The origin of the white man!

[luiz]

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.

 

[aaminion00]

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:

"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.

 

[aaminion00]

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.

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]

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.

 

[luiz]

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.

 

[Pangur Bán]

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.

 

[Pangur Bán]

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?

 

[Birdjaguar]

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."

 

[luiz]

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.

 

[luiz]

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?

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?

 

[aaminion00]

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,

 

[aaminion00]

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.

 

[Xen]

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.

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

 

[luiz]

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.

 

[luiz]

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.

 

[luiz]

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.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I get vitamin D every time I drink milk.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

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.

 

[Birdjaguar]

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.

 

[luiz]

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.