Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Are blacks turning white tru generations??
Z the laidback Virus:
You can't possibly be serious! Following that logic, I should have to pay for my great-grandfather being the skirt-chasing unfaithful husbaund he was. In the same vein, it would make modern Africans just as guilty of slavery.
I repeat: You can NOT hold descendants accountable for something their ancestors did.
And, reversals are common in nature. The skin-colour isn't much of a problem.
Aborigine ancestors might have been the first to leave Africa. But still, they wouldn't be in Australia like immediately and would have to pass through untropical climate zones. This whole migration event would have taken place in the Pleistocene, the period of the Ice Ages. I know not all of the world was covered in ice then, far from that. But most of Asia would have been temperate or at best subtropical. Not conductive to maintaining the physical adaptions of the black body to tropical heat in open terrains.
You might think I am twisting the facts about Indians to support what I'm saying, BUT you would have to admit that living in shaded, if tropical, rainforest is far different from living in open areas. The UV-radiation you get exposed to is very different.
Now let us look at the tropical people in the vicinity of the aborigines. Papuas. Papuas are far from black, yet apparently you do think they would have to have descended from black people. This in itself wouldn't be much of a problem, if only you hadn't said skin-colour can't change much. Papuas are comparable with African pygmies and South-American Indians in being tropical people living in shaded,forest environments. A prime example of convergent evolution within the human species. Or are you actually under the impression that another African group of decidedly lighter skin colour evolved and then spread out of Africa (where some remained), into Oceania and then into the Amazon region? Not very likely, considering how Amazonian Indians clearly belong to the native American group, which is as a whole most closely related to Asian mongoloid people.
Papuans, on the other hand, belong to the Austronesian group, as can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austronesian_people
Pygmies' relationships are more mysterious but I doubt they are Austronesian or native American or even close to either.
Skin colour is prone to change when climate and conditions make it advantageous for it to happen. It is just as much a climate-related adaption as is the Inuit bodyshape.
Now I would like you to read this, about the Mexican tetra and some of its populations:
Blind cave form
A. mexicanus is famous for its blind cave form, which is known by such names as blind cave tetra, blind tetra, and blind cavefish. Some thirty distinct populations of Mexican tetras live in deep caves and have lost the power of sight and even their eyes. These fish can still, however, find their way around by means of their lateral lines, which are highly sensitive to fluctuating water pressure.
The eyed and eyeless forms of A. mexicanus, being members of the same species, are closely related and can interbreed. Astyanax jordani, however, is another blind cave fish, independently and recently evolved from the sighted surface form, which is sometimes confused with the cave form of A. mexicanus.[3]
[edit] Evolution research
The surface and cave forms of the Mexican tetra have proven popular subjects for scientists studying evolution.
A recent study suggests that there are at least two distinct genetic lineages among the blind populations, arguing that these represent a case of convergent evolution.[4]
In one experiment studying eye development, University of Maryland scientists transplanted lenses from the eyes of sighted surface-form embryos into blind cave-form embryos, and vice-versa. In the cave form, lens development begins within the first 24 hours of embryonic development, but quickly aborts, the lens cells dying; most of the rest of the eye structures never develop. Researchers found that the lens seemed to control the development of the rest of the eye, as the surface-form tetras which received cave-form lenses failed to develop eyes, while cave-form tetras which received surface-form lenses grew eyes with pupils, corneas, and irises. (It is not clear whether they possessed sight, however.)[
If these fish can lose their eyes and become albinos in a matter of generations,and they do; their cave systems aren't very old and they certainly wouldn't have been cave-adapted before entering their caves, and can do so at least two times independently it is very preposterous to think skin colour in humans can't change and develop in convergent ways as well, seeing this is a much less drastic deviation.
nibs:
(Z the laidback Virus) - You can't possibly be serious! Following that logic, I should have to pay for my great-grandfather being the skirt-chasing unfaithful husbaund he was.
it's possible that someone already has.
(Z the laidback Virus) - In the same vein, it would make modern Africans just as guilty of slavery.
possibly to a less extent, seeing as the abominable treatment was carried out by europeans.
africans have suffered european colonization and exploitation, so many west african nations have been paying the price for something.
my brothers will see brighter days, however.
(Z the laidback Virus) - I repeat: You can NOT hold descendants accountable for something their ancestors did.
yes i can.
americans and europeans are still reaping the benefits from their crimes of colonization and slavery. they genocided native americans as well. they have alot that they will be held accountable for.
(Z the laidback Virus) - Aborigine ancestors might have been the first to leave Africa. But still, they wouldn't be in Australia like immediately and would have to pass through untropical climate zones.
skin color simply doesn't change as you are suggesting. all you have here is an unfounded theory. theoretically your argument is weak as it requires mutations to occur and then spread, and then the reverse to be true. scientists have stated that the spread of white skin among europeans was too quick and unnatural, and a social phenomenon. the scientists in the article undermine and defeat your argument. it's that simple.
(Z the laidback Virus) - You might think I am twisting the facts about Indians to support what I'm saying, BUT you would have to admit that living in shaded, if tropical, rainforest is far different from living in open areas. The UV-radiation you get exposed to is very different.
the bottom line is their skin tone undermines your theory. it certainly doesn't support it, which is why you look for further explanations as to their tone.
(Z the laidback Virus) - Now let us look at the tropical people in the vicinity of the aborigines. Papuas. Papuas are far from black, yet apparently you do think they would have to have descended from black people.
the fact that they are far from black is another flaw in your theory, not mine.
(Z the laidback Virus) - This in itself wouldn't be much of a problem, if only you hadn't said skin-colour can't change much. Papuas are comparable with African pygmies and South-American Indians in being tropical people living in shaded,forest environments.
african pygmies are black, but in a shaded forest environment. this continues to undermine your explanation for the natives in south america. similar environment, different complexion.
i never said "skin color can't change much"; i said climate doesn't change skin color. intermixing & sexual selection are what changes skin color.
(Z the laidback Virus) - are you actually under the impression that another African group of decidedly lighter skin colour evolved and then spread out of Africa (where some remained), into Oceania and then into the Amazon region?
according to your link (wikipedia) the papaus migrated from china to australia. we don't know what color they were in china, or what color they were leaving africa or passing through asia. the bottom line is there is no evidence that climate changed their skin color.
(Z the laidback Virus) - Skin colour is prone to change when climate and conditions make it advantageous for it to happen. It is just as much a climate-related adaption as is the Inuit bodyshape.
skin color has never been proven to be as advantageous as body type. every known population that has changed it's skin color has done so because of migrations and intermixing.
scientists are telling you that white skin in europe was a result of sexual selection and not natural selection.
there is no evidence that skin color has ever changed because of climate. only theories. all the evidence that we actually have points to the contrary.
(Z the laidback Virus) - If these fish can lose their eyes and become albinos in a matter of generations,and they do; their cave systems aren't very old and they certainly wouldn't have been cave-adapted before entering their caves, and can do so at least two times independently it is very preposterous to think skin colour in humans can't change and develop in convergent ways as well, seeing this is a much less drastic deviation.
the problem here is that skin color in humans has never been proven to be advantageous to survival in any situation other than social trends and behaviors. meaning genocides against one group, sexual selection (preference) of a skin tone...etc. there is no question that humans adapt. there is no question that skin color can change; it simply doesn't change due to climate.
there is no evidence of the type of advantage that you are describing. realize, you aren't comparing the palest europeans to the darkest africans...you are comparing these intermediate tones with the extremes. at some point, any advantage disappears. thus populations don't need to adapt towards extremes.
uv radiation...skin cancer...that takes a while to kill. there is plenty of time to reproduce before death. similarly, blacks would literally need to be too weak to hunt for food for their darker skin to inhibit them in colder climates. too weak such that they die out before reproducing. or too weak to fight off lighter enemies. the climactic advantage has not been proven. it's only a theory.
Samoan Enforcer:
--- Quote from: IRAN iz Gangsta! on December 10, 2006, 02:59:08 PM ---
--- Quote from: P.L.O. Style on December 09, 2006, 06:58:15 PM ---nah mixed gurl are real nice and unique, i've dated a chinese-indian-african-canadian chick once, she had them lips just like angelina jolie and those green eyes and her ass was crazy
--- End quote ---
Yea i know what you mean...I LOVE NUTS!
--- End quote ---
:-X
swangin and bangin:
--- Quote from: JML - no vowels, disembowel your Colin Powell, throw in the towel on December 08, 2006, 08:47:50 PM ---
--- Quote from: Real American on December 08, 2006, 06:00:37 PM ---You guys are idiots. The reason black people in the US are lighter than Africans is because white slave masters slept with black slaves back during slavery. So white genes were introduced to the blakc population.
--- End quote ---
And because black men have been fucking a lot of your white women.
--- End quote ---
ahahaha
sonofisis:
If anyone in here knew anything about mutation, then you'd know there is no possible way for black people to become white through mixing.... Of course if you start with a black guy who mates a white women, you get a mixed baby. The mixed baby mates a white person, you have another mixed, more diluted baby, and so on until maybe the end result will end up white and pale. But not the whole race, c'mon, that's an ignorant question, no offense.. The only way blacks can turn white is if they move to a different climate, some where way up north near Europe for thousands of years in isolation, then mutations will occur in order for them to adapt, or if they produce an albino. But that's it.
Edit: Never mind, it seems as if a few of you have explained this in detail already and are in the middle of a debate, should of read the whole thread. Continue..
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version