Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Human skin color

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Human skin color



    "The genetic mutations leading to light skin, though different among East Asians and Western Europeans,[16] suggest the two groups experienced a similar selective pressure after settlement in northern latitudes.[71] At what point these developments took place for sub-populations of Homo sapiens (and whether light skin also occurred independently in Homo neanderthalensis) is under debate. There is a long-standing hypothesis that the selection for lighter skin due to higher vitamin D absorption occurred soon after the Out of Africa migration some time before 40,000 years ago. A number of researchers disagree with this and suggest that the northern latitudes permitted enough synthesis of vitamin D combined with food sources from hunting to keep populations healthy, and only when agriculture was adopted was there a need for lighter skin to maximize the synthesis of vitamin D. The theory suggests that the reduction of game meat, fish, and some plants from the diet resulted in skin turning light many thousands of years after settlement in Eurasia.[72] This theory is partially supported by a study into the SLC24A5 gene which found that the allele associated with light skin in Europe "determined [...] that 18,000 years had passed since the light-skin allele was fixed in Europeans" but may have originated as recently as 12,000–6,000 years ago "given the imprecision of method" ,[36] which is in line with the earliest evidence of farming.[73] Research by Nina Jablonski suggests that an estimated time of about 10,000 to 20,000 years is enough for human populations to achieve optimal skin pigmentation in a particular geographic area but that development of ideal skin coloration may happen faster if the evolutionary pressure is stronger, even in as little as 100 generations.[4] The length of time is also affected by cultural practices such as food intake, clothing, body coverings, and shelter usage which can alter the ways in which the environment affects populations."

  • #2
    I'm not sure Wikipedia is the best source for such things, but from your link

    "In 2015 researchers analysed for light skin genes in the DNA of 94 ancient skeletons ranging from 8,000 to 3,000 years old from Europe and Russia. They found about 8,000 year old hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary were dark skinned while similarly aged hunter gatherers in Sweden were light skinned (having predominately derived alleles of SLC24A5, SLC45A2 and also HERC2/OCA2). Neolithic farmers entering Europe at around the same time were intermediate, being nearly fixed for the derived SLC24A5 variant but only having the derived SLC45A2 allele in low frequencies. The SLC24A5 variant spread very rapidly throughout central and southern Europe from about 8,000 years ago, whereas the light skin variant of SLC45A2 spread throughout Europe after 5,800 years ago.[38][39]"

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by MikeP View Post
      I'm not sure Wikipedia is the best source for such things, but from your link

      "In 2015 researchers analysed for light skin genes in the DNA of 94 ancient skeletons ranging from 8,000 to 3,000 years old from Europe and Russia. They found about 8,000 year old hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary were dark skinned while similarly aged hunter gatherers in Sweden were light skinned (having predominately derived alleles of SLC24A5, SLC45A2 and also HERC2/OCA2). Neolithic farmers entering Europe at around the same time were intermediate, being nearly fixed for the derived SLC24A5 variant but only having the derived SLC45A2 allele in low frequencies. The SLC24A5 variant spread very rapidly throughout central and southern Europe from about 8,000 years ago, whereas the light skin variant of SLC45A2 spread throughout Europe after 5,800 years ago.[38][39]"
      Two samples were enough for someone to suggest that all WHG were black skinned until recently. I would like to know how long the red hair genes specific to Ireland have been around. Where would I find that kind of info.
      Also, I have checked out some of my SNPs from the FF data at the 1000 genomes site and I have the MAF allele which shows 0.005%. What amount of time is proposed for a allele change in a population?

      Comment


      • #4
        Wikipedia - the reference source anyone and their mother can edit. Hardly concrete information.

        However.

        Sumerians - 5,000 years ago roughly were regarded as being potentially black.

        There is an ancient civilization in Russia / Ukraine which spans to 8,000 and were red haired, grey eyed and WHITE. I can't remember the specific name (Volga maybe) & will add it when I find it again.


        Skin tone depends on where you live - as it always has. On average the closer to the equator = darker the skin. This is because the areas closer to the equator = more sun. The darker the skin = the more melanin = the less chances of negative results (skin cancer) from sun exposure.

        There's also odd genetic mutations - Melanesians are the best known example of this. Dark skinned individuals with blonde hair.


        I am confused - are you asking for skin tone or red hair?

        Given as Vikings / Germanic \ Russian/Ukraine "barbarians" settled in Ireland / UK ... Orkney Isles in Scotland are very genetically close to Norwegians even now... most red hair is more than likely originating in Europe... the population I mentioned.

        I believe going off what another member said to me there's UK specific DNA searches

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by James78 View Post
          Wikipedia - the reference source anyone and their mother can edit. Hardly concrete information.

          However.

          Sumerians - 5,000 years ago roughly were regarded as being potentially black.

          There is an ancient civilization in Russia / Ukraine which spans to 8,000 and were red haired, grey eyed and WHITE. I can't remember the specific name (Volga maybe) & will add it when I find it again.


          Skin tone depends on where you live - as it always has. On average the closer to the equator = darker the skin. This is because the areas closer to the equator = more sun. The darker the skin = the more melanin = the less chances of negative results (skin cancer) from sun exposure.

          There's also odd genetic mutations - Melanesians are the best known example of this. Dark skinned individuals with blonde hair.


          I am confused - are you asking for skin tone or red hair?

          Given as Vikings / Germanic \ Russian/Ukraine "barbarians" settled in Ireland / UK ... Orkney Isles in Scotland are very genetically close to Norwegians even now... most red hair is more than likely originating in Europe... the population I mentioned.

          I believe going off what another member said to me there's UK specific DNA searches
          https://www.irelandsdna.com/products
          1.I don't think that it is possible for a migration to change the skin colour in a population.

          2.Ditto.

          3.My Wife,Son and I have different red hair SNPs but I am the only one with some red hair.
          Last edited by 1798; 25 April 2015, 09:34 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 1798 View Post
            1.I don't think that it is possible for a migration to change the skin colour in a population.

            2.Ditto.

            3.My Wife,Son and I have different red hair SNPs but I am the only one with some red hair.
            Really?

            White skin tone is a mutation. Humans originated from Africa after all and unless there was some alien species living there whom were humanoid & white (and we interbred with), we would have arisen from the mutation that caused white skin.

            It is obviously a recessive gene seeing as you can have entirely black families give birth to white skinned children (those whom are not albino). Angela Ihegboro's daughter is one such case that comes to mind.

            However, people with darker skin are generally by number & genetics more common close to the equator for the reasons I stated. Put someone from northern Europe - northern Sweden for example - in Kenya for their entire lives. If they don't visually age faster than normal due to the sun weathering their skin much faster than norm, then they will be more likely to get skin cancers than the locals.

            It's known as evolutionary drift.

            Those of white skin complexions (mutation) would have suffered worst in equator regions than their dark skinned brethren as such they moved elsewhere.



            We're not two entirely different species or sub species. That 1900s BS about whites, blacks, and asians was disregarded years / decades ago.


            Your hair...

            So? You really think genes are 100% accurate?

            I am not supposed to have either blonde hair nor red hair. I was born with white blonde hair which has remained blonde throughout my entire life. It has enough red undertone (both my parents had red tint - I have red haired people on my mother's side) that in certain lights my hair will look vibrant reddish hue.
            Last edited by James78; 25 April 2015, 11:56 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by James78 View Post
              Really?

              White skin tone is a mutation. Humans originated from Africa after all and unless there was some alien species living there whom were humanoid & white (and we interbred with), we would have arisen from the mutation that caused white skin.

              It is obviously a recessive gene seeing as you can have entirely black families give birth to white skinned children (those whom are not albino). Angela Ihegboro's daughter is one such case that comes to mind.

              However, people with darker skin are generally by number & genetics more common close to the equator for the reasons I stated. Put someone from northern Europe - northern Sweden for example - in Kenya for their entire lives. If they don't visually age faster than normal due to the sun weathering their skin much faster than norm, then they will be more likely to get skin cancers than the locals.

              It's known as evolutionary drift.

              Those of white skin complexions (mutation) would have suffered worst in equator regions than their dark skinned brethren as such they moved elsewhere.



              We're not two entirely different species or sub species. That 1900s BS about whites, blacks, and asians was disregarded years / decades ago.


              Your hair...

              So? You really think genes are 100% accurate?

              I am not supposed to have either blonde hair nor red hair. I was born with white blonde hair which has remained blonde throughout my entire life. It has enough red undertone (both my parents had red tint - I have red haired people on my mother's side) that in certain lights my hair will look vibrant reddish hue.
              I think that you misunderstood what I wrote. Do you think that 100,000 white people could migrate to Africa and in time everyone there would be white skinned? And the same for Europe, do you think that a 100,000 dark skinned people could change all white Europeans?

              Why do you think that Africa had the same climate 200,000 years ago as it has today? The reason that some scientists think that all humans were originally dark is because they think that we are close to the chimp. Is that not true? Is it not time that some scientists take a new line on all of these issues? The most of them seem like clones, all in agreement with each other.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                I think that you misunderstood what I wrote. Do you think that 100,000 white people could migrate to Africa and in time everyone there would be white skinned? And the same for Europe, do you think that a 100,000 dark skinned people could change all white Europeans?

                Why do you think that Africa had the same climate 200,000 years ago as it has today? The reason that some scientists think that all humans were originally dark is because they think that we are close to the chimp. Is that not true? Is it not time that some scientists take a new line on all of these issues? The most of them seem like clones, all in agreement with each other.
                Yes. It has happened many times in history - how do you think genes got carried around as they do... by magic? I mean cultures that are conquered were either completely eliminated (as in their particular characteristics became non existent due to interbreeding with the dominant culture) or they became sub-dominant and rare / exotic.

                If you eliminate the males of a population - as was often the case during war - and introduce males of the winner culture then you are going to get the "winner" genes as dominant.


                If you removed every single black man from Africa, introduced 100,000 white men, and closed off every single border then in a X number of generations you'd have an entire population of white people. Same as if you eliminated every single white man from Europe.

                It's basic genetics. It happens all the time in nature.


                However, I advise you to look up the story of Pitcairn Island. Isolated population - one Englishman / sailor - resulted in a population that was beginning to turn "white".

                A basic breakdown -




                The reason that some scientists think that all humans were originally dark is because they think that we are close to the chimp.

                Not sure if that's some racist crack or what, however, it's comical seeing as chimps have PALE SKIN under their fur. In fact many chimp populations have very limited melanin in their skin = very pale complexion.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by James78 View Post
                  Yes. It has happened many times in history - how do you think genes got carried around as they do... by magic? I mean cultures that are conquered were either completely eliminated (as in their particular characteristics became non existent due to interbreeding with the dominant culture) or they became sub-dominant and rare / exotic.

                  If you eliminate the males of a population - as was often the case during war - and introduce males of the winner culture then you are going to get the "winner" genes as dominant.


                  If you removed every single black man from Africa, introduced 100,000 white men, and closed off every single border then in a X number of generations you'd have an entire population of white people. Same as if you eliminated every single white man from Europe.

                  It's basic genetics. It happens all the time in nature.


                  However, I advise you to look up the story of Pitcairn Island. Isolated population - one Englishman / sailor - resulted in a population that was beginning to turn "white".

                  A basic breakdown -




                  The reason that some scientists think that all humans were originally dark is because they think that we are close to the chimp.

                  Not sure if that's some racist crack or what, however, it's comical seeing as chimps have PALE SKIN under their fur. In fact many chimp populations have very limited melanin in their skin = very pale complexion.

                  Where is the evidence to support this wipe out in North western Europe?

                  Nothing meant by it. How can scientists be sure of the out of Africa theory? And if it is correct, why not by Morocco? If the birth of AMH was 200,000 ybp, why wait for 130,000 years before moving?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                    Where is the evidence to support this wipe out in North western Europe?

                    Nothing meant by it. How can scientists be sure of the out of Africa theory? And if it is correct, why not by Morocco? If the birth of AMH was 200,000 ybp, why wait for 130,000 years before moving?
                    Are you aware of human evolution or do you just pull information out of thin air?

                    Why not Morocco....

                    We are speaking of the same Morocco right? As in northern Africa.

                    There are early human / homo sapiens skeletons all around Africa. There was a child found years ago from Morocco dated 160,000. There are others are from Ethiopia dated 200,000 roughly.



                    Why wait before moving? If there's no reason to move - why move.

                    Have you never heard the saying.... if it an't broke, don't fix it.

                    You seem to be ignoring the blatant fact that 200,000 odd years ago humans were by no means the superior species [we barely are in some areas of the world even now] and were just simple prey animals upon which anything else could have a nice tasty snack. There's also the fact that they would have to figure out a means with which to survive while moving... what were they supposed to do, magic a nice suckling pig out of thin air?

                    Your facts are also faulty - humans first left Africa roughly 125,000 years ago. There were groups that circled back and reentered Africa before leaving again... and these secondary groups are typically erroneously claimed to be the "first migrations".
                    Last edited by James78; 25 April 2015, 04:13 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by James78 View Post
                      Are you aware of human evolution or do you just pull information out of thin air?

                      Why not Morocco....

                      We are speaking of the same Morocco right? As in northern Africa.

                      There are early human / homo sapiens skeletons all around Africa. There was a child found years ago from Morocco dated 160,000. There are others are from Ethiopia dated 200,000 roughly.



                      Why wait before moving? If there's no reason to move - why move.

                      Have you never heard the saying.... if it an't broke, don't fix it.

                      You seem to be ignoring the blatant fact that 200,000 odd years ago humans were by no means the superior species [we barely are in some areas of the world even now] and were just simple prey animals upon which anything else could have a nice tasty snack. There's also the fact that they would have to figure out a means with which to survive while moving... what were they supposed to do, magic a nice suckling pig out of thin air?

                      Your facts are also faulty - humans first left Africa roughly 125,000 years ago. There were groups that circled back and reentered Africa before leaving again... and these secondary groups are typically erroneously claimed to be the "first migrations".

                      I am aware of a lot of theories. Why did the AMH not cross into Iberia from Morocco as well as other regions? Were the first AMH pale skinned?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by James78 View Post
                        Yes. It has happened many times in history - how do you think genes got carried around as they do... by magic? I mean cultures that are conquered were either completely eliminated (as in their particular characteristics became non existent due to interbreeding with the dominant culture) or they became sub-dominant and rare / exotic.

                        If you eliminate the males of a population - as was often the case during war - and introduce males of the winner culture then you are going to get the "winner" genes as dominant.


                        If you removed every single black man from Africa, introduced 100,000 white men, and closed off every single border then in a X number of generations you'd have an entire population of white people. Same as if you eliminated every single white man from Europe.

                        It's basic genetics. It happens all the time in nature.


                        However, I advise you to look up the story of Pitcairn Island. Isolated population - one Englishman / sailor - resulted in a population that was beginning to turn "white".

                        A basic breakdown -




                        The reason that some scientists think that all humans were originally dark is because they think that we are close to the chimp.

                        Not sure if that's some racist crack or what, however, it's comical seeing as chimps have PALE SKIN under their fur. In fact many chimp populations have very limited melanin in their skin = very pale complexion.
                        I think that shows that humans in Africa had white skin in the distant past.

                        Europe is the most likely place of origin of our ancestors 200,000 ybp.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Is this a serious talk or merely one person stating real fact and the other [OP] picking what they want to hear and ignoring everything else. Borderline to outright racist for one of the responders.


                          Let me make it simple

                          Whites did NOT come first.

                          Africans / dark skin came FIRST.


                          Simple enough.

                          Look up some of the DOZENS of WELL PROVEN research studies with respect to this.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by PatM View Post
                            Is this a serious talk or merely one person stating real fact and the other [OP] picking what they want to hear and ignoring everything else. Borderline to outright racist for one of the responders.


                            Let me make it simple

                            Whites did NOT come first.

                            Africans / dark skin came FIRST.


                            Simple enough.

                            Look up some of the DOZENS of WELL PROVEN research studies with respect to this.
                            In a nutshell !!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by PatM View Post
                              Is this a serious talk or merely one person stating real fact and the other [OP] picking what they want to hear and ignoring everything else. Borderline to outright racist for one of the responders.


                              Let me make it simple

                              Whites did NOT come first.

                              Africans / dark skin came FIRST.


                              Simple enough.

                              Look up some of the DOZENS of WELL PROVEN research studies with respect to this.
                              There is nothing racist in my comments. Scientists cannot prove that the humans who lived 200,000 ybp were black skinned. Scientists cannot prove that our ancestors came from Africa 70,000 ybp. Our ancestors 200,000 ybp could have been born in Europe and some of them ended up in Africa and migrated back out of Africa. The chimp is white when born.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X
                              😀
                              🥰
                              🤢
                              😎
                              😡
                              👍
                              👎