Sometimes I have to look at certain pages twice before giving an opinion. After watching David Duke I'm glad you linked me to the page. Personally I think perserving race is stupid. We are all human in the end. The entire world is now able to communicate and travel and interact amongst one another. If we last another thousand years people will think we were backward thinking for promoting something like this.
Perhaps we are not ready in thought to be just be earthlings as the video below clearly said.
I think humanity's goal should be to progress humanity into making life better for the planet's inhabitants. Race preservation is backward thinking. History and historical culture preservation is another story. It is time humankind stops using the past as a weapon to spark hate and wars.
Scientifically speaking the white issue should be looked at. The problem is unless we know our real origins and not the one taught to us by the religious leaders or evolution robots we might never know where our diversity came from.[/url]
Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:38 am
Stephen7
Joined: 21 Dec 2006 Posts: 1 Location: Norwood, PA USA
Greetings earth-BEINGS,
I hope you are well and in good spirit.
The theory is actually gaining a following. I just came back from battle over at
People with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor, according to new research.
A team of scientists has tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. The mutation occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Before then, there were no blue eyes.
"Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Hans Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of Copenhagen.
The mutation affected the so-called OCA2 gene, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives color to our hair, eyes and skin.
"A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes," Eiberg said.
The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than completely turning off the gene, the switch limits its action, which reduces the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue.
If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair, eyes and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism.
I don't think it's the result of a single mutation. Not with pale blue eyed light haired people being born to those who aren't.
Funny thing is, when you think of it white or pale skin, is the default skin color of many animals. As prehistoric man evolved his skin was most likely pale before he gradually began to shed his hair. How dark he actually became is of course dependent on his specific environment. Many anthropolgist believe that negroid phenotpype is the results from adapation to a tropical rainforest setting. Yet it seems that early man lived int the savannahs and plains.
Also, as far as white skin appearing suddenly in Europe, many tend to forget that the people in Northern Africa tend to have lighter skin, some even being blond. Clearly the Anceint Egyptians were much lighter than their southern neighbors, many approaching a meditteranean/caucasian phenotype. Ethiopians, a very ancient race, also display quasi caucasians traits. So I find this notion the of the sudden appearance of white skin somewhat curious. And all in all, I would tend to think that very dark skin is the real mutation, being that it is the reulst of adaption to an extreme environment.
Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:18 pm
Sponsor
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8221 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
Quote:
Funny thing is, when you think of it white or pale skin, is the default skin color of many animals.
Most land animals are also covered in fur.
Quote:
As prehistoric man evolved
Evolution is hypothesis, not fact. Man is weak - not a sign that we're evolved. Darwinian evolution can't be proven because it is impossible.
Quote:
How dark he actually became is of course dependent on his specific environment.
Another hypothesis.
Quote:
Many anthropolgist believe that negroid phenotpype is the results from adapation to a tropical rainforest setting.
Many Christians believe in a particular specific God, but differ in those beliefs so heavily that they split up into 38,000+ denominations. The belief is of course based on something that isn't even real.
Quote:
Also, as far as white skin appearing suddenly in Europe, many tend to forget that the people in Northern Africa tend to have lighter skin, some even being blond.
This doesn't contradict the information given, and it is not evidence of evolution.
Quote:
Ethiopians, a very ancient race
There is no Ethiopian race. We are humans.
Quote:
And all in all, I would tend to think that very dark skin is the real mutation, being that it is the reulst of adaption to an extreme environment.
Did you bother to read the page referenced? The change is instantaneous. Nothing to do with small progressive changes or evolution. Some other people believe that people evolved white skin to deal with less vitamin D from less sunlight (extreme condition). These are beliefs, beliefs that are impressed on us by people wanting us to destroy each other instead of them.
Did you bother to read the page referenced? The change is instantaneous. Nothing to do with small progressive changes or evolution.
That's exactly what I'm adressing in pointing out that people in norhtern Africa and the Middle east have lighter skin. This seems to speak more for a gradual lightening of populations as they migrated northward over large distances, Than any instantaneous development.
Now that you have tried to cast doubt on conventional theories of evolution etc., what theory do you have to replace it with, pray tell?
That's exactly what I'm adressing in pointing out that people in norhtern Africa and the Middle east have lighter skin. This seems to speak more for a gradual lightening of populations as they migrated northward over large distances, Than any instantaneous development.
We have a winner, I have travelled a great deal and its obvious that the environment affects the amount of pigment your skin produces, from Southern Indian to Northen india up to Kashmir there is only a few thousands miles and you can see the colour of peoples skin change as the climate changes ever few hundred miles.
Its the same in Turkey into Russia and the same in China and Japan.
Its an adaption that our childrens children can change if they stay in a place for long enough.
Its no big mystery.
Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:38 pm
Sponsor
koldthumb
Joined: 28 Oct 2006 Posts: 16 Location: third rock from the sun
People with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor, according to new research.
A team of scientists has tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. The mutation occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Before then, there were no blue eyes.
"Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Hans Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of Copenhagen.
The mutation affected the so-called OCA2 gene, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives color to our hair, eyes and skin.
"A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes," Eiberg said.
The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than completely turning off the gene, the switch limits its action, which reduces the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue.
If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair, eyes and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism.
I don't think it's the result of a single mutation. Not with pale blue eyed light haired people being born to those who aren't.
The interesting thing about recessive traits is that they can remain dormant for multitudes of generations before resurfacing...If a heterozgous(normal looking,but carries one albino allele and one normal allele.)breeds to a normal.The offspring have a 50% chance of receiving the albino allele.Those offspring that do carry it can now spread the gene around(in dormant form)in all of its future ofspring(with the same 50% chance).
Eventually a heterozygous animal breeds to another heterzygous animal.Their offspring will have a 25% chance of being homozygous(albino)..(If the albino lives and reproduces.All of his offspring will carry the gene recessively.)
Breeding ball pythons with genetic color and pattern mutations is a hobby i follow..There are several mutations that produce a white one,but one inparticular with blue eyes.
http://www.ralphdavisreptiles.com/birthing_record/pythons_04.asp
That specific mutation is actually an incomplete dominant(meaning it's parents are visually different than a common normal).However,there are numerous other mutations in the hobby that are recessive and not dominant/co-dominate etc..Such as amelanistic(albino).It's (heterozygous) parents or offspring are indistinguishable from an average normal(dark skin/dark eyes).
I bred a heterozygous albino male to a few normal females and kept the 50% het daughters.With plans to raise them up and breed them to an albino male...Each one of those daughters has a 50% chance of proving out as heterozygous for albino..If so,they will produce a visual albino(homozygous/having both albino alleles))..All from normal,darker colored,average looking ball pythons.
