i searched for quite a while and got a bunch of racism talk. i read that book a while ago. It's the only book I've really read on the subject besides some Gould stuff but it seems the field is at a stand still as far as race; not really origin. Would I be correct in saying that? I just don't understand. My current knowledge in a nut shell is; africa - sun - melanin - black skin. People that came across the land bridge to North America were/are dark. So that leaves what? Australia and Europe/Russia siberian shit cold land with no sun [melanin]? Which means it's Multi-regional. So where did white people come from cause every time I go on an adventure I feel like an alien next to people of color.
As people moved into colder climates with less sunlight, they adapted by reducing skin melanin. Dark skinned people often suffer from vitamin-D deficiency in Northern Europe because their skin easily absorbs the weak UV rays (UV sunlight helps our bodies produce vitamin-D from precursors). White people can make vitamin-D from less sunlight, so light skin was an evolutionary advantage to populations living in cold climates. It's the same reason people who live in hot climates have darker skin: their melanin content is reflected by how much sunlight they're exposed to regularly.
damn, i wish i could look over that book again. i think it goes into that too. thats makes sense but then what kind of timeline are we talking here? move from africa up to europe/out of sun and turn white; while some people kept going up and across to N.A/S.A and kept their color? i mean how long does it take one to lose color? Polygenism. thats what i was thinking about.
I still don't understand what white is besides the absence of all color. I mean ....there is no such place as white-onia or white land as far as I know...... or is there? Edit: i stand corrected. theres also a black & red land.................what now? "I am sooooo fucked.......YES?"
@ tharedhead; i have no idea what that has to do with this but ok. edit: oh i understand it now. just restating what he said in pharmacy literature. as far as the topic though im bout to go to sleep but besides the melanin differences, the structural differences are buggin me too. craniometry and such. physical appearances are pushin me towards polygeny more and more. the mismeasure of man from gould was another good one. anybody got another book i could read?
It's still up in the air that white people originated from Homo neanderthalis. I can't say I have found the time to research it thoroughly myself, but from a scraping of the surface I find the theory fairly reasonable, as opposed to the idea that African Homo sapiens traversed the globe to the North and wiped them out ("Out of Africa" theory). From what I read, I found it very interesting that H. neanderthalis fossils revealed they practiced burial rituals and other fairly advanced behaviours. Anyway, the "Out of Africa" theory is the prevailing athiest belief, which claims white people emerged from adaptation of the African H. sapiens to colder Northern climates. But I don't put all my eggs in that basket.
one theroy, the ancestors of white people following the antelope herds back and forth for generations upon generation... living in northern latitudes with less sunlight, sunlight helps your body calcuim, less sunblock, faster growing and denser skeletal mass?
only if you go to art school otherwise your both wrong, white is the reflection of all colors of visible light while black is the absorption of all visible light. Of course it also depends on what you are talking about, a star's color is because of the fuel it's "burning" rather than what it is reflecting or absorbing. As for the OP, search "the incredible human journey" on YouTube. It covers how we left Africa and populated the world. I think it's the "Out of Africa" section that covers what you are asking but the whole series is a good watch. And it's by a hot British scientist girl, which there are not nearly enough of in the world.
yea, this is what im interested in. out of africa and then mixed races. move north, lose color, come back down/bread with more travelers to create different tones. I would assume those tones would be yellow, red, and brown? im not to familiar with timelines but for those that stayed in europe/russia how long do you think it took for their skin to lose color? because there wouldve had to been some period where they were just totally cut off from africa and the migrating peoples over the bridge. i would think it takes quite some time out of the sun to produce a change in skin tone. So how does that correlate with lucy or the one that Kent State Prof. found? or movement of homo sapiens in general
will watch. thanks. but im pretty read up on OOA theory and such. leaky goes pretty in depth to it. still left me confused with race though.
She does a really good job of walking though it, at least I thought. I watched it only knowing very general things but she goes into some pretty good detail about it all. Like how it wasn't a clear line in europe between neanderthal's and homosapians, they actually co-existed for a while but one just beat out the other in the competition of life. Of course race I don't think is right, or at least it being based on skin color. Skin color is just a function of the amount of sun a particular area gets and how long a group has lived in that area. I think it would have only taken a couple generation before skin color changed but that's just my uneducated guess at it.
Humans from Africa started populating Europe between 50,000 and 35,000 years ago (and it probably isn't a coincidence that Neanderthals died out around 30,000 years ago). Lucy was over 3 million years old if I recall, so no correlation between her and the movement out of Africa; same presumably goes for the Kent State professor skeleton (though I haven't heard of it) because if homonid remains make the news it's usually because they're extremely old, and the final OOA wave happened within the past 100k years which is recent in terms of paleoanthropology.
word. i guess this is just one of the things people study. the intro seemed like a good majority of my questions will be covered. thanks for the link.
I really can't answer that, because I think that's a weak point in the theory. The idea that a species adapted to African climates wandered into the North and somehow overran the native neanderthalis species, at the same time they were adapting... I am completely open to the concept that there was co-evoution. It would explain the vast difference in ethnicities. People shy away from this theory because it has implications that we're not as similar as we once thought... I don't know why, but that carries racist connotations for some. But getting back to your question, I would guess the theory states it took a long, long time.
yea theres racism all over gould. Leaky didnt really touch on Eastern migration to Europe very well; kind of just stuck with the straight north Gibraltar route. That BBC documentary was good. definitely filled in some wholes i had. still kind of stuck on the race thing though which i guess is where everyone else is at too. Homo sapiens move OOA and wipe out Neanderthals so where did Neanderthals come from? I need to read up more on this stuff. did neanderthals make it across to North America before Homo sapiens wiped them out? because if they didnt where does that leave the color white? homo sapiens (negroid i suppose) moved across to North America but for a long time period they wouldve been out of the sun/in cold. turned to Eskimos? then reached into mexico/South America and created aztecs [red?] i wish books didnt cost so much.