We already had a topic about that here. Too bad you missed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7EL7
Printable View
We already had a topic about that here. Too bad you missed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7EL7
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by living_undead
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
I calling out for a vote of bullshit on this paragraph. Can I get someone to second that?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prolifical ENG
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prolifical ENG
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.
try calling a little louder...Quote:
Originally Posted by Slippy Capalini
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.
- 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"Quote:
Originally Posted by Prolifical ENG
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?
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS MEETING:Quote:
Originally Posted by Make~Sensi*
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].
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS MEETING:Quote:
Originally Posted by Make~Sensi*
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
:tease:Quote:
Originally Posted by Make~Sensi*
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?
i guarantee youQuote:
Originally Posted by Prolifical ENG
you didn't
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Man
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.