U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-05-2015, 09:53 PM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,995 posts, read 11,239,890 times
Reputation: 5555

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaker15 View Post
In order to survive in the brutal cold winters with changing seasons every year, it required a lot of planning, and only the smart ones with great planning skills survives and those are the Neanderthals, Europeans, and East Asians. Is that what you mean?
I don't evoke climate selection, though it must have occurred for Neanderthals. Rather, I was saying the mixing of genomes created novel combinations of traits that may, in some ways, have been better than either before.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2015, 09:55 PM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,995 posts, read 11,239,890 times
Reputation: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaker15 View Post
I think most think Neanderthals as light skin humans.
Why not? They were the most cold-adapted humans known. Depigmentation would have been just as advantageous for them as for modern humans in the cold, low light environments of northwest Eurasia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2015, 10:11 PM
 
2,856 posts, read 1,567,399 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
Why not? They were the most cold-adapted humans known. Depigmentation would have been just as advantageous for them as for modern humans in the cold, low light environments of northwest Eurasia.
Northern Asians are more cold adapted then northwest Europeans, yet they are not as light skinned generally. The gene for light skin is different in northern Europeans than it is for northern Asians. Neanderthals don't share either of these gene variants.

It's not really known how advanced Neanderthal sewing techniques were. Of the thousands of artifacts uncovered at Neanderthal sites, a bone needle has never been found. It's thought that they wore loose fitting furs around their bodies, which is hardly suitable to protect against the sub zero temperatures of Ice Age Europe. It's likely that they were pretty hairy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2015, 10:53 PM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,413 posts, read 8,859,324 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai View Post
Dragonslayer is mistaken. The gene for red hair does not come from Neanderthals. It's thought that some Neanderthals had reddish hair because some Neanderthal individuals were found to have a mutation that is similar to the gene for red hair found in humans. It's not the same gene though.
You are right, recent DNA research does show that Neanderthals had red hair, but their gene for red hair is not the same gene for red hair in modern humans, though they both result in red hair. Some, but not many modern humans carry the neanderthal gene for red hair.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 07:31 AM
 
14,398 posts, read 7,100,371 times
Reputation: 7437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaker15 View Post
I wrote: "I think virtually all African Americans are mostly sub Saharan Africans mixed with some whites and very little native Americans."

Which part of my statement is not true? Do you not understand the definition of the word "mostly?" It means "most" which means more than 50%. Or do you not understand the definition of the word "virtually?"
A very large percent of black Americans have greater than 40% European admixture. Many people who are only 20% sub-Saharan African in America consider themselves to be "black."

And no reason to get snotty.

I thought Quakers were supposed to be nice people

My point is and will always be that all people on this earth are of one race - the human race.

Skin color is not a race. No matter how much European or sub-Saharan genes one has, or if they are aboriginal - we are all humans.

It is interesting to study the evolution of humanity and see how our physical differences came into play, but to try to paint one group of humans as better or worse than another based on traces of pre-historic hominids or neanderthals is kind of ridiculous and reeks of eugenicist theories.

What is the purpose of pointing out the neanderthal blood in Europeans versus the small amounts in Africans? What is the point in speaking of denisovan genes in aboriginals? Are you going to create a human evolutionary paper? Are you an anthropology student seeking information about cultural connections between aboriginals and denisovans or are you just trying to make yourself - a cultural European, feel superior over someone who you feel is biologically and/or intellectually inferior to yourself? I feel the latter is true about you and I wonder why this thread hasn't been removed since it really has nothing to do with politics and more to do with history versus controversial topics related to politics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 07:35 AM
 
14,398 posts, read 7,100,371 times
Reputation: 7437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaker15 View Post
Just saw when you were asked for a link, you shared the above. You know it links back to the genealogy forum so 1 - not a valid link to your information and 2- proves my point that this thread does not belong here in POC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 08:43 AM
 
Location: USA
4,680 posts, read 4,016,802 times
Reputation: 2767
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
considering the fact that the current human race evolved out of the neanderthals, the neanderthal DNA is still going to be coded in the current human DNA.
False. Different co-existing species.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 08:44 AM
 
8,195 posts, read 10,217,860 times
Reputation: 7486
[quote=residinghere2007;38709200]A very large percent of black Americans have greater than 40% European admixture.{qoute)

That is actually not true.

Most black americans are between 10-20% European and 80% SSA.

You sound kind of silly distancing yourself from your African ancestors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 08:57 AM
 
14,398 posts, read 7,100,371 times
Reputation: 7437
[quote=jerseygal4u;38710196]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerseygal4u View Post
A very large percent of black Americans have greater than 40% European admixture.{qoute)

That is actually not true.

Most black americans are between 10-20% European and 80% SSA.

You sound kind of silly distancing yourself from your African ancestors.
I am not distancing myself from my african ancestors..., When did I do that? I only said that many times in America, many people consider themselves "black" or "African-American" when they have less than 40% African ancestry. There is nothing wrong with that and I am the same way. It would be stupid of me to claim anything other than blackness as a citizen of this country based on my appearance.

I am very proud to be black and an American. Historical research has led me to evidence that my father's African ancestry came from Angola. One day I will try to overcome my paranoia about theft of bodily material and swab myself to see where my African ancestry comes from. But it would be lying of me to say that I overwhelmingly have African ancestry when my family is very much ethnically mixed like most Americans in general. Out of my 8 great grandparents - 4 of them were mullatoes so it is highly likely that I have more than 20% European ancestry. That ancestry does not negate or diminish the fact that I am a black American.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 09:17 AM
 
48,931 posts, read 39,411,169 times
Reputation: 30575
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
...... to try to paint one group of humans as better or worse than another based on traces of pre-historic hominids or neanderthals is kind of ridiculous and reeks of eugenicist theories....
You should have said, "reeks of unacceptable eugenicist theories".

I hear all the time in college and professional sports about a players "pedigree" whose dad played some pro-sport and mom was an olympian etc etc.

That's culturally acceptable....others are not.

I hear what you are trying to say but let's not pretend that this is an area of science where people don't have to tread really really lightly due to historical social abuse of the field.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top