occupation in central Spain before the beginning of the Neolithic, as defined by the introduction of agriculture, is scarce (5, 6). However, by 6000 B.C., it is evident that Neolithic cultures were present along the eastern Spanish Mediterranean coast as well as in Andalusia, represented by the cave culture. Only a few centuries later, the signs of Neolithization are also clear in central Spain. This rapid spread of pastoral communities across the peninsula is proposed to have been due either to colonization by the Andalusian cave culture (7–9) or to the spread of new technology and ideas from the Mediterranean cultures to indigenous Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (10, 11). These early Neolithic populations of Andalusia appear to have consisted of a number of distinct groups (12), one of which is suggested to have African origin due to finds of characteristic red ochre ceramics (13, 14). Similarities have also been noted between the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture dated to the 5th millennium B.C. and the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture in western Andalusia (14). Previously, the appearance of the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture had been placed at a significantly later date than the Egyptian culture, and this chronology and the cultural similarity were interpreted as implying that Egypt was the original source (14). However, more accurate radiocarbon dates obtained from Late Atlantic Neolithic culture sites subsequently redated the origin of this culture to being approximately the same as that of the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture (15), leading to the hypothesis that these two cultures might derive from a common area, perhaps through pastoral groups living in the Sahara. The culture linked to the Late Atlantic Neolithic period is known to have been dedicated almost exclusively to cattle breeding, secondarily complemented by sheep and goat breeding (14), suggesting that an investigation of the origin of Iberian cattle may offer further insight into early Iberian–African cultural contacts.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: [QB] [QUOTE] Testing the Hypothesis of an African Cattle Contribution in Southern European Breeds (H2).
Our extensive sampling across North Africa reveals that the T1 haplogroup is almost fixed across this region (Fig. 2). Nevertheless, 63 different sequences with the T1 motif are observed, producing a total nucleotide diversity in North Africa (1.76%, SD 0.15) slightly higher than observed in the Middle East (1.65%, SD 0.14) or in Anatolia (1.48%, SD 0.13), where all four major haplogroups are found. These observations, together with the fact that T1 haplotypes are very rare in the Middle East and Anatolia, appear consistent with the previously suggested hypothesis (7, 11) that African cattle were independently domesticated.
T1 sequences are relatively common (with frequencies ranging from 5% to 30%) in different breeds from Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece. The presence of T1 mainly along the Mediterranean shores of Europe (near Africa), but not in central and northern Europe, is suggestive of the occasional introduction of cattle by boat from North Africa into southern Europe and is difficult to reconcile with any gene flow process unrelated with the sea.
However, even if 63 and 11 different T1 haplotypes are observed in Africa and Europe, respectively, only two of them are present in both regions. In addition, (i) T1 haplotypes can be found well beyond the area of maximum Moorish expansion,(ii) recent introductions of exotic cattle are usually male mediated (not affecting mtDNA) (34), and (iii) one T1 haplotype has been recently observed in a sample of 16 Bronze Age cattle remains from Spain.
So, the hypothesis of a recent and geographically restricted introduction of African cattle does not seem sufficient to explain the T1 distribution in Europe. On the contrary, DNA data are compatible with earlier gene flow into several Mediterranean regions. There is evidence of early diffusion of cattle pastoralism by people crossing arms of sea (21–23), and, hence, the same process may have led to the dispersal in Europe of breeds carrying the T1 haplotype.
Conclusions
The modern and ancient mtDNA sequences we present here do not support the currently accepted hypothesis of a single Neolithic origin in the Near East. The processes of livestock domestication and diffusion were certainly more complex than previously suggested, and our data provide some evidence in favor of the hypothesis that the origin of European cattle is multiple. Breeds domesticated in the Near East and introduced in Europe during the Neolithic diffusion probably intermixed, at least in some regions, with local wild animals and with African cattle introduced by maritime routes.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
geez meninarmer - You let him slip this by you?? There were NO White people in Europe at that time.
Early Europeans Unable To Stomach Milk
The first direct evidence that early Europeans were unable to digest milk has been found by scientists at UCL (University College London) and Mainz University.
In a study, published in the journal 'PNAS', the team shows that the gene that controls our ability to digest milk was missing from Neolithic skeletons dating to between 5840 and 5000 BC.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Horet - Just to show you that Blacks are a kind and magnanimous people, I am going to educate you, an ignorant little White Boy. Just remember, that lying Bitch who taught you high school history never taught you this. So who's your Daddy?
We will start in Spain go east, and work our way around the world.
Spain
France
Italy
Crete and Mycenae (greece)
Anatolia (Turkey)
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Europeans were not black during the Neolithic.
No they were Bay Area Chinese looking. lol
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: geez meninarmer - You let him slip this by you?? There were NO White people in Europe at that time.
Early Europeans Unable To Stomach Milk
The first direct evidence that early Europeans were unable to digest milk has been found by scientists at UCL (University College London) and Mainz University.
In a study, published in the journal 'PNAS', the team shows that the gene that controls our ability to digest milk was missing from Neolithic skeletons dating to between 5840 and 5000 BC.
Mike, this informs us that Europeans were not practicing pastoralism at this time; basically consistent with the spread of pastoralism in the Neolithic from Africa and the so called middle east.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QB] geez meninarmer - You let him slip this by you?? There were NO White people in Europe at that time.
I'm hip, but the discussion is on Europeans, which include the ancient black Europeans (plus Albino Africans), followed thousands of years by Albinonized (sp?) white Europeans, the group MatterOverMind is championing.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^You were beginning to show hope of actually understanding; what happened?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Mike?
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: During the neolithic Europeans were Black - whats your lie?
No lie except your own. Europeans were not black during the Neolithic.
Hopefully you will present atleast some scientific evidence to refute the below....
quote:Trenton W. Holliday
Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins
Abstract
Body proportions covary with climate, apparently as the result of climatic selection. Ontogenetic research and migrant studies have demonstrated that body proportions are largely genetically controlled and are under low selective rates; thus studies of body form can provide evidence for evolutionarily short-term dispersals and/or gene flow. Following these observations, competing models of modern human origins yield different predictions concerning body proportion shifts in Late Pleistocene Europe. Replacement predicts that the earliest modern Europeans will possess “tropical” body proportions assuming Africa is the center of origin) (, while Regional Continuity permits only minor shifts in body shape, due to climatic change and/or improved cultural buffering. This study tests these predictions via analyses of osteometric data reflective of trunk height and breadth, limb proportions and relative body mass for samples of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP), Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) and Mesolithic (MES) humans and 13 recent African and European populations. 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. These data do not, however, preclude the possibility of some (albeit small) contribution of genes from Neandertals to succeeding populations, as is postulated in Bräuer’s “Afro-European Sapiens” model.
and....
quote: Gough's Cave 1 (Somerset, England): an assessment of body size and shape
TRENTON W. HOLLIDAY a1 and STEVEN E. CHURCHILL a2
Abstract Stature, body mass, and body proportions are evaluated for the Cheddar Man (Gough's Cave 1) skeleton. Like many of his Mesolithic contemporaries, Gough's Cave 1 evinces relatively short estimated stature (ca. 166.2 cm [5′ 5′]) and low body mass (ca. 66 kg [146 lbs]). In body shape, he is similar to recent Europeans for most proportional indices. He differs, however, from most recent Europeans in his high crural index and tibial length/trunk height indices. Thus, while Gough's Cave 1 is characterized by a total morphological pattern considered ‘cold-adapted’, these latter two traits may be interpreted as evidence of a large African role in the origins of anatomically modern Europeans.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Sumer (Iraq)
Elam (Persia/Iran)
India/Pakistan
Cambodia
Thailand
Thailand
Vietnam
China Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: which include the ancient black Europeans
There was no ancient black Europeans, they were Asian derived Bay Area Chinese-looking people, just ask Mindless. lol
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
MindoverMatter718 - No lie except your own. Europeans were not black during the Neolithic.
Hopefully you will present at least some scientific evidence to refute the below....
I got pictures of artifacts excavated by non-lying White Boys, what have you got?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^You were beginning to show hope of actually understanding; what happened?
LOL, at least you fooled American /Patriot into falsely believing your argument might have merit which gave him enough courage to attempt entering the thread. No worries, that's the last we'll hear from that dunce!
I assumed your European time frame was consistent with the "Europeans recently turned white" due to magic gene article you and Rasol promoted and championed as gospel. What was that date again? Somewhere less than 5000 years ago as I recall.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^You were beginning to show hope of actually understanding; what happened?
I assumed you Europeans time frame was consistent with the "Europeans recently turned white" due to magic gene article you and Rasol promoted and championed as gospel.
Ad Nauseum,
Explained a million times, humans in northern latitudes would have needed an immense intake of Vitamin D to keep atleast the melanin level of the Inuit.
Inuit are hunter gatherers; while Europeans are not, since Europeans adopted farming from migrants during the Neolithic.
Without this Vitamin D intake that early Europeans were receiving via their hunter gatherer lifestyle, that they left via adoption of farming from incoming migrants, Europeans were then subject to a more pale whiter complexion to allow more sun in to be able to synthesize and produce Vitamin D.
quote: Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story
Dr. Wells, of the National Geographic Society, said Dr. Pritchard's results were fascinating and would help anthropologists explain the immense diversity of human populations even though their genes are generally similar. The relative handful of selected genes that Dr. Pritchard's study has pinpointed may hold the answer, he said, adding, "Each gene has a story of some pressure we adapted to."
Dr. Wells is gathering DNA from across the globe to map in finer detail the genetic variation brought to light by the HapMap project.
Dr. Pritchard's list of selected genes also includes five that affect skin color. The selected versions of the genes occur solely in Europeans and are presumably responsible for pale skin. Anthropologists have generally assumed that the first modern humans to arrive in Europe some 45,000 years ago had the dark skin of their African origins, but soon acquired the paler skin needed to admit sunlight for vitamin D synthesis.
The finding of five skin genes selected 6,600 years ago could imply that Europeans acquired their pale skin much more recently. Or, the selected genes may have been a reinforcement of a process established earlier, Dr. Pritchard said. The five genes show no sign of selective pressure in East Asians.
Because Chinese and Japanese are also pale, Dr. Pritchard said, evolution must have accomplished the same goal in those populations by working through different genes or by changing the same genes — but many thousands of years before, so that the signal of selection is no longer visible to the new test.
...and indeed consistent with,
quote: Early Europeans Unable To Stomach Milk
The first direct evidence that early Europeans were unable to digest milk has been found by scientists at UCL (University College London) and Mainz University.
In a study, published in the journal 'PNAS', the team shows that the gene that controls our ability to digest milk was missing from Neolithic skeletons dating to between 5840 and 5000 BC.
Which is then consistent (of course), with the spread of farming during this time (Neolithic), and genes which influence changes that occur due to switch in diet of agro-pastoralist societies...
quote:Dr. Pritchard's scan of the human genome differs from the previous two because he has developed a statistical test to identify just genes that have started to spread through populations in recent millennia and have not yet become universal, as many advantageous genes eventually do.
The selected genes he has detected fall into a handful of functional categories, as might be expected if people were adapting to specific changes in their environment. Some are genes involved in digesting particular foods like the lactose-digesting gene common in Europeans. Some are genes that mediate taste and smell as well as detoxify plant poisons, perhaps signaling a shift in diet from wild foods to domesticated plants and animals.
Dr. Pritchard estimates that the average point at which the selected genes started to become more common under the pressure of natural selection is 10,800 years ago in the African population and 6,600 years ago in the Asian and European populations.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: The finding of five skin genes selected 6,600 years ago could imply that Europeans acquired their pale skin much more recently.
So, as I ACCURATELY stated, this places YOUR Europeans well within the time frame of wide spread availability of animal domestication which were introduced by earlier African Europeans.
Neglecting, of course the inaccuracy of your article which disregards the fact that these genetic mutations migrated from Africa with Africans.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
Because Chinese and Japanese are also pale, Dr. Pritchard said, evolution must have accomplished the same goal in those populations by working through different genes or by changing the same genes — but many thousands of years before, so that the signal of selection is no longer visible to the new test.
Listen to this guy giving himself the answers he needs to prop up his argument. Priceless. Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Asia is the SECOND most pervasive region for Albinism. Coincidence?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
meninarmer - Can you say going in circles. He will always find some off-the-wall study by some off-the-wall lying White boy, talking nonsense to ignorant White people, desperate to hold onto their White myths. But no matter how hard they try, they can't get past this capitulation by the non-lying White Boys.
Article from Wiki: What is known about the Proto-Indo-Europeans with any certainty is the result of comparative linguistics of the Indo-European languages, partly supported by archaeology. The following traits are widely agreed-upon, but are hypothetical due to their reconstructed nature. However, the genetic phenotypes that describe them are accepted. The Proto-Indo-Europeans were a patrilineal society, probably semi-nomadic, relying on animal husbandry (notably cattle and sheep). They had domesticated the horse (*eḱwos). The cow (*gwous) played a central role, in religion and mythology as well as in daily life. A man's wealth would have been measured by the number of his animals (*peḱus, the word for small livestock, acquired a meaning of "value" in both English fee and in Latin pecunia).
They practiced a polytheistic religion centered on sacrificial rites, probably administered by a priestly caste. Burials in barrows or tomb chambers apply to the kurgan culture, in accordance with the original version of the Kurgan hypothesis, but not to the previous Sredny Stog culture nor to the contemporary Corded Ware culture, both of which cultures are also generally associated with PIE (Proto Indo-European). Important leaders would have been buried with their belongings in kurgans, and possibly also with members of their household or wives (human sacrifice, suttee). There is evidence for sacral kingship, suggesting the tribal king at the same time assumed the role of high priest (cf. Germanic king). Many Indo-European societies know a threefold division of a clerical class, a warrior class and a class of peasants or husbandmen.
Such a division was suggested for the Proto-Indo-European society by Georges Dumézil. If there had been a separate class of warriors, then it would probably have consisted of single young men. They would have followed a separate warrior code unacceptable in the society outside their peer-group. Traces of initiation rites in several Indo-European societies suggest that this group identified itself with wolves or dogs (see also Berserker, werewolf). Technologically, reconstruction suggests a culture of the early Bronze Age: Bronze was used to make tools and weapons. Silver and gold were known. Sheep were kept for wool, and weaving was practiced for textile production. The wheel was known, certainly for ox-drawn carts, and late Proto-Indo European warfare may also have made use of horse-drawn chariots. The native name of this people cannot be reconstructed with certainty. Aryo-, sometimes upheld as a self-identification of the Indo-Europeans (see Aryan), is attested as an ethnic designation only in the Indo-Iranian subfamily.
Origins The scholars of the 19th century who first tackled the question of the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans (also called Urheimat after the German term), were essentially confined to linguistic evidence. A rough localization was attempted by reconstructing the names of plants and animals (importantly the beech and the salmon) as well as the culture and technology (a Bronze Age culture centered on animal husbandry and having domesticated the horse). The scholarly opinions became basically divided between a European hypothesis, positing migration from Europe to Asia, and an Asian hypothesis, holding that the migration took place in the opposite direction.
However, in the 20th century it was often assumed the spread of the language was due to the invasions of an Aryan race. Such hypotheses suffered an extremely severe distortion for purposes of political propaganda by the Nazis. The question is still the source of much contention. Typically, nationalistic schools of thought either claim their respective territories for the original homeland, or maintain that their own culture and language have always been present in their area, dismissing the concept of Proto-Indo-Europeans altogether (see Aryan race, Aryan invasion theory, Eurocentrism, Paleolithic Continuity Theory). Archaeology Scheme of Indo-European migrations from ca. 4000 to 1000 BC according to the Kurgan hypothesis. The purple area corresponds to the assumed Urheimat (Samara culture, Sredny Stog culture). The red area corresponds to the area which may have been settled by Indo-European-speaking peoples up to ca. 2500 BC; the orange area to 1000 BC.
There have been many attempts to claim that particular prehistorical cultures can be identified with the PIE-speaking peoples, but all have been speculative. All attempts to identify an actual people with an unattested language depend on a sound reconstruction of that language that allows identification of cultural concepts and environmental factors which may be associated with particular cultures (such as the use of metals, agriculture vs. pastoralism, geographically distinctive plants and animals, etc).
In the 20th century, Marija Gimbutas created the Kurgan hypothesis, a modern variation of the traditional invasion theory. The name is after the Kurgans (burial mounds) of the Eurasian steppes. The hypothesis is that the Indo-Europeans were a nomadic tribe of the Pontic-Caspian steppe (today Eastern Ukraine and Southern Russia) and expanded in several waves during the 3rd millennium BC. Their expansion coincided with the taming of the horse. Leaving archaeological signs of their presence (see battle-axe people), they subjugated the peaceful European Neolithic farmers of Gimbutas's Old Europe. As Gimbutas's beliefs evolved, she put increasing emphasis on the patriarchal, patrilinear nature of the invading culture, sharply contrasting it with the supposedly egalitarian, if not matrilinear culture of the invaded, to a point of formulating essentially feminist archaeology.
Her theory has found genetic support in remains from the Neolithic culture of Scandinavia, where bone remains in Neolithic graves indicated that the megalith culture was either matrilocal or matrilineal as the people buried in the same grave were related through the women. Likewise there is evidence of remaining matrilineal traditions among the Picts. A modified form of this theory by JP Mallory, dating the migrations earlier to around 4000 BC and putting less insistence on their violent or quasi-military nature, is still widely held.
The "Anatolian hypothesis" is that the Indo-European languages spread peacefully into Europe from Asia Minor from around 7000 BC with the advance of farming (wave of advance). The leading propagator of the theory is Colin Renfrew. However, this theory is contradicted by the fact that ancient Anatolia is known to have been inhabited by non-Indo-European people, namely the Hattians, Khalib/Karub, and Khaldi/Kardi. Also, the culture of the Indo-Europeans as inferred by linguistic reconstruction, contradicts this theory, since the early Neolithic cultures in Anatolia had neither the horse, nor the wheel, nor metal, terms for all of which are securely reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European. Yet another theory is connected with the Black Sea deluge theory, suggesting that PIE originated as the language of trade between early Neolithic Black Sea tribes.[5] Under this hypothesis, University of Pennsylvania archaeologist Fredrik T. Hiebert hypothesizes that the transition from PIE to IE dispersion occurred during an inundation of the Black Sea in the mid 6th millennium BC.[6] Genetics
The rise of archaeogenetic evidence which uses genetic analysis to trace migration patterns also added new elements to the puzzle. Cavalli-Sforza and Alberto Piazza argue that Renfrew and Gimbutas reinforce rather than contradict each other. Cavalli-Sforza (2000) states that "It is clear that, genetically speaking, peoples of the Kurgan steppe descended at least in part from people of the Middle Eastern Neolithic who immigrated there from Turkey." Piazza & Cavalli-Sforza (2006) state that:
if the expansions began at 9,500 years ago from Anatolia and at 6,000 years ago from the Yamnaya culture region, then a 3,500-year period elapsed during their migration to the Volga-Don region from Anatolia, probably through the Balkans. There a completely new, mostly pastoral culture developed under the stimulus of an environment unfavourable to standard agriculture, but offering new attractive possibilities. Our hypothesis is, therefore, that Indo-European languages derived from a secondary expansion from the Yamnaya culture region after the Neolithic farmers, possibly coming from Anatolia and settled there, developing pastoral nomadism.
Spencer Wells suggests that the origin, distribution and age of the R1a1 haplotype points to an ancient migration, possibly corresponding to the spread by the Kurgan people in their expansion across the Eurasian steppe around 3000 BC. About his old teacher's proposal, Wells (2002) states that "there is nothing to contradict this model, although the genetic patterns do not provide clear support either," and instead argues that the evidence is much stronger for Gimbutas' model: while we see substantial genetic and archaeological evidence for an Indo-European migration originating in the southern Russian steppes, there is little evidence for a similarly massive Indo-European migration from the Middle East to Europe. (comment - Wells seems to be the only one with a brain)
One possibility is that, as a much earlier migration (8,000 years old, as opposed to 4,000), the genetic signals carried by Indo-European-speaking farmers may simply have dispersed over the years. There is clearly some genetic evidence for migration from the Middle East, as Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues showed, but the signal is not strong enough for us to trace the distribution of Neolithic languages throughout the entirety of Indo-European-speaking Europe. High concentrations of Mesolithic or late Paleolithic YDNA haplogroups of types R1b (typically well above 35%) and I (up to 25%), are thought to derive ultimately of the robust Eurasiatic Cro Magnoid homo sapiens of the Aurignacian culture, and the subsequent gracile leptodolichomorphous people of the Gravettian culture that entered Europe from the Middle East 20,000 to 25,000 years ago, respectively.[7]
Small Neolithic additions can be concerned in occurrences of "Anatolian" haplogroups J2, G, F and E3b1a, the latter presenting a clearly Northeastern African element.[8][9] Haplogroup R1a1, whose lineage is thought to have originated in the Eurasian Steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas, is associated with the Kurgan culture,[10] as well as with the postglacial Ahrensburg culture which has been suggested to have spread the gene originally.[11] On the other hand Dupuy and his colleagues proposed the ancestors of Scandinavian men from Haplogroup Hg P*(xR1a) or R1b (Y-DNA) to have brought Ahrensburg "culture" and stressed genetic similarity with Germany.[12] Ornella Semino et al. propose a postglacial spread of the R1a1 gene from the Ukrainian LGM refuge, subsequently magnified by the expansion of the Kurgan culture into Europe and eastward.[13]
Haplogroup R1a Distribution R1a1 is most prevalent in Poland, Russia, and Ukraine, and is also observed in Pakistan, India and central Asia. R1a1 is largely confined east of the Vistula gene barrier[14] and drops considerably to the west: R1a1 measurements read 6.2% to Germans (a 4X drop to Czechs and Slovakians reading 26,7%) and 3.7% to Dutch.[15] The spread of Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup R1a1 has been associated with the spread of the Indo-European languages too. The mutations that characterize haplogroup R1a occurred ~10,000 years bp. Its defining mutation (M17) occurred about 10,000 to 14,000 years ago.
The present-day population of R1b, with extremely high peaks in Western Europe and measured up to the eastern confines of Central Asia, are believed to be the descendants of a refugium in the Iberian peninsula (Portugal and Spain) at the Last Glacial Maximum, where the haplogroup may have achieved genetic homogeneity. As conditions eased with the Allerød Oscillation in about 12,000 BC, descendants of this group migrated and eventually recolonised all of Western Europe, leading to the dominant position of R1b in variant degrees from Iberia to Scandinavia, so evident in haplogroup maps. The most common subclade is R1b1b2a, that has a maximum in Frisia (the Netherlands). It may have originated towards the end of the last ice age, or perhaps more or less 7000 BC, possibly in the northern European mainland[16] and a close match of the present–day distribution of S21 and the territorial pattern of the Eastern Corded Ware cultures and the Single Grave cultures has been observed.[17]
Developments in genetics take away much of the edge of the sometimes heated controversies about invasions. While findings confirm that there were population movements both related to the beginning Neolithic and the beginning Bronze Age, corresponding to Renfrew's and Gimbutas's Indo-Europeans, respectively, the genetic record obviously cannot yield any direct information as to the language spoken by these groups. The current interpretation of genetic data suggests a strong genetic continuity in Europe; specifically, studies of mtDNA by Bryan Sykes show that about 80% of the genetic stock of Europeans originated in the Paleolithic, suggesting that languages tend to spread geographically by cultural contact rather than by replacement. However, absence of unequivocal indications of underpinning unidirectional population movements fail to settle theories on Indo European language assimilation. This notion already gave rise to a new incarnation of the "European hypothesis" suggesting more local continuity, and holding the Indo-European culture to be the result of many local developments that shared certain wide range common ideas.
Glottochronology Using stochastic models of word evolution to study the presence/absence of different words across Indo-European, Gray & Atkinson suggest that the origin of Indo-European goes back about 8500 years, the first split being that of Hittite from the rest (Indo-Hittite hypothesis).They go to great lengths to avoid the problems associated with traditional approaches to glottochronology. However, their calculations rely entirely on Swadesh lists, and while the results are quite robust for well attested branches, their calculation of the age of Hittite, which is crucial for the Anatolian claim, rests on a 200 word Swadesh list of one single language and are regarded as contentious. A more recent paper analyzing (Atkinson et al., 2005) 24 mostly ancient languages, including three Anatolian languages, produced the same time estimates and early Anatolian split.
A scenario that could reconcile Renfrew's beliefs with the Kurgan hypothesis suggests that Indo-European migrations are somehow related to the submersion of the northeastern part of the Black Sea around 5600 BC: while a splinter group who became the proto-Hittite speakers moved into northeastern Anatolia around 7000 BC, the remaining population would have gone northward, evolving into the Kurgan culture, while others may have escaped far to the northeast (Tocharians) and the southeast (Indo-Iranians). While the time-frame of this scenario is consistent with Renfrew, it is incompatible with his core assumption that Indo-European spread with the advance of agriculture.
Of course, the spreading of IE as a trade language does not need to be based upon a Black Sea deluge. Since the genetic and archaeological evidence, especially in western Europe, shows little support for the Kurgan theory, it may be easier and more scientific to see the spread of Indo-European languages as the spread of a common language among diverse mesolithic groups that permitted entry into the marketplace of ideas and technologies that arrived in the Neolithic period.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: The finding of five skin genes selected 6,600 years ago could imply that Europeans acquired their pale skin much more recently.
So, as I ACCURATELY stated, this places YOUR Europeans well within the time frame of wide spread availability of animal domestication which were introduced by earlier African Europeans.
Not by "African Europeans", but by Africans from Africa, and there was also influence via the so called near east.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: The finding of five skin genes selected 6,600 years ago could imply that Europeans acquired their pale skin much more recently.
Neglecting, of course the inaccuracy of your article which disregards the fact that these genetic mutations migrated from Africa with Africans.
Are you slow? This is all consistent with an RAO/OOA origin for all modern humans.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Wrong again. It is consistent, and falls directly in line with OOA.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Because Chinese and Japanese are also pale, Dr. Pritchard said, evolution must have accomplished the same goal in those populations by working through different genes or by changing the same genes — but many thousands of years before, so that the signal of selection is no longer visible to the new test.
Listen to this guy giving himself the answers he needs to prop up his argument. Priceless.
Ad Nauseum....
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
The convergent evolution of pale skin in Europeans and East Asians, was completely independent of Africans and of each other, so even if Asians became lighter around 15ky before humans in Europe, this would have no bearing on Europeans at all. Especially since ancestors of both populations split over 40kya.
quote: Signatures of Positive Selection in Genes Associated with Human Skin Pigmentation as Revealed from Analyses of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms
KEYWORDS human pigmentation • skin color • positive selection • genetic adaptation • Perlegen database • SNP • EHH test 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**.
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 MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Article from Wiki:
Mike the Wikipedia scholar; great. Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Of no surprise, those genetic mutations (OCA2, TYRP1, KITLG, EGFR and DRD2)are also found in African Albinos. Too bad the author of your article neglected to include African Albinos in his samples or he would have known..or did he? Nevertheless, this being the case, where is the SOURCE?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ Of no surprise, those genetic mutations (OCA2, TYRP1, KITLG, EGFR and DRD2)are also found in African Albinos. So where is the SOURCE?
These are associated with the melanin pathway in all humans.
quote: 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.
Europeans are no different, and neither are Asians; they don't come from outer space as Mike believes.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by me-no-narmer: ^ Wrong again. It is consistent, and falls directly in line with OOA.
Umm, this is what I said.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ Of no surprise, those genetic mutations (OCA2, TYRP1, KITLG, EGFR and DRD2)are also found in African Albinos. So where is the SOURCE?
These are associated with the melanin pathway in all humans.
Being they are the same, from where did they originate, Asia, Europe, or Africa?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ Of no surprise, those genetic mutations (OCA2, TYRP1, KITLG, EGFR and DRD2)are also found in African Albinos. So where is the SOURCE?
These are associated with the melanin pathway in all humans.
Being they are the same, from where did they originate, Asia, Europe, or Africa?
All humans alive today can ultimately trace their DNA back to Africa.
In turn, all non Africans descend from a subset of East Africans which is identified by all non Africans carrying M168...
quote: Cavalli-Sforza: Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution. Pg 187.
..."In other words, all non-Africans carry M168. Of course, Africans carrying the M168 mutation today are the descendants of the African subpopulation from which the migrants originated.... Thus, the Australian/Eurasian Adam (the ancestor of all non-Africans) was an East African Man."
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ I don't believe Mike thinks Europeans originate from outer space. In fact, he likely agrees with you that Europeans originate from African Albinos.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
On the basis of these results and other similar work, we provide atentativethree-population model (West Africa, East Asia and North Europe) of the evolutionary–genetic architecture of human pigmentation. These resultssuggest a complex evolutionary history, with selection acting on different gene targets at different times and places in the human past. Some candidate genesmay have been selectedin the ancestral human population, others in the ‘out of Africa’ proto European-Asian population, whereas mostappear to haveselectively evolved solely in either Europeans or East Asians separately despite the pigmentation similarities between these two populations. Selection signatures can provide importantcluesto aid gene discovery. [Which may be forthcoming somewhere down the line.] However, these should be viewed as complements, [don't want to take a chance they might be wrong I see] rather than replacements of, functional studies including linkage and association analyses, which can directly refine our understanding of the trait.
Can I get a witness up in heah. Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ I don't believe Mike thinks Europeans originate from outer space.
Mike doesn't know what to believe.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: In fact, he likely agrees with you that Europeans originate from African Albinos.
This is actually your pathetic approach at explaining human diversity; and it's failed miserably in the face of actual scientific data.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: On the basis of these results and other similar work, we provide atentativethree-population model (West Africa, East Asia and North Europe) of the evolutionary–genetic architecture of human pigmentation. These resultssuggest a complex evolutionary history, with selection acting on different gene targets at different times and places in the human past. Some candidate genesmay have been selectedin the ancestral human population, others in the ‘out of Africa’ proto European-Asian population, whereas mostappear to haveselectively evolved solely in either Europeans or East Asians separately despite the pigmentation similarities between these two populations. Selection signatures can provide importantcluesto aid gene discovery. [Which may be forthcoming somewhere down the line.] However, these should be viewed as complements, [don't want to take a chance they might be wrong I see] rather than replacements of, functional studies including linkage and association analyses, which can directly refine our understanding of the trait.
Can I get a witness up in heah. [/qb]
This is why the numerous other studies that compliment it, and are also consistent further confirms this, and is great for science.
But, they make you sad though huh?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
This is actually your pathetic approach at explaining human diversity; and it's failed miserably in the face of actual scientific data. [/QB]
Human diversity is an African heritage. From the whitest African Albino to the darkest Sudanese, and everything in between. All of humanity are but a reflection of these contrasts.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
This is actually your pathetic approach at explaining human diversity; and it's failed miserably in the face of actual scientific data.
Human diversity is an African heritage. From the whitest African Albino to the darkest Sudanese, and everything in between. All of humanity are but a reflection of these contrasts.
Note;
Derivations of haplogroups did occur outside of Africa, and hence why we are able to identify if a population is mixed (Asian, African) etc...
I.e, like Europeans are totally consisted of Asian, and post OOA African derived lineages.
(Ex: E3b is post OOA African, J is Asian. Both present in Europeans as well.)
Now.....
All non Africans descend from a subset of East Africans, in fact, Europeans, Asians etc.. are but a subset of a subset of Africans who migrated from East Africa, and this is clearly indicative and confirmed through their (non Africans) decreased genetic and phenotypic diversity the further that non African population moved away from Africa.
quote: 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.
To ensure the validity of their single origin evidence the researchers attempted to use their data to find non-African origins for modern humans. Research Dr Francois Balloux explains: "To test the alternative theory for the origin of modern humans we tried to find an additional, non-African origin. We found this just did not work. Our findings show that humans originated in a single area in Sub-Saharan Africa."
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ I am pleased you finally see the light. It seems my hunch was correct that straight talk versus published papers resonate much better with you. I'm proud of your positive progress junior. Don't backstep and let me down. Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Europeans, Asians etc.. are but a subset of a subset of Africans who migrated from East Africa
But you said the European was a hybrid that came about as a result of the Asian and African that were fundamental units (races)! Now you say European and Asian are merely sub set of Africans? lol
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ I am pleased you finally see the light. It seems my hunch was correct that straight talk versus published papers resonate much better with you. I'm proud of your positive progress junior. Don't backstep and let me down.
It's ok, you can act as if you're teaching me.
As long as you're learning in the progress though.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Someone might be a lil mad.....
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
One in one hundred white Britons directly descended from an African or Asian
May 20 2001
DNA reveals black genes in white Britons
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
quote: ONE in every 100 "white" Britons is directly descended from an African or Asian, a new study has found. The study, which looked at the DNA of 10,000 people, found that many who believed their ancestry to be completely British were actually far more diverse.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: It's ok, you can act as if you're teaching me.
As long as you're learning in the progress though.
ALWAYS!!
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: It's ok, you can act as if you're teaching me.
As long as you're learning in the progress though.
ALWAYS!!
Hope so...
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Poor gringo, that article is a sort of red herring. The concept of "race" as biological entity is long debunked. Racial categories are really social constructs. Even the article's discourse buys into these constructs/categories as seen in there "white" and "black" Britons. Western society, built on these differences, will remain as such despite whats underneath. Note too the Dr. Rick Kittles and Shriver's collaboration. Despite the fact that Kittles has "strong European genetic admixture" yet he "looks black"; and those who look like him and have similar genetic make up will forever be seen and treated as BLACK.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
What did I tell you....
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Someone might be a lil mad.....
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
One in one hundred white Britons directly descended from an African or Asian
May 20 2001
DNA reveals black genes in white Britons
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
quote:ONE in every 100 "white" Britons is directly descended from an African or Asian, a new study has found. The study, which looked at the DNA of 10,000 people, found that many who believed their ancestry to be completely British were actually far more diverse.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Even the article's discourse buys into these constructs/categories as seen in there "white" and "black" Britons.
This aches your British (African and Asian) heart doesn't it??
The study, which looked at the DNA of 10,000 people, found that many who believed their ancestry to be completely British were actually far more diverse. Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Prey tell, what is "completely British"? Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Actually, the report is very insignificant. We already understand that invading Europeans admix with native populations, so what's the fuss or surprise?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Prey tell, what is "completely British"?
Ask your British father...
..he knows what they believe.
quote: found that many who believed their ancestry to be completely British
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^Ask your British father...
Lmao!!!!! And we're off again! Gringo runs as usual when asked to clarify his cut and paste studies.
Prey tell, what is "completely British"?
^ what does it mean... Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Look at the clown asking me to explain what his (the people who thought of themselves to be completely British) people consider to be completely British.
quote:ONE in every 100 "white" Britons is directly descended from an African or Asian, a new study has found. The study, which looked at the DNA of 10,000 people, found that many who believed their ancestry to be completely British were actually far more diverse.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
LOL
Gringo, you always seem to back yourself into a corner from which you can't get out. Now you posted the study but when asked to explain it you run away and when you finally decide to address it you come with your typical illiterate interpretation.
You have yet to answer the question, what is "completely British"?
First you imply that being British is really African and Asian. Now you say its people who "thought" themselves as such. But your article does not agree with you on any of this! It sees British as white and being "completely British" would mean you have no black or yellow ancestry!
So again you post a study that does not agree with you!
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: booooggagagagaglooooooo
....ask the numerous test subjects (about 10,000), and your father, what your people consider to be "completely British" as they're the ones who thought it.
Note;
quote:found that many who believed their ancestry to be completely British were actually far more diverse.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Burns your heart huh akoben..??
One in one hundred white Britons directly descended from an African or Asian
May 20 2001
DNA reveals black genes in white Britons
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
ONE in every 100 "white" Britons is directly descended from an African or Asian, a new study has found. The study, which looked at the DNA of 10,000 people, found that many who believed their ancestry to be completely British were actually far more diverse.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ask the numerous test subjects (about 10,000), and your father, what your people consider to be "completely British" as they're the ones who thought it.
Actually I'm asking you since you posted the study. But again it seems you didn't read it through to understand the racial implications. Essentially it is saying that to be "British" is to be "white", and those who came up as "directly descended from an African or Asian" are in fact not considered "completely British", i.e. pure white.
Can I hear the persistence of racial thinking? Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Actually I'm asking you since you posted the study.
Tell me how I would know about why the Britain's (your family) who were subjected to a DNA test (over 10,000 subjects) thought of themselves to be completely British? Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Actually I'm asking you since you posted the study.
Tell me how I would know about why the Britain's (your family) who were subjected to a DNA test thought of themselves to be completely British?
Exactly, why would you comprehend the implications of the studies you cut and paste from the net. You're a retard. My bad for blaming you. Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Actually I'm asking you since you posted the study.
Tell me how I would know about why the Britain's (your family) who were subjected to a DNA test (over 10,000 subjects) thought of themselves to be completely British?
Exactly
Ok then, great retard argument you presented. Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ point is gringo, the more you cut and paste from the net the more to demonstrate you don't know ****. lol
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ point is gringo, the more you cut and paste from the net the more to demonstrate you don't know ****. lol
So, umm.....I'm supposed to tell you why, out of 10,000 British subjects, some thought of themselves to be completely British?
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote: Prey tell, what is "completely British"?
quote:
deerrrrrr...uuummmmm...I'm supposed to tell you why, out British 10,000 subjects, some thought of themselves to be completely British?
Was that the question gringo? Read it over and try again, this time put a little more effort into it. I believe in you.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote: Prey tell, what is "completely British"?
quote:
I'm supposed to tell you why, out British 10,000 subjects, some thought of themselves to be completely British?
Was that the question gringo? Read it over and try again, this time put a little more effort into it. I believe in you.
I told you to ask the Britain's (your father) who were tested.
Again,
Am I supposed to tell you why, out of 10,000 British subjects, some thought of themselves to be completely British?
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Burns your heart huh akoben..??
One in one hundred white Britons directly descended from an African or Asian
May 20 2001
DNA reveals black genes in white Britons
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
ONE in every 100 "white" Britons is directly descended from an African or Asian, a new study has found. The study, which looked at the DNA of 10,000 people, found that many who believed their ancestry to be completely British were actually far more diverse.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Oh and while you're trying to by time and squirm your way out of this latest predicament, try taking a shot at this question too: are they saying there are "white genes" also, since DNA reveals "black genes" in white Britons that are not "completely British"?
This would square well with Sforza who believes there are white European genes in Black Americans, "Genetic analysis shows that African Americans have on average 30% of their gene pool from European (White American) genes"
So genes are color coded? Is this science?
Can I hear the persistence of racial thinking? Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Can I hear a distraught European (socially labeled white)?
Yes; I hear you akoben.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote: Prey tell, what is "completely British"?
quote:
I'm supposed to tell you why, out British 10,000 subjects, some thought of themselves to be completely British?
Was that the question gringo? Read it over and try again, this time put a little more effort into it. I believe in you.
I told you to ask the Britain's (your father) who were tested.
Again,
Am I supposed to tell you why, out of 10,000 British subjects, some thought of themselves to be completely British?
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Burns your heart huh akoben..??
One in one hundred white Britons directly descended from an African or Asian
May 20 2001
DNA reveals black genes in white Britons
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
ONE in every 100 "white" Britons is directly descended from an African or Asian, a new study has found. The study, which looked at the DNA of 10,000 people, found that many who believed their ancestry to be completely British were actually far more diverse.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horet:
Wait. There was barely anything else throughout the whole of SS africa resembling advanced civilization during the time of AE.
What set of scientific parameters are you basing this on?
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Gringo, run all you want, but you put yourself in another corner providing great comic relief once more.
Your favourite white scholar clearly sees "European gene" as "white" (just like the article you posted but fail to comprehend) thus putting color or "race" to genes. This of course contradicts your thesis that there are no Europeans, only African and Asians. I thought you said there were no whites genes??
Now that we know there are (because Sforza said it ) could it be these "white genes" that make the 99 out of one hundred "completely British"? Run but you can't hide, again.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Have fun trying to get someone to clear your Britain genetic history, where every 1 out of 100 are descended from an African or Asian.
This means YOU kid!!
..and ultimately all of Europe 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African......
Can I hear a distraught European (socially labeled white)?
Yes; I hear you akoben.
You can troll, troll, troll away.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote: Prey tell, what is "completely British"?
quote:
I'm supposed to tell you why, out British 10,000 subjects, some thought of themselves to be completely British?
Was that the question gringo? Read it over and try again, this time put a little more effort into it. I believe in you.
I told you to ask the Britain's (your father) who were tested.
Again,
Am I supposed to tell you why, out of 10,000 British subjects, some thought of themselves to be completely British?
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Burns your heart huh akoben..??
One in one hundred white Britons directly descended from an African or Asian
May 20 2001
DNA reveals black genes in white Britons
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
ONE in every 100 "white" Britons is directly descended from an African or Asian, a new study has found. The study, which looked at the DNA of 10,000 people, found that many who believed their ancestry to be completely British were actually far more diverse.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Gringo, terms such as completely British are comparative in nature, meaning there are those who are and those who are not.
Now read with me gringo. DNA reveals black genes in white Britons. The article then goes on to show how many possess this "black genes", the ones who thought they were "completely British". Thus the rest are in fact "completely British", those that do not have this black gene? What do they have then that would make them completely British? What is completely British?
and ultimately all of Europe 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African...... (Fig. 3, which includes only aboriginal people - Sforza)
"The belief that any living population could be proto-African is fundamentally unsound." Keita Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: terms such as completely British are comparative in nature, meaning there are those who are and those who are not.
Exactly!
So, out of 10,000 British subjects, some thought of themselves to be completely British, and I am supposed to know why they did?
Meanwhile, 1 out of every 100 test subjects directly descends from an African or Asian.
Can I hear a distraught European (socially labeled white)?
Yes; I hear you akoben.
Have fun trying to get someone to clear your Britain genetic history, where every 1 out of 100 are descended from an African or Asian.
I pray for the day when you can provide genetic evidence that can refute the above.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Yes, while the other 99 are "completely British", they have no black genes. This is an interesting argument for someone who claims not to believe in race. lol
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Yes, while the other 99 are "completely British", they have no black genes.
Actually, 1 out of every 100 test subjects directly descends from an African or Asian.
I pray for the day when you can provide genetic evidence that can refute the above.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: This is an interesting argument for someone who claims not to believe in race. lol
Biologically, no.
Socially, Africans are labeled black, while Europeans are labeled white.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Notce how the troll has gone from the straw of...
"What is "completely British"?"
to
"What are black genes?"
Poor kid....
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Burns your heart huh akoben..??
One in one hundred white Britons directly descended from an African or Asian
May 20 2001
DNA reveals black genes in white Britons
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
ONE in every 100 "white" Britons is directly descended from an African or Asian, a new study has found. The study, which looked at the DNA of 10,000 people, found that many who believed their ancestry to be completely British were actually far more diverse.
Ad Nauseum.
Have fun trying to get someone to clear your Britain genetic history, where every 1 out of 100 are descended from an African or Asian.
I pray for the day when you can provide genetic evidence that can refute the above.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:I pray for the day when you can provide genetic evidence that can refute the above.
You artful dodger, you're only repeating what I said to avoid explaining your many contradictions the latest of which is your belief that the other 99 Britons are "completely British", that is, they have no black genes. Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Have fun trying to get someone to clear your Britain genetic history
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
First Genetic Evidence Of Long-lived African Presence Within Britain
ScienceDaily (Jan. 24, 2007) — New research has identified the first genetic evidence of Africans having lived amongst "indigenous" British people for centuries. Their descendants, living across the UK today, were unaware of their black ancestry.
The University of Leicester study, funded by the Wellcome Trust and published today in the journal European Journal of Human Genetics, found that one third of men with a rare Yorkshire surname carry a rare Y chromosome type previously found only amongst people of West African origin.
The researchers, led by Professor Mark Jobling, of the Department of Genetics at the University of Leicester, first spotted the rare Y chromosome type, known as hgA1, in one individual, Mr. X. This happened whilst PhD student Ms. Turi King was sampling a larger group in a study to explore the association between surnames and the Y chromosome, both inherited from father to son. Mr. X, a white Caucasian living in Leicester, was unaware of having any African ancestors.
"As you can imagine, we were pretty amazed to find this result in someone unaware of having any African roots," explains Professor Jobling, a Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellow. "The Y chromosome is passed down from father to son, so this suggested that Mr. X must have had African ancestry somewhere down the line. Our study suggests that this must have happened some time ago."
Although most of Britain's one million people who define themselves as "Black or Black British" owe their origins to immigration from the Caribbean and Africa from the mid-twentieth century onwards, in reality, there has been a long history of contact with Africa. Africans were first recorded in the north 1800 years ago, as Roman soldiers defending Hadrian's Wall.
To investigate the origins of hgA1 in Britain, the team recruited and studied a further eighteen males with the same surname as Mr. X. All but one were from the UK, with paternal parents and grandparents also born in Britain. Six, including one male in the US whose ancestors had migrated from England in 1894, were found to have the hgA1 chromosome.
Further genealogical research to identify a common ancestor for all seven X-surnamed males suggests that the hgA1 Y chromosome must have entered their lineage over 250 years ago. However, it is unclear whether the male ancestor was a first generation African immigrant or a European man carrying an African Y chromosome introduced into Britain some time earlier, or even whether the hgA1 Y chromosome goes back as far as the Roman occupation.
"This study shows that what it means to be British is complicated and always has been," says Professor Jobling. "Human migration history is clearly very complex, particularly for an island nation such as ours, and this study further debunks the idea that there are simple and distinct populations or 'races'."
In addition, Professor Jobling believes that the research may have implications for DNA profiling in criminal investigations.
"Forensic scientists use DNA analysis to predict a person's ethnic origins, for example from hair or blood samples found at a crime scene. Whilst they are very likely to predict the correct ethnicity by using wider analysis of DNA other than the Y chromosome, finding this remarkable African chromosome would certainly have them scratching their heads for a while." [/QB]
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:I pray for the day when you can provide genetic evidence that can refute the above.
You artful dodger, you're only repeating what I said to avoid explaining your many contradictions the latest of which is your belief that the other 99 Britons are "completely British", that is, they have no black genes.
Poor kid, it's 1 out of 100 are descended from an African or Asian. Not just African.
Whatever your family deems to be "completely British" is up to you and your family; you can start by asking your father later.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote: British is complicated and always has been.
Again your cut and paste embarrass you. Your previous article implies that to be "British" is to be "white", and therefore those with the "black gene" are not "completely British". Simple, no complication there.
Now your face saving follow up admits its "complicated", which would be closer to the truth since blacks were in Britain even before Anglo Saxons!
You lovable jackass, each and every time you cut and paste studies off the net I get a good laugh out of you. Good night gringo.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Burn, baby burn.... DISCO INFERNO!!
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Burns your heart huh akoben..??
One in one hundred white Britons directly descended from an African or Asian
May 20 2001
DNA reveals black genes in white Britons
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
ONE in every 100 "white" Britons is directly descended from an African or Asian, a new study has found. The study, which looked at the DNA of 10,000 people, found that many who believed their ancestry to be completely British were actually far more diverse.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote: British is complicated and always has been.
Your previous article implies that to be "British" is to be "white",
Actually, it's your Britain brothers who deemed themselves to be completely British.
Britain's are Europeans, and Europeans are in turn socially labeled white.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: and therefore those with the "black gene" are not "completely British". Simple, no complication there.
This is your interpretation as "completely British" derives from the test subjects and what they actually believed themselves to be; completely British.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Burns your heart huh akoben..??
One in one hundred white Britons directly descended from an African or Asian
May 20 2001
DNA reveals black genes in white Britons
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
ONE in every 100 "white" Britons is directly descended from an African or Asian, a new study has found. The study, which looked at the DNA of 10,000 people, found that many who believed their ancestry to be completely British were actually far more diverse.
^Well, the citation as presented above, does place white in quotation marks, suggesting that the authors are aware of the subjective nature of that descriptive; it implies that the said authors are going by what the said Brits identified themselves as. But then it talks of "black genes"; what genes are being so-called?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Now your face saving follow up admits its "complicated", which would be closer to the truth since blacks were in Britain even before Anglo Saxons!
What is complicated to Mark Jobling is explaining what is to be Britain. Some Britain's from the other study thought they knew what it was to be Britain.
Obviously to be Britain is what you make it, but genetically that's a different story.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: which would be closer to the truth since blacks were in Britain even before Anglo Saxons!
Actually, Africans (post OOA) made migrations into Europe well before then this man.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: But then it talks of "black genes"; what genes are being so-called?
I'd have to assume they'd be speaking upon African lineages.
I'll try to pull the full text.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Like ALL White people, the British have always ignored serious studies (like the one below), which clearly shows that they have NOTHING to do with ANCIENT Europeans. In favor of the nonsense (like the ones below 2), that feed their need for an illustrious past. As I have shown in my Scythian posts, their beginnings (White people) was wretched, and in the name of pride, they will continue to reject that past at any cost.
Until they can come to the point where they can proudly say "I descent from the worlds most wretched people, and I lied to cover it up, and now I apologize", there will be no change. The truth WILL set them free.
ANTHROPOLOGY The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form C. Loring Brace *, , Noriko Seguchi , Conrad B. Quintyn , Sherry C. Fox ¶ , A. Russell Nelson || , Sotiris K. Manolis ** , and Pan Qifeng * Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; Department of Anthropology, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812; Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Bloomsburg, PA 17815-1301; ¶ Weiner Laboratory, The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, GR-106 76 Athens, Greece; || Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; ** Faculty of Biology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, GR-157 81 Athens, Greece; and Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing 100710, People's Republic of China Communicated by Kent V. Flannery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, November 11, 2005 (received for review September 20, 2005) Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other. When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa. Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.
“The British Have changed little Since the Ice Age, a new Gene Study Says”. July 19, 2005
Despite invasions by Saxons, Romans, Vikings, Normans, and others, the genetic makeup of today's white Britons is much the same as it was 12,000 ago, a new book claims.
In The Tribes of Britain, archaeologist David Miles says around 80 percent of the genetic characteristics of most white Britons have been passed down from a few thousand Ice Age hunters. Miles, research fellow at the Institute of Archaeology in Oxford, England: says recent genetic and archaeological evidence puts a new perspective on the history of the British people. "There's been a lot of arguing over the last ten years, but it's now more or less agreed that about 80 percent of Britons' genes come from hunter-gatherers who came in immediately after the Ice Age," Miles said.
These nomadic tribes-people followed herds of reindeer and wild horses northward to Britain as the climate warmed. "Numbers were probably quite small—just a few thousand people," Miles added. These earliest settlers were later cut off as rising sea levels isolated Britain from mainland Europe.
New evidence for the genetic ancestry of modern Britons comes from analysis of blood groups, oxygen traces in teeth, and DNA samples taken from skeletal remains. These Ice Age hunter-gathers also colonized the rest of northwest Europe, spreading through what are now the Netherlands, Germany, and France. But Miles said differences between populations can be detected in random genetic mutations, which occurred over time.
The most visible British genetic marker is red hair, he added. The writer Tacitus noted the Romans' surprise at how common it was when they arrived 2,000 years ago. "It's something that foreign observers have often commented on," Miles said. "Recent studies have shown that there is more red hair in Scotland and Wales than anywhere else in the world. It's a mutation that probably occurred between 8,000 and 10,000 years ago."
BBC - Sunday, 30 June, 2002, 15:31 GMT 16:31 UK English and Welsh are races apart
Gene scientists claim to have found proof that the Welsh are the "true" Britons. The research supports the idea that Celtic Britain underwent a form of ethnic cleansing by Anglo-Saxons invaders following the Roman withdrawal in the fifth century. It suggests that between 50% and 100% of the indigenous population of what was to become England was wiped out, with Offa's Dyke acting as a "genetic barrier" protecting those on the Welsh side. And the upheaval can be traced to this day through genetic differences between the English and the Welsh.
Academics at University College in London comparing a sample of men from the UK with those from an area of the Netherlands where the Anglo-Saxons are thought to have originated found the English subjects had genes that were almost identical. But there were clear differences between the genetic make-up of Welsh people studied. The research team studied the Y-chromosome, which is passed almost unchanged from father to son, and looked for certain genetic markers. They chose seven market towns mentioned in the Domesday Book of 1086 and studied 313 male volunteers whose paternal grandfather had also lived in the area. They then compared this with samples from Norway and with Friesland, now a northern province of the Netherlands. The English and Frisians studied had almost identical genetic make-up but the English and Welsh were very different.
The researchers concluded the most likely explanation for this was a large-scale Anglo-Saxon invasion, which devastated the Celtic population of England, but did not reach Wales. Dr Mark Thomas, of the Centre for Genetic Anthropology at UCL, said their findings suggested that a migration occurred within the last 2,500 years. It reinforced the idea that the Welsh were the true indigenous Britons. In April last year, research for a BBC programme on the Vikings revealed strong genetic links between the Welsh and Irish Celts and the Basques of northern Spain and south France. It suggested a possible link between the Celts and Basques, dating back tens of thousands of years. The UCL research into the more recent Anglo-Saxon period suggested a migration on a huge scale. "It appears England is made up of an ethnic cleansing event from people coming across from the continent after the Romans left," he said.
Archaeologists after the Second World War rejected the traditionally held view that an Anglo-Saxon invasion pushed the indigenous Celtic Britons to the fringes of Britain. Instead, they said the arrival of Anglo-Saxon culture could have come from trade or a small ruling elite. But the latest research by the UCL team, "using genetics as a history book", appears to support the original view of a large-scale invasion of England. It suggests that the Welsh border was more of a genetic barrier to the Anglo-Saxon Y chromosome gene flow than the North Sea. Dr Thomas added: "Our findings completely overturn the modern view of the origins of the English."
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
In the name of fairness, it must be acknowledged that though the White race did indeed start as mankind’s most wretched creatures – whether they be Albinos’ or not. The old saying “adversity builds character and strength” does hold true for them. Because from their wretched beginnings, they went on to conquer or control every part of the world. The fact that Blacks “peacefully” settled every part of the world, before they came along, is indicative of the different natures of the races. Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:deerrr……Some Britain's from the other study thought they knew what it was to be Britain.
First of all one cannot be a "Britain" you illiterate.
Second, what they thought was that they were "completely British". Genetically they were not "completely British" like the rest, as the study showed.
So again your comprehension skills fail you on each and every turn gringo.
Note too that the authors are implying that there are in fact "white genes" (British), but only that some Britons have "black genes", you know, the not so "completely British" ones. LOL
Also this "black gene" is not even in connection with your favourite group the incoming Pygmies "Post OOA", but is explained as the result of Africans in Britain at the time brought as slaves and soldiers during the Roman occupation. Wow, how condescending. You're so dumb junior you can't even notice these subtle racist innuendos.
In fact what it does is underscore for example Van Sertima's argument that whenever blacks are found outside of Africa it is explained away as a result of whites bringing them there as slaves and the like.
So perpetuating old myths and stereotypes seems to be your contribution to the struggle eh gringo? Dr. Ben would be proud. LOL
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^Ha Ha Ha Ha....that ONE in every 100 "white" Britons is directly descended from an African or Asian is hurting your heart; huh?
Just let me know if you find genetic evidence that refutes it this time.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ANTHROPOLOGY The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form C. Loring Brace *,
Mike this has been explained to you a million times.
Europeans don't resemble their ancestors cranio-facially, but they do genetically.
Ad Nauseum.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
MindoverMatter718 Quote: - Europeans don't resemble their ancestors cranio-facially, but they do genetically.
Show me.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Tick tick.
Posted by carambolas (Member # 16060) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: In the name of fairness, it must be acknowledged that though the White race did indeed start as mankind’s most wretched creatures – whether they be Albinos’ or not. The old saying “adversity builds character and strength” does hold true for them. Because from their wretched beginnings, they went on to conquer or control every part of the world. The fact that Blacks “peacefully” settled every part of the world, before they came along, is indicative of the different natures of the races.
European colonization did "control" large parts of the world, but that interval was trivial as far as historic time is measured. The era of European hegemony in China for example lasted only a century or so, or less, depending on where one starts, hardly impressive on the time scale compared to the 1,500 years and more of previous Chinese civilization. British hegemony in India was longer, but even that pales to the long time cycle before. And non-white peoples have not exactly been paragons on the "non-violence" scale. The Mongols for example conquered the largest land empire in world history, greater than Rome, including parts of Europe. Throw in the Turks, Moors, ancient Egyptians and other peoples and the picture is even more complicated. So I don't know where you get this "different naure" of the races from.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: MindoverMatter718 Quote: - Europeans don't resemble their ancestors cranio-facially, but they do genetically.
Show me.
Uni-parental(Y-DNA and Mtdna) map of Europe, some of which are UEP derived, others are post OOA African derived.
Note; remember, ancestors of Europeans and East Asians also diverged around 45kya.
DNA sequences from ancient speciments may in fact result from undetected contamination of the ancient specimens by modern DNA, and the problem is particularly challenging in studies of human fossils. Doubts on the authenticity of the available sequences have so far hampered genetic comparisons between anatomically archaic (Neandertal) and early modern (Cro-Magnoid) Europeans.
Methodology/Principal Findings
We typed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) hypervariable region I in a 28,000 years old Cro-Magnoid individual from the Paglicci cave, in Italy (Paglicci 23) and in all the people who had contact with the sample since its discovery in 2003. The Paglicci 23 sequence, determined through the analysis of 152 clones, is the Cambridge reference sequence, and cannot possibly reflect contamination because it differs from all potentially contaminating modern sequences.
Conclusions/Significance:
The Paglicci 23 individual carried a mtDNA sequence that is still common in Europe, and which radically differs from those of the almost contemporary Neandertals, demonstrating a genealogical continuity across 28,000 years, from Cro-Magnoid to modern Europeans. Because all potential sources of modern DNA contamination are known, the Paglicci 23 sample will offer a unique opportunity to get insight for the first time into the nuclear genes of early modern Europeans.
Besides the early anatomically modern humans who were found in the Cro-Magnon caves (hence dubbed Cro-Magnon); there were of course; others.
These others, were also named after places that anatomically modern humans were found in Europe, and all specimens found, resembled their African ancestors.
While also carrying DNA that is consistent with the modern inhabitants of Europe.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Continued....
Two quotes from the same study (European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals) , first quote gives you the names of other anatomically modern humans who were found in Europe, the other confirms the interpretation is in agreement with current analysis of recent and past human **molecular data**..
The resultant sample, temporally secured through direct dating and/or careful excavation, consists of specimens from the sites of Brassempouy (22), Cioclovina (23), Mladecˇ (24–27), Muierii (28), Oase (21, 29), Les Rois (30), and La Quina Aval (31)
quote:A consideration of the morphological aspects of the earliest modern humans in Europe (more than 33,000 B.P.) and the subsequent Gravettian human remains indicates that they possess an anatomical pattern congruent with the autapomorphic (derived) morphology of the earliest (Middle Paleolithic) African modern humans. However, they exhibit a variable suite of features that are either distinctive Neandertal traits and/or plesiomorphic (ancestral) aspects that had been lost among the African Middle Paleolithic modern humans. These features include aspects of neurocranial shape, basicranial external morphology, mandibular ramal and symphyseal form, dental morphology and size, and anteroposterior dental proportions, as well as aspects of the clavicles, scapulae, metacarpals, and appendicular proportions. The ubiquitous and variable presence of these morphological features in the European earlier modern human samples can only be parsimoniously explained as a product of modest levels of assimilation of Neandertals into early modern human populations as the latter dispersed across Europe. This interpretation is in agreement with current analyses of recent and past human molecular data.
As far as the Neanderthal traits found in early Europeans modern humans, they are simply pleismorphic traits (primitive) found in all early modern humans throughout the world, of which are also found in Africa.
"Omo I," as the researchers refer to the find, would probably have been considered healthy-looking and handsome by today's standards, despite the touch of Neanderthal.
"From the size of the preserved bones, we estimated that Omo I was tall and slender, most likely around 5'10" tall and about 155 pounds," University of New Mexico anthropologist Osbjorn Pearson, who co-authored at least two of the new papers, told Discovery News.
Pearson said another, later fossil was also recently found. It too belonged to a "moderately tall -- around 5'9" -- and slender individual."
"Taken together, the remains show that these early modern humans were...much like the people in southern Ethiopia and the southern Sudan today," Pearson said.
quote: A description of the Omo I postcranial skeleton, including newly discovered fossils
Osbjorn M. Pearson
Journal of Human Evolution
August 2008 "While it once may have been reasonable to interpret the presence of these ‘‘Neandertal-like’’ features in Eurasian early modern humans as potential evidence of gene flow from neighboring and contemporaneous Neandertal populations, the presence of these features in Omo I raises the distinct possibility that Eurasian early modern humans inherited these features from an African ancestor rather than Neandertals."
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
carambolas - It's called kicking him when he is down - certainly gratuitous, but who's perfect?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ LOL, He's resorted to Cut and Pasting Rasol's posts.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
MindoverMatter718 - Quote: "Besides the early anatomically modern humans who were found in the Cro-Magnon caves (hence dubbed Cro-Magnon); there were of course; others.
These others, were also named after places that anatomically modern humans were found in Europe, and all specimens found, resembled their African ancestors.
While also carrying DNA that is consistent with the modern inhabitants of Europe."
These others Means that they were not the SAME as modern humans (Black people)
and all specimens found, resembled their African ancestors.
Means that though they were NOT modern humans, they looked like modern humans.
CONGRATULATIONS! MindoverMatter718 - You have just proven that WHITE PEOPLE are NOT really HUMANS. NOI might have been right!!!
Is this what awaits us Black people? Was this movie a subliminal warning?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^I'm in real trouble folks! It's been a long time since I saw the movie, and I have forgotten what you're suppose to do in order to defeat them - HELP!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^I may still have a fighting chance. The Lassa of Togo have just sent word that they are sending these two gentlemen to help me - not a Minute too soon.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ LOL, He's resorted to Cut and Pasting Rasol's posts.
rasols posts?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: These others Means that they were not the SAME as modern humans (Black people)
A consideration of the morphological aspects of the earliest modern humans in Europe (more than 33,000 B.P.) and the subsequent Gravettian human remains indicates that they possess an anatomical pattern congruent with the autapomorphic (derived) morphology of the earliest (Middle Paleolithic) African modern humans.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
LATEST UPDATE!!
Just got further word from The Lassa of Togo. They say that though their Witch Doctors are very effective when White people try to put us humans in the Pea Pod type things. They are completely in-effective when White people use the dreaded "Ceti eel" on us. (You remember that the Ceti eel is a burrowing desert animal native to the planet Ceti Alpha V - Khan used it on Chekov in Star trek.)
I almost freaked out when I heard that, but then I got a call from my old flame in Nassau.
She said the though the Ceti eel is indeed formidable, he does have a weakness. Apparently he is a horny little devil, and he likes Black Women.
So she is sending her friend Hottie to help me. Seems all I have to do is have Hottie do this...
And when the Ceti eel turns to look, I just chop him at the back of the neck. Things are definitely looking up!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
LATEST UPDATE!
Good morning everybody, this is day two of the world wide emergency that began when MindoverMatter718 proved conclusively that White people weren't really Modern Humans. So I naturally concluded that the NOI was right and that White people had to be aliens from outer space intent on taking over our minds and bodies.
Let me say right away how grateful I am to all my friends all over the world who are helping me defend myself against bodily takeover by the White invaders.
As promised - The Togo Witch Doctors came in on the early flight.
And Hottie came in on the late flight.
But I'm starting to have doubts about the witch doctors though. As soon as Hottie showed up, they became very animated and started talking excitedly about playing some kind of train thing or other. Can you imagine, at a time of world wide emergency, they want to play games. Hell, I didn't even know that they had trains in Togo.
Anyway, I would have none of it, I sent the witch doctors off to bed, while Hottie and I practiced our defensive moves. It stayed up all night, (I mean I stayed up all night and practiced).
But wouldn't you know it, first thing this morning, the witch doctors are at it again. They want to play this stupid train game with her. Luckily, Hottie seems to know something about how to play the game, so she said that she would take them upstairs and play quietly. That way I could have some peace and quiet to write this update.
So that's where things stand right now, so far so good.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^Just got a PM from Clyde, he said that I really should check on Hottie and the witch doctors upstairs. Seems he got some bad reports about them from an earlier emergency.
But everything seems quiet, as a matter of fact, I think that I heard Hottie tell them that they should really take off those hot costumes and get comfortable.
So I will leave them to play quietly, while I sit on the front steps with my shotgun. If the White aliens attack, I will be ready. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^Some might think it ironic, that after all of the terrible things that I have said about Sub-Saharan's; here I am now dependent on them to protect me from the White alien body snatchers.
Well, he he, you know what I always say; it's all in the family. Forgive and forget, that's what I always say. Yeh Black Brotherhood.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^Just got a strange PM from bigwood (never saw him post before). Anyway, he says that I had better get upstairs, the witch doctors are not "playing" train with Hottie, they are "running" a train on her.
Now that is just so stupid; first of all, I don't have any toy trains in the house, and I know that the witch doctors didn't bring any with them. Besides, what could be wrong with just running a toy train over her body - I bet it makes her giggle no end.
But that just shows why Black people can't seem to get it together - no trust. We have to learn to love and trust each other, it's the only way to regain our past glories. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^Well, I have been out here on this porch with my shotgun since morning. The only White person that I saw approach, was the White paper boy, and when he saw the shotgun, he took off like a Bat-out-of-Hell. I asked my Black mailman if he had seen or heard anything, and he said no, all was quiet. The White neighbors seem to be acting normally, though they seem a little taken aback by the shotgun. I’m beginning to wonder if that ditz MindoverMatter718, might have gotten it wrong. (He gets so many things wrong). Maybe meninarmer is right, and White people really are humans, just Albino type humans.
Anyway, I’m tired from sitting out here all day waiting for White people to attack. So far, nothing has happened, and I don’t think anything will happen. MindoverMatter718 is an a-hole. So I’m just going to go upstairs and check-in on Hottie and the witch doctors, just to see how they’re doing, then I’m going to take a nap – to hell with this nonsense – that fuching MindoverMatter718 – what a jerk.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^I AM GOING TO KILL ME SOME BLACK-ASSED NIGGERS TODAY!! Hottie is ruined!!! Those Sub-Saharan big dick Mandingo mother-fuchers have ruined her. This is what I saw when I peeked in to checkup on them.
The poor thing can’t even close her legs anymore. Even a Donkey wouldn’t be able to touch a corner. What am I going to tell my friend in Nassau? Those mother fuching Sub-Saharan niggers, I should have known not to trust them! See, that’s why White people are SUPPOSE to be in charge, at least with them you don’t have to worry about your females being ruined. Damn, and I had so much fun practicing with her last night – fuching niggers anyhow.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
Damn, what's that all about!
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
ditto
.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Someone needs to stay off the meth.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Not sure if you are aware of this site, but it provides a poster which highlights all 24 chromosomes with currently known genes, traits, and genetic disorders assigned to each chromosome.
Highlighting and expanding each give the zoomed view as seen in Chromosome 15 below.
Two types of melanin, the red pheomelanin and the black eumelanin, are present in human skin. Valverde et al. (1995) noted that eumelanin is photoprotective, whereas pheomelanin may contribute to UV-induced skin damage because of its potential to generate free radicals in response to ultraviolet radiation. Individuals with red hair have a predominance of pheomelanin in hair and skin and/or a reduced ability to produce eumelanin, which may explain why they fail to tan and are at risk from ultraviolet radiation. In mammals, the relative proportions of pheomelanin and eumelanin are regulated by melanocyte-stimulating hormone (see 176830), which acts via its receptor (MC1R) on melanocytes to increase the synthesis of eumelanin, and also via the product of the agouti locus (AGTI; 600201), which antagonizes this action.
SKIN/HAIR/EYE PIGMENTATION, VARIATION IN, 1; SHEP1
Alternative titles; symbols SKIN/HAIR/EYE PIGMENTATION 1, BLUE/NONBLUE EYES SKIN/HAIR/EYE PIGMENTATION 1, BLUE/BROWN EYES SKIN/HAIR/EYE PIGMENTATION 1, BLOND/BROWN HAIR EYE COLOR, BROWN/BLUE EYE COLOR, BLUE/NONBLUE EYE COLOR 3; EYCL3 BROWN EYE COLOR 2; BEY2 HAIR COLOR 3; HCL3 Gene map locus 15q13.1, 15q11.2-q12
TEXT
A number sign (#) is used with this entry because of evidence that variants of the OCA2 gene (611409) play a role in determining blue versus nonblue eye color, and blond versus brown hair. Noncoding variants in the HERC2 gene (605837) 200 kb downstream of OCA2 have also been associated that are thought to affect OCA2 expression. 30 PubMed Neighbors
Multiple genes influence normal human skin, hair, and/or eye pigmentation. Pigmentation phenotypes influenced by variation in the OCA2 gene are termed SHEP1. The SHEP2 association (266300) is determined by variation at the MC1R locus (155555) and describes a phenotype predominantly characterized by red hair and fair skin. SHEP3 (601800) encompasses pigment variation influenced by the TYR gene (606933); SHEP4 (113750), that influenced by the SLC24A5 gene (609802). Variation in the SLC45A2 (606202) and SLC24A4 (609840) genes result in the phenotypic associations SHEP5 (227240) and SHEP6 (210750), respectively. Sequence variation thought to affect expression of KITLG (184745) results in the SHEP7 (611664) phenotypic association, and SHEP8 (611724) has been associated with single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at chromosome 6p25.3. Polymorphism in the 3-prime-untranslated region of the ASIP gene (600201) influences the SHEP9 association (611742). The SHEP10 association (612267) comprises variation in the TPCN2 gene (612163), and SHEP11 (612271) is associated with polymorphism near the TYRP1 gene (115501). 30 PubMed Neighbors
DESCRIPTION
Pigmentation of hair, eye, and skin is among the most visible examples of human phenotypic variation, with a broad normal range that is subject to substantial geographic stratification. Pigmentation in human tissues is attributable to the number, type, and cellular distribution of melanosomes (subcellular compartments produced by melanocytes that synthesize and store the light-absorbing polymer melanin) (Sulem et al., 2007). Variation in pigmentation among individuals is thought to be caused by biochemical differences that affect the number of melanosomes produced, the type of melanin synthesized (either black-brown eumelanin or red-yellow pheomelanin), and the size and shape of the melanosomes. The key physiologic role of skin pigmentation seems to be to absorb ultraviolet radiation (UVR). This protective role must be weighted against the reduced amount of UVR available for the synthesis of vitamin D3. It is generally believed that the geographic distribution of human skin pigmentation reflects a history of adaptation to latitude-dependent levels of UVR, with individuals tending to have lighter pigmentation with increasing distance from the equator (Relethford, 1997). The majority of variation in human eye and hair color is found among individuals of European ancestry, with most other human populations fixed for brown eyes and black hair (Sulem et al., 2007). Stokowski et al. (2007) cited studies suggesting that the genetic factors influencing lighter pigmentation in Europeans may be far different from the mechanism for lighter pigmentation in East Asians (Relethford, 1997; Norton et al., 2006; Myles et al., 2007). Given the direct correlation between skin pigmentation and incident UV exposure, it has long been postulated that it is a trait under intense selective pressure (Stokowski et al., 2007). Pigmentary mutants in model organisms and human disorders of pigmentation have been the main source for the discovery of genes involved in skin color. More than 100 pigmentation genes have been identified in mouse alone, most with identified human orthologs, and at least 18 genes had been implicated in human albinism. 30 PubMed Neighbors
MAPPING
Eiberg and Mohr (1996) sought the location of the BEY2 locus for brown eye color through an inquiry using data on eye color and hair color in 832 families from the Copenhagen area. By exclusion mapping with 80 markers in 120 segregating families and 290 markers in 5 segregating families, they obtained some indication of a locus BEY2 for brown eye color on chromosome 15. For possible confirmation, they selected a total of 45 families from their DNA bank segregating for BEY. All these were tested for chromosome 15 markers in the area between D15S11 and CYP19 (107910). They found a strong indication of linkage with the DNA polymorphism D15S165 and with flanking markers D15S156 and D15S144. A multipoint lod score of 32.2 was obtained for location in this interval. These markers had been assigned to the 15q11-q21 region. 30 PubMed Neighbors
Eiberg and Mohr (1996) obtained a lod score of 9.93 at theta (M = Z) = 0.10 for linkage of a locus for brown hair color (HCL3) to a locus for brown eye color (BEY2) that they mapped to 15q11-q21. The studies were done in 45 families from the Copenhagen area segregating for brown eye color. They found 56 matings informative for brown eye color and hair color; in 51 of these families the 2 traits were inherited together (in cis), while in 5 families the 2 traits were separated when transmitted to the offspring (in trans). They analyzed 3 of the 'trans' families and found that BEY2 and HCL3 segregated with chromosome 15 markers. This supported the assumption of linkage disequilibrium between BEY2 and HCL3, due presumably to recent immigration of people with brown hair and brown eye color, as an explanation for the excess of the apparent phase cis. There was an association between brown eye color and brown hair color in the 45 selected families; among 46 parents with brown eye color 44 had brown hair color, while among 44 spouses with blue eye color only 26 had brown hair color. Eiberg and Mohr (1996) suggested the P gene (OCA2; 611409), which resides in the 15q11-q21 region and which is the site of mutations causing type II oculocutaneous albinism (203200), as a candidate gene for brown eye and hair color. 30 PubMed Neighbors
MOLECULAR GENETICS
Two OCA2 coding region variant alleles, arg305 to trp (R305W; 611409.0011) and arg419 to gln (R419Q; 611409.0012), were shown to be associated with brown and green/hazel eye colors, respectively (Rebbeck et al., 2002; Jannot et al., 2005), and blue eye color was also shown to be linked to the OCA2 locus through use of microsatellite (Posthuma et al., 2006; Frudakis et al., 2003) and single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) (International HapMap Consortium, 2005) markers. 30 PubMed Neighbors
Duffy et al. (2007) found that 3 SNPs in intron 1 of the OCA2 gene have the highest statistical association with blue eye color. Moreover, these are found in a tight linkage disequilibrium block, with the TGT haplotype 1 (611409.0013) representing 78.4% of alleles in their sample. Given that nonbrown eye colors are found at high frequency only in white populations, Duffy et al. (2007) considered it notable that haplotype 1 was found at 82.5% in Europeans and at only minor frequencies (7.4% in those of African and 12.1% in those of East Asian descent) in others, suggesting strong positive selection for TGT in Europeans. The TGT/TGT diplotype of OCA2 was found in 62.2% of samples and was the major genotype seen to modify eye color, with a frequency of 0.905 in blue or green compared with only 0.095 in brown eye color. This genotype was also at highest frequency in subjects with light brown hair and was more frequent in fair and medium skin types, consistent with the TGT haplotype acting as a recessive modifier of lighter pigmentary phenotypes. Duffy et al. (2007) found only minor population impact of the R305W and R419Q associated with nonblue eyes, as contrasted with the tight linkage of the major TGT haplotype within intron 1 of OCA2 with blue eye color and lighter hair and skin tones, which suggested that differences within the 5-prime proximal regulatory control region of the OCA2 gene alter expression or mRNA transcript levels and may be responsible for these associations. 30 PubMed Neighbors
Among 2,986 Icelanders, Sulem et al. (2007) carried out a genomewide association scan for variants associated with hair and eye pigmentation, skin sensitivity to sun, and freckling. The most closely associated SNPs from 6 regions were then tested for replication in a second sample of 2,718 Icelanders and a sample of 1,214 Dutch. A 1-Mb region on chromosome 15 overlapping the OCA2 gene and containing 16 SNPs showed association with blue versus brown eyes, blue versus green eyes, blond versus brown hair, or some combination of these traits in the Icelandic sample that reached genomewide significance. The 3 common variants in intron 1 of OCA2, rs7495174, rs4778241, and rs4778138, reported by Duffy et al. (2007) as strongly associated with skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in populations of European ancestry, were among the 16 detected in the genomewide scan. However, the SNP that showed the strongest association was 1667394(OR = 35.42, P = 1.4 x 10(-124) for blue versus brown eyes; OR = 7.02, P = 5.1 x 10(-25) for blue versus green eyes; OR = 5.62, P = 4.4 x 10(-16) for blond versus brown hair). This SNP is located 200 kb downstream of OCA2, within intron 4 of the HERC2 gene (605837.0001). Given the established relationship between OCA2 and pigmentation, Sulem et al. (2007) considered it unlikely that the association signal provided by this SNP was due to a functional effect on HERC2. Rather, they suggested that perhaps sequence variation in the introns of HERC2 affects the expression of OCA2, or that functional variants exist within OCA2 that correlate with 1667394. 30 PubMed Neighbors
In European populations, Kayser et al. (2008) and Sturm et al. (2008) identified variants in introns of the HERC2 gene (605837.0002, 605837.0003) that were better predictors of blue eye color than were the variants found by Duffy et al. (2007) in intron 1 of OCA2 (611409.0013). Sturm et al. (2008) identified the R419Q variant of OCA2 (611409.0012) as a penetrance modifier of the HERC2 variant rs12913832(605837.0003) and of the risk of malignant melanoma. 30 PubMed Neighbors
In a 3-generation Danish family segregating blue and brown eye color, Eiberg et al. (2008) used fine mapping to identify a 166-kb candidate region within the HERC2 gene. Further studies of SNPs within this region among 144 blue-eyed and 45 brown-eyed individuals identified 2 SNPs, rs1129038 and the strongly conserved rs12913832, that showed significant associations with the blue-eyed phenotype (p = 6.2 x 10(-46)). A common founder haplotype containing these SNPs was identified among blue-eyed persons from Denmark, Turkey, and Jordan. 30 PubMed Neighbors
HISTORY
Iris color was one of the first human traits used in investigating mendelian inheritance in humans. Davenport and Davenport (1907) outlined what was long taught in schools as a beginner's guide to genetics, that brown eye color is always dominant to blue, with 2 blue-eyed parents always producing a blue-eyed child, never one with brown eyes. As with many physical traits, the simplistic model does not convey the fact that eye color is inherited as a polygenic, not as a monogenic, trait (Sturm and Frudakis, 2004). The early view that blue is a simple recessive has been repeatedly shown to be wrong by observation of brown-eyed offspring of 2 blue-eyed parents. My monozygotic twin brother and I, brown-eyed, had blue-eyed parents and blue-eyed sibs (VAM). Blue-eyed offspring from 2 brown-eyed parents is a more frequent finding.
ALBINISM, OCULOCUTANEOUS, TYPE II; OCA2
Alternative titles; symbols OCULOCUTANEOUS ALBINISM, TYPE II OCULOCUTANEOUS ALBINISM, TYROSINASE-POSITIVE ALBINISM II ALBINISM, BROWN OCULOCUTANEOUS, INCLUDED; BOCA, INCLUDED BROWN OCULOCUTANEOUS ALBINISM, INCLUDED Gene map locus 16q24.3, 15q11.2-q12
TEXT
A number sign (#) is used with this entry because oculocutaneous albinism type II (OCA2) is caused by mutation in the OCA2 gene (611409).
For a discussion of genetic heterogeneity of OCA, see OCA1A (203100). OCA1A, also known as tyrosinase-negative OCA, is caused by mutation in the tyrosinase gene (TYR; 606933).
DESCRIPTION
Tyrosinase-positive oculocutaneous albinism (OCA, type II) is an autosomal recessive disorder in which the biosynthesis of melanin pigment is reduced in skin, hair, and eyes. Although affected infants may appear at birth to have OCA type I, or complete absence of melanin pigment, most patients with OCA type II acquire small amounts of pigment with age. Individuals with OCA type II have the characteristic visual anomalies associated with albinism, including decreased acuity and nystagmus, which are usually less severe than in OCA type I. OCA type II is the most common type of oculocutaneous albinism in the world (Lee et al., 1994; King et al., 2001). 30 PubMed Neighbors
OCA type II has a highly variable phenotype. The hair of affected individuals may turn darker with age, and pigmented nevi or freckles may be seen. African and African American individuals may have yellow hair and blue-gray or hazel irides. One phenotypic variant, 'brown OCA,' has been described in African and African American populations and is characterized by light brown hair and skin color and gray to tan irides. The hair and irides may turn darker with time and the skin may tan with sun exposure; the ocular features of albinism are present in all variants (King et al., 2001). In addition, previous reports of so-called 'autosomal recessive ocular albinism,' (see, e.g., Witkop et al., 1978 and O'Donnell et al., 1978) with little or no obvious skin involvement, are now considered most likely to be part of the phenotypic spectrum of OCA1 or OCA2 (Lee et al., 1994; King et al., 2001). 30 PubMed Neighbors
Although OCA caused by mutations in the TYR gene was classically known as 'tyrosinase-negative' OCA, Tripathi et al. (1992) noted that some patients with 'tyrosinase-positive' OCA may indeed have TYR mutations resulting in residual enzyme activity. These patients can be classified as having OCA1B (606952). 30 PubMed Neighbors
CLINICAL FEATURES
Trevor-Roper (1952, 1963) reported 2 albino parents who had 4 normally pigmented children. Inheritance was most likely autosomal recessive. X-linked albinism could be excluded because the obligate heterozygous daughters of the father did not have mosaic pigmentary patterns in the ocular fundus. Applying the chemical method of Kugelman and Van Scott (1961), Witkop (1962) found suggestive evidence of different forms of albinism. Witkop (1966) examined Trevor-Roper's family and found that, whereas the mother did not show pigmentation in the Kugelman-Van Scott test, the father did show pigment. Witkop (1966) asserted that it is difficult to distinguish tyrosinase-positive from tyrosinase-negative albinism clinically, especially in Caucasians. Pigmented nevi in tyrosine-positive cases may be the only clue. In blacks with this form of albinism, the hair is yellow and many pigmented spots develop in the skin. In such cases, Witkop (1966) hypothesized a block in the formation of eumelanin with a continuing formation of pheomelanin. 30 PubMed Neighbors
Witkop et al. (1978) referred to 4 families in which males and females were equally severely affected with a form of ocular albinism without apparent skin involvement. Affected females had ocular changes similar to those of hemizygous males with X-linked ocular albinism (OA1; 300500). Some of the parents had diaphanous irides. None of the mothers had affected male relatives, and 2 of the families were Amish with consanguineous parents, suggesting autosomal recessive inheritance. The authors noted that ocular albinism had been reported in a female by Scialfa (1972). O'Donnell et al. (1978) observed 7 females and 2 males from unrelated Caucasian kindreds with ocular albinism. Affected individuals showed impaired vision, translucent irides, congenital nystagmus, photophobia, albinotic fundi with hyperplasia of the fovea, and strabismus. Unlike the X-linked form of ocular albinism, females were as severely affected as males, obligatory heterozygotes lacked the mosaic pattern, and skin and hairbulbs did not show giant pigment granules. Autosomal recessive inheritance was suggested. 30 PubMed Neighbors
Castle et al. (1988) could demonstrate no asymmetry on monocular testing of visual evoked potentials to suggest an abnormality of decussation in heterozygotes.
Witkop et al. (1989) stated that tyrosinase-positive albinism was the form present in the Hopi and Zuni Indians studied by Woolf (1965) and Woolf and Dukepoo (1969). This form was also found in the Brandywine triracial isolate (Witkop et al., 1972).
In southern Africa, negroids with tyrosinase-positive ocular cutaneous albinism present with 2 distinctly different phenotypes, with or without darkly pigmented patches (ephelides, or dendritic freckles) on exposed areas of the skin. These phenotypes were concordant within families. Among 111 albinos from southern Africa, Kromberg et al. (1989) found a correlation between the presence of ephelides and a lower risk of developing skin cancer, possibly as the result of the presence of some melanin pigment offering photoprotection. 30 PubMed Neighbors
Brown oculocutaneous albinism (BOCA) in humans is linked to the P locus, where mutations causing OCA2 are located. The occurrence of both OCA2 and BOCA within the same family suggested that these disorders are allelic (Manga, 1997).
Using MRI, Schmitz et al. (2003) found that the size and configuration of the optic chiasm in humans with albinism are distinctly different from the chiasms of normal control subjects. These chiasmal changes reflect the atypical crossing of the optic fibers, irrespective of the causative gene mutation. Eight patients had tyrosinase gene-related OCA1, 4 patients had P gene-related OCA2, and 1 had ocular albinism (OA1); the albinism-causing mutation had not been identified in 4 other patients. 30 PubMed Neighbors
MAPPING
Studying Bantu subjects in South Africa, Ramsay et al. (1992) demonstrated linkage of the OCA2 locus to 2 DNA markers, D15S10 and D15S13, in the region 15q11.2-q12. Since the pink-eyed dilution locus, p, on mouse chromosome 7, maps to a region of homology of synteny with human 15q, Ramsay et al. (1992) postulated that the OCA2 and p loci are homologous. 30 PubMed Neighbors
Kedda et al. (1994) analyzed for linkage with markers on 15q11-q13 in 41 southern African negroid families, each containing at least 1 affected tyrosinase-positive albino. Analysis showed no obligatory crossovers between the alleles at D15S12 and a tyrosinase-positive OCA, suggesting that the D15S12 locus is very close to or part of the disease locus, P. The affected persons in 13 of the families had ephelides; those in 23 families did not have ephelides; and those in 5 families were of unknown ephelis status, with 100% concordance with respect to ephelis status in all 36 families. 30 PubMed Neighbors
Manga et al. (2001) showed by linkage analysis in 5 families that the BOCA phenotype maps to the same region as the OCA2 locus on 15q.
MOLECULAR GENETICS
In affected members of a consanguineous kindred with OCA2, Durham-Pierre et al. (1994) identified a homozygous 2.7-kb deletion encompassing an exon of the P gene (611409.0001). The kindred was of African, Caucasian, and American Indian descent. The same deletion allele was identified in unrelated African Americans, Haitian, and Africans with OCA2, suggesting a founder effect. 30 PubMed Neighbors
In 4 unrelated patients with OCA2, Lee et al. (1994) identified mutations in the OCA2 gene (see, e.g., 611409.0002-611409.0006).
Lee et al. (1994) studied 7 unrelated African American patients with OCA2 and identified different abnormalities of the P gene in all 7. In addition to the single exon deletion found by Durham-Pierre et al. (1994), they observed 2 large deletions, 2 small in-frame deletions, and 6 different point mutations. 30 PubMed Neighbors
Stevens et al. (1995) also found that the 2.7-kb intragenic deletion first identified by Durham-Pierre et al. (1994) is a frequent cause of OCA2 in South African negroids, being found in 114 of 146 (78%) of OCA2 chromosomes. A common haplotype was found in 43 of 55 (78%) OCA2 chromosomes studied, confirming the African origin of this allele. On the basis of haplotype data, it appeared that at least 7 additional, less-frequent OCA2 mutations had occurred in this population. Spritz et al. (1995) found that the same 2.7-kb deletion allele accounted for most of the mutant P alleles in Tanzania. The 2.7-kb deletion includes exon 7 and results in a frameshift and premature truncation of the predicted polypeptide product. 30 PubMed Neighbors
In a screening of filter blood spots from 470 newborn African Americans in Michigan, Durham-Pierre et al. (1996) found that 2 were heterozygous for the 2.7-kb deletion.
Kerr et al. (2000) screened the coding region of the P gene for mutations in the non-2.7-kb deletion alleles of OCA2 patients who did not carry the deletion allele in either 1 or both of their P genes. In a group of 39 unrelated black OCA2 patients with a total of 52 non-2.7-kb deletion OCA2 genes, they identified 4 mutations, including A334V (611409.0007). 30 PubMed Neighbors
Manga (1997) found that a large proportion (9/10) of BOCA subjects are compound heterozygotes for the common 2.7-kb deletion and another pathogenic mutation in the OCA2 gene. Mutation analysis of the P gene in 10 unrelated individuals with BOCA in southern Africa revealed that 9 had 1 copy of the 2.7-kb deletion. Manga et al. (2001) suggested that the second mutation in the subjects with BOCA may be a milder mutation, possibly in the promoter region (downregulating expression) or in other regions of the P gene they did not screen. 30 PubMed Neighbors
POPULATION GENETICS
Lee et al. (1994) gave the overall frequency of OCA2 in the United States as approximately 1:36,000; however, the incidence is about 1:10,000 among African Americans and is said to have a prevalence of 1:1,100 in the Ibo of Nigeria (Okoro, 1975) and a rate of about 1:3,900 in negroids of South Africa (11,12:Kromberg and Jenkins, 1982, 1984) where it is the most common recessive genetic disorder of this group. Throughout sub-Saharan Africa, OCA2 is responsible for a great deal of morbidity, with skin cancer and gross visual impairment being important sequelae. 30 PubMed Neighbors
Kagore and Lund (1995) found that the prevalence of OCA2 in school children in Harare, the capital city of Zimbabwe, was 1:2,833. On the basis of this prevalence, the gene frequency for OCA2 was estimated to be 0.0188, with a carrier frequency of 1:27. Most of the school children with albinism belonged to the majority Shoney ethnic group. As consanguineous marriages were discouraged in the Shoney culture, this high rate was probably the result of genetic drift in a relatively small population showing limited mobility. 30 PubMed Neighbors
Stevens et al. (1997) found the common 2.7-kb P gene deletion in 10 of 780 (.013) OCA2 chromosomes in a normally pigmented southern African population, and at a lower frequency in normally pigmented individuals from central Africa (0.002; 2 of 834 OCA2 chromosomes). Among OCA2-affected individuals, the deletion was found in 131 of 170 (0.77) OCA2 chromosomes in southern Africa, 11 of 14 (0.79) OCA2 chromosomes in Zambia, and 4 of 12 (0.33) OCA2 chromosomes in the Central African Republic. The study confirmed the African origin of the deletion allele. Haplotype analysis suggested that the deletion mutation occurred only once and that it arose before the divergence of these African populations, which was estimated to be about 2,000 to 3,000 years ago. The unusually high frequency of OCA2 mutations, in particular the 2.7-kb deletion, suggested selection or genetic drift. 30 PubMed Neighbors
A high frequency of albinism has been found among several Native American populations, varying in frequency from 1:140 in the Jemez to 1:3,750 in the Navajo (Woolf, 1965; Woolf and Dukepoo, 1969). Yi et al. (2003) studied albinism among the Navajos, who live predominantly in northeastern Arizona. The phenotype of albinism in the Navajos overlaps those for OCA2 and for OCA4 (606574), which are caused by mutations in the P and MATP (SLC45A2; 606202) genes, respectively. Consequently, Yi et al. (2003) did a mutation screen of these 2 genes. Although no mutations were found in the MATP gene, all Navajos with albinism were found to have a homozygous deletion of 122.5 kb of genomic DNA, including exons 10 through 20 of the P gene (611409.0008). The deletion allele was not found in 34 other individuals with albinism who had other Native American origins, and had not been reported in any other ethnic group. The molecular characterization of the deletion allele allowed Yi et al. (2003) to design a 3-primer PCR system to estimate the carrier frequency in the Navajo population, an estimated 4.5%. The estimated prevalence of OCA2 in Navajos is between 1:1,500 and 1:2,000. They estimated that this mutation originated from a single founder 400 to 1,000 years ago. 30 PubMed Neighbors
Suzuki et al. (2003) performed mutation analysis on 40 OCA1-negative Japanese albino patients and identified 6 different novel mutations in 6 unrelated patients. They estimated the frequency of OCA2 in the Japanese albino population to be 8%, indicating that OCA2 was not as common as OCA1. Thirty-four patients remained as unclassified OCA, supporting the idea that a third locus might be a major contributor to OCA. 30 PubMed Neighbors
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Another scientific thread corrupted by the nonsense of idiots. Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ "It also marks a transition of AI from narrow, carefully defined domains to real-world situations in which systems learn to deal with complex data and adapt to uncertainty. AI has more or less followed the 'hype cycle' popularized by Gartner Inc.: Technologies perk along in the shadows for a few years, then burst on the scene in a blaze of hype. Then they fall into disrepute when they fail to deliver on extravagant promises, until they eventually rise to a level of solid accomplishment and acceptance." Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^..hey, its been a few days, by any chance, would you now be able to explain what Jablonski (and the scientific community) promotes?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Hey, do you mean for me to explain color by way of what Jablonski labels, "a really cool molecule", melanin? LOL, Jablonski's theory is simple. She suggests that everyone alive today, MAY have had ancestors who were a different color, mainly due to this "cool molecule". She spends very little effort in reviewing the major cause for color change over time in the European population, admixture.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ Hey, do you mean for me to explain color by way of what Jablonski labels, "a really cool molecule", melanin? LOL, Jablonski's theory is simple. She suggests that everyone alive today, MAY have had ancestors who were a different color, mainly due to this "cool molecule".
Good try; I guess? , but no. You're wrong.
Remember; you can't refute something you don't understand.
Would you like to try again?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ I suggest you re-read the article again.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ I suggest you re-read the article again.
No need for me to read it again, as I already knew what it would say before it was posted.
Remember; you can't refute something you don't understand.
Would you like to try again?
Btw, you do remember your precious (who) medical journals disagree with you; right?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Good, because it said, and even more importantly, proved very little. There really is little to refute in her article. It's filled with suggestions and speculations. As example, she mentions tracing a specific family 100 generations back, but provides my data of this generational tracking. Do you have the raw data?
All medical research shows Albinos display distinctive visual cues, such as; Blue eye, blond hair, pale skin subject to sun burn... It seems we agree after all.
That's your cue to respond with; "But black people suffer from rickets when not acquiring Vitamin D."
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ Good, because it said, and even more importantly, proved very little.
Actually what it did was prove and reiterate the already established biological fact of humans when moved into northern latitudes became lighter for synthesis of UV for production of Vitamin D.
The fact that you say it proved nothing goes to show more of your ignorance and inability to comprehend what the article actually suggests, which in turn proves that you don't know what you're trying to refute.
Remember; you can't refute something you don't understand.
Would you like to try again?
So far you've shown that can't you explain Jablosnkis theory, let alone explain the one you support.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Remember; you can't refute something you don't understand.
And don't you have ample experience in this regard with your Supra Saharan "phenotypic intermediatness"? lol
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Haaha, there is a big difference between "becoming lighter", and displaying all of the relevant Albinism symptoms.
You flunk, and your buddy Rasol too.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
Indecisive 718 says: ''Actually what it did was prove and reiterate the already established biological fact of humans when moved into northern latitudes became lighter for synthesis of UV for production of Vitamin D.
''So far you've shown that [you] can't you explain Jablosnkis theory, let alone explain the one you support.''[/b]
Soooo, who is right, the Mindovermatter who says '' biological fact'', or the Mindovermatter who then flip flops and says ''theory''?
You ain't casting doubt on Nina are you? You cool.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Hold tight. I've already busted up their "White gene Evolution" theory to the put of it being very wary even to debate.
Observe while I demolish yet another flawed proposal suggesting another "Evolution"; The figment of the imagination: "Cow Milk Digestion Gene", and uncover it as the opposite of the important event they are attempting to present it.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^Kid, you can't debunk science that you don't understand; stop deluding yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Soooo, who is right, the Mindovermatter who says '' biological fact'', or the Mindovermatter who then flip flops and says ''theory''?
You ain't casting doubt on Nina are you?
You never fail to make a fool out of yourself. Gravity is also a theory; but is it wrong?
Anyway;
The scientific community has come up with the theory on why humans vary in skin color throughout the world.
Which is based on the biological fact that humans in northern latitudes, if darkskinned, or retaining melanin, need an immense Vitamin D intake.
Which is also based on the biological fact that melanin content in the skin is natures sun screen, and hence blocks the ability to synthesize UV in northern latitudes, hence humans would have to decrease in melanin, in order to allow these UV rays into the skin.
Any population darker than the Inuit hunter gatherers would need more Vitamin D intake than they (Inuit) consume.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ LOL, incorrect AGAIN. It is common knowledge that Africans and blacks require LESS vitamin D relative to WHITES. The reverse of your incorrect SUGGESTION.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ LOL, incorrect AGAIN. It is common knowledge that Africans and blacks require LESS vitamin D relative to WHITES. The reverse of your incorrect SUGGESTION.
Just like I said, you don't understand what you're trying to refute kid.
In northern latitudes, lighterskin can absorb UV and synthesize it for production of Vitamin D, better than darkskin.
Any population darker than the Inuit hunter gatherers would need more Vitamin D intake than they (Inuit) consume.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ YOU said; "Any population darker than the Inuit hunter gatherers would need more Vitamin D intake than they (Inuit) consume."
Which implies (due to darker skin) blacks require MORE Vitamin D intake than Whites or INUITS. This is incorrect. Whites require up to 30% MORE Vitamin D intake than Blacks. Therefore, the intake comparison is actually the exact opposite of your proposal.
We've gone thru this at least 6 times. I don't understand why you, Rasol, and DJ The Robot still don't get it.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Which implies (due to darker skin) blacks require MORE Vitamin D intake than Whites or INUITS.
In northern latitudes yes, any population darker than the Inuit hunter gatherers would need more Vitamin D intake than they (Inuit) consume.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ SO what does this statement from the National Institute of Health on Vitamin D intake suggest to you?
African Americans have lower levels of 25(OH)D than Caucasians, yet they develop fewer osteoporotic fractures. This suggests that factors other than vitamin D provide protection [57]. African Americans have an advantage in bone density from early childhood, a function of their more efficient calcium economy, and have a lower risk of fracture even when they have the same bone density as Caucasians. Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Populations at risk for Vitamin D deficiency includes individuals with dark skin pigmentation; why?
Remember, even your precious (who)article doesn't agree with you....
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 meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^BOOOOOO! Read carefully.
People with dark skin Greater amounts of the pigment melanin result in darker skin and reduce the skin's ability to produce vitamin D from exposure to sunlight. Some studies suggest that older adults, especially women, with darker skin are at high risk of developing vitamin D insufficiency [34,45]. However, one group with dark skin, African Americans, generally has lower levels of 25(OH)D yet develops fewer osteoporotic fractures than Caucasians (see section below on osteoporosis).
African Americans have lower levels of 25(OH)D than Caucasians, yet they develop fewer osteoporotic fractures. This suggests that factors other than vitamin D provide protection [57]. African Americans have an advantage in bone density from early childhood, a function of their more efficient calcium economy, and have a lower risk of fracture even when they have the same bone density as Caucasians. Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
You're very slow, pray do tell why African Americans have lower levels of 25(OH)D than "Caucasians"?
Could it be the high melanin content in the skin that makes AA's have these lower levels? Of course it is!
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ SO what does this statement from the National Institute of Health on Vitamin D intake suggest to you?
African Americans have lower levels of 25(OH)D than Caucasians, yet they develop fewer osteoporotic fractures. This suggests that factors other than vitamin D provide protection [57]. African Americans have an advantage in bone density from early childhood, a function of their more efficient calcium economy, and have a lower risk of fracture even when they have the same bone density as Caucasians.
It means that Africans are born automatically with strong bones and a greater bone density than whites, and even though African Americans have lower levels of 25(OH)D than whites(which would imply Africans should have more cases of osteoporotic fractures). This then in turn suggested since Africans are born with stronger bones, is the reason for fewer fractures which should be more prevalent than in whites since the lower levels of 25(OH)D.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Correct, in every thing except higher incidents of osteoporotic fractures in Africans. Why are African babies born with stronger bones?
the frequency of use of some vitamin D-containing foods and supplements was examined in 1,546 non-Hispanic African American women and 1,426 non-Hispanic white women of reproductive age (15-49 years) [34]. In both groups, 25(OH)D levels were higher in the fall (after a summer of sun exposure) and when milk or fortified cereals were consumed more than three times per week. The prevalence of serum concentrations of 25(OH)D ≤15 ng/mL (≤37.5 nmol/L) was 10 times greater for the African American women (42.2%) than for the white women (4.2%). Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ Correct, in every thing except higher incidents of osteoporotic fractures in Africans. Why are African babies born with stronger bones?
You nitwitted dummy, there are less fractures in African Americans which should be more since African Americans have lower levels of 25(OH)D than "Caucasians".
Which suggests that things other than Vitamin D provide protection for African Americans against these osteoporotic fractures.
African Americans have lower levels of 25(OH)D than "Caucasians", you're proving my point, thanks. Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Vitamin D intake promotes;
1) Immunization boosting against disease *Note: The world's worst diseases sprang from Europe
2) Assisting to metabolize calcium for bone formation Note: Whites have weaker bones during fetal development and at birth. The cause is shown above with white women having prevalence of serum concentrations of 25(OH)D ≤15 ng/mL (≤37.5 nmol/L) of 4.2%.
Therefore, under similar UV environments (USA), black women convert up to 10 times (42.2% Vs 4.2%) the Vitamin D levels as white women.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Therefore, under similar UV environments (USA), black women convert up to 10 times (42.2% Vs 4.2%) the Vitamin D levels as white women.
Wow, you're slow, I waste my time with you.
The reason the levels were higher in the fall is because it was after a summer of sun exposure, and when milk or fortified cereals were consumed more than three times per week. Lighterskin synthesizes better under lesser intense UV rays.
quote:In both groups, 25(OH)D levels were higher in the fall (after a summer of sun exposure) and when milk or fortified cereals were consumed more than three times per week. The prevalence of serum concentrations of 25(OH)D ≤15 ng/mL (≤37.5 nmol/L) was 10 times greater for the African American women (42.2%) than for the white women (4.2%).
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Irrelevant. Both sets of women were exposed to the same conditions, summer and fall. This is how such testing is conducted, or frankly, it wouldn't be a test at all, would it. In the end the results were as shown above. Admit your ignorance so that we may move on to the next stage of your real education.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ Irrelevant.
You dummy, its totally relevant, since it proves my point that lighterskin was adapted to absorb UV rays for synthesis and production of Vitamin D under lesser intense UV rays, hence after a summer of sun exposure the whites showed lower levels.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Both sets of women were exposed to the same conditions, summer and fall. In the end the results were as shown above. Admit your ignorance so that we may move on to the next stage of your real education.
Wrong, they were tested in the fall, right after a summer of sun exposure and when milk or fortified cereals were consumed more than three times per week.
Which again proves my point, thanks.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ Irrelevant.
You dummy, its totally relevant, since it proves my point that lighterskin was adapted to absorb UV rays for synthesis and production of Vitamin D under less intense UV rays, hence after a summer of sun exposure the whites showed lower levels.
The point you were attempting to make, but failed miserably, is that in a UV climate such as the US of A, a black person, due to their darker skin color would not absorb Vitamin D as efficiently as a white person. The NIH tests above PROVE without a SHADOW OF DOUBT, that your theory is not only INCORRECT, but ass backward. If you fail to see this, then perhaps you should consider a field such as carpentry, or American Patriot's field, Welding.
However, if you finally humble yourself and admit your ignorance, I'll show you (Rasol & DJ The Robot) why European and American backward science is flawed and why whites have so much trouble with Vitamin D.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: The point you were attempting to make, but failed miserably, is that in a UV climate such as the US of A, a black person, due to their darker skin color would not absorb Vitamin D as efficiently as a white person.
Wow you're slow, after a summer of sun exposure African Americans showing more, and whites showing lower levels is completely in line with the biological fact that under darker skies lighterskin can absorb UV for synthesis and production of Vitamin D, and in turn darkerskin under the sun can produce more Vitamin D than pale skin.
Sun exposure is an advantage for darkskin populations which you just further proved for me with your quote, and they can produce more Vitamin D than lighterskinned individuals after a summer of sun exposure, in turn, in northern latitudes or in the winter months when and where there is less intense UV, whites will produce more Vitamin D than their darkerskinned counterparts.
Thanks for proving my point, again... Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ In summer, whites cannot risk prolonged exposure to direct sunlight. Even for the time they do spend in sulight, their exposed body areas as covered with TRUE sun block, artificial sunscreen, which IS designed to BLOCK sunlight.
In fall, Whites may extend their exposure time in direct sunlight and perhaps use a lighter coating of sun screen. Therefore, they SHOULD be able to absorb more Vitamin D thru longer exposure.
Perhaps, this is true in INUIT or other people of color with lighter hued skin, but obviously not applicable for the Albino European.
Nevertheless, with both White and blacks exposed for the same amount of times, summer & Fall, black women are shown to have accumulated up to 10 TIMES the amount of Vitamin D as a white women. Thus, white skin DOES NOT present the advantage you propose.
You're like a boxer who has gotten hit in the head and is OUT COLD on his feet. You don't know what hit you and too dazed to speak or think coherently.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ In summer, whites cannot risk prolonged exposure to direct sunlight. Even for the time they do spend, they exposed areas as covered with TRUE sun block, artificial sunscreen.
Ok? This is a known fact, since lighterskin was an adaptation to lesser UV, and not intense UV like darkerskin is, hence the adaptation to less UV, would leave them susceptible to harmful intense UV .
Darkerskin which is natures sunscreen, protects against these harmful UV rays, and in turn can naturally produce Vitamin D under the intense sun.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: In fall, Whites may extend their exposure time in direct sunlight. Therefore, they SHOULD be able to absorb more Vitamin D thru longer exposure. Nevertheless, with both White and blacks exposed for the same amount of times, black women are shown to have accumulated up to 10 TIMES the amount of Vitamin D as a white women.
You incompetent fool, they weren't tested after the fall, they were tested after the summer, which is during the fall. If they would've tested them after the fall the test would've been in the winter months but as you can see there levels were higher in the fall (after a summer of sun exposure) and when milk or fortified cereals were consumed more than three times per week.
Not after the fall, but during the fall, right after a summer of sun exposure.
quote:In both groups, 25(OH)D levels were higher in the fall (after a summer of sun exposure) and when milk or fortified cereals were consumed more than three times per week.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
MindoverMatter says: ''You never fail to make a fool out of yourself. Gravity is also a theory; but is it wrong?''
All you need do is put an object in your hand and drop it. That's a fact. Whether scientists quibble amongst themselves about the mechanism is irelevant. However gravity isn't biology.
Can you agree that humans procreate and can come up with the same colors you and others talk about..all over this planet? We know this as an undeniable, uncontested, scientific fact; no equivocation, no rolling the dice. Just facts. So with your stance on vitamin D and latitude how does that stack up with a known biological mechanism? Wait, I'll answer that: principals in evolution.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^^Right here, just let me know when you want to address or attempt to refute it; ok?
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: The scientific community has come up with the theory on why humans vary in skin color throughout the world.
Which is based on the biological fact that humans in northern latitudes, if darkskinned, or retaining melanin, need an immense Vitamin D intake.
Which is also based on the biological fact that melanin content in the skin is natures sun screen, and hence blocks the ability to synthesize UV in northern latitudes, hence humans would have to decrease in melanin, in order to allow these UV rays into the skin.
Any population darker than the Inuit hunter gatherers would need more Vitamin D intake than they (Inuit) consume.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Can you agree that humans procreate and can come up with the same colors you and others talk about..all over this planet?
Elaborate on what you mean by..
"come up with the same colors you and others talk about..all over this planet?"
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: You handsome charmer, they weren't tested after the fall, they were tested after the summer, which is during the fall. If they would've tested them after the fall the test would've been in the winter months but as you can see there levels were higher in the fall (after a summer of sun exposure) and when milk or fortified cereals were consumed more than three times per week.
Not after the fall, but during the fall, right after a summer of sun exposure.
quote:In both groups, 25(OH)D levels were higher in the fall (after a summer of sun exposure) and when milk or fortified cereals were consumed more than three times per week.
It doesn't matter MatterOverMind. Your proposition suggested Whites may absorb/convert Vitamin D faster, more efficiently than dark skin, in any environment, since you believe skin in all cases is equivalent to window blinds, with dark skin being closed blinds, and white skin being open. The truth is, white suffer from a genetic defect which not only affects there immunization systems, but also their ability to convert Vitamin D normally. The NIH study/Test shows this quite nicely ad is consistent with the results of this alternate melanin study. Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: It doesn't matter MatterOverMind. Your proposition suggested Whites may absorb/convert Vitamin D faster, more efficiently than dark skin, in any environment
Wrong, never said "any environment", and if you can, please quote me on this....I'll wait kid.
Of course you never will, because of course you know I've always said white skin can better synthesize UV and produce Vitamin D in northern latitudes (lesser intense UV) . Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ The above debunks your proposal. Perhaps, it may have some truth with INUITS, Native American, or Native Siberians, but as the tests above clearly show, certainly not European whites. At this point, you should be asking yourself, Shucks, why are whites so different. I'll tell you why. Review my new thread on, Whites and Cow's milk.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ The above debunks your proposal.
Actually everything you posted so far today as usual, completely complimented the scientific consensus of which I'm relaying and debunks you; why?
Well because it's science itself, it's just that you have a hard time reading and comprehending, and hence you don't even understand what you're trying to refute.
You can't disprove something you don't even understand kid.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Perhaps, it may have some truth with INUITS, Native American, or Native Siberians, but as the tests above clearly show, certainly not European whites.
What I've said holds true for all human populations. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Simply put:
Under intense UV radiation levels...
Under intense UV radiation dark skin acts as "sun screen" that blocks too much UV radiation levels from passing through the upper epidermis of skin, by way of absorbing UV energy, to allow for "optimum" vitamin D synthesis, i.e. in addition to dietary intake.
Under the same environment, 'white skin' would allow too much UV energy through the epidermis, risking epidermal DNA damage.
Therefore, under intense UV radiation levels, "dark skin" is not expected to allow for more vitamin D production than 'white skin'.
On the other hand, under very low UV radiation levels...
Dark skin could risk "blocking" the already low UV radiation energy too much, and impede the flow of the necessary levels of UV radiation energy for vitamin D synthesis, i.e. in addition to dietary intake.
Whereas "white skin" would allow for easier access to the said low UV radiation energy through the epidermis, and hence, have more UV energy available for vitamin D synthesis, in addition to dietary intake.
Therefore, under very low UV radiation levels, 'dark skin' would result in lower vitamin D production from UV radiation energy than 'white skin' would allow for.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Whites seem to have a SKEWED perception of melanin improperly equating it's function to that of artificial Sun Block. The mis-perception is that dark skin BLOCKS sunlight and therefore less sunlight gets through for Vitamin D conversion. This is a false assumption. Melanin does not BLOCK radiation, but ABSORBS radiation. This is an essential characteristic to understanding how melanin TRAPS radiation and converts it into other forms of energy or chemical bi-products required to sustain life. In fact, melanin molecules exhibit a magnetic field intended to ATTRACT radiation so that it may be captured and absorbed. Rather than melanin acting like Artificial sun screen, melanin actually functions more like a Black hole, capturing and absorbing all radiation which falls into it's magnetic grasp.
Skin melanin
, a DHI-derivative synthesized in the epidermal melanocytes under the influence of solar radiation, acts as sun screen, protecting skin from the harmful effects of excessive solar radiation. The biochemical mechanisms, involved in skin tanning and dissipation of radiation are not fully understood, so far.
Ocular melanin
synthesized in the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) of human embryos before birth, acts as a broad band optical absorber, protecting the eye ground (fundus) and ocular tissues from excess light, reducing intraocular light scatter and thereby increasing the contrast of the visual images formed on the retina. Ocular melanin also plays some unexplained role in the prenatal development of the fovea and routing of optic nerves, its deficiency being associated with age-related macula degeneration, the leading cause of blindness. The formation of ocular melanin in the RPE is tyrosinase dependent and there are various genes, controlling eye and skin pigmentation (cutaneous, oculocutaneous, ocular albinism ).
Skin melanin protects the skin from excessive solar exposure, while ocular melanin protects the eyes from radiation hazards. Both pigments are therefore deeply implied in a fundamental biological function: photo protection. We still don’t fully understand, how light is dissipated by skin and eye, whether it is just transformed into heat or electrical current. In both cases, however, the physical asset of the melanin particles is instrumental to capture the light beams and to avoid them to escape from the black melanin cage (black body model)
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: MindoverMatter says: ''You never fail to make a fool out of yourself. Gravity is also a theory; but is it wrong?''
All you need do is put an object in your hand and drop it. That's a fact. Whether scientists quibble amongst themselves about the mechanism is irelevant. However gravity isn't biology.
LOL Good one. Truth is Gringo's wacky comparisons and poor grammar (like his 100 "Britain's") betray his lack of sound reasoning skills. It seems he was dropped on his head as a child. How's that for gravity?! lol
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Like a Black Hole, any radiation object that gets too close to a melanin molecule will be pulled inside it. As the sun bathes the earth in energy, any radiation object, whether UV, or a gamma ray, or infrared, that gets too close to a melanin molecule will be pulled inside it. As the objects fall toward the melanin molecule, they are caught in it's magnetic field, heat up and get very hot. Once captured, energy from the particle is radiated as heat, converted as electrical impulses, or used to power biochemical processes. Scientists can use special instruments to detect the heat the objects give off. That is how we know that melanin attracts all forms of solar radiation of varying wavelengths.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Whites seem to have a SKEWED perception of melanin improperly equating it's function to that of artificial Sun Block. ...........
Skin melanin protects the skin from excessive solar exposure,
Again you post more data which debunks you, thanks. I don't even have to try to refute you kid, you simply do it to yourself. Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ The reason why you have difficulty refuting almost anything is because you lack BASIC comprehension skills, not to mention, absolutely no understanding of basic physics.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ and Bowcock and Sforza and Keita and Tishkoff and on and on like the ignoramous Energizer Bunny...
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
''LOL Good one. Truth is Gringo's wacky comparisons...''
MindoverMatter 718 blurted out (Somalid topic p.5):
Sorry, matter is a terrible thing to mind, I couldnt leave you alone on that one. Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Jablonski is right. Tracing US whites to their England ancestors, and England to Europe, they do look different after 40 generations. NOT! They were palefaces in Europe, palefaces in England, and palefaces in the US. Whites should really start putting together partitions to ask their scientists to begin doing real science.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Interesting that the retard meninarmer makes a daily game of bashing white people and western civ while he comes on here and communicates in English, the language of his supposed enemies. He is really an oreo cookie, black on the outside but steeped in European culture and civilization on the inside.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Interesting that the retard meninarmer makes a daily game of bashing white people and western civ while he comes on here and communicates in English, the language of his supposed enemies. He is really an oreo cookie, black on the outside but steeped in European culture and civilization on the inside.
Whoa Paleface, last time I checked, English was an INDO-EUROPEAN language. "Indo" (White speak for those Dravidian niggers), refers to the Indian subcontinent, since geographically the language group extends from Europe in the west to India in the east. The languages of the Indo-European group are spoken by approximately three billion native speakers, the largest number of the recognised families of languages.
In other words, YOU people got your language, just like everything else that you have of value, from US. So knock it off Paleface.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Interesting that the retard meninarmer makes a daily game of bashing white people and western civ while he comes on here and communicates in English, the language of his supposed enemies. He is really an oreo cookie, black on the outside but steeped in European culture and civilization on the inside.
Shouldn't you be busy telling me about the Browning book you claimed to have read? I thought you would have wasted no time in quoting him to me. Instead you seem to have all the time in the world for cursing blacks. You are indeed pathetic.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Interesting that the retard meninarmer makes a daily game of bashing white people and western civ while he comes on here and communicates in English, the language of his supposed enemies. He is really an oreo cookie, black on the outside but steeped in European culture and civilization on the inside.
So Timothy McVeigh, you can't address the validity of Ms. Jablonski's fantasy short story above, so you attack using flawed argument, as usual. Is your skin tone any different then your English/European ancestors? ROFLMBAO!!!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Some very interesting points relating to Whites almost universal adaptation of the Black Dravidian language. Firstly..
The "Proto-Hellenic" of the invading White Greeks. The Latin of the invading Latin’s/Romans. Are both dead languages. Just like everything else that the Whites brought with them from the Asian Steppes. It didn’t work well in the civilized world.
In India, Just as in Europe, it is very hard to determine exactly when Whites first showed up (1,200 B.C. for the sake of convenience). But unlike in Europe, in India they never got complete control. So there was always a conscious need to maintain their sense of self.
And in India, their “sense of self” dictated that they NOT learn to write. Many Brahmins considered it a sacrilege to change from communicating their beliefs orally, to putting them in written form. So you have the laughable situation where; though the Vedas are one of the oldest extant texts of any Indo-European language. (Philological and linguistic evidence indicate that the Rigveda was composed in the North-Western region of the Indian subcontinent, roughly between 1700–1100 B.C. (the early Vedic period)).
The Rig Veda was probably not written down until the Gupta period (4th to 6th century AD), by which time the Brahmi script had become widespread (the oldest surviving manuscripts date to the 11th century). The oral tradition still continued into recent times.
But guess what, as soon as the ignorant bastards finally figured out that learning to Write was a “Good” thing; look what they used it for.
TO TALK SH!T ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE, WHAT ELSE!
Here are some excerpts from the Rig Veda.
The Arian words for Black People were {Dasyus, Dasas and Simyus}.
a) He, much invoked, hath slain Dasyus and Simyus, after his wont, and laid them low with arrows. The mighty Thunderer with his fair-complexioned friends won the land, the sunlight, and the waters.
b) Sing, with oblation, praise to him who maketh glad, who with Rjisvan drove the dusky brood away.
c) Indra in battles help his Arian worshipper, he who hath hundred helps at hand in every fray, in frays that win the light of heaven. Plaguing the lawless he gave up to Manu's seed the dusky skin; Blazing, 'twere, he burns each covetous man away, he burns, the tyrannous away.
d) Strengthened by songs of praise thou rentest piecemeal the Dasa, him who deemed himself immortal. With us mayst thou, O Indra, waxen splendid, with Surya overcome the Dasa races.
e) Indra the Vrtra-slayer, Fort-destroyer, scattered the Dasa hosts who dwelt in darkness. {Prof. Uthaya Naidu translates this as "who sprang from a black womb."}
f) When in his arms they laid the bolt, he slaughtered the Dasyus and cast down their forts of iron.
g) His kine their Lord hath shown, e'en Vrtra's slayer, through the black hosts he passed with red attendants.
h) Active and bright have they come forth, impetuous in speed like bulls, Driving the black skin far away.
i) Blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates. Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
This is all nothing moore than racist garbage. None of this information is coorrect.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Prove it, Mr. McVeigh.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
It is so incoherent there is no place to start the conversation. He does not make any historical points with which to argue.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Just to show how insane minibrainer is, he claims that Jablonski above is photophobic due to the fact that she is 'white' and in his twisted mind "albino", yet the picture shows her standing outside on a sunny day! LOL He claims she is using sunscreen without any proof of such and then cites the fact that she squints her eyes from the sun, as if direct sunlight to the eyes doesn't affect even black people! LMAO
Racism is obviously a mental disorder, and minibrainer obviously suffers from it. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: It is so incoherent there is no place to start the conversation. He does not make any historical points with which to argue.
Paleface; are you talking about my post?
If so, what I wrote is easy enough to check. The Browser that you use to get here, also has a search function. Just plug-in the search words like Rig veda etc.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Hey DJ The Robot, you may be able to get by the standard Turing test, but fuzzy logic has limitations that you will always fall subject to. A.I. has come a long way, but a robot still can only accomplish what it's programmers intended.
Nina has; 1) White hair 2) Blue eyes 3) Photophobia 4) freckles & moles on the shoulders 5) I would bet good money Nina uses heavy duty contact lenses or has undergone corrective ocular surgery for poor vision
Although she's only 50, her appearance looks closer to mid 60. Classic OCA2 symptoms, and yes, that is a massive amount of sun screen spattered on her face as she faces forward near sundown in the above photo. Also, being of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, it is also highly statistically probable Nina carries at least one of the following genetic disorders associated with OCA2.
1)Tay-Sachs Disease (1 in 25) 2)Niemann-Pick Disease (1 in 40) 3)Gaucher Disease (1 in 14) 4)Bloom Syndrome (1 in 100) 5)Cystic Fibrosis (9 in 10) 6)Canavan Disease (1 in 40) 7)Familial Dysautonomia (1 in 30) 8)Fanconi anemia (1 in 89)
In a Q&A session, a student asked Nina a relevent question. Unfortunately he had one question and wasn't able to follow it up.
Q: As humans in Northern latitudes lost melanin to adapt to lower UVB, did they evolve better DNA repair mechanisms to deal with UVA?
Nina: No they didn't, and this is a real problem in the causation of skin cancer.
Only two human specimens have compromised DNA repair mechanism and severe skin melanin loss leading to skin cancer susceptibility; Albinos & Caucasians. Nuff said.
Once your Jewish packagers upgrade your firmware, you too may be capable of performing real (versus fictitious or imaginary) human-like resolution of anything, whether an object of the senses, or of the intellect. I.E. Analytical thought
Nina here describing wonderment at our 1st encounter Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Mike, You make no points. You are just a hyped up black kid on here trying to stir the pot. If you are interested in history go sign up for some classes and grow up a bit.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ Why do you keep posting on ES if every time someone asks you to back up your arguments you simply run away? It means you are not opposing based on information you have to the contrary but out of pure malice. This mean you have serious psychological issues that posting on ES will not rectify. You remind me of Dj and his denial of a stolen legacy and slandering of Prof. James book. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Mike, You make no points. You are just a hyped up black kid on here trying to stir the pot. If you are interested in history go sign up for some classes and grow up a bit.
Kid? He he - haven't been a kid for a while.
TheAmericanPatriot: you seem taken-aback by the truth of the clumsy and recent path to civilization of Whites. Your response of denial to these revelations, while understandable, will not help you achieve truth and clarity. Only the single-minded pursuit of truth will help you achieve that.
Funny thing though; you ask me to repeat your mistake, and give credence to the racist ignorance of those who MISINFORMED YOU! What, so then both of us can be ignorant? How would that help mankind.
It would be much better for you and the world, if you did as I suggested. Plug-in some search words and away you go. There are millions of research papers and articles on the internet. Go get some knowledge!!!
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
There are people on this board who post views way out on the edge of accepted scholarship but as speculative as they may be they are at least attempting to build a coherent case. The material you post is just silly nonsense. You have to have enough of a educational foundation to know what to do with the material you find. In addition, i do not know any historians who are interested in race.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
O.K. American ignorant, here is how it works. If I post something that you believe to be untrue. You respond by asking me to prove or provide evidence for that particular item. Simple as that, so what's your problem? You have yet to say any one thing is untrue. Obviously because you know that I am just waiting. So instead you make these lame B.S. complaints reminiscent of DJ. But worst of all, you make yourself a liar.
"i do not know any historians who are interested in race."
What a lie! White people have been obsessed with race ever since they left the Asian steppes. The only reason that you people are backing off now, is because we are kicking your White Asses with the truth!
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
You are too stupid to argue with. Most of your posts are incherent. Race is not historical. Race may fall unter the discpline of ethnology but it has no place in history. History wants to know about change and contunity. In other words, as the result of an event in history what changes and what remains the same. This is why you almost never find any historian writing about race.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ LOL, are you drunk?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^No, he is just stupid; He was beaten and could think of nothing better to say. I wonder if he ever heard of the civil war - what a ditz.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You are too stupid to argue with. Most of your posts are incherent. Race is not historical. Race may fall unter the discpline of ethnology but it has no place in history. History wants to know about change and contunity. In other words, as the result of an event in history what changes and what remains the same. This is why you almost never find any historian writing about race.
It's just far too easy to refute your comments. This is just a foreword from an European "historian":
some of their stories are, but whether this logical due to the influence of the Hottentots, And, lastly, there say are the Kaffirs spread over the whole of South Africa, domineering, but backward. Bleek finds that a greater congeniality exists between the Hottentot and European mind than is found between the latter and any other of the black races of Africa. There is no doubt in my mind that Bushmen came from the north and were the primitive race of south and tropical Africa, the dwarfs of Livingstone, Stanley, and other ex-explores. Considering, then, the great antiquity of this race, it naturally follows that if these stories are not original with the Bushmen, they are at least so modified as to bear no resemblance to Egyptian, Phoenician, or any other ancient race which the Bushmen may have come in contact with. Herodotus described a race on the upper Nile which corresponds with later descriptions of the Bushmen and southern in tropical Africa.
JAMES A. HONEY, M.D.
It sounds to me like this white historian was very much concerned about race.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
. The importance of slavery in America has nothing to do with the fact that the slaves were black, it has historical importance because they were slaves. The impact of slavery was not determined by the race of the slaves but rather by the impact they had in terms of change and contunity on history.
Someone interested in Anthropology would be interested in their race but they are not historians.
Once again you find yourself in argument with every doctored scholar in the field of history. It is obvious that you are too hard headed to be educated.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ This should be true; However, The World BLACK HOLOCAUST was so horrid and destructive, when ever you think of the event you equate it with Black Africans, and not the Native American slaves (North & South America) who proceeded them. Both the Native American and Black African Holocausts were equaling the worst examples of human genocide in man's recently known world history.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
meninarmer - You give him credibility. His point is so stupid that it does not deserve response.
In my opinion, the suffering of Blacks pales in comparison to the suffering of native Americans - they lost 90% of their population. Which is estimated to have exceeded 100 million.
But, I think that to many, the fact that they brought it on themselves, lessens the impact.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Meminarmer, That the slaves were black is not the issue. The history of the time would have been the same no matter what race the slaves were. If the slaves had been Chinese instaed of black the impact on the issues of the time would havew been the same. Again, race is not a historical issue.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ This should be true; However, The World BLACK HOLOCAUST was so horrid and destructive, when ever you think of the event you equate it with Black Africans, and not the Native American slaves (North & South America) who proceeded them. Both the Native American and Black African Holocausts were equaling the worst examples of human genocide in man's recently known world history.
Correct. All Hammer succeeds in accomplishing is diverting from the thread's topic which is Race & Genetics. More specifically, does American Patriot display a different skin complexion then his generations 1500 years ago? My guess is, absolutely NOT.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
bumb Up
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
