The origin of the white man!

[Xen]

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.

 

[Birdjaguar]

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.

 

[Birdjaguar]

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.

 

[Pangur Bán]

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!

 

[DreadCthulhu]

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.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

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.

 

[luiz]

. 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

 

[luiz]

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.

 

[aaminion00]

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.

 

[luiz]

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.

 

[Birdjaguar]

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.

 

[luiz]

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.

 

[luiz]

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?

 

[Stefan Haertel]

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?

 

[Pangur Bán]

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)

 

[luiz]

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

Only a few islamic sites, eh
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=...e+of+the+founder+biology&btnG=Pesquisar&meta=

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

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

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

 

[luiz]

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".

 

[Birdjaguar]

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.

 

[luiz]

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)

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.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

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.