I must return to some parts, because I see,
that I was misunderstand - partialy on porpose.
What I'm saying, is supported by many research in skin colour in climatic zones, diet, production of vitamin D3, and skin cancer. All of the body of research point to correlation and causation of these factors. It is a complete theory, which can explain every instance of human skin tone. Therefore it is the right one. That's how science work.
I didn't say that this is not true. Only I showed you, that people are existing thousands of years againts these factors.
And this is not contradictionary even with evolutionism, because these people were and still are living. Even in this one
particular (evolutionery) system of thinking not every mutation must have a purpose and must be needed. Thats all.
I have an impresion, that you pretend to not get it, because you are simply to much focused on this miracously "thousands of
years and many spontanical mutations in many places at similar time". So, why it did not happen earlier, but after the Ice Age,
after climate changed, and why in this time? It would be much better if it would happen a hundrets of times during the circa
forty thaosands years of existing people in Europe during the Ice Age...
As you prooved yourself, such a thing like lack of sunlight could be recompensate by food. So blondism is not needed.
How many years people lived in Europe in your favorite theory? 50.000 years? So through most than 90% of that huge
period of time they were very well without sun and blond hair. Even the climate was much worse than that in last 5k years.
Probably through this earlier 45k years people could figure it out how to survive in such extremal bad environment, and they
didn't forget about that recently about 5000 years ago when they got even more sun than through earlier 45.000 years,
when they were nonpale, and still today, not everyone is blond or redhead or paleskin.
Probably somewhere in this forum I was reading, that even in Middle Ages most of Europeans were still more tawny
than today. So this must be a real miracle - because climate through last 5000 years was not only warmer than in
previous 45.000, but in Middle Ages were probably one of wamest and sunest times in that long period of time.
So, this mutation wasn't helpfull in survival as claim theory.
And all this do not contradict with evolution (if you wish so blindly belive in that kind of nature process).
On other hand, we have a hodgepodge of your ideas which invoke supernatural forces or unproven phenomena to exist in order to justify them, and fails to consolidate known knowledge in a coherent hypothesis.
I dont know exactly what you talking about, but it is not to hard to enumerate "scientific" theories which were
"very rational" and "prooved by scientific methods" until they were prooved to be totaly wrong or even humbug.
I dont have obligation to belive in every theory which is made.
I have only obligation belive in facts.
As I was mention before, some years ago, were couple theories about how blond and red colours of hair became to exist, and when did it happend.
All of them are now wrong. This were fantasies, which were produced by scientists. Always I was reading and hearing, that ~5000 years (or even
twice much as that) it is to short time to evolved anything, especially some kind of human anthropological type (what you seem to still affirm), but
now, I read that light genes became to existence about 5000 years ago and dominated population recently not so long ago... a couple hundred
of years ago... So as you see yourself, not everything (what is based on this mithologicaly "many places and hundrets of thousands of years) is true.
I'm not a scientist, I'm even not a specialist - but like any other man, I don't have obligation to belive in every theory which is published.
In that case I dont belive in "many places in one time", but in one place where lived inbred small population. As Angela wrote, someone
published such thing like this:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31055-Ice-Age-Europeans-On-Brink-Of-Extinction So even your evolitionist guru's also belive in small
groups of people which lived in the past, so why if I belived in this also (maybe a little bigger groups), you don't allow me?
Again, it doesn't stop or disprove future improvements/mutations. Just because you say that improvements are not needed, it doesn't stop them. Unless you have powers of god.
But I never said that mutations don't exist!
Except few very old pictures, there are no Blacks in Abkhazia today. Died out?
They don't die out, but mixed with the locals.
According to your premise, white skin is recessive, so black skin colour should spread in population and dominate white locals. It didn't happen, therefore it is wrong.
And this is how you disprooved your own theory!!!
Because this is your theory, not mine! Even worse, because your theory is about recessive genes!
You are beliving, that single people in couple of places with white genes dominated darker population.
As you see, a whole group of people with dominant genes couldn't do that!
Why you dont listen me, but rather discuse with yourself?
I was always saying, that this goup of negors must not mix with locals, grow in number, and when they would be more
numeriuos than their neibours, then they could dominate population. What is untrue, unreasonable and illogical in that?!
Can you be for a moment not blindly focused on your mithological way of evolving?
Thanks to new technology we don't know how bad it used to be, and why our parents and grandparents were taking fish liver oil/tran regularly. If not they could get rickets.
Of course, but not everyone.
But still, 45.000 or more years in europe, and whole time in other parts in cold climate zone, people were living without white pigmentation, and still are...
This is a fact.
Either you are blind or have over hyper fantasy.
Not so hyper fantasy as you, who should belive, that there should live 100% of blond eskimos.
None of them ares fair (without european admixture) and the same refer to every other arctic tribe along with whole arctic circle.
You must be really blind not to see this...
You don't understand what you read. I said Black people left Africa, I never said they lived in Europe.
Maybe you don't, but scientists did.
However you don't said that in Europe were livind only fair people through whole history either.
So, you agree that in Europe through thousands of years were living at least swarthy people.
How came they are alive now, if it happened thousands of years ago? Do you realize how backward your logic is?
They mixed with local people, and you know abot that very well.
Why you still are trying pretend, that such things didn't happend?
Untrue dosen't proof your evolution of blond people theory at all...
Only Y chromosome survived, not the white people. Autonomously they all are like any other locals.
This chromosome, probably came from dead people who were killed by evolution process.
Black women cut of Y chromosome from dead bodies and exchange chromosomes of their sons or husbands...
There must were really very advanced science to do that!
Because your theory don't allow them
It was me who said that thanks to clothing and technology people can live everywhere these days, didn't I? Please read with comprehension.
And when I am talking about such things, why you don't allow me and you're talking about some evolution fairy tails?
Why you dont see, that people lived in arctic zones because of their technology, and the same was with domination of pale people in later times?
Again, you are either blind or a liar. The darkest American Natives are from Mexican plateau where radiation is strongest in America. The lightest are the Inuits. It is in agreement with UV radiation map I posted above.
Do you want make a gallery from that thread?
About eskimos, you yourself prooved me, that they are tawny.
Before your proof, I was never mentioned that before.
And even paler ones, are still dark haired and dark eyed.
I suppose, that this paler one, comes from not only european
admixture, but from newer asian migrations from syberia.
But every one of Indian zones had very tawny people as for our european averege.
Differences between indigenuos people of Americas are very small.
And now I know, that Eskimos are tawner too... thanks.
Explain again why we have so diverse populations of people if we started from one small group? I would like to noticed that you failed to give even one real life example of diversity coming from a small group of people.
If all people of the world would be totaly mixed - in their genom pool would be probably everything.
Then, when they would be divided in small inbred groups of people and by some generations have the
same number of people, or even smaller, then every one of this group will be different, because some
of genes would be lost - differet genes would be lost in different populations, and that would create
a differences in apperiance - which are not so numeriuos and big, as it seems to be. It is only a small
fraction of permille of or genes.
On other hand the "positive/advantageous mutation in relation with environment" theory eloquently explains why people are different around the plant. That's how science works.
No, that's how theory works, which must be a perpetum mobile for every accident, possibility and ocasion.
Because this is how science works! Everything needs to be explained in order to understand how it works. If you fallowed the science I wouldn't need to lose my time to explain how things work.
If you fallowed the science, you would know, that science can explain how something (what allready exist) works, looks and what attributes has. And only that.
Science
cannot explain by scientific methods how something came to exist, if have not opportunity to observe that process. This is the reason why science
have need to create over and over again theories about how something happend, which mostly are falces - and it was the same with blond hair theories wich all were wrong in the past.
For science is the best doing about what is now and how it works, but not produce fantasies about how this became to exist (mostly from nothing).
If you would know this, you wouldn't need to lose your time as well as mine too...
That's a perfect example of mutations popping up randomly. In this case it is not a positive mutation and people don't live too long with it or their kids. It is weeded out quickly.
I didn't chose that example because this is desise, but to ilustrate basic mendelic priciple.
You are to inteligent to not understand this, and you create that problem for purpose.
I could chose people with very big or small noses and it would be the same.
If they are one on ten thousand in dominant population, they never dominate whole continent.
But if we gather them together, they could create a big inbred populatin and after that dominate continent.
Not because it is rare, but because it is a bad mutation. People don't live too long with it. How many times I have to explain that there are good and bad mutations, advantage versus disadvantage in environment.
I choose albono people, only to ilustrate, and because they look similar.
I didn't thought, that you would be so malicious, to change the point...
Maybe, if you think that light-skinism is similar negative and disaterous
mutations, as albinism, then ok.
But I don't think, that you are thinking like that...
. Humans are nature, and humans actions are nature too.
Obviously there was an advantage involved in it. We don't know exactly which one yet.
Sorry, but this is realy good joke...
And why my theory about "white gens" is bad, and your about R1 not?
Why human actions couldnt spread a "white genes" or mutation from
one place to the rest of the continent, exactly by the same way as this
was happend whith mutation called R1? Why?
etrified:
Ridiculous statement. Don't compare your life to life of people in middle ages or anywhere in history. We live now in unique times, especially in the West, where no one dies of hunger anymore. This never happened in human history.
If you were dying of hunger you would even try to chew wood, but unlike milk, wood wouldn't give you calories to survive.
No, this statement is really ridiculous, because only a small percentige today living people (in Europe also) have that mutation,
and - as your point of view suggest - it should be much more rarer in the past. So, huge majoryty of people lived without that
mutation, and they didn't extinct. Humanity didn't survived because of that mutation, even in Middle Ages or during famine.
This is not true.
Almost all animals evolved and changed, with hominids included. It is impossible to explain without new mutations and natural selection.
So even if this wouldn't be true - either in particular case or general - you have no other choice, but only blindly follow that rule...
Wasn't it you who posted Eskimo with suntanned faces?
No, Not I.
Especially not in the middle of the winter, when there is almost not sun at all...
You are begin terryfing me... I am worry about you... really.
I'm sure I mentioned couple of times already that they supplemented vitamin D with raw liver diet. The vital information which you chose to ignore.
I don't ignor that!
You ignore that, because you think, that only people in Europe, after 45.000 of survival, were so dump, that they couldn't find right food too...
Lapps could, Eskimos could, Ugrofinns could, paleoasiatics could, Indians could - but Europeans living in warmer zones couldn't, after they
survive 45.000 years in much much worse environment... and their neighbours through next 4000-5000 years could do the same in Europe,
but dumm blondes clouldn't... I'm very courius, what happend to the brains of blond people, that they suddenly canot found or buyed optimal
food for themselves even when most of darker countryman could...
Dogs has been bread by people for about 30 thousand years, by way of allowing only bread dogs with traits selected by people.
I don't know what is so funny, because 1) not for 30.000 years, because dog's races are much mor younger, and 2) why very small group of dogs
can produce new race, and small group of people - cannot? because you said so? I thought, that genetic laws work the same way for everyones.
You really don't want understand so simple things on purpose - and I cannot understand why?
Mutations still happen blindly,
What many varieties?!!! They come from same parents and grandparents. They are all the same. In your hypothesis the variety always shows up from nothing, lol.
Dogs came form pra-dog or wolf.
From where during last 1000 years or even much less, came hundrets of varietis of dogs?
From nothing, or they so quickily muteted?
Change your miracle with spontaneous positive and negative mutations and you will understand how nature works.
This is not
Did I ever said, that mutations doesn't happend?
Then go back to Adam and Eve and try to explain. You would need to assume that god create black Adam and white Eve, to accommodate all colour of skin without evoking positive and negative mutations to exist. Also they would already have genes for lactose persistence, malaria resistance and sickle cell anemia, and all other existing variety of genes. Their genome would need to be 100 times bigger to accommodate all the varieties. This is nuts.
So, I see, that you allread close your mind for any other possibility.
Only one theory - even if is disproofed in same cases - is right always, even if is wrong.
This is sectarian thinking, not science.
Actually, blond hair and light eyes can give a better camouflage for hunting in the snow.
If this mutations happend in lats 5-6 thousand years, so what are you talking about!!!!!!!!?????????????????????
This is absurde!
5000 years ago people already cultivated corn, they build houses, and wearing clothes - which weren't a good camouflage on the snow!
They should hunt naked in the winter during Ice Age when temprature was like in Yakutia!
But even then, they were tawny or at the begining - black!
And red hair - this one hunter who had this mutation would be seeing from very large distant.
Sorry, but you're began talking nonsens, only because your belive must become true.
And this is science?!
Uff, so I must partialy say: sorry.
Nobody cared to make a hypothesis out of it. Or as well it might be a side effect of many whitening genes.
So if no one knows why, so why are you so opposed to idea of small goup who grow in number whith that mutation?
I'm not sure why you bringing hair colour to the equation when we are arguing about effects of skin colour on surviving of people.
No, we were (and I hope still are) talking about how european people became light: incuding skin, hair and eyes.
I claim simply, that it was in small group of people without any need and reason. That's all.
Either you want to understand the world, or live in you fantasy world. Your choice.
And what, if this "real world" are talking and teaching a nonsens?
Do you really wish me to belive in every nonsensical theory, only because some scentists said so?!
etrified:
Even, if I see, that it doesn't work in real?
This is more similar to some sectarian cult, than to science...
For example, when I was little, in real world as a scientific fact was, that american economy is much worse than soviet.
If some one was thinking otherwise, he not only was living in fantasy world as you said, but could go to prison.
So, scientists can proove many things - it doesn't mean, that this is true, that it is not a fantasy, because about
scientific fantasies it is possible to write dozens of fat books begining from hairy and stupid neanderthals or maybe
from man from Piltdown... or maybe from phlogiston theory or mayby caloric theory... it was real science not fantasy...