Ancient history programme

[king 11,982]

5 hours ago, Greb147 said:

Where do we draw the line though? 

I know we have such classifications but is there actually such a thing as a subspecies? 

It's true that species have different adaptations to suit their habitat but are they really a subspecies? 

You only have to look at animals like Tigers, Leopards etc.

Well you got the pygmies...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples

 

[JDHUNTING 1,817]

1 hour ago, mushroom said:

Difference is diet and need, so we're led to believe. I'm not a neurologist, as I understand it, human brains are all (roughly) the same size. Neanderthals had bigger brains

I reckon our ancestors were forced maybe due to having lighter skin or albinos maybe or blue eyes or just human nature, but why else leave somewere so rich in food and fauna to make a life in say siberia

[king 11,982]

1 hour ago, WILF said:

Interesting stuff from all you folks with big brains.

Heres another question, I wonder what led each group down such different paths ?

So, your European has really taking his potential a long way and your sub Saharan African has barely changed ? 
 

Brain size maybe?.......that bit of extra volume meant a lot ?

I wonder what it is ?

I was just reading this..

Because there are none.

You see, to have distinct subgroups, there would have to be features that are shared widely among members of a particular population whilst being absent from members of all other populations.

In humans, what we find is instead a very large continuum of traits. If you take individuals from faraway places and put them next to each other, say someone from Africa, someone from east Asia, and someone from Europe, you will see traits that are different between them and that seem typical for their respective places. However, what you can not do is find the line where one population ends and the other begins. That line does not exist, instead there is a gradual change if characteristics across the continent.

This is not all. Genes associated with visible differences are accounted for by a mere 15% or so of the genome. That means the vast majority of underlying biological variation is invisible, things like blood types, immune system genes, energy metabolism genes etc. etc. However, here you might find that for any one such invisible trait, the three people we picked from different continents in the example earlier are in fact more similar to each other than they are to most of their compatriots. That's because the genetic variation within a population is much larger than the average gentic variation between populations.

Obviously, this is still a simplification and there is much more to be said. For example, in Africa there is much more genetic variation than on the whole rest of the planet. That's not particularly surprising because people evolved in Africa, and when they emigrated only a small portion of the existing variation within people made it out of the continent. It's nice to point out though, because it just highlights that the idea of a ‘black race’ is even more untenable from a biological point of view than other racial classifications.

The other thing worth pointing out is that the reason why people do not form biologically distinct subspecies is almost certainly that crossbreeding (intermarriage, if you prefer) has almost certainly been happening across boundaries all the time. Some boundaries are harder to cross than others - the Sahara for example seems to have been a formidable but leaky boundary, with a trickle of gene flow present at all times through traders and armies. The Atlantic and Pacific are harder to cross, so America was isolated from the rest since the bering bridge was submerged at the end of the last ice age. But in evolutionary timescales, that's not particularly long, a better candidate there might be Australia which some people think had populations isolated for at least 50 000 years. And they're still pretty damn similar to the rest of us.

[JDHUNTING 1,817]

6 minutes ago, king said:

I was just reading this..

Because there are none.

You see, to have distinct subgroups, there would have to be features that are shared widely among members of a particular population whilst being absent from members of all other populations.

In humans, what we find is instead a very large continuum of traits. If you take individuals from faraway places and put them next to each other, say someone from Africa, someone from east Asia, and someone from Europe, you will see traits that are different between them and that seem typical for their respective places. However, what you can not do is find the line where one population ends and the other begins. That line does not exist, instead there is a gradual change if characteristics across the continent.

This is not all. Genes associated with visible differences are accounted for by a mere 15% or so of the genome. That means the vast majority of underlying biological variation is invisible, things like blood types, immune system genes, energy metabolism genes etc. etc. However, here you might find that for any one such invisible trait, the three people we picked from different continents in the example earlier are in fact more similar to each other than they are to most of their compatriots. That's because the genetic variation within a population is much larger than the average gentic variation between populations.

Obviously, this is still a simplification and there is much more to be said. For example, in Africa there is much more genetic variation than on the whole rest of the planet. That's not particularly surprising because people evolved in Africa, and when they emigrated only a small portion of the existing variation within people made it out of the continent. It's nice to point out though, because it just highlights that the idea of a ‘black race’ is even more untenable from a biological point of view than other racial classifications.

The other thing worth pointing out is that the reason why people do not form biologically distinct subspecies is almost certainly that crossbreeding (intermarriage, if you prefer) has almost certainly been happening across boundaries all the time. Some boundaries are harder to cross than others - the Sahara for example seems to have been a formidable but leaky boundary, with a trickle of gene flow present at all times through traders and armies. The Atlantic and Pacific are harder to cross, so America was isolated from the rest since the bering bridge was submerged at the end of the last ice age. But in evolutionary timescales, that's not particularly long, a better candidate there might be Australia which some people think had populations isolated for at least 50 000 years. And they're still pretty damn similar to the rest of us.

You swap one of the "humans" out for a chimp and all that would still stand though so are they humans too?

[Born Hunter 17,788]

12 minutes ago, JDHUNTING said:

You swap one of the "humans" out for a chimp and all that would still stand though so are they humans too?

The first example where they take humans from different continents and compare them is not analogous to comparing a chimp with a human. You can literally have half Asian half European or whatever and in fact you essentially get that at the geographical borders, like the middle East. You cannot have half chimp half humans. There's a hard and difinitve biological line drawn.

[JDHUNTING 1,817]

Just now, Born Hunter said:

The first example where they take humans from different continents and compare them is not analogous to comparing a chimp with a human. You can literally have half Asian half European or whatever and in fact you essentially get that at the geographical borders, like the middle East. You cannot have half chimp half humans. There's a hard and difinitve biological line drawn.

I suppose if you go by DNA but since I can't test that or see it I'm going to have to discount it as potential witch craft put a European gentleman on one side of a room and a chimp on the other and I promise I could put a "human" in the middle that looked and behaved halfway between the two, walk like a duck talk like a duck and all that.

Your right really but you could definately apply the original theory with animals that are very similar but classed as two.

[WILF 47,354]

None of that give any theory as to why Africans are barely a step on from cave men and Europeans have built towns, city’s, cathedrals, created art and music, discovered medicine and science , build trains and bridges and space ships......and and and ?

 

[JDHUNTING 1,817]

4 minutes ago, WILF said:

None of that give any theory as to why Africans are barely a step on from cave men and Europeans have built towns, city’s, cathedrals, created art and music, discovered medicine and science , build trains and bridges and space ships......and and and ?

 

My idiot theory is they didn't have to change they live like they evolved to, the ones who left had to adapt to a new environment which must take brains and an inquisitive mind, mix in a bit of Neanderthal with their so called big brains and penchant for art and there you go Europeans.

 

Neanderthal cave art

 

Modern African cave art

[mushroom 13,193]

1 hour ago, JDHUNTING said:

I reckon our ancestors were forced maybe due to having lighter skin or albinos maybe or blue eyes or just human nature, but why else leave somewere so rich in food and fauna to make a life in say siberia

What I read was it was vitamin D that caused the change. Which is funny considering cheddar man and his European mates are apparently dark skinned lol. I find it hilarious that my Mrs is Welsh and darker than night Maybe the gene's still live on Either way WILF's and mine and yours great great plus ten the power of 20's grandad was probably black

(Sorry WILF... we be black )

[Born Hunter 17,788]

8 hours ago, mushroom said:

What I read was it was vitamin D that caused the change. Which is funny considering cheddar man and his European mates are apparently dark skinned lol. I find it hilarious that my Mrs is Welsh and darker than night Maybe the gene's still live on Either way WILF's and mine and yours great great plus ten the power of 20's grandad was probably black

(Sorry WILF... we be black )

Given the growing evidence that Sapiens maintained dark skin quite a long time after entering Europe, I believe the current hypothesis is that it was the onset of agriculture that caused the adaptation to lighter skin. When they spread into Europe their dark skin was indeed less able to provide Vit-D from UV but the diet of a hunter-gatherer of the Palaeolithic was extremely diverse and rich in nutritional sources of the vitamin. Entering the Neolithic (maybe Meso'?) and the diet changes considerably to be much less diverse due to a social shift towards agricultural life, leading particularly to Vit-D deficiency. Lighter skin then becomes a selective advantage and the local population 'adapts'.

I suspect there's a degree of adaptation without agriculture anyway as all renderings of Palaeo-Europeans and more modern hunter gatherers of the north aren't exactly 'black black'.

I think it's fair to say it's not totally clear yet.

 

And you only think ya missus is a darkie because you look like you've been dipped in dulex brilliant white!

Edited August 21, 2020 by Born Hunter

[Born Hunter 17,788]

I've heard conjecture that it's Vit-D that is the reason for ethnics getting whacked by CV-19 worse than whites in the UK. Social factors are obviously significant but even after you correct for all those they're still something like twice as likely to die from it. Vit-D deficiency is rife amongst dark skinned folk in the UK for obvious reasons and Vit-D significantly effects the strength of your immune system.

Edited August 21, 2020 by Born Hunter

[WILF 47,354]

I am probably way off the mark with how I am interpreting the replies but are we saying that the reason Africa has barely moved on from its ancient self is down to diet and vitamin E ? 
 

If it’s diet then I’m not buying it, probably one of the most abundant, fertile, natural resource rich continents on earth if not the most and their diet wasn’t good enough ?

If we all subscribe to scientific theory (which I don’t particularly because I understand the clue is in the name “theory”) then Africans have had roughly 100,000 years longer at all this being a human job and yet, in 2020, they are still walking around using part worn Dunlop’s as sandals and drinking out of puddles that a cow has taken a shit in ? 
 

That can’t be the fault of wheat or lettuce surely ?  

Edited August 21, 2020 by WILF

[Greb147 6,809]

12 minutes ago, WILF said:

I am probably way off the mark with how I am interpreting the replies but are we saying that the reason Africa has barely moved on from its ancient self is down to diet and vitamin E ? 
 

If it’s diet then I’m not buying it, probably one of the most abundant, fertile, natural resource rich continents on earth if not the most and their diet wasn’t good enough ?

If we all subscribe to scientific theory (which I don’t particularly because I understand the clue is in the name “theory”) then Africans have had roughly 100,000 years longer at all this being a human job and yet, in 2020, they are still walking around using part worn Dunlop’s as sandals and drinking out of puddles that a cow has taken a shit in ? 
 

That can’t be the fault of wheat or lettuce surely ?  

Another theory is the animals and plants of Africa evolved alongside humans and their early ancestors so were harder to domesticate. 

I do agree with what JD said as well, those venturing in to new lands and encountering new flora and fauna had to be more adaptable than those living in a niche. 

Edited August 21, 2020 by Greb147

[Born Hunter 17,788]

2 minutes ago, WILF said:

I am probably way off the mark with how I am interpreting the replies but are we saying that the reason Africa has barely moved on from its ancient self is down to diet and vitamin E ? 
 

If it’s diet then I’m not buying it, probably one of the most abundant, fertile, natural resource rich continents on earth if not the most and their diet wasn’t good enough ?

If we all subscribe to scientific theory (which I don’t particularly because I understand the clue is in the name “theory”) then Africans have had roughly 100,000 years longer at all this being a human job and yet, in 2020, they are still walking around using part worn Dunlop’s as sandals and drinking out of puddles that a cow has taken a shit in ? 
 

That can’t be the fault of wheat or lettuce surely ?  

I'm certainly not saying that, I've not really commented on it. I honestly don't know.

What I would say is that Sapiens have been kicking about Europe for over 40'000 years that we know of and western Europeans only did anything noteworthy in the last 1500-1000 right? For thousands of years before that (15k years ago that we know of) civilisations were springing up all over the middle east (in Asia right?) which spread to southern Europe and North Africa, flourishing probably due to the Med', eventually reaching all corners of the 'Old World'. I wonder if those earliest civilisations had these same conversations but lumped us whites in with the blacks.......

I would honestly not be surprised to find significant differences between the different Sapien populations of the world that were factors in the development of civilisation, it just wouldn't surprise me. Equally I know there's a hell of a lot other factors that could be the cause. Off the top of my head I'd speculate that geography plays a massive part, particularly access to coastline and sea. I don't think it's a coincidence that civilisation really kicked off when it found the Med' and I don't think it's a coincidence that one place that really struggled to spark was the largest landmass on the planet....

Is it not entirely likely that large landmasses like Africa are not conducive to the spontaneous creation of civilisation whereas southern Europe and the Middle East are?

[WILF 47,354]

2 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

I'm certainly not saying that, I've not really commented on it. I honestly don't know.

What I would say is that Sapiens have been kicking about Europe for over 40'000 years that we know of and western Europeans only did anything noteworthy in the last 1500-1000 right? For thousands of years before that (15k years ago that we know of) civilisations were springing up all over the middle east (in Asia right?) which spread to southern Europe and North Africa, flourishing probably due to the Med', eventually reaching all corners of the 'Old World'. I wonder if those earliest civilisations had these same conversations but lumped us whites in with the blacks.......

I would honestly not be surprised to find significant differences between the different Sapien populations of the world that were factors in the development of civilisation, it just wouldn't surprise me. Equally I know there's a hell of a lot other factors that could be the cause. Off the top of my head I'd speculate that geography plays a massive part, particularly access to coastline and sea. I don't think it's a coincidence that civilisation really kicked off when it found the Med' and I don't think it's a coincidence that one place that really struggled to spark was the largest landmass on the planet....

Is it not entirely likely that large landmasses like Africa are not conducive to the spontaneous creation of civilisation whereas southern Europe and the Middle East are?

I have no idea either mate, just asking the obvious really.

China, modern Iraq, South East Asia, South America were all building and making things, and to be fair I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to say Europeans have only done stuff for 1500 years, what about the Roman Empire 

New Grange here in Ireland is 5000 years old.
Id say “modern” Britain is 1500 years old but the A1 is a Roman Road.

Point being, wether they have pushed on or fallen into decline almost every other race has advanced more than your average African, I can’t think of a single thing that an African has ever invented ? 
 

I know my thoughts on race are well known but I’m genuinely not trying to come at this from a position of prejudice......it’s a genuine question ?