Posted on 08/30/2009 10:40:35 AM PDT by decimon
White Europeans could have evolved as recently as 5,500 years ago, according to research which suggests that the early humans who populated Britain and Scandinavia had dark skins for millenniums.
It was only when early humans gave up hunter-gathering and switched to farming about 5,500 years ago that white skin began to be favoured, say the researchers.
This is because farmed food was deficient in vitamin D, a vital nutrient. Humans can make this in their skin when exposed to sunlight, but dark skin is much less efficient at it.
In places such as northern Europe, where sunlight levels are low, the ability to make vitamin D more efficiently could have been crucial to survival.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Neubie ping.
So what’s the theory on Asians?
And evolved from what?
fascinating.
I guess that this means that vitamin D is “racist”!
If this is case, what about the Inuit in Alaska? Should they not have evolved into light-skinned blonds as well?
No serious scientist actually believes this
They’re not agrarian.
If they turned to agriculture. Don't think they did.
Hogwash, my ancestors arrived in the Great Ice Ship. No one has proven otherwise. ;o)
(Whitey's fault.)
No, because they were never farmers, but remained primaryily hunters. Lots of vit D in animal flesh. ( According to the theory)
I remember seeing a food channel episode a while beack where the host ate a seal with an Inuit family. One delicacy- the eyeballs- incredibly rich in vit D.
Nice use of the lingo.
The British don't always handle plurals as Americans do but you're probably right.
Funny how this non-intelligent evolution somehow found a way to compensate for a deficient vitamin. I guess the same manner in which evolution always seems to stumble its way into intricate complexities and problem solving. This crap is comedic. But researchers funded by grants are well paid comedians.
Skin color is the most visible but not the only physical difference between races. For example, forensic examiners can tell the race of an individual by a single tooth or bone. I wonder how they explain those differences?
You posted this just to see the usual fight erupt didn't you?
Whitey done stole all the Vitamin D.......bastards!!!!
Isn’t it rather racist, to say that white Europeans are more “evolved” in any way, shape or form?
Of course, when you get right down to it, the whole “Out Of Africa” thing is racist, too, implying that the smart ones got out as it does, when you get right down to brass tacks.
Those infernal skull calipers are never far removed from this whole charade, whatever the intended political impact of the latest news in human “evolution” might be at any given moment.
I’m left to ponder the cranial capacity of the author, as a result. His having written “millenniums” doesn’t help, either.
Nope. But when you have evolution and race in one thread...
Should not be, but oh well, nothing new under that 'sun'.
Most Christians ignore Genesis 2:5 After it is already declared in Genesis 2:4 THE GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND OF THE EARTH (it is written in all caps in my KJV)
Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:
for the LORD God has not caused it to rain upon the earth, *and* (bit of seed planting follows) there was NOT a man to till the ground.
Then we are told about the formation of 'the' man Adam, quite unlike those 'men/women' created back in Genesis 1:27.
At long last proof that the Nation of Islam belief that the eeeveeel black scientist Yakub created the white devils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakub_(Nation_of_Islam)
Good one!
Modern Europeans are descended from the peoples of the Middle East from modern-day Israel and Iran. They migrated up through the Caucases and that is why whites are called Caucasians.
Just checked a dictionary and the author is correct.
From the PhD crowd - you know, Pile it Higher and Deeper. This one can’t even stand the common sense test.
The genetic migration and evolution of modern Europeans is well documented and predates tripe like this.
This theory will turn out to be hogwash later on, like so many theories posited in the last century about modern human origins.
Didn’t Darwin originally say that black people were basically sub-human? Evolution is racist. Many of the “primitive” features of skulls are found in modern black/African skulls. Lower forehead, smaller chin, etc. Whenever a textbook shows a “primitive” skull and a “modern” skull it is always showing a white person’s skull for the “modern” one. It’s obvious to anyone who’s studied forensic anthropology.
“Millenniums” would be differing and separated eras of 1,000 years.
The two are not always interchangeable. The author misuses the term in this instance.
The article states that white europeans "could have" evolved 5500 years ago. Then again, maybe not.
then they shot the nose off the sphinx....
“Millenniums” would be differing and separated eras of 1,000 years.
The two are not always interchangeable. The author misuses the term in this instance.
In which dictionary may I find this?
I wonder if the first white guy was a racist like the rest of us?
Speaking of serious scientists, you of course are kidding, right? here? on this topic?
:-)
Actually their problem word is 'switched'.
I don't think they're saying that vitamin D effects melanin production. This would be survival of the fittest and the fittest would have been the lighter skinned in a northern agricultural society.
Uh, the world was not created 6,000 years ago. The Church has accepted that evolution probably did happen but that it was guided by God. Until God says otherwise through his servant Benedict or whomever succeeds him I really don’t see the need to dispute that.
And anyone who has had a basic science class knows that white people were in existence in Europe well before the dawn of civilization.
I don't know how you managed to read that into this.
Elijah Muhammad said this:
"The Blackman is the original man. From him came all brown, yellow, red, and white people. By using a special method of birth control law, the Blackman was able to produce the white race. This method of birth control was developed by a Black scientist known as Yakub, who envisioned making and teaching a nation of people who would be diametrically opposed to the Original People. A Race of people who would one day rule the original people and the earth for a period of 6,000 years. Yakub promised his followers that he would graft a nation from his own people, and he would teach them how to rule his people, through a system of tricks and lies whereby they use deceit to divide and conquer, and break the unity of the darker people, put one brother against another, and then act as mediators and rule both sides."
You’re not compliant in applying the term “racist” in the approved, amorphous political sense, and that is where your confusion arises.
The Nation of Islam. Horrendously racist people.
The development of a single trait is hard to determine accurately. The haplogroups that form much of the European population are traceable back some distance in time. It is hard to explain how lineages that go back further then 5000 years ago would all share the same trait. There was a similar statement about blue eyes being a recent mutation going back only 5000-6000 years that had me wondering about that. There is no logical way to explain how such traits could spread so rapidly if they were not in the populations prior to this latest theory. Unless of course everybody just wanted to do it with the white chick.
Gasp!
Say it isn't so!
Actually, goes without saying, but some here would vehemently disagree, question your faith, question your dogma, question your dog's dogma, your ancestry, the number of neurons in your head, and the number of them actually synapsing at any given moment, and how much nt is actually transferring to the post syanptic plate.
It is actually very entertaining, goes good with a glass or two of wine and a small plate of cheese,(without moose bite marks).
Did he say when the 6,000 years would be up? I’m sure the timing of that is convenient.
It was kind of interesting, but it was said in 1965. I got it from Wikipedia, so Lord knows how often its edited by, ahem, honest folks.
Sounds like revisionist history to me.
Good question. Never thought of that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.