EgyptSearch Forums: Post A Reply

...

»	EgyptSearch Forums » Share Your Egyptian Experiences/Love & Marriage chat » White race very young » Post A Reply

T O P I C R E V I E W
Tyrannosaurus Member # 3735	posted http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/316/5823/364a
rasol Member # 4592	posted Yes, this is a fact that we have related on this forum for years, in spite of howls of emotional and fact-free protestings to the contrary: quote: At the American Association of Physical Anthropologists meeting, held here from 28 to 31 March, a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggested that Europeans acquired pale skin quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago quote: By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein - (Rogers 2004:107).
Djehuti Member # 6698	posted ^Indeed, this is NOT new news to this forum! By the way, the man pictured in the article is a Saami, the aboriginals of Scandinavia and perhaps the first 'white' people. 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). ^Of course the above FACT is torture to some people including our current mixed-up troll.
maa'-kherew Member # 13358	posted No proof of this. Just hypothesis that they were dark by people like Jablonski. All we know is that they were darker than your average European, probably anywhere from the color of earlier Sandawe (a little bit darker than the average Khoisan) to Bantu/Nilotic in range.
rasol Member # 4592	posted quote: Just a hypothesis by people like Jablonski lol@people like Jablonski. translates to: Data from scienticists like Jablonski, Kittles, Rogers, Harding and Hamer which you are completely unable to address, due to your lack of brainpower and integrity. What's taking so long? 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).
Yom Member # 11256	posted quote: Originally posted by maa'-kherew: No proof of this. Just hypothesis that they were dark by people like Jablonski. All we know is that they were darker than your average European, probably anywhere from the color of earlier Sandawe (a little bit darker than the average Khoisan) to Bantu/Nilotic in range. In case you didn't realize it, what you just described was black skin.
Djehuti Member # 6698	posted ^Yom, you should know by now that the fool hates the the use of the term black and prefers "brown" or "medium" instead! LOL quote: Just a hypothesis by people like Jablonski ROTFL Yeah, just a hypothesis based on years of research on skin histology and genetics. We shouldn't take such a hypothesis seriously but have wishful thinking on the "medium" tone. Black skin could never have been the original state, never! Not even in the equatorial high UV concentrated savannahs where humanity evolved!
Yom Member # 11256	posted This article only deals with the mutation responsible for the very pale skin tones that are only found in Europeans. Does anyone know anything about the genetics behind the skin tones of Asians (both West and East)? Have those genes been discovered yet? I'd imagine it'd have occurred earlier.
Sundiata Member # 13096	posted Awe man, this is really a crushing blow to Eurocentrism and any unified pre-historical "Caucasian" identity. The recent date also makes it that much more improbable that "white" or very light skinned "Europoids" populated Northern Africa during the Neolithic and subsequent predynastic in any large number.. I know you guys was already aware of this, but it's news to me! maa'-kherew is in serious denial, lol..
AFRICA I Member # 13222	posted quote: In case you didn't realize it, what you just described was black skin. This maak guy doesn't even know/understand what he writes himself...you should just ignore him...
Djehuti Member # 6698	posted ^LOL Easier said than done!
King_Scorpion Member # 4818	posted quote: Originally posted by Sundiata: Awe man, this is really a crushing blow to Eurocentrism and any unified pre-historical "Caucasian" identity. The recent date also makes it that much more improbable that "white" or very light skinned "Europoids" populated Northern Africa during the Neolithic and subsequent predynastic in any large number.. I know you guys was already aware of this, but it's news to me! maa'-kherew is in serious denial, lol.. I agree, and even though science is ever changing and the dates may not be set in stone...it's more than likely that most pre-dynastic peoples along the Nile Valley were "Black"-skinned in nature. But you guys shouldn't use a study like this to put people down. I know the trolls can be annoying, but let's not stoop to their level of pettiness.
Tyrannosaurus Member # 3735	posted quote: Does anyone know anything about the genetics behind the skin tones of Asians (both West and East)? Have those genes been discovered yet? I'd imagine it'd have occurred earlier. It probably did. Native Americans, who came to the Americas (either across the Pacific or the Beringian land bridge) about 20 kya, long before this mutation occurred in European, still have skin tones within East Asian variation. If East Asians became lighter-skinned any later, Amerindians would be much darker-skinned (since they couldn't mix with these light-skinned East Asians).
maa'-kherew Member # 13358	posted No evidence of a new race. Just the same race (human) with a new mutation for lighter skin. And comparatively lighter skin in Indigenous Africans and South Asians is not explained by any such mutation. Only the extreme lightness of northern Asian and European populations.
King_Scorpion Member # 4818	posted quote: Originally posted by maa'-kherew: No evidence of a new race. Just the same race (human) with a new mutation for lighter skin. And comparatively lighter skin in Indigenous Africans and South Asians is not explained by any such mutation. Only the extreme lightness of northern Asian and European populations. No one said anything about a new race...
maa'-kherew Member # 13358	posted quote: Originally posted by King_Scorpion: quote: Originally posted by maa'-kherew: No evidence of a new race. Just the same race (human) with a new mutation for lighter skin. And comparatively lighter skin in Indigenous Africans and South Asians is not explained by any such mutation. Only the extreme lightness of northern Asian and European populations. No one said anything about a new race... White race very young The title assumes newness of a race
Doug M Member # 7650	posted quote: Originally posted by maa'-kherew: No evidence of a new race. Just the same race (human) with a new mutation for lighter skin. And comparatively lighter skin in Indigenous Africans and South Asians is not explained by any such mutation. Only the extreme lightness of northern Asian and European populations. PRECISELY, because lighter skin in certain African populations has NOTHING to do with Europeans and those of lighter complexion who are the result of INDIGENOUS evolution in Africa are NOT WHITE EUROPEANS or DERIVED from them.
rasol Member # 4592	posted ^ Correct. Actually a good title for this thread would be Caucasoid race does not exist.
Willing Thinker {What Box} Member # 10819	posted quote: Originally posted by rasol: ^ Correct. Actually a good title for this thread would be Caucasoid race does not exist. ^LOL, and THAT couldn't be said enough! Hearing the ame retarded ish over and over again..! It's fun to watch it chage and morph. white invadors from the north [...] to mustafo's confusion of what is black [...] to africa never belonged to one race; as white saharan race that governed the blacks thereof before the two very different races split ways, caucasoid africans going north africa, ugly negroids heading south. They are the ancestors of the west africans involved in the atlantic slave trade, definitly not the race who built up Egypt, the negroids were a race of hunter-gatherers Now THAT stuff, the stuffs above^, is truly obvious and hilarious --> They're spilling their guts and emotions out onto the pavement. I notice they tell it like it's a story. They've made a folly though, an error in judgement, the trains better stop heading for Erroneous E's mistakes of white's being the first people. Wonder what I'll hear next
maa'-kherew Member # 13358	posted quote: Originally posted by rasol: ^ Correct. Actually a good title for this thread would be Caucasoid race does not exist. One of the rare times I agree with you. As for the rest, Sorry, that Kittles, Jablonski, et al are American and caught up in concepts like Black based on an American one droppist experience, such that Brown skinned people may be Black to them, to most people around the world only dark brown skin is called Black. If not it is called brown or some other name. And Jablonski et all have not proven that the darker versions of brown skin are the ancestors of all skin colors so until better evidence is introduced, inconclusive. Not saying your opinions are wrong, but they are no better substantiated than that of Frank Sweet who thinks they were brown skinned. Or both.
Djehuti Member # 6698	posted ^Been through this already.
rasol Member # 4592	posted quote: Caucasoid race does not exist. quote: Banned troll writes: One of the rare times I agree with you. A rare sign of intelligence from you. But look at how you waste it with and immediate return to fallacious argument.. quote: As for the rest, Sorry, that Kittles, Jablonski, et al are American ^ Kittles and Jablonski are scientists, you can't attack them based on their nationality. And since you begin by "mis"-citing Jablonski, until she busted you, you are nothing but hypocrite for attacking her nationality. And Rosaland Harding, who pioneered the M1CR data and concluded that humans have been dark skinned for over 1 million years, and stayed that way until they migrated out of the tropics is a British [Oxford] Professor. 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 So all you prove by such desparate comments your own hateful stupid anti-kemetic bigotry and the ends you go to, to keep yourself ignorant enough to justify it in your own mind. The difference between you and these scientists can be stated with precision. They are smart, and you are not. You are a bigot, and they are not. They are sane, and you are not. quote: and caught up in concepts like Black based on an American one droppist experience This is called projection. Actually you are describing yourself, not Dr's Jablonski, Kittles, and Harding. Hence you are not, entirely, sane. Disagree? Then go back to the OneDropRule whiner web forum and cry about it, to a crowd that actually gives a rats tail and will show you sympathy as opposed to the contempt you deserve. Hope this helps.
Mystery Solver Member # 9033	posted Anyone who thinks that Kittles et al. resort to terms like ‘black’, ‘white’, or what have you, is apparently one who hasn’t bothered to read their studies. Besides the variations in the “SLC24A5” gene, as mentioned in the intro article, the “TYR” gene, the “OCA2“, the “ASIP“, and to some extent those seen in the MC1R gene, Kittles et al. have noted other genes "MATP C374G", “ADAM17“, “ATRN“, and “DCT” the mutations of which are deemed to have to had influence in promoting paleness… Taken together (with the results of previous admixture mapping studies), these results point to the importance of several genes in shaping the pigmentation phenotype and a complex evolutionary history involving strong selection. Polymorphisms in 2 genes, ASIP and OCA2, may play a shared role in shaping light and dark pigmentation across the globe, whereas SLC24A5, MATP, and TYR have a predominant role in the evolution of light skin in Europeans but not in East Asians. These findings support a case for the recent convergent evolution of a lighter pigmentation in Europeans and East Asians… Pairwise Fst estimates for the ASIP A8818G and OCA2 A355G SNPs tentatively suggest a pattern of divergence between 4 populations (Europeans, East Asians, Native Americans, and South Asians) and the relatively more darkly pigmented populations of West Africa and Island Melanesia, or possibly only between West Africans and all other populations. At both loci, West Africans and Island Melanesians have higher frequencies of the ancestral alleles than the other 4 populations. Pairwise locus-specific Fst values falling in the top 5% of the empirical distributions are observed between West Africans and 3 other populations (South Asians, Native Americans, and Europeans) at ASIP A8818G. Fst values between West Africans and East Asians at this locus are elevated but do not reach our cutoff value of 5% (Fst = .489, P = .065). At OCA2 A355G, only West Africans and Europeans show Fst values falling into the top fifth percentile of relevant comparisons (Fst = .516, P<.05). The low pair wise Fst values and higher frequency of ancestral alleles at both SNPs studied in these loci between West Africans and Island Melanesians hint that dark pigmentation associated with both loci in these populations may have a common evolutionary origin (Mean Fst (WA-IM) = .182; ASIP A8818G Fst (WA-IM) = .260, P = .282; OCA2 A355G Fst (WA-IM) = .101, P=.525). Continuing with regards to OCA2 gene, we are told… In contrast, the ancestral allele associated with dark pigmentation has a shared high frequency in sub-Sharan African and Island Melanesians. A notable exception is the relatively lightly pigmented San population of Southern Africa where the derived allele predominates (93%), although this may be simply due to small sample size (n=14). The distributions of the derived and ancestral alleles at TYR A192C, MAPT C374G, and SLC24A5 A111G are consistent with Fst results suggesting strong European specific divergence at these loci. The derived allele at TYR, 192A (previously linked with lighter pigmentation [Shriver et al. 2003]), has a frequency of 38% among European populations but a frequency only 14% among non-Europeans. The differences between Europeans and non-Europeans for the MAPT 374G and SLC24A5 111A alleles (both derived alleles associated with lighter pigmentation) were even more striking (MAT [European] = 87%; MATP [non-European] = 17%; SLC24A5 [European] = 100%; SLC24A5 [non-European] = 46%). The frequency of the SLC24A5 111A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%). By way of negative Tajima D values, which when negative indicate selective pressure, or more specifically - “directional selection”, the authors continue… These data confirm the unusual European-specific patterns at MATP and SLC24A5. Both genes display long range (consecutive windows) and significant indications of positive selection for all 3 statistics. In contrast, there is little evidence of a European-specific pattern in the TYR locus although the non-synonymous TYR A192C SNP does individually show a strongly significant CEU-LSBL (P<.003) in the HapMap data as in our original findings. The contrast may be explained by the limitations of our HapMap sliding windows analyses, whereby adjacent SNPs are averaged using a method that does not consider Haplotype structure. East Asians showed relatively stronger selection for a different set of genes… …In particular, 2 genes (ADAM17* and ATRN) showed East Asian-specific signatures comparable in strength with those observed for MATP and SLC24A5 in Europeans.* While… The ADTB3A gene also shows a strong and focused signature of positive selection in Africans... Many hypotheses predict that natural selection will eliminate genetic variants associated with lighter skin in the regions of high UVR as a protection against photo damage (e.g., sunburn, melanoma, and basal and squamous cell carcinomas) (Blum 1961; Kollias et al. 1991) and folic acid photo degradation (Branda and Eaton 1978; Jablonski and Chaplin 2000). The photo protective properties of a highly melanized skin and the recent African origin of modern humans suggest that the ancestral phenotype is one of the relatively dark skin (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000; Rogers et al. 2004). If dark skin is the ancestral phenotype, then we may assume that the first migrants out of Africa were relatively darkly pigmented… There are 2 primary explanations for the evoluktion of lighter skin in regions of low UVR: 1)The first suggests that light skin is merely due to the relaxation of functional constraint and that derived alleles associated with lighter pigmentation may have simply drifted to high frequency in the absence of strong purifying selection (Brace 1963). 2)The second explanation suggests that in lower UVR regions, positive selection would have favored mutations leading to lighter skin as a way to maximize cutaneous vitamin D synthesis (Rana et al. 1999; Jablonski and Chaplin 200). Given the relatively recent arrival and divergence of humans in and across Europe and Asia, the most parsimonious evolution of light skin would involve such mutations arising in a proto-Eurasian population soon after humans left Africa. Consequently, these mutations should be shared between modern Asian and European populations. Alternatively, if separate existing functional variants were driven to high frequency in East Asian and Europeans or independent de novo mutations arose and were selected in each population after divergence of Europeans and Asians, then these would be obvious as high allele frequency differences between modern European and East Asian populations. Reduced levels of heterozygosity surrounding the SLC24A5 A111G polymorphism in the European, but not East Asian, HapMap populations support the latter hypothesis (Lamason et al. 2005), as do reduced polymorphism levels based on full resequencing data from MATP in populations of European descent (Soejima et al. 2005). So basically, while “SLC24A5, MATP, and TYR have a predominant role in the evolution of light skin in Europeans,” the ADAM17, ATRN, and DCT appear to play a dominant role in the evolution of light skin in East Asians. Current archeological evidence suggests human presence in Island Melanesia by at least 40ky ago and in other parts of Sahul by at least 45ky ago (O’Connell and Allen 2004). If the original migrants to Oceania arrived there via a corridor of relatively high UVR, then we might expect their descendants to share ancestral pigmentation variants with African populations. However, if the ancestors of modern day Island Melanesians spent a significant amount of time in low-UVR, then it is possible that mutations associated with lighter pigmentation could have accumulated and a readaptation to high-UVR conditions would have been necessary, leading to potential divergence between Island Melanesians and Africans at functional pigmentation loci. In actuality, both of these scenarios may apply, as we know that modern Island Melanesian populations are descended broth early migrants (arriving 40ky ago) as well as later proto-Austronesian-speaking peoples from a southeast Asian homeland ~ 3,200 years ago (Spriggs 1997). The discordance between our Fst -based divergence values and allele frequencies in the Melanesian CEPH populations at ASIP largely stem from the relatively low frequency of the ancestral allele in the 2 CEPH Island Melanesian populations relative to our original Island Melanesian sample. These discrepancies make it difficult to determine if ASIP truly underlies broad pigmentation differences between darkly and lightly pigmented populations or instead interoperation variation at this locus can largely be explained by differences between the frequencies of the ASIP ancestral allele in our original Island Melanesian sample and the Melanesian samples from the CEPH panel may be indicative of both the complex demographic history of Island Melanesia (involving several migratory events (Spriggs 1997) and probable extensive genetic drift (Friendlaender 1975, 1987) as well as the importance of multiple loci in determining pigmentation phenotype… ^Thus possible further extensions of variations detected amongst Melanesians can be explained by successive demographic events After their African ancestors migrated over 40ky ago. The “original Melanesian sample” appears to have more ancestral pigmentation genes in common with tropical Africans, which is to be expected given that they are direct descendants of the earliest Eurasians, as demonstrated as follows with the OCA2 gene… In general, the derived allele (associated with lighter pigmentation) is most common in Europeans and East Asians, and the ancestral allele predominates in sub-Saharan Africa and Island Melanesia. The mutations in the OCA2 gene may well have implications on imparting paleness, as demonstrated in the south African San people… The lightly pigmented hunter-gatherer San populations of Southern Africa is exceptional in having a high frequency of the derived allele relative to geographically proximate and more darkly pigmented African populations (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000), further supporting the importance of OCA2 in regulating normal variation in pigmentation. The widespread distribution of the derived allele in the CEPH-Diversity Panel suggests that it is not necessarily a new mutation, nor has it been restricted to a specific geographic area. While it seems plausible that the “derived” OCA2 gene came to being before the out-of-Africa migration that give rise to modern Eurasians, it doesn’t appear that this derived allele was necessarily widespread, and may well have been later on selected for in European and East Asians… Interestingly, derived allele frequencies at this locus are quite different between Native American (15%) and East Asian populations (45%), suggesting that perhaps the derived allele at this locus did not reach very high frequencies in East Asians until after the colonization of the Americas. Contrast the situation with OCA2 gene with that of the MATP 374G allele… The virtual absence* of MATP 374G-derived allele in the sub-Saharan African populations that we examined in the CEPH-Diversity Panel is consistent with the origin of this mutation outside of Africa AFTER the divergence of modern Asians and Europeans.* Contrasting that of the “derived” SLC24 A5 [as in the case with the “derived” OCA2 allele] , where two possible scenarios arise… In contrast, the SLC24 A5 11A-derived allele is found at low frequencies in several sub-Saharan populations* including the West African Mandinka and Yoruba, the Southern African San, and South West Bantu. 1)The relatively high frequencies of the derived allele in Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and North Africa seem likely to be due to recent gene flow from European and Central Asian populations. 2)Alternatively, the derived allele may have lost in the ancestors of modern East Asians but retained in the ancestral European populations. The allele then rose to high frequency in Europeans following the divergence of Europeans and East Asian ancestral groups. The different mechanism of the evolution of light skin in Europeans and East Asians apparent from genetic examination, supports the understanding that evolution of pale skin came very late, because if had occurred prior to the divergence of the Europeans and East Asians, then it seems highly plausible that they would share more in common with one another the dominating alleles in playing a role in skin lightening…but as demonstrated, different set of alleles play dominating role in the lightening effect of the skin in Europeans and East Asians… These results simultaneously and strongly suggest that Europeans and East Asians have evolved lighter skin independently and via distinct genetic mechanism, as there is an absence of any unusual pattern of diversity at SLC24A5, MATP, and TYR in East Asians The interesting part of the study, is this about the MC1R gene about its… The MCIR gene was the only locus examined in detail that did not show any signal of potential positive selection. Previous sequence-based studies have reached conflicting conclusions about whether or not MC1R has been subject to positive selection outside of Africa (Rana et al. 1999; Harding et al. 2000; Makova et al. 2001). Although MC1R’s association with red hair, fair skin, freckles, and melanorma risk in European and European-derived populations primarily from the British Isles (Box et al. 1997; Smith et al. 1998a; Schioth et al. 1999; Flanagan et al. 2000; Bastiaens et al. 2001) clearly demonstrates the important regional role that it plays in pigmentation, MC1R may have (with some exceptions [John et al. 2003; Nakayama et al. 2006]) little effect on variation outside of Europe (Myles et al. 2006). Consequently, no signal will be detected using our approaches. Although the 2 SNPs that we typed in MC1R are not strongly associated with the red hair and fair skinned phenotype for which MC1R is so well known (Sturm et al. 2003), both are polymorphic in global surveys of populations (Rana et al. 1999; Harding et al. 2000). In addition, the MC1r G92A SNP may have a ”mild” effect on pigmentation phenotype (Motokawa et al. 2006). The 92A allele at this site is known to have a lower affinity for alpha-MSH than wild-type MC1R alleles (Xu et al. 1996), which suggests that it may contribute to normal* variation in pigmentation. However, if positive directional selection has acted on MC1R, we would expect variation at linked sites to be affected. As such, even if have not assayed the relevant SNP, we should still have observed some signal selection, especially given the small size (~3 kb) of this gene*. So polymorphisms in the MC1R gene seem to have had relatively more impact in Europeans than other populations. Perhaps this might have something to do with the effects of MCIR mutations in Europeans having an "exacerbating effect", i.e. in addition to those of other “pigmentation”-influencing alleles therein…or maybe to some degree, tenuously linked to the effects of one or the other, or a few of those lightening alleles in Europeans. Finally, the seem to be a strong case for the ASIP and OCA2 genes in playing a role as a taleteller [by way of ‘ancestral‘ genes and their ‘derived’ counterparts ] of the derivation of non-Africans from Africans, the populations wherein polymorphisms at these loci could well have played a role in skin tone variation to some degree or another… The pattern of diversity at ASIP 8818G allele (the ancestral allele associated with darker pigmentation) indicates a role primarily in African/non divergence (sub-Saharan African frequency; 66%, all other populations; 14%) rather than between darkly and lightly pigmented populations. At OCA2 355, the derived allele (linked with lighter pigmentation) occurs at its highest frequencies across Europe and Asia, but is also relatively common among Native American populations (18-34%) and is present at [b]much lower frequencies (0-10%) among Bantu-speaking African groups. In contrast, the ancestral allele associated with dark pigmentation has a shared high frequency in sub-Saharan African and Island Melanesians... Observed patterns of global skin pigmentation diversity and their correlation with environmental UV exposure suggest an adaptive response. Although we cannot rule out a role for sexual selection, our results support multiple genetic mechanisms for evolution of skin color. We provide evidence that at least 2 genes, ASIP and OCA2, probably played a shared role in shaping light and dark pigmentation across the globe. Aside from non-sequitur about the need for “uniformity” in dark hue in ancestral humans, considering that not even a single immediate family or household will necessarily pass for such a ridiculous test, all in all, Kittles et al.’s analysis lend strong support to the claims made by the likes of Jablonski, about dark skin being the original or default state of Homo Sapien Sapiens! Referenced source: Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians, by Rick Kittles et al. , 2006.
rasol Member # 4592	posted ^ nicely detailed analysis.
King_Scorpion Member # 4818	posted quote: Originally posted by maa'-kherew: quote: Originally posted by King_Scorpion: quote: Originally posted by maa'-kherew: No evidence of a new race. Just the same race (human) with a new mutation for lighter skin. And comparatively lighter skin in Indigenous Africans and South Asians is not explained by any such mutation. Only the extreme lightness of northern Asian and European populations. No one said anything about a new race... White race very young The title assumes newness of a race In a social sense, everyone hear knows race isn't biological. The study simply says pale skin of the European variation is a relatively new mutation in the Human genome.
Yom Member # 11256	posted Supercar, does Kittles mention MRCAs for genes like ADAM17, ATRN, and DCT? Do we have any idea as to when these "light" variants arose? What about among West Asian populations? They have the same gene as Europeans which arose only 6-12kya, but does that explain all of their skin color (since the East Asian mutations apparently occurred farther East and would have only entered the region through back-migrations).
Djehuti Member # 6698	posted quote: Originally posted by rasol: quote: Caucasoid race does not exist. quote: Banned troll writes: One of the rare times I agree with you. A rare sign of intelligence from you. But look at how you waste it with and immediate return to fallacious argument.. quote: As for the rest, Sorry, that Kittles, Jablonski, et al are American ^ Kittles and Jablonski are scientists, you can't attack them based on their nationality. And since you begin by "mis"-citing Jablonski, until she busted you, you are nothing but hypocrite for attacking her nationality. And Rosaland Harding, who pioneered the M1CR data and concluded that humans have been dark skinned for over 1 million years, and stayed that way until they migrated out of the tropics is a British [Oxford] Professor. 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 So all you prove by such desparate comments your own hateful stupid anti-kemetic bigotry and the ends you go to, to keep yourself ignorant enough to justify it in your own mind. The difference between you and these scientists can be stated with precision. They are smart, and you are not. You are a bigot, and they are not. They are sane, and you are not. quote: and caught up in concepts like Black based on an American one droppist experience This is called projection. Actually you are describing yourself, not Dr's Jablonski, Kittles, and Harding. Hence you are not, entirely, sane. Disagree? Then go back to the OneDropRule whiner web forum and cry about it, to a crowd that actually gives a rats tail and will show you sympathy as opposed to the contempt you deserve. Hope this helps. quote: Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Anyone who thinks that Kittles et al. resort to terms like ‘black’, ‘white’, or what have you, is apparently one who hasn’t bothered to read their studies. Besides the variations in the “SLC24A5” gene, as mentioned in the intro article, the “TYR” gene, the “OCA2“, the “ASIP“, and to some extent those seen in the MC1R gene, Kittles et al. have noted other genes "MATP C374G", “ADAM17“, “ATRN“, and “DCT” the mutations of which are deemed to have to had influence in promoting paleness… LOL Poor Jaime's self-blinding bias continues to humiliate him! Attacking the nationality of scientists? Falsely accusing them of using "the one-drop rule"?! LMAO When will he ever learn?
AFRICA I Member # 13222	posted There is no white race per se as our American friend is trying to argue...we all belong to the human race ...It is true that overtime Asian and European deferred mainly in their skin tone and hair texture...but ultimately you can't fake race:indeed in terms of Asian and European features: they are 100% African derived features...as I mentioned earlier non African are intermediate between broad faced, narrow faced and san like Africans...It's a joke to state that there is a White or Asian race from an African perspective...total joke or stupidity you can pick wich ever you want. If you want to make a point you can argue that many non Africans are leucoderms otherwise ligth non African are technically bleached Africans...
Mystery Solver Member # 9033	posted For those who are curious, the authors of the aforementioned skin pigmentation study [Kittles et al.] don't specifically point out the TMRCAs for the identified genes in question, but apparently ancestral lineages were delineated from their derived counterparts. From extrapolation though, it makes sense that mutations that occurred after divergence of any given groups, would be relatively rare in the common ancestor of these recently diverged groups. On the other hand, certain mutations that were present within the common ancestor may be expressed more acutely later on in one or the other group that diverged from this ancestral population, while dying out or becoming relatively rare in another progeny group. Still these developments are able to assist one in delineating the frequency and mutational particulars of the genes controlled by natural selection and/or the pressure of genetic drift. As for "Southwest Asian" populations, they generally fall into ranges contained within the Saharo-tropical Africans, while some northerly groups of this region apparently have relatively paler skin shades as a product of more recent migrations into the region. Kittles et al. at least in part, attribute such developments to gene flow from Northern Eurasia and perhaps, in some areas, East Asia. See again, from my last post: Concerning the "derived" SLC24 A5 gene... In contrast, the SLC24 A5 11A-derived allele is found at low frequencies in several sub-Saharan populations* including the West African Mandinka and Yoruba, the Southern African San, and South West Bantu. The relatively high frequencies of the derived allele in Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and North Africa seem likely to be due to recent gene flow from European and Central Asian populations. Many places outside of Africa, for instance, harbor the 'derivative' counterparts of several "pigmentation" genes [a variety of which have been associated with relatively lighter pigmentation], while ancestral alleles [many of which have generally been associated with relatively darker pigmentation] are commonly found in Africa and amongst direct descendants of earliest out-of-Africa ancestors of modern non-Africans, as is the case with OCA2 gene... In general, the derived allele (associated with lighter pigmentation) is most common in Europeans and East Asians, and the ancestral allele predominates in sub-Saharan Africa and Island Melanesia. ...and this quite likely applies to "southwest Asians"...in harboring "derived" OCA2 which has been associated with playing a role in lightening skin phenotype, for example.
AFRICA I Member # 13222	posted Basically we are all Black people, leucoderm people are quite recent, we've been Black (we Africans) for 200,000 years, some of our sons left 60,000 years ago or latter, and subsequently (not more than 30,000 years ago) few of our sons became leucoderm...which means that the human race is originally Black...subsequent natural bleaching is almost meaningless in human history since it occurred fairly recently...meaningless...totally meaningless....
rasol Member # 4592	posted Agreed. Also want to destroy this last bit of mulato-centric fallacy. Sandawe (a little bit darker than the average Khoisan) to Bantu/Nilotic in range. ^ This is and example of arguing with no data, and using stereotypes instead. African skin color actually clines within language groups as well as in between them and does not cluster/lump according to Sandawe/Khoisan on the one hand, and Bantu/Nilotic on the other. Bantu are the most numerous of the above,and their skin colors themselves span the range of 'red-brown' to 'blue-black'. The same is true of Afrisan [and cushitic] speakers, who range from some of the darkest to some of th lightest native Africans. The Hadza are also Khoisan and their skin tones are as dark as the Masai who are Nilotic, and the Hadza and Masai genomes are as old as any on earth. The Sandawe are similar in color to the Igbo of Nigeria [Niger-Congo], the Twa of Rwanda [so called Pgyme], and the Nara [Nilotics] of Ethiopia. The above are primarily language groups, not skin color specifics. And the reason that no genetics yet exist to give any priority of skin color to any one of these groups over the other, is because the basis for dark skin and variations on the same was established genetically in Africa and 100's of thousands of years ago. In other words - there are likely no new base mutations to make the skin of melanoderm Africans darker or lighter because Africans are already adapted to the range of climates native to Africa. Hypothetically any given AFrican population might grow darker or lighter within this range over time, given migration to different latitude. Such skin color differences would still be 'genetic', but the genes are already there. Imagine African group X with a skin color that is and 8 on a basis of 1 to 10 with 10 being darkest. Over the last 100 thousand years such a group might encompass Africans who lived anywhere from the sahara to the cape, and the skin tones might have ranged accordingly from 6 to 10. Therefore you can understand the futility of attempting to sort the 'history' of this groups precise shade of dark skinned, based on genetic mutation history. Group X skin color history equasion would read. Melanoderm on a scale of 6 to 10 [curently 8] dependant on time spent at given African habitat lattitude. European have unique and recent genes for skin color because they very recently fell outside the normative range of latitude to which homo-sapiens of Africa were long adapted. Finally this reinforces the fact of the essentially African genetic base of Europeans. Note: Hypothetically, it could be that they inherit skin color from the native European Neanderthal species. But, they don't. What they have is recently derived African skin color genes with melanin-production-disabling mutations.
AFRICA I Member # 13222	posted quote: The photo protective properties of a highly melanized skin and the recent African origin of modern humans suggest that the ancestral phenotype is one of the relatively dark skin That's what it is we are all sons of Black Africans...
King_Scorpion Member # 4818	posted The PN2 Clade also proves this doesn't it?
rasol Member # 4592	posted ^ Not exactly. PN2 clade is Haplotype E3, which exists in Ethiopia and Senegal. This clade is perhaps 30 thousand years old and post dates the original out of Africa migrations that led to the formation of non-African peoples. The PN2 clade is subdivided into East African E3b and West African E3a. These two lineages make, up the majory of African male haplotypes, and actually define the common ancestry of much of modern Africa. Where PN2 lineages are found outside of Africa, they can be used to trace African migrations. For example PN2 lineages are the most common for African Americans, and largely denote migrations of Africans to America in the last few hundred years. PN2 is also the most common haplotype of Greece [about 23% as Greeks are highly heterogeneous], and PN2 lineages denote African migrations to Greece since the Neolithic and later. Arguably this shows the introduction of the Neolithic into Europe by largely African and SouthWest Asian derived populatons.
King_Scorpion Member # 4818	posted Thanks...I'm trying to understand some of this genetics stuff. So which theory would you go along with... 1. Stone Age Greeks (ancestors of the people who built Greek society) were Africans that eventually "turned white" due to the above mutation....or, 2. Stone Age Greeks were Africans that remained dark-skinned until being overtaken by lighter-skinned groups? I'm wondering if there is any way to corroborate the ancient myths and traditions with the genetic evidence.
rasol Member # 4592	posted quote: 1. Stone Age Greeks (ancestors of the people who built Greek society) were Africans that eventually "turned white" due to the above mutation....or, No. old-Stone age - paleolithic precedes the neolithic. Europe is settled in the paleolithic. Emigration from Africa and Asia ushers in the Neolithic via demic diffusion. Europeans are largely descendant from Paleolithic hunter gatherers who adopted the farming and animal rearing of the Neolithic immigrant culture bearers. quote: 2. Stone Age Greeks were Africans No there were Europeans. quote: that remained dark-skinned until being overtaken by lighter-skinned groups? All people were originally dark skinned. Light skin is and in-situ adaptation to low UV and poor diet among Europeans. Skin color is not a static 'racial' component that allows us to account for variation soley in terms of pre-determined and fixed populations of light and dark people overtaking one another. Skin color is simply not 'racial'. Until this is understood...there can be no making sense of the anthropological record pertaining to it.
Ebony Allen Member # 12771	posted Rasol, I don't understand. How can light skin be the result of a poor diet amongst Europeans?
AFRICA I Member # 13222	posted The Inuit ('Eskimo') are darker than European because they ate enough fish to get decent amount of vitamin D, and didn't need to have a lighter skin as the European to absorb enough ultra violet for their body to produce enough vitamin D. The Biology of Skin Color: Black and White The evolution of race was as simple as the politics of race is complex By Gina Kirchweger Ten years ago, while at the university of Western Australia, anthropologist Nina Jablonski was asked to give a lecture on human skin. As an expert in primate evolution, she decided to discuss the evolution of skin color, but when she went through the literature on the subject she was dismayed. Some theories advanced before the 1970s tended to be racist, and others were less than convincing. White skin, for example, was reported to be more resistant to cold weather, although groups like the Inuit are both dark and particularly resistant to cold. After the 1970s, when researchers were presumably more aware of the controversy such studies could kick up, there was very little work at all. "It's one of these things everybody notices," Jablonski says, "but nobody wants to talk about." No longer. Jablonski and her husband, George Chaplin, a geographic information systems specialist, have formulated the first comprehensive theory of skin color. Their findings, published in a recent issue of the Journal of Human Evolution, show a strong, somewhat predictable correlation between skin color and the strength of sunlight across the globe. But they also show a deeper, more surprising process at work: Skin color, they say, is largely a matter of vitamins. Jablonski, now chairman of the anthropology department at the California Academy of Sciences, begins by assuming that our earliest ancestors had fair skin just like chimpanzees, our closest biological relatives. Between 4.5 million and 2 million years ago, early humans moved from the rain forest and onto the East African savanna. Once on the savanna, they not only had to cope with more exposure to the sun, but they also had to work harder to gather food. Mammalian brains are particularly vulnerable to overheating: A change of only five or six degrees can cause a heatstroke. So our ancestors had to develop a better cooling system. The answer was sweat, which dissipates heat through evaporation. Early humans probably had few sweat glands, like chimpanzees, and those were mainly located on the palms of their hands and the bottoms of their feet. Occasionally, however, individuals were born with more glands than usual. The more they could sweat, the longer they could forage before the heat forced them back into the shade. The more they could forage, the better their chances of having healthy offspring and of passing on their sweat glands to future generations. A million years of natural selection later, each human has about 2 million sweat glands spread across his or her body. Human skin, being less hairy than chimpanzee skin, "dries much quicker," says Adrienne Zihlman, an anthropologist at the University of California at Santa Cruz. "Just think how after a bath it takes much longer for wet hair to dry." Hairless skin, however, is particularly vulnerable to damage from sunlight. Scientists long assumed that humans evolved melanin, the main determinant of skin color, to absorb or disperse ultraviolet light. But what is it about ultraviolet light that melanin protects against? Some researchers pointed to the threat of skin cancer. But cancer usually develops late in life, after a person has already reproduced. Others suggested that sunburned nipples would have hampered breast-feeding. But a slight tan is enough to protect mothers against that problem. During her preparation for the lecture in Australia, Jablonski found a 1978 study that examined the effects of ultraviolet light on folate, a member of the vitamin B complex. An hour of intense sunlight, the study showed, is enough to cut folate levels in half if your skin is light. Jablonski made the next, crucial connection only a few weeks later. At a seminar on embryonic development, she heard that low folate levels are correlated with neural-tube defects such as spina bifida and anencephaly, in which infants are born without a full brain or spinal cord. Predicted skin colors of indigenous people of the world Jablonski and Chaplin predicted the skin colors of indigenous people across the globe based on how much ultraviolet light different areas receive. Graphic by Matt Zang, adapted from the data of N. Jablonski and G. Chaplin Jablonski later came across three documented cases in which children's neural-tube defects were linked to their mothers' visits to tanning studios during early pregnancy. Moreover, she found that folate is crucial to sperm development -- so much so that a folate inhibitor was developed as a male contraceptive. ("It never got anywhere," Jablonski says. "It was so effective that it knocked out all folate in the body.") She now had some intriguing evidence that folate might be the driving force behind the evolution of darker skin. But why do some people have light skin? As far back as the 1960s, the biochemist W. Farnsworth Loomis had suggested that skin color is determined by the body's need for vitamin D. The vitamin helps the body absorb calcium and deposit it in bones, an essential function, particularly in fast-growing embryos. (The need for vitamin D during pregnancy may explain why women around the globe tend to have lighter skin than men.) Unlike folate, vitamin D depends on ultraviolet light for its production in the body. Loomis believed that people who live in the north, where daylight is weakest, evolved fair skin to help absorb more ultraviolet light and that people in the tropics evolved dark skin to block the light, keeping the body from overdosing on vitamin D, which can be toxic at high concentrations. By the time Jablonski did her research, Loomis's hypothesis had been partially disproved. "You can never overdose on natural amounts of vitamin D," Jablonski says. "There are only rare cases where people take too many cod-liver supplements." But Loomis's insight about fair skin held up, and it made a perfect complement for Jablonski's insight about folate and dark skin. The next step was to find some hard data correlating skin color to light levels. Until the 1980s, researchers could only estimate how much ultraviolet radiation reaches Earth's surface. But in 1978, NASA launched the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer. Three years ago, Jablonski and Chaplin took the spectrometer's global ultraviolet measurements and compared them with published data on skin color in indigenous populations from more than 50 countries. To their delight, there was an unmistakable correlation: The weaker the ultraviolet light, the fairer the skin. Jablonski went on to show that people living above 50 degrees latitude have the highest risk of vitamin D deficiency. "This was one of the last barriers in the history of human settlement," Jablonski says. "Only after humans learned fishing, and therefore had access to food rich in vitamin D, could they settle these regions." Humans have spent most of their history moving around. To do that, they've had to adapt their tools, clothes, housing, and eating habits to each new climate and landscape. But Jablonski's work indicates that our adaptations go much further. People in the tropics have developed dark skin to block out the sun and protect their body's folate reserves. People far from the equator have developed fair skin to drink in the sun and produce adequate amounts of vitamin D during the long winter months. Jablonski hopes that her research will alert people to the importance of vitamin D and folate in their diet. It's already known, for example, that dark-skinned people who move to cloudy climes can develop conditions such as rickets from vitamin D deficiencies. More important, Jablonski hopes her work will begin to change the way people think about skin color. "We can take a topic that has caused so much disagreement, so much suffering, and so much misunderstanding," she says, "and completely disarm it." (From Discover, Vol. 22, No. 2, February, 2001. Gina Kirchweger © 2001. Reprinted with permission of Discover. )
Mystery Solver Member # 9033	posted ^From the post above: The weaker the ultraviolet light, the fairer the skin. Jablonski went on to show that people living above 50 degrees latitude have the highest risk of vitamin D deficiency. "This was one of the last barriers in the history of human settlement," Jablonski says. "Only after humans learned fishing, and therefore had access to food rich in vitamin D, could they settle these regions." Absolutely. quote: Originally posted by Ebony Allen: Rasol, I don't understand. How can light skin be the result of a poor diet amongst Europeans? I've already provided a relatively detailed genetic material [Kittles et al. 2006] on certain designated pigment-influencing markers, and how they fit in the picture of the different mechanisms of pigmentations in the populations noted, particularly the independent lightening effect in the skin tones of Europeans and East Asians. It is worth noting that the Northern Europeans are yet even lighter than those to their south and elsewhere. Recently here, certain clearly defined weaknesses in Frank Sweet's hypothesis had been noted, and correctly so, based on data elsewhere, like for example, that in the Kittles study just now mentioned; that said, I don't see cause to find the following observations unreasonable.... Quote: The darkness adaptation enhances folic acid (folate) synthesis. Too little epidermal melanin for low latitudes allows intense UV to penetrate the skin, preventing or degrading folic acid synthesis, thus reducing folate levels. In pregnant females this produces neural tube defects in the fetus, causing such congenital abnormalities as craniorachischisis, anencephalus, and spina bifida. High levels of distributed epidermal melanin blocks UV and enables normal gestation at low latitudes (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000). Admittedly, some prior authors (Robins 1991, 210) had not seen evidence that fair-skinned residents of low latitudes suffered worse from folate deficiency than dark-skinned ones, but a collection of recent studies cited by Jablonski and Chaplin provide just such evidence. Hence, it seems confirmed that the darkness adaptation overcomes a threat to Darwinian fitness in its most unalloyed form—rate of successful reproduction. The lightness adaptation enhances calciferol (vitamin D) synthesis. Too much epidermal melanin for the latitude blocks UV penetration essential to the dermal synthesis of calciferol or vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency causes skeletal neonatal abnormalities (skull, chest, and leg malformations), rickets being the best known. Again, some mid-twentieth-century authors were not convinced that dark-skinned residents of temperate regions were more susceptible to rickets than light-skinned ones. But public health studies in the U.S. and Europe collected so much evidence of this, that vitamin D is now routinely added to milk in the West for precisely this reason. Hence, the paleness adaptation also overcomes a direct Darwinian threat to successful reproduction…. Vitamin D was Also Available in Diet of Pre-LGM Europeans Understanding that the paleness adaptation is designed to enhance vitamin D synthesis is key to solving the European half of the puzzle Other animals also produce vitamin D and store it in their fat, just as humans do. The table at left shows the vitamin D content of common foods, as published by the National Institutes of Health (http://www.cc.nih.gov/ccc/supplements/vitd.html). Prehistoric people did not consume fortified milk or cereal, of course. But, judging from their cave art and artifacts, they certainly ingested significant amounts of meat and fish. Assuming adequate caloric intake, their dietary content was well within the range of the current USDA recommended daily allowance (400 IU), especially when added to the vitamin D synthesized in the skin from sunlight. Late Paleolithic Europeans’ risk of neonatal defects caused by vitamin D deficiency was mitigated by two independent factors: solar UV and diet. Jablonski and Chaplin show that, as modern humans migrated away from the equator to Europe, Siberia, the Arctic, and Beringia, the paleness adaptation compensated for decreased solar ultraviolet. This left them with the light brown or beige complexion common to everyone above the 55th parallel except Europeans. Then, European diet changed with farming. European agriculture began about ten millennia ago in the Near East and spread to the Baltic by five millennia ago (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza 1994, 215-16, 256-57) (Chicago 1974, 16:304).[My emphasis: Neolithic expansion] As in Asia, Africa, and America, the advent of agriculture saw a dietary shift from meat to grains. This reduced dietary vitamin D intake among farming peoples and so perhaps lightened their complexions slightly via the paleness adaptation. It was probably not significant outside Europe because domestic grains (corn, wheat, oats, sorghum, millet, rice) do not grow without intensive modern agricultural techniques above about 55 degrees of latitude. Higher latitudes are just too cold—the growing season is too short—to let crops compete successfully with herds as food source. Consequently, even post-Neolithic high-latitude peoples continued to have a diet rich in meat (and so, vitamin D). These include the Inuit (seagoing mammals), Aleuts (fish), Saami (reindeer), Mongols (horses), and Native North Americans (bison). Only one spot on the globe enables economically competitive grain production above the 55th parallel. It is where the warm Gulf Stream washes into the North and Baltic Seas, keeping temperatures moderate despite dim near-Arctic sunlight. Around the planet, only circum-Baltic farmers could switch to a grain diet devoid of vitamin D, in a place where sunlight also lacked UV. And so, the extreme of the paleness adaptation is found only within 600 miles of this unique spot on earth. The main objection to this hypothesis is its recency. Five or six millennia seems too short a time for such a genetic change… Incidentally, Cavalli-Sforza also advocates a Neolithic time frame for both the paleness and lactose tolerance adaptations, but offers no mechanism for the former. - Frank Sweet Discussed here: Forces behind geographical human Skin Color Gradients
Bettyboo Member # 12987	posted It is a fact that the white race is the youngest of all humans.
Djehuti Member # 6698	posted ^ No. It is a fact that there is no such thing as 'race' white or otherwise. There are 'white' or pale populations, yes.
Bettyboo Member # 12987	posted quote: Originally posted by Djehuti: *^ No. It is a fact that there is no such thing as 'race'* white or otherwise. There are 'white' or pale populations, yes.** To make it easier for you, Yes, that pale population especially with the blond hair is the youngest of all humans.
Djehuti Member # 6698	posted Population is a valid scientific word that means a group of organisms of the same species inhabiting a given area. "Race" is not, but a nebulous social term whose meaning varies.
rasol Member # 4592	posted ^ Correct. The notion of 'white/race' is precisely what is refuted in the above study. The notion of skin color as race is rooted in specific assumptions. - skin color is homogeneous. - skin color is immutable. The parent article refutes both assumptions and therefore shows that skin color is not racial.
rasol Member # 4592	posted quote: Originally posted by rasol: ^ Correct. Actually a good title for this thread would be Caucasoid race does not exist. quote: Jamie writes: One of the rare times I agree with you. ^ one of the few times you've ever made any sense. quote: Jamie writes: As for the rest, Sorry, that Kittles, Jablonski, et al are American and caught up in concepts like Black based on an American one droppist experience, ^ then you throw it all away with a bitter ad hominem rant against the worlds leading experts on the genetics of skin color, just because they don't agree with you, and that makes you mad. you could actually be a scholar if you could grow beyound your kemophobic [anti Black] hatreds and paranoia, but... i don't think that will ever happen. too bad.
Djehuti Member # 6698	posted ^ Perhaps we could say early humanity was black "but not negroid"! LMAO
Knowledgeiskey718 Member # 15400	posted quote: Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Perhaps we could say early humanity was black "but not negroid"! LMAO That would be an oxymoron. Because Negro= black -oid is a suffix much used in the sciences and mathematics to indicate a "similarity, not necessarily exact, to something else". According to the Oxford English Dictionary, -oid is derived from the Latin suffix -oides taken from Greek and meaning "having the likeness of". So Negroid means black-like. Therefore original humans were Negroid.
rasol Member # 4592	posted ^ Djehuti means to be sarcastic. But the "pseudo"-classification of negroid in anthropology is not 'dark skin', but rather race or sub-species. If said race exists, then skin color might provide tangential evidence of it - or even be irrelavent to it, as would by any other phenotypical feature. The central question for the term negroid, is then, precisely the same as with caucasoid. Does there exists 'race' that might be denoted by the dark skin of peoples found everywhere on earth. The answer is no. Does there exists 'race', so that it might denoted by peoples originating in the caucasus region of West Eurasia, and encompassing peoples now living around the world? Again the answer is no.
Djehuti Member # 6698	posted ^ Rasol is correct. I was merely emulating the racialist nonsense of Debunked. That 'negroid' originally described not only very dark skin but a specific set of features out of the many features indigenous to Africans was the big ruse of Eurocentrics. Besides, there is no such thing as races anyway.