^ well , the whole mankind originated in South Eastern Africa so if you're not talking about citizenship, we are ALL Africans. There were Cro-Magnon type humans called Grimaldi Man who still had negroid features in his skeleton , it was found between Menton and Ventimiglia at the border between Italy and France, 7 skeletons Grimaldi Man Unfortunately politics had put heavy fabrications in either part, some want them as early Europeans and origin of civilization , others refuse this very idea and the idea ofblacks in there at that time, pseudo-scientists fabricated false proofs to demonstrate their theories , so it's all uncertain. one thing is sure though, the loss of melanin of our skin happened in Europe, especially during the Ice Ages , we needed more Vitamin D and our former black skin prevented us from getting enough of it , good in Africa under heavy radiations not so good in Europe under a weaker sun. Anyway very likely we merged with Neanderthal who was there for 100,000 years prior of us and much more adapted especially his immune system , some 4% of our DNA is of Neanderthal origin Anyway there's evidence that Neanderthal wasn't as primitive as he has been depicted in the past, his technology was at least equal and possibly superior to ours (ours as in our Cro-Magnon ancestors) they had cults and possibly altars , they painted their ornaments and so on, all of this is studied right now we have no definitive evidence yet Edited by - LCF on 1/11/2014 11:51:16 AM
^^ & ^^^ I misread AssDestroyer's comment, in part because I assumed he was speaking from a particular perspective on human evolution. Ironically, you see less genetic diversity among non-Africans than you do Africans. Only a very small group of Homo sapiens left Africa in the big migration that took place within the last 100,000 years and resulted in the whole planet being populated by Homo sapiens sapiens (which could equally well be called Homo sapiens africanus). As a result of small size of this founding group, the genetic diversity among non-Africans is smaller than the diversity within Africa. Accordingly, one could easily say that, from a genetic (as opposed to ethnic) viewpoint, almost all the human racial diversity is found within Africa. Patterns of Human Genetic Diversity: Implications for Human Evolutionary History and Disease by Sarah A. Tishkoff and Brian C. Verrelli Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 2003. 4:293–340 doi: 10.1146/annurev.genom.4.070802.110226 Still, as the migrants left Africa, they encountered other groups that were not Homo sapiens sapiens, and there was some amount of gene flow from these groups to the migrating populations, which accounts for the small amount of diversity that is found only within the European and Asian groups. (Within this way of looking at human racial diversity, Inuit, Oceanic, and American people are "Asian" because small groups of Asians migrated to these other regions.) This is exactly what you expect if modern humans are, as the fossil record indicates, all descended from Africans. I don't remember where I read it, but I think the greatest amount of genetic diversity within Africa is found among Khoisan Bushmen. This makes sense if you look at human artifacts rather than human bones. The first signs of "Modern Human Behavior" are seen in caves in Southern Africa. I strongly suspect that modern human behavior emerged because of genetic changes in how the brain functions, and that the subsequent migrations were enabled because of these behavioral changes. If modern human behavior really emerged in Southern Africa, and modern human genetic diversity largely emerged from this first group of behaviorally modern humans, then you would expect to see the greatest genetic diversity within that ancestral group– which may in fact be the Khoisan. My understanding is that some linguists also suspect that all modern human languages derived from a language similar to that spoken by the Khoisan today.
^ I have my own thoughts about Neanderthals. Whatever subtle hints of modern behavior can be seen in some Neanderthal sites, the reality is that you see nothing that even comes remotely close to the cave paintings that were left behind by Homo sapiens in Europe during a time period when Neanderthals were still walking the Earth. Artifacts found in caves that were inhabited by both Neanderthals and modern humans. Some archeologists argue that they were made by Neanderthals, and therefore argue that Neanderthals were engaged in some degree of modern behavior. (During the late Pleistocene, modern humans and Neanderthals would move in and out of the same caves as glaciers retreated and advanced. In some cases, you find fossils that show mixed ancestry, but normally you see Neanderthal layers on top of modern layers etc. Once in a while, you will see artifacts that look like the kind of thing modern humans would make in a layer that otherwise seems to be Neanderthal.) Artifact that no one thinks was produced by a Neanderthal. People who argue that Neanderthals were engaged in some level of symbolic behavior have to struggle to find evidence to support their claims, and then they have to argue that the artifacts were in fact Neanderthal in origin. When you look at modern humans, the diversity and beauty of what they were producing is overwhelming. Edited by - cumminglinguist on 1/11/2014 12:11:34 PM
^ I read the Italian edition of Scientific American regularly , saw those paintings there in their related articles there's another part you're not putting there , they were red haired and likely blue eyed, they adapted to the European Iced environment and the lack of vitamin D way before we didIsn't this an oxymoron? I mean if Homo originated in Africa all genus Homo is African , I mean we haven't any other Homo Sapiens than that from Africa , even Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis not only was of African origin but actually maybe the only true different race of our species if we really merged and had fertile siblings with them then they were members of our species, we couldn't have merged otherwise, Edited by - LCF on 1/11/2014 12:38:37 PM
[Link]
IRLover91 Deactivated User
1091 Posts 11/13
Posted - Jan 11 2014 : 12:22PM
We're all homo sapiens sapien, as far as I know, only a few Europeans have Neanderthal DNA. We're all the same species, in fact, we wiped out Neanderthals.
^^ There were multiple waves of migration out of Africa, and certain groups evolved outside of Africa. The first wave was of Homo erectus about 1.8 million years ago. Groups evolved within Asia that were clearly distinct from African groups living at the same time. Around 600,000 years ago, there was a second migration, that gave rise to the Neanderthals in Europe. Then around 50,000 years ago, modern Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa. People argue about the naming of these other groups. The Asians are normally called "Homo erectus" even though "modern" Homo erectus looked very different than their African ancestors of 1.8 million years ago. (One difference is that they had large brains, similar in size to Homo sapiens in Africa and Homo neanderthalenis in Europe). There is more debate on Neanderthals. Some prefer Homo neanderthalensis, which I just used, and others prefer Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. I'll take a more extreme case to show the point. The earliest apes evolved in Africa, and all modern apes other than orangutans live in Africa today. One could argue that orangutans, like all apes, are African, but in fact, we think that orangutans evolved (from ancestors that had migrated from Africa) in Asia. So we consider then to be Asian apes. Similarly, I would say that "modern" Homo erectus were Asians, and that Neanderthals were Europeans (that often migrated to the middle east during ice ages). In the case of modern humans, there hasn't been significant enough evolutionary change since the migration from Africa that I would say we are all in some very real way Africans. I wouldn't say the same for Asian "erectus" or neanderthals. That said, the fact that there was gene flow between the three groups leads me to conclude that we were all one species. I even suspect that there was some amount of gene flow between Africa and Asia during the 1.7 million years during which the two populations were living on separate continents, which may explain a few weird details about the genetic and fossil record. (There is also a weird thing within the louse genome that suggests that Asians and Africans may have had some contact. I suspect that a group of Homo erectus may have migrated to Africa in the distant past and possibly encountered people who are ancestral to modern Ethiopians. Don't ask me to justify the claim, as it rests on a pretty weak foundation.)
Edited by - cumminglinguist on 1/11/2014 12:30:11 PM
^^ you need updates , the only Homo Sapiens with no Neanderthal genes are Sub-Saharan Africans , all the populations in Northern Africa and out of Africa have them in different percentages including native Australians. I read somewhere that the only pure race is African , not true an "African" race does not exist Africans are of many races , all mixed together in fact as proven above , the higher genetic diversity between human groups lies among Africans , which is only logical since our ancestors lived there for hundred thousands of years and only few dozen thousand out of AfricaThe first part was for IR Lover we were writing together for the rest I see your point ,but Homo is a single species the other apes are different can't mix between them. It just occurred to me that 1,800,000 years ago our species begun to hunt actively , maybe this triggered some other changes including our migration , from fruit gatherers to nomadic hunters , we (in a very wide meaning) maybe didn't migrate willingly it may have occurred following our prey or looking for new hunting territories during hard times Edited by - LCF on 1/11/2014 12:50:08 PM
Homo is actually a genus, not a species. Linnaeus called chimpanzees Homo troglodytes. Some biologists still think he had the right idea, though I doubt it will ever catch on. The species concept is fuzzy. The so-called "biological species concept" which is often used in high school textbooks asks whether two populations can interbreed in the wild. Even among living organisms it's hard to apply. For instance, wolves and dogs can interbreed, but any dog that wanders into a wolf pack will get killed, and any wolves that end up living in close proximity to dogs will likely get killed by the humans that are always nearby any dog populations. So realistically, wolves and dogs are considered separate species even though there is some amount of gene flow between the populations. In the case of populations that are separated by hundreds of thousands of years, the concept becomes useless, and the naming of species arises based on the consensus of the community of people studying the fossils. For more subtle reasons the biological species concept also breaks down for populations that are separated by vast distances. When two populations come in close contact, and hybridization is unhealthy (for instance one is adapted to living off nuts and another to living off fruit, but hybrids would have trouble eating either fruits or nuts), then they will evolve mechanisms that prevent interbreeding, which ultimately leads to speciation under the biological species concept. If they never come into contact, they will never develop these mechanisms, so two populations that have been functionally distinct species for over one million years may be able to interbreed once they come into contact. (As I suspect happened with Homo sapiens and Asian Homo erectus.)Yes, there were a whole suit of changes that led scientists to say that the genus Homo separated from Australopithecus. There is some debate over what drove these changes, but the adoption of a meat-eating diet was certainly part of the picture. Homo erectus was different than other early members of the genus Homo in a lot of ways. One of these was it's migration out of Africa, and all later members of the genus Homo, including sapiens, neanderthalensis, and Denisovans were no doubt descended from Homo erectus.
[Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User
On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09
Posted - Jan 11 2014 : 10:03PM
You're missing 1%. And some of the reasons Americans identify him as Black is because blacks call him one of their own, he also refers to himself as Blasian, lastly it doesn't make a difference what the ethnic makeup is as he looks black so he is black.
[Link]
Joe Mayo Deactivated User
Sure Thing, Joe Mayo. 533 Posts 10/13
Posted - Jan 12 2014 : 12:41AM
re: Asia or it could've been the surgery to make her look less Asian. Edited by - Joe Mayo on 1/12/2014 12:43:44 AM
[Link]
bellend Deactivated User
570 Posts 9/09
Posted - Jan 12 2014 : 12:44AM
All humans are mixed, this bullshit idea of labeling people by color is nonsense. What does a person from Russia have to do with a person from Ireland? Nothing. Just because you see certain phenotypes show up externally doesn't necessarily mean that person has ancestry with a certain so called "race". Race is a social construct not a scientific one. My favorite mixed race porn stars? All of them fit the bill.
^ There's a difference between label and description this difference lies in the meaning given to a word , you would never say that someone is labelled "blonde" or "tall" you would correctly assume this is meant to describe a person and let you picture an imagine of what he could look like even without seeing him , his complexion is part of the package , but if you put a racial meaning to a word than it is difficult to avoid it , for example in Italian much like in Spanish and Portuguese we had a word "negro" of Latin origin it meant black in latin and was just a colour , in spoken language the "g" fell and the word became "nero" it stayed for people with no racial meaning (this occurred at least 8 hundred years ago well before the racial crap came out) so when you said nero you meant a color as in a painting when you said negro you meant black but referred to people , there was another word for dark complexion it was "moro" (Moor) and could be used for either a black man ) or a white man meaning brunette a brunette white woman is called "mora" So the word negro stayed for people. In modern days we don't use it any more because it is seen as derogatory term by blacks due to its similarity with "nigger" and the common origin. I can't say it isn't derogatory because when you keep saying it is derogatory then it becomes as such, so the word today is derogatory although there are some who still use it normally as they used to before. So said there are differences , forensic exams will say exactly the origin of a skeleton for its feature, also Russian and Irish add a cultural description , for example with just a word I know their cultural background and language spoken, so the picture in mind would be even more accurateYes , of course, I meant Homo Sapiens even though this too is too wide. I always wondered about the name troglodytes for Chimpanzee (Pan Troglodytes) ,AFAIK it means "who lives in caves" which hardly applies for them Edited by - LCF on 1/12/2014 5:26:03 AM
Yes. In 2010, they sequenced the Neanderthal genome. It was a fascinating article in a lot of ways. 1) It provided the first clear evidence of gene flow between Neanderthals and modern humans. (The few hybrid fossils don't provide clear evidence. You could imagine a number of scenarios under which hybrids might not have children. There could be some kind of biological issue, like the one that prevents mules from reproducing. Also given the very real behavioral differences between Neanderthals and modern humans, hybrids may have been unable to negotiate the complexities of human love and mating.) 2) It provided evidence that Neanderthals were white (and as you indicated red-heads). Interestingly, they evolved white skin by "breaking" the same gene that is "broken" in modern whites. But it's broken in a different place, so modern whites evolved whiteness separately from Neanderthals. Gene flow from Neanderthals does not explain whiteness among Europeans. 3) Neanderthals had a modern version of a Gene called FOXP2, which seems to be linked to language. (Modern people with mutations in the gene have severe language disabilities, but other cognitive abilities seem to be intact.) 4) There are differences in non-coding regions of the modern and Neanderthal genomes that seem to be related peculiarly human mental traits. Mutations in these regions in modern people have been linked to autism and schizophrenia. An interesting book called Denial: Self Deception, False beliefs, and the Origins of the human mind makes an interesting argument that humanity is unique among large-brained species because we have managed to combine two mental traits that individually would be detrimental. 1) We have what they call a "complete theory of mind." We recognize not only our own subjective experience, but we understand that other people also have subjective experiences, and we spend a lot of time thinking about what other people think. This creates a very high level of sophisticated social engagement. But the authors argue, it also creates the possibility for existential despair, because we see others die. If we fully understand that others are like ourselves, conscious beings, then death brings not only the loss of a loved one, but the realization that consciousness itself may be fleeting. A conscious creature in full existential despair would be unable to carry out the necessities of life, much less raise children, etc. In modern people, autism is linked to the inability to recognize others as fully conscious beings. 2) We have a tenuous connection with reality– which they call a capability for self-deception. This may be our escape from existential despair. It also allows us to imagine futures that don't exist. It has an added "benefit" in social interactions. We recognize that the best way to deceive others is to willingly deceive ourselves. In modern people, the breakdown of contact with reality is linked to schizophrenia. Either of these traits in isolation would be highly detrimental. But if the two of them can emerge simultaneously, you get the modern human mind. The spread of modern humans out of Africa happened with stunning speed, including the colonization of Australia! (We were the first placental mammals other than bats to do so. Placental mammals have been on the Earth for over 100 million years. We have since traveled to the moon.) Sadly, this same ability for self-deception now allows us to deny the reality of the world we are creating. In particular, it seems very likely that we are in the early stages of the 6th great mass extinction, and it is becoming harder and harder to imagine human civilization surviving for another seven generations. Yet, everywhere we look, we see evidence of our ability to deny this basic fact. I suspect that what the differences the scientists found in these non-coding genes is the genetic underpinning of modern human behavior. If so, then the combination of the two sets of mutations may be even less adaptive (in the long term) than either mutation on its own.
I'm not here, this isn't happening! 2571 Posts 6/04
Posted - Jan 13 2014 : 7:23AM
Some posts are just silly. I mean, c'mon its porn! There are Asians advertized as Latinas, latinas in titles such as "Asian Chicks Who Crave Big Dicks". Skin Diamond is a pornstar of mixed race, which I really adore, but she's labeled as 'black girl' mostly. It's a problem of society, which makes mixed raced persons as part of the minority race. Take Obama, he's half African half White American, but he's seen as the first Black/African American president of the U.S., although he was brought up by his Mother's family and he speaks, behaves like a White. The colour of your skin still defines you, which definition is either used by White folks or Black folks just the way rhey want.
[Link]
Idlewild66 Deactivated User
721 Posts 12/11
Posted - Jan 13 2014 : 11:34AM
"but he's seen as the first Black/African American president of the U.S., although he was brought up by his Mother's family and he speaks, behaves like a White." You are right. Some posts are just silly. Edited by - Idlewild66 on 1/13/2014 11:35:19 AM
Yea I have to agree just a silly statement, I am a black man who has heard the same damn thing just about all my life, and I always ask how the hell does one speak and behave like they are white? What are the criteria for this exactly? What are the criteria for behaving and speaking black? I don't think that Schmse meant any harm with the statement, but at the same time it is a statement like that which irks lots of people in particular well spoken, educated, black men. As to the subject of mixed race pornstars I think just like in life they are identified by their dominate features, like Skin who happens to be a black/white mix her dominate features are geared towards being black so she identified as so. Like many have said there are latin/white, black/latin, Asian/white combinations all over the industry they are all labeled as what features dominate their looks. It is not just the porn industry but ever damn walk of life this applies to. Just think of the mainstream entertainment industry, how many actors and actress are mixed that are labeled as white because they look it even though they are of mixed heritage.
^ I do this thread is one of the few with interesting reasoning ,genuine and polite confrontation and gives some points to think about, you may disagree but still new views even those in disagreement are always precious for those with some brain and this is not racial. for the rest I'm a white European so there are things I may not fully understand , I don't know what "to think and behave black" means maybe a black first attitude to catch everything in a racial meaning. But there are Blacks who have not an history of slavery behind them, Obama is one it doesn't matter he's half white , he would have been the same even if he was full African his ancestors have never been slave , he never experienced the segregation as in some Southern States in the Sixties , he's an high class educated citizen and he thinks as such, which is the very same way every educated high class citizen in the whole world would think, it's not a matter of race , white do not think as "white" they think as people who has never been segregate for racial reasons , with the exception of the Jews, but in fact in this matter they think differently , where I see no problem in a statement or a joke a Jew may see a danger in fear of the resurfacing of nazi ideas
Edited by - LCF on 1/13/2014 2:07:58 PM
[Link]
scope21 Deactivated User
Only Big Booty will do!! 6253 Posts 12/13
Posted - Jan 14 2014 : 10:33AM
Gone stupid
[Link]
fanman44 Deactivated User
474 Posts 1/13
Posted - Jan 16 2014 : 5:38PM
What race is this chick. (Regan Reese) Goes by white but looks mixed
