FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > The first Britons were black, Natural History Museum DNA study reveals...
The first Britons were black, Natural History Museum DNA study reveals...
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I knew this topic would appear today"
At least 3 times so far!
Check out the pic of Cheddar Man. He’s shaven but with a 5 o’clock shadow! Obviously razors were a ‘thing’ back in pre-historic day! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels."
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the "out of africa" theory has been replaced. I think there are about 4 major locations around the world where massive rivers made fertile ground and humans flourished in the valleys. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels.
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the "out of africa" theory has been replaced. I think there are about 4 major locations around the world where massive rivers made fertile ground and humans flourished in the valleys. "
correct - the "out of Africa" theory is pretty much old school. Several pieces of research have now concluded that "humans" probably sprung up in various places, accounting for the distinct differences, for example, between chinese, african and scandanavian peoples. In fact, when you put an indigenous typical person from each of those areas side by side - you can see the remarkable "differences".
So, that's the latest - and this isn't any sort of "racist" post. It's just that we are "different" in many respects - personally, I celebrate that (generally  ) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels.
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the "out of africa" theory has been replaced. I think there are about 4 major locations around the world where massive rivers made fertile ground and humans flourished in the valleys.
correct - the "out of Africa" theory is pretty much old school. Several pieces of research have now concluded that "humans" probably sprung up in various places, accounting for the distinct differences, for example, between chinese, african and scandanavian peoples. In fact, when you put an indigenous typical person from each of those areas side by side - you can see the remarkable "differences".
So, that's the latest - and this isn't any sort of "racist" post. It's just that we are "different" in many respects - personally, I celebrate that (generally ) "
Hmmm that's the first I've ever heard about the Africa theory being incorrect and I keep pretty up to date on that stuff. Then again.. I only really listen to mainstream science and natural history. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels.
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the "out of africa" theory has been replaced. I think there are about 4 major locations around the world where massive rivers made fertile ground and humans flourished in the valleys.
correct - the "out of Africa" theory is pretty much old school. Several pieces of research have now concluded that "humans" probably sprung up in various places, accounting for the distinct differences, for example, between chinese, african and scandanavian peoples. In fact, when you put an indigenous typical person from each of those areas side by side - you can see the remarkable "differences".
So, that's the latest - and this isn't any sort of "racist" post. It's just that we are "different" in many respects - personally, I celebrate that (generally )
Hmmm that's the first I've ever heard about the Africa theory being incorrect and I keep pretty up to date on that stuff. Then again.. I only really listen to mainstream science and natural history."
Google: out of africa theory debunked |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels.
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the "out of africa" theory has been replaced. I think there are about 4 major locations around the world where massive rivers made fertile ground and humans flourished in the valleys.
correct - the "out of Africa" theory is pretty much old school. Several pieces of research have now concluded that "humans" probably sprung up in various places, accounting for the distinct differences, for example, between chinese, african and scandanavian peoples. In fact, when you put an indigenous typical person from each of those areas side by side - you can see the remarkable "differences".
So, that's the latest - and this isn't any sort of "racist" post. It's just that we are "different" in many respects - personally, I celebrate that (generally )
Hmmm that's the first I've ever heard about the Africa theory being incorrect and I keep pretty up to date on that stuff. Then again.. I only really listen to mainstream science and natural history.
Google: out of africa theory debunked"
I will now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels.
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the "out of africa" theory has been replaced. I think there are about 4 major locations around the world where massive rivers made fertile ground and humans flourished in the valleys.
correct - the "out of Africa" theory is pretty much old school. Several pieces of research have now concluded that "humans" probably sprung up in various places, accounting for the distinct differences, for example, between chinese, african and scandanavian peoples. In fact, when you put an indigenous typical person from each of those areas side by side - you can see the remarkable "differences".
So, that's the latest - and this isn't any sort of "racist" post. It's just that we are "different" in many respects - personally, I celebrate that (generally )
Hmmm that's the first I've ever heard about the Africa theory being incorrect and I keep pretty up to date on that stuff. Then again.. I only really listen to mainstream science and natural history.
Google: out of africa theory debunked
I will now."
I started before you told me as I'm a very curious little toad..
And from everything I just read.. it only seems to be talking about the various waves of migrating humans out of Africa into various other places.
Europeans may come from Asia, but Asians came from Africa still.
Our DNA which is my go-to-argument every time.. is that "Nearly" every living, non-Black African persons DNA can be traced back to one African woman who made a very early crossing of the Red sea into the Middle East.
It's what's still being taught on BBC and I find they're usually pretty spot on when it comes to science and natural history.
I'm not fussed either way.. but I like my truth.. or as close as I can get to it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It's what's still being taught on BBC and I find they're usually pretty spot on when it comes to science and natural history.
I'm not fussed either way.. but I like my truth.. or as close as I can get to it."
It's not my area of expertise so can't comment further than "there's plenty of counter evidence" to the out of africa theory, which doesn't mean it's wrong but it's far from undisputed. In subjects that are my area of expertise, the BBC is distinctively average in the quality of its analysis and reporting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It's what's still being taught on BBC and I find they're usually pretty spot on when it comes to science and natural history.
I'm not fussed either way.. but I like my truth.. or as close as I can get to it.
It's not my area of expertise so can't comment further than "there's plenty of counter evidence" to the out of africa theory, which doesn't mean it's wrong but it's far from undisputed. In subjects that are my area of expertise, the BBC is distinctively average in the quality of its analysis and reporting. "
 "BBC". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It's what's still being taught on BBC and I find they're usually pretty spot on when it comes to science and natural history.
I'm not fussed either way.. but I like my truth.. or as close as I can get to it.
It's not my area of expertise so can't comment further than "there's plenty of counter evidence" to the out of africa theory, which doesn't mean it's wrong but it's far from undisputed. In subjects that are my area of expertise, the BBC is distinctively average in the quality of its analysis and reporting. "
I'm not going to claim I'm right either, or an expert.. I'd also agree that the BBC is pretty piss poor in a lot of other areas.
I get my history and natural history from lots of other reputable sources too.. purely because the Beeb doesnt have enough of it to satisfy my curiosity.
So I'll admit.. I could be wrong as well.
Anyway.. Cheddar Man..  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It's what's still being taught on BBC and I find they're usually pretty spot on when it comes to science and natural history.
I'm not fussed either way.. but I like my truth.. or as close as I can get to it.
It's not my area of expertise so can't comment further than "there's plenty of counter evidence" to the out of africa theory, which doesn't mean it's wrong but it's far from undisputed. In subjects that are my area of expertise, the BBC is distinctively average in the quality of its analysis and reporting.
"BBC"."
I'm talking about the BBC that you pay for |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It's what's still being taught on BBC and I find they're usually pretty spot on when it comes to science and natural history.
I'm not fussed either way.. but I like my truth.. or as close as I can get to it.
It's not my area of expertise so can't comment further than "there's plenty of counter evidence" to the out of africa theory, which doesn't mean it's wrong but it's far from undisputed. In subjects that are my area of expertise, the BBC is distinctively average in the quality of its analysis and reporting.
"BBC"."
Ha ha.. Attenborough not know a thing does he? Professor Brian Cox? Professor Alice Roberts? Sorry.. I'm not a professor in anything. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It's what's still being taught on BBC and I find they're usually pretty spot on when it comes to science and natural history.
I'm not fussed either way.. but I like my truth.. or as close as I can get to it.
It's not my area of expertise so can't comment further than "there's plenty of counter evidence" to the out of africa theory, which doesn't mean it's wrong but it's far from undisputed. In subjects that are my area of expertise, the BBC is distinctively average in the quality of its analysis and reporting.
"BBC".
Ha ha.. Attenborough not know a thing does he? Professor Brian Cox? Professor Alice Roberts? Sorry.. I'm not a professor in anything. "
Oh sorry.. that was a Fab joke want it  I'm a dick |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It's what's still being taught on BBC and I find they're usually pretty spot on when it comes to science and natural history.
I'm not fussed either way.. but I like my truth.. or as close as I can get to it.
It's not my area of expertise so can't comment further than "there's plenty of counter evidence" to the out of africa theory, which doesn't mean it's wrong but it's far from undisputed. In subjects that are my area of expertise, the BBC is distinctively average in the quality of its analysis and reporting.
"BBC".
I'm talking about the BBC that you pay for"
He charges by the inch, but he's worth every penny... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It's what's still being taught on BBC and I find they're usually pretty spot on when it comes to science and natural history.
I'm not fussed either way.. but I like my truth.. or as close as I can get to it.
It's not my area of expertise so can't comment further than "there's plenty of counter evidence" to the out of africa theory, which doesn't mean it's wrong but it's far from undisputed. In subjects that are my area of expertise, the BBC is distinctively average in the quality of its analysis and reporting.
"BBC".
I'm talking about the BBC that you pay for
He charges by the inch, but he's worth every penny..."
* Walks out with head hung in shame for getting riled up over a BBC joke.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It's what's still being taught on BBC and I find they're usually pretty spot on when it comes to science and natural history.
I'm not fussed either way.. but I like my truth.. or as close as I can get to it.
It's not my area of expertise so can't comment further than "there's plenty of counter evidence" to the out of africa theory, which doesn't mean it's wrong but it's far from undisputed. In subjects that are my area of expertise, the BBC is distinctively average in the quality of its analysis and reporting.
"BBC".
I'm talking about the BBC that you pay for
He charges by the inch, but he's worth every penny...
* Walks out with head hung in shame for getting riled up over a BBC joke.. "
You should know better! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It's what's still being taught on BBC and I find they're usually pretty spot on when it comes to science and natural history.
I'm not fussed either way.. but I like my truth.. or as close as I can get to it.
It's not my area of expertise so can't comment further than "there's plenty of counter evidence" to the out of africa theory, which doesn't mean it's wrong but it's far from undisputed. In subjects that are my area of expertise, the BBC is distinctively average in the quality of its analysis and reporting.
"BBC".
I'm talking about the BBC that you pay for
He charges by the inch, but he's worth every penny...
* Walks out with head hung in shame for getting riled up over a BBC joke..
You should know better! "
* Looks back.. tear rolling down off his cheek, lost to the beard, lowers his head and closes the door muttering "Fucking rookie mistake" Under his breath.. never to be seen again.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Dark skin, long hair, shaven, blue eyes and looking a wee bit boyish and a wee bit girlish.
Think he or she has now become Politically Correct.
Just like the dinosaur no one really knows but experts can guess. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels.
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the "out of africa" theory has been replaced. I think there are about 4 major locations around the world where massive rivers made fertile ground and humans flourished in the valleys.
correct - the "out of Africa" theory is pretty much old school. Several pieces of research have now concluded that "humans" probably sprung up in various places, accounting for the distinct differences, for example, between chinese, african and scandanavian peoples. In fact, when you put an indigenous typical person from each of those areas side by side - you can see the remarkable "differences".
So, that's the latest - and this isn't any sort of "racist" post. It's just that we are "different" in many respects - personally, I celebrate that (generally )
Hmmm that's the first I've ever heard about the Africa theory being incorrect and I keep pretty up to date on that stuff. Then again.. I only really listen to mainstream science and natural history.
Google: out of africa theory debunked
I will now.
I started before you told me as I'm a very curious little toad..
And from everything I just read.. it only seems to be talking about the various waves of migrating humans out of Africa into various other places.
Europeans may come from Asia, but Asians came from Africa still.
Our DNA which is my go-to-argument every time.. is that "Nearly" every living, non-Black African persons DNA can be traced back to one African woman who made a very early crossing of the Red sea into the Middle East.
It's what's still being taught on BBC and I find they're usually pretty spot on when it comes to science and natural history.
I'm not fussed either way.. but I like my truth.. or as close as I can get to it."
Did the Red Sea exist back then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels.
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the "out of africa" theory has been replaced. I think there are about 4 major locations around the world where massive rivers made fertile ground and humans flourished in the valleys.
correct - the "out of Africa" theory is pretty much old school. Several pieces of research have now concluded that "humans" probably sprung up in various places, accounting for the distinct differences, for example, between chinese, african and scandanavian peoples. In fact, when you put an indigenous typical person from each of those areas side by side - you can see the remarkable "differences".
So, that's the latest - and this isn't any sort of "racist" post. It's just that we are "different" in many respects - personally, I celebrate that (generally )
Hmmm that's the first I've ever heard about the Africa theory being incorrect and I keep pretty up to date on that stuff. Then again.. I only really listen to mainstream science and natural history.
Google: out of africa theory debunked
I will now.
I started before you told me as I'm a very curious little toad..
And from everything I just read.. it only seems to be talking about the various waves of migrating humans out of Africa into various other places.
Europeans may come from Asia, but Asians came from Africa still.
Our DNA which is my go-to-argument every time.. is that "Nearly" every living, non-Black African persons DNA can be traced back to one African woman who made a very early crossing of the Red sea into the Middle East.
It's what's still being taught on BBC and I find they're usually pretty spot on when it comes to science and natural history.
I'm not fussed either way.. but I like my truth.. or as close as I can get to it.
Did the Red Sea exist back then?"
To be honest.. I don't know.. If it did I'm sure as he'll they didn't call it that.. probably pointed and flapped their arms about muttering "Ugh ugh ugh". I think it did.. though there has been periods it existed, then dried up.. which is when they may have crossed it... people are a blip on the earth time scale.. I think the continent's have been pretty much the same since we've been walking on two legs...
*Runs back off again.. never to be seen again... again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels.
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the "out of africa" theory has been replaced. I think there are about 4 major locations around the world where massive rivers made fertile ground and humans flourished in the valleys.
correct - the "out of Africa" theory is pretty much old school. Several pieces of research have now concluded that "humans" probably sprung up in various places, accounting for the distinct differences, for example, between chinese, african and scandanavian peoples. In fact, when you put an indigenous typical person from each of those areas side by side - you can see the remarkable "differences".
So, that's the latest - and this isn't any sort of "racist" post. It's just that we are "different" in many respects - personally, I celebrate that (generally )
Hmmm that's the first I've ever heard about the Africa theory being incorrect and I keep pretty up to date on that stuff. Then again.. I only really listen to mainstream science and natural history.
Google: out of africa theory debunked"
I must disagree most strongly. If it is true that humankind evolved in several different locations all at once then that would mean that there are several different species that make up our race.
The fact that we are all genetically,for the most part, identical proves that we came from a common ancestor and therefore evolved from only one location. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels.
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the "out of africa" theory has been replaced. I think there are about 4 major locations around the world where massive rivers made fertile ground and humans flourished in the valleys.
correct - the "out of Africa" theory is pretty much old school. Several pieces of research have now concluded that "humans" probably sprung up in various places, accounting for the distinct differences, for example, between chinese, african and scandanavian peoples. In fact, when you put an indigenous typical person from each of those areas side by side - you can see the remarkable "differences".
So, that's the latest - and this isn't any sort of "racist" post. It's just that we are "different" in many respects - personally, I celebrate that (generally )
Hmmm that's the first I've ever heard about the Africa theory being incorrect and I keep pretty up to date on that stuff. Then again.. I only really listen to mainstream science and natural history.
Google: out of africa theory debunked
I must disagree most strongly. If it is true that humankind evolved in several different locations all at once then that would mean that there are several different species that make up our race.
The fact that we are all genetically,for the most part, identical proves that we came from a common ancestor and therefore evolved from only one location."
Our chromosomes are also 96% similar to chimps....
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels.
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the "out of africa" theory has been replaced. I think there are about 4 major locations around the world where massive rivers made fertile ground and humans flourished in the valleys.
correct - the "out of Africa" theory is pretty much old school. Several pieces of research have now concluded that "humans" probably sprung up in various places, accounting for the distinct differences, for example, between chinese, african and scandanavian peoples. In fact, when you put an indigenous typical person from each of those areas side by side - you can see the remarkable "differences".
So, that's the latest - and this isn't any sort of "racist" post. It's just that we are "different" in many respects - personally, I celebrate that (generally )
Hmmm that's the first I've ever heard about the Africa theory being incorrect and I keep pretty up to date on that stuff. Then again.. I only really listen to mainstream science and natural history.
Google: out of africa theory debunked
I must disagree most strongly. If it is true that humankind evolved in several different locations all at once then that would mean that there are several different species that make up our race.
The fact that we are all genetically,for the most part, identical proves that we came from a common ancestor and therefore evolved from only one location.
Our chromosomes are also 96% similar to chimps....
"
And Chimpanzees are indiginous to Africa. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels.
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the "out of africa" theory has been replaced. I think there are about 4 major locations around the world where massive rivers made fertile ground and humans flourished in the valleys.
correct - the "out of Africa" theory is pretty much old school. Several pieces of research have now concluded that "humans" probably sprung up in various places, accounting for the distinct differences, for example, between chinese, african and scandanavian peoples. In fact, when you put an indigenous typical person from each of those areas side by side - you can see the remarkable "differences".
So, that's the latest - and this isn't any sort of "racist" post. It's just that we are "different" in many respects - personally, I celebrate that (generally )
Hmmm that's the first I've ever heard about the Africa theory being incorrect and I keep pretty up to date on that stuff. Then again.. I only really listen to mainstream science and natural history.
Google: out of africa theory debunked
I must disagree most strongly. If it is true that humankind evolved in several different locations all at once then that would mean that there are several different species that make up our race.
The fact that we are all genetically,for the most part, identical proves that we came from a common ancestor and therefore evolved from only one location."
I don't really understand what it means when people claim we are 'genetically identical'. Something like 95% of Japanese people are loctose intolerant so we can't be that similar. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I read this thread with interest as I have published in a closely related area. Having done some more reading (I was active in population genetics in the noughties) I think there is a confusion in the interpretation of the Out Of Africa hypothesis versus the Multiregional hypothesis.
It remains mainstream scientific belief that modern humans (Homo sapiens) first appeared in East Africa and then successive waves of migration spread around the world over many years. The Multiregional hypothesis has now generally weakened to suggest possible interbreeding (archaic admixture) between Homo sapiens and both Homo erectus (of which there are many on fab ) and Neanderthals, something which wasn’t thought possible previously. Those sub-species may well have evolved in different areas of the world.
The interesting thing about the new finding is that it suggests that the particular skin colour mutation (in the gene SLC24A5) which is predominantly European, hadn’t occurred by the time modern humans made it to the UK...or if it had occurred, it hadn’t dominated to the extent it has done now.
Hope this helps,
Professor Twat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
What happened to the black skin? Did they die off naturally and replaced by Europeans? How did the lighter skinned people get to the UK before we had boats?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I don't really understand what it means when people claim we are 'genetically identical'. Something like 95% of Japanese people are loctose intolerant so we can't be that similar. "
It means we are able to breed with each other and thus the same species.
As a poster noted above, it is highly unlikely that humans evolved in separate locations without a common ancestor, and then converged into one species. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What happened to the black skin? Did they die off naturally and replaced by Europeans? How did the lighter skinned people get to the UK before we had boats?
"
Reaction to sunlight levels.
Ice-age/ land bridge. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What happened to the black skin? Did they die off naturally and replaced by Europeans? How did the lighter skinned people get to the UK before we had boats?
Reaction to sunlight levels.
Ice-age/ land bridge."
The area where North Sea meets the English Channel was wetlands, much like the Norfolk Broads still are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels.
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the "out of africa" theory has been replaced. I think there are about 4 major locations around the world where massive rivers made fertile ground and humans flourished in the valleys.
correct - the "out of Africa" theory is pretty much old school. Several pieces of research have now concluded that "humans" probably sprung up in various places, accounting for the distinct differences, for example, between chinese, african and scandanavian peoples. In fact, when you put an indigenous typical person from each of those areas side by side - you can see the remarkable "differences".
So, that's the latest - and this isn't any sort of "racist" post. It's just that we are "different" in many respects - personally, I celebrate that (generally )
Hmmm that's the first I've ever heard about the Africa theory being incorrect and I keep pretty up to date on that stuff. Then again.. I only really listen to mainstream science and natural history.
Google: out of africa theory debunked"
as an example of how not to find things out that's just about perfect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I don't really understand what it means when people claim we are 'genetically identical'. Something like 95% of Japanese people are loctose intolerant so we can't be that similar.
It means we are able to breed with each other and thus the same species.
As a poster noted above, it is highly unlikely that humans evolved in separate locations without a common ancestor, and then converged into one species. "
This can never happen, evolution by it's very nature is always divergent, never convergent. Whilst animals of different species can physically evolve the same coping strategies dictated by similar environmental pressure on separate continents they still remain genetically different. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels.
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the "out of africa" theory has been replaced. I think there are about 4 major locations around the world where massive rivers made fertile ground and humans flourished in the valleys. "
This is false.
The evolutionary ancestry for homo sapiens sapiens - whiich is what we are regardless of race, still points to the African rift valley.
Where people get confused is that different races have differing amounts of other homonid species' DNA mixed with them.
All races have this trace DMA, eg, neanderthal and devonian DNA, however they are more concentrated in certain races and ethnicities.
For example South East Asians have more devonian DNA whilst people from europe, the middle east, N.Africa and Arabia have more neanderthal DNA. Very rarely do any of these trace amounts exist above 4%.
What the poster above is refering to is the development of what we would refer to as human civilisations. Primarily settled, with socio-economic structures and internal and external trade links, with sedentry agriculture.
Definite sites for these have been identified as the Nile, the tigris and euphrates river systems in mesopetamia, the mekong and yellow river basin in china and the indus river system in india. There are potential sites in latin america but excavation is hard and evidence is slim.
All of these civilisations were constructed by Homo sapiens sapiens in roughly the same time period, not by humans of different evolutionary species at different points in time.
In conclusion the out of africa theory as a origin of our species istill the strongest; however the map of first 'civilisations' is still being examined. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels.
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the "out of africa" theory has been replaced. I think there are about 4 major locations around the world where massive rivers made fertile ground and humans flourished in the valleys. "
The Valleys?? 
We all came from Wales |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels.
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the "out of africa" theory has been replaced. I think there are about 4 major locations around the world where massive rivers made fertile ground and humans flourished in the valleys.
correct - the "out of Africa" theory is pretty much old school. Several pieces of research have now concluded that "humans" probably sprung up in various places, accounting for the distinct differences, for example, between chinese, african and scandanavian peoples. In fact, when you put an indigenous typical person from each of those areas side by side - you can see the remarkable "differences".
So, that's the latest - and this isn't any sort of "racist" post. It's just that we are "different" in many respects - personally, I celebrate that (generally )
Hmmm that's the first I've ever heard about the Africa theory being incorrect and I keep pretty up to date on that stuff. Then again.. I only really listen to mainstream science and natural history.
Google: out of africa theory debunked
I must disagree most strongly. If it is true that humankind evolved in several different locations all at once then that would mean that there are several different species that make up our race.
The fact that we are all genetically,for the most part, identical proves that we came from a common ancestor and therefore evolved from only one location.
I don't really understand what it means when people claim we are 'genetically identical'. Something like 95% of Japanese people are loctose intolerant so we can't be that similar. "
In regards to biology, evolution and genetics being genetically identical means two individuals can reproduce to create fertile offspring despite any phenotypic differences.
E.g, there might be some *pardon the pun* skin deep genetic differences but the general genetic code is the same. Hence the two insmdividuals are genetically identical as they are not sub species or different species. The offspring are fertile and therefore not hybrids. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What happened to the black skin? Did they die off naturally and replaced by Europeans? How did the lighter skinned people get to the UK before we had boats?
Reaction to sunlight levels.
Ice-age/ land bridge."
hurrah I have an excuse to mention doggerland, which isn't a fab joke |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What happened to the black skin? Did they die off naturally and replaced by Europeans? How did the lighter skinned people get to the UK before we had boats?
Reaction to sunlight levels.
Ice-age/ land bridge.hurrah I have an excuse to mention doggerland, which isn't a fab joke"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels.
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the "out of africa" theory has been replaced. I think there are about 4 major locations around the world where massive rivers made fertile ground and humans flourished in the valleys.
This is false.
The evolutionary ancestry for homo sapiens sapiens - whiich is what we are regardless of race, still points to the African rift valley.
Where people get confused is that different races have differing amounts of other homonid species' DNA mixed with them.
All races have this trace DMA, eg, neanderthal and devonian DNA, however they are more concentrated in certain races and ethnicities.
For example South East Asians have more devonian DNA whilst people from europe, the middle east, N.Africa and Arabia have more neanderthal DNA. Very rarely do any of these trace amounts exist above 4%.
What the poster above is refering to is the development of what we would refer to as human civilisations. Primarily settled, with socio-economic structures and internal and external trade links, with sedentry agriculture.
Definite sites for these have been identified as the Nile, the tigris and euphrates river systems in mesopetamia, the mekong and yellow river basin in china and the indus river system in india. There are potential sites in latin america but excavation is hard and evidence is slim.
All of these civilisations were constructed by Homo sapiens sapiens in roughly the same time period, not by humans of different evolutionary species at different points in time.
In conclusion the out of africa theory as a origin of our species istill the strongest; however the map of first 'civilisations' is still being examined."
You're right, i was confusing these two things. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels.
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the "out of africa" theory has been replaced. I think there are about 4 major locations around the world where massive rivers made fertile ground and humans flourished in the valleys.
correct - the "out of Africa" theory is pretty much old school. Several pieces of research have now concluded that "humans" probably sprung up in various places, accounting for the distinct differences, for example, between chinese, african and scandanavian peoples. In fact, when you put an indigenous typical person from each of those areas side by side - you can see the remarkable "differences".
So, that's the latest - and this isn't any sort of "racist" post. It's just that we are "different" in many respects - personally, I celebrate that (generally )
Hmmm that's the first I've ever heard about the Africa theory being incorrect and I keep pretty up to date on that stuff. Then again.. I only really listen to mainstream science and natural history.
Google: out of africa theory debunked
I must disagree most strongly. If it is true that humankind evolved in several different locations all at once then that would mean that there are several different species that make up our race.
The fact that we are all genetically,for the most part, identical proves that we came from a common ancestor and therefore evolved from only one location.
I don't really understand what it means when people claim we are 'genetically identical'. Something like 95% of Japanese people are loctose intolerant so we can't be that similar.
In regards to biology, evolution and genetics being genetically identical means two individuals can reproduce to create fertile offspring despite any phenotypic differences.
E.g, there might be some *pardon the pun* skin deep genetic differences but the general genetic code is the same. Hence the two insmdividuals are genetically identical as they are not sub species or different species. The offspring are fertile and therefore not hybrids."
I think we can agree japanese people are human. Genetically identical seems a clumsy term, even identical twins aren't gentically identical. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Our chromosomes are also 96% similar to chimps....
...and 60% similar to bananas apparently...it’s the small changes in crucial genes that make the difference..."
My income is 71.4% similar to a millionaire, it's just missing two zeros |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Our chromosomes are also 96% similar to chimps....
...and 60% similar to bananas apparently...it’s the small changes in crucial genes that make the difference...
My income is 71.4% similar to a millionaire, it's just missing two zeros"
You can get the next round then. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Our DNA which is my go-to-argument every time.. is that "Nearly" every living, non-Black African persons DNA can be traced back to one African woman who made a very early crossing of the Red sea into the Middle East
Slut! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This comes as no surprise to me given the fact that the first humans were black and only evolved lighter skin tones as they moved ever further north in response to lower UV levels.
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the "out of africa" theory has been replaced. I think there are about 4 major locations around the world where massive rivers made fertile ground and humans flourished in the valleys.
correct - the "out of Africa" theory is pretty much old school. Several pieces of research have now concluded that "humans" probably sprung up in various places, accounting for the distinct differences, for example, between chinese, african and scandanavian peoples. In fact, when you put an indigenous typical person from each of those areas side by side - you can see the remarkable "differences".
So, that's the latest - and this isn't any sort of "racist" post. It's just that we are "different" in many respects - personally, I celebrate that (generally )
Hmmm that's the first I've ever heard about the Africa theory being incorrect and I keep pretty up to date on that stuff. Then again.. I only really listen to mainstream science and natural history."
What? You mean you don't get your science knowledge from dubious opinions and beliefs posted on a swingers' forum? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"That geeza looked like the driver of the Johnny cab in total recall..I never trust experts when they get pulled up as full of shit occasionally"
So next time you need an operation you won't go to one of those pesky so-called 'expert' surgeons, you'll get a bloke down the pub to do it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"What happened to the black skin? Did they die off naturally and replaced by Europeans? How did the lighter skinned people get to the UK before we had boats?
Reaction to sunlight levels.
Ice-age/ land bridge."
Do we know what the climate was like in Somerset at the time? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"What happened to the black skin? Did they die off naturally and replaced by Europeans? How did the lighter skinned people get to the UK before we had boats?
Reaction to sunlight levels.
Ice-age/ land bridge.
Do we know what the climate was like in Somerset at the time?"
I don't think you can get away with comparing the Western Sahara......to Weston-Super-Mare! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What happened to the black skin? Did they die off naturally and replaced by Europeans? How did the lighter skinned people get to the UK before we had boats?
Reaction to sunlight levels.
Ice-age/ land bridge.
Do we know what the climate was like in Somerset at the time?
I don't think you can get away with comparing the Western Sahara......to Weston-Super-Mare! "
More camels in The Mare |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
I don't think you can get away with comparing the Western Sahara......to Weston-Super-Mare! "
Lolol it's not as far-fetched as it sounds.
I watched one of these BBC programmes referred to above.
Archaeologists and anthropologists discussing how humankind managed to migrate from east Africa to the Arabian peninsula when there was a huge death-trap of a desert in the way.
Except there wasn't.
Not back then.
Climate change.
The Sahara in those days was a lush, fertile place for thousands of years.
So the barrier we think of to survival today did not exist then.
It was possible to migrate from east africa to arabia without dying of thirst along the way.
It made me wonder if the climate here back then might have been very different as well.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Not sure that is exactly correct. Not claiming to be an expert before anyone loads a gun. I was of the opinion that current humans came out the rift valley in Africa. There were other species of human... i.e. the Neanderthals that may have originated elsewhere but in the end the African humans came to the fore...(or done them in). So, yes no surprise early humans here were dark skinned. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Black is a political category as is white.
I learned at school that the first Britons were Iberians. Supposedly dark in complexion. So was this find new news?
It's been known for years the first humans were from Africa. White skin evolved in the Steppes of modern day Russia and Ukraine. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"Not sure that is exactly correct. Not claiming to be an expert before anyone loads a gun. I was of the opinion that current humans came out the rift valley in Africa. There were other species of human... i.e. the Neanderthals that may have originated elsewhere but in the end the African humans came to the fore...(or done them in). So, yes no surprise early humans here were dark skinned."
Yes, I learned there were about six humanoid species.
How did Homo Sapiens thrive while the other five perished?
People often speculate that Homo Sapiens eradicated the other variants through violent extermination or carried disease.
However, the presence of Neanderthal DNA in about 3 per cent of people indicates a sexual relationship occurred between the two.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
