.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Old.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Dr. Nina Jablonski says - All together NOW!
We are NOT Albinos - because we SAY SO!!!
We are NOT Albinos - because we SAY SO!!!
We are NOT Albinos - because we SAY SO!!!
Vitamin D starved Black people in Europe, turned into White People???
I think NOT! Where is the Vitamin D starvation?
The best country food sources of Vitamin D (> 5 µg per 100 grams) include beluga blubber and oil, narwhal blubber, ringed seal liver, arctic char flesh, cisco eggs, lake trout flesh, loche eggs and liver and sculpin [Note 5]. Moderate country food sources (between 0.5 and 5 µg) are bearded seal flesh, beluga muktuk, ringed seal blubber as well as brain and eyes, caribou kidney and liver, muskox fat, wild duck, oysters, trout, whitefish and burbot.
There are very few store foods containing vitamin D. Excellent sources include Atlantic herring and canned salmon with bones. Moderate sources include fortified skim milk powder, fluid and evaporated milk, ground beef, liverwurst, beef liver and kidney and margarine.
In Kugaaruk, country food (mostly Arctic char) provided 90% of vitamin D (Table 4). Small amounts of vitamin D were supplied by Nutritious Perishable foods (3%) such as ground beef and margarine.
Country food (mostly Arctic char) was also the major source of vitamin D in Kangiqsujuaq (90%) (Table 4). Small amounts of vitamin D were provided by Nutritious Perishables (5%) including ground beef, chicken and margarine, and by Priority Perishables (4%) including fluid milk.
In contrast, Fort Severn women obtained only 4% of their vitamin D from country food (caribou, whitefish and pike) (Table 4). Thirty-nine percent came from Priority Perishables (mostly fluid milk and eggs), and one third from Nutritious Perishables such as ground beef and margarine. Nonperishables (mainly evaporated milk) supplied 21% of vitamin D.
Question: How much sun exposure do I need for vitamin D?
Your body makes vitamin D when you are exposed to the ultraviolet B (UVB) rays in sunlight. You probably need from 5 to 30 minutes of exposure to the skin on your face, arms, back or legs (without sunscreen) twice every week. Since exposure to sunlight is a risk for skin cancer, you should use sunscreen after a few minutes in the sun and even in the winter and on hazy, cloudy days.
(30 minutes twice a fuching week?
White people, shut the fuch up)
The amount of exposure also depends on the time of the year. In the northern hemisphere, the UVB is more intense during the summer months and less intense during the winter months. In fact, if you live north of the 42-degrees latitude, you will have a difficult time getting enough vitamin D from the sun from November through February.
(This means that Black people would have to stay outside more than 60 minutes a week, from November through February, if they wanted to avoid turning White!)
With animals as with plants, the earlier Pleistocene range and variety has been much reduced by the expansion of human settlement. Wild fauna has been long in retreat since Upper Paleolithic times (beginning about 40,000 years ago), when, as cave drawings portray, small human groups held their own against such big game as aurochs and mammoths, now extinct, and also against such survivors as bison, horses, and boars. Hares, swans, and geese were also hunted, and salmon, trout, and pike were fished. Humans were, inevitably, the successful competitor for land use.
SOME Types of European Fish: Bass, Trout, Salmon, Pike, Catfish, Sunfish, Walleye, sturgeon etc.
Sooo, if the original Europeans were Black Africans who later TURN White due to vitamin D starvation.
Does THAT mean that THIS picture is inaccurate?
He, he, White people - get the fuch out of here with your Bullsh1t! Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
The interesting thing is they have a lot of Black people running right along behind this belief system too.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: The interesting thing is they have a lot of Black people running right along behind this belief system too.
Grumman - It is not a good use of your time, to lament the condition of ignorant, weak-minded, self-hating Negros. It's their problem, leave them to it.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: I'm starting to really have fun now.
Sooo, if the original Europeans were Black Africans who later TURN White due to vitamin D starvation.
Does THAT mean that THIS picture is inaccurate?
He, he, White people - get the fuch out of here with your Bullsh1t!
It depends on the time period being depicted. If depicting 12,000 years ago, it is inaccurate, as scientific research shows. Even Brace 2005 found that the incoming Neolithic, bringers of advanced agriculture and technology looked like tropical Africans. He also found the notion among some Europeans and "biodiversity" proponents that 'Cro-magnons are us" to be "anthropological folklore". So you are right to question that picture. What time period do they say the above pic represents?
Scientists reveal face of the first European The face of the first European has been recreated from bone fragments by scientists.
By Urmee Khan, Digital and Media Correspondent Published: 8:22PM BST 04 May 2009
The first modern European Forensic artist Richard Neave reconstructed the face based on skull fragments from 35000 years ago. Photo: BBC The head was rebuilt in clay based on an incomplete skull and jawbone discovered in a cave in the south west of the Carpathian Mountains in Romania by potholers.
Using radiocarbon analysis scientists say the man or woman, it is still not possible to determine the sex, lived between 34,000 and 36,000 years ago.
Europe was then occupied by both Neanderthal man, who had been in the region for thousands of years, and anatomically-modern humans – Homo sapiens.
Modern humans first arrived in Europe from Africa.
The skull appears very like humans today, but it also displays more archaic traits, such as very large molar teeth, which led some scientists to speculate the skull may belong to a hybrid between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals – an idea discounted by other experts.
Erik Trinkaus, professor of anthropology at Washington University in Missouri, said the jaw was the oldest, directly-dated modern human fossil. "Taken together, the material is the first that securely documents what modern humans looked like when they spread into Europe," he said.
The model was created by Richard Neave, a forensic artist, for a BBC programme about the origins of the human race and evolution.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
zarahan what is your opinion on the main cause of lighter skin?
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
^^^Asking Zarahan for his expert opinion? HAHAHAH you're joking right?
He doesn't believe in the ToE and that 'Black Africans' ever evolved with all his comics stating, 'Early or Ancient Eurasians' looked like 'true modern Negroes or Blacks'
He needs to take HS level Biology and realize he is really disrespecting his own people.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^^are you sure that Zarahan doesn't believe in the ToE (Theory of Evolution)?
let's see what he says.
You can still believe that Early or Ancient Eurasians' looked like 'true modern Negroes or Blacks' and still believe in evolution that they transformed into light skinned people. That's mainstream anthropology, that the first people that left Africa were dark skinned and that these dark skinned people settled in Asia. In fact not to believe this would be out of the mainstream.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
NonProphet - ToE (Theory of Everything) is a putative theory of theoretical physics, what does that have to do with anthropology?
Modern African man is at least 200,000 - 400,000 years old, so of course 'Early or Ancient Eurasians' looked like 'true modern Negroes or Blacks'
Is there anything else that will be coming out of that pink ass-hole that you use for a brain?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: NonProphet - ToE (Theory of Everything) is a putative theory of theoretical physics, what does that have to do with anthropology?
Modern African man is at least 200,000 - 400,000 years old, so of course 'Early or Ancient Eurasians' looked like 'true modern Negroes or Blacks'
Is there anything else that will be coming out of that pink ass-hole that you use for a brain?
ToE, theory of evolution dimwit
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Theory of Evolution????
Is that what the pink-ass idiot NonProphet was talking about?
Damn, I knew the boy was stupid, but not THAT stupid!
Idiot pink BOY, that is a well accepted theory that leaves NO DOUBT that Modern man and the African Man are ONE!!!!
Just how fuching stupid ARE you?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
zarahan - The picture above appears to be a composite of Lascaux Cave: 14,000 B.C. and Ancient Paintings in Cave of the Hands: Santa Cruz Province, Patagonia, Argentina 7,000 B.C.
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
Pigmentation was not inferred by the sculptor which was in fact the natural color of the modeling clay material.
Peştera cu Oase 2 man may have been darker than modern Europeans but not as dark as SSA. Probably closer to modern SW Eurasian skin tones.
She(zarahan)alias Myra Wysinger is either too stupid and/or dishonest to realize the reconstruction of the 35-40Kyo Peştera cu Oase 2 skull has been shown to exhibit archaic and Neandertal traits in this study. (Notice Erik Trinkhaus is #12) -
In this context, there is one sample of early modern human craniofacial remains that dates to the first 5 ka of the presumed occupation of Europe [between 42 and 37.5 thousand calendar years before the present (ka cal B.P.)] by early modern humans, the mandible and cranium from the Peştera cu Oase, Caraş-Severin, Romania. The Oase 1 mandible has been described as exhibiting derived modern human features, several generally archaic aspects, and one Neandertal trait (2, 3).
Peştera cu Oase 2 and the cranial morphology of early modern Europeans
1. Hélčne Rougier * , † , ‡ , 2. Ştefan Milota § , 3. Ricardo Rodrigo ¶ , 4. Mircea Gherase § , 5. Laurenţiu Sarcinǎ § , 6. Oana Moldovan ‖, 7. Joăo Zilhăo **, 8. Silviu Constantin †† , 9. Robert G. Franciscus ‡‡ , 10. Christoph P. E. Zollikofer §§ , 11. Marcia Ponce de León §§ , and 12. Erik Trinkaus * , ‡
Note to zarahan - You really weren't suppose to take that picture seriously. I posted it to make fun of White people and their claims to ancient involvement and accomplishment. It's all made-up, just like the picture, I thought that you understood that.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
HERE IS WHY LITTLE WHITE BOYS LIKE NonProphet COME ON THE FORUM SO CLUELESS AND STUPID!
THEY HAVE BEEN FED THIS NONSENSE ALL OF THEIR LIVES!
We will begin with Homo-habilis because habilis is the one that we believe was the first of the "great Ape" type creatures to have evolved to the point where he could be called "Homo" (MAN).
Homo- habilis is now extinct, but he inhabited parts of sub-Saharan Africa about 2 million to 1.5 million years ago. Homo-habilis is generally accepted as the earliest member of the genus Homo. He is following Australopithecus and preceding Homo-erectus. He was given the name Homo habilis, meaning 'handy man', because he made tools. We think that he was the first creature to make tools for specific purposes. Like if he needed a sharp edge to cut meat, he would strike two pieces of flint against each other, and the pieces that broke away would usually have a sharp edge, instant Knife.
Homo- Erectus
Next we have 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.
Homo-sapiens
The Genus and species to which all modern human beings (Homo-sapien-sapien), belong and to which are attributable fossil remains of humans in Africa, from 400,000 years ago or more. Homo sapiens are distinguished from other animals and from earlier humanoid species by characteristics and habits such as bipedal stance and gait, brain capacity averaging about 82 cubic inches, high forehead, small teeth and jaw, defined chin, construction and use of tools, and the ability to make use of symbols such as used in language and writing. Some of these features were possessed by the immediate ancestor, Homo erectus; but in the aggregate they are characteristic only of Homo sapiens.
Homo sapiens, “man the wise,” is the only currently existing species of the genus Homo. It is difficult, if not impossible, to follow the evolutionary steps that led to modern man in the fossil record. Charles Darwin himself defined the problem. “In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creatures to man as he now exists, he wrote in The Descent of Man, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term "man" ought to be used.”
One of the things that makes discovery of a point of distinction so difficult, is that Homo-sapien is the product of an evolutionary process called mosaic evolution. Which postulates that humans did not evolve smoothly as a species, but that various populations evolved at different rates, according to environmental and genetic circumstances. And because fossils are the remains of individuals, who may differ even within populations, one fossil alone or even a few do not adequately describe how a population may have evolved.
Note: Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon are NOT in the Human family tree Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
This ancient skull... Peştera cu Oase
...doesn't resemble a modern so-called 'Caucasoid' cranium -
nor a 'Negroid' cranium -
However, these features are associated with an exceptionally flat frontal arc, a moderately large juxtamastoid eminence, extremely large molars that become progressively larger distally, complex occlusal morphology of the upper third molar, and relatively anteriorly positioned zygomatic arches. Moreover, the featureless occipital region and small mastoid process are at variance with the large facial skeleton and dentition. This unusual mosaic in Oase 2, some of which is paralleled in the Oase 1 mandible, indicates both complex population dynamics as modern humans dispersed into Europe and significant ongoing human evolution once modern humans were established within Europe.
The Oase 1 mandible has been described as exhibiting derived modern human features, several generally archaic aspects, and one Neandertal trait (2, 3). The Oase 2 cranium has been described as presenting a similar morphological mosaic based on the portions initially discovered (4, 5) Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
NonProphet - You pathetic little piece of perfect Albino kind, thank you for posting this little gem from Mathildas.
Sooo then:
These prognathic people are Blacks?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
And let me guess;
Then These NON-PROGNATHIC people, MUST be WHITE!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
NonProphet - Is it starting to dawn on you, just how Sad, Pathetic, Stupid, Dishonest, Frightened, Sorry, Weak, Worthless, (Non-defective humans - If I missed anything, please correct) you Albinos are? Posted by MelaninKing (Member # 17444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Dr. Nina Jablonski says - All together NOW!
We are NOT Albinos - because we SAY SO!!!
We are NOT Albinos - because we SAY SO!!!
We are NOT Albinos - because we SAY SO!!!
Vitamin D starved Black people in Europe, turned into White People???
I think NOT! Where is the Vitamin D starvation?
The best country food sources of Vitamin D (> 5 µg per 100 grams) include beluga blubber and oil, narwhal blubber, ringed seal liver, arctic char flesh, cisco eggs, lake trout flesh, loche eggs and liver and sculpin [Note 5]. Moderate country food sources (between 0.5 and 5 µg) are bearded seal flesh, beluga muktuk, ringed seal blubber as well as brain and eyes, caribou kidney and liver, muskox fat, wild duck, oysters, trout, whitefish and burbot.
There are very few store foods containing vitamin D. Excellent sources include Atlantic herring and canned salmon with bones. Moderate sources include fortified skim milk powder, fluid and evaporated milk, ground beef, liverwurst, beef liver and kidney and margarine.
In Kugaaruk, country food (mostly Arctic char) provided 90% of vitamin D (Table 4). Small amounts of vitamin D were supplied by Nutritious Perishable foods (3%) such as ground beef and margarine.
Country food (mostly Arctic char) was also the major source of vitamin D in Kangiqsujuaq (90%) (Table 4). Small amounts of vitamin D were provided by Nutritious Perishables (5%) including ground beef, chicken and margarine, and by Priority Perishables (4%) including fluid milk.
In contrast, Fort Severn women obtained only 4% of their vitamin D from country food (caribou, whitefish and pike) (Table 4). Thirty-nine percent came from Priority Perishables (mostly fluid milk and eggs), and one third from Nutritious Perishables such as ground beef and margarine. Nonperishables (mainly evaporated milk) supplied 21% of vitamin D.
Question: How much sun exposure do I need for vitamin D?
Your body makes vitamin D when you are exposed to the ultraviolet B (UVB) rays in sunlight. You probably need from 5 to 30 minutes of exposure to the skin on your face, arms, back or legs (without sunscreen) twice every week. Since exposure to sunlight is a risk for skin cancer, you should use sunscreen after a few minutes in the sun and even in the winter and on hazy, cloudy days.
(30 minutes twice a fuching week?
White people, shut the fuch up)
The amount of exposure also depends on the time of the year. In the northern hemisphere, the UVB is more intense during the summer months and less intense during the winter months. In fact, if you live north of the 42-degrees latitude, you will have a difficult time getting enough vitamin D from the sun from November through February.
(This means that Black people would have to stay outside more than 60 minutes a week, from November through February, if they wanted to avoid turning White!)
In typical Russian Jew fashion, Dr. Jablonski attempts to hide from reality of her Albino ancestry, but as can be easily observed, Ms. Jablonski carries ALL of the classic traits of OCA1/OCA2 herself.
On her online Q&A lecture, she openly admits that European whites, especially Russian Jews all carry the defective which results in degraded immunization classic to Albinism. When you include other features such as Blond hair, blue eyes, pale skin that can only mean one valid conclusion; Albinism OCA1, OCA2 or in between.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
MK - Do you know what really galls me? It is that it isn't even a GOOD lie!
How preposterous it is to suggest that There were Blacks in Europe who didn't go OUTSIDE for as little as 30 minutes a WEEK!
It's just plain stupid to suggest such a thing! But as is typical with the Albinos, no lie is too BIG a lie!
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
^Mike stop talking to your paranoid schizophrenic alter ego again. Thorazine or new meds?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^Just Black people discussing truth and logic. Being an Albino, I don't expect you to understand the conversation.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: zarahan what is your opinion on the main cause of lighter skin?
we need zarahan to clear this up.
Light skin. Are the majority of light skinned people the result of a slow thousands of years process or are the majority of light skinned people the result of albinism?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^What, you don't want to talk to me any more?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^I still like you.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^What, you don't want to talk to me any more?
No, your are committed to what you have written on your website. If you changed anything someone might think you're wavering. Therefore even if you notice an error later on, you have to stick to what you said before. You're stuck. You have developed your own learning disability
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Website?
This has nothing to do with anybody's website. This is us discussing Albino lies and distortion. Now I know that I have been riding you pretty good, like a horse, but I thought you could take it, maybe even enjoyed it - I sure did.
Posted by MelaninKing (Member # 17444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: MK - Do you know what really galls me? It is that it isn't even a GOOD lie!
How preposterous it is to suggest that There were Blacks in Europe who didn't go OUTSIDE for as little as 30 minutes a WEEK!
It's just plain stupid to suggest such a thing! But as is typical with the Albinos, no lie is too BIG a lie!
Mike
The lie worked during the pre-internet phase of data interchange simply because the information was intentionally obscured and repackaged to mislead. For example, Melanin research was renamed to misleading nomenclature like, Stem Cell Research, while research into curing skin cancer and melanoma is highly funded, but receives limited general public exposure.
Today, we know better and genetics cannot be utilized to diffuse the absolute certainly of what's reality.
They used to call it, IMPERFECT ALBINISM
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Nice find MK;
So now that Blacks too, acknowledge them as Albinos, Suddenly they're not?
What nonsense.
But then again, it might be a matter of context. In those days, those fools actually believed that White skin was better, therefore I guess they didn't mind being incomplete Albinos.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
If two dark black people had an albino baby in Russia the child would be healthier than the parents unless the parents were living on the coast and access to oily fish. The parents would have a higher chance of developing rickets and vitamin D deficiency . People also wear more clothing in those areas for longer periods of the year have relatively less of exposure of their skin apart from face and hands to the lower UV sunlight.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Lioness, ever think about going out and making some money instead of worrying about what race every group in history belongs to? Just a thought.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^Lioness you silly girl, you're just pulling this stuff out of your ass aren't you?
Fool, you are so ignorant that you think the vitamin D bullsh1t, regardless of the evidence, is true.
Idiot, there is no need to guess how Blacks do in the far north, just look up the Malta culture in Siberia, or the Sungir culture in Russia. Those Blacks prospered for untold thousands of years.
BTW - Try ACTUALLY reading my posts. In northern areas it takes only about two hours a week to get enough sunlight for good health.
DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? TWO HOURS A "WEEK" - idiot.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Coma, coma, Come back girl.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Lioness you silly girl, you're just pulling this stuff out of your ass aren't you?
Fool, you are so ignorant that you think the vitamin D bullsh1t, regardless of the evidence, is true.
Idiot, there is no need to guess how Blacks do in the far north, just look up the Malta culture in Siberia, or the Sungir culture in Russia. Those Blacks prospered for untold thousands of years.
BTW - Try ACTUALLY reading my posts. In northern areas it takes only about two hours a week to get enough sunlight for good health.
DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? TWO HOURS A "WEEK" - idiot.
There is no evidence whatsoever that indicates complexion of Malta or Sangir people of Russia/Siberia. The below is an unpainted reconstruction. In my opinion his features do not look African at all.
The upper reconstruction is an unpainted. The skin tone is not indicated nor is it possible to know what it was. For arguments sake if the original inhabitants were dark skinned and there was a test to show they were dark skinned then so what. You would have evidence of a darker skinned people in the region at a given time. If you move up 6-12,000 years or 20,000 if you like, those same people would have become light skinned. So even if you had evidence of a dark skinned ancestor it does not disprove evolutionary skin depigmentation. The fact that you don't believe it I would say is religious, the unique racial religion you have developed to revise history.
Please post a photo of a modern person you think is more similar to the photo of the wrestler I posted. Remember to get the lips right.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
He, he, Well for one thing, the Black guy is better looking.
The White guy is a "Rus", you know, as in "Russian".
From Wiki The Rus' (Slavic: Русь, Swedish: Ros, Greek: Ῥῶς) were the historic population of the Rus' Khaganate and Kievan Rus'.
One of the earliest written sources mentioning the people called Rus in the form of Rhos dates back to year 839 AD in a Royal Frankish chronicle Annales Bertiniani, identified as a Germanic tribe called Swedes by the Frankish authorities. According to the Kievan Rus' Primary Chronicle compiled in about 1113 AD, the Rus were a group of Varangians, Norsemen, who had relocated from Scandinavia, first to Northeastern Europe, then to the south where they created the medieval Kievan state.
Their name survives in the designation Rospigg, a person from Roslagen, and the cognates Russians, Rusyns and Ruthenians, and who are viewed by the modern Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians as the predecessors of their own peoples. In Sweden, today Rospiggar are males living in the coastal region of the province of Uppland.
Not exactly "Ancient" are they? Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: He, he, Well for one thing, the Black guy is better looking.
The White guy is a "Rus", you know, as in "Russian".
From Wiki The Rus' (Slavic: Русь, Swedish: Ros, Greek: Ῥῶς) were the historic population of the Rus' Khaganate and Kievan Rus'.
One of the earliest written sources mentioning the people called Rus in the form of Rhos dates back to year 839 AD in a Royal Frankish chronicle Annales Bertiniani, identified as a Germanic tribe called Swedes by the Frankish authorities. According to the Kievan Rus' Primary Chronicle compiled in about 1113 AD, the Rus were a group of Varangians, Norsemen, who had relocated from Scandinavia, first to Northeastern Europe, then to the south where they created the medieval Kievan state.
Their name survives in the designation Rospigg, a person from Roslagen, and the cognates Russians, Rusyns and Ruthenians, and who are viewed by the modern Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians as the predecessors of their own peoples. In Sweden, today Rospiggar are males living in the coastal region of the province of Uppland.
Not exactly "Ancient" are they?
the naming is irrelevant, everybody goes back to the same Africans who left Africa. Above you describe a theory that Rus goes back to German roots. None of this makes any difference. If you follow back any branch it leads back to Africa. From that African root it branches North as this happens, later after thousands of years the people's skin gradually lightens if they are at Northern latitudes, and don't have access to fish and more so when they become agriculturalists who become more reliant on grain based diets that are sometimes relatively more deficient in vitamin D. If you put these factors together with the general lower UV levels in the region it accounts for the adaptation. Add to this the possibility of sexual selection. You see it in the Egyptian art, in some of it it looks like an ideal is being put forward in which woman are lighter. You could say it was symbolic of femininity. Regardless, if it was originally done symbolically and ideal is then established. Then people could actually practice this ideal by seeking out lighter skinned women from more Northern ancestry. I believe this is more the case for the wealthy class rather than the common folk.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Lioness quote: agriculturalists who become more reliant on grain based diets that are sometimes relatively more deficient in vitamin D.
Oookay:
But the Sun is the BEST source of vitamin D, and it's free, and available to ALL!
He, he, Just TWO hours a WEEK.
He, he, and they get to stay Black.
Not to mention, AVOID rickets.
Central Asia North
But you are right on one account, some Black men do LOVE Albino poon-tang.
Even the ugly ones!
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: ^^^Asking Zarahan for his expert opinion? HAHAHAH you're joking right?
He doesn't believe in the ToE and that 'Black Africans' ever evolved with all his comics stating, 'Early or Ancient Eurasians' looked like 'true modern Negroes or Blacks'
He needs to take HS level Biology and realize he is really disrespecting his own people.
What do you know jackass? You have been debunked time and time again. Trying to "spin" your failure won't work.
As for me stating "'Early or Ancient Eurasians' looked like 'true modern Negroes or Blacks'"
I didn't. I said they looked like tropical Africans, who as part of Afric's built in genetic diversity have a wide range of physical features. Africans don't need your "biodiversity" "race mix" to look different. Your little sleight of hand modification of what I said won't work. Everyone sees right through you.
Hanihara 1996 says 'Early West Asians looked like Africans." Brace 2005 shows the same with Neolithic era Euros. Bluster and hot air won't cover your failure to show otherwise. Anytime your BS has been exposed you resort to bluster as a front. "Front' all you want, but no one is being fooled.
Mike says: From Wiki The Rus' (Slavic: Русь, Swedish: Ros, Greek: Ῥῶς) were the historic population of the Rus' Khaganate and Kievan Rus'.
Sunghir man easily fits the range resembling the diversity that makes up tropical Africans. Again, indigenous tropical African peoples have a variety of features, including narrow noses, loose hair, light brown skin etc. They don't need any "wandering Caucasoids" to make them look different. The key though is to look at the limb proportions of the peoples of that era. Limb pro- portions are more stable than things like skin color. And said proportions show people of that era were tropically adapted, and thus resemble other tropically adapted people in Afric more than modern whites.
quotes:
"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. 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. .. 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." (Holliday, Trenton (1997) Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins. Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 32, Issue 5, 1997, Pages 423-447)
".. while the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans have significantly higher (i.e., tropically-adapted) brachial and crural indices than do recent Europeans, they also have shorter (i.e., cold-adapted) limbs. The somewhat paradoxical retention of “tropical” indices in the context of more “cold-adapted” limb length is best explained as evidence for Replacement in the European Late Pleistocene, followed by gradual cold adaptation in glacial Europe."
(Holliday, Trenton (1999) Brachial and crural indices of European Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans. Journal of Human Evolution. Volume 36, Issue 5, May 1999, Pages 549-566)
All the bluster and spin of the "biodiversity" crowd can't hide the facts.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
zarahan what is the opposite of biodiversity?
Who disputes that it was dark skinned Africans who migrated into Eurasia and had sex with a few Neanderthals.
Do you dispute that these dark skinned African migrants were transformed over thousands of years (pick any thousands multiple you like) by the climate into lighter skinned people with cold adapted limbs?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
I don't know about him, but I sure do.
BTW - Lioness, isn't it time for you to present SOME evidence, to back up YOUR claim that Blacks TURNED into Whites - sans Albinism?
BTW2 - Did I make it clear that the body requires only a Small, tincy-tiny, amount of Vitamin D. And that Vitamin D is fat-soluble, that means that the body STORES it in its FAT.
Therefore you don't need to get it all the time.
Okay, let's see what you can come up with!
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
^^ "lioness" has no evidence, not does her other account. ANd the "biodiversity" she and prophet expound is anything but, as their stereotypical arguments about Africans and denial of African diversity attests.
And her notion of these massive thousands of years passing before Euros became white is also dubious. Skin color change is a comparatively recent phenomenon for white people. Furthermore, said white people did not spring from the Neanderthals although this is the position of some "biodiversity" proponents. They came from recent tropically adapted Africans or derivative tropical African variants, subsets of the originals, as already shown in various studies.
And no credible scientist "picks any thousands multiple years" on this issue as lioness urges. That is complete rubbish.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
Who disputes that it was dark skinned Africans who migrated into Eurasia and had sex with a few Neanderthals.
Not sure "dispute" is how I'd put it, but I definitely question the prospect of modern humans having successful offspring with Neanderthals.
Posted by BiGBANGBOOGIE (Member # 18298) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
Do you dispute that these dark skinned African migrants were transformed over thousands of years (pick any thousands multiple you like) by the climate into lighter skinned people with cold adapted limbs?
The tricky question is, how do you distinguish between modern humans and "dark skinned African migrants" that left the continent thousands of years ago? (besides taking a blood sample and doing some DNA tests). Are they not also tropical adapted, at least some of them?
We can't only look at the changes that happened OOA but also the changes that happened to the Africans who never left the continent in the first place (or left at a much later/more recent date).
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
Who disputes that it was dark skinned Africans who migrated into Eurasia and had sex with a few Neanderthals.
Not sure "dispute" is how I'd put it, but I definitely question the prospect of modern humans having successful offspring with Neanderthals.
What makes it more probable that an antiquated African type is more likely to have a successful offspring with a Neanderthal?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
BiGBANGBOOGIE - You do make the silliest posts. An antiquated African type would be Homo-Hablis or Homo-Erectus, which are you referring to?
But either way, you would still be out of luck. Both became extinct long before Neanderthal came along.
Posted by BiGBANGBOOGIE (Member # 18298) on :
Had it been anyone else, I might have been offended but, your reputation of occupational idiocy precedes you.
You do know that Homo sapiens sapiens are a subspecies of the "Homo sapiens" species that Neanderthal also derive from, and that the classifications are still being discovered (i.e. there is no guarantee the present models are infallible)?
quote: By 130,000 years ago, following a prolonged period of independent evolution in Europe, Neanderthals were so anatomically distinct that they are best classified as a separate species — Homo neanderthalensis. This is a classic example of geographic isolation leading to a speciation event.
In contrast, at roughly the same time, in Africa, a body plan essentially like our own had appeared. While these early Homo sapiens were anatomically modern they were not behaviorally modern. It is significant that modern anatomy evolved prior to modern behavior. These early sapiens were characterized by:
* a cranial vault with a vertical forehead, rounded occipital and reduced brow ridge * a reduced facial skeleton lacking a projecting mid-face * a lower jaw sporting a chin * a more modern, less robustly built skeleton
Hence, the anatomical and paleogeographic evidence suggests that Neanderthals and early modern humans had been isolated from one another and were evolving separately into two distinct species. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by BiGBANGBOOGIE:
What makes it more probable that an antiquated African type is more likely to have a successful offspring with a Neanderthal?
Is that the case? According to what? And as asked above, what do you mean by the "antiquated African type"?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
He, he, BiGBANGBOOGIE, you are our very first "Tea-Bagger".
And in true "Tea-Bagger" fashion, you even have your own fruitcake science guy, Donald C. Johanson from Arizona state.
That's all just fine, but I think that the forum would get much better laughs from Arizona's best known "Tea-Bagger" nut, Sharon Engle. Can you get her to post here?
Posted by BiGBANGBOOGIE (Member # 18298) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by BiGBANGBOOGIE:
What makes it more probable that an antiquated African type is more likely to have a successful offspring with a Neanderthal?
Is that the case? According to what? And as asked above, what do you mean by the "antiquated African type"?
You used the term "modern humans" which I presume to mean *all* humans identified as Homo sapiens sapiens.
Any type of Homo sapien that isn't "Homo sapiens sapiens" is obviously an "antiquated African" since Homo sapiens evolved in Africa.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
^That being the case, what makes you think it is more probable that some "antiquated African type" was more likely to have a successful offspring with a Neanderthal? I ask you this, because your question makes this supposition.
Posted by BiGBANGBOOGIE (Member # 18298) on :
^ That was not my intention (to make a supposition). I thought you might have had a reason for saying "modern humans" instead of just "humans".
I think the fact that 1 to 4% of Eurasian genome comes from Neanderthals is a good indication that they did reproduce successfully at some point.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
Who disputes that it was dark skinned Africans who migrated into Eurasia and had sex with a few Neanderthals.
Not sure "dispute" is how I'd put it, but I definitely question the prospect of modern humans having successful offspring with Neanderthals.
Otherwise, where did the Neanderthal genes to be found in Eurasian "modern humans" come from?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Well, I question any meaningful genetic exchange between Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans, such that such an exchange would result in the conservation of Neanderthal markers in the autosomal genome, and yet, not in the uniparental lineage, particularly since the autosomal clusters are generally less conservative than uniparental markers. Secondly, the Neanderthals and humans differ markedly in not only uniparental markers, but as we've seen, in other aspects of anatomy.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
The Explorer - By entertaining BiGBANGBOOGIE's nonsense you are chasing your tail.
About five years ago, the revisionist White boys decided to change Cro-Magnon to Homo sapien. And Neanderthal also to Homo sapien.
And then bumping Modern Man to Homo sapien sapien.
The problem with this fools argument is that Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal are NOT supposed to BE African but rather, born in the Levant.
To understand what kind of a loon you are dealing with, I suggest that you click his link a scan the article.
To me, the question is, why would the American Institute of Biological Sciences, allow a nutjob like Donald C. Johanson to post on their site.
Posted by BiGBANGBOOGIE (Member # 18298) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Well, I question any meaningful genetic exchange between Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans, such that such an exchange would result in the conservation of Neanderthal markers in the autosomal genome, and yet, not in the uniparental lineage, particularly since the autosomal clusters are generally less conservative than uniparental markers. Secondly, the Neanderthals and humans differ markedly in not only uniparental markers, but as we've seen, in other aspects of anatomy.
^ You've somewhat lost me with the jargon there.
However,
What type of genetic exchange could occur that isn't meaningful?
Are you suggesting that those who we find Neanderthal genes present in are, simply Neanderthals (and not hybrids)?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Basically, it is interesting that the Neanderthals supposedly left their mark in the generally less conservative segment of the human genome, and not the more conservative ones -- i.e. the Y-DNA and mtDNA.
And no, LOL. I am not suggesting that folks who supposedly tested for the Neanderthal markers are Neanderthals. Although, some, not myself, might interpret such individuals as 'hybrids', because after all, they have ancestry from two related but different species.
The only relatively meaningful interpretation of the interesting preservation of Neanderthal markers in the autosomal genome and not the uniparental ones, is if one assumed that by way of genetic drift, Neanderthal fathers only had daughters, with human females. That is the only way I can foresee their Y-DNA and mtDNA completely disappearing after generations. Even so, with thousands upon thousands of generations without Neanderthal contribution, how is it that the Neanderthal markers somehow survived the test of time in the autosomal genome; is it a matter of some biological advantage, to have those markers intact? If so, what would this be?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
BTW - Lioness, isn't it time for you to present SOME evidence, to back up YOUR claim that Blacks TURNED into Whites - sans Albinism?
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: ^^ "lioness" has no evidence,
Does this mean that you believe as Mike111 does that skin depigmentation in Europeans has nothing to do with environmental adaptation and it is the result of albinism and that the original white people were communities of albinos rather than the result of slow evolutionary adaptation, slow meaning according to a recent estimate 6-12,000 years, slow adaptation to low UV conditions?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^Irrespective of what zarahan believes or doesn't believe: how about giving me some Lioness - evidence that is.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Lioness - I see that you are lost, no wonder really. Your argument was only fanciful, never serious. But I don't blame you, or any Albino, it must be a bitter pill to know that you are "Unnatural".
I was just perusing another thread and the subject of "Fur" came up. I must tell you that the interpretations of the Polar Bears "Whiteness" are incorrect.
Firstly, the Sun is of paramount importance to all terrestrial creatures. And like all such creatures the Polar Bear had to evolve to make best use of it. Therefore Whiteness or Albinism could NOT be a part of the Polar Bears survival strategy - and it is NOT.
That is because though the Polar Bear "Appears" White, he is NOT!
The Polar Bear actually has "Colorless" Fur. Which is of extreme importance, because the Polar Bears "Skin" is BLACK!
That "Colorless" Fur, allows the Suns radiation to penetrate through to the skin, to warm and nourish the body; while at the same time, holding body heat in. The Polar Bears Black skin, works just like Human Black skin, it protects the body from excessive UV radiation.
So you see, nowhere on Earth is White skin natural or useful. It's just an accident.
Thus, a furless Polar Bear looks like THIS!
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Basically, it is interesting that the Neanderthals supposedly left their mark in the generally less conservative segment of the human genome, and not the more conservative ones -- i.e. the Y-DNA and mtDNA.
And no, LOL. I am not suggesting that folks who supposedly tested for the Neanderthal markers are Neanderthals. Although, some, not myself, might interpret such individuals as 'hybrids', because after all, they have ancestry from two related but different species.
The only relatively meaningful interpretation of the interesting preservation of Neanderthal markers in the autosomal genome and not the uniparental ones, is if one assumed that by way of genetic drift, Neanderthal fathers only had daughters, with human females. That is the only way I can foresee their Y-DNA and mtDNA completely disappearing after generations. Even so, with thousands upon thousands of generations without Neanderthal contribution, how is it that the Neanderthal markers somehow survived the test of time in the autosomal genome; is it a matter of some biological advantage, to have those markers intact? If so, what would this be?
Y-dna and mtDNA more conservative than Autosomes?
Autosomes have much more base pairs, thousands more usable loci, lower genetic drift, lower mutation rate and are 10 times older than mtDNA or Y-dna.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Mike bad example, polar bears eat tons of oily fish. Fish oil is one of the few sources of food that have high concentrations of vitamin D. The polar bear is another example consistent with the vitamin D hypothesis.
Also keep in mind in an animals that have dark skin it is only the top layer which is dark.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
So what are you saying; in Black humans, the Black is to the bone? He,he.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: So what are you saying; in Black humans, the Black is to the bone? He,he.
right that's what I was saying black people have black bones. Our skin is dark not only in the top layer buy all seven. yes that's what I was saying. We are finally in agreement
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
He,he, Okay Lioness, I finally learned something new from you. Black people have Black bones - who knew?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet:
Y-dna and mtDNA more conservative than Autosomes?
Generally speaking, you bet. This is because autosomal chromosomes have larger areas that recombine than the uniparental DNA. This is 101 stuff.
quote: Autosomes have much more base pairs
Are you referring to individual chromosomes; if so, in comparsion to what: Y-DNA, or mtDNA?
quote: , thousands more usable loci
In terms of what, against what specific DNa and according to whom?
quote: , lower genetic drift
This doesn't make sense, because as noted, larger areas of atDNA recombine when compared against that of uniparental DNA. So, atDNA info is less predictable than that of the latter.
quote: lower mutation rate
According to what?
quote: and are 10 times older than mtDNA or Y-dna.
How so, when as pointed above time and again, that uniparental DNA generally keep information intact longer?
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet:
Y-dna and mtDNA more conservative than Autosomes?
Generally speaking, you bet. This is because autosomal chromosomes have larger areas that recombine than the uniparental DNA. This is 101 stuff.
quote: Autosomes have much more base pairs
Are you referring to individual chromosomes; if so, in comparsion to what: Y-DNA, or mtDNA?
quote: , thousands more usable loci
In terms of what, against what specific DNa and according to whom?
quote: , lower genetic drift
This doesn't make sense, because as noted, larger areas of atDNA recombine when compared against that of uniparental DNA. So, atDNA info is less predictable than that of the latter.
quote: lower mutation rate
According to what?
quote: and are 10 times older than mtDNA or Y-dna.
How so, when as pointed above time and again, that uniparental DNA generally keep information intact longer?
Population Genetics textbooks and the following:
Venter, J. C. et al. The Sequence of the Human Genome. Science 291, 1304–1351 (2001)
International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409, 860–921 (2001)
Makova, K. D. & Li, W. H. Strong male-driven evolution of DNA sequences in humans and apes. Nature 416, 624–626 (2002)
Anderson, S. et al. Sequence and organization of the human mitochondrial genome. Nature 290, 457–465 (1981).
Heyer, E. et al. Phylogenetic and familial estimates of mitochondrial substitution rates: study of control region mutations in deep-rooting pedigrees. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69, 1113–1126 (2001)
Nachman, M. W. & Crowell, S., L. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156, 297–304 (2000)
What are your sources?
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
^ Due to higher mutation rates mtDNA and Y-dna by definition can't be more conservative. If you are talking about haplotype and haplogroup conservation, then this is not comparable to Autosomes because they have no definable haplotypes or haplogroups. Also, Age is determined for all by tMRCA.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
nonprophet, if you are going to quote my replies without actually answering the questions, then it's wise to not quote me at all. I did not ask you for a list of ambiguous sources. I asked you specific questions that warrant specific answers.
As for your generalized higher uniparental DNA mutation rate than the autosomal, give me the specifics on this. 1)What regions of these DNA are being compared and the specifics of their respective mutation rates, and 2)the sources of these observations.
Your claim about autosomes not having haplotypes is rooted in your ignorance. You go onto speak of TMRCA, by which I take it, that your error about autosomal DNA markers being more conservative than uniparental markers, as far as keeping genetic info intact, has suddenly dawned on you. What did you think I was referring to, if not haplotypes?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)