| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MarkA" |
| Date: |
24 Nov 2007 02:08:56 PM |
| Object: |
why black/white? |
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"? It would seem to imply that the two groups are opposites,
when we are, in fact, variants along a continuum. All the evidence points
to us all being originally from Africa, but those who migrated into Europe
developed technology, (and lost their enthusiasm for producing melanin),
early enough to conquer the world. (If you haven't read Jared Diamond's
book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", stop reading this tripe and go read that
instead. You won't regret it).
In light of our current beliefs about anthropology, I propose that we call
blacks "Tropicalians", and white people "Extreme-Latitudians". Whadyall
think?
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
| User: "GoDrex" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
25 Nov 2007 03:50:48 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.11.24.20.08.56.242690@nowhere.com...
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"?
because people are stupid and it's a habit
It would seem to imply that the two groups are opposites,
when we are, in fact, variants along a continuum. All the evidence points
to us all being originally from Africa, but those who migrated into Europe
developed technology, (and lost their enthusiasm for producing melanin),
early enough to conquer the world. (If you haven't read Jared Diamond's
book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", stop reading this tripe and go read that
instead. You won't regret it).
In light of our current beliefs about anthropology, I propose that we call
blacks "Tropicalians", and white people "Extreme-Latitudians". Whadyall
think?
we should try to just call people, people or humans
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Young" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
24 Nov 2007 02:47:27 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.11.24.20.08.56.242690@nowhere.com...
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"? It would seem to imply that the two groups are opposites,
when we are, in fact, variants along a continuum. All the evidence points
to us all being originally from Africa, but those who migrated into Europe
developed technology, (and lost their enthusiasm for producing melanin),
early enough to conquer the world. (If you haven't read Jared Diamond's
book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", stop reading this tripe and go read that
instead. You won't regret it).
In light of our current beliefs about anthropology, I propose that we call
blacks "Tropicalians", and white people "Extreme-Latitudians". Whadyall
think?
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
I prefer the more traditional 'caucasian' and 'colored'.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
24 Nov 2007 04:44:52 PM |
|
|
On 24 Nov., 21:47, "J Young" <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
"MarkA" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.11.24.20.08.56.242690@nowhere.com...
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"? It would seem to imply that the two groups are opposites,
when we are, in fact, variants along a continuum. All the evidence points
to us all being originally from Africa, but those who migrated into Europe
developed technology, (and lost their enthusiasm for producing melanin),
early enough to conquer the world. (If you haven't read Jared Diamond's
book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", stop reading this tripe and go read that
instead. You won't regret it).
In light of our current beliefs about anthropology, I propose that we call
blacks "Tropicalians", and white people "Extreme-Latitudians". Whadyall
think?
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
I prefer the more traditional 'caucasian' and 'colored'.
Colored is "traditional" for nazi turds only.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
25 Nov 2007 01:40:09 AM |
|
|
"MarkA" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.11.24.20.08.56.242690@nowhere.com...
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"? It would seem to imply that the two groups are opposites,
when we are, in fact, variants along a continuum. All the evidence points
to us all being originally from Africa, but those who migrated into Europe
developed technology, (and lost their enthusiasm for producing melanin),
early enough to conquer the world. (If you haven't read Jared Diamond's
book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", stop reading this tripe and go read that
instead. You won't regret it).
In light of our current beliefs about anthropology, I propose that we call
blacks "Tropicalians", and white people "Extreme-Latitudians". Whadyall
think?
That we should just call people 'people'.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
25 Nov 2007 02:39:11 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 02:40:09 -0500, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"MarkA" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.11.24.20.08.56.242690@nowhere.com...
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"? It would seem to imply that the two groups are opposites,
when we are, in fact, variants along a continuum. All the evidence points
to us all being originally from Africa, but those who migrated into Europe
developed technology, (and lost their enthusiasm for producing melanin),
early enough to conquer the world. (If you haven't read Jared Diamond's
book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", stop reading this tripe and go read that
instead. You won't regret it).
In light of our current beliefs about anthropology, I propose that we call
blacks "Tropicalians", and white people "Extreme-Latitudians". Whadyall
think?
That we should just call people 'people'.
That's a bit extreme, isn't it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
25 Nov 2007 08:14:14 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 02:40:09 -0500, Michelle Malkin wrote:
"MarkA" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.11.24.20.08.56.242690@nowhere.com...
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"? It would seem to imply that the two groups are opposites,
when we are, in fact, variants along a continuum. All the evidence points
to us all being originally from Africa, but those who migrated into Europe
developed technology, (and lost their enthusiasm for producing melanin),
early enough to conquer the world. (If you haven't read Jared Diamond's
book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", stop reading this tripe and go read that
instead. You won't regret it).
In light of our current beliefs about anthropology, I propose that we call
blacks "Tropicalians", and white people "Extreme-Latitudians". Whadyall
think?
That we should just call people 'people'.
I wouldn't argue with that, but it ignores the basic fact that there are
obvious external differences between blacks and whites.
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
24 Nov 2007 10:42:25 AM |
|
|
"MarkA" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.11.24.20.08.56.242690@nowhere.com...
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"? It would seem to imply that the two groups are opposites,
when we are, in fact, variants along a continuum. All the evidence points
to us all being originally from Africa, but those who migrated into Europe
developed technology, (and lost their enthusiasm for producing melanin),
early enough to conquer the world. (If you haven't read Jared Diamond's
book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", stop reading this tripe and go read that
instead. You won't regret it).
In light of our current beliefs about anthropology, I propose that we call
blacks "Tropicalians", and white people "Extreme-Latitudians". Whadyall
think?
You forgot the 'occidentilians!
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
24 Nov 2007 07:25:10 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 16:42:25 +0000, Bill M wrote:
"MarkA" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.11.24.20.08.56.242690@nowhere.com...
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"? It would seem to imply that the two groups are opposites,
when we are, in fact, variants along a continuum. All the evidence points
to us all being originally from Africa, but those who migrated into Europe
developed technology, (and lost their enthusiasm for producing melanin),
early enough to conquer the world. (If you haven't read Jared Diamond's
book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", stop reading this tripe and go read that
instead. You won't regret it).
In light of our current beliefs about anthropology, I propose that we call
blacks "Tropicalians", and white people "Extreme-Latitudians". Whadyall
think?
You forgot the 'occidentilians!
Hmmm...people living close to the Equator, yet they are not dark-skinned.
Sorry, they don't fit the pattern. Ignore them.
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
24 Nov 2007 08:49:53 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:25:10 -0500, MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 16:42:25 +0000, Bill M wrote:
"MarkA" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.11.24.20.08.56.242690@nowhere.com...
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"? It would seem to imply that the two groups are opposites,
when we are, in fact, variants along a continuum. All the evidence points
to us all being originally from Africa, but those who migrated into Europe
developed technology, (and lost their enthusiasm for producing melanin),
early enough to conquer the world. (If you haven't read Jared Diamond's
book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", stop reading this tripe and go read that
instead. You won't regret it).
In light of our current beliefs about anthropology, I propose that we call
blacks "Tropicalians", and white people "Extreme-Latitudians". Whadyall
think?
You forgot the 'occidentilians!
Hmmm...people living close to the Equator, yet they are not dark-skinned.
Sorry, they don't fit the pattern. Ignore them.
And the Tasmanian Aborigines, who were (until exterminated by pious
Christians) the blackest race on record, who lived there since before
the ice-age, in conditions that would freeze a Finn.
The very stupid myth that skin colour is selected by the climate has
to be the most enduring, yet provably false myth of all time!
Skin colour is predominantly a product of sexual selection.
As you point out, the Tauregs of the hottest and most solar intensive
place on earth, who have been there since before the dawn of time, are
of fair skin and red hair.
The Tasmanian Aboriginals are the opposite counter-example to demolish
this absurdly popular delusion of solar selection for skin tone.
It is utter tosh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
24 Nov 2007 11:08:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:19:53 +1030, Michael Gray wrote:
You forgot the 'occidentilians!
Hmmm...people living close to the Equator, yet they are not dark-skinned.
Sorry, they don't fit the pattern. Ignore them.
And the Tasmanian Aborigines, who were (until exterminated by pious
Christians) the blackest race on record, who lived there since before
the ice-age, in conditions that would freeze a Finn.
The very stupid myth that skin colour is selected by the climate has
to be the most enduring, yet provably false myth of all time!
Skin colour is predominantly a product of sexual selection.
As you point out, the Tauregs of the hottest and most solar intensive
place on earth, who have been there since before the dawn of time, are
of fair skin and red hair.
The Tasmanian Aboriginals are the opposite counter-example to demolish
this absurdly popular delusion of solar selection for skin tone.
It is utter tosh.
Don't be too hasty. OTOH, malignant melanoma skin cancer is associated
with sun exposure in fair-skinned people. Curiously, it often occurs in
places that are not directly sun exposed. It is fairly uncommon in
blacks (oops! I mean "Tropicalians"), and when it does occur, it is in
areas of low melanin production (nail beds, soles of feet). The same is
true of Orientals, who also have a low incidence, despite not being
particularly dark skinned.
OTOOH, melanoma typically doesn't strike until after puberty, so its
effect on natural selection is debatable.
Nothing is as simple as it seems. If something seems simple, it's a good
bet that you don't understand what you are looking at.
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
24 Nov 2007 11:26:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:08:35 -0500, MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:19:53 +1030, Michael Gray wrote:
You forgot the 'occidentilians!
Hmmm...people living close to the Equator, yet they are not dark-skinned.
Sorry, they don't fit the pattern. Ignore them.
And the Tasmanian Aborigines, who were (until exterminated by pious
Christians) the blackest race on record, who lived there since before
the ice-age, in conditions that would freeze a Finn.
The very stupid myth that skin colour is selected by the climate has
to be the most enduring, yet provably false myth of all time!
Skin colour is predominantly a product of sexual selection.
As you point out, the Tauregs of the hottest and most solar intensive
place on earth, who have been there since before the dawn of time, are
of fair skin and red hair.
The Tasmanian Aboriginals are the opposite counter-example to demolish
this absurdly popular delusion of solar selection for skin tone.
It is utter tosh.
Don't be too hasty. OTOH, malignant melanoma skin cancer is associated
with sun exposure in fair-skinned people. Curiously, it often occurs in
places that are not directly sun exposed.
Thereby directly supporting my assertion.
It is fairly uncommon in
blacks (oops! I mean "Tropicalians"), and when it does occur, it is in
areas of low melanin production (nail beds, soles of feet). The same is
true of Orientals, who also have a low incidence, despite not being
particularly dark skinned.
This is an entirely distinct correlation from that of skin tone and
geography or climate.
Surely you can see that?
OTOOH, melanoma typically doesn't strike until after puberty, so its
effect on natural selection is debatable.
Which also amply supports my assertion (again).
In fact, almost corroborates it.
Nothing is as simple as it seems. If something seems simple, it's a good
bet that you don't understand what you are looking at.
That's as maybe, and not relevant to my point, which is that the
available statistics DO NOT support the original assertion.
(In fact are 180 degrees against it)
I would be very interested if you could point me to academic studies
that do show a direct CAUSAL correlation between geogrpahy/climate,
and skin tone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
25 Nov 2007 08:21:18 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:56:42 +1030, Michael Gray wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:08:35 -0500, MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:19:53 +1030, Michael Gray wrote:
You forgot the 'occidentilians!
Hmmm...people living close to the Equator, yet they are not dark-skinned.
Sorry, they don't fit the pattern. Ignore them.
And the Tasmanian Aborigines, who were (until exterminated by pious
Christians) the blackest race on record, who lived there since before
the ice-age, in conditions that would freeze a Finn.
The very stupid myth that skin colour is selected by the climate has
to be the most enduring, yet provably false myth of all time!
Skin colour is predominantly a product of sexual selection.
As you point out, the Tauregs of the hottest and most solar intensive
place on earth, who have been there since before the dawn of time, are
of fair skin and red hair.
The Tasmanian Aboriginals are the opposite counter-example to demolish
this absurdly popular delusion of solar selection for skin tone.
It is utter tosh.
Don't be too hasty. OTOH, malignant melanoma skin cancer is associated
with sun exposure in fair-skinned people. Curiously, it often occurs in
places that are not directly sun exposed.
Thereby directly supporting my assertion.
It is fairly uncommon in
blacks (oops! I mean "Tropicalians"), and when it does occur, it is in
areas of low melanin production (nail beds, soles of feet). The same is
true of Orientals, who also have a low incidence, despite not being
particularly dark skinned.
This is an entirely distinct correlation from that of skin tone and
geography or climate.
Surely you can see that?
OTOOH, melanoma typically doesn't strike until after puberty, so its
effect on natural selection is debatable.
Which also amply supports my assertion (again).
In fact, almost corroborates it.
Nothing is as simple as it seems. If something seems simple, it's a good
bet that you don't understand what you are looking at.
That's as maybe, and not relevant to my point, which is that the
available statistics DO NOT support the original assertion.
(In fact are 180 degrees against it)
I would be very interested if you could point me to academic studies
that do show a direct CAUSAL correlation between geogrpahy/climate,
and skin tone.
The cause of melanoma, like most cancers, is not known. Aside from a
correlation between skin color and environmental exposure to sunlight, one
of the stronger risk factors for developing melanoma is a history of
severe sunburn in childhood. This suggests that the skin melanocytes
might be somehow "primed" for later melanoma development. Another
interesting tidbit: "sunburn" is not a thermal burn, as is often thought;
it is actually a radiation burn, albeit a mild one.
Wear your golashes when it rains, and your sunblock when it doesn't.
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
25 Nov 2007 04:52:30 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:21:18 -0500, MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:56:42 +1030, Michael Gray wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:08:35 -0500, MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:19:53 +1030, Michael Gray wrote:
You forgot the 'occidentilians!
Hmmm...people living close to the Equator, yet they are not dark-skinned.
Sorry, they don't fit the pattern. Ignore them.
And the Tasmanian Aborigines, who were (until exterminated by pious
Christians) the blackest race on record, who lived there since before
the ice-age, in conditions that would freeze a Finn.
The very stupid myth that skin colour is selected by the climate has
to be the most enduring, yet provably false myth of all time!
Skin colour is predominantly a product of sexual selection.
As you point out, the Tauregs of the hottest and most solar intensive
place on earth, who have been there since before the dawn of time, are
of fair skin and red hair.
The Tasmanian Aboriginals are the opposite counter-example to demolish
this absurdly popular delusion of solar selection for skin tone.
It is utter tosh.
Don't be too hasty. OTOH, malignant melanoma skin cancer is associated
with sun exposure in fair-skinned people. Curiously, it often occurs in
places that are not directly sun exposed.
Thereby directly supporting my assertion.
It is fairly uncommon in
blacks (oops! I mean "Tropicalians"), and when it does occur, it is in
areas of low melanin production (nail beds, soles of feet). The same is
true of Orientals, who also have a low incidence, despite not being
particularly dark skinned.
This is an entirely distinct correlation from that of skin tone and
geography or climate.
Surely you can see that?
OTOOH, melanoma typically doesn't strike until after puberty, so its
effect on natural selection is debatable.
Which also amply supports my assertion (again).
In fact, almost corroborates it.
Nothing is as simple as it seems. If something seems simple, it's a good
bet that you don't understand what you are looking at.
That's as maybe, and not relevant to my point, which is that the
available statistics DO NOT support the original assertion.
(In fact are 180 degrees against it)
I would be very interested if you could point me to academic studies
that do show a direct CAUSAL correlation between geogrpahy/climate,
and skin tone.
The cause of melanoma, like most cancers, is not known. Aside from a
correlation between skin color and environmental exposure to sunlight, one
It is that very corellation for which I am asking for evidence.
of the stronger risk factors for developing melanoma is a history of
severe sunburn in childhood. This suggests that the skin melanocytes
might be somehow "primed" for later melanoma development. Another
interesting tidbit: "sunburn" is not a thermal burn, as is often thought;
it is actually a radiation burn, albeit a mild one.
Wear your golashes when it rains, and your sunblock when it doesn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
25 Nov 2007 07:42:58 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:22:30 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:21:18 -0500, MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:56:42 +1030, Michael Gray wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:08:35 -0500, MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:19:53 +1030, Michael Gray wrote:
You forgot the 'occidentilians!
Hmmm...people living close to the Equator, yet they are not dark-skinned.
Sorry, they don't fit the pattern. Ignore them.
And the Tasmanian Aborigines, who were (until exterminated by pious
Christians) the blackest race on record, who lived there since before
the ice-age, in conditions that would freeze a Finn.
The very stupid myth that skin colour is selected by the climate has
to be the most enduring, yet provably false myth of all time!
Skin colour is predominantly a product of sexual selection.
As you point out, the Tauregs of the hottest and most solar intensive
place on earth, who have been there since before the dawn of time, are
of fair skin and red hair.
The Tasmanian Aboriginals are the opposite counter-example to demolish
this absurdly popular delusion of solar selection for skin tone.
It is utter tosh.
Don't be too hasty. OTOH, malignant melanoma skin cancer is associated
with sun exposure in fair-skinned people. Curiously, it often occurs in
places that are not directly sun exposed.
Thereby directly supporting my assertion.
It is fairly uncommon in
blacks (oops! I mean "Tropicalians"), and when it does occur, it is in
areas of low melanin production (nail beds, soles of feet). The same is
true of Orientals, who also have a low incidence, despite not being
particularly dark skinned.
This is an entirely distinct correlation from that of skin tone and
geography or climate.
Surely you can see that?
OTOOH, melanoma typically doesn't strike until after puberty, so its
effect on natural selection is debatable.
Which also amply supports my assertion (again).
In fact, almost corroborates it.
Nothing is as simple as it seems. If something seems simple, it's a good
bet that you don't understand what you are looking at.
That's as maybe, and not relevant to my point, which is that the
available statistics DO NOT support the original assertion.
(In fact are 180 degrees against it)
I would be very interested if you could point me to academic studies
that do show a direct CAUSAL correlation between geogrpahy/climate,
and skin tone.
The cause of melanoma, like most cancers, is not known. Aside from a
correlation between skin color and environmental exposure to sunlight, one
It is that very corellation for which I am asking for evidence.
So your contention is that skin coloration is not an environmental
adaptation? I thought that levels of melanin adapted so as to
accommodate folate levels that are critical to reproductive success,
either to protect them from UV degradation or to admit more folate
producing vitamin D. I think I read about this first in the article in
Scientific American that is cited here:
http://www.arps.org/USERS/ms/pricen/Science7/biology/evolution%20heredity/Why%20skin%20color%20article.doc
I find no explanation for your observations to the contrary regarding
Aborigenes, considering the latitudes they inhabit.
of the stronger risk factors for developing melanoma is a history of
severe sunburn in childhood. This suggests that the skin melanocytes
might be somehow "primed" for later melanoma development. Another
interesting tidbit: "sunburn" is not a thermal burn, as is often thought;
it is actually a radiation burn, albeit a mild one.
Wear your golashes when it rains, and your sunblock when it doesn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
25 Nov 2007 08:44:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:42:58 GMT,
(William Wingstedt) wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:22:30 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:21:18 -0500, MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:56:42 +1030, Michael Gray wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:08:35 -0500, MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:19:53 +1030, Michael Gray wrote:
You forgot the 'occidentilians!
Hmmm...people living close to the Equator, yet they are not dark-skinned.
Sorry, they don't fit the pattern. Ignore them.
And the Tasmanian Aborigines, who were (until exterminated by pious
Christians) the blackest race on record, who lived there since before
the ice-age, in conditions that would freeze a Finn.
The very stupid myth that skin colour is selected by the climate has
to be the most enduring, yet provably false myth of all time!
Skin colour is predominantly a product of sexual selection.
As you point out, the Tauregs of the hottest and most solar intensive
place on earth, who have been there since before the dawn of time, are
of fair skin and red hair.
The Tasmanian Aboriginals are the opposite counter-example to demolish
this absurdly popular delusion of solar selection for skin tone.
It is utter tosh.
Don't be too hasty. OTOH, malignant melanoma skin cancer is associated
with sun exposure in fair-skinned people. Curiously, it often occurs in
places that are not directly sun exposed.
Thereby directly supporting my assertion.
It is fairly uncommon in
blacks (oops! I mean "Tropicalians"), and when it does occur, it is in
areas of low melanin production (nail beds, soles of feet). The same is
true of Orientals, who also have a low incidence, despite not being
particularly dark skinned.
This is an entirely distinct correlation from that of skin tone and
geography or climate.
Surely you can see that?
OTOOH, melanoma typically doesn't strike until after puberty, so its
effect on natural selection is debatable.
Which also amply supports my assertion (again).
In fact, almost corroborates it.
Nothing is as simple as it seems. If something seems simple, it's a good
bet that you don't understand what you are looking at.
That's as maybe, and not relevant to my point, which is that the
available statistics DO NOT support the original assertion.
(In fact are 180 degrees against it)
I would be very interested if you could point me to academic studies
that do show a direct CAUSAL correlation between geogrpahy/climate,
and skin tone.
The cause of melanoma, like most cancers, is not known. Aside from a
correlation between skin color and environmental exposure to sunlight, one
It is that very corellation for which I am asking for evidence.
So your contention is that skin coloration is not an environmental
adaptation?
No, just that it is not the primary driving force.
Sexual selection is a far better explanation for the legion anomolies
in the "climate as selection for skin colour" hypothesis.
It cannot explain the Tasmanian Aborigines cf the Nordic races, nor
the tauregs, nor the dramtic variations in skin colour on the same
island, eg: Sri Lanka.
In fact, the theory is so highly marred by outstanding
counter-examples, I am surprised that it remains as popular as it
does.
I thought that levels of melanin adapted so as to
accommodate folate levels that are critical to reproductive success,
either to protect them from UV degradation or to admit more folate
producing vitamin D. I think I read about this first in the article in
Scientific American that is cited here:
http://www.arps.org/USERS/ms/pricen/Science7/biology/evolution%20heredity/Why%20skin%20color%20article.doc
I find no explanation for your observations to the contrary regarding
Aborigenes, considering the latitudes they inhabit.
Then that is an omission in the article.
Hardly my fault.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
26 Nov 2007 07:14:30 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:22:30 +1030, Michael Gray wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:21:18 -0500, MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:56:42 +1030, Michael Gray wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:08:35 -0500, MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:19:53 +1030, Michael Gray wrote:
You forgot the 'occidentilians!
Hmmm...people living close to the Equator, yet they are not dark-skinned.
Sorry, they don't fit the pattern. Ignore them.
And the Tasmanian Aborigines, who were (until exterminated by pious
Christians) the blackest race on record, who lived there since before
the ice-age, in conditions that would freeze a Finn.
The very stupid myth that skin colour is selected by the climate has
to be the most enduring, yet provably false myth of all time!
Skin colour is predominantly a product of sexual selection.
As you point out, the Tauregs of the hottest and most solar intensive
place on earth, who have been there since before the dawn of time, are
of fair skin and red hair.
The Tasmanian Aboriginals are the opposite counter-example to demolish
this absurdly popular delusion of solar selection for skin tone.
It is utter tosh.
Don't be too hasty. OTOH, malignant melanoma skin cancer is associated
with sun exposure in fair-skinned people. Curiously, it often occurs in
places that are not directly sun exposed.
Thereby directly supporting my assertion.
It is fairly uncommon in
blacks (oops! I mean "Tropicalians"), and when it does occur, it is in
areas of low melanin production (nail beds, soles of feet). The same is
true of Orientals, who also have a low incidence, despite not being
particularly dark skinned.
This is an entirely distinct correlation from that of skin tone and
geography or climate.
Surely you can see that?
OTOOH, melanoma typically doesn't strike until after puberty, so its
effect on natural selection is debatable.
Which also amply supports my assertion (again).
In fact, almost corroborates it.
Nothing is as simple as it seems. If something seems simple, it's a good
bet that you don't understand what you are looking at.
That's as maybe, and not relevant to my point, which is that the
available statistics DO NOT support the original assertion.
(In fact are 180 degrees against it)
I would be very interested if you could point me to academic studies
that do show a direct CAUSAL correlation between geogrpahy/climate,
and skin tone.
The cause of melanoma, like most cancers, is not known. Aside from a
correlation between skin color and environmental exposure to sunlight, one
It is that very corellation for which I am asking for evidence.
By 'evidence', do you mean an explanation? The evidence is just the
statistics, collected over many decades, of reported cases of melanoma.
The data is available from the World Health Org and Natl Cancer Institute
(when the politicians in the NCI aren't busy trying to convince people
that getting an abortion raises your risk of breast cancer).
of the stronger risk factors for developing melanoma is a history of
severe sunburn in childhood. This suggests that the skin melanocytes
might be somehow "primed" for later melanoma development. Another
interesting tidbit: "sunburn" is not a thermal burn, as is often
thought; it is actually a radiation burn, albeit a mild one.
Wear your golashes when it rains, and your sunblock when it doesn't.
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
26 Nov 2007 05:15:11 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:14:30 -0500, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:22:30 +1030, Michael Gray wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:21:18 -0500, MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
:
The cause of melanoma, like most cancers, is not known. Aside from a
correlation between skin color and environmental exposure to sunlight, one
It is that very corellation for which I am asking for evidence.
By 'evidence', do you mean an explanation? The evidence is just the
statistics, collected over many decades, of reported cases of melanoma.
The data is available from the World Health Org and Natl Cancer Institute
(when the politicians in the NCI aren't busy trying to convince people
that getting an abortion raises your risk of breast cancer).
I should have been clearer.
I mean that I seek evidence for the correlation between skin-colour
and climate, or chronic environmental exposure to sunlight, in a
CAUSAL direction: ie, the proposition that I have been arguing against
throught this thread: That long-term climate has a causal correlation
to skin colour as an adaptive mechanism that occurs over many
generations.
Your studies show only a correlation between climate and melanoma
frequency, which is a very different kettle of fish, and one that does
not interest me at this stage.
I still wish to see any studies that correlate millennia of climate
with skin colour adaptation, in a way that supports the original
hypothesis. (Which it is, in so many words)
I have the feeling that there are none that are comprehensive, as
there are so many glaring exceptions.
I still maintain, (as do many other scientists), that skin colour is
*mainly* down to sexual selection.
:
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
24 Nov 2007 03:50:00 PM |
|
|
In article <pan.2007.11.24.20.08.56.242690@nowhere.com>,
MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"?
Race is a cultural construct with no biological elements. And, once you
leave the hard sciences, the language becomes far less precise, most
often out of necessity.
--
655321
"We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
24 Nov 2007 02:18:18 PM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"? It would seem to imply that the two groups are opposites,
when we are, in fact, variants along a continuum. All the evidence points
to us all being originally from Africa, but those who migrated into Europe
developed technology, (and lost their enthusiasm for producing melanin),
early enough to conquer the world. (If you haven't read Jared Diamond's
book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", stop reading this tripe and go read that
instead. You won't regret it).
In light of our current beliefs about anthropology, I propose that we call
blacks "Tropicalians", and white people "Extreme-Latitudians". Whadyall
think?
Like most people, I am lazy. Can you come up with single
syllable versions of those two? That would be a big help.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
24 Nov 2007 03:16:34 PM |
|
|
John Popelish wrote:
MarkA wrote:
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"? It would seem to imply that the two groups are opposites,
when we are, in fact, variants along a continuum. All the evidence points
to us all being originally from Africa, but those who migrated into Europe
developed technology, (and lost their enthusiasm for producing melanin),
early enough to conquer the world. (If you haven't read Jared Diamond's
book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", stop reading this tripe and go read that
instead. You won't regret it).
In light of our current beliefs about anthropology, I propose that we call
blacks "Tropicalians", and white people "Extreme-Latitudians". Whadyall
think?
Like most people, I am lazy. Can you come up with single
syllable versions of those two? That would be a big help.
oh, that's easy. Us and Them.
works for everything!
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "ArWeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
24 Nov 2007 11:14:31 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:d7ef6966-7095-4af4-bfcc-828c742e20cc@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
John Popelish wrote:
MarkA wrote:
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"? It would seem to imply that the two groups are opposites,
when we are, in fact, variants along a continuum. All the evidence
points
to us all being originally from Africa, but those who migrated into
Europe
developed technology, (and lost their enthusiasm for producing
melanin),
early enough to conquer the world. (If you haven't read Jared
Diamond's
book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", stop reading this tripe and go read
that
instead. You won't regret it).
In light of our current beliefs about anthropology, I propose that we
call
blacks "Tropicalians", and white people "Extreme-Latitudians".
Whadyall
think?
Like most people, I am lazy. Can you come up with single
syllable versions of those two? That would be a big help.
oh, that's easy. Us and Them.
works for everything!
I have another one:
We.
--
ArWeHumans
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
24 Nov 2007 11:22:35 PM |
|
|
ArWeGod wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:d7ef6966-7095-4af4-bfcc-828c742e20cc@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
oh, that's easy. Us and Them.
works for everything!
I have another one:
We.
Seems most people have a lot of other stuff to get over before they're
read for that...but thanks for the suggestion!
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "ArWeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
24 Nov 2007 11:43:06 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:501f4fc5-13a4-4751-9f8e-2d1ed7eeb31d@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
ArWeGod wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:d7ef6966-7095-4af4-bfcc-828c742e20cc@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
oh, that's easy. Us and Them.
works for everything!
I have another one:
We.
Seems most people have a lot of other stuff to get over before they're
read for that...but thanks for the suggestion!
Awww... And my wonderful post is going to travel around the Internet for all
time, and your comment about how people need to get "read" for that is going
to trail behind it.... What a buzzkill. Did you mean they should read more?
Or get over what they've read in the past... Nope, you just can't spell! ;-P
--
ArWeRead-yOrLead-y
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
25 Nov 2007 09:53:56 AM |
|
|
ArWeGod wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:501f4fc5-13a4-4751-9f8e-2d1ed7eeb31d@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
ArWeGod wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:d7ef6966-7095-4af4-bfcc-828c742e20cc@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
oh, that's easy. Us and Them.
works for everything!
I have another one:
We.
Seems most people have a lot of other stuff to get over before they're
read for that...but thanks for the suggestion!
Awww... And my wonderful post is going to travel around the Internet for all
time, and your comment about how people need to get "read" for that is going
to trail behind it.... What a buzzkill. Did you mean they should read more?
Or get over what they've read in the past... Nope, you just can't spell! ;-P
yup, sucks that I don't proofread well enough. Oh well. btw thanks
for the personal apology :)
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
25 Nov 2007 08:15:07 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 05:14:31 +0000, ArWeGod wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:d7ef6966-7095-4af4-bfcc-828c742e20cc@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
John Popelish wrote:
MarkA wrote:
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"? It would seem to imply that the two groups are opposites,
when we are, in fact, variants along a continuum. All the evidence
points
to us all being originally from Africa, but those who migrated into
Europe
developed technology, (and lost their enthusiasm for producing
melanin),
early enough to conquer the world. (If you haven't read Jared
Diamond's
book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", stop reading this tripe and go read
that
instead. You won't regret it).
In light of our current beliefs about anthropology, I propose that we
call
blacks "Tropicalians", and white people "Extreme-Latitudians".
Whadyall
think?
Like most people, I am lazy. Can you come up with single
syllable versions of those two? That would be a big help.
oh, that's easy. Us and Them.
works for everything!
I have another one:
We.
I think Sony already copyrighted that one, but they spell it "Wii"
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
24 Nov 2007 06:58:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:16:34 -0800, J Forbes wrote:
John Popelish wrote:
MarkA wrote:
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"? It would seem to imply that the two groups are opposites,
when we are, in fact, variants along a continuum. All the evidence points
to us all being originally from Africa, but those who migrated into Europe
developed technology, (and lost their enthusiasm for producing melanin),
early enough to conquer the world. (If you haven't read Jared Diamond's
book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", stop reading this tripe and go read that
instead. You won't regret it).
In light of our current beliefs about anthropology, I propose that we call
blacks "Tropicalians", and white people "Extreme-Latitudians". Whadyall
think?
Like most people, I am lazy. Can you come up with single
syllable versions of those two? That would be a big help.
oh, that's easy. Us and Them.
works for everything!
Jim
Yarg! Ye stole me snappy come-back.
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
25 Nov 2007 08:33:00 AM |
|
|
On 24 nov, 21:08, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"? It would seem to imply that the two groups are opposites,
when we are, in fact, variants along a continuum. All the evidence points
to us all being originally from Africa, but those who migrated into Europe
developed technology, (and lost their enthusiasm for producing melanin),
early enough to conquer the world. (If you haven't read Jared Diamond's
book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", stop reading this tripe and go read that
instead. You won't regret it).
In light of our current beliefs about anthropology, I propose that we call
blacks "Tropicalians", and white people "Extreme-Latitudians". Whadyall
think?
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
No, that would be just wrong (though not so wrong as black and whites.
"whites" are generally pinkish and some "blacks" are hardly any darker
than a redneck with a sun-tan.
But both native south-americans and indonesians, are as differtent
from africans as europeans are. yet they live in the tropics. And then
I am plannig to move to the tropics myself, being a rather whither
shade of pale :-)
But my father carried coal, and came home real black, and at school,
the nicknamed my "chinese" for having my eyes almost closed most of
the time
So I may be an exception.
Can we pass on to less superficial differences please?
Peter van Velzen
November 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "For ePlay" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
25 Nov 2007 03:04:08 AM |
|
|
On Nov 24, 3:08 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"? It would seem to imply that the two groups are opposites,
when we are, in fact, variants along a continuum. All the evidence points
to us all being originally from Africa, but those who migrated into Europe
developed technology, (and lost their enthusiasm for producing melanin),
early enough to conquer the world. (If you haven't read Jared Diamond's
book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", stop reading this tripe and go read that
instead. You won't regret it).
In light of our current beliefs about anthropology, I propose that we call
blacks "Tropicalians", and white people "Extreme-Latitudians". Whadyall
think?
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
Itic and Strul win two horses at a Sunday contest and bring the
animals to their farm. Now they want to make it clear as to which
horse belongs to Itic and which one to Strul. That night Itic cut off
his horse ears; the next Monday morning the nanny sees the animals and
cuts off the other horse's ears, out of her sense of fairness. At noon
Itic and Strul see the horses and explode:"*****, now which one is mine
and which one is yours?" So now Itic chop off the back right leg of
one of the horses and decides that that one is his. Now guess what
does the nanny on Tuesday morning? So Tuesday at noon Itic and Strul
see their 3-legged horses, and Itic says: "Yoo, Strul, let's make a
deal: the white horse is mine and the black one is yours ..."
Yup, it's just a matter of comfort to use single syllable words. Even
the photography and TV ventures started as Black&White, and not as ...
Caucasian&Tropical.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
24 Nov 2007 04:44:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:08:56 -0500, MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"?
Laziness.
Skin colour is an immediately obvious method of distinguishing "them"
& "us", and requires zero thought.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AZ Nomad" |
|
| Title: Re: why black/white? |
24 Nov 2007 03:20:21 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:08:56 -0500, MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
When talking about "races", why do we continue to use the terms "black"
and "white"? It would seem to imply that the two groups are opposites,
when we are, in fact, variants along a continuum. All the evidence points
to us all being originally from Africa, but those who migrated into Europe
developed technology, (and lost their enthusiasm for producing melanin),
early enough to conquer the world. (If you haven't read Jared Diamond's
book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", stop reading this tripe and go read that
instead. You won't regret it).
In light of our current beliefs about anthropology, I propose that we call
blacks "Tropicalians", and white people "Extreme-Latitudians". Whadyall
think?
It's fairly simple. The kind of idiots who simplify social grouping by skin
melanin levels aren't going to refer to their simplified world as "high melonin
leveled people" versus "low melonin leveled people." They like single
syllable words like black and white.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
