If all of mankind originated from Africa, how do you account for the various features associated with the races? Thick/thin lips, slim/flat nose, slanted eyes, etc. Your thoughts?
Kevin
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
quote:Originally posted by kevin1122:
If all of mankind originated from Africa, how do you account for the various features associated with the races? Thick/thin lips, slim/flat nose, slanted eyes, etc. Your thoughts?
Kevin
They say it's due to the migration of those earliest peoples to other regions of the world and then the result of their adaptation to their new surroundings, i.e., climate, altitude, vegetation, basic survival skills, etc.
I don't know if that's true ... but, that's the nutshell version of the so-called "experts" theory on how that happened, as I understand it.
quote:Originally posted by kevin1122:
If all of mankind originated from Africa, how do you account for the various features associated with the races? Thick/thin lips, slim/flat nose, slanted eyes, etc. Your thoughts?
Kevin
Adaptation to the environment and the sun (Skin Color). Over the course of many generations being a specific area will change appearances apparently...diet has some thing to do with it as well.
(quote)
"They say it's due to the migration of those earliest peoples to other regions of the world and then the result of their adaptation to their new surroundings, i.e., climate, altitude, vegetation, basic survival skills, etc."
(quote)
"Adaptation to the environment and the sun (Skin Color). Over the course of many generations being a specific area will change appearances apparently...diet has some thing to do with it as well."
(reply)
I can understand environment affecting skin color, but how does environment effect the shape of your lips, eyes, nose, hair, etc.?
Kevin
"They say it's due to the migration of those earliest peoples to other regions of the world and then the result of their adaptation to their new surroundings, i.e., climate, altitude, vegetation, basic survival skills, etc."
(quote)
"Adaptation to the environment and the sun (Skin Color). Over the course of many generations being a specific area will change appearances apparently...diet has some thing to do with it as well."
(reply)
I can understand environment affecting skin color, but how does environment effect the shape of your lips, eyes, nose, hair, etc.?
Kevin
quote:Originally posted by kevin1122:
I can understand environment affecting skin color, but how does environment effect the shape of your lips, eyes, nose, hair, etc.?
Kevin
I am not sure of the science, but I would think that just as skin would adapt to the amount of sunlight, that there would be adaptation to the type of light in different regions (eye color). One shape nose is probably better for hot humid climates as opposed to cold and dry or even hot and dry. Certain builds are better as far as retaining and disapating heat in the body. Again, there are also dietary components with respect to height and musculature, i.e., the amount and type of protein or fats that are in the diet, etc.
Kevin, there are all kinds of theories on why the prevalence of certain features within a population reflect an adaptation to the environment. But I wonder if a lot of it may simply derive from sexual selection; that is, in a certain population, for some unknown reason in prehistory, certain features came to be seen as attractive or appealing, for reasons that had nothing to do with environmental adaptation.
What makes this a possibility in my mind is that most of the features you refer to exist already in African populations. For example, the Asian "eye slant" is the result of the "epicanthic fold" over the top eyelid. Many African people have that already; it predominates among the San people, and in the East among groups like the Dinka. In the South, there's at least one famous example:
It's possible that the population that originally made it to Asia from Africa came to see that feature as attractive. Maybe a major tribal leader among them had an epicanthic fold, and he had more wives and therefore more offspring because of his position.
But that's just me putting that out there. In general, the authorities on the subject usually maintain that there must have been some environmental benefit to a certain feature. Back in those times, populations were so small that if an advantage did exist, it would have spread throughout the population quickly.
What makes this a possibility in my mind is that most of the features you refer to exist already in African populations. For example, the Asian "eye slant" is the result of the "epicanthic fold" over the top eyelid. Many African people have that already; it predominates among the San people, and in the East among groups like the Dinka. In the South, there's at least one famous example:
It's possible that the population that originally made it to Asia from Africa came to see that feature as attractive. Maybe a major tribal leader among them had an epicanthic fold, and he had more wives and therefore more offspring because of his position.
But that's just me putting that out there. In general, the authorities on the subject usually maintain that there must have been some environmental benefit to a certain feature. Back in those times, populations were so small that if an advantage did exist, it would have spread throughout the population quickly.
quote:Originally posted by Vox:
But that's just me putting that out there. In general, the authorities on the subject usually maintain that there must have been some environmental benefit to a certain feature. Back in those times, populations were so small that if an advantage did exist, it would have spread throughout the population quickly.
That's a good point. It's hard for me to imagine. But more people live on my block than probably lived in the typical village (or whatever the comparable unit of population was) in those days.
With considerably smaller population sizes, higher mortality rates, and more rigidly defined mate selection it would make more sense for certain physical features to eventually dominate.
Not to be dissing Kentucky (and certainly not you), HB, but does this mean you've finally moved?quote:Originally posted by HonestBrother:
That's a good point. It's hard for me to imagine. But more people live on my block than probably lived in the typical village (or whatever the comparable unit of population was) in those days.
Or am I just showing my ignorance about where you live?
quote:Originally posted by kevin1122:
If all of mankind originated from Africa, how do you account for the various features associated with the races? Thick/thin lips, slim/flat nose, slanted eyes, etc. Your thoughts?
Kevin
-----------------------------------------------
Mother Nature
Tribal Rituals
Diet
Environment
Weather
Habit
------------------
Every living thing naturally adapts to its environment, including human beings. If you take a closer or scientific look at the differences in features of all humans on earth, you will be able to account for each or a particular feature being exactly what is needed for them to survive or live comfortably within their particular environment.
Tribul rituals or cultural habit can be credited for some distinct features, which oftem is sort of a man-made forced adaptation; i.e., if you do something long enough, the human body will adapt to it, even in some cases, adapting it into the human DNA. For example, if there was a tribe of people who had to alway reach into very high places for their food, eventually, that particular Tribe would probably adapt to that aspect of their environment by growing longer arms that other tribe who do not have to reach into very high places for their food. The same way would be true if the tribe did not have to reach into high places for their food, but there had been created some rule or custom of reaching high for their food, it would be the same result.
Race has nothing to do with the white supremacy mythology that has infiltrated even science, but almost the total opposite of that ignorant philosophy -- which is proof of how ignorant you have to be to actually believe white supremacy mythology of racial differences, when the differences have almost nothing to do with any particular race, but have mostly to do with nature and coincidence.
A simple way to look at is, The African as been here at leat 3 millions years before any other human being on the planet.
quote:Originally posted by kevin1122:
If all of mankind originated from Africa, how do you account for the various features associated with the races? Thick/thin lips, slim/flat nose, slanted eyes, etc. Your thoughts?
Kevin
Reading the book Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy Of Race by Ashley Montagu might be a great start to answering some of your questions. Also, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality by Cheikh A. Diop. These texts offer thorough, easy-to-read, research-supported explanations about the evolution of humanity. I think if more people took the time to research world history, then there wouldn't be as much ignorance being acted out in human behavior. In fact, I wish more people would discuss questions like the one you're asking instead of questions that encourage race consciousness and race insecurity.
The only FACT is that the oldest trace of human ancestry is traced to Africa. Everything after that is conjecture based on evolutionary theory.
Of course the later versions are more advanced. lOL
um
Of course the later versions are more advanced. lOL
um
These texts offer thorough, easy-to-read, research-supported explanations about the evolution of humanity.Rowe
All you say about Dr. Diop's work...except 'easy-to-read'...at least for me.
It took me a very...very...very long time to read that book.
I sometimes read at the rate of one page a day.
That book is foundation to my realization of my identity...in conjunction with Dr. Lerone Bennett's 'Before the Mayflower'.
When I was in my teens, I read a lot about body types, and cranium studies, and genetics, and race, and religions..., and believe it or not...politics.
Since that time, I have been very fascinated with the shift in 'current best knowledge'.
In my teens, that Swedish sociologist dominated the social engineering of the day.
By the way, he is often cited for setting the standards for the dicipline of Sociology while total ignoring the benchmarks providing the scientific basis for the entire dicipline.
Boy...'those people' often piss me off!!
PEACE
Jim Chester
PEACE
Jim Chester
All you say about Dr. Diop's work...except 'easy-to-read'...at least for me.
It took me a very...very...very long time to read that book.
I sometimes read at the rate of one page a day.
That book is foundation to my realization of my identity...in conjunction with Dr. Lerone Bennett's 'Before the Mayflower'.
When I was in my teens, I read a lot about body types, and cranium studies, and genetics, and race, and religions..., and believe it or not...politics.
Since that time, I have been very fascinated with the shift in 'current best knowledge'.
In my teens, that Swedish sociologist dominated the social engineering of the day.
By the way, he is often cited for setting the standards for the dicipline of Sociology while total ignoring the benchmarks providing the scientific basis for the entire dicipline.
Boy...'those people' often piss me off!!
PEACE
Jim Chester
PEACE
Jim Chester
quote:Originally posted by James Wesley All you say about Dr. Diop's work...except 'easy-to-read'...at least for me.It took me a very...very...very long time to read that book. I sometimes read at the rate of one page a day. That book is foundation to my realization of my identity...in conjunction with Dr. Lerone Bennett's 'Before the Mayflower'.
I agree Diop's book is really a book to be studied rather than read. It's more like a textbook. However, I was comparing Diop's book to those types of books that include so much technical language and jargon that only someone within the profession or field would able to understand the books contents. Now, I don't think Diop's book is like that at all. You definitely won't need to consult with a historian in order to read it, although you might be one after you read it.
quote:Originally posted by Rowe:quote:Originally posted by James Wesley All you say about Dr. Diop's work...except 'easy-to-read'...at least for me.It took me a very...very...very long time to read that book. I sometimes read at the rate of one page a day. That book is foundation to my realization of my identity...in conjunction with Dr. Lerone Bennett's 'Before the Mayflower'.
I agree Diop's book is really a book to be studied rather than read. It's more like a textbook, though I was comparing Diop's book to those types of books that are so overwhelmed with technical language and jargon that only someone within the profession or field would able to understand the books contents. I don't think Diop's book is like that at all. You definitely won't need to consult with a historian in order to read it, although you might be one after you read it.
[I]In the Q & A sessions following some of my lectures, I have been referred to as 'an historian'...even though I am careful to give full credit to the sources of the information I cite.
I am embarassed.
I immediately correct that reference.
When it occurs in a university setting, I am aware that the assignment might just be 'tongue-in-cheek'.
I still correct it.
Dr. Diop's work is indeed powerful.
PEACE
Jim Chester
quote:Originally posted by Vox:
Kevin, there are all kinds of theories on why the prevalence of certain features within a population reflect an adaptation to the environment. But I wonder if a lot of it may simply derive from sexual selection; that is, in a certain population, for some unknown reason in prehistory, certain features came to be seen as attractive or appealing, for reasons that had nothing to do with environmental adaptation.
True... but remember that sexual selection plays a strong role in environmental adaptation. Successful adaptations are sexually appealing in their own way and are spread through community thus.
quote:What makes this a possibility in my mind is that most of the features you refer to exist already in African populations.
I was thinking about something vaguely related to this a while ago.
It seems to me that the only trait that found in Africa that didn't make it "out" of Africa to be expressed by other races is our light and kinky hair. I makes a certain amount of sense in most cases. African hair is designed to disperse heat. Everyone else's hair is designed to contain heat.
It makes me wonder if our natural hair is one of the last physical traits that is uniquely African.
quote:Originally posted by Black Viking:
African hair is designed to disperse heat. Everyone else's hair is designed to contain heat.
It makes me wonder if our natural hair is one of the last physical traits that is uniquely African.
Tropical people's have straight hair... as do Aborigines and Dravidians...
these are heat intense environments... not necessary to retain heat there....
White folx only have an appx. 60,000 year history... the planet's regions have existed long before then...
white people are not the author of straight hair, thin lips and/or lighter skin...
they are KNOWN for these traits through supremacy... but not the author...
As a race, their pale skin and backwards social engineering is unique to the planet
Sudan