Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Where do white people come from ?
Poll Does any one know where the original homeland of white people was located ?
I recently learned that all other races of people on this planet had and still have ancestral lands that their evolutionary ancestry can be tied to except white people.
It has been postulated but as yet it is still largely unproven that white people evolved in the lands and regions surrounding the area of the Caucasus Mountains.
I enjoy reading about the past and this is a mystery that science as of today still have not been able to answer.
You're missing a "none of the above" choice. The modern ethnicity that shares the most genetic features of European people are the Basque, who may or may not have descended from the Iberian people. However, light skinned people also evolved in the near-east and northern Africa.
One thing that is as close to certain as any such study can be sure of is that the skin tone generally talked about as being "white" did not evolve in any of the countries that you have listed in your poll.
It has been postulated but as yet it is still largely unproven that white people evolved in the lands and regions surrounding the area of the Caucasus Mountains.
That's the claim of a "caucasian" ethnicity. It doesn't actually exist. It was a colonial-period invention used to try to justify racist attitudes.
Great thread to start - as many people are starting to get interested in this based on the new findings about African descent. Zom Zom, fantastic response, and I was looking for a "none of the above" answer, too. :) Off to find the link for that study that's currently being completed...
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/04/30/2756926-africans-have-worlds-greatest-genetic-variation
Here it is! :)
white people came from where every other person came from, a little place called Africa. of course it wasn't called Africa back then. It's the birthplace of humans.
Check out the National Geographic Human Genome project. They use DNA swabs to track human migrations via mitochondria and Y chromosomes. It's pretty cool.
Also, there are some theories that humans expanded into Europe, then the Ice Age killed off most of them and the rest retreated south, then the second wave went back into Europe and really took off from there.
Sorry to nitpick, but, Zom, when you refer to ethnicity, you really mean race. Ethnicity is an entirely social construct. Race is biological.
Just because my parents are of Polish ancestry doesn't mean that I'm Polish.
Mike;
Sorry to nitpick, but, Zom, when you refer to ethnicity, you really mean race. Ethnicity is an entirely social construct. Race is biological.
And there is only one race. The Human race.
Race is not a biological concept, there are no races as people commonly use the term, pseudoscience beginning over a century ago created many theories about race using a variety of methods. One such type of ignorance is also the origin of the myth about the Caucasus Mountains that is not based on any science, but on craniology. These concepts were more about confirming prejudices than a genuine attempt to classify.
It cannot be said for most humans they have an "original homeland" accept for Africa, where we all came from. The whole human species can be traced back to a period where our numbers were very small in Africa. Europe was populated by humans from Africa in multiple migrations over thousands of years, but these populations weren't isolated in Europe, genes still flowed to and from Europe.
A study of genetics suggested that a small group that lived in Siberia for a time, migrated to the Americas, and were isolated from the rest of humanity until Europeans sailed across the Atlantic. All Native Americans the study suggested, are descended from this group and all are related. Again, no such "homeland" they came from for these people, but there was a "homeland" they came to, at least two continents they alone lived for a while.
This isn't a question science is asking because it doesn't make any sense in the context of what we do know about human migration.
where some of the old predjudice is still occasionaly accurate and cannot tell a slavik person from a nordic person.
Huh?
And race is certainly a biological concept. From the first homo sapiens sapiens evolved different races depending in the evolutionary context in which they developed. Facial characteristics and skin tone are two different adaptations based on biological evolution of the species.
Ethnicity is quite different. The development of ethnicity evolves from social interaction. Language is the primary social development of any social group. From it humans develop their own sense of normal behavior based on the cultural adaptations that evolve from sociocultural evolution.
African-Americans are no more African than a white person from the suburbs, ethnically. But African-Americans quite obviously share particular biological characteristics with Africans.
Sorry to nitpick, but, Zom, when you refer to ethnicity, you really mean race. Ethnicity is an entirely social construct. Race is biological.
I meant ethnicity.
I was talking about the Basque. They're an ethnicity--not a race. There are a lot of theories about why they have the high concentration of distinctive European genes that they do. Some of the theories run along the lines of their being descendants of the Iberian peoples. Others argue that it's simply a population whose culture became isolated, and so preserved the largest number of those genes.
I used ethnicity over race because I'm not taking a side in whether they're the most-direct descendants of the original Europeans, or whether it is a result of a cultural phenomenon (plus, I don't believe that "races" exist).
It's not clear whether they are a distinct race, but it is clear that they are a distinct ethnicity and culture, and that, regardless of where the genes come from, it's the ethnicity (isolated culture) that preserves them.
If one is a pregnant female, the next time you have an opportunity to have a little "heart to heart" talk with your obstetric & gynecologic physician during your pregnancy, just ask what color the little critter is when it pops out of a womb; then, how long it takes to change toward your racial orientation. You just might be surprised.
I think the poll should have "all of the above" as an answer. And then some.
As for the Basques, their language is also distinct. We know little about its origins.
My question is, when did ethnicity fall by the wayside in America in favor of white, black, and other? Why the embrace of such generics?
I would have said - all of the above. Thanks to ZomZom, I learned something here! It seems odd that a group would have originated from North Africa as caucasian features adapted with a cooler climate I thought. Renard, thanks for bringing up this subject, it was very enlightening.
I have read that white people come from the stars and that they landed in more sparsely populated cooler regions of the earth. I think I read it in a book of legends.
I have idea if it even remotely true but it is interesting to think that the white race may be aliens.
I think it is possible that all the different races may have been planted here all being considered humanoid earth is obviously and good place for humanoids to sprout.
As far as racial balance in the world the black and white races are very close in number. The Asia race has the most people . Hispanics often declare themselves as white on the census reports.
Does not really matter where they come from even though they appear to be the youngest race.
Really a good question! I think Cochise and Sitting Bull asked that same [deleted] question.
#2 - Wed May 6, 2009 12:27 PM EDTWhere did white people originally come from?
From the Battlestar Galactica & the fleet, by way of Caprica (and 11 other colonies), by way of Kobol.
#3 - Wed May 6, 2009 12:30 PM EDTSoda just shot out my nose. Totally hurt, but was totally worth it. LoL. HILARIOUS. :)
If only I could claim Caprica Six as anything related to me... *sigh* She's beautiful.
Certainly fits with "Intelligent Design" theory....LoL! Imagine if it were really true and they (aliens) were trying to slowly acclimate us to the idea that this world was seeded and now they want it back!
What's the source that back this up:
I recently learned that all other races of people on this planet had and still have ancestral lands that their evolutionary ancestry can be tied to except white people.
#5 - Wed May 6, 2009 12:33 PM EDTLithuanians have been in the same spot since the 10th millennium BC, after the glaciers from the last ice age retreated.
The people of Soviet Georgia date back to the Paleolithic era.
Do they count?
According to this Lithuanian history page:
The first settlers of Lithuania arrived in approximately 10, 000 B.C. (Paleolithic period), when the climate warmed up and glaciers started receding from the territory of Lithuania to Scandinavia. This period marks the beginning of Lithuania’s history which counts twelve thousand years now.
Archeologists have uncovered ancient habitation sites going back 11 to 12,000 years ago in the present territories of Lithuania and Latvia. The Northern Magdalenian people settled in the area now identified as Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Their burial sites in Latvia, dating from 9,000 years ago, are similar to the oldest dated modern human remains yet discovered, the Red Lady burial in Paviland Cave on the southern coast of Wales' Gower peninsula around 24,000 BCE. The site in Wales is the only ceremonial burial site found so far of the Aurignacian age. The grave goods were made of bone, antler and ivory ornaments as well as perforated seashell necklaces.
In both places, the bodies were wrapped in hides and preserved by red ochre. This is considered to be the origin of mummification. In Latvia, offerings of birds were found together with sculpted pendants and necklaces made from the teeth of elk, deer, boar, wolf, fox and marten. Pendants of pearls and amber as well as wooden animal sculptures of elk and birds were also found as offerings. In the later burials, the bodies were not only wrapped in hides and preserved with red ocher; they were put into hollowed-out tree trunks that strongly resemble the construction of Egyptian sarcophagi.
According to Marija Gimbutas, the Baltic Memel Culture moved south, following the Dnieper River toward the Crimea when sea levels began to rise around the Baltic. These were the proto Indo-Europeans who settled in Urheimat, the Indo-European homeland, where they remained until the Black Sea flood around 5600 BCE. Gimbutas writes that they became the Dnieper Donets people and were descendants of Paleolithic Cro-Magnon man. The Dnieper Donets pottery was related to the Baltic Memel Culture and their burial practices were similar to those found at Zvejnieki, the largest and oldest cemetery in all of northern Europe, which is dated to the Mesolithic prehistoric period between 7000 and 5000 BCE.
Rulers and country names might have changed, but Genetic studies tell a different story:
Since the Neolithic period the native inhabitants of the Lithuanian territory have not been replaced by any other ethnic group, so there is a high probability that the inhabitants of present day Lithuania have preserved the genetic composition of their forebears relatively undisturbed by the major demographic movements[9], although without being actually isolated from them.[10] The Lithuanian population appears to be relatively homogeneous, without apparent genetic differences among ethnic subgroups.[11]
Mr. McCulloch is an historian with decided racist leanings. He bases his theory of race on Carleton Coon's The Races of Europe, written in 1939.
He advocates what are called ethnostates or Racelands, the separation of the races into their own independent countries or nation-states, a condition he believes is required for racial preservation and independence. To him, "the races can be separated at least as easily as they were brought together." He makes no mention of what will happen to people of mixed race.
When asked if he thought the non-Nordic immigrants in the ancient Nordic Racelands (essentially, most of Europe) could be persuaded to leave in peace, he replied, "Our hopes for a peaceful resolution of this problem will depend on respecting the legitimate rights and interests of the other races, treating them fairly, providing them with a situation in which their vital rights and interests are not threatened, and by making it clear that preservationist separation is supported by the resolute will of the Nordish race, from which it will not deviate. As we educate members of our own race regarding the reasons for separation, that it is imperative for racial preservation, we will also hopefully educate many members of the other races. If they can be made to understand our motive or reason for seeking separation from them is not to cause them harm, but to secure our continued existence, our most vital and legitimate right and interest, and that this is morally right and proper, and that we have good will toward them, mean them no harm but wish them well, and respect their legitimate rights and interests, certainly some, and hopefully many, among them will do what is right and give us their support."
A good book to read, unfortunately now out of print but available at Amazon [cheap!], is FIRST, MAN. THEN, ADAM! by Irwin Ginsburgh, Ph.D.
Another thing to understand, my ancestry being of Irish decent, is that there is a strong underlying North African [Moroccan] influence in the Irish, Scottish, English. Add to that having been conquered by Normans and Romans and what do you have?
Maybe a Dalmatian!
#6 - Wed May 6, 2009 1:01 PM EDTnone of the above.
origins of people = africa > europe > asia > north america> south america.
or the garden of eden.
Which ever you prefer.
If you read your Bible you will see that all people started with Adam and Eve, and when the people went forth into other countries the pigment of the skin changed. This is what Preachers of my past has said and also told this to my Grand children
ohiogal-479871 #7 - or the garden of eden.
where is the garden of eden by the way?
where is the garden of eden by the way?
According to Genesis 2:10-14, it's between the Tigris, the Euphretes, the Cush and the Pishon. It is on a bend along the Tigris where the river turns east, and is somewhere south of ancient Assyria.
If you want to get technical, it's now underwater, just south of Al-Faw, Iraq, at:
29°47′0″N 48°38′0″E / 29.78333°N 48.63333°E , / 29.78333; 48.63333
how in the hell did those misinformed people that wrote the Bible know where humans came from? oh wait, they made that up tooo!! Humans come from Africa. Plain and Simple. Civilization and sedentary lifestyle began in Iraq.
...uhm, we are all in outer space. Tonight, go outside and check out the stars...
Sorry Becky but the bible is little more than mythology. It doesn't answer any questions at all. It might provide some historical context but nothing of scientific value.
I am sorry you are a none believer I will pray for you.
How do you know he isn't a believer? I know plenty of people who believe in God yet understand that the Bible was written by humans, hundreds of years after the events they discuss took place, and has no scientific basis. Did you ever play "telephone" as a kid? Imagine hundreds of years of oral stories.
What I recall of the bible, Jesus was always getting on his disciples for getting the message screwed up while he was still with them. Stories about George Washington would be a good example of things that never happened and that was a whole lot more recent.
The Garden of Eden was in Bristol, Florida.
http://www.travelintelligence.com/travel-writing/474/north-america/united-states/florida/bristol/the-garden-of-eden-florida.html
#8 - Wed May 6, 2009 1:14 PM EDTNorthwestern China?
Human Origins / Archaeology: The Mummies of Xinjiang
White people.....oh you mean the lightest shade of brown there is?
#9 - Wed May 6, 2009 1:24 PM EDTWhat color will people be 100 years from now--grey? Will that finally be an end to discrimination? Will mechanisms be in place to preserve racial, language, ethnic, etc. histories or should this even be done?
Scientific American had an article a few years ago that showed a picture of what humans will look like in a million years or something like that - if we don't kill ourselves first - and it is their postulation that we will all be the same color.
Given the current scientific climate and genetic engineering, I doubt that in a million years we'd look anything like 'human', except, maybe, for dressing in costume.
I think it is ludicrous that anyone would try to guess. Future generations might be living on other planets and will have to physically adapt to a different environment.
I think they would have to be living on other planets if they were living at all.
Wild Rabbit: Humans are not dog breeds.
During the past century, our species’ circumstances have again changed. The geographic isolation of different groups has been broached by the ease of transportation and the dismantling of social barriers that once kept racial groups apart. Never before has the human gene pool had such widespread mixing of what were heretofore entirely separated local populations of our species.
In fact, the mobility of humanity might be bringing about the homogenization of our species. At the same time, natural selection in our species is being thwarted by our technology and our medicines. In most parts of the globe, babies no longer die in large numbers. People with genetic damage that was once fatal now live and have children. Natural predators no longer affect the rules of survival.
From: Scientific American Magazine - December 2008.
ohio..."which ever you prefer"... that's about right !!... the concensus is migration from africa... that led to man populating the earth... there's also talk that the neanderthal's merely cross bred themselves out of existence which would give rise to your slavic peoples in the northern parts of europe.. white(caucasian) man is the son(thousands of years removed) of negroid(black) lineage!!... the jury is still out on the asians... but origin points to africa... homeland can't be established until the start of cultivation... before that man had maybe hunting "ranges" that they visited year after year... all part of survival
#11 - Wed May 6, 2009 1:37 PM EDTwhite(caucasian) man is the son(thousands of years removed) of negroid(black) lineage!!.
Not exactly. What we think of as African skin tones are typically sub-saharan skin tones. These originated from those early humans that migrated south from Northern Africa and from East of the Mediterranian.
Early people were, most likely, much lighter. However, they were no where near as what is considered "white," as that didn't evolve until the migrations to northern Eurasia, where less sun resulted in lighter skin tones having a better ability to produce vitamin D from limited solar exposure.
That doesn't account for the white skin variation.
An interesting fact: African skin tones have more variation than any other. It's weird that we consider a variety of (basically) white ethnicities by skin tone, but only one "black" ethnicity by skin-tone. In fact, if we make a connection between skin tone and ethnicity, African people are the most diverse in the world.
That doesn't account for the white skin variation.
I'm so white I'm "clear." Where in the hell did that come from? I've spent an entire summer trying to get a tan, went inside to get a ham sandwich and... WHOOSH! -- it's friggin' gone.
I think white people is a variant that has no color. I blame the Leprechauns. It's like cold is the absence of heat.
Where did White People come from? Uhh same place everyone came from... GOD!
Biblical scholars have no clue about this as they do not deal in facts. Scientists are a better group to ask.
katrix, that is the best point i have ever heard! Thats like going to a car salesman and asking him to check you out for a rare genetic disorder. Wrong person to ask!!! i love it.
Whether or not there is a God doesn't change what scientists do and how they compare to scholars. All that changes was whether God gave them the ability to learn all this stuff, or whether it was strictly random.
Agree, katrix. 12.6 was silly sarcasm. I'm actually 'on the fence' when it comes to a higher being, although I do believe there is more than just 'us'. I do believe Man uses his 'free will'.
Oh, IMO, our brains evolved (random)- they had to - nature took a look at what we were doing and said " quick, increase the intelligence or they will kill themselves". Little does nature know; it didn't work.
I know, just explaining to Katrix my view of a God - 12.6 sounded of inferences I didn't want to imply.
#12.7 wasn't about what you said :)
I'm actually 'on the fence' when it comes to a higher being,
I am too. And I don't believe that if there is one, it messes in our daily lives for good or bad.
Okay -- I thought 12.9 was answering your 12.7, no, huh --- I tried. I thought you were saying God vs. Evolution - I was voting Evolution.
Oh, sorry for not being clearer. I would vote evolution too. I was just saying that I know people who believe evolution is one of God's plans and gravity is one of his laws. It is possible to be religious without throwing science out of the window.
I keep playing this game of I throw religion out of the window, then I run out and bring it back inside again (for awhile!).
CL1, do you mean religion as in spirituality or religion as in a sect?
That is a bigger question than at first glance, Skye. My answer would be sect. For many reasons I won't explain, I feel spirituality is omnipresent. Sometimes I try to deny it, saying that only "ignorant" or "simple" people would believe in such things. Belief in the unknown becomes very subjective and very personal for many, and I guess I am one of those. How do you view religion - in the context of spirituality?
Well, I have a problem with sects because there are so many different ones (12,000 ?), each one believes exclusively in their own differing dogma (I guess you would,) and each one seems to believe only their dogma is true. Many of them believe in a very punishing god and condemn you to hell if you do not believe their way. Many of them believe in a strict interpretation of the bible which is very confusing. (Never read the bible in an ultra modern version because it really makes no sense. However, the King James version reads like poetry.)
I believe the world is an amazing creation but that no one really knows how it all started. And I believe we will never know which is OK with me. I am afraid I am a hopeless realist. I am most spiritual when I see a beautiful sunset, a baby's smile, a litter of new puppies, and most anything beautiful or humanly touching and when I hear the waves crashing on the beach, the wind blowing through the tree tops, a gospel choir singing Amazing Grace, etc.
I can see I have not answered your question but I am afraid words are really inadequate for me to explain this.
I think you did an excellent job of explaining your position. As for sects, I've never had an interest in religious study (but am curious now), for the same reason as you, being more of a realist. When I was forced to study the Bible, I didn't have much interest, now I wish I had paid more attention! Yes, I agree the interpretations are confusing, and often used to promote selfish interests. I can see how the foundation of religion was based on social order or spiritualism for some cultures. Modern day sects, IMO, are just about money and power. I am amazed that some contribute 10-20% of their annual incomes to their church.
The profound beauty and awe in the things you mentioned create such intense emotions that they are easy to define as 'spiritual' almost. Music makes me cry sometimes; I never understand that one, especially gospel choir, but really just about anything that is truly heart-felt. The environmental beauty as you mention, sunsets, or to be at a vantage point with a panaramic view, just take my breath away. I always get a feeling of how small we are in the big scheme of things. For the most part, I don't question who or why we are; we just are. And I don't think we are the most intelligent of the different species. (somewhat kidding)
Skye,
Just thought I would add that, despite my skepticism about relligious intentions, they do a lot of good in the community. For that, I think we need them. Other community organizations accomplish many of the same goals to help those that need positive direction in their lives, yet, only religion can offer an interpretation of a higher being that many emotionally disturbed individuals may need for emotional well-being. For others, religion may alleviate 'fear' in their lives. I guess what I'm trying to say is that many today view religion as a 'scapegoat' in a negative sense, and I'm trying to point out that some positive scapegoating is occurring, also. What do you think?
Well, since getting to know you a little on Newsvine, I have come to respect your opinions and I feel your heart is in the right place.
Thank you, Skye. I've enjoyed talking with you in the past and again today. It's always a pleasure.
Really folks, who cares, mostly people with to much time on their hands and to much federal grant money to waste.
#13 - Wed May 6, 2009 2:39 PM EDTIt's fascinating. And much less waste of space in my brain than knowing who is in American Idol or Dancing with the Stars.
I love it when the academia of this country think that by knowing where we came from it will suddenly cure all the ills of where we are going. Frankly I think we should stop caring so much about the age old chicken before the egg question and start working on providing chicken and eggs to the millions starving in the world.
What good will it do the world to find out that all men came out of Africa, Asia, the Garden of Eden, or the corner of fifth and main in Scanton.
Seems like the same waste of time that people have tracing their family tree back 10 generations and locating 9000 relatives that they will never speak to. Just something to kill time until you have to punch a clock or punch out of life. Better to grow a garden and feed a neighbor.
Frankly I could care less if we came from the Garden of Eden or not because God seems to have other things on his mind than making this a better world. Or maybe the so called christians of this world would do better to live by the Word rather than just preach it.
Frankly its just this kind of question that has been starting wars and murdering people since time began.
I am going to start posting real serious questions so that I may actually have a chance to learn something on the Newsvine, you see trading barbs and insults with partisan hacks to whom the real truth is unimportant gets old and boring after a little while, also it doesn't educate or inform your mind or shape your opinion it simply fosters ignorance and division.
This is why Renard said he posted this seed and I completely agree with him. I have learned more from this seed in just a few days than I have the entire time I have been on Newsvine.
Of course, it is only right and noble to be working on feeding the starving of the world but that is not the only useful thing to learn in school in order to be a well-rounded, knowledgeable and noble individual. Why else has the curriculum included history, anthropology, philosophy, etc. since the days of the Greeks and perhaps even before? I think these studies have probably even led us to be more noble individuals.
Thanks, Renard, and bring on more of these enlightening feeds.
My sentiments exactly, Skye. I will admit my speculation has always been what I call a common sense approach, environmental adaptability for survival, so I have never been motivated to know the vast history of who, when and where migrated. However, I have found the history I read here to be fascinating and I too, am thankful Renard asked the question.
What good will it do the world to find out that all men came out of Africa, Asia, the Garden of Eden, or the corner of fifth and main in Scanton.
I'm not dumb enough to think this will ever happen - but if it did, maybe we'd all start to realize that we are related and act accordingly.
Also, so people who choose to find out, can find out if they're at risk for a certain disease that might be controllable if caught early enough.
So scientists can try to eradicate more diseases. Knowing which populations are more or less at risk for a disease is a huge help with research.
Because some of us find history fascinating, and love learning about all kinds of different things.
I agree katrix, that understanding the more current generations of certain races that are susceptible to disease, may help with a cure. When I said I wasn't motivated on ancestral migrations, I meant people of - 35000 years ago. After reading the posts, I find I am interested after all. Wonders never cease! I think what really sparked my interest in the past was after sight-seeing the ancient Indian ruins around the Grand Canyon area. Then of course you throw in the eery phenomena of how the settlements appear to have been strategically mapped (don't ask me to explain that - hopefully you know what I mean). I like learning all kinds of different things, too.
CL 1 - Yes, I know what you mean - it's pretty cool. Our ancestors had some amazing technology.
After reading the posts, I find I am interested after all. Wonders never cease!
This is the most overlooked value of Newsvine. Many of us think that "get smarter here" means just through NV threads. But learning a little about something on NV, and finding you're interested and are most likely going to start looking into it ... that's really getting smarter here.
Here's a more important question [for me, at least]:
WHERE IS ALL OF MY WHTE [GRAY/GREY] HAIR COMING FROM? Why do I now have to shave my ears, pluck my nose and trim my eyebrows.
#15 - Wed May 6, 2009 3:32 PM EDTWhat do white people from Africa call themselves if they become U.S. Citizens? African Americans?
Scott..."Here's a more important question [for me, at least."... good one !!!... add to it,"how come it takes all night to do what i used to do all night?"...
#16 - Wed May 6, 2009 3:49 PM EDTThe gene responsible for fair skin first appeared in northwestern Europe in the Baltic Sea area. White skin is a mutation generally associated with the change from the heavy meat diet of the hunter-gatherer to the regime of grains and vegetables by a settled, agrarian people. Without the heavy consumption of animal fat, darker skinned people cannot absorb enough vitamin D from sunlight in the northern latitudes to maintain their health. On the other hand, white skin allows the assimilation of Vitamin D, which in turn boosts calcium absorption.
#17 - Wed May 6, 2009 3:50 PM EDTBasically it is believed that the light pigmentation was a cold adaptation. Originally humans in Africa would have been dark-skinned. As they travelled north(into Europe and Asia) into colder climates and wore more clothing, they had less skin exposed to the sun and couldn't synthesis Vitamin D as easily. So the lighter skinned people would have had a health advantage over the darker skinned people in cold climates.
Renard:
Briwnys is correct about Vitamin D. People with darker skin, hair and eye color people cannot absorb enough sunlight to stimulate the production of adequate amounts of Vitamin D. Thus, the body evolved to produce less melanin, or pigment, in the skin, as to allow the sunlight in.
Renard, you are just full of questions today!
I would say Northern Europe, like Norway or Scandinavia. MHO.
#19 - Wed May 6, 2009 3:56 PM EDTRenard, the more I study the ancient history of the European Atlantic Façade, the more convinced I become that you are correct.
The Romans held a festival on December 25 called Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, "the birthday of the unconquered sun." December 25 was the date after the winter solstice, with the first detectable lengthening of daylight hours. The title Sol Invictus was applied to a number of solar deities and was not associated with Saturn or the Saturnalia.
The Roman Empire, besieged on all sides in the early years of the first millennium, desperately needed to strengthen its grasp over all its territories. By creating a state religion along the same lines as those of its political governing body, the emperor Aurelian hoped to consolidate Rome's power not only over the citizens of Rome but also over the populace of these occupied territories. The religion chosen to unify the people was originally Mithraism.
Mithras was the god of the Age of Ares, and was particularly popular with the soldiers of the Empire. Many of the military leaders of Rome were initiates of its mysteries and had spread his worship throughout the conquered territories, but the precession of the equinoxes decreed the birth of a new god. Creation had to be renewed to bring the earth into alignment with the natural order of beingness. Aurelian therefore created a new deity, based on Mithras, called Sol Invictus, the Unconquered Sun, in 274 CE.
When Constantine accepted Christianity, the Romans realized that this new religion, with its promise of redemption in an afterlife, appealed to all levels of society, from slave and client subject to free citizen. Christianity's teaching of submission to higher authority, they concluded, suited the purpose of the state. They therefore "adapted" the teachings of Christianity to the religion of Mithras-Sol Invictus, including the celebration of the god's birth on December 25.
The Roman Catholic Church, the result of the Roman state's manipulation of the original Christian religion, continued this practice of appropriating pagan customs and holidays as it spread across Europe.
Renard...
"It is and important question as it will tell us a lot more about the evolution of mankind"...the digs going on all over the world are pretty conclusive as to man's beginnings, the usual steps in technology and happenstance...the absence of written word other than cave drawings is all we have to go with past 5,000 or so years... it would be nice to think that studying man's past could help us better treat ourselves and surroundings... but that's wishful thinking
#20 - Wed May 6, 2009 3:56 PM EDTtonys247,
Winston Churchill said, "The farther back I look, the farther forward I can see." What he meant was that the more clearly we understand the past, the more easily we can plan for and define the future. Wishful thinking accomplishes nothing unless we act on those wishes.
Cave drawings are closer to 35,000 years old. This is about the same time as the microcephalin mutation associated with advanced cognitive functions necessary for the development of art, music, religious practices and complex tool-making techniques appeared in humans. 35,000 years is not even the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.
500,000 years before that, the human brain underwent a complete neurological reorganization. In a process so swift as to be almost instantaneous by comparison to the geological timescale required for other major mutations, we gained the capacity to perceive the significance and nature of events before they occurred, to retain and recall facts, events and impressions of previous experiences, to use symbols in speech that communicated ideas and expressed emotions, to classify objects, events, and ideas and to grasp the concept of personal identity, of existence as an entity separate from all others.
We have been human for a mere half a million years. We have behaved as modern humans for less than 40,000 years. If we live to maturity, who knows what we can accomplish?
#21 - Wed May 6, 2009 4:29 PM EDTBriwny's
If I follow your logic the basic premise of those that believe in God is all wrong, you see they believe that not only were we created, but that we were created perfect and that it was from a sin that we fell from our perfect state.
Also their time frame is substantially shorter than yours as you state we have been human for about 500,000 years and totally modern humans for about 40,000 years as opposed to their belief especially the Christians who believe in the Bible and Creationism that mankind is just about 6013 years old. With God having created the earth a little over 6000 years ago on a Friday at a little after 9:00 am
This is why I love history
#22 - Wed May 6, 2009 4:52 PM EDTIt isn't their belief in God that is wrong, renard, it is their belief in the restrictions placed upon God by their religion that is wrong. I believe, through direct experience as well as logic, that there is an all-encompassing spiritual force operating in the natural world that does not violate the rules of that natural world. You may choose to call it God, Cosmic Consciousness, the Quantum Sea or anything else that satisfies you. The label isn't important. How you interpret it through your thoughts and your actions is.
God made Man. In retaliation, Man made Religion.
CL1 - "Man made Religion" because that is as close as he can get to playing God.
Religious/spirit-based belief was, given man's limited understanding at the time, a natural development of man's attempt to understand his environment. If humans have instincts (and I would argue that they do) then surely our drive to assign everything to some conceptual box (definition/understanding) would be one of them.
Religion developed as a means of social control, profit was secondary.
Where did white people originally come from?
White people come from the same place all other people come from, Earth.
If that answer is incorrect, my next best guess would be the planet that was likely destroyed and became the asteroid belt or a planet in the Alpha Centauri solar system.
#23 - Wed May 6, 2009 5:13 PM EDTBriwyns..."The gene responsible for fair skin first appeared in northwestern Europe in the Baltic Sea area. White skin is a mutation."... that's a good one... gene mutation is another leg or third eyeball, not skin color !!!... it's all about melanin and places on earth where the inhabitants lived, and inter-racial breeding and diet...
#24 - Wed May 6, 2009 5:34 PM EDTA mutation is a change in the sequence of an organism's genetic material. A new blood type or a variation in skin or hair color is a mutation and is likely to be passed along if it is useful or attractive. A third eye or an extra limb might be a mutation, but probably would die out through natural selection. While either might be useful, it is unlikely since drastic mutations of this sort are rarely fully functional. They are also less likely to appear attractive and would die out due to natural selection.
Sharn..."Like Darwin's finches, people change to fit their environment."... true !!... above all else man is an animal, subject to change over long periods of time... the reason i posted what i did to Briwyns was to see where he/she was coming from... whether the gene gave the recipient an inherent edge over other humans without it... just like i remember a man in texas tell me about the intelligence gene that all blacks were lacking !!!... but Briwyns came through with flying colors... no apparent racism
tonys247 and Sharn,
I am a she.
Something you both might find interesting is that humans are what is termed a polymorphic species. Polymorph means "many forms" so polymorphism is the ability to evolve into many forms. In the evolutionary process, the presence of two or more variations of a genetic characteristic is due to the appearance of alternative forms of genes located in specific positions on specific chromosomes that are responsible for variations in DNA structure - like different human blood groups or the many variations in skin and hair shades and textures.
Polymorphic variations are distinct either in appearance, constitution or both and are the result of interaction between the species' genetically determined characteristics and the environment. Phylogenetic polymorphism in a species is the presence of more than one type of appearance or constitution at a time and is due to the transitional status of the genetic characteristic. In other words, these variations identify progressive stages of transformation and adaptation within the evolutionary history of the species.
In essence, we are a race of shapeshifters.
Interesting.
Is it possible that different human beings (from a purely scientific perspective) originated from different places geographically (modern day Iraq vs Scandinavia etc.)? Or is it assumed that all human life originated in Africa or the middle east and then migrated? I guess, for lack of a better way to ask this, do we all (human beings) share the same ancestry if you go back far enough? Is there any scientific, genetic and/or archaeological evidence to support either theory?
Interesting question, Sabastian.
There is an on-going debate on origins. The two most popular are the Out of Africa Replacement Theory and the Multiregional Theory of Continuity. The Replacement theory says the successive waves of migration out of Africa replaced archaic species and caused or contributed to their extinction. It is currently the most favored, but some recent DNA studies have found evidence that supports gene variations from the time of migrations by Homo erectus almost two million years ago, which is consistent with the Continuity theory. Some genetic variations found among Basques, Japanese, British and Africans is estimated as about one million thirty-two thousand years. One million years ago, the only hominin on earth was Homo erectus (and, arguably, Homo heidelbergensis), which means modern humans are genetically descended from this archaic species.
These new discoveries in the field of genetics suggest that Darwin's replacement hypothesis does not apply to a polymorphic species such as ours, at least during the stages of its evolution when the frequency and extent of variation in its form and structure is greatest. Over the last ten years, evidence of interbreeding and introgression as late as forty thousand years ago between modern humans and archaic species that were long believed extinct raises more questions than answers about the origins of modern humans and the extent of speciation within the genus Homo. The question to be addressed now is whether all Hominins from erectus forward are actually different species or simply related branches of the same species that are capable of interbreeding.
So, to answer your question, it depends on how you define "human".
Again, a sticky question. Yes, the most popular theory is the African Replacement theory. Recent studies, however, question the way we define species within the Homo genus.
Throughout the last century, H. heidelbergensis has been the subject of controversy, with some researchers placing it within H. erectus, and others recognizing it as an archaic form of our own species, H. sapiens. More recently, it has been accepted as either the last common ancestor to both Neanderthals and modern humans, spanning Africa, Europe and perhaps Asia, or another form of H. Neanderthalensis. There is even disagreement that the species was restricted to Europe, though the majority of the finds so far are from that region.
A recent genomic analysis of human X chromosomes identified at least one lineage that has survived for over one million years without any clear trace of ongoing recombination with other lineages. This study concluded that the human gene pool and genetic structure predates the anatomically modern human. This conclusion supports human evolution models that incorporate interbreeding between divergent branches of the genus Homo although the X chromosome data cannot establish when the interbreeding may have occurred. It may be that the modern human physical type arose first and interbreeding occurred as a consequence of the rapid expansion of the population. Alternatively, the modern human physical appearance may, itself, be the by-product of interbreeding. In either case, while the majority of the anatomically modern human genome may descend from a single population in Africa, the evolutionary lineage leading to modern humans did not develop in reproductive isolation from other archaic hominin subpopulations and, thus, cannot be considered a distinct biological species. In other words, H. sapiens has now attained the same debatable status as H. heidelbergensis.
Additionally, human DNA sequence variation data estimates the age of the most recent common human ancestor to be one million two hundred ninety thousand years ago among the African sequences and six hundred thirty-four thousand years ago among the non-African sequences. This data demonstrates the high likelihood of independent genetic lineages stretching back long before the first known migrations out of Africa by modern humans.
And, finally, the scientific article, Molecular genetics of speciation and human origins, published as part of Tempo and Mode in Evolution, concludes that "the data are consistent with, but do not provide specific support for, the claim that populations migrating from Africa at that time replaced human populations throughout the World. The MHC and other molecular polymorphisms are consistent with a "multiregional" theory of Pleistocene human evolution that proposes regional continuity of human populations since the time of migrations of Homo erectus to the present, with distinctive regional selective pressures and occasional migrations between populations."
You will notice that, while the Out of Africa Replacement theory is not disclaimed, neither is it supported. Instead, the authors find the data consistent with the Multiregional Theory of Continuity from the time of migrations by Homo erectus almost two million years ago.
So, again, the answer to your question may depend on how we define the species we call Homo Sapiens.
Briwnys - cool name - are you Welsh?
Additionally, human DNA sequence variation data estimates the age of the most recent common human ancestor to be one million two hundred ninety thousand years ago among the African sequences and six hundred thirty-four thousand years ago among the non-African sequences.
May I ask you for a source for that? I've been reading up on (and participated in) the Human Genome Experiement that National Geographic has been doing. Mitochondrial Eve is estimated at 170,000 years ago and Y chromosome Adam at 60 thousand years ago. And this was all based on DNA - cheek swabs from all different types of people, including in very isolated tribes. That's a huge difference from 1.3 million and 650 thousand, so I'm curious as to where they got those figures.
Here are a couple of links to some of my sources. I am fascinated by this study's focus on migration, not race.
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/04/13/MNGQIC7FT51.DTL&type=printable
The data come from the abstract of a study titled Worldwide DNA sequence variation in a 10-kilobase noncoding region on human chromosome submited to the National Academy of Sciences for review January 5, 2000.
Yes, I'm an American of Welsh ancestry and a participant in my family's DNA project.
The age of the most recent common ancestor was estimated to be ≈1.29 million years ago among all of the sequences obtained and ≈634,000 years ago among the non-African sequences, providing the first evidence from a noncoding autosomal region for ancient human histories, even among non-Africans.
And your point is? This is a study of human chromosome 22 (note the title), Chromosome 22 was the first human chromosome to be fully sequenced. The authors state, "We identified 75 variant sites in 64 humans (128 sequences) and 463 variant sites among the human, chimpanzee, and orangutan sequences."
One other study, Molecular genetics of speciation and human origins discusses polymorphisms that have existed for at least thirty million years, passing from ancestral to descendant species in humans, apes and other primates. Note that these passed to humans (Homo Sapiens sapiens) as well as apes and other primates.
katrix was confused that the MRCA was so far back in time when Homo Sapiens Sapiens has common ancestors that are far younger. The MRCA for Homo Sapiens Sapiens is younger still. The mistake is two different definitions of human, I was just pointing that out.
Katrix, ajzzz,
The confusion comes from the term MRCA - Most Recent Common Ancestor, which does not refer to an individual but to a gene or genomic segment. Genes or genomic segments at different loci have different MRCA, which is why you will find these estimates differ from the Mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam and from each other, depending on what genomic segment is being referenced. Simply put, some of our genes are a lot older than others. Some are even older than our species.
Wild Rabbit,
You are confusing Cro-Magnon, a type of anatomically modern human found in Europe ca 40,000 years ago, with Homo Sapiens sapiens, a species (or subspecies) of the Homo genus which appeared in Africa over 200,000 years ago; Cro-Magnon are classified as Homo Sapiens sapiens. The confusion probably comes from the fact that the earliest fossils of modern humans, found in Europe, were called the Cro-Magnon people.
Briwnys,
The confusion comes from the term MRCA - Most Recent Common Ancestor, which does not refer to an individual but to a gene or genomic segment.
You are right, the abstract does refer to a genomic segment not an individual, I should have read it more carefully. It was this quote that led me to mistakenly believe you were writing about an individual:
Additionally, human DNA sequence variation data estimates the age of the most recent common human ancestor to be one million two hundred ninety thousand years ago among the African sequences and six hundred thirty-four thousand years ago among the non-African sequences. This data demonstrates the high likelihood of independent genetic lineages stretching back long before the first known migrations out of Africa by modern humans.
And that was my bad. Sorry, that shouldn't have included human - typed that without realizing it.
Yes, the Homo Sapiens sapiens in Europe were called Cro-Magnons once upon a time. They are now called anatomically modern humans. Personally, I liked Cro-Magnon and still use it.
Read somewhere that it was the first people that stayed in one spot to grow grain for their beer.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
