Re-Examining the "Out Of Africa" Origin of Europeoids

a reply to: darkintent

That's exactly the point.

They are all just theories and with every significant new find the OOA theory has to be revised, it shouldn't have been told as fact.

The truth is that there isn't enough 'evidence' to say any theory as fact yet.

The fossil record isn't universally uniform either and if by some magic all the early human fossils and significant archaeology were to be 3d mapped, chances are we would be astounded and the picture far more vast. If there is a find predating OOA with mtDNA lines found in modern human, then the OOA theory would be moot and it would be OOWherever this new find was.

The OOA is constantly being revised because it was a stupid presumption in the first place. Scientist should know better than jumping on theories in such a way.

OOA revised
million year old footprints in UK. Another revision of OOA
reconsideration of OOA concept as not enough proof

What is the difference between a Hue-Man and Man-Kind. Do the knowledge. Black is dominant, White is recessive. We can get white from black but not the opposite. Dark matter to the universe is similar to melanin in the body. Why do some people burn from the sun and some dont ?

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.

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.

As far as fossil records is concerned man and all his hominids cousins originated in the tropics , that necessitates dark or black skin for optimum survival,skin color can change from an advantage to a disadvantage depending on environment or vice verse life do not evolve a refrigerator,and no that month old pizza don't count .

a reply to: Spider879

I didn't write the research paper, it was written by geneticists so you would need to ask them to clarify it.

If I find it I will post it but I can't be bothered searching through all the drivel that appears when such things are googled.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

With regards to skin color it looks as though Eurasians hot the gene regulating skin color from Neanderthals.

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/]


m.mbe.oxfordjournals.org...



dienekes.blogspot.com...

a reply to: punkinworks10

I have written about that research on ATS before, Neanderthal were basically 'white' albeit a darker shade of white (light semitic tone possibly) and I know of gene path inheritance from Neanderthal to Caucasian. Here's a thread I wrote about it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ETA There is other research I have read that proposes that 'white' DNA wasn't inherited from Neanderthal, again I can't opine on any of that research until I read it again and it's peer reviewed etc.

However this was different research based on genetic markers in studies done on archaic and modern africans, if I recall correctly.

When I find the research I will post it, I can't opine on it until I re read it and peer reviews etc.

I would like to see one case of two "white" people having a child of color. I can present countless cases of Black people having white children. Of course their are those that wish to establish themselves separate from their mother for personal reasons, the whole agenda of white supremacy has been to destroy and discredit people of color hence movies like noah starring russel crow though noah had a ethiopian grand father, and the new egyptian movie only showing blacks as servants. Im all for genetic survival but not at the destruction of others.

a reply to: magnetik

Politics shouldn't be part of genetic studies, it taints research and makes much of it non credible.

It is something I have always been interested in, how humans came to be, historical civilizations etc.

Many of the things I read in textbooks were since disproved in better research or completely revised.

The realisation that the political slant of much of the things taught in MSM education means having to take some things with a pinch of salt is annoying.

The public in some way or other pays for the research and as such should have a more accurate view of the true picture.

ETA The recent Noah movie was possibly the worst cinema movie I have ever watched. It was an abomination all round and far from entertaining. The fact that it was an extremely loose translation of a bible story wasn't good, the unnecessary eating of raw animals, dark undertones and crazed hordes added to the direness of it.

Perhaps you guys had read this article
Blue eyes, dark skin: How European hunter-gatherer looked,
7,000-year-old genome shows

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."

www.sciencedaily.com...

The above is suggesting that lite-skin for Europeans only evolved some 7000 kyrs ago if so then he could not have gotten the gene for lite-skin via Neanderthal which the high lited portion shows.

Here's the article about humans first being white.

IMO it is possible. The thread I wrote about Neanderthal skin and eye colour and other research suggesting later mutations causing white skin, could be referencing the reversion alleles. ie, reversion back to white in specific locations.

Then there's the whole Neanderthal factor and the did they /didn't they give some alleles for light skin to Europeans and seeing as Neanderthal DNA is present in all modern human except sub saharan Africans, it would suggest it might be part of the story.

Basically, as I have said all along in this thread and others is that there is a certain amount of research, often with very varied theories, all from limited data and 'finds' that any hypothesis being pushed as 'fact' yet, especially when there are so many new significant finds that contradict previous theories, is really only a presumption.

www.newscientist.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

A scientist argues that once we were all white; then we were all black; then some of us went back to white.

Susan Brink
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.

Interesting article! Our history is more complex than any one theory or school even gives credit. "Out of Africa" may go the way of "Clovis First".

I liked this part;

"The Mongoloid and Austronesian haplogroup C split ~36,000ybp and gradually populated regions of Central Asia, Australiaand Oceania. Haplogroup DE split to D and E around 42,000ybp, and currently populates vast territory from North Africa tothe west to Korea and Japan to the east."


Australian Aborigine children often have blonde hair during their youth before it changes to black. Ever wonder why?
The article doesn't say much about native americans. They don't give much of a reason why the common B ancestor has to be from Europe.

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.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Hmm interesting points,but I think even with the hairy hominids the article seemed to violate Gloger's that applies to tropical animals even birds.
I did something I tried to find examples of shaved apes excluding albinos but the variation in color was just too weird some pics they have a grayish tint others brownish one pic had a whitish under arm. but I can see how it could be that when we hit the Savannah a premium would be placed on having dark skin but in any case like Nina Jablonski color in humans is not fixed.

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.

Agreed especially if we are talking about modern us,homo sapien sapien who came into being roughly 250kyrs ago was most definitely born in the tropics and on the Savannah.

Here is a study on how HSS has changed in the recent past

They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To

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.

Enjoy

a reply to: Hanslune

Great article!

I teach at a U.S. high school. It's too bad something like this would be impossible to talk about.

Of course evolution would not just go away, it's just different than in the Eocene.

I have taught math so this part was interesting;

"The researchers point to China’s Mandarin system, a method of screening individuals for positions as tax collectors and other government administrators. For nearly 2,000 years, starting in A.D. 141, the sons of a broad cross section of Chinese society, including peasants and tradesmen, took the equivalent of standardized tests. “Those who did well on them would get a good job in the civil service and oftentimes had multiple wives, while the other sons remained in a rice field.”

Just saying, I have taught math to different races. In general, I tended to notice Asian students tend to get basic concepts and are capable of solving more complex concepts in math better, compared to other races on average. Not that other races don't produce potential math geniuses at equal ability, just seems that the general average ability is higher.
Since not all Asians are Chinese though, I am not sure if the above is a reason, maybe if the genes radiated out, who knows.

I liked the ADHD aspect too, really interesting.

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.

You mean that concept that is invalidated by every single scientific field out there, from genetics, to biology, to anthropology ?

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.

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.

If you learnt any of that in Junior High your teacher should have been fired instantly.