why "Asians" are really not Asian
sirknight67
the internet. The Negritos are a short race of Australoid people living in
southern Asia.
I am often distraught at the ridiculous politically correct fascist dictate
that Oriental people have created for themselves and others, refering to
themselves as "Asian". Oriental (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Mongol etc...)
doesn't mean "Asian" for there are hundreds of millions of Asians who are
white, brown and dark. These include Armenians, Iranians, Turks, Arabs,
Dravidians and people of southern Asia (Pakistan, Bangladesh etc...) as well
as people in Central Asia who are also fair skined (the Persian speaking
Tajiks).
It is a known fact that the native people of Japan were the white skinned
Ainu who penetrated the land some 30 000 years ago and who, until the end of
the 19th century still inhabited the Amur region bordering China and Russia
as well as northern Honshu and Hokaido islands in Japan.
It is also becoming now a known fact that the native people of Central Asia
as well as western China were White people, many with blond or red hair and
blue eyes, up to the time of the mongol conquest. The racial make up pf
people such as Kazakhs, Kirghyz and Uighurs shows european afinities such as
light hair and fair skinned inherited form the nacient Iranian Scythians or
even Tokharians.
In addition to all this, there is the less well known fact that the entire
region of south east Asia was inhabited by Australoid people 9Aborigines,
Papuans, Melanesians, Tasmanians) all the way up to just before the time of
Christ. The phenomenon of Oriental colonization or even violent invasion is
not limited to the Turco-Mongol hordes or even the Japanese but to south
eastn Asian Orientals as well. Today still, this process of colonization
continues in countries such as the Philipines and Indonesia wehre the native
people are anything but Oriental in race, but rather Polyensian. The
following is an article on the native Australoid and Negrito people of
southern Asia before them being absorbed or outright exterminated by
Orientals who today, after having driven Whites from Central Asia, Ainus
from north-east Asia and Australoids and Polenesyans from southeast Asia
have hicjacked the term "Asian", often getting into a shouting contest and
lecture of political correctness about anyone not using the term "Asian" to
describe but one fragment of the REAL ASIANS. In sum here is anotehr reason
why "Asians" are not ASIAN but ORIENTAL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
A few archaeological traces of populations with
Negrito-Papuan-Austro-Melanesian affiliations have been found all over
Indochina and southern China, some of it dating back 40,000 years. There are
sites in Perak (Malaysia) older than 30,000 years and in Krabi (southern
Thailand) between 27,000 and 38,000 years, to give just two examples. No
archaeological proof of Negritos has so far been found in Burma (Myanmar)
which has not been investigated archaeologically at all well but Burmese
folk tales do seem to remember Negritos. They tell of short, dark-skinned,
fuzzy-haired cannibal ogres who lived on the mouth of the great rivers and
on islands off-shore. The situation is much clearer in Vietnam where the
oldest known human population has unquestionably been Negrito. Skulls
identified as Negrito have been found along the coast of Vietnam and dated
to between 25,000 and 50,000 years. In Vietnam, the Negritos were replaced
by (or perhaps developed into) people of Australoid and Melanesian type
during the later Paleolithic, around 7000 years ago. Austroasiatic people
(the ancestors of the Khmer and Champa) arrived still later and the last to
arrive, only 2500 years ago, were Mongoloid immigrants from southern China.
The present Vietnamese people are a very complex mixture of all these races.
The ancient Negrito element has left traces, especially in the mountain
tribes of southern Vietnam, which supports the view that they were not so
much driven out or exterminated but absorbed by the later arrivals.
It has recently been discovered that Asian-American populations can be
classified into two groups based on minute but genetically-determined dental
characteristics. Since teeth are usually the last parts of a body to decay,
this is a significant discovery. One group, called by its discoverer
Sundadonty, developed more than 20,000 years ago in an area including the
Indo-China peninsula and Indonesia. Among Sundadont people are the
Andamanese, the Thai, Burmese, Khmer, Lao, Malay, Filipino and Javanese
people, the Polynesians, the aboriginal Taiwanese and Borneans and the Ainu.
The other group, Sinodonty, developed out of Sundadonty in northern China at
a later stage around 15,000 years ago. This later group includes the Chinese
and Japanese, the Mongol and Korean people as well as the eastern Siberians
and all Amerindians. The boundary between the two dental groups lies in
southern China today.
Teeth found in Niah cave (Borneo, 40,000 years), Tabon cave (Palawan,
Philippines, 20,000 years) as well as on Okinawa (17,000 years) show a
generalized tooth pattern from which Sundadonty later developed. The same
generalized pattern is still today observable among Australians and Papuans.
It seems, therefore, that the Negritos were still part of the general
population in the area where Sundadonty developed after the Australians and
Papuans had broken away.
Just where those earliest anatomically modern members of our species came
from or whether and how they relate to the more archaic pre-homo sapiens
forms that are known to have peopled the same area for millions of years are
questions outside the scope of this book. Only this much can be said here:
there are two major mainstream theories vying for attention. The Out-of
Africa theory holds that archaic forms of homo sapiens originated in one
place in Africa (probably in the Great Rift Valley, somewhere between
Ethiopia and southern Africa) around one million years ago and then spread
first into the Middle East and Asia before 100,000 years ago. The other, the
Multiple-Origin theory, argues for the rise of independent human
populations. New recently accumulated genetic evidence tilts the balance
slightly in favor of the former but the final verdict is not yet in and will
be some time in coming.
The genetic distance between major races recently established shows that the
earliest split in the human race was between Africans (those that stayed
put) and the non-Africans (those that emigrated), one of the major pieces of
evidence in favor of the out-of-Africa hypothesis.
This chapter, of necessity, had to be irritatingly speculative. It cannot be
helped since the number of open questions is endless, the assured facts few
and the speculations offered can at best provide the shadowy outlines of
possible answers.
~Ş
such as orientals, middle eastern and russians that doestn' mean orientals
are not asians. just like there are different kinda of europeans.
sirknight67 <sirkn...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:rqV09.1579$qv7.19...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
I.K. Flin
Theory of human evolution and had rather wondered about the selection
process which caused all the different races. It wasn't until much later
(in college) that the theory of multiple sites of human evolution had
been introduced. It broke my philosophy about human evolution and quite
frankly I didn't much take an interest in it after that and have only
recently rekindled the interest. I rather prefered to think of man as
having evolved in one location since the evolutionary process is
entirely too complex to produce the same traits in several places at the
same time. The idea that human evolved in one place and then
environmental factors influencing selection of certain charactersitics
for enhanced survival seems much more plausible. Latest theory seems to
state that there are many branches of the human evolutionary tree. Some
of these species went extinct without further development. All these
species overlapped and perhaps competed in some way for the same
resources which had resulted in the reduction of the various species.
Thus homo sapiens were the ones most equipped and capable of surviving
and endured. This article is a fascinating look at that theory and
places the races in location thus allowing groundwork into further ideas
about the evolution of the races.
Thank you,
-Iris
sirknight67
have teh sufficient IQ to understand that it was the basis of the message,
to say that Orientals cannot claim that title for themselves. ah....the
agony of stupidity!
~Ž <sys...@spamfree.net> wrote in message
news:PXW09.122904$Wi.30...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Tony Lew
> the internet. The Negritos are a short race of Australoid people living in
> southern Asia.
> I am often distraught at the ridiculous politically correct fascist dictate
> that Oriental people have created for themselves and others, refering to
> themselves as "Asian". Oriental (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Mongol etc...)
Wait a minute...
Who makes those famous "Oriental" rugs? Persians!
I guess that would make Iranians "Oriental".
sirknight67
I used to believe that there was no doubt about the local independant,
gradual evolution of human beings into teh present races but I must I am at
odds. I'm sure you know about the mitonchondrial DNA studies showing that
all humans go back to ancestors living in Africa around 130 000 years ago.
What perplexes me is that afer doing some research about Asia's natives, the
Veddas and Negritos (as well as Melanesians, Papuans and Aborigines), I
realized that these people who migrated "out of Africa" supposedly around 70
000 years a go, all share similar features (even if artificial) wtih the
African/Negro race. It seems odd to me that around the time that human
beings migrated out of Africa, many of the oldest known races had simlar
features including dark skin.
I believe however that these may be termed more "primitive" races (in the
sense of being the archeologically oldest and most ancint identifiable human
races) and that Whites, Mediterraneans and Orientals evolved away from this
archaic archtype that was probably the common form among the early Homo
Sapiens populations. Europeans, Mediteraneans and Orientals probably evolved
away from the original physical types (curly hair, broad nose, dark skin) as
a rresult of local adaptation to their new respective environments.
It is a little known but true fact that some of the first anatomically
modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) in Europe for isntance were African and
Pygmoid type people.
Skeletal evidence confirms that the first modern humans in the Iberian
peninsula, southern France and even the Italian Riviera were black pygmy
types! There are several sites in Europe that prove my point such as Combe
Capelle and Grimaldi in southern France whose skeletons have been compared
to Ethiopians by 19th century scholars.
Also if you look at the ivory statues in southern France depicting female
"venuses", you will see that teh form of the body very much ressembles the
Negrito or pygmy types. The size of the buttocks is way exagerated by our
standards and ressemble mostly Negro/Pygmy, Negrito,and even
Khoisan/Hottentot female forms, not to mention the "curly" or peppercorn
effect given to the female hair.
I believe that the presence of Veddas and Negritos throughout Asia
reinforces my theory that early humankind had an archair form that was
mostly shaped by the living conditions in Africa. Australoid people
(Negritos, Melanesians, Aborigines, Papuans, Veddas) and Dravidian
peoplewere among the first people to be "out of Africa" and populate those
regions. The lighter skined races may have come from further north and could
have been subjected to thousands of years of isolation after the initial
migration, and mutation, resulting in alternate forms that eventually
overwhelmed the more archaic forms of Humankind.
Your thoughts?
I.K. Flin <rs...@cox.net> wrote in message news:3D4440E8...@cox.net...
Sukgeun Jung
Question 1) If the Out-of-Africa is correct, when did the first Homo sapiens
arrive in central Siberia? Before 100k years? Then, who developed culture in
central Siberia dated as 260k years old?
Refer to the following article:
Michael R. Waters, Steven L. Forman, and James M. Pierson. 1997. Diring
Yuriakh: A Lower Paleolithic Site in Central Siberia. Science 1997 275:
1281-1284.
"Lower Paleolithic artifacts have been recovered from a single occupation
surface within stratified deposits at Diring Yuriakh, an archaeological site
in central Siberia. Thermoluminescence age estimates from eolian sediments
indicate that the cultural horizon is greater than 260,000 years old. Diring
Yuriakh is an order of magnitude older than documented Paleolithic sites in
Siberia and is important for understanding the timing of human expansion
into the far north, early adaptations to cold climates, and the peopling of
the Americas."
Question 2) What is the lastest news on the controversially alleged Homo
erectus in Ngandong and Sambungmacan, Central Java? Is this related to
the so-called 'Negrito'?
Refer to the following article.
C. C. Swisher III, W. J. Rink, S. C. Anton, H. P. Schwarcz, G. H. Curtis, A.
Suprijo, and Widiasmoro. 1996. Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential
Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia. Science. 274:
1870-1874.
This article suggested that H. erectus and H. sapiens coexisted in central
Java for some
time, quoted as:
"Hominid fossils from Ngandong and Sambungmacan, Central Java, are
considered the most morphologically advanced representatives of Homo
erectus. Electron spin resonance (ESR) and mass spectrometric U-series
dating of fossil bovid teeth collected from the hominid-bearing levels at
these sites gave mean ages of 27 +/- 2 to 53.3 +/- 4 thousand years ago"
<End of Message>
"sirknight67" <sirkn...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:rqV09.1579$qv7.19...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
sirknight67
term "Oriental" for all people of the east. The Europeans call themselves
Occidentals (those of teh west) and people in the east Oriental. In the
United Kingdom, they call Indians, Pakistanese and Bengalese "Asian", as
they did in former British colonies in Africa. They still call the Indians
"Asians" in South Africa. In the United States however, for some reason the
term "Asian" is only aplied to people of east and North Asian background.
This has caused a good deal of confusion, especially for one of my friends
and one of my cousins who are both white Iranians, who checked the box for
"Asian" when applying for citizenship!
If I were to redesignate the racial groups, I would name them the following:
-White (stays white or become Eurasian since whites have always expanded
from Europe all the way to Central and western Asia)
-"Asian" would become East Asian or Oriental
-"Indian" would become South Asian
-"African" would simply become black (since Negro is also politically
incorrect for some reason, since it is only the Latin word for black)
because there are and have always been non-black (IE Negro) people living in
Africa such as the Khoisan, Hottentot and Bushmen in the south as well as
the Berbers in the north
-Australoid would become Australasian (that includes melanesians, Fijians,
Austro-Asiatic Indians, Veddas and Papuans)
-Pacific Islanders would be designated by their proper name of Polynasians
or Polynesians
-American Indians ( a ridiculous term still used to this day!) would be
Native Americans (including South American Natives)
-Hispanic would disapear forever because there IS NO SUCH RACE AS HISPANIC!
-"dark skinned Caucasians would be classified as "Meditteranneans (Iberians,
North Africans, Arabs, Afghans etc...)
And Iranians of course would be termed Iranian because we are a mixture of
White, Dravidian, Meditterranean, Oriental and whatever else you want to add
to the mix! :)
Tony Lew <rosesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5c7896da.02072...@posting.google.com...
sirknight67
in existence prior to the arrival of Homo Sapiens in Asia and the rest of
the world. As a matter of fact that view is central to the out of Africa
theory since it places all modern humans in a common craddle land: Africa
rather than attributing to Homo Erectus and Homo Neadertalis indepednant
regional development into the modern human races as was once thought.
THe cultures you speak of are old indeed but they are not Homo Sapiens
Sapiens.
As I'm sure you are aware of, there were several species of the Genus Homo
including homo Habilis and archaic Homo Sapeins (or ancestral Homo Sapiens)
that died out by the time modern humans came about and two other species of
humans that were actually around and even lived side by side with modern
humans when these came about. These included Homo Erectus (the longest
living species of the genus Homo which went on to co-exist with modern man
in Java and other parts of Indonesia until 32 000 years ago) and Homo
Sapiens Neandertalis that lived on in Europe until 35-30 000 years ago. IN
some cases these even mixed with modern humans (Skhul in Palestine, Afalou
in Algeria and Brno in Czek Republic to cite a few examples).
India was inhabited by Homo Erectus for at least 500 000 years, as was
CHina. Iran and the western Asian highlands were inhabited for at least 250
000 but again, these were examples of earlier humans and so far as we know,
modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) came about around 130 000 years ago.
Sukgeun Jung <skj...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:ai23br$7eg$1...@gamera.cbl.umces.edu...
Tony Lew
> it's al relative. When I lived in Europe, i grew accustomed to hearing the
> term "Oriental" for all people of the east. The Europeans call themselves
> Occidentals (those of teh west) and people in the east Oriental. In the
> United Kingdom, they call Indians, Pakistanese and Bengalese "Asian", as
> they did in former British colonies in Africa. They still call the Indians
> "Asians" in South Africa. In the United States however, for some reason the
> term "Asian" is only aplied to people of east and North Asian background.
> This has caused a good deal of confusion, especially for one of my friends
> and one of my cousins who are both white Iranians, who checked the box for
> "Asian" when applying for citizenship!
>
Well, there are a lot of differences between American and British English.
For example, in the US, you'd better not tell someone you're stepping
outside to suck on a fag!
Sukgeun Jung
anthropologists use 'Mongoloids" in racial sense. The term Asians can be
based on races, but it is a rather ethnical term including common areas and
cultures they occupy and share.
I would like to remind you of a possible alternative hypothesis,
out-of-Asia, with respect to H. sapiens sapiens. there are some studies
indicating that migrations of H. sapiens sapines might have been
bidirectional (out-of-Africa and out-of-Asia) [1]. A study suggested
currently it is impossible to tell whether out-of-Asia or out-of-Africa is
correct [2]. The suprisingly old artifacts found in central Asia and archaic
forms of H. sapiens in China suggested out-of-Africa is too simple.
Regarding the controversial H. erectus [3] that might have coexisted with H.
sapiens (even with H. sapiens sapiens, accepting your hypothesis), I think
you seem to suggest that H. erectus might have coexisted with Negrito. I am
wondering how you would tell Negrito from H. erectus in Java.
[1] Altheide TK, Hammer MF. 1997. Evidence for a possible Asian origin of
YAP1 Y chromosomes. Am J Hum Genet 61: 462-66; Bianchi NO, Bailliet G, Bravi
CM, Carnese FR, Rothhammer F, Martnez-Marignac VL, Pena SDJ. 1997. Origin of
Amerindian Y-chromosomesas inferred by the analysis of six polymorphic
markers. Am J Phys Anthropol 102:79-89; Hammer MF. 1994. A recent insertion
of an Alu element on the Y-chromosome is a useful marker for human
population studies. Mol Biol Evol 11:749-61; Hammer MF. 1995. A recent
common ancestry for human Y-chromosomes. Nature 378:376-78; Hammer MF, Horai
S. 1995. Y chromosomal variation and the peopling of Japan. Am J Hum Genet
56:951-962; Hammer MF, Spurdle AB, Karafet T, Bonner MR, Wood ET, Novelletto
A, Malaspina P, Mitchell RJ, Horai S, Jenkins T, Zegura SL. 1997. The
geographic distribution of human Y-chromosome variation. Genetics
145:787-805; Hammer MF, Karafet T, Rasanayagam A, Wood ET, Altheide TK,
Jenkins T, Griffiths RC, Templeton AR, Zegura SL. 1998. Out of Africa and
back again: nested cladistic analysis of human Y chromosome variation. Mol
Biol Evol 15:427-441.
[2] CLAUDIO M. BRAVI, GRACIELA BAILLIET, VERO ' NICA L. MARTI'NEZ-MARIGNAC,
AND NE ' STOR O. BIANCHI. 2000. Origin of YAP1 Lineages of the Human
Y-Chromosome. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 112:149 -158.
[3] C. C. Swisher III, W. J. Rink, S. C. Anton, H. P. Schwarcz, G. H.
Curtis, A. Suprijo, and Widiasmoro. 1996. Latest Homo erectus of Java:
Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia. Science. 274:
1870-1874.
"sirknight67" <sirkn...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:2Hb19.13914$ti3.31...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
Fossil Cloud
out the detail among themselves. There is no way I call an Iranian an
Iranian just because he happens to be an Iranian. Life is too short
for that. Oh, yes, initially we all are from africa, and native
americans are from asia, etc. I am not arguing with science. Whoever
dislikes the way they are called are free to go wherever they like.
They won't be missed, we'll find a dozen to replace each one of them.
I.K. Flin
The previous theory of the evolution of man based itself in the
belief that homo sapien sapien evolved in a gradual chain- like pattern
(depicted like a continuum) along which branches came off forming many
of the present monkey and ape species. Further research indicates that
in reality there were many hominids and homo forms living in the world
at the same time (and at the same time as homo sapien sapien)which could
be thought of as many trees with many branches. Thus the picture of a
continuous chain of events leading into homo sapien sapiens evolution
began to be rethought. The theory of natural selection (based upon
Darwin's theory) doesn't rely on gigantic mutations occurring as part of
its basis. Actually it is quite the contrary. Mutations normally do not
result in viable offspring. Rather there are genotypes within the gene
population whose expression (phenotypically) may result in a "fitter"
offspring. In other words, offspring better capable of surviving and
having more offspring better capable of surviving(fitness in
evolutionary terms is a measure of how many viable offspring an animal
is capable of having). You might think of these variations as minor
(such as eye color) but made a tremendous impact upon the parental
ability to produce even more viable offspring than those that did not
carry the gene nor express the variation phenotypically(ie the giraffe
has as its food source the leaves in high tree branches, the natural
variation of the giraffes' neck size phenotypically expressed in a
population and the competition for leaves as a nutritional resource
among other species would enable the giraffes with longer necks to eat
healthier, have healthier offspring and this trait-phenotypically
expressed- would be passed on to some of the offspring-over time
resulting in a species with long necks). Therefore, this exquisitely
slow pattern could not easily have occurred by chance in many different
places at once to produce modern man. It is thought that modern man
possessed unique abilities(brain size, etc) above the other hominids
that enabled him/her to compete successfully for resources and perhaps
resulted in the extinction of the various hominids that survived within
the same niche(no two species may share the same niche-the competition
for resources would be too great and one population would fail in
accumulating the mutually desired resources based upon these extremely
minor selective processes). DNA comparisons have a much better capacity
to determine man's evolution and his relatives as opposed to the bone
fragments and remains. Many places, due to climate, cannot maintain an
adequate bone record for study. Thus the mitochondrial DNA techniques
were employed. I have not read on much of those studies and the
critiques of those stuidies and therefore cannot give an adequate
opinion as to the current thought of the day. (I'm a little behind in my
biology). But I do enjoy much of what the current literature has said
concerning man's evolution of man. I would be interested in seeing a
tracing of the races and reasoning as to why some skin is dark-although
I've read for instance that genes associated with sickle-celled anemia
in African's (Blacks) tend to give stronger immunity against-and I think
it was malaria. I would presume some of the skin color variations we see
today are much of the same sort of genetic linking in response to some
parasite in the environment.
Sincerely,
-Iris
I.K. Flin
sirknight67 wrote:
PS. A migration of a large group of people that carried a different set
of viruses and plague that they developed an immunity to could
effectively wipe out a population of people who had not previously been
exposed to the mutations of the plague or virus in sufficiently small
doses. Say if the skin pigment of white phenotypically expressed would
create a higher immunity to some virus found originally in a species of
rodent feces in one area. The people that developed the immunity would
survive and battle through the various mutations until those mutations
would be deadly to the originating population. Should those people
migrate and carry those viruses to a society without previous exposure
to the non-deadly forms of the disease, then that disease would be
lethal to that population (examples of this sort of population disease
exposure and population extinction has occurred in various current
written histories including those parasites that the early Americans
brought that exterminated communities of American Indians). Thus perhaps
earlier races of humans were extinct not just because of battle for
resources with the intruders, but because of the introduction of
diseases from the travelers into a population without sufficient
immunity to protect themselves from those diseases. Or the reverse could
have happened, a settled population could have acquired immunity to a
particular parasite that a migrating population did not have and thus
exposure gradually killed the migrating population that came to live in
the area. If early humans migrated to an area of different animal
species who carried lethal parasites to those humans eventually those
people would become extinct. Other populations of humans may have slowly
entered the area and either learned to prevent that disease from
spreading, created an effective method of extermination of that disease,
or gradually developed immunity above the population and those that did
came with white skin(a natural human pigmentation variation but when
expressed phenotypically gave those with white skin added immunity to
the disease, parasite, ailment, whatever). Very interesting topic. Your
comments?
-Iris
sirknight67
teh subject, I shall look for at least one of these sources.
As far as your statement is concerned, regarding the doubt about the "out of
Africa" theory, I am aware of theories suggesting possible development of
Homo Sapiens in Asia. There is no doubt that the scien is being re-written
on a constant basis. Let me give you an example. 20 years ago, as a child in
school I was told that modern Homo Sapiens is about 50 000 at the most. In
the mid eighties 70 000 was suggested and the date was at times viewed as
very avant guarde. Now, we are dealing with 130 000 as a more or less
accepted figure. As far as the Asian origin is concerned, I cannot go on at
length but have seen a program on Discovery and PBS that took the validity
of both theories, coming to the conclusion that based on mitochondrial DNA
evidence, the out of Africa theory is still the most plausible.
As far as the co-existence of Negritos and generally speaking, the
Australoid race (to which Negritos belong), Java serves as a perfect example
that at lest two (in this case three) types of humans co-existed for a few
thousand years, living side by side. There are interesting observations
about the dental structure of Australoid people that suggest a possible
mixture of the two populations (since java and Indonesia as well as
southeast Asia were inhabited by Australoid people). When I was in
high-school and we were told in biology class that all races of humans are
descended fro Homo Sapiens, I asked my teacher about why if that were teh
case, did Australoids retain so many features of fossil humans (heavy
proghnatism, heavy brow ridges and odd dental structure)? TO this he had no
response.
So far DNA tests have led most scientists to the conclusion that in spite of
the co-existence of Neandertals with modern humans in western Europe, and in
spite of known cases of inter-species mixtures (in Palestine, Egypt,
Algeria, Czek republic and Montenegro), the current European population
shows no trace of Neandertal genes. This could be due to some unknown factor
for if these genes did in fact exist, they would be present, even in a
masked form. I am not aware of such studies being conducted on people such
as Papuans or Melanesian islanders, or the Veddas of Ceylon but my
observation (perhaps simplistic and unscientific) leads me to accept the
possibility, however improbable to geneticists, that Homo Erectus, or
Archaic homo Sapiens may have mixed with modern humans to produce the
Australoid race.
Sukgeun Jung <skj...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:ai456e$kpi$1...@gamera.cbl.umces.edu...
sirknight67
Tony Lew <rosesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5c7896da.02072...@posting.google.com...
sirknight67
Fossil Cloud <sve...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb54de6a.02072...@posting.google.com...
sirknight67
that modern Man did indeed originate in one spot and then spread through the
rest of the world.
Your poitnt about the unlikeliness of mutations (an extremely rare occurence
but yet one of the primary causes of evolution) shows that all these
different early human "branches" could not really have evolved towards the
same exact speices. That is just not possible when you look at the rest of
the world's species.
As far as the skin color issue is concerned, it really is a matter of
environment for the more southerly lattitudes favor darker skin as opposed
to northern more temperate lattitudes. Another intersting fact is how often
you see people with lighter skin, hair and eyes in the north than in the
south? That is the case for Italy as well as Iran. Our northern provinces
often have people wtih light hair and eyes (my mother for instance has
reddish hair and my great uncles are all blond and blue or green eyed, being
from Gilan and Talysh). Same thing is true in Italy wehre you have a high
proportion of light skin, hair and eye in the north.
As far as Italy is concerned, the northerners are descended from teh Celts
who were known to be a fair race but the Germanic invasion (including the
Norman colonization of Sicily after the expulsion of the mohammedans)
brought the same fair hair and light complexioned element all throughout
Italy. Still the distribution is uneven. The reason? Infant mortality among
white and light babies is three times higher in tropical and sub-tropical
climes so natural selection does play an important role. High melanin
contents in the skin offer good protection against the sun's harmful
ultra-violet lights.
I.K. Flin <rs...@cox.net> wrote in message news:3D45C335...@cox.net...
sirknight67
question what you have been taught. I have believed in teh virus theory for
many years, even when comparing the largescale extinction of countless
species of mammals in north and south America during the Pliocene era when a
land bridge arose, that finally connected the two continents for the first
time.
For the longest time, I believed what was taught to me: that a large number
of south American mammals now extinct (Megatherium, Macrochenia, Toxodon,
Glyptodon, giant sloths, Alticamelus, Plihipus etc...) were driven to that
point because predators that could threaten them had been scarce before the
land bridge which we now call South America connected the two. Diatrima and
Phoroacos for instance, large land based birdes that stood taller than human
beings were supposedly obliterated by the entrance of new predators that
migrated from North America. They simply could not adapt to the new threats.
While that may be true in some cases, I personally do not believe it could
have been the case for so many species, including the theory about Man
eradicating all those large mammals singlehandedly.
We must look at the virus theory as a plausible one to explain the
destruction of so much fauna. That is a very good suggestion. It may have
been the case throughout the history of the Earth as a matter of fact and
many largescale extinctions could have had been partially due to the same
factor: germs or viruses being carried into an environment formerly devoid
of them. Recent human history has shown the devastating effect of diseases
in America for instance. It is estimated that in the North American
continent north of the Rio Grande, 10 million Native Americans once lived.
Thier immune systems were weak and certainly not prepared for the kinds of
iseases that Europeans carried with them. Europeans and Asians for that
matter had been exposed to thousands of years of periodic plagues that wiped
out as much as 75% percent of the population during each outbreak. These
Europeans were the fittest of the fit since they survived (kind of like
coakroaches exposed over several generations to the same pesticides). Out of
the 10 million estimated population, about 9 million died within the first
50 years of contact with Europeans (cold and smallpox being the most common
causes, as well as jaundice)!
Who's to say that the same event did not drive teh European and Middle
Eastern Neandertals to extinction? But there is a problem however and that
is the Hardy Weinberg law that dictates that regardless of dominance and
recessive genes, genetic traits cannot and will not be wiped out and will
always remains a constnat in the genetic make up of a population, provided
that population maintains its homogeneity and receives no more outsiders.
There is evidence of humans mixing with Neandertals in Europe. The skeletons
show it. How is it that they are absent from our moder populations? Could
the cause be sterility? perhaps mixtures between the two groups were
possible but, just like the mixture of a tiger and lion, the offsprings may
never produce young ones of their own?
To be continue (by you)---> a very interesting debate.
I.K. Flin <rs...@cox.net> wrote in message news:3D45CF1C...@cox.net...
I.K. Flin
sirknight67 wrote:
Of course you are absolutely correct that the pigment of the skin is
necessary to prevent deleterious effects of ultraviolet light yet the
question is not why are African descendants black, but rather why would
mankind evolve light skin from dark skin when early man migrated
northward from Africa. Obviously the genetic makeup of humankind was
variable enough to have light skinned people-but what benefit would be
derived from having fair skin in northern climes? If mankind came out of
Africa, wouldn't they have been originally black?
Just pondering-really enjoy this topic and would like your thoughts... :-)
-Iris
I.K. Flin
sirknight67 wrote:
Perhaps sterile (like a mule), or maybe the mixture was not always
socially acceptable and hence future mating was unsuccessful(many
possibilities....). Yes, genes reamin in the genepool, however, whether
they are expressed phenotypically depends upon environmental and genetic
conditions. Thus recessive traits have to have certain genetic
preconditions to be expressed. Diabetes(Type II) can develop in time in
individuals, however, if the individual is aware of the precautions
needing to be taken then perhaps they may be able to control the course
of the disease(perhaps not develop it in their lives or a need to have
the disease controlled through medication) through control of
appropriate environmental factors such as diet and excersize if they
plan accordingly based upon family history. We are 100% a product of
nature(genotype) AND 100% a product of nurture(environmental influences)
which determine what would be phenotypically displayed. In the previous case
of the giraffes, I did not get into cost-benefit ratios in terms of the
evolutionary costs to the giraffes for having long neck sizes (made them more
obvious to predators, couldn't travel as far, can't eat the lower leaves off
a tree without laying down, who will scratch the back of their neck if it gets itchy, etc)
I.K. Flin
I.K. Flin wrote:
I had gotten into this line of discussion to further the pigmentation
issue. With every change associated with natural selection there is a
cost/benefit ratio where the benefits obviously outweighed the costs(
otherwise the species and/or species variations would not have existed).
Since this is the case then what were the overriding benefits derived
from having light colored-skin that would offset the benefits of having
dark-colored skin (or rather the costs of loosing dark pigmentation)?
-Iris
sirknight67
Notice how panthers vary in shape and color according to different climates?
Black panthers live in shady forests with sparse sunlight and their black
color gives them the opportunity to go unoticed by their prey while the
spotted panthers live in grasslands and their coat is perfect camouflage
following the exact ground folliage patterns while the snow leopard is
likely camouflaged to respond to the requirements of its environment.
Second, yes there always is genetic diversity and certain genes manifest
themselves ebtter in some environment. A study was done during and after the
industrial revolution in northern Europe on moths. It was noted that prior
to the revolution, the same moth population had two main physical types
including a white and a black. The black type was rare because it was an
easier prey than the white type which had spotted wing patterns.
In the early stages of the industrial revolution when coal was the main fuel
over much of northern Europe, black soot was deposited on the tree trunks
where the moths lived. As a result the white ones became conspicious and the
predators had an easier time catching them while the black ones were now
perfectly fitted for their environment. Predictibly, as a result of all
this, the white type became more uncommon while the black type proliferated.
Similar instances and genetic variations within the same population can be
observed in woves for instance. While there are several sub-species of wolf
as well as several colors, the most commonly known and most widespread wolf
in the world remains the timber wolf (Canis Lupus Borealis if I am not
mistaken). In a fact book I have on wolves, it is stated that within the
same speicies, at times within the same pack and fmailly, an inexplicable
color mutation occurs that causes 25% of the timber wolves to turn pitch
black and thus contrast wtih the greyish fur that we are familliar with. At
the same time, another mutation causes a similar percentage (perhaps less)
to have a white fur (we are still talking about the timber and not arctic
wolf).
I.K. Flin <rs...@cox.net> wrote in message news:3D48AE36...@cox.net...
sirknight67
various environments and conditions but the issue I raised was that even if
we were to assume the Neandertal genes were recessive and thus failed to
show up in the phenotype, they still woul dbe identified in the genotype,
which is the basis of the Hardy Weinberg law, allowing us to determine the
percentage and exact contribution of each "racial" type thanks to a simple
equation. That is not the case however and Neandertal genes and traits are
simply totally absent from the genetic soup of Europeans. This can only mean
that they died out. Question of course is how. Perhaps the virus theory can
be applied, to conclude that both "pure" types as well as mixed breeds were
subjected to too many immune deficiencies to have a long term survival
chance.
I.K. Flin <rs...@cox.net> wrote in message news:3D48B230...@cox.net...
sirknight67
disadvantage in the northern lattitudes. First, as I mentioned earlier in my
previous response, the most evident explanation would be the disadvantage
that dark skinned individuals would have in a landscape surrounded by ice
sheets and snow covered fields (read my comments on the moths in post
industrial revolution Europe).
Notice how few blacks there are in Skiing, ice-skating, figure-skating and
ice hockey?
I.K. Flin <rs...@cox.net> wrote in message news:3D48B42A...@cox.net...
> I had gotten into this line of discussion to further the pigmentation
> issue. With every change associated with natural selection there is a
> cost/benefit ratio where the benefits obviously outweighed the
I.K. Flin
associated with thermoregulatory mechanisms that enable them to better
adapt to varying temperatures? The camouflage theory is most obvious and
well documented (Polar bear, the pcats you mentioned, the moths'
camouflage for avoiding predation as you have said, etc). Yet the
northern areas where humans inhabit were not always snow-covered and
early humans may not have lived without coverings in those cold
climates. There were probably a variety of reasons for the light skin
color and all added together made lighter skin benefit outweigh costs in
those areas. Therefore, I would think that your hypothesis about there
being few blacks in ice-skating, hockey, and skiing perhaps is
well-founded, but the monetary benefit of playing basketball, football,
and track and field probably far outweigh the monetary benefits of
skiing, skating, and hockey. Futhermore, the risks of injury in such
sports combined with the monetary costs of training and equipment in
those sports seem to predict that benefits for the individuals involved
in basketball, football, and track would outweigh those of the winter
sports. Therefore, blacks apparently are more intellectually inclined to
be motivated towards higher earnings rather than the paltry middle of
the road earnings and costs associated with winter sports. Perhaps this
signifies a greater adaptability and higher intelligence among them? :-)
PS I think I need a new job
-Iris
I.K. Flin
sirknight67 wrote:
> I understand the point about the phenotype being expressed according to
> various environments and conditions but the issue I raised was that even if
> we were to assume the Neandertal genes were recessive and thus failed to
> show up in the phenotype, they still woul dbe identified in the genotype,
> which is the basis of the Hardy Weinberg law, allowing us to determine the
> percentage and exact contribution of each "racial" type thanks to a simple
> equation. That is not the case however and Neandertal genes and traits are
> simply totally absent from the genetic soup of Europeans. This can only mean
> that they died out. Question of course is how. Perhaps the virus theory can
> be applied, to conclude that both "pure" types as well as mixed breeds were
> subjected to too many immune deficiencies to have a long term survival
> chance.
Have you ever read the "Clan of the Cavebear" by Jean M. Auel and her
subsequent book series? It is set in that time period. Through her
fictional writing she presents a theory of distrust and rejection
between the two peoples. The combined offspring could have children but
they were rejected by both peoples for their differences (sort of like
racial hatred-it seems to be ingrained in the animal kingdom that if you
are different than your own kind then you will be rejected by your own
kind). It is a fun fictional story. Within her book she presents the one
people as a dying breed-already on their way to extinction due to
various reasons. The reasons are presented: too many babies were born
deformed (mutations) and could not survive, pregnancies were few due to
the cost on the females' body and perhaps due to male impotency becoming
more prevalent, illnesses were more difficult to overcome, fighting
between peoples caused too many deaths, they were more subject to
predation, smaller ability to create due to different brain capacity
made them less able to survive changes in an ever changing world, etc.
There are perhaps a myriad of reasons different species have become
extinct. Adaptation is the key to survival.
I had always thought that neanderthals were too different to
interbreed with man and have fit offspring. The definition of species
has to do with being able to successfully reproduce viable offspring for
any given mating pair. If they could interbreed then they were of the
same species.
Any comments?
Sincerely,
I.K. Flin
sirknight67 wrote:
> You are a very intelligent person I must say and like myself like to
> question what you have been taught.
By the way, Thank you!! the feeling is mutual!! :-)
-Iris
I.K. Flin
occur without mating, sexual selection has become an important issue in
the human evolutionary process. It is apparent that reproductive females
prefer plasticity of mind in males to enhance their reproductive
success. Thus we are invariably led back to female mate choices as a
leading theme for human evolutionary patterns. Females would want to
enhance their offsprings chances of successful survival by choosing
males with a greater mental plasticity. This trait would passed to their
children and their children's children. Following female mate choices
will lead us to patterns of human evolution in the past and present and
on into the future.
Sincerely,
-Iris
Htin Aung Moe
ORIENTAL by Greeks and Romans long before the very existant of Japan
or Korea was ever known to them. So , you happened to be THE ORIGINAL
ORIENTAL. We CAN leave that Oriental stuff in the pass.
North-East Asian is modern and relivent name for Chinease, Korean and
Japanese.
Polenesyan are called Pasafic Islanders their region is called Ocenia.
Still distraught? Called us Oriental, if it please you, then.