This thread will talk about the origins of the Aryan barbarians that lived in east central Asia.

I think that the white man came from albinism. Think about it, is the white man a mutation of the black man? Seeing as though the black has all the physical advantages over other white races. White man can't tolerate the hot climates, or they will get skin cancer.

This is not a racist thread, but rather exploring the identity of the white race.

Seeing that humans originated in Africa I would expect the first men to have been "black" or something close to it.

As humans migrated north, the environment was more and more favorable to those with lighter skin, since the amount of sunlight decreased. Individuals with dark skin could absorb far less sunlight and therefore died of things such as rickets, causing natural selection towards whites.

Keep in mind, though, that all the while humans in Africa were not holding steady; they were developing as well, simply to African conditions.

It seems like an obvious case of adapting to your climate, but why then are people living in the Mesopotamia and Egypt lighter than people living in Middle Africa? It's just as hot and sunny there, if not more so.

I suppose it would indicate that people migrated north, got white, then moved back south to the fertile crescent.

To say that some black people who migrated north became white because of the climate is lamarckism, and thus incorrect.

There is NO adaption to the environment. What happens is that the fitter will survive, while the others will die before procreation, and thus with time a certain characteristic will become dominant in that area.

The probable origin of the white race is a tribe of albino africans that migrated north, and supported well the conditions of Europe. The people of Northern Europe look almost like albinos untill today, while the ones in Southern Europe, due to racial mixing, do not.

BTW, to say that the africans have "physicall advatange" over other races is about as nonsensical as to say that the the "aryans" are intellectually superior. The strongest man on Earth(in terms of weight-lifting) is a bulgarian(who for some reason is on the turkish olympic team).

Finally, the term aryan is not considered scientific at all, and the old story of the "aryän conquerors", who dominated all the way from Europe through India, is a myth. In sanskrit as well as persian, aryan means noble, and that's probably what caused some confusion among the 19th century historians who created all the theory of "aryan rule".

Moved to History.

I didn't know you could be a "mixed" albino.

This thread will talk about the origins of the Aryan barbarians that lived in east central Asia. The furthest east speakers of the Indo-European languages came was Xinjiang, the so-called Tocharians. Note that this is in reference to language, rather than race.

IIRC, 'white' men arose fr a genetic mutation, which resulted in their particular skin pigmentation (or lack of), somewhere in north Europe a few thousand years ago.

I didn't know you could be a "mixed" albino.

An albino would be someone with a skin genotype along those lines "aa aa aa aa", while a dark black would be "AA AA AA AA", and the people between the two extremes would have some "A" and some "a".

Now, the modern days albinos are not population group like the old european migrants, they are people with a recessive disease, and thus there's no way(that I know of) that a mixed offspring can be born(you either are born albino or non-albino) , because albinism is caused by genes that unable the production of melanine. However northern europeans don't have these genes, just a healthy "aa aa aa aa" genotype that can have mixed offspring. Why? I don't know.

Just because Africans are black today, and the human race has an African origin, doesnt mean that the first humans were black. White people didnt emerge from a tribe of albinos. Lighter skin was probably just a mutation that happened to a geographically isolated group of humans. Same thing with all the physical differences between the 'races' of humanity. Remember that the small bands of humans that drifted out of Africa and into Asia and Europe were unbelievably isolated. Any mutation that occured to one of these groups, whether it be the epicanthic fold of the Mongoloids or the dark skin of Africans, would have been strengthened through generations of inbreeding within the small group.

luiz, your theory is not sound because (1) the albinos would not have survived before travelling, and (2) white people are not ablino anyway.

SeleucusNicator has suggested a most logical explanation. That is, dark skin is not advantageous in colder or less sunny conditions. What you need to note is that the early tribes couldn't pop down to the corner shop for vitamin tablets, and there were no additives in their drinking water, and no governments or health authorities to recommend specific diets.

Under those primitive/natural conditions, the disadvantages for having the wrong colour skin would be far more noticeable than they are today.

In theory, you should find that very north europeans or eskimo tribes have stocky bodies with shorter fingers which cut down on heat loss (reduced surface area) and the inverse in equatorial tribes. This may not hold true because humans move and resettle very quickly but it's theory and you might find some evidence to support it.

In theory, you should find that that tribes from desert regions store more water in their fat and such like. I don't know if you can find evidence to support this.

Differences go far beyond skin colour, and they may not make much difference between individuals but lots of tiny "tweaks" add up over a whole tribe and a few generations to make a fairly signifant impact on their survival rates.

It would be realistic to assume the first humans were dark skinned, because all the other apes from Africa are dark skinned.

If the ancestors have dark skin, and dark skin is advantageous, then current day man is going to have dark skin - it's the story of evolution and you cannot change the laws of science just because you would prefer early man to be white.

You people are full of lamarckist ideas ;)

Just because white skin is is slightly favourable in cold weather, it does not mean that black people who migrated there would become white. Black skinned people are perfectly able to live long enough to procreate in Scandinavia, and thus natural selection is NOT responsible for the white race. Really, the only thing that makes sense is that europeans came from a tribe of albino africans.

And the theory that a mutation that offers no advantage at all(like the typicall eye form of the asians) happened to a whole population is absurd. The most probable theory is that asians already looked like that when a [b]very small number[/u] of them migrated to Asia, and because all asians are descendent of them, they kept those traits.

@stormbind:"pure"white people would be just like albinos.
@DP: The first humanoids were in fact blacks.

You people are full of lamarckist ideas ;)

Just because white skin is is slightly favourable in cold weather, it does not mean that black people who migrated there would become white. Black skinned people are perfectly able to live long enough to procreate in Scandinavia, and thus natural selection is NOT responsible for the white race. Really, the only thing that makes sense is that europeans came from a tribe of albino africans.
Correct me if Im wrong, but I cant think of a mammal that lives in or around the Poles that is black. They all have white or very light colored fur.
And the theory that a mutation that offers no advantage at all(like the typicall eye form of the asians) happened to a whole population is absurd. .
It didnt happen at once to everybody. First it began in one family unit, expanded to the tribe over time, that out into the greater Clan of peoples living in the area.
@DP: The first humanoids were in fact blacks

@DP: The first humanoids were in fact blacks.

How do we know that? By studying the genes and chromosomes of ancient people and comparing them with modern humans?

The white (Caucasian) race came from Japeth. Son of Noah.

The rarity of albinos seems to debunk that theory, luiz. How could there be a whole tribe of them?

But, some process of gradual loss of pigmentation also raises questions. After all, eskimos have a darker skin tone than any european peoples. Shouldn't they be lighter?

I think our more immediate ancestors were not black, but had a lighter skin tone. Some went to Africa and became darker, some went to Europe and became lighter.

The white (Caucasian) race came from Japeth. Son of Noah.

Excellent, you started from the beginning. I'm glad your don't except this evolution crap. :thumbsup:

Japeth=Gog=Magog

I don't think that your skin pigment can be lost simply by living in a cold climate for long enough, i.e. I see no advantage or disadvantage from having black or white skin in Europe, so don't see how natural selection could be responsible for a white European race. The albino theory also seems flawed, since, as someone has already mentioned, the chances of this happening is so slim. So perhaps the first humans were a mixed race, who, by a combination of genetics and human nature, became racially divided into tribes that spread. At the end of the day, I wouldn't be surprised if ethnic cleansing was to blame :p . Well, actually, I would...

Eskimos have darker skin than Europeans because otherwise the would get sunburned (Im half Eskimo my self) The snow in the polar regions works like a mirror, reflecting the sun. Eskimos are also small and "round" so the don't loose body heat.
Natural selection or mutation, I don't know, but I think it's a combination of both.

There is little benefit in wasting energy at the cellular level on producing the pigment melanin to protect against the sun's UV light if the people are wrapped up in wooly mammoth fur to keep warm which would block the light.

The native humans of St Kilda (island off Scotland) developed hook like toes; that helped them to collect birds eggs from cliffs, where others without hooked toes could not safely reach.

Correct me if Im wrong, but I cant think of a mammal that lives in or around the Poles that is black. They all have white or very light colored fur.
Check this dark-skinned antartic mammal:
http://www.guiageografico.com/antartica-antarctica-fotos/foca.jpg


It didnt happen at once to everybody. First it began in one family unit, expanded to the tribe over time, that out into the greater Clan of peoples living in the area.

The question is why. How come a whole population would randomly develop a new eye form? The only theory that can explain that is the one that states that all asians come from mutant tribe who left Africa and settled there. Just like what happened to the whites in Europe.

How do we know that? By studying the genes and chromosomes of ancient people and comparing them with modern humans?

The skulls of ancient humans match the skull of blacks, along with other evidences.

The rarity of albinos seems to debunk that theory, luiz. How could there be a whole tribe of them?
There might be a sociological explanation. Albinos might have been discrimanted by the mainstream black african society, and thus could only be accepted as partner by another albino. The offspring of two albinos is necessarily an albino, and thus the population grew.


But, some process of gradual loss of pigmentation also raises questions. After all, eskimos have a darker skin tone than any european peoples. Shouldn't they be lighter?

Exactly. White skin is not a comparative advatage to live in the cold. The skimos do just fine.


I think our more immediate ancestors were not black, but had a lighter skin tone. Some went to Africa and became darker, some went to Europe and became lighter.
I believe most archeological evidence points that all men originated in Africa. The whites and asians and etc left, the blacks stayed.

Our ancestors are most likely an albino tribe that left Africa and settled somewhere in the Caucasus. After that they migrated West and replaced the Neanthertals as the dominant european humanoid.

We burn in the sun because we are unused to the sun. All of Northern Europe used to be forested so we had very little contact with the sun. Then we cut down all the trees so there was no shade.

Place a white European in the open all year round, with little clothing, and he won't be very white.

Melanoma is most likely to occur when people usused to the sun suddenly get lots of exposure and burn badly. Your more weather-beaten types are more resistant. In any event, when the average lifespan is 30 years it's unlikely that it'll be skin cancer that gets you.

The "white man" is not just white, eye color, hair type, teeth layout and bone structure define him as well.

However, the white man is almost impossible to define. If you mean the Nordic type, my theory is that they evolved in the northern European forest zone covering the territory between northern France and northern Russia. But, anyway...

In actual fact, as I have argued elsewhere, the out of Africa theory seems no more likely to be true than the "Chariots of the Gods" theory. White people, like Mongolian people and other races, probably mixed with different percentages of "pre-human" populations, or even, evolved in Eurasia from pre-human forms with interbreeding with other humans coming from Africa, or elsewhere. The idea that people wandered out of Africa in one big volkerwanderung, split up, and went their own pure separate ways to produce the modern races, without breeding with native populations, is totally childish: sounds to much like, the origins of European nations :lol:

I should also point out, that the "Black Man", as we normally define him, has his origins East of the Cameroon mountains from the sahara south to the ocean. That's the race who produce all the olympic medalists and boxing champions...not the black "race" in general.

So perhaps the first humans were a mixed race, who, by a combination of genetics and human nature, became racially divided into tribes that spread.

Not to bring too much Christianity into this thread, but the bible somewhat supports this theory. Now Bare with me. Adam and Eve were the first 'humans'. They were created perfectly in gods imagine etc. So they woulnd't have had genetic diseases/recessive traist etc. So then when Sin came into the world, humans became less perfect and after the tower of babel incident, ppl who would somewhat understand each other would have grouped with each other and their common traits would become standards in a couple generations for their isolated tribes. :crazyeye:

[QUOTE=luiz]Check this dark-skinned antartic mammal:
http://www.guiageografico.com/antartica-antarctica-fotos/foca.jpg
QUOTE]

Is it's skin really dark or just it's fur?

I think it's both, cause seals are darker on the top then on the bottom.


Now I kinda agree with both sides here(Albino vs non-Albino) but some stuff still nags me about both sides.

A recessive(That's the one that stays right?) gene the limits the pigment of the skin would seem more reasonable then a whole comeing from a whole tribe of albinos. But Asians being decended from a group of people with same eye type sounds better then separate groups all developing the same gene to produce the same type of eye.

Now what about Native Americans? (Iroquis, Navejo, Mayans, Incas, Arawaks, the Brazilian tribes) They all have dark skin, and the closer to the equator the darker they are. How did that come to be?


So far all arguments seem pretty logical(cept the religious ones)

personally, it i snot how the white person dfeveloped, but how the black pigmintation did.

our closest special relitive, the chimp, is white skinned, pointing to a light skin colour ebeing the colour of the origional humans.

In actual fact, as I have argued elsewhere, the out of Africa theory seems no more likely to be true than the "Chariots of the Gods" theory. White people, like Mongolian people and other races, probably mixed with different percentages of "pre-human" populations, or even, evolved in Eurasia from pre-human forms with interbreeding with other humans coming from Africa, or elsewhere. The idea that people wandered out of Africa in one big volkerwanderung, split up, and went their own pure separate ways to produce the modern races, without breeding with native populations, is totally childish: sounds to much like, the origins of European nations :lol:



we talked about this very subjectin my Genetics class recentlly, lol, and while logically, youropinion makes sense, gentically, it dosent- with the completion of the human genome project two years ago, it has opend up a flood way fo infomation- one of the major areas being human evolution, and cmparitive genetics- modern humans are to closelly related to one another on the leval of the speices as a whole for thier ot have been localized mixing with proto humans

In actual fact, as I have argued elsewhere, the out of Africa theory seems no more likely to be true than the "Chariots of the Gods" theory. White people, like Mongolian people and other races, probably mixed with different percentages of "pre-human" populations, or even, evolved in Eurasia from pre-human forms with interbreeding with other humans coming from Africa, or elsewhere. The idea that people wandered out of Africa in one big volkerwanderung, split up, and went their own pure separate ways to produce the modern races, without breeding with native populations, is totally childish: sounds to much like, the origins of European nations :lol:


But what if the whites, the mongolians, etc already left Africa with characteristics already very similar to the modern ones?

Luiz: nobody is arguming Lamarckism here.

What we're arguing is that since Northern environments are favorable to light skin and disfavorable to black skin there is going to be natural selection for lighter-skinned people. They will be less likely to get rickets or other such diseases from lack of Vitamin C and will therefore reproudce more, etc.

A group of standard prehistoric Africans would have migrated northward. The ligher skinned among them would reproduce more. Go forward some amount of time and you get "white people".

Luiz: nobody is arguming Lamarckism here.

What we're arguing is that since Northern environments are favorable to light skin and disfavorable to black skin there is going to be natural selection for lighter-skinned people. They will be less likely to get rickets or other such diseases from lack of Vitamin C and will therefore reproudce more, etc.

A group of standard prehistoric Africans would have migrated northward. The ligher skinned among them would reproduce more. Go forward some amount of time and you get "white people".

Natural Selection only takes place if the unfit are eliminated BEFORE procreation. Blacks in Norhern Europe are perfectly able to live until reproduction. They are not as adapted as the whites, but this is not nearly enough to select white people.

This thread will talk about the origins of the Aryan barbarians that lived in east central Asia.

They have little to do with today's whites. The Aryans you talk of were one half of today's Indians, the other being the Dravidians found in Southern India, who in ancient times developed the Indus Valley civilization. The Aryans were an Indo-European people who moved from the Caucus, where most of the Indo-European linguistic group originated, and moved to India in the 2nd millenium B.C. They have little to do with the origin of todays "white race", except for the Nazis stealing that name.

Seeing as though the black has all the physical advantages over other white races.

Am I the only one who noticed this? What do you base this idiotic statement on? The NBA?

White man can't tolerate the hot climates, or they will get skin cancer.

And the black man can't tolerate colder climates, or they will get frostbite. Please. Stupid logic, no basis in scientific fact, and walking a fine line between debate and racism.

Seeing that humans originated in Africa I would expect the first men to have been "black" or something close to it.

Agreed.

As humans migrated north, the environment was more and more favorable to those with lighter skin, since the amount of sunlight decreased. Individuals with dark skin could absorb far less sunlight and therefore died of things such as rickets, causing natural selection towards whites.

I believe reading in Discover magazine that the reason for the difference in skin tone is ultra violet radiation. Scientists discovered a few years back that ultraviolet radiation rates roughly corresponded to skin tone on the earth. I believe that "whiteness" originated from evolution to this correspondance.

Keep in mind, though, that all the while humans in Africa were not holding steady; they were developing as well, simply to African conditions.

Excellent point.

The furthest east speakers of the Indo-European languages came was Xinjiang, the so-called Tocharians. Note that this is in reference to language, rather than race.

Were these the people that after Chinese expansion in the area migrated and founded the state of Kushan in modern day Pakistan?

IIRC, 'white' men arose fr a genetic mutation, which resulted in their particular skin pigmentation (or lack of), somewhere in north Europe a few thousand years ago.

Did the same thing happen to Asians?

I should also point out, that the "Black Man", as we normally define him, has his origins East of the Cameroon mountains from the sahara south to the ocean. That's the race who produce all the olympic medalists and boxing champions...not the black "race" in general.


While I don't deny that genetics may have something to do with it, keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of these black boxing champions come from the U.S., Canada, or the U.K., always one of the three. You'll never see a black boxing champion from Nigeria. Also, the olympic medalists all come from East Africa, particularly Kenya, it's not as if all africans are track stars.

we talked about this very subjectin my Genetics class recentlly, lol, and while logically, youropinion makes sense, gentically, it dosent- with the completion of the human genome project two years ago, it has opend up a flood way fo infomation- one of the major areas being human evolution, and cmparitive genetics- modern humans are to closelly related to one another on the leval of the speices as a whole for thier ot have been localized mixing with proto humans

The hole here are the other humanoids whose genetics we have no access to. A random scattering of skeletons really doesn't tell us that much...

While I don't deny that genetics may have something to do with it, keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of these black boxing champions come from the U.S., Canada, or the U.K., always one of the three. You'll never see a black boxing champion from Nigeria. Also, the olympic medalists all come from East Africa, particularly Kenya, it's not as if all africans are track stars.


Indeed; however, I think you will start seeing them emerge from west/southern Africa in the future. Sprinting and boxing, rather than long-distance stamina testing sports are where they seem to have advantages.

The other thing to remember, and this is really sordid, is that many slaves were picked for their physical abilit. The blacks who are in the Anglo-Saxons countries largely come via the Caribbean; selective breeding for humans may have had an effect, although I can't think of any evidence to prove that it did...

Claiming that albinos were the origin of the white race is just stupid.

Indeed; however, I think you will start seeing them emerge from west/southern Africa in the future. Sprinting and boxing, rather than long-distance stamina testing sports are where they seem to have advantages.

The other thing to remember, and this is really sordid, is that many slaves were picked for their physical abilit. The blacks who are in the Anglo-Saxons countries largely come via the Caribbean; selective breeding for humans may have had an effect, although I can't think of any evidence to prove that it did...

Interesting points, especially the second. Perhaps now after 400 years of slavery selective breeding has had an effect on humans. Another thing is to remember that the blacks in the U.S. have mixed with the whites, due to the raps by the plantation owners.

Claiming that albinos were the origin of the white race is just stupid.


I fully agree with this statement- albinoism is a fully recessive trait, and aside from there litterally being 0 chance of a population exhibiting mass abinimism, the populution would have to be at least 1- severl huindred strong, or else it woulve surcommend to inbreeding long, long, long ago, and since its (albinism) is a recissive triat, any mixing with those who do not hav it would result in a normal child.

more over, there is the fact that albinism serves absolutley no purpose in amking a person better adapted to thier enviroment, other then making them colder in cold enviroments, and makign them stick out mor ein nono cold enviroments, in other words, its a trait that only weeds itself out of a population.

The hole here are the other humanoids whose genetics we have no access to. A random scattering of skeletons really doesn't tell us that much...


skeltons dont actually matter much in genetics, all that is needed is around 300 intact cells, total to make a determination.

We (all 6 billion of us) are all descended from a small tribe of africans that lived about 150,000 years ago. The descendants of this group replaced all other living humans. Within the last 150,000 years, as the people spread around the world their physical characteristics changed according to the environment they lived in. Bushmen got big butts, northern Europeans when pale to absorb more vitamin D; Eskimos got short an squat.

Natural Selection only takes place if the unfit are eliminated BEFORE procreation. Blacks in Norhern Europe are perfectly able to live until reproduction. They are not as adapted as the whites, but this is not nearly enough to select white people.

Wrong wrong wrong. Natural selection is self regulating. If I am better adapted then you, I will produce more offspring than you over time. You are still reproducing, but not as rapidly as me, and if my advantage is substantial, my offspring will eventually replace yours. Now a really bad trait will kill its host before reproduction and trim the tree that way.

Skin color and latitude is in part related to the production of vitamin D from sunlight. Too much Vitamin D is as bad as too little. Dark pigmentation inhibits the production of it. In africa dark skin allows for the right level of production. In a primative society, if you cannot produce enough vitamin D from sunlight then you need another source of it. Lighter skin allows for more vitamin D production that is required by the lower sunlight levels of the north.

skeltons dont actually matter much in genetics, all that is needed is around 300 intact cells, total to make a determination.

yeah...but they're not so easy to get! :scan:

I can't believe no one has mentioned folic acid's role in human pigment levels. The skintone of a population is largely determined by how UV radiation effects Vitamin D production and folic acid.

Folic acid is very important in the development of the human fetus. Too UV radiation destroys folic acid in the body; dark skin protects against this. In a lower latitude area, a dark skinned woman will be much more likely to have a child without birth defects.

But, your body needs Vitamin D for calcium absorption & bone growth. And your body produces vitamin D using UV radiation. In the higher latitudes, someone with light skin will have stronger bones, that heal faster, making light
an advantage in those areas.

The reason that Eskimos can have dark skin, while living in artic climates, is that they have a diet rich in fish & animal products, which contain lots of vitamin D. Thus, they never had the selective pressure to be able to produce their own vitamin D.

Also, the genes that make a person albino are separate from the normal skin color genes.

Here is a Wikipedia article that explains more. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color)

Nobody has mentioned that we have been breeding certain characteristics in ourselves since Day 1. Who knows? Maybe cultural concepts of beauty, over time, can play a large role in how ethnic groups look. Certain body types, facial features that are considered to be attractive in the culture are selected for and become stronger and more dominant over time, till one day *poof* youve got a new 'ethnic' group.

. Within the last 150,000 years, as the people spread around the world their physical characteristics changed according to the environment they lived in. Bushmen got big butts, northern Europeans when pale to absorb more vitamin D; Eskimos got short an squat.

This is the definition of Lamarckism...

"The neck of the giraffe got longer to eat the higher leafs"

That's what you're saying:

"Northern Europeans got white to absorb Vit D"

And you're completely wrong

Wrong wrong wrong. Natural selection is self regulating. If I am better adapted then you, I will produce more offspring than you over time. You are still reproducing, but not as rapidly as me, and if my advantage is substantial, my offspring will eventually replace yours. Now a really bad trait will kill its host before reproduction and trim the tree that way.

Skin color and latitude is in part related to the production of vitamin D from sunlight. Too much Vitamin D is as bad as too little. Dark pigmentation inhibits the production of it. In africa dark skin allows for the right level of production. In a primative society, if you cannot produce enough vitamin D from sunlight then you need another source of it. Lighter skin allows for more vitamin D production that is required by the lower sunlight levels of the north.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Blacks in Scandinavia are PERFECTLY able to have a considerable offspring, they are PERFECTLY able to pass on their genes. The advantage that a white skin gives in absorbing Vitamin D is MINUMUM, and is nowhere near the necessary to trigger natural selection.

I repeat, the only logical explanation is that the people who settled in Europe were all part of a mutant group, probably some sort of albinos.

I repeat, the only logical explanation is that the people who settled in Europe were all part of a mutant group, probably some sort of albinos.

This is getting tiring. No, we are not albino mutants, sorry to dissapoint you. The first humans were not black under the fur, that's just stupid logic used to strengthen claims of black racial superiority (sort of like the "whites started civilization" garbage). They were relatively light skinned people, who developed into the modern races of man after they lost their fur. Taken for a better explanation:

"The evolution of the different skin colors is thought to have occurred as follows: the haired ancestor of humans, like modern great apes, had light skin under their hair. Once the hair was lost, they evolved dark skin, needed to prevent low folate levels since they lived in sun-rich Africa. (The skin cancer connection is probably of secondary importance, since skin cancer usually kills only after the reproductive age and therefore doesn't exert much evolutionary pressure.) When humans migrated to sun-poorer regions in the north, low vitamin D3 levels became a problem and light skin color evolved. "

Nobody's arguing Lamarckism, humans evolved their skin tones the same way Mongolied peoples evolved the Epicanthal fold's around their eyes or humans in general the opposable thumb.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Blacks in Scandinavia are PERFECTLY able to have a considerable offspring, they are PERFECTLY able to pass on their genes. The advantage that a white skin gives in absorbing Vitamin D is MINUMUM, and is nowhere near the necessary to trigger natural selection.

I repeat, the only logical explanation is that the people who settled in Europe were all part of a mutant group, probably some sort of albinos.

Minnimum? What do you base this on? How do you then explain the lighter skin tone of women world wide, meant probably to help absorption of Vitamin D during pregnancy? And your explanation is hardly logical and bordering on racism. So there was a tribe in ancient Africa which somehow was magically full of nothing but albinos that decided to flee North from the superior dark-skinned people who suffer either no problems or minnimal ones wherever they go. They all went to Northern Europe where they managed to **** enough to populate an entire continent, while losing 90% of the negatives associated with being an albino except for the skin color which remained as a telling sign of their inferiority. In the meanwhile, people who weren't as dark as Africans or as White as these albinos magically appeared in areas coincidentally corresponding to such levels of UV-radiation. Brilliant.

I made a gigantic reply, but fortunately my computer crashed and I were unable to post. It was a very rude reply. Allow me to point out some of the countless flaws of your very poor post.

This is getting tiring. No, we are not albino mutants, sorry to dissapoint you. The first humans were not black under the fur, that's just stupid logic used to strengthen claims of black racial superiority (sort of like the "whites started civilization" garbage). They were relatively light skinned people, who developed into the modern races of man after they lost their fur. Taken for a better explanation:

I'm white. My family is european. Don't accuse me of beign racist against whites. It's ridiculous. If you actually READ the whole thread, you would see that my very first post stated the absurdity of "african physicall superiority" that the thread starter claimed.
The first humanoids were dark skinned. That's a widely accepted fact among the scientific community.



"The evolution of the different skin colors is thought to have occurred as follows: the haired ancestor of humans, like modern great apes, had light skin under their hair. Once the hair was lost, they evolved dark skin, needed to prevent low folate levels since they lived in sun-rich Africa. (The skin cancer connection is probably of secondary importance, since skin cancer usually kills only after the reproductive age and therefore doesn't exert much evolutionary pressure.) When humans migrated to sun-poorer regions in the north, low vitamin D3 levels became a problem and light skin color evolved. "

Nobody's arguing Lamarckism, humans evolved their skin tones the same way Mongolied peoples evolved the Epicanthal fold's around their eyes or humans in general the opposable thumb.

Nobody evolves to fit the Environment. This NEVER happens. What happens are mutations, that rarely are benefical. When they're benefical enough to constitute a comparative advantage, natural selection will make them dominant. That's the ONLY way evolution works.
The advantage of the opposable thumbs is clear. But what is the comparative adavanatge of the mongolian eye? I'll tell you: none. The mongolians DON'T have their eyes that way because of Evolutions. It's because of something known as "Principle of the Founder": all of their ancestors shared an eye like that, because of some mutation.

You're arguing lamarckism here, wheter you know it or not.



Minnimum? What do you base this on? How do you then explain the lighter skin tone of women world wide, meant probably to help absorption of Vitamin D during pregnancy? And your explanation is hardly logical and bordering on racism. So there was a tribe in ancient Africa which somehow was magically full of nothing but albinos that decided to flee North from the superior dark-skinned people who suffer either no problems or minnimal ones wherever they go. They all went to Northern Europe where they managed to **** enough to populate an entire continent, while losing 90% of the negatives associated with being an albino except for the skin color which remained as a telling sign of their inferiority. In the meanwhile, people who weren't as dark as Africans or as White as these albinos magically appeared in areas coincidentally corresponding to such levels of UV-radiation. Brilliant.

Yes, MINIMUM. As in, no comparative advantage at all.

As for the skin tones coinciding with UV level, I only ask you this: HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE ESKIMOS???

They live in place MUCH colder then France, and yet their skin is much darker then the skin of french people. Shouldn't they have evloved to white skin, like the scandinavians WHO LIVE IN THE SAME CONDITIONS??

Answer: NO, BECAUSE THE WHITE SKIN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. It has to do with the Principle of the Founder. Understand?

As for the albino theory, sure it's only a theory. But it makes one thousand times more sense then your lamarckist BS.
After all severall albino africans may have been discriminated and harmed by sunburns, so they decided to migrate northwards.

Don't accuse me of racism again and I'll make more polite replies.

I'm white. My family is european. Don't accuse me of beign racist against whites.
The first humanoids were dark skinned. That's a widely accepted fact among the scientific community.

It's because of something known as "Principle of the Founder"
It has to do with the Principle of the Founder. Understand?

As for the albino theory, sure it's only a theory. But it makes one thousand times more sense then your lamarckist BS.
After all severall albino africans may have been discriminated and harmed by sunburns, so they decided to migrate northwards.

What you are arguing is that the white race developed separately from all other races and is independent of them. It seems you are afraid of admitting a common heritage with the rest of human kind.

I could not find any "princple of the founder" references except on some Islamic sites. Would you care of offer up some references on this? Nobody is suggesting Lamarckism. I think you need to spend a few hours at talkorigins.com and bring yourself up to speed on evolution.

Is the albino theory yours? Or is there some other source where we might find some supporting data. Why would these sunburned albinos go north? They would have had no knowledge of of a spherical world and the fact that a northern latitude would suit them better.

What you are arguing is that the white race developed separately from all other races and is independent of them. It seems you are afraid of admitting a common heritage with the rest of human kind.

Interesting.
First I'm accused of beign racist agaisnt whites.
Now I'm accused of beign afraid to admit common heritage with non-whites, WHEN I CLEARLY STATED THAT THE ANCESTORS OF EVERYONE WERE BLACKS.

I'm the one arguing for common ancestry here, damn it.

The proccess of origin of the white race is identical to the one that happened to asians: a group sharing a mutation stablished in a new land.


I could not find any "princple of the founder" references except on some Islamic sites. Would you care of offer up some references on this? Nobody is suggesting Lamarckism. I think you need to spend a few hours at talkorigins.com and bring yourself up to speed on evolution.

That's because I translated a portuguese term. I have no idea what the English term is.


Is the albino theory yours? Or is there some other source where we might find some supporting data. Why would these sunburned albinos go north? They would have had no knowledge of of a spherical world and the fact that a northern latitude would suit them better.

I didn't invent it, I'm not capable of that. I studied it as the most probable origin of the white ethnicity. I'll try to find a decent link, but it might be in portuguese.

As for the question of why the first whites would go north: the same reason why the amerindians went to America, asians to Asia and Africans all the way thorugh their country: search for new lands. Most human groups, at some point, migrated to lands they had no idea existed. They were nomads, they went wherever they could find food.

And a question for everyone who believe the white skin is the result of evolutionary adaption to cold weather: Why do the eskimos have dark skin?

luiz, have you asked yourself why, if the white man is an albino type of the black man, and, according to your theory, there must have been loads of such albinos (or at least two in a small population), this kind of albino doesn't appear anywhere in modern-day black populations of the world? Or why there aren't any (rudimentary) black people born in white populations?

And a question for everyone who believe the white skin is the result of evolutionary adaption to cold weather: Why do the eskimos have dark skin?

Eskimo skin color really isn't that much darker than the so-called "white man" (whose skin color approximates more closely with pink than white - unless there is some kind of illness)

http://www.ats.de/alaska/eskimos.jpg http://scholieren.nrc.nl/weekkrant/2000/50/3a.jpg http://www.allscandinavia.com/norwaycouple.jpg

I could not find any "princple of the founder" references except on some Islamic sites

Only a few islamic sites, eh :rolleyes:
Meet Google.

My google research for "Principle of the Founder Biology" had 36,800 matchs.

The accurate term is "Founder Principle", what I learned from my google search. The sole fact that you never heard of it shows the extent of your knowledge on the subject(no offense, you're not obliged to know. Just don't question my arguments when you have no idea of what you're talking about)

Here's my google search: http://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&ie=UTF-8&q=principle+of+the+founder+biology&btnG=Pesquisar&meta=

And here's a description, taken from one of the 36,800 websites

[quote]A particular case of genetic oscilation is the "Founder Principle", that refers to the stablishment of a new population by a few individuals who emigrated from the original population. Those individuals will have a small fraction of the genetic variation of the original population, and their descendants will possess only such variability, untill new genes occur through mutation.The Founder Principle determines geneteic and fenotipic uniformity [quote]

I'm not claiming to have the truth here, but my theory definately makes sense.

luiz, have you asked yourself why, if the white man is an albino type of the black man, and, according to your theory, there must have been loads of such albinos (or at least two in a small population), this kind of albino doesn't appear anywhere in modern-day black populations of the world? Or why there aren't any (rudimentary) black people born in white populations?

This sort of albinos DO appear in modern day population.

In Brazil we have a famous musician called Ermetto Pascoal, who looks nordic. Yet he is black, genetically speaking.
And black people CANNOT be born of a white couple, for the reasons stated in the "Founder Principle" definition. Whites don't have "black genes".

And a question for everyone who believe the white skin is the result of evolutionary adaption to cold weather: Why do the eskimos have dark skin?

Eskimos migrated from Asia. They were late arrivals to the artic, so we haven't seen any changes in the short time frame. Check back in 20,000 years.

Eskimo skin color really isn't that much darker than the so-called "white man" (whose skin color approximates more closely with pink than white - unless there is some kind of illness)

http://www.ats.de/alaska/eskimos.jpg http://scholieren.nrc.nl/weekkrant/2000/50/3a.jpg http://www.allscandinavia.com/norwaycouple.jpg

There are darker eskimos.
And anyway they are not as pale as the scandinavians, and they should be according to "adaption theory", after all they live in identical conditions.

luiz, a very slight advantage can invoke natural selection, especially in harsh times. Lighter skin in the european environment gives advantages in the form of higher success rates in birth and less dependancy on other sources of vitamin D. This advantage isn't going to immediately wipe out the competition, but over time those with lighter skin would be slightly more successful, breed faster, and eventually dominate. I understand what you're saying, but the limit that you seem to be imposing for natural selection to occur is wrong. It's not simply the case that you adapt to an environment that would otherwise kill your species. In the presence of intense competition, those with relatively minor advantages can eventually become dominant.

Others have already addressed the eskimo issue, but I'll say again - the environmental conditions are totally different to europe's forests. Reflection of sunlight would cause sunburn to a person with very light skin. EDIT: You are focusing purely on temperature - you have to consider wider environmental factors such as europe's forests.

Yes, someone with dark skin is perfctly capable of procreating in scandinavia. What you seem to be leaving out is that someone with light skin is even more capable of procreating, even if the difference is actually slight. In fierce competition those with lighter skin came to dominate.

Eskimos migrated from Asia. They were late arrivals to the artic, so we haven't seen any changes in the short time frame. Check back in 20,000 years.

Since the europeans are white since thousands of years ago, your answer makes no sense at all.

Edit: This is yet another classical exemple of Lamarckism. You're stating that eskimos will "change to fit the environment".

By this same logic, blacks in Canada will become white. I have news for you: black canadians are perfectly able to reproduce, and thus carry on with their genes.

I made a gigantic reply, but fortunately

my computer crashed and I were unable to post.

It was a very rude reply. Allow me to point out

some of the countless flaws of your very poor

post.

Rock on.

I'm white. My family is european. Don't

accuse me of beign racist against whites. It's

ridiculous. If you actually READ the whole

thread, you would see that my very first post

stated the absurdity of "african physicall

superiority" that the thread starter claimed.
The first humanoids were dark skinned. That's a

widely accepted fact among the scientific

community.


I didn't accuse you of racism. In fact, I never

talked about you, I talked about your

ideas, and then I said bordering

on racism. Your ideas can very easily be used

for such purposes, and since racist sources

such as

raci

st web sites[/i] are the only place I've seen

the albino theory before, racism is the first

thing to identify them with. I know you're

white, and I also know you're not racist. But

someone could easily take your words and what

you've posted in this thread and use it as

such.

The first humanoids were dark skinned.

That's a widely accepted fact among the

scientific community.


No, they were not. They were not black, white,

red, yellow, or anything else. They were

practically monkeys. And their "blackness" is

not accepted by that many except for the

uninformed. People who believe this assume that

since they lived in Africa, they were black,

and once they lost their fur, that's what was

left. There are numerous flaws in this theory.

First of all, the most likely factor for

development of human skin tone is UV-Radiation,

as various studies published in the likes of

Discover magazine will tell you. You yourself

admitted that the advantages of black skin are

that it's better adapt to warmer climates.

Considering how much fur the early humanoid

beings had, there would have been no need for

dark skin. Look at the primates in Africa

today, our closest relatives in the animal

kingdom. Do they have black skin? No.

Their skin tone can't be identified with any

major human race on the planet. Why? Because of

their fur, which the early humans lost.


Nobody evolves to fit the Environment.

This NEVER happens.

Stop making assumptions and think about what

I'm saying. No, these ancient humanoids did not

arrive in Europe and based on the area

transform into whites. Rather, they came not

having a skin tone much different than the

humanoids in the Middle East (who in turn were

probably little different from the humans in

North Africa, who in turn were probably little

different from the humans in sub-saharan

africa, etc. etc. etc.). Some of them were

bound to have lighter skin than others, and

they were more fit to survive. Eventually, the

lighter skin individuals dominated the darker

ones. Evolution at work. Just like Epicanthal

folds. Did ancient humans in Africa have

Epicanthal folds? No. Running with your theory

would mean that this was a mutation, and that

all of the oriental peoples with epicanthal

folds are the result of various mutated tribes

fleeing Africa. In fact, your theory basically

means that any difference in appearance from

the early humans resulted from various mutated

tribes leaving the rest. It also could

imply that the various races of earth developed

independently and did not mix, something that

racists on all sides use theories like yours to

justify.

This NEVER happens. What happens are

mutations, that rarely are benefical. When

they're benefical enough to constitute a

comparative advantage, natural selection will

make them dominant. That's the ONLY way

evolution works.


And that's exactly what I'm saying.

Humans generally went to Europe and Asia, and

evolved by natural selection along the way,

while the humans that remained in Africa also

changed over time. You however, specifically

say that they were mutated in the middle of

Africa and fleed Northward. I quote:

"I repeat, the only logical explanation is

that the people who settled in Europe were all

part of a mutant group, probably some sort of

albinos."

How this would happen is beyond me. That enough

albinos would appear in a large enough tribe to

populate a continent in such a short time that

instead of dying off they would all decide to

flee Northward over eye like that, because of some mutation.

The advantage of the opposable thumbs is clear. But what is the comparative adavanatge of the mongolian eye? I'll tell you: none. The mongolians DON'T have their eyes that way because of Evolutions. It's because of something known as "Principle of the Founder": all of their ancestors shared an eye like that, because of some mutation.

The epicanthal folds developed because the earliest "mongoloid" peoples for years roamed in very cold climates, such as those of Siberia and Mongolia (thus the name). People with epicanthal folds became predominant over dozens of thousands of years.

You're arguing lamarckism here, wheter you know it or not.

You sure love that world though you're not even using the most correct defninition. Taken from [url]www.dictionary.com: (http://www.saxakali.com/suzar/toc.htm)

"A theory of biological evolution holding that species evolve by the inheritance of traits acquired or modified through the use or disuse of body parts."

Yes, MINIMUM. As in, no comparative advantage at all.

As for the skin tones coinciding with UV level, I only ask you this: HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE ESKIMOS???

They live in place MUCH colder then France, and yet their skin is much darker then the skin of french people. Shouldn't they have evloved to white skin, like the scandinavians WHO LIVE IN THE SAME CONDITIONS??

No.

"The Inuit are a special case: even though they live in an extremely sun-poor environment, they have retained their relatively dark skin. This can be explained by the fact that their traditional animal-based diet provides plenty of vitamin D."

European diets were also based on animals, but not to the extent of the Inuits who lived in areas of the world where agriculture was absolutely impossible, compared to Europe which despite being heavily forested (plenty of plants for early humans to eat) had developed agriculture for quite some time.

s for the albino theory, sure it's only a theory.

Actually theory would probably be too kind. Find me one respectable academic source (in english) which advocates the theory that whites were albinos which fled Africa.


After all severall albino africans may have been discriminated and harmed by sunburns, so they decided to migrate northwards.

Why? Why would they decide to migrate Northwards?

The proccess of origin of the white race is identical to the one that happened to asians: a group sharing a mutation stablished in a new land.

So basically Africans are the only humans which have retained the old valuable traits of our distant ancestors, while Asians and Whites are the product of harmful mutations. Africans themselves have had very little of these mutations, if any, and today's Africans can be considered to be the same as the ancestors of whites and asians.

As for the question of why the first whites would go north: the same reason why the amerindians went to America, asians to Asia and Africans all the way thorugh their country: search for new lands. Most human groups, at some point, migrated to lands they had no idea existed. They were nomads, they went wherever they could find food.

Didn't you say they fled because they were looking to relieve their albinism and since they weree being shunned by the Africans? Maybe you didn't mean the word "Discriminatory" that way but, I quote:

"After all severall albino africans may have been discriminated and harmed by sunburns, so they decided to migrate northwards."

Now you claim they went for more food. Very well reasonable, but why didn't other Africans that weren't Albinos go Northward as well? Albinos certainly couldn't have been a very large group percentage wise of the human population, even in their area. Unless you believe that migration out of Africa was discrimanotry only to mutants, shouldn't have a very large number of proper Africans have gone North with them (if the motive was food as you say)? Then it's only logical to assume that the albinos would have remained a minortiy.

Only a few islamic sites, eh :rolleyes:
Meet Google.

My google research for "Principle of the Founder Biology" had 36,800 matchs.

The accurate term is "Founder Principle", what I learned from my google search. The sole fact that you never heard of it shows the extent of your knowledge on the subject(no offense, you're not obliged to know. Just don't question my arguments when you have no idea of what you're talking about)

Here's my google search: http://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&ie=UTF-8&q=principle+of+the+founder+biology&btnG=Pesquisar&meta=

And here's a description, taken from one of the 36,800 websites

[quote]A particular case of genetic oscilation is the "Founder Principle", that refers to the stablishment of a new population by a few individuals who emigrated from the original population. Those individuals will have a small fraction of the genetic variation of the original population, and their descendants will possess only such variability, untill new genes occur through mutation.The Founder Principle determines geneteic and fenotipic uniformity [quote]

I'm not claiming to have the truth here, but my theory definately makes sense.



HOWEVER the Founder Principle as far as I can see adresses normal mutations, that are niether necessarily harmful nor necessarily beneficial to humans. Such weird little mutations may have happened. BUT albinism is a very harmful mutation, and for it to have created another race of people seems unlikely.

luiz, a very slight advantage can invoke natural selection, especially in harsh times. Lighter skin in the european environment gives advantages in the form of higher success rates in birth and less dependancy on other sources of vitamin D. This advantage isn't going to immediately wipe out the competition, but over time those with lighter skin would be slightly more successful, breed faster, and eventually dominate. I understand what you're saying, but the limit that you seem to be imposing for natural selection to occur is wrong. It's not simply the case that you adapt to an environment that would otherwise kill your species. In the presence of intense competition, those with relatively minor advantages can eventually become dominant.

Others have already addressed the eskimo issue, but I'll say again - the environmental conditions are totally different to europe's forests. Reflection of sunlight would cause sunburn to a person with very light skin. EDIT: You are focusing purely on temperature - you have to consider wider environmental factors such as europe's forests.

Yes, someone with dark skin is perfctly capable of procreating in scandinavia. What you seem to be leaving out is that someone with light skin is even more capable of procreating, even if the difference is actually slight. In fierce competition those with lighter skin came to dominate.

No. The ammount of procreatin will be roughly the same. A bit of more absorption of Vit D(yes, it's only a bit) is not nearly enough to trigger natural selsection.

HOWEVER the Founder Principle as far as I can see adresses normal mutations, that are niether necessarily harmful nor necessarily beneficial to humans. Such weird little mutations may have happened. BUT albinism is a very harmful mutation, and for it to have created another race of people seems unlikely.

The mutations routinely harmfull.
Albinism is harmfull, but not that harmfull in a place like Europe.

And it sure didn't create a new race of people. It created a group of people with a lighter skin tone. Genetically speaking the white are very similar to blacks.

There are darker eskimos.
And anyway they are not as pale as the scandinavians, and they should be according to "adaption theory", after all they live in identical conditions.

And anyway they are not as pale as the scandinavians, and they should be according to "adaption theory", after all they live in identical conditions

Are you blind...the eskimo couple are just as light...There are darker Scandinavians too and lighter eskimos...I chose the most extreme example to illustrate the similarity!

Conditions, of course, were not identical. The north-western Eurasian and the north-eastern Eurasian originate from their own different stocks, and have adopted to different environments.

BTW, I'll just add that I think the Albino theory is nonsense; firstly, because I believe out-of-africa is nonsense; but secondly, for the numerous reasons already listed.

Do you think that Mongoloid people come from a tribe of people with Down's Syndrome? :confused:

Here is what I found on the founder principle of biology at talkorigins. It refers only to the creation of new species. There is only one species of human. Your suggested use of it doesn't apply.

"One issue that is still under debate is the mode of evolution. The question is whether speciation (the event of the splitting of one species into two or more) occurs mostly in a geographical distribution of separation first, new species later (allopatry) or new species first, geographical separation later if at all (sympatry).

If speciation is mostly allopatric, then the differences that accrue through sampling error of genes and mutations that occur in one but not another population need not be adaptive, and so selection will not be the major cause of new species, though it will be of new adaptations.

If speciation is mainly sympatric, then the differences between species will be due to separating selection in favour of adaptive features (for example, a new food preference for oranges instead of apples might force incipient species to mate at different times of the year).

The weight of favour is on the allopatric mode. Usually this is referred to as the "Founder-flush" theory of Ernst Mayr - a small founder population is isolated from the main populations of a species, and adapts after that to novel environments (with its own mutations if they occur). Then it reinvades the ancestral range but makes its living in different ways to the ancestor species."

Are you blind...the eskimo couple are just as light...There are darker Scandinavians too and lighter eskimos...I chose the most extreme example to illustrate the similarity!

Conditions, of course, were not identical. The north-western Eurasian and the north-eastern Eurasian originate from their own different stocks, and have adopted to different environments.

Ah, come on Calgacus!
The eskimos are much darker then the scandinavians and you know it! How many eskimos have pale(like in snow pale) skin!

And regarding the absorpition of Vitamin D, the supposed factor that determines skin colour, the conditions are in fact identical. And so, by the adaptation logic they should have the same skin colour.

BTW, I'll just add that I think the Albino theory is nonsense; firstly, because I believe out-of-africa is nonsense; but secondly, for the numerous reasons already listed.

I have a profound respect for you as a great poster and historian, and so I respect your opinion. But by saying that the out-of-Africa theory is nonsense, you're going against the scientific establishment and you know it! All archeological evidence so far points out to a common origin of all men in Africa, somewhere around Ethiopia.


Do you think that Mongoloid people come from a tribe of people with Down's Syndrome? :confused:
:crazyeye:
Not all people with a mongolian look have Down Syndrome. The ancestors of the mongolians were people with that particular look, but not the diesease, of course.

In fact, the Mongolians are perfect exemple of why the adaptation theory is nonsense. What possible comparative advantage do their particular look bring?

And regarding the absorpition of Vitamin D, the supposed factor that determines skin colour, the conditions are in fact identical. And so, by the adaptation logic they should have the same skin colour.

How are they identical? The Inuits traditionally consume almost nothing but meat, whereas the Scandanavians and other Northern European peoples have had access to a wide variety of other food types such as dairy, wheat, fruits, and vegetables,

In fact, the Mongolians are perfect exemple of why the adaptation theory is nonsense. What possible comparative advantage do their particular look bring?

Colder climate.

okay, a few notes

1) the albino theory is bogus, there is litterally no chance ever that this would ever happen at time time at all anywhere, albinos just do not have the odds in thier favour. and by odds, I mean just about every single factor in the natural world.

2)It is almost assured that the first people were white, mainlly because our closest relative, the chimp, also has white skin. http://www.visituganda.com/images/chimp.jpg
hey! Look at me! I have white skin! thereofre, as the closest relitive of the Homo Sapian Spapian, it is logical to conclude that the first Humans were white as well. small world huh?

3) I am a hige proponent of the "out of africa" thoery, ther eis litteralyl no genetic evidence for other speicies of Human to have interbred with local popualtions of Humans to produce disctinct "breeds" of humans, in fact, the nearest species of human to our species (Homo Sapians Sapians), Homo Neanderthalinsis (IIRC, thats the scientific name), or Neandtherthal, the species that woudl have been most likelly to breed with our direct anscetor, the Cromagnon, has been conclussivlly proved to not have. they are a totally exticnt species, and did not breed to produce a distinct type of human

4) Ntive americans have more in common with europeans gentically then they do with Asians

And the skimos are not the only non-white people who live in the cold!

There are the Goldis, in Siberia(has anyone seen the beautiful movie Dersu Uzala?), the inhabbitants of Kumchatka, and even some natives of Andine South America all lived in very cold climates and nevertheless were not white.

Many people today have the wrong impression that all of our modern charateristics are the result of Adaptation and Natural Selection - they are not. What explains a red hair? Many of our characteristics are the result of random mutations that were neither benefical or harmful, and others are even the result of harmful mutations that didn't do enough harm to constitute a comparative disvantage, and so sticked around.

Now, I'm not claiming that the Albino theory is necessarily true. But I AM claiming that the adaptation theory has severall flaws, and if it's indded the true one then currently it is incomplete. And I do believe that today the theory that seems most likely is the one that suggests that mutations happened in Africa, and the Fouder Principle made that severall mutations became dominant in the areas where those settlers stablished.

How are they identical? The Inuits traditionally consume almost nothing but meat, whereas the Scandanavians and other Northern European peoples have had access to a wide variety of other food types such as dairy, wheat, fruits, and vegetables,

Regarding temperature it's identical.

And let me correct something that you stated earlier. The innuits DO NOT ingest Vitamin D. It is IMPOSSIBLE to ingest vitamin D. We can only ingest Pro-Vitamin D, and we need the sunlight to turn pro-vit D into Vit D.

And so theory that the innuits do not need as much sunlight because of what they eat is BS.

Colder climate.

Colder climate then where? Surely not Northern Europe.

And what explains their typicall eye, or even the typicall shape of their skulls? Certainly not the climate.

I get vitamin D every time I drink milk.

No. The ammount of procreatin will be roughly the same. A bit of more absorption of Vit D(yes, it's only a bit) is not nearly enough to trigger natural selsection.
I can't give you a quantitative analysis of when natural selection is triggered, but then I don't see you backing up your claims either. Lighter skin clearly provided a slight advantage, why are you so confident to assert that it isn't enough? I'm open to persuasion that natural selection won't be a factor in this case but I see no reason why not as yet.

You've yet again made the mistake of using a contemporary comparison. You said that this line of thinking should lead to the black people in todays colder climates turning white. This is clearly nonsense. The advantages of lighter skin are only relevant when considering a population in intense competition for food where slight advantages can mean the difference between prosperity and starvation. I'm not suggesting that those with darker skin would be unable to procreate before they died, just that perhaps their slight disadvantage led to lower birth rates. The effects of vitamin D during pregnancy are a clear suggestion that having more or less than the optimum skin tone could adversely effect birth rates, even if it is only by a small amount.

And I do believe that today the theory that seems most likely is the one that suggests that mutations happened in Africa, and the Fouder Principle made that severall mutations became dominant in the areas where those settlers stablished.

As I quoted above teh founder principle applies only in the creation of new species. Your argument doesn't involve any new species.

As I quoted above teh founder principle applies only in the creation of new species. Your argument doesn't involve any new species.

It does not ONLY applie to new species. You quoted a text about the formation of new species, not about all the possibilities of the Founder Principle.

You've yet again made the mistake of using a contemporary comparison. You said that this line of thinking should lead to the black people in todays colder climates turning white. This is clearly nonsense. The advantages of lighter skin are only relevant when considering a population in intense competition for food where slight advantages can mean the difference between prosperity and starvation. I'm not suggesting that those with darker skin would be unable to procreate before they died, just that perhaps their slight disadvantage led to lower birth rates. The effects of vitamin D during pregnancy are a clear suggestion that having more or less than the optimum skin tone could adversely effect birth rates, even if it is only by a small amount.

Read carefully the post again. I said that according to that posters logic, who said that skimos would be white in 20,000 years, the black canadians would also become white. Do you see any flaw in my logic?

Many people today have the wrong impression that all of our modern charateristics are the result of Adaptation and Natural Selection - they are not. What explains a red hair? Many of our characteristics are the result of random mutations that were neither benefical or harmful, and others are even the result of harmful mutations that didn't do enough harm to constitute a comparative disvantage, and so sticked around.
I'll broadly agree with you. Red hair is clearly neither beneficial nor harmful, and there are I'm sure many more examples. I'm also sure that there are harmful mutations which have managed to survive natural selection (though it's counter-intuitive to suggest that these would have become dominant traits across an entire population).

White skin however does not fit in with this picture. Red hair is as rare as you would expect for a random mutation. The light skin mutation however became dominant in europe. If dark skin does not represent a disadvantage great enough to invoke natural selection then you would expect a diverse population throughout europe.

Meet Hermeto Pasocal. A music genious and the son of a black couple. Notice his straight hair, that used to be blonde.
http://www.pezzotti.ch/herme2.jpg

My point?
Well, if the original humans were white, then somewhere in history a mutation took place that made some of them black. Yet we do not know of the existance of any case of such mutation(at least I don't know). On the other hand, we all know of a mutation that can make blacks turn white. If a bunch of people like Hermeto, or not quite like but with a variant mutation, migrated to Europe, their descedants would create a continent inhabbited by whites. Is it certain that it happened that way? NO. Is it a possibility? Definatley.

I'll broadly agree with you. Red hair is clearly neither beneficial nor harmful, and there are I'm sure many more examples. I'm also sure that there are harmful mutations which have managed to survive natural selection (though it's counter-intuitive to suggest that these would have become dominant traits across an entire population).

White skin however does not fit in with this picture. Red hair is as rare as you would expect for a random mutation. The light skin mutation however became dominant in europe. If dark skin does not represent a disadvantage great enough to invoke natural selection then you would expect a diverse population throughout europe.

But that's where the Founder Principle comes into play.
Let's assume that the white skin was a random and rare mutation. Yet, all humans who arrived in Europe had that mutation. So all of their offspring would also be white. With time, a new ethinicty would be "created".

I know that white skin is an advantage in colder climates, but it's a very very tiny one. Has anyone noticed even the slightest disvantage of blacks in Cold countries? I know, today, there is no fierce competition for survival, but if we can't notice any difference, then this difference is certainly too small to wipe out all blacks even under rough times.

Colder climate then where? Surely not Northern Europe.

And what explains their typicall eye, or even the typicall shape of their skulls? Certainly not the climate.

Cold climate where such eyes appeared as slight mutations, outside of africa as populations were already migrating to their future homeland. This happened to people that would settle in Asia, didn't happen to those that settled in Europe.

But that's where the Founder Principle comes into play.
Let's assume that the white skin was a random and rare mutation. Yet, all humans who arrived in Europe had that mutation. So all of their offspring would also be white. With time, a new ethinicty would be "created".
While I'm not going to attempt to formally find fault with this theory, I simply cannot believe that a random non-beneficial mutation occured AND everyone who had it moved to europe AND nobody without this mutation successfully moved to europe.

I know that white skin is an advantage in colder climates, but it's a very very tiny one. Has anyone noticed even the slightest disvantage of blacks in Cold countries? I know, today, there is no fierce competition for survival, but if we can't notice any difference, then this difference is certainly too small to wipe out all blacks even under rough times.
Of course we don't notice it today, but our lives are so different that this is not important. I'm not suggesting that the disadvantage wiped out those with dark skin, just that very slightly lower birth rates for dark skinned children, combined with inter-breeding, resulted in a slight trend for lighter and lighter skin until the optimum tone was arrived at. The fact that the advantage was very slight only meant that this process would take longer.

Cold climate where such eyes appeared as slight mutations, outside of africa as populations were already migrating to their future homeland. This happened to people that would settle in Asia, didn't happen to those that settled in Europe.

1-Why didn't it happen in Africa?
2-So you admit that random mutations were responsible for the asians, but can't admit the possibility that it happened in Europe?

While I'm not going to attempt to formally find fault with this theory, I simply cannot believe that a random non-beneficial mutation occured AND everyone who had it moved to europe AND nobody without this mutation successfully moved to europe.

Not everyone who had it moved to Europe! I didn't state that!
Most stayed in Africa, but since they were massively outnumbered, they were absorbed by the main ethnicity.
In Europe, the opposite may have happened. Several non-whites migrated too, but since the majority of the migrants were white, the non-whites were absorbed.


Of course we don't notice it today, but our lives are so different that this is not important. I'm not suggesting that the disadvantage wiped out those with dark skin, just that very slightly lower birth rates for dark skinned children, combined with inter-breeding, resulted in a slight trend for lighter and lighter skin until the optimum tone was arrived at. The fact that the advantage was very slight only meant that this process would take longer.
My point is that the advantage is so small that it did not influence procreation at all- eg blacks were as capable as whites of having a numerous offspring in cold weather even under fierce competition. There's no evidence(that I know of) supporting the fact that white skin gives enough advantage to influence natural selection,

Ah, come on Calgacus!
The eskimos are much darker then the scandinavians and you know it! How many eskimos have pale(like in snow pale) skin!

And regarding the absorpition of Vitamin D, the supposed factor that determines skin colour, the conditions are in fact identical. And so, by the adaptation logic they should have the same skin colour.


Evolutionary change consists largely of random factors. There is no obvious reason why Africa has Lions, India has tigers and America only has Pumas.

Eskimos really are not dark: that's why I posted comparison photos:

Let's compare a Cambodian with a Moroccan; i.e., a "Mongolian" with a "Caucasian" , both on similar latitudes:

http://imet.csus.edu/imet2/herzj/websites/virtualimmigrant/v_imm_mupics/cambodian.jpg

http://hcs.ucla.edu/ensisheim/c210-moroccan.jpg

Now, moving further north, lets compare a Ukrainian and a Frenchman with a man from Mongolia-proper:

Ukrainian:
http://www.operationrestoration.org/valco.jpg

Frenchman:

http://www.slh.com/pics/a/aelgreg.jpg

Mongolian:

http://www.mongolianculture.com/mongolian-man.gif

See?

So as humans migrated out of Africa, why did dark skinned people start losing the genetics Powerball Lottery to their paler kin? Lower UV levels in the sunlight of the more northern latitudes meant a dark skinned individual's body could not produce enough Vitamin D. Insufficient Vitamin D would then result in a child developing rickets. A child with rickets would not likely reproduce either because it would die before it could or because its pelvis would be so deformed it could not pass a child through the birth canal. Its genes would be lost forever. So lighter skin, and more absorption of Vitamin D at higher latitudes would be an adaptive genetic advantage.

Interestingly, in high latitudes where some people still retain dark skin, such as with the Inuit in the Arctic, the people obtain significant amounts of Vitamin D from eating fish and sea mammal blubber.

Shamelessly stolen from "A Paler Shade of Black" by Linda Beckerman, Ph, D.
http://www.geocities.com/beckermanlin/palerblack.html

Note also that this article also contradicts Xen's captioned monkey by stating that we all started out black.

1-Why didn't it happen in Africa?
2-So you admit that random mutations were responsible for the asians, but can't admit the possibility that it happened in Europe?

1. It did happen in Africa. The first humans wre not black, their skin-color changed just like the whites.

2. No, I fully admit that mutations may have happened in Europe. I just don't think that race is one of them, and it certainly wasn't a mutation that happened in Africa and prompted them to move Northward.

The reason why black people don't have a problem living in Northern Europe/US or Canada today is that milk has extra Vitamin D added to it. In the United States, rickets (caused by lack of vitamin D) used to be a major health problem till the 1930s, when vitamin D started getting added to milk. For hunter-gathers, and primitive farmers, being able to produce your own vitamin D from sunlight would have been a huge advantage in northern areas - you would have stronger bones that are less likely to break, that heal faster when they do break, you wouldn't be crippled by rickets, and you would be more likely to care a child to term. Here is a Wikipedia article on Vitamin D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D)

As I mentioned back on page 3, and others have said too, the reason the Inuit can live in high latitudes while having relatively dark skin is that Inuits eat a diet heavy in fish & animal products, which have lots of vitamin D. And their skin isn't that much darker than most Europeans anyways. Thus, if a mutation for light skin showed up in an Inuit, it wouldn't be as big as an advantage as if the mutation showed up in a primitive farmer in Europe. Also note, that the skin tones of northern Asians - Mongolians, Northern Chinese & Japanese, ect, are about as dark as those found in Europeans at the same latitudes. And the skin tones of Southern Asians - South India, Maylasia, Indonesia, ect, can be just as dark as many Africans at the same latitude.

And finally, to kill the abinoism idea, the genes that determine skin tone in most people are COMPETELY different than the genes that determine if you are an albino. Skin color is determined by ~4-6 pairs genes; albinoism occurs when a DIFFERENT set of genes are both recessive. You can be very light skinned, but if you don't have at least one of the recessive albino genes, there is no way you could have an albino. Baring a random mutation in your sperm or egg cell.

To give an example, if a light skinned person has a kid with a dark skinned person, the kid will typically have a skin tone mid-way between the two. But, if an Albino(whose parents were both black, and each carried one recessive gene) has a kid with a dark skinned person, the kid is either going to be another albino,(only possible if the dark skinned person has a recessive gene for albinoism) or the kid is going to be darked skinned; the kid won't be a color half-way between the two.

Meet Hermeto Pasocal. A music genious and the son of a black couple. Notice his straight hair, that used to be blonde.
http://www.pezzotti.ch/herme2.jpg

My point?
Well, if the original humans were white, then somewhere in history a mutation took place that made some of them black. Yet we do not know of the existance of any case of such mutation(at least I don't know). On the other hand, we all know of a mutation that can make blacks turn white. If a bunch of people like Hermeto, or not quite like but with a variant mutation, migrated to Europe, their descedants would create a continent inhabbited by whites. Is it certain that it happened that way? NO. Is it a possibility? Definatley.

do you have access to any more information on this subject? I for one woul dlike to see the rate sof birth for this sort of thinh (as well if the reverse has ever happend)- though right now, I'm more prone to ruling somthing like an ill-legitimate child rather then a geneitc defect, i dont have the information to make an actual infomred opinion either.

this amy be a lil of subject
but thear was a ape found in africa, with wight skin (not an albuino one)*spelling* small human shaped ears, a smaller head, more human like featuers (such as a more uman nose, eye brow bown ect) chold walk upright all the time(it allways walked upright with a straght back), was not sexuly atrated to apes, but to Humans!, was more intelagen(it whold nataly use the bathroom and wash hands after doing its biss)

it was knowen as the "humanzee"
it had 48 chromasones while humans have 46, if it was half human it shold have 47

The reason why black people don't have a problem living in Northern Europe/US or Canada today is that milk has extra Vitamin D added to it. In the United States, rickets (caused by lack of vitamin D) used to be a major health problem till the 1930s, when vitamin D started getting added to milk. For hunter-gathers, and primitive farmers, being able to produce your own vitamin D from sunlight would have been a huge advantage in northern areas - you would have stronger bones that are less likely to break, that heal faster when they do break, you wouldn't be crippled by rickets, and you would be more likely to care a child to term. Here is a Wikipedia article on Vitamin D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D)

As I mentioned back on page 3, and others have said too, the reason the Inuit can live in high latitudes while having relatively dark skin is that Inuits eat a diet heavy in fish & animal products, which have lots of vitamin D. And their skin isn't that much darker than most Europeans anyways. Thus, if a mutation for light skin showed up in an Inuit, it wouldn't be as big as an advantage as if the mutation showed up in a primitive farmer in Europe. Also note, that the skin tones of northern Asians - Mongolians, Northern Chinese & Japanese, ect, are about as dark as those found in Europeans at the same latitudes. And the skin tones of Southern Asians - South India, Maylasia, Indonesia, ect, can be just as dark as many Africans at the same latitude.

And finally, to kill the abinoism idea, the genes that determine skin tone in most people are COMPETELY different than the genes that determine if you are an albino. Skin color is determined by ~4-6 pairs genes; albinoism occurs when a DIFFERENT set of genes are both recessive. You can be very light skinned, but if you don't have at least one of the recessive albino genes, there is no way you could have an albino. Baring a random mutation in your sperm or egg cell.

To give an example, if a light skinned person has a kid with a dark skinned person, the kid will typically have a skin tone mid-way between the two. But, if an Albino(whose parents were both black, and each carried one recessive gene) has a kid with a dark skinned person, the kid is either going to be another albino,(only possible if the dark skinned person has a recessive gene for albinoism) or the kid is going to be darked skinned; the kid won't be a color half-way between the two.

Firstly as I have pointed out before, it's IMPOSSIBLE to ingest Vitamin D. We can only ingest pro-Vitamin D, that needs sunlight to be metabolized into Vit D. So stop this nonsense about eskimos beign able to be dark-skinned in the North because of their diet.

Secondly, I'm aware that albinism is caused by independent allels, and thus proper albinism can't be the key factor here. I'm talking about another mutation, very similar to albinism, that affcts the 4 allels responsible for skin colour.

do you have access to any more information on this subject? I for one woul dlike to see the rate sof birth for this sort of thinh (as well if the reverse has ever happend)- though right now, I'm more prone to ruling somthing like an ill-legitimate child rather then a geneitc defect, i dont have the information to make an actual infomred opinion either.

Ilegitmate child? He looks just like his black father!
Furthermore there are many cases of black albinos who like Hermeto. The former ambassador of Angola in Brazil was one of them, with blonde hair and all.

But I never heard of a white couple having a black baby because of some mutation,

Firstly as I have pointed out before, it's IMPOSSIBLE to ingest Vitamin D. We can only ingest pro-Vitamin D, that needs sunlight to be metabolized into Vit D. So stop this nonsense about eskimos beign able to be dark-skinned in the North because of their diet.


Can you please give a cite for this? The FDA & every other source I found disagrees with you; the Vitamin D you get by eating foods like fatty fish, egg yolks, and fortified milk is identical to the vitamin D your body produces in via UV radiation.

Furthermore there are many cases of black albinos ,

you should have said that- I thought since you blond hair, that he was not albino, but rather some other mutation I've never heard of before- generall speaking, albino hair isnt reffered to as blond, but just "white" up here.

As I quoted above teh founder principle applies only in the creation of new species. Your argument doesn't involve any new species.

Read my reply to that post of yours
What you quoted is NOT the definition of Founder Principle, it doesn't even say so. It's just abou the formation of new species. I don't know why you are making that conclusion.

Furthermore the Founder Principle is easily deductible, just use your mind. If only one variation of a genotipe colonises certain place, only that variation will occur in all descendants. Do you need an article to understand this??!

you should have said that- I thought since you blond hair, that he was not albino, but rather some other mutation I've never heard of before- generall speaking, albino hair isnt reffered to as blond, but just "white" up here.

Well, it is a type of Albinism, but not a common one. His hair was indeed blonde, not white. Not to mention that it was straight, while a regular black albino would have curly white hair.

There are severall types of mutation known as albinism, although some are more common then others.

Can you please give a cite for this? The FDA & every other source I found disagrees with you; the Vitamin D you get by eating foods like fatty fish, egg yolks, and fortified milk is identical to the vitamin D your body produces in via UV radiation.

I'll make a mea-culpa here.

I was wrong when I stated that it's impossiblt to ingest Vit D. It's true that most foods only have Pro-Vitamin D, but in fact a few of them have Vitamin D. Like fish liver.

However I don't see how this help the "Adaptation" theory. After all the scandinavian diet is also very rich in fish, and thus they would not need as much sulnlight and thus they would not need to be white.

I'll make a mea-culpa here.

I was wrong when I stated that it's impossiblt to ingest Vit D. It's true that most foods only have Pro-Vitamin D, but in fact a few of them have Vitamin D. Like fish liver.

However I don't see how this help the "Adaptation" theory. After all the scandinavian diet is also very rich in fish, and thus they would not need as much sulnlight and thus they would not need to be white.
Just a suggestion: Maybe an established scandinavian soceity could thrive with darker skin, but perhaps they were already white by the time this became the case. Remember that the Inuit do not share the same environment as in scandinavia.

Allow me to but in...

As for the "black albino" there is always the possibility that somwhere among his ancestors a few generations back there lurks a couple of blond, blue eyed and pale skinned individuals. If so, it wouldn't take more than a combination of these recessive traits to meet up to give a dark skinned couple a pale skinned baby. It happens once in a while, and I'd say that in a place like Brazil the chances for this are better than in most other places. The statistical likelyhood is at least better than for it to be a very exotic mutation.
I've always found it to be to the very great credit of the Portugese and the Brazilians that they have never quite embraced the "coulour line" crap of the North Europeans.
(In fact, I'm slightly troubled by the almost 19th century like fascination with pigmentation and racial classification I find here. It certainly isn't state of the art biological theory.)
As far as I've understood the molecular biologists who have taken an interest in these things, the problem with the genes for pigmentation are rather a-typical, not good for the classification of anything much, and some of the most easily changed traits in a population.

And, incidentally, Scandinavian traditional food patterns only involves fish and seafood in the instances where people have been living close to the sea. It may be tru of the Norwegians, but hasn't been so for the Danes or Swedes since the advent of agriculture. (Same climate and conditions as in northern Germany, Poland etc.) Before that Scandinavians lived like people did in the rest of Western Europe (hunting, fishing, gathering). Besides, there is no real reason to look to Scandinavia to find pale and blond peolpe. The Russians are every bit as blond. The Finns are even blonder on average.

And since we are talking about evolutionism, why hasn't anybody yet tried to make a case based on Darwin's theory of sexual selection? It may be that the "wimmin" just liked the pale skinned lads better? It would do away with any need to position a significant advantage for survival.
In truth, no one quite knows why there is a continuuum of slight physical difference in the human population that rougly corresponds to geographical distribution. (And on a genetical level these differences are very, very superficial.)

Why should Scandinavians look anything special relative others? 10 000 years ago Scandinavia was covered in ice, I'm sure none of my ancestors lived here then. 10 000 years is a short period when discussing genetics. 10 000 years ago norhern America was also covered in ice, the Inuit didn't live there then either. This shows the founder principle that luiz are talking about, the Inuit are related to asians going over the Bering Strait about 12 000 BC, of course they retain some of those looks. What people shpuld realise is that evolution takes places over generations, it takes a long time to get a effect in a population.
On the other hand that albino theory is unscientific nonsense IMO.

I'm sure no one can say what colour ancient man had in Africa. That is thousands of generations ago, no one can know if they were purple or not (not very probable though ;) ).