|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 26, 2014 5:40:39 GMT -5
It is irritating when discussing an issue with someone and they quote outdated study. Jablonski’s hypothesis was proposed close to 12yr ago!!!! It is old and outdated. It is not current. Same as with Green et al(2012) and his supposedly Neanderthal admixture with AMH. A lot of contemporary scientist do NOT believe in admixture. They provided evidence to prove that. As Azur cited in the media… ===== Neanderthal breeding idea doubtedBy Jonathan Ball BBC News Neanderthals were close evolutionary cousins of our own species - Homo sapiens Continue reading the main story Related Stories New clue to Neanderthal wipe-out Neanderthal sex boost to immunity Ancient humans interbred with us Similarities between the DNA of modern people and Neanderthals are more likely to have arisen from shared ancestry than interbreeding, a study reports. That is according to research carried out at the University of Cambridge and published this week in PNAS journal. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 9:34:59 GMT -5
erm... yea. If you're construing 'black' to be any skin colour shade non-milky (true pale) white, then yes Neaderthals and Otzi were 'black'... I guess this is a 'black' women by your standards? ![]()  |
|
rivertemz
Scribe
The thirst for Knowledge is strong in this one
Posts: 211 
|
Post by rivertemz on Apr 26, 2014 12:17:31 GMT -5
Nope. The ancestral skin colour was white or light pink. Humans only gradually became darker brown hued through hairlessness, but even African AMH were quite hairy and not black. Check any expert on this subject (e.g. Jablonski). AMH are likened to the light sallow-brown tones found commonly within the San people. In other words AMH were barely darker than South Europeans. Dark brown or black skin only appeared much later, probably in historic times. You have human evolution of pigmentation backwards. The ancestral colour was white and it got darker, not vice-versa. Black skin probably is as young as 5,000 years. AMH through to Upper Palaeolithic were light brown, not really dark. It can only be mental illness among Afrocentrists that distort all these facts. What kind of ridiculous, unscientifically based concept is this? where did you get such a retarded theory from?? Because I've never come across research as such. I've heard the opposite has happened. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 15:46:41 GMT -5
Nope. The ancestral skin colour was white or light pink. Humans only gradually became darker brown hued through hairlessness, but even African AMH were quite hairy and not black. Check any expert on this subject (e.g. Jablonski). AMH are likened to the light sallow-brown tones found commonly within the San people. In other words AMH were barely darker than South Europeans. Dark brown or black skin only appeared much later, probably in historic times. You have human evolution of pigmentation backwards. The ancestral colour was white and it got darker, not vice-versa. Black skin probably is as young as 5,000 years. AMH through to Upper Palaeolithic were light brown, not really dark. It can only be mental illness among Afrocentrists that distort all these facts. What kind of ridiculous, unscientifically based concept is this? where did you get such a retarded theory from?? Because I've never come across research as such. I've heard the opposite has happened. What is unscientific? Prior to hair loss, ancestral humans were light skinned. They only became gradually dark. Loss of hair occurred within the last million or so years, but was slow. That means ancestral humans like H. erectus and so forth were still light skinned. They weren't black. "The earliest members of the hominid lineage probably had a mostly unpigmented or lightly pigmented integument covered with dark black hair, similar to that of the modern chimpanzee." - Joblanski (2000) "Dark skin evolved pari passu with the loss of body hair" - Jablonski (2004) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_JablonskiDjoser-xyyman, not true Jablonski's papers are all 10 - 15 years old. Her claims are repeated in her most recent publications: Jablonski, N. G. (2012) Living Color: The Biological and Social Meaning of Skin Color. Berkeley, University of California Press. Jablonski, N.G. (2012) Human skin pigmentation as an example of adaptive evolution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 156(1), 45-57. Jablonski, N.G. & Chaplin, G. (2010) Human skin pigmentation as an adaptation to UV radiation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(Supplement 2), 8962-8968. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 15:51:28 GMT -5
From an evolutionary perspective, black skin is highly abnormal. No, or virtually no primates are this colour. White/light skin is basically the ancestral human condition. It's funny that Afrocentrists try and reverse this scientific reality and claim white people are mutants or not normal.
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 27, 2014 6:14:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 27, 2014 6:37:16 GMT -5
Jablonski's hypothesis is ver 14 years old. It is outdated. No contemporary gebeticist on skin pigmentation beleive in her nonsense aside for her and her cronies.
Shriver, Kittles, Norton etc are the leaders in that field. Why don't quite talking about stuff you know nothing about
====
Send to:
vol. 2000 Jul;39(1):57-106.
The evolution of human skin coloration.
Jablonski NG1, Chaplin G.
Author information
Abstract
Skin color is one of the most conspicuous ways in which humans vary and has been widely used to define human races. Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive
.....
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 27, 2014 6:39:47 GMT -5
Address this also, Ha! Ha! delusional liars. Black Neanderthal and Denisovan!!! Predicting homo pigmentation phenotype through genomic data: From neanderthal to James Watson - and this  Notice Gokhem2 is deceptively labeled as "fairer" but his ratio is 6/11. Yes, he is lighter than the others thus fairer. But by modern statndards he is Black. He carried more ancestral SNPs for dark skin than light skin. The games these people play. why don't you address that?[/quote] |
|
rivertemz
Scribe
The thirst for Knowledge is strong in this one
Posts: 211
|
Post by rivertemz on Apr 27, 2014 15:56:43 GMT -5
From an evolutionary perspective, black skin is highly abnormal. No, or virtually no primates are this colour. White/light skin is basically the ancestral human condition. It's funny that Afrocentrists try and reverse this scientific reality and claim white people are mutants or not normal. Now you just went full retard after this response. You are a lost cause, you actually thought the light complexion of the manikin primates in museums were an actual depiction of them, what a shame. Until you show me proof besides all the data already given to you then--  Bye Troll, back to stormfront. |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 8, 2014 5:43:08 GMT -5
This is interesting. I haven't seen the full study. But it seems like Sarah Tishkoff has chnaged her mind. Africans do have the supposedly Neanderthal admixture.
===
Statistical Inference of Archaic Introgression In Central African Pygmies
PingHsun Hsieh 1, Jeffrey Wall2, Joseph Lachance3, Sarah Tishkoff3, Ryan Gutenkunst1, Michael Hammer1
1University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA, 2University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA, 3University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Recent evidence from ancient DNA studies suggests that genetic material introgressed from archaic forms of Homo, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans, into the ancestors of contemporary non-African populations. These findings also imply that hybridization may have given rise to some of adaptive novelties in anatomically modern human (AMH) populations as they expanded from Africa into various ecological niches in Eurasia. Within Africa, fossil evidence suggests that AMH and a variety of archaic forms coexisted for much of the last 200,000 years. Here we present preliminary results leveraging high quality whole-genome data (>60X coverage) for three contemporary sub-Saharan African populations (Biaka, Baka, and Yoruba) from Central and West Africa to test for archaic admixture. With the current lack of African ancient DNA, especially in Central Africa due to its rainforest environment, our statistical inference approach provides an alternative means to understand the complex evolutionary dynamics among groups of the genus Homo.
To identify candidate introgressive loci, we scan the genomes of 16 individuals and calculate S*, a summary statistic that was specifically designed by one of us (JDW) to detect archaic admixture. The significance of each candidate is assessed through extensive whole-genome level simulations using demographic parameters estimated by ∂a∂i to obtain a parametric distribution of S* values under the null hypothesis of no archaic introgression. As a complementary approach, top candidates are also examined by an approximate-likelihood computation method. The admixture time for each individual introgressive variant is inferred by estimating the decay of the genetic length of the diverged haplotype as a function of its underlying recombination rate. A neutrality test that controls for demography is performed for each candidate to test the hypothesis that introgressive variants rose to high frequency due to positive directional selection. The present study represents one of the most comprehensive genomic surveys to date for evidence of archaic introgression to anatomically modern humans in Africa.
|
|
