Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Are blacks turning white tru generations??
nibs:
(Z the laidback Virus) - Skintone is of course genetic, but nevertheless, climate does greatly influence it, over the generations. The reason different skin colours (and other racial characteristics) have come to be, is that they were beneficial in a specific environment.
this is not true. the lightest europeans are lighter than they need to be. you don't compare the whitest european to the darkest africans, you compare then to the "olive skinned" mediteraneans. there they don't have a genetic advantage. the lightest skin tones are not a result of natural selection.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728.html
The work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races.
The work raises a raft of new questions -- not least of which is why white skin caught on so thoroughly in northern climes once it arose. Some scientists suggest that lighter skin offered a strong survival advantage for people who migrated out of Africa by boosting their levels of bone-strengthening vitamin D; others have posited that its novelty and showiness simply made it more attractive to those seeking mates.
Unlike most mutations, this one quickly overwhelmed its ancestral version, at least in Europe, suggesting it had a real benefit. Many scientists suspect that benefit has to do with vitamin D, made in the body with the help of sunlight and critical to proper bone development.
Some scientists said they suspect that white skin's rapid rise to genetic dominance may also be the product of "sexual selection," a phenomenon of evolutionary biology in which almost any new and showy trait in a healthy individual can become highly prized by those seeking mates, perhaps because it provides evidence of genetic innovativeness.
sexual selection...not natural selection...
(Z the laidback Virus) - Conclusion: A few centuries from now, people will all look like what the original people of their part of the globe looked like.
this is also not true. you'll notice that this did not happen with indigenous populations in south america...etc. the incas were not black, or even darker than their neighbors...
(Trauma-san) - I think Melanin is a dominant gene so if anything interracial children would tend to be darker than plain white people
melanin is a pigment produced by the pineal gland, not a gene :)
melanin constitution and production is governed by a combination of genes; and while mixed children will be darker than their white parent, they typically will be much lighter than their black parent.
black skin color is actually very fragile for this reason, as it is a combination of genes that are needed to produce darker skin tones, and it is very easy to disrupt these combinations. which is why in american black families you will frequently see siblings of significantly different skin tones.
once these combinations of genes are disrupted within a population, it's hard for them to reappear with the same potency. which is one reason why the indigenous tribes in south america aren't as dark as africans.
(Z the laidback Virus) - This is why black people, not only the ones of African ancestry, but black people such as the Aborigines of Australia as well, are black with generally broad noses.
the aboriginals of australia are originally african. one of the earliest populations to migrate out. similarly the dravidians in india are originally african and migrated out around 8000 bc. after the last ice age.
Z the laidback Virus:
Dear nibs, we are ALL African.
The time the ancestor of the aboriginals moved out of Africa, the ancestors of everyone else did too. In fact, it might well have been the same person.
nibs:
(Z the laidback Virus) - Dear nibs, we are ALL African.
you are absolutely correct here.
(Z the laidback Virus) - The time the ancestor of the aboriginals moved out of Africa, the ancestors of everyone else did too. In fact, it might well have been the same person.
this is not correct. there were multiple migrations out of africa, at different time periods. the most recent migration was around 10,000bc. earlier migrations were around 20,000 bc (asia/north america) and 60,000 bc (europe). as populations migrated out of africa they frequently would encounter groups that had migrated out at an earlier phase.
recent studies have shown that europeans and west africans only share 95% genetic material, as european ancestors intermixed with populations already in that area...etc.
Z the laidback Virus:
The point is, they weren't in Australia straight from Africa and as you said, they would have met others elsewhere. The Asian populations (and we are talking about Asia spanning from Arabia up to deep Indonesia) they would have met and mingled with were unlikely to be black, and the climate would have been anti-black as well. As a result, they would have been far from black when they came close to Australia. I won't say when they entered Australia, because they may have been turning back into black before that, as they came close to the equator. I am not saying they only became black after entering Australia. But they would have been black after being white (or whiter, at least) in the past.
It is only logical Africa has more genetic variation. It is the cradle of humans. Humans have thus been there the longest and consequently, genetic variation had more time to evolve then it had elsewhere.
As for South America, since their indigenous peoples weren't black but they did live in equatorial areas, the environment must have been somewhat different. I'm actually thinking of deep, shaded jungles now. You will have noticed that Bushmen living in shaded forests in Africa aren't black either. The typical black African is more of a plains person.
..And another thing, the guy who said he felt that whites had to be punished for slavery and that he wasn't racist but justified...You must be joking!
If you think that having the innocent descendants suffer for something their ancestors did to your ancestors long ago is justice, you are misguided. Also, considering most black people in America (and probably you too) are descendants of those that practised slavery, you would have to punish yourself too. But I guess you don't think a black person should ever be punished for something one white ancestors of his did? You are racist through and through.
nibs:
(Z the laidback Virus) - The point is, they weren't in Australia straight from Africa and as you said, they would have met others elsewhere. The Asian populations (and we are talking about Asia spanning from Arabia up to deep Indonesia) they would have met and mingled with were unlikely to be black
i believe this was one of the first populations to migrate out of africa. thus, they wouldn't have run into lighter asians.
it's my understanding that most asian populations actually encountered these black populations as they migrated into the indian subcontinent and into the orient.
then after the asians were established a second, smaller, black population migrated in through much of the area later. this was around 9000bc.
there was a later migration of caucasian populations around 2000bc.
most of these people reflect 3 or 4 waves of major migrations.
(Z the laidback Virus) - the climate would have been anti-black as well.
the climate argument has never been proven, it's only a theory.
the theory here is also unlikely, as most black populations have migrated east to water; and where there is water there is fish. vitamin d is found in many fatty fish.
(Z the laidback Virus) - As a result, they would have been far from black when they came close to Australia
there is no reason to believe this at all.. your theory is they turned light and then turned dark again? populations simply don't change skin tone like this.
you haven't proven that these populations migrated through non black populations.
migrating past a population doesn't lighten that migrators. they need to stop and stay for a period and intermix.
you have constructed an implausible scenario to support the theory you want to believe. the evidence simply isn't with you.
you can't point to any evidence ever of this happening.
(Z the laidback Virus) - As for South America, since their indigenous peoples weren't black but they did live in equatorial areas, the environment must have been somewhat different. I'm actually thinking of deep, shaded jungles now. You will have noticed that Bushmen living in shaded forests in Africa aren't black either. The typical black African is more of a plains person.
again, the evidence here is contradicting your theory, and you are creating an explanation.
the truth is there is no evidence of skin tone fluctuating back and forth from climate. i provided you a like stating that the skin tone in europe is not natural selection, but sexual selection, thus choice. a conscious effort.
(Z the laidback Virus) - the guy who said he felt that whites had to be punished for slavery and that he wasn't racist but justified...You must be joking!
If you think that having the innocent descendants suffer for something their ancestors did to your ancestors long ago is justice, you are misguided.
he's actually 100% correct. traditional african knowledge indicates that you reincarnate into the lineage of your descendents. thus, the sins of the father are a burden for the sons. the indigenous populations of the america and also asian populations had this same knowledge.
people are in denial thinking they can get away from those past crimes.
(Z the laidback Virus) - - Also, considering most black people in America (and probably you too) are descendants of those that practised slavery, you would have to punish yourself too. But I guess you don't think a black person should ever be punished for something one white ancestors of his did?
ultimately everyone will have to account for their past.
these europeans continue to profit and benefit for wealth, power and influence they accumulated through their crimes.
ultimately they will be punished for these crimes as well.
really it's not a big deal to argue over. people can try to make amends for the sins of their ancestors and figure out how to remove that yoke, or suffer the consequences.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version