The Black Man was God ?

This is all still only a matter of opinion. Perhaps from a scientific viewpoint the earliest ancestors of 'man' and the transition to 'civilised' man were rooted in what we know to be Africa, but it wasn't always Africa, and the landmass wasn't always seperated.
Historically speaking, we have the issue that no one person is capable of telling the truth. We are all whores who sell ourselves for the gratification of others. Opinions create spin, and spin is always labelled as a bad thing yet we're still stuck in the same rut we've been in since the dawn of civilisation and the heirarchical structure was formed. There is no single truth, as no one is capable ot telling it, be they black, white, or any other culture. One thing we should be able to agree on, is that evolution (or whatever you wish to call it) has made us accomplished liars, maybe from there we can look into what the truth actually is. Though I doubt it'll stop any of us from being pompous assholes.

so black people cant get sun burnt? can they still get skin cancer?
or does melanin make them immune, like it does to the evil death rays of the sun.


an interesting fact, white peoples skin produces more Vitamin D than blacks, to counteract the lack of Melanin in the skin. the Vitamin D acts as a coat on the skin which helps reflect the sunlight, so it will do less damage to the skin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by living_undead

so black people cant get sun burnt? can they still get skin cancer?
or does melanin make them immune, like it does to the evil death rays of the sun.


an interesting fact, white peoples skin produces more Vitamin D than blacks, to counteract the lack of Melanin in the skin. the Vitamin D acts as a coat on the skin which helps reflect the sunlight, so it will do less damage to the skin.

---

sounds nice but its not true

there is no such thing as a white man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black Man

This is not accurate. "Solar Radiation" for black people or people with melanin it is healthy for them to receive that "solar radiation". That solar radiation can be converted to vitamin D because of the properties of melanin. This is NOT done in white people, they do not have that ability. Solar Radiation is also converted into other forms of energy the body uses because of melanin. Melanin also effects organs, glands, tissues, and other parts of the body and body functions.

Solar Radiation not only is it healthy it's neccessary for those who are original people. Because white people lack melanin or any significant amount of melanin to convert one form of energy into another, the sun is their enemy, it's a destrective force of nature to them.

---

Well for ALL people sunlight does help release hormones. For the vitamin D I guess thats why a greater percent of white people can tolerate more lactose...so you may have a point. And hence every other race is then "lactose intolerant", but thats another topic. Then getting vitamin D from milk products.

In the long run its not good for anyone. My mom has a friend who has a tremendous amount of melanin who once thought he was invincible by the sun. Unfortunately it is harder to notice the skin damage on dark skin before its too late. Skin cancer was noticed too late and was harder to treat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by living_undead

so black people cant get sun burnt? can they still get skin cancer?
or does melanin make them immune, like it does to the evil death rays of the sun.

---

I guess I just answered that question. It is a common misconception. It is true that they are far less likely to get burnt after a day outside. Very dark skin has a natural SPF of almost 15. Too bad that this lulls dark skinned people with a false sense of security.

Not all white people are *that* fair skinned and with a tan they can adapt to withstand more radiation without getting burned.

On the other hand I like the imagery of the Sun being the great source of life that it is where one happy race of people benefit and the other evil doers are vampires where the sun kills them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prolifical ENG

Well for ALL people sunlight does help release hormones. For the vitamin D I guess thats why a greater percent of white people can tolerate more lactose...so you may have a point. And hence every other race is then "lactose intolerant", but thats another topic. Then getting vitamin D from milk products.

---

^^^ we are almost there

the bitter truth is not far

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7EL7

^^^ we are almost there

the bitter truth is not far

---

We already had a topic about that here. Too bad you missed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by living_undead

so black people cant get sun burnt? can they still get skin cancer?
or does melanin make them immune, like it does to the evil death rays of the sun.


an interesting fact, white peoples skin produces more Vitamin D than blacks, to counteract the lack of Melanin in the skin. the Vitamin D acts as a coat on the skin which helps reflect the sunlight, so it will do less damage to the skin.

---

white people do not produce more vitamin d than blacks. they lack that ability because they don't have the biochemical (melanin) to cause solar energy to synthesize into vitamin d. this is why white people have so many health problems when it comes to their skeletal system. and having weak bones causes a poor quality of blood for blood is produced in the bone marrow. because "whites" do not produce an adequate amount of vitamin d on their own they must get it from other sources such as milk. for those with high levels of melanin this is not needed.

black not only attracts but absorbs light. black is a magnet for light and the light of the sun is not harmful to blacks as it is harmful to whites or people with very fair skin.

all that light that "white" skin reflects, white sure do get burned alot being out in the sun. sun burn is skin damage and the leading cause of skin cancer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black Man

white people do not produce more vitamin d than blacks. they lack that ability because they don't have the biochemical (melanin) to cause solar energy to synthesize into vitamin d. this is why white people have so many health problems when it comes to their skeletal system. and having weak bones causes a poor quality of blood for blood is produced in the bone marrow. because "whites" do not produce an adequate amount of vitamin d on their own they must get it from other sources such as milk. for those with high levels of melanin this is not needed.

---

I calling out for a vote of bullshit on this paragraph. Can I get someone to second that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prolifical ENG

Well for ALL people sunlight does help release hormones. For the vitamin D I guess thats why a greater percent of white people can tolerate more lactose...so you may have a point. And hence every other race is then "lactose intolerant", but thats another topic. Then getting vitamin D from milk products.

In the long run its not good for anyone. My mom has a friend who has a tremendous amount of melanin who once thought he was invincible by the sun. Unfortunately it is harder to notice the skin damage on dark skin before its too late. Skin cancer was noticed too late and was harder to treat.

I guess I just answered that question. It is a common misconception. It is true that they are far less likely to get burnt after a day outside. Very dark skin has a natural SPF of almost 15. Too bad that this lulls dark skinned people with a false sense of security.

Not all white people are *that* fair skinned and with a tan they can adapt to withstand more radiation without getting burned.

On the other hand I like the imagery of the Sun being the great source of life that it is where one happy race of people benefit and the other evil doers are vampires where the sun kills them.

---

you're very correct that sunlight causes certain hormones to be released during various times of the day. melatonin and seratonin are released based on a biological clock. however, the release of hormones and the glands that produce these hormones are activated and elevated when melaninin is present (in higher levels of concentrations). this effects behavior. sleep during the day and stay up at night you will not feel the same for the hormones released are being released to do a certain job and when some hormones or biochemicals do get released or there's too little then that too effects the attitude, personality, and emotions of a person. just like when a woman experience menapause, the release or lack there of of certain hormones causes the woman to "act" different or experience different things. they can't control their internal temperture; they experience hot flashes. that's being said to show how these biochemicals have specific wide ranging effects on the body.

you're right about the "lactose" thing and i was going to mention it but like you said that's another topic but it's important to know.

i don't see a sense of false security when it comes to "black" people being in the sun. if you check the number of cases of "blacks" who've experienced sun burn or skin cancer patients you will see how low those numbers are. skin cancer in blacks is rare. also keep in mind, that the earth is not in her most healthiest state right now thus effecting the interaction with man and nature. that ozone layer is importan when it comes to filtering out various degrees of light.

you're right again, white people who tend to have darker skin tones have more protection against the sun. but why is that? because the sun has drawn whatever amounts of melanin to the surface giving them more protection from the sun and also more health benefits. this all goes back to melanin. (white) people who've lived in the mediteranean (spelling is f'd up) area for a period of time tend to do better in the sun vs. those who are not accustomed to getting "direct" sun rays like the people of france, england and countries in that area. and to say they "adapt" they don't adapt to the sun their genotype is built to endure or better endure the rays of the sun. either you have or you don't, you can't "adapt" to it, those traits are passed from parent to child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prolifical ENG

Well for ALL people sunlight does help release hormones. For the vitamin D I guess thats why a greater percent of white people can tolerate more lactose...so you may have a point. And hence every other race is then "lactose intolerant", but thats another topic. Then getting vitamin D from milk products.

In the long run its not good for anyone. My mom has a friend who has a tremendous amount of melanin who once thought he was invincible by the sun. Unfortunately it is harder to notice the skin damage on dark skin before its too late. Skin cancer was noticed too late and was harder to treat.

I guess I just answered that question. It is a common misconception. It is true that they are far less likely to get burnt after a day outside. Very dark skin has a natural SPF of almost 15. Too bad that this lulls dark skinned people with a false sense of security.

Not all white people are *that* fair skinned and with a tan they can adapt to withstand more radiation without getting burned.

On the other hand I like the imagery of the Sun being the great source of life that it is where one happy race of people benefit and the other evil doers are vampires where the sun kills them.

---

you're very correct that sunlight causes certain hormones to be released during various times of the day. melatonin and seratonin are released based on a biological clock. however, the release of hormones and the glands that produce these hormones are activated and elevated when melaninin is present (in higher levels of concentrations). this effects behavior. sleep during the day and stay up at night you will not feel the same for the hormones released are being released to do a certain job and when some hormones or biochemicals do get released or there's too little then that too effects the attitude, personality, and emotions of a person. just like when a woman experience menapause, the release or lack there of of certain hormones causes the woman to "act" different or experience different things. they can't control their internal temperture; they experience hot flashes. that's being said to show how these biochemicals have specific wide ranging effects on the body.

you're right about the "lactose" thing and i was going to mention it but like you said that's another topic but it's important to know.

i don't see a sense of false security when it comes to "black" people being in the sun. if you check the number of cases of "blacks" who've experienced sun burn or skin cancer patients you will see how low those numbers are. skin cancer in blacks is rare. also keep in mind, that the earth is not in her most healthiest state right now thus effecting the interaction with man and nature. that ozone layer is importan when it comes to filtering out various degrees of light.

you're right again, white people who tend to have darker skin tones have more protection against the sun. but why is that? because the sun has drawn whatever amounts of melanin to the surface giving them more protection from the sun and also more health benefits. this all goes back to melanin. (white) people who've lived in the mediteranean (spelling is f'd up) area for a period of time tend to do better in the sun vs. those who are not accustomed to getting "direct" sun rays like the people of france, england and countries in that area. and to say they "adapt" they don't adapt to the sun their genotype is built to endure or better endure the rays of the sun. either you have or you don't, you can't "adapt" to it, those traits are passed from parent to child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slippy Capalini

I calling out for a vote of bullshit on this paragraph. Can I get someone to second that?

---

try calling a little louder...

BULL SHIT.

Your turning facts into something they are not, Black man is only black because there is more sun in Africa than there is in Europe. If Europe was the hotter climate due to the sun, White man would be black and vise versa. It is called mutation, every living thing mutates so it can adapt to its surroundings in the best possible way, Being black helps the African inhabitant because YES he can absorb more light. How does this make you God? that is so pig headed and stupid we are not WHITE we do have pigment colouring all color requires light to be reflected, You are not BLACK you also reflect light in order to create a brown colour. If a group of White people moved to Africa after hundreds years of extreme light exposure their spouse would eventually become alot darker, maybe even ''black''. It is all mutation, in Africa the Black man is better suited to that atmosphere and the White man is better suited to a colder atmosphere.

We are ALL Human!

And answer this...is robert mugabi God?
is an innocent white farmer the devil?

And Asian's are NOT black! they are NOT white!
i refare to them as.. Asians i.e Chinese, Japanese ect. or Arabs i.e Iraqi Saudi Arabian ect.

Yes, "adapt" is the wrong word I chose in the strictest sense.

A new thread should be started of what hormones are released from sunlight exposure as I don't think one has been made. It is a little more complex for this thread. A suggest you start it since it appears you have done some research in it.

However, you should check the studies of dark skin and skin cancer. There are countless severe cases because of it is detected late. A great amount of dark skin people die from skin cancer than lighter.

About the atmosphere letting more rays in, there were geological times when the ozone was thinner than it is now for various reasons. Perhaps it was only the original man who lived through it and most survived it. But I only know atmospheric geological timescales....not biological.

I guess a side note of the lactose tolerance it is the Scandinavian very fair skinned people that can tolerate the most from the racial study. During the winter solstice that place is lucky to get 2 hours of sunlight a day. I don't know too much more about it but I guess there has to be a way to stay healthy in the dark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prolifical ENG

Yes, "adapt" is the wrong word I chose in the strictest sense.

- I WASN'T TRYING TO HARP OVER THE WORD "ADAPT" BUT THE LACK OF MELANIN (WHICH IS MORE THAN SKIN PIGMENTATION) IS NOT AN ADAPTION. BEING IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT RECEIVES LESS LIGHT THAN THAT OF THE REGIONS CLOSER TO THE EQUATOR IT WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO HAVE BLACK SKIN BECAUSE THE MELANIN WOULD ATTRACT AND ABSORB A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF SOLAR ENERGY THUS GIVING THOSE PEOPLE THE BENEFIT OF BEING ABLE TO CHANGE SOLAR ENERGY INTO OTHER FORMS OF ENERGY THAT'S NEEDED BY THE BODY. AND KEEP IN MIND THAT SUNBURN OCCURS DURING THE WINTER TIME ALSO. IN AREAS WHERE SNOW COVERS THE GROUND THE REFLECTED LIGHT OFF OF THE SNOW CAN BE MORE INTENSE THAN THE DIRECT SUN LIGHT.....WHEN YOU REFRACT LIGHT YOU CAN MAKE THAT LIGHT ENERGY MORE CONCENTRATED AND POWERFUL....HOLDING A MAGNIFYING GLASS IN THE SUN AT THE RIGHT ANGLE....NOW YOU CAN MELT YOUR G.I. JOE ACTION FIGURES.


A new thread should be started of what hormones are released from sunlight exposure as I don't think one has been made. It is a little more complex for this thread. A suggest you start it since it appears you have done some research in it.

- I AGREE....NOT SO MUCH ABOUT THE COMPLEXITY BUT BECAUSE IT'S A MORE FOCUSED SUBJECT. THIS THREAD HAS THE POTENTION OF BEING QUITE "COMPLEX" HOWEVER IT WOULD TAKE THOSE WHO HAVE A THOROUGH KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING ON THE SUBJECT MATTER TO MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE THAN WHAT IT IS NOW. THERE'S A GOOD AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WHO ONLY SEE SKIN COLOR...THEY DON'T KNOW THE PROPERTIES OF WHAT CAUSES SKIN COLOR OR THE OTHER FUNCTIONS OF THE MOLECULE THAT GIVES PEOPLE THEIR "COLOR"

I THINK YOU SHOULD START IT FOR IT SEEMS AS IF YOU HAVE SOME UNDERSTANDING OF THE BASICS THAT'S INVOLVED. YOU KNOW "PEOPLE OF COLOR" ARE LACTOSE INTOLERENT.....THAT'S NOT EVERYDAY KNOWLEDGE YOU KNOW. I THINK YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SPARK A NICE THREAD ABOUT IT, PLUS YOU KNOW PEOPLE DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT I SAY LIKE THAT SO IT WOULD BE BETTER IF YOU DID IT.

However, you should check the studies of dark skin and skin cancer. There are countless severe cases because of it is detected late. A great amount of dark skin people die from skin cancer than lighter.

THIS I HAVE DONE THROUGHOUT MY YEARS. AS YOU CAN SEE, I'VE NEVER SAID THAT BLACKS NEVER GET SUN BURN OR SKIN CANCER BECAUSE THEY DO. WITH BLACKS THOUGH, THERE'S DIFFERENT REASONS TO THEIR SKIN CANCER IN COMPARISON TO WHITE PEOPLE. WHITES TEND TO GET SKIN CANCER BECAUSE OF OVER EXPOSURE TO THE SUN (SUNBURN) WHILE THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH BLACKS...THERE'S OTHER CAUSES AND DIET IS ONE OF THEM.

THE DEATH RATE OF BLACKS COMPARED TO WHITES MEDICALLY USUALLY IS GREATER BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF MEDICAL ATTENTION BLACKS RECEIVE ESPECIALLY BLACK MALES FOR VARIOUS REASONS.

About the atmosphere letting more rays in, there were geological times when the ozone was thinner than it is now for various reasons. Perhaps it was only the original man who lived through it and most survived it. But I only know atmospheric geological timescales....not biological.

- THERE'S THIN AND THEN THERE'S HOLES IN THE OZONE LAYER...LOL. I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THOUGH. WHEN I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE EARTH AND HER HEALTH, I'M TALKING VERY RECENT TIMES. I'M SURE YOU CAN ATTEST TO WHATS GOING ON WITH THE ENVIRONMENT. THAT'S A RECENT EFFECT (THAT TOOKS SOME YEARS TO PRODUCE).

IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGICAL TIMES BECAUSE BASED ON THAT TIME LINE SCIENTIST HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE PYRAMIDS/SPHINX IS MUCH OLDER THAN WHAT IS TYPICALLY SAID. A. GEO. TIME SCALE, THAT'S NOT MY FIELD OF EXPERTISE ALTHOUGH I KNOW A TAD BIT BUT NOT ENOUGH FOR IT TO BE VERY USEFUL TO ME.

I guess a side note of the lactose tolerance it is the Scandinavian very fair skinned people that can tolerate the most from the racial study. During the winter solstice that place is lucky to get 2 hours of sunlight a day. I don't know too much more about it but I guess there has to be a way to stay healthy in the dark.

---

- THE SCANDINAVIAN THING I'VE READ ABOUT THAT. THINK THIS ONE OVER THOUGH....FOR AS LONG AS THOSE PEOPLE BEEN LIVING ON THAT PART OF THE EARTH, THE ESKIMOS HAVE BEEN LIVING BASICALLY IN THE SAME ARE LATITUDE HOWEVER THEY WERE ABLE TO KEEP THEIR "COLOR"

STAYING HEALTHY IN THE DARK....CHECK OUT THEIR DIET AND SEE WHAT THEY'RE EATING, AND THAT'LL PROB SHED SOME LIGHT ON HOW THEY'RE ABLE TO MAINTAIN A DESCENT LEVEL OF HEALTH.

P.S. WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE LEARNED CONCERNING THAT GEOLOGICAL TIME SCALE?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Make~Sensi*

BULL SHIT.

Your turning facts into something they are not, Black man is only black because there is more sun in Africa than there is in Europe. If Europe was the hotter climate due to the sun, White man would be black and vise versa. It is called mutation, every living thing mutates so it can adapt to its surroundings in the best possible way, Being black helps the African inhabitant because YES he can absorb more light. How does this make you God? that is so pig headed and stupid we are not WHITE we do have pigment colouring all color requires light to be reflected, You are not BLACK you also reflect light in order to create a brown colour. If a group of White people moved to Africa after hundreds years of extreme light exposure their spouse would eventually become alot darker, maybe even ''black''. It is all mutation, in Africa the Black man is better suited to that atmosphere and the White man is better suited to a colder atmosphere.

We are ALL Human!

And answer this...is robert mugabi God?
is an innocent white farmer the devil?

And Asian's are NOT black! they are NOT white!
i refare to them as.. Asians i.e Chinese, Japanese ect. or Arabs i.e Iraqi Saudi Arabian ect.

---

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS MEETING:
European Skin Turned Pale Only Recently, Gene Suggests
Ann Gibbons
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA–At the American Association of Physical Anthropologists meeting, held here from 28 to 31 March, a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggested that Europeans acquired pale skin quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago.
Science 20 April 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5823, p. 364
DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5823.364a
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/316/5823/364a
Comments on the recent genetic studies:
This research conducted by Europeans descendants seeking the roots of their origin supports the view that the first pale-skin European was born 6,000 years ago. In 2005, researchers linked the paleness of the modern European skin to a mutation in gene SLC 24A5. Its implication is immense if fully comprehended. The “whites” or Caucasians are not native to Europe as noted by Sokal. Haak et al (2006)
1.5 million years ago when human beings first began to evolve in Africa, they had Black skin. 100,000 years ago when anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa, they gave rise to the Black man and woman.
They lived in Africa as Black people, some of these people left Africa, 50,000 years ago as Black people, entered Europe as Black people, and they settled and lived in Europe as Black people until 6,000 years ago when the mutation that gave rise to the pale-skin arose.
Rogers posits that all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today’s Africans; their skin was black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein (Rogers 2004:107).
Nina Jablonski claims that dark skin evolved pari passu with the loss of body hair and was the original state for the genus Homo.
Furthermore, it is generally accepted as argued by Rogers that the descendants of any people who migrate North from Africa will mutate to become white over time because the evolutionary constraint that keeps Africans’ skin black generation after generation decreases generally the further North a people migrates (Rogers 2004).
However the surprise is that this mutation only occurred after more than 45,000 years in which only Black-skinned African people lived in Europe as its original human aboriginals. It cannot be over-emphasized that it was only in the last 6,000 years that the pale-skin (aka whiteman) first appeared.
The mutation gene must have spread gradually (as often occurs with new mutation) from that time but it surely would have taken another two or three thousand years down the line before it would become the dominant European profile. That makes it just three thousand years ago.
It was only three thousand years ago that whiteman became the dominant type in an African-owned Europe! Before that it was Black-skinned African. For more than 48,000 years Black-skinned Africans would have been the only Europeans!!! Europe was discovered and mapped by Black skin Africans. Europe of yesterday, today and tomorrow will ever remain Africa’s heritage.
Osteological Evidence:
In 2006, Brace a leading authority in anthropology conducted osteological analysis on several skeletal remains dating from neolithic Europe.
According to Brace:
“Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other.
When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other.
The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe.
It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa.
……………………..
The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic (i.e. Natufians with a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa) moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.
C. Loring Brace: The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form; PNAS | January 3, 2006 | vol. 103 | no. 1 | 242-247
There are no skeletons of the Caucasian type. The findings of Brace et al make it clear that there were no “whites’ in ancient Europe. There were only Black Africans living there until the coming of the Europeans as noted by DuBois, Diop and Boule & Vallois.
Again another piece of incontrovertible scientific evidence that the Paleolithic Europeans were Blacks. The skeletal remains of these people as noted by Boule and Vallois recalled the tropical African type.
“So striking”, writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.” (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
Geneticist Peter Underhill refines the facts:
About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about 35,000 years ago, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows.
Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago.
The basic pattern had some changes that apparently developed among people who once shared a common ancestor and then were isolated for many generations.
This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups.
Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 35,000 years ago.
Their numbers were small and they lived by hunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.
“About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe.
The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.
“When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges.
About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration [African Y chromosome E3b and SouthWest Asian J].

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Make~Sensi*

BULL SHIT.

Your turning facts into something they are not, Black man is only black because there is more sun in Africa than there is in Europe. If Europe was the hotter climate due to the sun, White man would be black and vise versa. It is called mutation, every living thing mutates so it can adapt to its surroundings in the best possible way, Being black helps the African inhabitant because YES he can absorb more light. How does this make you God? that is so pig headed and stupid we are not WHITE we do have pigment colouring all color requires light to be reflected, You are not BLACK you also reflect light in order to create a brown colour. If a group of White people moved to Africa after hundreds years of extreme light exposure their spouse would eventually become alot darker, maybe even ''black''. It is all mutation, in Africa the Black man is better suited to that atmosphere and the White man is better suited to a colder atmosphere.

We are ALL Human!

And answer this...is robert mugabi God?
is an innocent white farmer the devil?

And Asian's are NOT black! they are NOT white!
i refare to them as.. Asians i.e Chinese, Japanese ect. or Arabs i.e Iraqi Saudi Arabian ect.

---

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS MEETING:
European Skin Turned Pale Only Recently, Gene Suggests
Ann Gibbons
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA–At the American Association of Physical Anthropologists meeting, held here from 28 to 31 March, a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggested that Europeans acquired pale skin quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago.
Science 20 April 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5823, p. 364
DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5823.364a
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/316/5823/364a
Comments on the recent genetic studies:
This research conducted by Europeans descendants seeking the roots of their origin supports the view that the first pale-skin European was born 6,000 years ago. In 2005, researchers linked the paleness of the modern European skin to a mutation in gene SLC 24A5. Its implication is immense if fully comprehended. The “whites” or Caucasians are not native to Europe as noted by Sokal. Haak et al (2006)
1.5 million years ago when human beings first began to evolve in Africa, they had Black skin. 100,000 years ago when anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa, they gave rise to the Black man and woman.
They lived in Africa as Black people, some of these people left Africa, 50,000 years ago as Black people, entered Europe as Black people, and they settled and lived in Europe as Black people until 6,000 years ago when the mutation that gave rise to the pale-skin arose.
Rogers posits that all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today’s Africans; their skin was black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein (Rogers 2004:107).
Nina Jablonski claims that dark skin evolved pari passu with the loss of body hair and was the original state for the genus Homo.
Furthermore, it is generally accepted as argued by Rogers that the descendants of any people who migrate North from Africa will mutate to become white over time because the evolutionary constraint that keeps Africans’ skin black generation after generation decreases generally the further North a people migrates (Rogers 2004).
However the surprise is that this mutation only occurred after more than 45,000 years in which only Black-skinned African people lived in Europe as its original human aboriginals. It cannot be over-emphasized that it was only in the last 6,000 years that the pale-skin (aka whiteman) first appeared.
The mutation gene must have spread gradually (as often occurs with new mutation) from that time but it surely would have taken another two or three thousand years down the line before it would become the dominant European profile. That makes it just three thousand years ago.
It was only three thousand years ago that whiteman became the dominant type in an African-owned Europe! Before that it was Black-skinned African. For more than 48,000 years Black-skinned Africans would have been the only Europeans!!! Europe was discovered and mapped by Black skin Africans. Europe of yesterday, today and tomorrow will ever remain Africa’s heritage.
Osteological Evidence:
In 2006, Brace a leading authority in anthropology conducted osteological analysis on several skeletal remains dating from neolithic Europe.
According to Brace:
“Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other.
When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other.
The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe.
It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa.
……………………..
The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic (i.e. Natufians with a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa) moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.
C. Loring Brace: The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form; PNAS | January 3, 2006 | vol. 103 | no. 1 | 242-247
There are no skeletons of the Caucasian type. The findings of Brace et al make it clear that there were no “whites’ in ancient Europe. There were only Black Africans living there until the coming of the Europeans as noted by DuBois, Diop and Boule & Vallois.
Again another piece of incontrovertible scientific evidence that the Paleolithic Europeans were Blacks. The skeletal remains of these people as noted by Boule and Vallois recalled the tropical African type.
“So striking”, writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.” (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)
Geneticist Peter Underhill refines the facts:
About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about 35,000 years ago, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows.
Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago.
The basic pattern had some changes that apparently developed among people who once shared a common ancestor and then were isolated for many generations.
This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups.
Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 35,000 years ago.
Their numbers were small and they lived by hunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.
“About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe.
The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.
“When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges.
About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration [African Y chromosome E3b and SouthWest Asian J].

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black Man

try calling a little louder...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Make~Sensi*

BULL SHIT.

Your turning facts into something they are not, Black man is only black because there is more sun in Africa than there is in Europe. If Europe was the hotter climate due to the sun, White man would be black and vise versa. It is called mutation, every living thing mutates so it can adapt to its surroundings in the best possible way, Being black helps the African inhabitant because YES he can absorb more light. How does this make you God? that is so pig headed and stupid we are not WHITE we do have pigment colouring all color requires light to be reflected, You are not BLACK you also reflect light in order to create a brown colour. If a group of White people moved to Africa after hundreds years of extreme light exposure their spouse would eventually become alot darker, maybe even ''black''. It is all mutation, in Africa the Black man is better suited to that atmosphere and the White man is better suited to a colder atmosphere.

We are ALL Human!

And answer this...is robert mugabi God?
is an innocent white farmer the devil?

And Asian's are NOT black! they are NOT white!
i refare to them as.. Asians i.e Chinese, Japanese ect. or Arabs i.e Iraqi Saudi Arabian ect.

---

:tease:








I have a theory that if you take people from similar climates before the oldest human fossils found in africa and asia, at opppisite points of latitude and longitude on the globe, you'll still find very different physical traits including differences in skin pigmetation.

Any one to care to expand on this theory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prolifical ENG

We already had a topic about that here. Too bad you missed it.

---

i guarantee you

you didn't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black Man

white people do not produce more vitamin d than blacks. they lack that ability because they don't have the biochemical (melanin) to cause solar energy to synthesize into vitamin d. this is why white people have so many health problems when it comes to their skeletal system. and having weak bones causes a poor quality of blood for blood is produced in the bone marrow. because "whites" do not produce an adequate amount of vitamin d on their own they must get it from other sources such as milk. for those with high levels of melanin this is not needed.

black not only attracts but absorbs light. black is a magnet for light and the light of the sun is not harmful to blacks as it is harmful to whites or people with very fair skin.

all that light that "white" skin reflects, white sure do get burned alot being out in the sun. sun burn is skin damage and the leading cause of skin cancer.

---

With humans, exposure to sunlight stimulates the liver to produce vitamin D. Because high levels of cutaneous melanin act as a natural sun screen, dark skin can be a risk factor for vitamin D deficiency.

In Scotland, which lies at a northern latitude, descendants of the Britons have white skin. When their skin is exposed to the meager sunlight, the scant amount of melanin their skin produces is unable to block the sunlight. Therefore, their bodies are able to make Vitamin D with the help of sunlight. Vitamin D, a vitamin found in fish oil, is necessary to prevent rickets, a bone disease caused by too little calcium.

In contrast, in Africa, which is near the equator, humans require intense sunlight to penetrate their dark skin to make Vitamin D. This is all well and good. However, when blacks lived in England during the Industrial Revolution, they were the first to develop symptoms of rickets, such as retarded growth, bowed legs and fractures because not enough sunlight was available.


source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin

Ok I think what I am saying will forever go over Make Sensi's head.

Also, Slippy you are wrong. A white person will not absorb as much as anyone else.

I live in Australia. I have seen it. I have had it. I have been very sick with sun stroke...and I am sure I could quite easily die in an Australian summer day with no protection if I tried...in fact my sisters boyfriend almost did in about 4 hours and he can handle alot more sun than me.

Around the end of the 90s some dumb english back packers here died from sun burn - full body burns.

LMAO ...how much sun a person can handle depends entirely on the person!

People say some funny things....if that was true none of us would be different colours!

LMAO!!!! What black man said is exactly what I said in another thread about vitamin D and calcium absorption!!!!!!!! AND IT IS NOT BULLSHIT!

I read it in scientific America. It leads to blacks having weaker bones and whites having more mental illnesses. That is why we are tending toward a medium skin colour as time goes on.

What is bullshit is the people who can't objectively recognize differences in races, maybe they are the closet racists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies

Ok I think what I am saying will forever go over Make Sensi's head.

Also, Slippy you are wrong. A white person will not absorb as much as anyone else.

I live in Australia. I have seen it. I have had it. I have been very sick with sun stroke...and I am sure I could quite easily die in an Australian summer day with no protection if I tried...in fact my sisters boyfriend almost did in about 4 hours and he can handle alot more sun than me.

Around the end of the 90s some dumb english back packers here died from sun burn - full body burns.

---

That's just a few white people that can't handle the sun.

A few white people do not repersent a large variety of white people in different physical conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies

LMAO ...how much sun a person can handle depends entirely on the person!

People say some funny things....if that was true none of us would be different colours!

---

I siad this already, so if you agree with what i'm saying why did you say I was wrong?

white people react to the sun in the same basic way...they burn

I was laughing at what you said! It is ridiculous!

How much stress from sun light a person can handle depends on their skin color. Now amongst white this will vary but if a white person could handle as much as a black person they would be as dark as the black person!

It's like saying strength depends on a person and not muscle size....it is ridiculous....I just don't know how someone can say it and not see anything wrong with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies

I was laughing at what you said! It is ridiculous!

How much stress from sun light a person can handle depends on their skin color. Now amongst white this will vary but if a white person could handle as much as a black person they would be as dark as the black person!

It's like saying strength depends on a person and not muscle size....it is ridiculous....I just don't know how someone can say it and not see anything wrong with it.

---

Using your analogy of muscles (even though muscles aren't melanin)

Say you have someone who works out quite a bit everyday.

But when it's time to physically move all the boxes of fine china out of the warehouse, he starts whining....

"I don't want to move all the boxes, this sucks..."

Now you have someone, who never works out his muscles:

"I'm going to stay here until all the boxes are moved!"

Despite the fact this person never works out and is not as physically equipped as the muscle bound man, it's his will and determination that helps him get the job done.

Slippy, I see what you are saying. BUT your approach is totally unscientific for this reason: if you want to examine one factor you have to hold others constant to see the effect of it.

Now, I am not denying an individual's will, determination, motivation and conditioning do play a role in a person's ability. But what I do say is that if you take two people with equal will, determination, motivation and conditioning to move some heavy weight....the person with larger muscles will be more able at this.

Also, two people with equal determination and will etc to stay in the sun - if one is dark and one light the dark one (all other factors being equal) the dark one will ALWAYS last longer...since both would take as much as they can physically handle and the white skin would give out first.

Also, if a white person were to force themselves to stand more sun than they could take (which is definitely possible, will can greatly push one beyond normal limits), there are negative affects on both the body and long term effects on the skin. I live in Australia. Highest rate of skin cancer in the world. Odds are I already have skin cancers that will be removed one day. I know more than a few white people over fourty here who have had skin cancers removed. It is a huge killer here. All these people chose to handle more sun than was comfortable at one point - and many will die because of it. So you don't get something for nothing - ever.

Now I could stay out in the sun longer than a black person if I REALLY wanted to. But if we both really wanted to (say the first one to give in would be killed) then I would fry before the black person gave in. Also, I would reach my physical limit (of what is healthy) in the sun first...and therefore even in the first situation were I beat him I would incurr more damage to my body than him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies

Slippy, I see what you are saying. BUT your approach is totally unscientific for this reason: if you want to examine one factor you have to hold others constant to see the effect of it.

Now, I am not denying an individual's will, determination, motivation and conditioning do play a role in a person's ability. But what I do say is that if you take two people with equal will, determination, motivation and conditioning to move some heavy weight....the person with larger muscles will be more able at this.

Also, two people with equal determination and will etc to stay in the sun - if one is dark and one light the dark one (all other factors being equal) the dark one will ALWAYS last longer...since both would take as much as they can physically handle and the white skin would give out first.

Also, if a white person were to force themselves to stand more sun than they could take (which is definitely possible, will can greatly push one beyond normal limits), there are negative affects on both the body and long term effects on the skin. I live in Australia. Highest rate of skin cancer in the world. Odds are I already have skin cancers that will be removed one day. I know more than a few white people over fourty here who have had skin cancers removed. It is a huge killer here. All these people chose to handle more sun than was comfortable at one point - and many will die because of it. So you don't get something for nothing - ever.

Now I could stay out in the sun longer than a black person if I REALLY wanted to. But if we both really wanted to (say the first one to give in would be killed) then I would fry before the black person gave in. Also, I would reach my physical limit (of what is healthy) in the sun first...and therefore even in the first situation were I beat him I would incurr more damage to my body than him.

---

I never claimed that white people don't burn easier. That's affront to reason, I don't have time to play patty cake over misunderstandings.

I just claimed that the amount of sun a person can handle isn't solely dependent on skin color.

If you throw flesh on the skillet, your still making fajitas at the same rate. Doesn't matter if it's chicken or steak.

Under your analogy again:

Two people from different ethnic backgrounds with equal determination stand in the sun to see who will survive the longest. They'll both die of thirst or heat stroke within minutes of each other. The minutes will decide who's gonna come through in a clutch.

You could throw in another factor ~like water~ but that would be cheating. People can always adjust the parameter of the experiment to their liking.

It's funny how you bring up "equality" when I'm the one trying to express equality between people.

People want to be "equal" but "equality" is not "individuality." So which is it?

You are the one picking at small points. yes, maybe they would both die of thirst....maybe not...I KNOW I could do my self some serious sun burn damage before dying of thirst...and like I said those Enlgish back packers here a few years back did not die of THIRST, the died from 3rd degree sunburns....so it would depend on the type of heat etc...we could give them water bottles. Besides....it seems melanin protects people from long term effects like skin cancer more importantly.

And it did sound like an affront to reason. Because I never said that skin color was the ONLY (I notice with you if I don't spell out everything I am not saying you assume what you like) factor in determining a persons tolerance to the sun. But it is the MAJOR factor in my opinion, especially because it is the one we have the least control over. Accross any population of people you will find varying degrees of the other factors, however skin color is very closely correlated to race! So I feel making the statement "black people tolerate the sun better than white people" is fine. If you want to stupidly infer that I am saying "All black people handle the sun better than all white people, and no factors but skin color play any role at all in the matter" - then good luck to you in life my friend :s

I feel sorry for you if you some how think you are making people equal here. I handle less sun than a black person, and you think that you should argue for white peoples' sun tolerance here to equate us with blacks? Do you really think the measure of a person is in how much sun they can handle? Yes, when it comes to sun tolerance I am inferior to people with dark skin. People with dark skin are at a disadvantage when it comes to swimming (not that I swim). The point it there are certain things in races that differ. To me that is fine, it makes us DIFFERENT - not inequal.

You are looking at it with these factors - what should we do make a scorecard and award points for all the different criteria?
- sun tolerance
-cold tolerance
- running
-swimming

and into all aspects of life? If you do this you will see there will be some categories where races strongly differ. You must be assuming that if people have different potentialities in different areas, one type of people some how matter more than another and you idea of equality is trying to rationalize all people to be equal in all categories - once again, good luck to you.

The way I see it is totally different. Human equality isn't based on a person's external abilities etc....it is based on the respect that DESPITE differences between all people we share fundamental similarities of having feelings, of being loved, of wanting to be happy, of wanting respect. We are NOT equal in the sense of being exactly the same. We are equal in value in humanity. 1+2+3=3+3 Notice how that appears in different forms of equal value? That is every human on this planet.

The truth is on any given level we are not all equal. Every different type of person has a use and we all compliment each other in the body of humanity. Now, I am fine with the fact that I am not made for the sun like black people, coz they are made for the cold like me. There is always a balancing advantage in any given disadvantage.

A good example of this is a while back I visited a Buddhist Temple and the was a nun there with a very dark purple birth-mark over her entire face. My first thought was one of feeling sorry for her, then I thought maybe having such an obvious birth mark prevented her from ever getting caught up in vanity etc....maybe it was a huge contributing factor that lead her to something more real (I don't know for sure if it was, but you get the idea of what I am saying).

Its like being short. In a fight you have less reach, but you have the lower center of gravity. Or that kid in a wheel chair I saw on Oprah who died really young, yet probably had more insight into life and lived a more full life than alot of people who live to 70 years. Infact, seeming disadvantages can often be great gifts when seen in a bigger perspective.

Also, I see no need to justify anything I lack in. I burn easily? So what. That is ME. I am happy with who I am, and I don't try and convince myself I am great in all areas, I just try to be the best me given the advantages and disadvantages I have been given.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies

You are the one picking at small points. yes, maybe they would both die of thirst....maybe not...I KNOW I could do my self some serious sun burn damage before dying of thirst...and like I said those Enlgish back packers here a few years back did not die of THIRST, the died from 3rd degree sunburns....so it would depend on the type of heat etc...we could give them water bottles. Besides....it seems melanin protects people from long term effects like skin cancer more importantly.

And it did sound like an affront to reason. Because I never said that skin color was the ONLY (I notice with you if I don't spell out everything I am not saying you assume what you like) factor in determining a persons tolerance to the sun. But it is the MAJOR factor in my opinion, especially because it is the one we have the least control over. Accross any population of people you will find varying degrees of the other factors, however skin color is very closely correlated to race! So I feel making the statement "black people tolerate the sun better than white people" is fine. If you want to stupidly infer that I am saying "All black people handle the sun better than all white people, and no factors but skin color play any role at all in the matter" - then good luck to you in life my friend :s

I feel sorry for you if you some how think you are making people equal here. I handle less sun than a black person, and you think that you should argue for white peoples' sun tolerance here to equate us with blacks? Do you really think the measure of a person is in how much sun they can handle? Yes, when it comes to sun tolerance I am inferior to people with dark skin. People with dark skin are at a disadvantage when it comes to swimming (not that I swim). The point it there are certain things in races that differ. To me that is fine, it makes us DIFFERENT - not inequal.

You are looking at it with these factors - what should we do make a scorecard and award points for all the different criteria?
- sun tolerance
-cold tolerance
- running
-swimming

and into all aspects of life? If you do this you will see there will be some categories where races strongly differ. You must be assuming that if people have different potentialities in different areas, one type of people some how matter more than another and you idea of equality is trying to rationalize all people to be equal in all categories - once again, good luck to you.

The way I see it is totally different. Human equality isn't based on a person's external abilities etc....it is based on the respect that DESPITE differences between all people we share fundamental similarities of having feelings, of being loved, of wanting to be happy, of wanting respect. We are NOT equal in the sense of being exactly the same. We are equal in value in humanity. 1+2+3=3+3 Notice how that appears in different forms of equal value? That is every human on this planet.

The truth is on any given level we are not all equal. Every different type of person has a use and we all compliment each other in the body of humanity. Now, I am fine with the fact that I am not made for the sun like black people, coz they are made for the cold like me. There is always a balancing advantage in any given disadvantage.

A good example of this is a while back I visited a Buddhist Temple and the was a nun there with a very dark purple birth-mark over her entire face. My first thought was one of feeling sorry for her, then I thought maybe having such an obvious birth mark prevented her from ever getting caught up in vanity etc....maybe it was a huge contributing factor that lead her to something more real (I don't know for sure if it was, but you get the idea of what I am saying).

Its like being short. In a fight you have less reach, but you have the lower center of gravity. Or that kid in a wheel chair I saw on Oprah who died really young, yet probably had more insight into life and lived a more full life than alot of people who live to 70 years. Infact, seeming disadvantages can often be great gifts when seen in a bigger perspective.

Also, I see no need to justify anything I lack in. I burn easily? So what. That is ME. I am happy with who I am, and I don't try and convince myself I am great in all areas, I just try to be the best me given the advantages and disadvantages I have been given.

---

:frusty:


In a controlled environment, you can take any two people with different skin tones in the whole world, equally matched physically, mentally what ever......

It would only prove:

Man A stood in the sun longer than Man B, on August 16.

That's the reality of this whole dialog we're having here.





So now you feel sorry for me because I'm speaking against whites being "sub-human" when compared to the Black Man Godly counter-part? Which has no real scientific basis.




And you agreed with everything I've said so far, and I agreed whites are most likely to burn quicker:

So what made you feel you had to write a book about it?

It sounded like you were trying to play down any role of skin in sun exposure tolerance.

Ok, so far we largely agree.

Now - here is something you have misunderstood from me. I never said whites where sub-human! I said they were a sub-group of humans. As in a group inside a group since all non-africans descended from 2 single Africans.

And my only point here is that Africans contain all genes of all other people, while other people only contain some of the African genes....roughly...I am sure it's more complicated....

BUT

My only point was this fits in pretty well with the Yacub theory is it is seen as a metaphor. All humans are "grafted" from Africans.

I never was implying whites were sub-human. LOL I am white!

See, alot of people on these boards like to shoot down 5% and NOI stuff - to me I guess I just take a different approach. I grew up with it and alot of it inspired me and I just learnt to learn from it anything I can and disregard the rest.

Also, if I undestand you correctly, your point to save whites from sub-humanity was to demonstrate that will can overcome nature?

If this is so then that is exactly how I see it also. If a "white" person wants to stay in the sun (knowledge) bad enough, they can, despite their weaker starting position will themselves to withstand more light than many "blacks."

This reminds me of something I read from an Islamic point of view that humans can be higher than angels because when we ovecome the lower-self, we use it as a step to elevate us up.

Now, whether Elijah Muhammed only ever meant his teachings to be literal, or to also contain a deeper meaning - I don't know. Some things though make me think that under the racism there is some working knowledge. I have take the "black man" simply to be the ungrafted, complete, righteous person. And the "white man" - as the devil, basically the opposite. Regardless of your biological skin color you will be either "white" if devilish, or "black" if Godly.

If there were a deeper meaning then why the racism? I think because the truth is black people literally were (in general in America) opressed and white people were generally devilish (and there is still a long way to go before things are right). The racism was a practical gimmick that attracted the angry people who needed it most and hid the knowlege inside it.

Alot of people, 5%ers and otherwise, will probably disagree with this view. And I am not even claiming it to be right. But being white it makes the teachings of some use to me and that's why I look at them in this way. Right or not - it has been helpful to me and that's right.

LMAO, is Robert Mugabi a God!?


So, white skinned people burn easier in the sun? OK that makes sense and black skinned people are less likely to burn as fast? OK , that also makes sense. The sun is knowledge? OK nice metaphore. So thats how your conclusion came about? Umm i think Maybe Trees are God if the point your trying to prove is really true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies

It sounded like you were trying to play down any role of skin in sun exposure tolerance.

Ok, so far we largely agree.

Now - here is something you have misunderstood from me. I never said whites where sub-human! I said they were a sub-group of humans. As in a group inside a group since all non-africans descended from 2 single Africans.

And my only point here is that Africans contain all genes of all other people, while other people only contain some of the African genes....roughly...I am sure it's more complicated....

BUT

My only point was this fits in pretty well with the Yacub theory is it is seen as a metaphor. All humans are "grafted" from Africans.

I never was implying whites were sub-human. LOL I am white!

See, alot of people on these boards like to shoot down 5% and NOI stuff - to me I guess I just take a different approach. I grew up with it and alot of it inspired me and I just learnt to learn from it anything I can and disregard the rest.

---

I know you weren't implying white are sub-human, but others were.

That's why a took a stance on the subject and we ended up in this mess over individuality versus equality.

A large portion of the Native American population died after first contact with foregien(european) diseases.

Can we conclude that Native Americans are a sub-human species, because they didn't have the immune system to fight these diseases?

Of coarse not, but people will analyze the data however they want.






All people grafted from Africans? I don't know about that, but if that's the case all people are grafted from monkeys.

Fuck that Theory, that's all i'm gonna say about that.

They are not sub-human. But they are a sub-genetic pool.

It is true that all people come from two Africans. The book I mentioned earlier Out of Eden is really good.

And why would we be grafted from monkeys? We didn't come from monkeys, nor are we even direct descendants of neanderthrals, or homo erectis etc....we just had alot in common with them. I think science owes alot of apologies for some things they have implied and still leave implied

Also, the difference would be in that we all descended from only TWO africans...that is why we are a sub-group. Had it been that all African lines that left Africa had survived in us then we wouldn't be "grafted" (a sub-genetic pool) we would simply be africans who had changed to look different.

As for there being a different meaning underlying the racism in the teachings, just last night I was reading the greatest story ever told and realised it was like the biblical exodus...it can be read on two levels. They took all the Africans on the good ship "Jesus" 9000 miles away from their home. Is the good ship Jesus a real ship? Coz to me it sounded like they were taken away from their "home" by Christianity...and 9000 could to me mean that they have to go through 9 levels of 1 to 9 (to be reborn) and the three 0s represent the 3 levels of understanding that they say in the 120 to get you 360 degrees of knowledge (knowledge, wisdom, understanding on each level 1 through to 9 = 3 * 9 = 27 = 2+7= 9 = BORN).

See, is this an accident? There is definitely a meaning beyond the literal words. The 5% and supreme alphabet and mathematics and rearranging words etc...I have realised is basically an english Kabbalah for black people.




And Make Sensi do you even read a thing I say? LOL

well, lets be honest, its not nearly as sophisticated as the kabbalah; its kind of like baby numerology. but it has a noble goal, to elevate minds out of darkness and harmful patterns. as far as this topic goes, i think a healthy dose of taoism and gnosticism would do everyone some good. were all tied to the universe...and our own unique perceptions. if you believe you are god, or a god...well, you are in a way. in your way. but not in an objective sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies

The Sun is knowledge.

---

*milk shoots out nose*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Make~Sensi*

Black man comes from Hotter climates, So in order to survive the sun they are darker because black absorbs all colour's in the spectrum.

White man comes from colder climates, So in order to survive they have not needed darker skin to absorb the sun, White man can withstand the cold more.

---

this is true. human bodies adapt to weather/diet/environment over time (notice i said adapt, not evolve). peruvians have a greater lung capacity due to the elevation they live in. ive mentioned all of this before, and there is plenty of research on the subject. so-called 'race' is basically a creation of environment. it is fact that whites can tolerate cold more effectively; there are plenty of studies of what human skin of different types does when thrust in ice water, etc. there are some very interesting studies of native australian populations and the way their skin pores open and close due to wild shifts in temperature from day to night. if you really open your eyes and mind, i think the fact that the human body can adapt to different conditions in so many myriad ways is beautiful, not something to have a pissing contest about.

Yes ^ the difference between adaptions and evolution seem to ellude many people.

I think I know what you mean with the Taoism stuff. You only get to be a God when it's no longer you being the God, what a catch.

And yes it may be baby Kabbalah, but it has provided us all with some nice lyrics.

I also agree, everything has its place in the whole. God created the devil and let him tempt us.

I was watching national geographic, they traced back to the first man then built a face sculpture..It was a black man. If we evolve from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Is God Gay? We are built in his image.