Adam and Eve were white so how did black people come about?!!
Brutal.
If your starting your intellectual journey with the bible, turn back now.
Damn. I’m sorry, I didn’t read the whole post and skimmed through the rest. I apologize. Please strike my last comment.
Thx.“There is no scientific validity in catagorizing people in this manner. It is analogous with saying something like: These families lived in this working-class neighborhood for generations. They worked hard and developed callous hands. Look! a new race of callous-handed peoples.”
That is Exactly what I am saying. Except that calloused hands aren’t a trait that could be passed down geneticaly. But If it WERE, I would have no problem for creating a name for that new Sub-Group of people, Instead of just saying that they are just “The Human Race” like the rest of us, and that there is no real difference.
As far as not having “Races”. Either you have Larger groups , or you do not. If you do not, then It seems to me that you are implying that all of the Black people evoled wooly hair and dark skin color SEVERALY as opposed to coming from a similar ancestor , and that strikes me as silly, because as someone said before, there are different ways that people can respond evolutionarily to the same environment( The last that I heard, it was thought that the Epicanthic fold of the Asians, was a responce to cold, as is whiter skin, but they do not have to happen simultaneously. The fact that there are no other AFROS on any of the other “Races” seems to say to mean, that they came from a similar group, or that Africa itself is causing people to have Afros. And please don’t say that there are other Woolyish haired people out there, AFROS are a highly specific thing.
Other humans under similar conditions were Asians, or Indians(from India) if you see what I mean). Before widespread travel, you had HUGE blocks of people in different locations that all shared the same “Race”. There were no “White” people in Asia, No “Black” People in America, until they moved there from their ORIGINAL locations.
Anyway, I am not arguing for THREE RACES there indeed may ber 60. But to say that the different groups do NOT share ancestral origins is wacky. And If someone out there could explain to me what THEY would see in their TimeScope Tm. when they looked back through time at the spread of Humanity, I would greatly appreciate it.
Exion
But, as been stated before, the traits you choose to define a race with are arbitrary. We all have the same pre-history ancestors. At which point do you suggest curly hair becomes “wooly”? How thick should the fold in your eye have to be before you become “mongoloid”? How thick do your callouses have to be before a new race is created?
You have drawn your cultral line in the sand. I have conceeded that we humans have divided ourselves into groups. The question here is: how do you define a race scientifically?" And the answer is still: you can’t.
You do not.
Do you mean seperately? I am implying that wooly-hair signifies a different “race” just about as scientifically as buck-teeth.
No, humans respond to different environments in the same way (more or less). Which is why Aboriginies and West Africans are dark-skinned.
The extra skin fold above the eye is not limited to the peoples of Asia. If you are only using the evidence of your eyes, then I suggest you look more closely. The same goes for afros. And not all black people have afros. And you are ignorant. (I’m sorry, I know this is not the Pit, but, lordamercy, AFROS are a highly specific thing?)
Let’s look at a map. Where did the white race come from? Where did all the white people live before moving out into the world? Take a very good look at the map. All the people in Africa where black before some other “race” moved in to mix things up? Shall we get into the shape of the world pre-history? I don’t think we should, since you seem to be a bit misinformed about the shape of the world today.
Look very closely at Europe. Very, very closely. Now tell me where the “white” people came from.
Of course people share common ancestors. This is the whole freakin’ point!! Your Timescope stops telescoping as arbitrarily as your definition of what is a race.
“The extra skin fold above the eye is not limited to the peoples of Asia. If you are only using the evidence of your eyes, then I suggest you look more closely. The same goes for afros. And not all black people have afros. And you are ignorant. (I’m sorry, I know this is not the Pit, but, lordamercy, AFROS are a highly specific thing?)”
The are no Black people that do not have afros. Sorry. There are dark people to be sure. Asian and Caucasian. But as you gents have pointed out, skin color is pretty insignificant. You can use your EYES to see what an afro is. I’m sorry if you cannot find the Afroe gene, but that is what we have eyes for. And if someone does have an afro, it is certain that they have a Black ancestor, that implies a distinct grouping.
“But, as been stated before, the traits you choose to define a race with are arbitrary. We all have the same pre-history ancestors. At which point do you suggest curly hair becomes “wooly”? How thick should the fold in your eye have to be before you become “mongoloid”? How thick do your callouses have to be before a new race is created?”
That is like arguing that you since you can’t draw the line SPECIFICALY betweem greenish-blue and Blueish green, that there is no difference between Green and Blue. I did not ever imply or say that there wouldn’t be borderline cases, but that doesn’t invalidate the original groupings.
“You have drawn your cultral line in the sand. I have conceeded that we humans have divided ourselves into groups. The question here is: how do you define a race scientifically?” And the answer is still: you can’t."
See above
“Do you mean seperately? I am implying that wooly-hair signifies a different “race” just about as scientifically as buck-teeth.”
Seperately, as in Jointly and Severaly
“Let’s look at a map. Where did the white race come from? Where did all the white people live before moving out into the world? Take a very good look at the map. All the people in Africa where black before some other “race” moved in to mix things up? Shall we get into the shape of the world pre-history? I don’t think we should, since you seem to be a bit misinformed about the shape of the world today.
Look very closely at Europe. Very, very closely. Now tell me where the “white” people came from.”
I don’t think that the World has changed shape ALL that much in the limited time that humans have been around (Barring a land bridge or two). Please Follow along.
1.Look at a map SubSaharan Africans = Black (Sorry)
2.Europe a bit of Asia, North Africa, Mid-East = Caucasian.
(My Grandfather, german blond etc. looks alot like Saddam Hussein, I have never seen an Asian that he resembles, OR an African) sorry
3. Most of the rest… you get the idea
I have never said that the grouping of “races” was anything other than arbitrary. Or that there was necessarily a closer genetic Bond between people of the same race vs. the others (I have alot more in common with certain of my friends than with either parent, that does not negate the link). All I have said is that there ARE certain groups that do have a separateness about them that CAN be classified into a grouping, and CAN be used to delineate a similar genetic origin, that DIFFERS other “races” from at least the point of divestiture.
You all seem to be arguing total genetic variance and the fact that two people of the same race may not have as much in common with each other as they would with people from another reason to invalidate racial grouping. I am NOT. All I am saying, is that if you are black, and have an Afro, it is guaranteed that you have a Sub Saharan link. And if you can dispute that I’d love to hear it. Otherwise…
Exion
I am speechless.
I thought I was debating with a rational, yet misinformed person.
Your superior intellect has overwhelmed me to the point that I no longer understand your arguements.
Yes you did.
Yes you did.
Of course if you have an Afro and are black you will have a Sub Saharan link, you idiot. We all do.
I guess I wasn’t that speechless after all. I am veering into Pit area here, so I don’t think I’ll be back to debate things with you any more Exion.
But the point of the analogy was that the families were not necessarily related, just in a common environment- what if some of the families had close relatives who were uncalloused accountants? Would you say all the working class people with callouses were a race, even if you knew that a lot of them had closer relatives who weren’t included?
Not necessarily. It is possible that was the original appearance of early Homo sapiens, and some groups evolved away from that standard and some didn’t. However, it is also possible that similar features could also have arisen independently in similar circumstances.
Interestingly, I was rereading an article about how the supposed racial differences are illusory, by Jared Diamond in Discover magazine. He addresses this understandable reaction by asking is it any more counterintuitive than the Earth moving, or being a sphere? Just because something seems to be obvious doesn’t mean we can ignore empirical evidence which contradicts it.
The fold probably was a response to cold, and glare off ice and snow. White skin is thought to be an adaptation to reduced sunlight from northern latitudes in conjunction with frequent cloud cover. Thus the Ainu of Japan developed a white complexion, since Japan had cloud cover similar to Europe, while Siberia, where populations closest to the Ainu lived, did not.
Wrong- see below.
[/quote]
There were no “White” people in Asia,
[/quote]
Wrong- peoples of European origin such as the Tocharians, Scythians and Sarmatians had been migrating east into Eurasia and assimilating with Asian populations for centuries, and the process went in reverse with Asian Huns, Avars, Cumans, Mongols, Turks, Tatars etc. migrating west into Europe.
There is no clear racial boundary between “Caucasoid”[sic] and “Mongoloid”[sic] populations in northern Eurasia. Sure you can tell the difference between a Norwegian and a Korean, but of what meaning is a racial classification if you can’t even tell where one begins and another ends?
Not at the time of contact to be sure, but what do you make of “Lucia”, a prehistoric skull found in South America, which anthropologists say has African or Australian features, not typical Amerindian feature?
It may seem wacky, but that is what genetics studies show. See Jared Diamond’s comment.
Pardon me for not getting this- but doesn’t the first part of the paragraph above contradict the second part?
What about Papauns, Melanesians and Tasmanians who have black skin and usually wooly hair but are more distantly related to Africans than to Australian aborigines who have black skin, but usually not wooly hair, and southeast Asians, who have neither.
For the evolutionists. Are the Inuit ever going to turn white?
evolutionists?
Evolution is not predictive in any event.
Exion:
Deal with the fucking genetics or shut up.
The answer is to be found in the first book of the Bible, Genesis, and is part of the Adam and Eve story. The answer is “Don’t ask.”
Many Ur myths (of which Genesis is one), set out man as being lesser than god. When man starts to usurp god’s prerogatives, god stomps on man. The two most common themes are life and knowledge. Man might obtain one, but if he goes for both, then watch out.
For reference, take a look at the Daedelus/Icarus myth, the Herekles myth, or the Atlas myth, or more generally take a look at how Zeus and the Olympians overthrew Chronos, Gaia and their gang (although this deals with god-god rather than man-god, the structure remains the same).
Getting back to Genesis, note that man had already obtained knowledge, but then ran into trouble for going after life. The problem was that if man obtained both, then he would encroach on god’s domain by becoming a god himself. Gen.3:22 “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:”
This jealousy on the part of gods is pretty common, for gods have to protect their turf. The christian/judeo god in particular is known for being a jealous god, with references to such jealousy at Exodus 20:4-6, Exodus 34:13-15, Deuteronomy 4:23-25, Deuteronomy 5:8-10, Deuteronomy 6:14-16, Deuteronomy 32:15-17, Joshua 24:18-20, Ezekiel 36:5-7, Nahum 1:1-3.
So where does this leave your friend? If he wishes to remain within the intellectual sphere of Christianity, he should get used to not knowing and not asking, and simply take it on faith that things are the way they are due to god’s will, and that further questioning is presumptive upon god’s prerogative of power and control over man.
If, on the other hand, your friend really wants to make serious inquiries, he will have to leave his religion behind, or at least close an eye to much of it.
Biggirl:
[Moderator Hat ON]
Calling someone an “idiot” is not appropriate in Great Debates. Please confine your personal insults to the Pit.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Gaudere
Noted and acknowledged.
Major Feelgood asked:
Even if evolution takes place on timescales so long that we cannot make testable predictions, we might still try examining the question to assess possibilities.
First, we will have to assume that the Inuit maintain an identifibly distinct genepool- that’s not guaranteed, but for the sake of this discussion let’s say they do.
Second, one school of thought, Punctuated Equilibrium, holds that most evolutionary change takes place in very small, compact populations. Large, disbursed populations tend to remain stable, and new features have difficulty spreading widely in such populations according to PE. If this is indeed true, then the question arises “Are the Inuit too numerous and widespread today for largescale change to occur?” The groups in which past “racial” features arose are believed to have been very small bands.
Third, on a related angle- do lower mortality rates today mean that natural selection acts at a much slower rate than in the remote past? I don’t know, but it seems to me that it is a real possibility.
Fourth, white complexions are believed to have arisen in areas where people risked vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D can be synthesized in humans with sufficient exposure to sunlight. In latitudes where sunlight was less direct,** and where cloud cover often reduced that sunlight further**, white complexions arose at least twice- in prehistoric Europe, and among the Ainu in prehistoric Japan.
Fifth, in the Inuit lands and those of other Artic peoples, conditons are different:
A- The climate is generally dryer, with less cloud cover.
B- Above the Artic Circle it is not just a question of indirect sunlight, for long periods of the year there is no sunlight, so a light complexion wouldn’t really make a difference.
C- Because of the cold, for most of the year people have to be fully clothed outside; again meaning there would be no real advantage to having a pale skin.
D- The traditional diet in those areas involved lots of raw meat, liver and fish- preventing vitamin deficiencies (that’s why Inuit didn’t suffer scurvy despite not having fresh fruits and vegetables for long periods). Thus no Vitamin D deficiency= no selection pressure for white skin. Even if traditional diets are being replaced by western food now, that western food is vitamin enriched.
In conclusion, assuming that the Inuit remain in an area with conditions similar to what they have now, I think consideration of the above factors suggests they probably will **not[/] evolve significantly lighter complexions.
Nebuli-
“Wrong- peoples of European origin such as the Tocharians, Scythians and Sarmatians had been migrating east into Eurasia and assimilating with Asian populations for centuries, and the process went in reverse with Asian Huns, Avars, Cumans, Mongols, Turks, Tatars etc. migrating west into Europe.
There is no clear racial boundary between “Caucasoid”[sic] and “Mongoloid”[sic] populations in northern Eurasia. Sure you can tell the difference between a Norwegian and a Korean, but of what meaning is a racial classification if you can’t even tell where one begins and another ends?”
That is what I meant about arguing Greenish-Blue vs. BLueish-Green. Just because drawing the exact line between the two is difficult, does not invalidate the two colors.
“But the point of the analogy was that the families were not necessarily related, just in a common environment- what if some of the families had close relatives who were uncalloused accountants? Would you say all the working class people with callouses were a race, even if you knew that a lot of them had closer relatives who weren’t included?”
IF the calloused hands became a geneticaly passable trait, yes that is what I’m saying. That is what I meant earlier about defining races as arbitrary. For use as a classification, I don’t see any problem with that. Once you have described your “race” from then on, it’s not arbitrary at all. If you read in earlier posts, I am NOT arguing a closer relatedness genetically because of a few similar traits, all I’m really saying is that there is “probably” a link between two people of the same “race” even if it is only that there ancestors hailed from similar environments, and that CAN be a useful tool in studying people.
Also, if at all possible, I still would like to hear a description of how the different peoples evolved and spread through out the world to get us to our present state today? Doesn’t the fact that, as someone said earlier, it is more difficult for a larger group to change than a smaller group to change imply that where there were significant(even if genetically irrelevant) changes like skin color, that it was most likely from a small more easily traceable group than otherwise. Again, if that is true, using “race” greatly simplyfies any studies you might have about an Individuals genetic ancestry.
There’s a short and a long response to this brainless continution of the same questions.
The short: Asked and Answered. Go reread the thread.
The long asnwer:
As descriptors, no, but as inherent entitities, yes. You’ve just described subjectivity. Which is not useful for understanding the biology. Races are cultural units, not biological ones. Bu, this very idea has repeatedly been demostrated to you. I’m forced to ask, is English your native language?
It is indeed if your boundaries are arbitrary. The very fact I have defined something does not ipso facto remove arbitariness. I have to rest my definitions on definable, non-arbitrary boundaries. And it would help for them to meaningfully describe something.
You didn’t read the goddamned genetics cites I provided did you? If you did, you seem not to have understood them.
If you are arguing for the macro races you are one more wrong. However, as I pointed out several times before --perhaps not in this thread come to think of it-- smaller population structures will of course describe much more accurately. However none of these would come close to race, we’re really looking at thousands of different populations.
However, race per se (as the word is popularly understood, if we redefine it in some new way, well, we have a new term. But population genetics already prefers “populations”) is not a useful tool for it creates a false and deceptive sense of homogeniety which ** contrary to the assertion** will not help in understanding human genetics, but rather will impede it.
That is in fact why folks like Cavalli-Sforza reject race – because they have found the concept gets in the way of accurately and critically addressing the history of human populations and indeed current populations genetics – again because of the fallacious presumption of intra-group homogeniety.
Has it escaped you that all my citations --online ones as well as the others-- deal precisely with this issue?! May I perhaps profer the idea that you ** haven’t read a word of them** despite claims to the contrary?
As for how different populations evolved, I believe Nebuli already provided a fairly coherent description of how response to local environments over time selected for certain features. If you want more detial, why not try actually reading some of the literature I kindly provided.
You can not have significant and irrelevant changes. Change in skin color is actually a very trivial change in involving merely a more intense expression of melanin. Not a big deal. The renders the rest of your supposition invalid.
Well, geee, I guess the population geneticists just overlooked this in the past decade. Read the damned cites.
By the way, I feel compelled to add this comment which in part deals with these questions as well as the prior.
No Africans without Afros:
I really am frustrated when people clearly don’t pay attention. Okay, what do we mean by Africans? Let’s start out with folks whose ancestors could reasonably be presumed to have lived on the continent before 1492.
Response: False, plenty of North Africans and at least some Saharan Africans don’t have particularly kinky hair.
Inevitable skin color complaint: but they’re not black. Response, yes some indeed are as black as Sahelian (plains bordering the Sahara) sub-Saharan Africans who do have kinky hair. A Sudanese compatriot of mine has quite straight hair but is also quite dark. His features are also not classic negroid. While someone might complain this is due to mixing, I noted that from skeletal remains, we’ve had proof that intermediate types have existed for tens of thousands of years, putting lie to the concept there were ever pure groups. Since we don’t know what soft tissues looked like, we’re simply going to have allow that given similar skeletal remains it seems likely that such packages of traits (e.g. ‘Negroid’ features with straight hair and dark skin, non-Negroid features with straight hair and dark skin, etc. ad nauseum) have always existed.
Indeed, since genetic analysis, our sole objective measure, tells us that non-Africans are simply a bud off of African diversity and merely represent a sub-set of the larger diversity found in Africa, it seems logical to presume that so-called non-African features were (and are) found in African populations.
And of course this neglects the point which has repeatedly brought to your attention: dark skin, kinky hair and ‘negroid’ skeletal features crop up in South East Asia making a reliance on them as defining an “African” race quite silly at best. Nebuli managed to describe this 100 times more clearly than I have, for which I thank him. (Aside: may I borrow your explanation for future exchanges? I realize my explanations often become quite dense.)
I hope this can finally be laid to rest.
Collounsbury:
That’s not necessarily true. It may be hard, because of the large number of factors, but just because we haven’t done it much doesn’t mean we can’t succefully do it. In The Beak of the Finch, there are several points where predictions about the changes in the beaks of the Galapagos Finches were able to be predicted.
PeeQueue
Quite right, I was over reacting. Although in defense of my excessiveness, I would say weakly predictive.
Thanks for the correction PQ!
Exion, I purposely avoided commenting on this analogy earlier, but since you bring it up again I’ll give it a shot. In addition to the point Collounbury made about its subjectivity, I have another problem with it- and my explanation of that might seem even more controversial to you than the issues we are discussing here, so we could start a whole new tangent I really don’t want to go off on.
The analogy isn’t really helpful because we both find it very good, but for opposite reasons, and in support of diametrically different conclusions. There have been a couple threads, and even a column by Uncle Cecil, re the fact that the divisions between colors are subjective, culturally dependent, constructs, without a basis in Physics. That doesn’t mean that different cultures see
different colors, or experience shades differently. It is just that where they perceieve a division between colors varies, based on the culture they are in. What may be described as greenish-blue in one group, may be considered clearly blue by another; in fact some cultures don’t even consider green and blue different colors, but shades of the same color. On the other hand some cultures divide blue into two colors, and don’t even do that consistently. For instance, some deem what we consider light blue as a different color than medium and dark blue, while others (e.g. Russia) place light and medium blue in one color and dark blue in another (and evidently the English did once also, or at least Isaac Newton did- remember his divisions of the spectrum: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet). From the standpoint of Physics no particular wavelength of light is more honored than any other. What we consider the mixture “Greenish-Blue” could just as well be a separate color “Teal”, and we could argue where was the dividing line between Indigoish-Teal and Tealish-Indigo for various shades of blue.
The above is just my longwinded way of saying that a spectrum is a spectrum, surprise, surprise. No particular point on it has a greater validity than any other point. That is why I think your analogy actually supports my stance re “races” and not yours.
No it is a very misleading tool. Why concentrate on only a few traits just because they are visible to the naked eye, when modern technology makes many more traits available for study? It would be as if a medical researcher decided to investigate the cause of an epidemic by studying only large parasites visible to the naked eye and ignore any microbiology.
If the many references which Collounsbury provided seem daunting, you might want to start with
The Great Human Diasporas : the history of diversity and
evolution / by Luigi Lucas Cavalli-Sforza and Francesco Cavalli-Sforza
Another, which I haven’t seen yet, but which my library has ordered, and which might also have some good info is
Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory.
Garland Pub., 2000.
Finally, a magazine article for the general reader, which gives an example of how natural selection can create similarity in unrelated groups is A Question of Size by Jared Diamond, published by Discover magazine. It can be found in their archives at
http://www.discover.com/archive/index.html
It deals with why African pygmies, Asian Negritos and others appear so similar.
Finally, making my day, Collounsbury asked:
Of course. I’d be quite flattered.
“Originally posted by Exion
All I am saying, is that if you are black, and have an Afro, it is guaranteed that you have a Sub Saharan link. And if you can dispute that I’d love to hear it. Otherwise…”
""No Africans without Afros:
I really am frustrated when people clearly don’t pay attention. Okay, what do we mean by Africans? Let’s start out with folks whose ancestors could reasonably be presumed to have lived on the continent before 1492.
Response: False, plenty of North Africans and at least some Saharan Africans don’t have particularly kinky hair.
Inevitable skin color complaint: but they’re not black. Response, yes some indeed are as black as Sahelian (plains bordering the Sahara) sub-Saharan Africans who do have kinky hair. A Sudanese compatriot of mine has quite straight hair but is also quite dark. His features are also not classic negroid. While someone might complain this is due to mixing, I noted that from skeletal remains, we’ve had proof that intermediate types have existed for tens of thousands of years, putting lie to the concept there were ever pure groups. Since we don’t know what soft tissues looked like, we’re simply going to have allow that given similar skeletal remains it seems likely that such packages of traits (e.g. ‘Negroid’ features with straight hair and dark skin, non-Negroid features with straight hair and dark skin, etc. ad nauseum) have always existed.""
Since you are so fond, Mr C. of poinying out others inability to read the posts, It would please me if you did the same. I never argued a racial bond between N. Africans and Sub Saharan Africans, in fact if you HAD read my posts, you would see that I mention them as separate several times. The rightness or wrongness of that statement aside, please be a little more dilligent before jumping on your high horse, if at all possible, in the future. And relax, questions don’t kill people, people kill people…
As far as how it all Happened, what I mean is do they have any Idea, besides in general ideas of where it started, about how it came about?. NOT the actual genetic change, but where and when, and how?(Races aside). Like Africa to Europe to Asia then America etc.If you see what I mean.
ANyway
Exion
IIRC, he did this to get seven colors in the spectrum; seven is a “luckier”, more “powerful” number in western thought and has been for some time. I always thought 6 colors made more sense, but then I’m culturally trained to think so. 
I don’t think the seven color classification ever really popularly caught on in Europe, but I could be wrong. I am certainly not arguing with your point about the culturally-based subjectiveness of our color classifications; the master even gives you a little additional support:
Could early man only see three colors?
“For instance, H.A. Gleason notes, “There is a continuous gradation of color from one end of the spectrum to the other. Yet an American describing it will list the hues as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, or something of the kind. There is nothing inherent either in the spectrum or the human perception of it which would compel its division in this way” (An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics, 1961). Similarly, Verne Ray says “there is no such thing as a natural division of the spectrum. Each culture has taken the spectral continuum and has divided it up on a basis which is quite arbitrary” (“Techniques and Problems in the Study of Human Color Perception,” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 1952).”
[Edited by Gaudere on 12-05-2000 at 05:33 PM]