Cite?
That article seems wildly speculative to me. What do you think?
If I’m reading it correctly, no actual gene is identified, but one is postulated in order to produce some grand synthesis of how major, unique human attributes could have arisen very close to the time that the chimp/human evolutionary lines split. That hairlessness preceded, and was a cause of, not only bipedalism, but also the family unit.
I agree.
One theory is that hair loss was related to bipedalism and hunting by running down prey. Along with our ability to run long distances efficiently, came the collateral adaption to shed heat generated by running through less body fur. (eyebrows, for example, stop sweat from driping down into our eyes).
If that’s what they are supposed to do, they are a pitiful way of achieving it.
This idea has always struck me as one of the the most obvious evolutionary just so stories. Dogs and dogs and parrots all have eyebrows. They don’t have much trouble with sweat running into their eyes.
The major function that we can prove that eyebrows have is to allow us to communicate over large distances, the same reason that other animals have them. Eyebrows highlight facial features, which is kind of important for a social species.
I didn’t say anything about Indians being a distinct population. I am talking about a trend that seems to occur all the way from Spain to China. People closer to the North seem to have paler skins, while people closer to Equator seem to have darker skins. Both in intensity and percentage.
Meaning that the closer to the Equator you go, the darker people’s skins become, or that the closer to Equator you go a bigger percentage of the population has what could be considered darker skin than the people of the North.
This is more-or-less true, although of course the correlation is far from perfect.
Here is a map of human skin color distribution based on native populations before 1500. In general, lighter coloration is found in temperate or Arctic areas. However, note that the very darkest skinned populations in each region are not found right on the Equator, but closer to the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. This is probably because these tend to be arid regions with a great deal of sunlight, whereas there is more frequent cloud cover in the wet equatorial regions.
However, there are anomalies based on ancestry. In the Americas, although darker-skinned populations occur mainly in the tropics, they evidently haven’t had the time to evolve the very dark skin tones found in parts of the Old World. In both Africa and Australia, very dark skinned populations occur in the temperate zone, evidently due to the migration of ancestral dark skinned people.
You said this:
Now, you may have not meant to lump Indians together as a group, but you did. And the statement itself is factually incorrect. India (and Afghanistan, for that matter) is a complex patchwork of ethnic groups, some with very dark skin and some with very light skin.
So, if TV documentaries often get it wrong, then this documentary gets it wrong, for sure.
That is a very scientific approach (<-irony).
So you are saying that the scientist on the documentary are wrong, and you are right.
In simple terms, if an article has a minor flaw describing the chemisrty of the DNA sequence, can you spot it?
Or, can you see the sequence of a DNA sample, then look it up in some list, and say this DNA sample comes from that animal?
Or can you compare two DNA samples and describe the differences?
Again, I never said anything about being an expert myself, I just quoted (best way I can) what true experts say on the matter.
So, you are saying that a tiny minority of today’s humans carry Neanderthal genes.
The way I understood it, the scientists, on the documentary i quote, say something very different: that the Neanderthal genes are widespread in today’s non-Africans.
Because the truth is a matter of popularity.
That is a very scientific approach, also (<-irony).
I also said “the people of China”, which is also a multi-ethnic and huge country…
And “the people of Indochina” which is not a country, but a region, with many countries, and even more ethnic groups (whatever that means).
It ought to be obvious, by that, that I am talking about the people living in some regions of the world, compared to people living in other regions of the world.
But that I explained, again, in my previous answer to you, and again you chose to ignore it,
And you go on talking about " some with very dark skin and some with very light skin." Which, to me at least, it seems to be, not “some and some”, but more likely, “more here, less there”.
That in my mind says: “you hear what you wanna hear, you see what you wanna see”.
I am saying that what you said about the origin of the gene for white skin is wrong. You say that you got this information from a documentary. I don’t know whether the documentary got it wrong, or whether you just misunderstood what it said. Based on your lack of understanding of the topic, I suspect the latter might actually be the case.
What does that have to do with anything? I can understand the articles written about the topic.
Except you don’t have any idea what “true experts” have to say on the matter. All you know is what you think you heard on a TV show. You evidently have not read any of the primary scientific literature on the subject, as I have. Yet for some reason you think you know more about it than I do.
For the record, who exactly was the “true expert” on the TV show, and what precisely did he say?
I have no idea why you think my post meant that a “tiny minority” of today’s humans carry Neanderthal genes. What I said, and what you quoted, was:
[QUOTE=Colibri]
Human populations outside of Africa carry Neanderthal genes they picked up by interbreeding with them.
[/QUOTE]
What I said is exactly what you say the scientists on the documentary said. That part is perfectly correct. What’s in dispute is the origin of the particular gene for white skin found in European populations. That is different from the one found in Neanderthals and did not come from them.
If you’re going to completely misunderstand my posts in this manner there’s little point in discussing anything with you. It also doesn’t give me confidence you accurately understood the TV program.
Says someone whose information on the matter consists of one TV program.
I seem to recall that, very early on when the interbreeding was first discerned, that there was some speculation about the gene(s) for lighter skin coming from Neanderthals. But, as Colibri stated, when the analysis was done, this was found not to be the case.
What actual point are you trying to make?
As I think I said earlier, some of the Neanderthal genes do affect the skin and hair. It just so happens that the genes for white skin and red hair found in Neanderthals are different from those found in Europeans.
Where are you seeing dogs and parrots with eyebrows? Dogs have fur all over their faces, with nothing to distinguish the fur right above the eyes from any other facial fur. Parrots, of course, don’t have hair or fur at all, but again, there’s nothing particularly different about the plumage right above their eyes. Which is perfectly consistent with the sweat hypothesis, since those animals (without eyebrows) don’t sweat, while humans (with eyebrows) do.
As for eyebrows not being very good at that job, well, that’s evolution for you. They work better than not having eyebrows, and that’s enough, until something better happens to come along.
Agreed. I can’t make hide nor hair out what that post is supposed to be saying.
The poster claimed she was NOT talking about albinos.
Okay. I was assuming she meant full albinos, as opposed to partials.
I have to say I don’t know what you are referring to here. Since dog’s faces are covered with fur, they don’t have eyebrows, and even if they did that wouldn’t say anything about evolution unless wolves had them too. Wolves and dogs may have some vibrissae over the eyes, but they are in no way comparable to human eyebrows.
Some kinds of parrots have lines of feathers on their bare facial skin, but again this is not comparable to human eyebrows. I wonder if you may be thinking of eyelashes. The only kind of bird with eyelashes is hornbills.