DNA shows first modern Briton had “dark to black” skin

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. How many nurses have masters degrees? 

 

https://study.com/articles/RN_Educational_Requirements_to_Become_a_Registered_Nurse.html

Salary and Career Information

The BLS estimated faster-than-average employment growth of 16% for RNs in the years 2014-2024. The BLS also reported that RNs earned a median annual wage of $67,490 in May 2015.

 

About 11% of nurses have masters degrees in the US, quite a lot of people. 

[mikebike]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. How many nurses have masters degrees? 

 

https://study.com/articles/RN_Educational_Requirements_to_Become_a_Registered_Nurse.html

Salary and Career Information

The BLS estimated faster-than-average employment growth of 16% for RNs in the years 2014-2024. The BLS also reported that RNs earned a median annual wage of $67,490 in May 2015.

Lol. How many paleos make the figures u quoted WITHOUT a masters?

[Scott]

Please stay on topic.  

[bert bloggs]

23 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Ignoramuses who reject scientific research when it doesn't agree with their political agenda.

Ignoramuses who cant see a joke quote when they see it should not be allowed to post .

[SunsetT]

On 07/02/2018 at 9:08 AM, webfact said:

The first modern Briton had “dark to black” skin

Eureka! Ive got it! It's obvious! Of course they were black......Simply comes from sitting round a fire every night to keep warm and BBQ dinner......lol..............."Dinosaur ribs anyone?"

[Scott]

A troll post has been removed.   This is about skin color, not race.  

[Airbagwill]

On 2/7/2018 at 9:20 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Given everyone originated in Africa, is that surprising?

It depends on the migration theories from Africa...and the intermingling of genes with Neanderthal people.

[pedro01]

6 hours ago, Gecko123 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/20/virtue-signalling-putdown-passed-sell-by-date

 

Your use of the term 'virtue signaling' is pseudo-academic pretentiousness. Your interpretation of the article as an attempt to "de-ligitimize white people" reveals your interest in anthropology only extends to the point where it advances your racial ideology, which was further exposed by your offensive and ignorant comments about differences in athletic capabilities between races.

 

 

 

Facts are not racist. NBA, NFL, sprinters under 10 seconds. All dominated by people with a specific ethnic background.

 

It is scientifically proven that differences between races are more than skin tone.

 

Science is not racist. Neither are simple facts.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Airbagwill said:

It depends on the migration theories from Africa...and the intermingling of genes with Neanderthal people.

 

https://www.livescience.com/28036-neanderthals-facts-about-our-extinct-human-relatives.html

Like other humans, Neanderthals originated in Africa but migrated to Eurasia long before other humans did.

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

 

Facts are not racist. NBA, NFL, sprinters under 10 seconds. All dominated by people with a specific ethnic background.

 

It is scientifically proven that differences between races are more than skin tone.

 

Science is not racist. Neither are simple facts.

There are so many rebuttals to your simplistic and puerile coments, but I fear your mind is made up...

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

 

Facts are not racist. NBA, NFL, sprinters under 10 seconds. All dominated by people with a specific ethnic background.

 

It is scientifically proven that differences between races are more than skin tone.

 

Science is not racist. Neither are simple facts.

 

Given that it is pretty definite that all humans originated in Africa, the differences in later humans came about from the environment in which they lived, ergo, dark skin in hot sunny areas, pale skin in cold cloudy areas, good runners on plains to run down game etc. Even tendency to store energy in fat is an environmental survival mechanism in peoples that were subject to periodic shortages of food. Sheep in Arabia store water in their tails, just like camels store it in their humps. It's all just natural feedback evolution to survive in the area occupied.

Edited February 8, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

Facts are not racist. NBA, NFL, sprinters under 10 seconds. All dominated by people with a specific ethnic background.

 

It is scientifically proven that differences between races are more than skin tone.

 

Science is not racist. Neither are simple facts.

 

Regarding athletic ability, there is more of a correlation between haplogroup inheritance than race, the fact that many people of a certain race also share common haplogroups makes it appear to you that the issue is one of race, that and blind assumption.

[Airbagwill]

3 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

Facts are not racist. NBA, NFL, sprinters under 10 seconds. All dominated by people with a specific ethnic background.

 

It is scientifically proven that differences between races are more than skin tone.

 

Science is not racist. Neither are simple facts.

Simple facts are for simple people if you had any idea how stupid the concept of race is you wouldn't post such utter garbage. Race doesn't "scientifically" exist, you have no idea what a "fact" is and how incredibly uninformed people are who believe that "facts" are on their own part or justification of an argument. If you think that certain people are faster runners purely because of race your thinking is back in the 19th century and has been laughed at ever since. I'm afraid that the average 12 year old has better scientific knowledge than you.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Airbagwill

[Airbagwill]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

https://www.livescience.com/28036-neanderthals-facts-about-our-extinct-human-relatives.html

Like other humans, Neanderthals originated in Africa but migrated to Eurasia long before other humans did.

Yes - I don't think one google will help your argument much as your premise is fallacious.

[Airbagwill]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Given that it is pretty definite that all humans originated in Africa, the differences in later humans came about from the environment in which they lived, ergo, dark skin in hot sunny areas, pale skin in cold cloudy areas, good runners on plains to run down game etc. Even tendency to store energy in fat is an environmental survival mechanism in peoples that were subject to periodic shortages of food. Sheep in Arabia store water in their tails, just like camels store it in their humps. It's all just natural feedback evolution to survive in the area occupied.

No  - hominid species evolved dark skin.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Airbagwill

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Airbagwill said:

No  - hominid species evolved dark skin.

?????????????

Are you saying pale skinned humans are not hominids?

[Kieran00001]

39 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

?????????????

Are you saying pale skinned humans are not hominids?

 

Certainly doesn't sound like that is what they are saying, why on earth did you think they were?

[Airbagwill]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

?????????????

Are you saying pale skinned humans are not hominids?

pale skin came first in hominids

[Gecko123]

Why was the ancient rate of technological and political development fastest in Eurasia, slower in the Americas (and in Africa south of the Sahara) and slowest in Australia. For example, in 1492 much of the population of Eurasia used iron tools, had writing and agriculture, had large centralized states with oceangoing ships, and was on the verge of industrialization. The Americas had agriculture, only a few large centralized states, writing in only one area, and no oceangoing ships or iron tools, and they were technologically and politically a few thousand years behind Eurasia. Australia lacked agriculture, writing, states, and ships, was still in a pre-first contact condition, and used stone tools comparable to ones made over ten thousand years earlier in Eurasia. It was those technological and political differences - not the biological differences determing the outcome of competition among animal populations - that permitted Europeans to expand to other continents.

 

Nineteeth-century Europeans had a simple, racist answer to such questions. They concluded that they acquired their cultural head start through being inherently more intelligent, and that they therefore had a manifest destiny to conquer, displace, or kill "inferior" peoples. The trouble with this answer is that it is not just loathsome and arrogant, but also wrong. It's obvious that people differ enormously in the knowledge they acquire, depending on their circumstances as they grow up. But no convincing evidence of genetic differences in mental ability among peoples has been found, despite much effort.

 

-- Jared Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee, The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal

Edited March 13, 2018 by Gecko123

[Gecko123]

For those interested in this subject, below article looks very interesting:

 

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, Gecko123 said:

Why was the ancient rate of technological and political development fastest in Eurasia, slower in the Americas (and in Africa south of the Sahara) and slowest in Australia. For example, in 1492 much of the population of Eurasia used iron tools, had writing and agriculture, had large centralized states with oceangoing ships, and was on the verge of industrialization. The Americas had agriculture, only a few large centralized states, writing in only one area, and no oceangoing ships or iron tools, and they were technologically and politically a few thousand years behind Eurasia. Australia lacked agriculture, writing, states, and ships, was still in a pre-first contact condition, and used stone tools comparable to ones made over ten thousand years earlier in Eurasia. It was those technological and political differences - not the biological differences determing the outcome of competition among animal populations - that permitted Europeans to expand to other continents.

 

Nineteeth-century Europeans had a simple, racist answer to such questions. They concluded that they acquired their cultural head start through being inherently more intelligent, and that they therefore had a manifest destiny to conquer, displace, or kill "inferior" peoples. The trouble with this answer is that it is not just loathsome and arrogant, but also wrong. It's obvious that people differ enormously in the knowledge they acquire, depending on their circumstances as they grow up. But no convincing evidence of genetic differences in mental ability among peoples has been found, despite much effort.

 

-- Jared Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee, The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal

A bit off topic, but I listened to a fascinating podcast with the Australian author Lynne Kelly recently, where she talked about Austraian aboriginals' ability to store vital knowledge and pass it down through generations. Despite not having a written language, they were able to store and transfer vast amounts of information essential to survival and life in general, using songs, stories, mnemonic devices and man-made structures. She explained her theory that it was not solely the aborigines who had these methods, and that such diverse structures as Stonehenge, the Aztec desert lines etc were, rather than the mystical, quasi-religious sites that we sometimes assume, were much more practical and used to 'store' and transmit information. Google 'memory palaces' if you are interested.