It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: magnetik
There is some recent research that suggests black people were once white. Essentially that the first humans were white and black people became black because of the climate causing genetic mutations. Similarly mutations caused the ability to digest milk in Caucasians etc. Mutations are often the answer to a lot of genetics. The research explains that this answers the fact there are lighter palms etc on black people.
It is proper research. I have mentioned it on ATS before, I considered making a thread about it when I read it but didn't want accusations of racism.
Neanderthal Origin of the Haplotypes Carrying the Functional Variant Val92Met in the MC1R in Modern Humans
Qiliang Ding et al.
Skin color is one of the most visible and important phenotypes of modern humans. Melanocyte-stimulating hormone and its receptor played an important role in regulating skin color. In this paper, we present evidence of Neanderthal introgression encompassing the melanocyte-stimulating hormone receptor gene MC1R. The haplotypes from Neanderthal introgression diverged with the Altai Neanderthal 103.3 KYA, which postdates the anatomically modern human – Neanderthal divergence. We further discovered that all of the putative Neanderthal introgressive haplotypes carry the Val92Met variant, a loss-of-function variant in MC1R that is associated with multiple dermatological traits including skin color and photoaging. Frequency of this Neanderthal introgression is low in Europeans (~5%), moderate in continental East Asians (~30%), and high in Taiwanese aborigines (60-70%). Since the putative Neanderthal introgressive haplotypes carry a loss-of-function variant that could alter the function of MC1R and is associated with multiple traits related to skin color, we speculate that the Neanderthal introgression may have played an important role in the local adaptation of Eurasians to sunlight intensity. [ex/]
La Braña 1, the name used to baptize a 7,000 years old individual from the Mesolithic Period, whose remains were recovered at La Braña-Arintero site in Valdelugueros (León, Spain), had blue eyes and dark skin. These details are the result of a study conducted by Carles Lalueza-Fox, researcher from the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), in collaboration with the Centre for GeoGenetics (Denmark). La Braña 1 represents the first recovered genome of an European hunter-gatherer.
The research is published in Nature.
The Mesolithic, a period that lasted from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago (between the Paleolithic and the Neolithic), ends with the advent of agriculture and livestock farming, coming from the Middle-East. The arrival of the Neolithic, with a carbohydrate-based diet and new pathogens transmitted by domesticated animals, entailed metabolic and immunological challenges that were reflected in genetic adaptations of post-Mesolithic populations. Among these is the ability to digest lactose, which La Braña individual could not do.
Lalueza-Fox states: "However, the biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin, although we can not know the exact shade."
A scientist argues that once we were all white; then we were all black; then some of us went back to white.
for National Geographic
PUBLISHED MARCH 7, 2014
When it comes to skin color, the idea that we're really all the same isn't just a utopian dream. A look at skin cancer from an evolutionary perspective suggests that maybe once we were all white; then we were all black; then some of us went back to white.
In a study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Mel Greaves, professor of cell biology at the Institute of Cancer Research in London, looked at some 25 studies of skin cancer in albinos in Africa. Albinos have less melanin, a natural pigment that helps protect the skin against damage from the sun. The more melanin in the body, the darker the skin.
Greaves found that basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas are not relatively harmless diseases of old age. In African albinos, they kill early and quickly. Skin cancer prevention, he concludes, was a driving force in human evolution to dark skin. Other scientists, including Charles Darwin, have long dismissed skin cancer as a force in evolution because it typically strikes those past childbearing age.
Greaves, who studies the role that disease plays in human evolution, believes his study adds credence to the idea that when earlier hominids shed their shaggy hair about two million years ago, exposing their naked, pale skin to the sun on the sun-drenched savanna of Africa, natural selection favored those who had the darkest variations in skin color to protect against the ultraviolet radiation (UVR) that can cause skin cancer.
Much later, about 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, those who migrated to cold northern climates no longer needed that protection, and evolved back to pale skin. National Geographic talked with Greaves about his research.
At one time, natural selection may have favored those who had the darkest variations in skin color to protect against ultraviolet radiation.
You point to skin cancer as a reason that skin color evolved. Among cancers, is skin cancer unique in influencing evolutionary protections?
I can't think of any other cancer and circumstance that would have had a sufficiently large impact on survival and reproduction. You might think that pediatric cancers might have been subject to evolutionary selection, but my guess is that they have always been too rare to provoke protective selection.
Can you explain when and why our human ancestors became black?
The genetic evidence suggests that black skin became the norm in Africa some 1.2 million years ago, around the time that early humans were colonizing the savanna and had lost most of their body hair. Most investigators believe that black pigmentation was an essential adaption to protect naked, pale skin against solar ultraviolet radiation, which is high all year round near the equator.
There has been consensus on some of the life-threatening impacts of UVR via the skin. Ideas have included damage to sweat glands and degradation of folate and other essential nutrients in blood circulating through the skin.
But skin cancer has been universally rejected as a possible selective force for the adaptation of black skin. This is on the grounds that in modern-day Caucasians, it is usually benign or is lethal too late in life to influence evolution. In my paper I suggest this is taking cancer out of the relevant context and that the experience of African albinos illustrates very vividly what the impact of intense UVR might have been on early humans.
Why did some people then evolve back to the white skin that was originally underneath hominids' hair?
As our human ancestors migrated out of Africa, those that moved away from equatorial and tropical regions underwent positive selection for paler skin. This was in part due to the reduced pressure from UVR skin damage, but also because black skin became a disadvantage, possibly because [pale skin is better at generating vitamin D] and dark skin is more susceptible to frostbite.
So you're saying that skin cancer played a part in skin color: Humans were originally white under all their hair, then evolved to black a million or two million years ago, then 50,000 to 100,000 years ago some went back to white as they migrated farther north?
That's exactly what I am suggesting. But unless Jared Diamond and Darwin [two scientists who dismissed skin cancer as a factor in evolution] are right and skin color variation is just incidental and endorsed by sexual preferences, then there has to be an evolutionary logic.
Naturally there is considerable speculation in all of this debate, and coming up with a definitive, unambiguous explanation for events that happened millions of years ago is very difficult, if not impossible. We are trying to come up with the most plausible answer in the light of all the evidence available—which is the way science always works.
originally posted by: morefiber
a reply to: Spider879
Not surprising to me, we make assumptions on what people looked like based on what they look like today.
Some Europeans came from Africa, some from Asia, some had been there longer. Same as everywhere else. South Americans 10,000 years ago probably didn't look the same as today.
Over the past 10,000 years, their data show, human evolution has occurred a hundred times more quickly than in any other period in our species’ history. The new genetic adaptations, some 2,000 in total, are not limited to the well-recognized differences among ethnic groups in superficial traits such as skin and eye color. The mutations relate to the brain, the digestive system, life span, immunity to pathogens, sperm production, and bones—in short, virtually every aspect of our functioning.
originally posted by: Caver78
Australian historian Greg Jefferys explains that, "The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990′s to remove the concept of Race.
originally posted by: maceov
a reply to: Caver78
We were out of Sumer or Sumeria LONG before we were out of Africa... This was one of my favorite subjects in Junior High School. I was just INSTANTLY HOOKED! Sumeria IS the Cradle of Civilization. Africa, secondarily. That is just how I learned it, early on, and still believe it. Out of Eden, then Sumerian culture rises, and men have unbelievable technology. Given to them FAR more prematurely than we'd ever imagined believable... But the seed of the Fallen Angels begand to pollute mankind with wicked DNA which bred the giants of old. Much of the premature knowledge was used for evil and Atlantean witchcraft. Which is WHY they were destroyed. Their stench wafted up to the nostrils of God, and Mighty YHVH destroyed them. He had no choice.