Theory on how humans became dark skinned.

reply to post by jiggerj


Why does white skin burn or become more sensitive to the sun opposed to brown or black skin?

Originally posted by PhilosopherKing
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Why does white skin burn or become more sensitive to the sun opposed to brown or black skin?

reply to post by tetra50


im black. i don't burn in the sun and I've never met another black person who burns in the sun like white people. Africa is the cradle of civilization obviously dark skin races predate light skin ones. this thread is ridiculous.

Originally posted by duesprimusvictorimmortali
reply to post by tetra50

 

im black. i don't burn in the sun and I've never met another black person who burns in the sun like white people. Africa is the cradle of civilization obviously dark skin races predate light skin ones. this thread is ridiculous.

This....

Originally posted by duesprimusvictorimmortali
reply to post by tetra50

 

im black. i don't burn in the sun and I've never met another black person who burns in the sun like white people. Africa is the cradle of civilization obviously dark skin races predate light skin ones. this thread is ridiculous.

Okay, sorry. I was told otherwise....., but happy to admit if I was given erroneous information or when I am wrong.
2nd.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by duesprimusvictorimmortali
reply to post by tetra50

 

im black. i don't burn in the sun and I've never met another black person who burns in the sun like white people. Africa is the cradle of civilization obviously dark skin races predate light skin ones. this thread is ridiculous.

This....

There, are you enjoying it even more now. I was wrong. That's the thing about being human, we are lots of times wrong. And "this" is possibly why people are so prone to not wanting to admit it.....

reply to post by tetra50


well then you shouldn't say "I sense you don't know many African Americans". you only need to write 2nd if have one line of text.

Originally posted by duesprimusvictorimmortali
reply to post by tetra50

 

im black. i don't burn in the sun and I've never met another black person who burns in the sun like white people. Africa is the cradle of civilization obviously dark skin races predate light skin ones. this thread is ridiculous.

Ironic, as I happen to agree with your last statement, yet somehow I'm feeling like an "enemy," here.

I have apologized already. But I still have been told otherwise about sunburn issues, so whatever. But to take me to task, for putting two comments together, seemingly unrelated or seemingly judgemental, while, indeed, there are two seemingly unrelated comments put together in your post above, as well, is just rubbing my face in my own apology.....

It probably all genetics. People with similar traits seem to attract together and breed. Everyone in my family has blue eyes for instance. I felt more comfortable marrying someone with the same eye color.

I bred Cairn terriers one year. The father dog had poor manners and was dirty un groomed and had an eye disease. He was a dog breeders stock. My dog is well mannered, well groomed, and very healthy. The father was very sweet in temper and had a black reddish long curly fur. The mother was more of a hunter and protector personality in brindle tri colored soft long fur. The puppies were all very healthy. Three of the girls looked exactly like their mother, the fourth female turned out Beige with a black mask face, she was aggressive and larger. It turns out the beige dog was just like her grandfather in fur color and short texture. I enjoyed seeing the genetics of hair color and temperament pop out while keeping and ancient Scottish 2,000 year dog breed alive. We kept the runt who was the sweetest and prettiest. I am sure this is how many genetics work, the desirable traits are the people who get their genes carried forth to the next generation. Black skin protects in the sun, however people in the southern US are not turning black. Becoming white skinned after leaving Africa must have taken place over tens of thousands of years. People probably hid more in caves and weren't exposed to the hot sun.

reply to post by duesprimusvictorimmortali

Africa is the cradle of civilization obviously dark skin races predate light skin ones. this thread is ridiculous.

I don't see why you're saying this when you're pretty much agreeing with my premise. Pre-humans were furry and white skinned, but to evolve into fully human and hairless they had to be black.

I don't believe there was anything natural, more like labs and then again, with another era and big earth cycle, more labs, in fact the labs changed hands somewhat. Of course there is a need for lighter skin for vitamin D asorption in some areas and in some more sunscreen. But, these things came out of laboratories, in other words evolution is a guided thing and leaps take place all the time with direct intervention, like a continual project or school.

Also there was no time when everyone was dark skinned, for there were always survivors of the past era's. Some of the cave men were but survivors of era's, some possibly space age. And then there is the mysterious red haired mummies found throughout the world.

Life was never designed to be simple, one homogenous look. Nature doesnt do that, even with plants, yet we assume humanity did that. It was always diverse, with different genetic variations introduced.

You can't learn alot in a homogenous system. There has to be differences to grow understanding and awareness in.

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by duesprimusvictorimmortali

 

Africa is the cradle of civilization obviously dark skin races predate light skin ones. this thread is ridiculous.

I don't see why you're saying this when you're pretty much agreeing with my premise. Pre-humans were furry and white skinned, but to evolve into fully human and hairless they had to be black.

I'm curious of you have anything to back up your hypothesis. all the current information points to darker skin in our lineage with light skin being a recent adaptation. For example, one recent study... www.pbs.org...

Originally posted by peter vlar

I'm curious of you have anything to back up your hypothesis. all the current information points to darker skin in our lineage with light skin being a recent adaptation. For example, one recent study... www.pbs.org...

Nope. Just thought of it while working. I have real boring job. I remember reading somewhere that if a white person moved to Africa, or a black person moved out of Africa, it would take 20,000 generations for their skin color to change. White man's descendants become black; black man's descendents become white.

What I don't see is if prehumans (those fine furry little critters) never migrated out of Africa, if they always stayed in Africa, why would they lose the fur? This is the answer I'm seeking. During this fur to naked skin period, could the African climate have changed so much as to have caused such drastic change? Personally, I don't think so, but, personally, I know I have NO clue.

reply to post by jiggerj


they would lose fur as we developed more sweat glands. Chimps for example only have them on their hands and feet. early hominids are thought to also have a similar patter of sweat glands. Australopithecus Afarensis for example(the type Lucy was) was roughly the same size as modern chimps and morphologically not dissimilar from Chimpanzees, well side from the hips, femurs, knees and foramen magnum, as more of them were born with more sweat glands and less fur that particular gene started to become dominant trough the population as it allowed them to forage for food longer and I'm fairly certain I don't need to type out a paragraph explaining why more nutritional resources are better for an organism. that's the readers digest version but I hope it makes some sense.

Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by esteay812

 

I agree with you esteay812.

The studies I've read indicate that white skin and blue eyes are mutations from an original dark skin and dark eyes. I'm wondering if the interbreeding between Neanderthals and non sub-Saharan Homo Sapiens is at all related to the mutations.

I'm gonna take a walk through fantasy land for a moment, so I hope everyone realizes this is simply fantastic speculation:


We've all heard the stories of the Annunaki, how they created a 'man-beast' to work in the mines as slaves. Maybe you've missed that, but you have probably learned about the intriguing accounts of Angels from Heaven taking Earthly women as wives, producing off-spring known as the 'Nephilim'.

I'm not sure exactly where to find the information for this timeline, but I recall part of those ancient tales revealing the era of their existence to be 45,000 years ago.

If these tales are true, the Angelic beings - known by others as the 'Annunaki', were present at the same time as the rise of this genetic mutation.

Maybe it wasn't a mutation that caused the white/light skin humans to emerge.

The female 'man-beasts' (both male and female of the 'manbeasts' all had dark skin) may have all been of dark-skin/eyes and the 'Angels' from the heavens could have been of very light skin, with varying colors of eyes, such as green or blue. That description of the angelic beings does match many of the modern descriptions.

The view from this angle can lead to the idea that it wasn't a genetic mutation. Instead, the interbreeding between human (manbeast) women and the Annunaki/Angels could be responsible for the emergence of a light skin race.

Maybe, Maybe Not... either way, it is a fun possibility to consider!

reply to post by Xtrozero


That post is actually very misinforming. There is a very clear geographic boundary with regards to the percentage of neanderthal DNA. Sub-Sahara Africans have practically zero percent Neanderthal DNA. Eurasians have typically between 2 and 6%. No, not all people have around 3%, that's false. Quite a matter of-fact, as I previously stated, modern Eurasians, if compared on a scatter plot to Neanderthal, Homo Sapiens, and Sub-Saharan Africans, are closer to Neanderthal than the other two groups by statistical deviance. Sub-Saharan Africans are genetically close to Homo Sapiens but still distinct, not to be confused with Homo-Sapiens-Sapens (Modern Man). That is to say, Eurasians are more or less a hybrid of Archaic Homo-Sapiens and Neanderthal. The Neanderthal Genome studies done suggest that fair skin, eyes, hair, are more or less inherited from the Neanderthal hybridization, as until the migrations and mixing started, it was an exclusively Neanderthal trait.

There is a new player, too. The recent discovery of a genetically distinct but close relative of Neanderthal named "Denisovan Man" in Siberia looks like it may shed light on the ancestors of East Asians. As East Asians tend to fall close to Neanderthal like most Eurasians, but are also a statistically significant distance from the Indo-European-Semite cluster. Their plot forms its own little cluster that doesn't overlap the others Eurasians, even though it is close to it.

This information looks to help in genetically explaining the extreme physical differences between Sub-Saharan Africans, Eurasians, and East Asians. Humans are the only species on earth besides dogs and horses that have such a huge range of phenotype expression and temperament that are still considered one species. Birds of prey, especially those used in sport are a good example. Goshawks and Red Tailed Hawks are different species. If put in the wild together, they don't mate with each other. However, they are genetically able to do so. People who hunt with hawks will often breed the two together in an effort to combine desirable traits, both physical traits and temperament.

Are people different? YES, absolutely, both in genetic and physical expression as well as temperament. Should people be treated differently? NO, but it doesn't mean differences shouldn't be recognized, understood, and worked with. Understanding that there is a difference is the first step in the process of understanding. Merely presuming people are all the same despite the genetic evidence suggesting overwhelmingly otherwise in an attempt to make people get along is the wrong way to make people get along. It means working together out of ignorance rather than working together out of understanding. Understanding means people get along better, interact better, work better together, DESPITE the differences.

Most mammals have black skin. Only in extreme climates or through unnatural selection (domestication) do you see significantly otherwise. Ever seen a bear or deer with mange? Black skin. Most primates have black skin. I think at the beginning, early Neanderthal probably had black skin, but being relatively hairless evolved light skin over several hundred thousand years. Even polar bears have black skin. Lipizzaner horses, despite having a pure white coat, have black skin.

The question shouldn't be how humans became dark skinned, but rather how humans became the current rainbow of skin colors they are today as black was very obviously the base color.

reply to post by Galvatron


Black is not obviously the base color.. The oldest known civilization and writing is found in Babylon Iraq.. So logic would dictate that middle eastern color, a color in between black and white would be the base.. People that migrated south to hotter climates darkened. Those that went north to colder climates lightened..

Song of Solomon, whether you believe the Bible or not, addresses the reason why the female in the song was black.. So thousands of years ago, black skin was an issue also..

If black skin was the base color, why are blacks a minority world wide? India, Iran, Iraq, mexico.. Brown or light skinned (not white) is the largest population..

Originally posted by HooHaa
reply to post by Galvatron

 

Black is not obviously the base color.. The oldest known civilization and writing is found in Babylon Iraq.. So logic would dictate that middle eastern color, a color in between black and white would be the base.. People that migrated south to hotter climates darkened. Those that went north to colder climates lightened..

Song of Solomon, whether you believe the Bible or not, addresses the reason why the female in the song was black.. So thousands of years ago, black skin was an issue also..

If black skin was the base color, why are blacks a minority world wide? India, Iran, Iraq, mexico.. Brown or light skinned (not white) is the largest population..

If you want to define a civilization by the invention of writing then you need to include IVC/Harappa a contemporary of Mesopotamia. However I think it's an unfair way to judge people by their literacy when there were some amazing things happening in the world prior to the Neolithic revolution. Gobekli Tepe for example predates writing by several thousand years and that's just one example of a late Paleolithic site. A really great one, but just one. And even older people are to be found in Africa believe it or not. The entire rift valley in east Africa is home to some of the oldest fossils of several portions of our family tree and has been inhabited for literally millions of years. In Blombos cave in South Africa you have carved and decorated bone blades, 70,000 year old art work. At Border Cave Also in S. Africa you have the lebombo bone, possibly the worlds oldest counting/recording device dates at approx. 35,000 years old. You don't need to keep track of things if there isn't some type of civilization that you're keeping track for. The first people came FROM Africa not to there from someplace else. And more than once.

I've never heard Solomon sing so I'm not familiar with his song and don't understand the relevance. Unless your saying he's a racist. Does he perform with Ian Stuart?

Why are Blacks minorities in some countries? Same reason whites are a minority in Africa and Asia. Demographics are your friend. There are over 100 million of them in of all places, Africa. Theres around 45-50 million in North America and that doesn't include the Caribbean or S. America let alone India or Australia.
There are a LOT of them so lock your doors and check the kids I'm starting to get a little freaked out.

Originally posted by HooHaa
reply to post by Galvatron

 

Black is not obviously the base color.. The oldest known civilization and writing is found in Babylon Iraq.. So logic would dictate that middle eastern color, a color in between black and white would be the base.. People that migrated south to hotter climates darkened. Those that went north to colder climates lightened..

Song of Solomon, whether you believe the Bible or not, addresses the reason why the female in the song was black.. So thousands of years ago, black skin was an issue also..

If black skin was the base color, why are blacks a minority world wide? India, Iran, Iraq, mexico.. Brown or light skinned (not white) is the largest population..

Uh what? Are you saying that the occurance of civilization dictates the base color for homo-sapiens as a primate? That is actually very illogical. Civilization is incidental to a combination of a myriad of factors, skin color being low on the list of factors.

Genetically Semitic people (Arabs, Druze, Hebrews, etc) are those who lived in Babylon at the time. They have Neanderthal DNA. That is to suggest that they are hybridized, and therefore "newer" than Sub-Saharan Africans if one assumes current migration theory. The oldest known mitochondrial DNA is in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Blacks are not a minority. They're actually quite balanced with the rest of the world's major ethnicities. In North America, South America, Europe, and Asia, they are. But in Africa, they represent around 1 billion people, who are projected to grow to about 4 billion by the end of the century. If I recall correctly, the global population of "White" people, that is to say people of European descent is just a little over a 1 billion. To put that into perspective there are the same amount of Indians, that's just one nationality. 1.3 billion Chinese, again, just one nationality. Ethnic Semites (Arabs, Hebrews, Druze, etc.) have a relatively low population of around 400 million. Persians from Iran are for the most part considered Caucasian. Iran literally means "Aryan".

I have been around the world on business and have sampled the whole supermarket of institutional religions, mostly as knowledge of them helps one deal with and understand local or indigenous people much much better. Everything I have encountered suggests an attempt at transferring very very old knowledge about humanity and spirituality, but every single one of them ultimately fails as they have been corrupted by man in one way shape or form to the point of having null value. I do believe in God, but I don't think all three of the major Abrahamic notions are right. It seems as though each one is a fraction of the whole message, and even combined are still only a piece of the puzzle. Even then, you have to critically think your way through them and weed out the BS inserted by powerful people along the way.

reply to post by jiggerj


Yea ok, I just thought it was pretty common knowledge that humans developed in africa, and then spread outward, over time existing in colder and less sunny climates and/or certain mutations led to lightness of skin. Maybe all white peoples common ancestor is an albino, or multiple.