The origin of the white man!

[luiz]

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?

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

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.

 

[luiz]

Meet Hermeto Pasocal. A music genious and the son of a black couple. Notice his straight hair, that used to be blonde.

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.

 

[luiz]

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.

 

[aaminion00]

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.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

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.

 

[luiz]

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?

 

[luiz]

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,

 

[Pangur Bán]

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:

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

Ukrainian:

Frenchman:

[/IMG]

Mongolian:

See?

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

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.

 

[aaminion00]

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.

 

[DreadCthulhu]

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.

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.

 

[Xen]

Meet Hermeto Pasocal. A music genious and the son of a black couple. Notice his straight hair, that used to be blonde.

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.

 

[Vietcong]

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

 

[luiz]

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.

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.

 

[luiz]

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,

 

[DreadCthulhu]

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.

 

[Xen]

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.

 

[luiz]

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??!

 

[luiz]

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.