Social Do you realize your ancestors were black?

[Tatra]

1) the reason we LOST (and became bipedal) our hair is because the forest was turning into savannah. Awfully hot out there.

That was long before there were humans. Humans could have easily evolved much later with pale skin if they were in a forest environment.

We have DNA for Neanderthals and Denisovans, that tells us they are light skinned

We don't have DNA evidence for what skin colour all neanderthals and denisovans had, and define "light skin".

which makes a lot of sense given they evolved in Europe and Asia (we know from genetics and the fossil record)

Asia is known for having people with brown skin. You're really determined to prove how stupid you are, aren't you?

Of course, we are a fleshy pink, but that is irrelevant

Nope. Try again. And it's not at all irrelevant, because you're talking about the literal colour of people's skin. Again, you're really going out of your way to prove how stupid you are.

 

[Andy Capp]

That was long before there were humans. Humans could have easily evolved much later with pale skin if they were in a forest environment.



We don't have DNA evidence for what skin colour all neanderthals and denisovans had, and define "light skin".



Asia is known for having people with brown skin. You're really determined to prove how stupid you are, aren't you?



Nope. Try again. And it's not at all irrelevant, because you're talking about the literal colour of people's skin. Again, you're really going out of your way to prove how stupid you are.

We don't? Are you sure about that?

 

[Tatra]

We don't? Are you sure about that?

Correct.

These are the most common depictions of neanderthals and denisovans...

... and they're based on "DNA evidence". Not only can they not be described as having "white skin", but it would be really stupid to suggest this is more or less what all neanderthals & denisovans looked like, for the hundreds of thousands of years they existed for.

 

[Levi_]

That was long before there were humans. Humans could have easily evolved much later with pale skin if they were in a forest environment.



We don't have DNA evidence for what skin colour all neanderthals and denisovans had, and define "light skin".



Asia is known for having people with brown skin. You're really determined to prove how stupid you are, aren't you?



Nope. Try again. And it's not at all irrelevant, because you're talking about the literal colour of people's skin. Again, you're really going out of your way to prove how stupid you are.

Now you have earned yourself a block. I was really patient in explaining everything you ask, but if you are going full child and calling me names, I am done with you. When you reach a decent level of maturity, we can talk again. Goodbye.

 

[Tatra]

Now you have earned yourself a block. I was really patient in explaining everything you ask, but if you are going full child and calling me names, I am done with you. When you reach a decent level of maturity, we can talk again. Goodbye.

That's what I thought. Begone, child.

 

[Levi_]

Correct.

These are the most common depictions of neanderthals and denisovans...

... and they're based on "DNA evidence". Not only can they not be described as having "white skin", but it would be really stupid to suggest this is more or less what all neanderthals & denisovans looked like, for the hundreds of thousands of years they existed for.

ROFL, you guys need to stop with the artistic representations. They also look awfully white to me. You have to promise not to base any more science on drawings if I give you a good article from Oxford on this.

https://global.oup.com/uk/orc/psychology/nettle/01student/updates/ch05/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20the%20Neanderthals%20would%20have,tens%20of%20thousands%20of%20years.

The adaptive story outlined on pages 117-21 would suggest that there would be a selective pressure on them to evolve light skins, for the same reasons as modern Europeans and East Asians have. Lazuela-Fox et al. (2007) sequenced a gene which regulates melanin production from two Neanderthal skeletons. It’s a mutation to this gene which gives us the red hair and very pale skin of some European living humans. The Neanderthals had a different mutation to this gene, one not found in any living human population, but whose effect the researchers were able to show is to dramatically reduce melanin production. Thus, the Neanderthals would have almost certainly had pale skin and red hair, but because of different mutations than those which give living Europeans this complexion. ‘Blondeness’ has evolved convergently in European at least twice in the last few tens of thousands of years.

 

[BROWNPRIDE]

just take the L and walk on home boy

Funny clown

 

[Van Daz]

The story of human skin color, specifically the evolution of light skin, offers a stark illustration of how recent certain adaptations are in the grand tapestry of human and hominid history. The Homo genus is believed to have emerged around 2.5 million years ago, with Homo sapiens, our own species, making its appearance roughly 300,000 years ago. For the vast majority of this timeline, humans and their hominid ancestors inhabited regions with varying degrees of UV radiation, sporting dark skin as a protective adaptation against the sun's intense rays. This trait was crucial for safeguarding folate levels, essential for DNA replication and repair, and for protecting against UV-induced damage.

The shift towards lighter skin pigmentation, as recent discoveries suggest, occurred astonishingly late in the course of human history. It was only around 8,000 years ago that genes associated with lighter skin, such as SLC24A5 and SLC45A2, began to spread rapidly among European populations, propelled by the migration and interbreeding between Near Eastern farmers and indigenous European hunter-gatherers. This adaptation was driven by the need to maximize vitamin D synthesis in regions of lower sunlight exposure.

When placed in the context of the Homo genus's existence and even the narrower timeframe of Homo sapiens's history, the last 8,000 years represent but a brief moment. To quantify, the period during which light skin has been a common trait in some human populations is less than 3% of the existence of Homo sapiens and a mere 0.32% of the Homo genus's timeline. This perspective underscores how dynamic and responsive human evolution is to changing environments, even within what, on an evolutionary scale, could be considered a blink of an eye.

Moreover, this brief period has seen significant cultural, technological, and societal advancements, from the development of agriculture to the rise of civilizations, and more recently, the technological boom of the last few centuries. Yet, despite these rapid changes, the genetic adaptations we carry, such as those for lighter skin in certain populations, are a reminder of our species' long journey through a variety of environments and the relatively recent nature of our current genetic makeup.

In summary, the evolution of light skin is a testament to the recentness of some human adaptations in the grand scheme of our history. It highlights the importance of viewing human diversity and traits through the lens of evolutionary biology, recognizing the profound impact of environmental changes on our species' development over time.

Here's some very old footage of one of my ancestors. Was a musical genius. His name is Bang Keys. Wrote famous songs such as "ahhhh" & "ohh, ohh".....

 

[Tatra]

ROFL, you guys need to stop with the artistic representations.

I'm the one who told YOU to not base what neanderthals looked like on artist depictions. But seeing as you want to focus on supposed DNA evidence of what neanderthals looked like, there you go.

They also look awfully white to me

Then you need your eyes tested. They can easily be described as 'swarthy'. Jesus fucking christ son, are you seriously telling me those two skin tones are white? Your eyes are that fucking useless? LOL

It’s a mutation to this gene which gives us the red hair and very pale skin of some European living humans

The two pictures I posted don't have "very pale skin". You also didn't define "light skin" when I asked you to.

And I thought you'd blocked me? You have the conviction of a goldfish.

 

[Levi_]

We don't? Are you sure about that?

I honestly don't know what some of these people want. For me to just tell them they are right? I mean, I would just go look it up myself if I were that worried or upset about it.

 

[Wetarmpits]

Interesting. I wonder why sickle cell anemia doesn't affect me?

Because even sickle cell anemia has some standarts. Mr. Diddlydoodle

 

[Tatra]

I honestly don't know what some of these people want. For me to just tell them they are right? I mean, I would just go look it up myself if I were that worried or upset about it.

For a start you should define "light skin" like I asked you to.

 

[Copper Burner]

ROFL, you guys need to stop with the artistic representations. They also look awfully white to me. You have to promise not to base any more science on drawings if I give you a good article from Oxford on this.

https://global.oup.com/uk/orc/psychology/nettle/01student/updates/ch05/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20the%20Neanderthals%20would%20have,tens%20of%20thousands%20of%20years.

The adaptive story outlined on pages 117-21 would suggest that there would be a selective pressure on them to evolve light skins, for the same reasons as modern Europeans and East Asians have. Lazuela-Fox et al. (2007) sequenced a gene which regulates melanin production from two Neanderthal skeletons. It’s a mutation to this gene which gives us the red hair and very pale skin of some European living humans. The Neanderthals had a different mutation to this gene, one not found in any living human population, but whose effect the researchers were able to show is to dramatically reduce melanin production. Thus, the Neanderthals would have almost certainly had pale skin and red hair, but because of different mutations than those which give living Europeans this complexion. ‘Blondeness’ has evolved convergently in European at least twice in the last few tens of thousands of years.

Also, white people are similar to Neanderthals due to their lack of intelligence.

They look like them, they act like them. You're really onto something.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

They said that about each other, too. Silly argument. It's funny how you take these writings from obviously biased sources as proof that they were less intelligent, but will dismiss writings by Europeans about black people today as "racist". It's funny how you left-wingers operate.

That s inaccurate I am afraid. Herodotus writes with great respect about Egyptians and other warm climate civilisations. I would need to check again but I think Ethiopians are super highly ranked. He talks in different terms about the more northern people like Scythians but tbf I don t recall if he even mentions Celts and Germanic people. It could be that the were simply unknown to Greeks in 5 centuries BC ish which I think is when Herodotus lived.

You say these sources are biased? Greek an Latin sources are literally all we have from that period.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Also, white people are similar to Neanderthals due to their lack of intelligence.

They look like them, they act like them. You're really onto something.

Are you being serious?

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I dont believe in this theory as I pointed out in my previous post but I think that regardless of the climate during the bronze age the people that lived there evolved for a long time in a colder climate during the ice age. So people in Greece or Babylon had relatively recent ancestors that had to endure the cold, save a lot of firewood etc.

Now, as I said before, people in warm climates had to save up on water, collaborate to hunt very large animals too, and also save up on food as during the dry season it's pretty hard to find any edible stuff in equatorial areas.

It's a bullshit theory for a ton of reasons. For one, it ignores the rest of the planet and pretends that the only place on Earth that has cold and warm climates is Europe. If you apply this cold/warm weather thing to, say, Asia, warm weather groups come out on top again. India, China, and Southeast Asia were more developed than Siberia northeast China.

Same for the Americas. Alaskan and northern Canada natives were still hunter gatherers while Mesoamerican and Andean people were building complex, multi-million people states.

And even if weather did play a factor, we're not in the Middle Ages anymore. Economies and knowledge have been globalized for a while. It doesn't explain anything in the present day.

 

[Bojka]

That s inaccurate I am afraid. Herodotus writes with great respect about Egyptians and other warm climate civilisations. I would need to check again but I think Ethiopians are super highly ranked. He talks in different terms about the more northern people like Scythians but tbf I don t recall if he even mentions Celts and Germanic people. It could be that the were simply unknown to Greeks in 5 centuries BC ish which I think is when Herodotus lived.

You say these sources are biased? Greek an Latin sources are literally all we have from that period.

Scythians were nomads.

 

[Sweater of AV]

90% of Sherdog hates themselves.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

They said that about each other, too. Silly argument. It's funny how you take these writings from obviously biased sources as proof that they were less intelligent, but will dismiss writings by Europeans about black people today as "racist". It's funny how you left-wingers operate.

Ah, right wingers and their room temperature IQ.

If you read closely, I'm not taking Greeks and Romans' comments about Germanics as "proof that they were less intelligent," but rather as proof that ALL weather-based theories about the intelligence, work ethic, are stupid, whether they're made in antiquity or today.

 

[Domitian]

That s inaccurate I am afraid. Herodotus writes with great respect about Egyptians and other warm climate civilisations. I would need to check again but I think Ethiopians are super highly ranked. He talks in different terms about the more northern people like Scythians but tbf I don t recall if he even mentions Celts and Germanic people. It could be that the were simply unknown to Greeks in 5 centuries BC ish which I think is when Herodotus lived.

You say these sources are biased? Greek an Latin sources are literally all we have from that period.

Archaeology tells us a lot about northern Germanic and Celtic peoples. In lots of areas they weren't inferior to Romans or Greeks. They weren't as sophisticated but they certainly weren't "dumb as shit" as that one other guy said. We know more today than the Romans seemed to be aware of. It should probably be mentioned Romans in antiquity thought anyone who didn't speak Latin or Greek was uncivilized.