Early Briton Had Dark Skin and Light Eyes

[Elegiac]

Hungarians are descended from exactly that, but a bit more recent, relatively speaking E.g see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_tribes

They migrated from the Urals in the 800s - 600s CE, they are not indigenous to Europe by any metric.

- - - Updated - - -

But you must realize, they travelled to completely new areas. Places they had not seen before, lived in before or hunted in before. Yet they managed to do it. And kept on thriving there so much that they kept going.
I think trivializing it doesn't do them justice. You make it sound like it's an easy thing to travel across the Pacific Ocean, venture into jungles or cross Siberia.

I disagree; putting them in perspective makes you realise just how well equipped humans as a species are at adapting to new and changing environments over the long term.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

The Indo-Europeans themselves were likely only a small minority of migrants that imparted their language and culture onto much more numerous pre-existing populations. In Europe, the ethnic groups that don't belong to the Indo-European family, like Finns, Hungarians, Basques, etc. aren't especially distinct from their neighbors, and probably represent remnants of older cultures that never assimilated into that of the new arrivals from the steppes. So it's likely that the people of Europe had already evolved their light skin and blue eyes long before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans, whose own appearance was mostly irrelevant since given their low numbers they would have made a minimal genetic contribution.

I read something more recent, though I don't know if a consensus has been built around it, that those of European ancestry have a higher concentration of Neanderthal DNA than any of the other major ethnic groups, giving thought to the idea that perhaps Neanderthal wasn't a separate species that was eradicated, but a sub-species with whom Homosapiens interbred subsequently creating some of the different characteristics of Northern Europeans.

[Ysho]

That is not terribly suprising as paler skin tones would have taken a lot longer to develop and I've even read some research that it the first farmers were the ones to actually begin lightening out. The dietary aspect to skin color might suggest that all humans will get paler over time as we mostly eat wheat and other similar products.

To think that eating pale or white-colored food makes your skin white is scientifically, dumb.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Right. Opposition to the Out-of-Africa theory basically boils down to people who don't want to admit that they're cousins to Africans, but want to pretend that they evolved as a distinct and unrelated subspecies. It's pretty blatantly racist.

Is there any scenario where you are willing to accept that new data might present itself which will cause a reasonable, non-racist, researcher to re-examine that theory and present an alternate hypothesis? I mean, I'm not an expert in the field, so I generally accept the findings of others, but denying the possibility of any other explanation strikes me as very unnecessary and dogmatic.

[Endus]

I disagree; putting them in perspective makes you realise just how well equipped humans as a species are at adapting to new and changing environments over the long term.

One of the things people miss is that neolithic peoples would have been pretty much just as intelligent as we are, today. They lacked information, in certain aspects, but that also left them open to collecting huge amounts of knowledge that we overlook or take for granted. Navigational information like landmarks, exactly what plants are edible and how to recognize them, how to build shelters out of basically anything, etc.

We have this idea that peoples from earlier eras were stupid, but they weren't. They had a different informational plateau, and that generally meant they had more in-depth understanding of what they did know than we do today; they had the same capacity for learning and memory, but less to apply it to, so it would get focused a fair bit more.

They may not have been as open to what we call "higher thinking", like philosophy and such, but when it came to hunting and gathering, they were aces. These were peoples who saw mammoth and cave bears and said either "that looks tasty, I'm a kill that and eat it" or "that thing's dangerous, time to kill it and every other one of it we can find". Given that humanity also has a solid 15 years before a new infant is borderline capable of contributing to that kind of dangerous hunting, they also couldn't approach those if there was much risk; predators are generally very risk-averse. It's why startling a bear usually means that bear runs away. It's why songbirds can chase off hawks ten times their size. It's not that a one-on-one fight is in question, it's that you might injure them in some way that ruins their capacity to hunt, so they avoid the risk. Well, humanity is an apex predator; we do much the same thing. We hunted megafauna to extinction not because we were crazy SOBs, but because we could hunt them safely and easily. There'd always be SOME risk, but you wouldn't be losing a handful of hunters every year in a tribe of 50, because you'd run out of hunters right quick.

We see this with modern tribal groups in places like the Amazon; the traditional knowledge these folks have is incredibly detailed and they tap into it incredibly casually, and just from memory/observation.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there any scenario where you are willing to accept that new data might present itself which will cause a reasonable, non-racist, researcher to re-examine that theory and present an alternate hypothesis? I mean, I'm not an expert in the field, so I generally accept the findings of others, but denying the possibility of any other explanation strikes me as very unnecessary and dogmatic.

I'm always open to new data.

The problem is that all the data we currently have reinforces the Out-of-Africa theory, with the only real debate about how many "waves" there may have been.

And my reason for targeting those opposing the Out-of-Africa theory in the way I did is precisely because of the character of their specific arguments; I have never seen an argument against it that did not devolve into racism.

[Elegiac]

Is there any scenario where you are willing to accept that new data might present itself which will cause a reasonable, non-racist, researcher to re-examine that theory and present an alternate hypothesis?

Yeah. One supported by fact and not just discomfort at having shared common ancestry with the coloreds.

I mean, I'm not an expert in the field, so I generally accept the findings of others, but denying the possibility of any other explanation strikes me as very unnecessary and dogmatic.

This is the same sort of situation that encourages things like creationism and anti-vaccination.

The reason these arguments are dismissed out of hand is not because they are used to draw loathsome conclusions by, you know, racists. It's because they lack any sort of supporting substance, or they are just repackaged versions of obsolete theories.

[Macaquerie]

I read something more recent, though I don't know if a consensus has been built around it, that those of European ancestry have a higher concentration of Neanderthal DNA than any of the other major ethnic groups, giving thought to the idea that perhaps Neanderthal wasn't a separate species that was eradicated, but a sub-species with whom Homosapiens interbred subsequently creating some of the different characteristics of Northern Europeans.

The Neanderthals probably disappeared because there were never all that many to begin with, I think the highest estimate I've seen is a peak population of 70,000, and on top of that they tended to live in small isolated groups which limited their growth rate. In all likelihood, they would have died out on their own even if Homo sapiens never showed up on the scene.

[Hey There Guys its Metro]

That's so long ago that it almost seems irrelevant. Maybe if you came to find that edward the confessor was dark skinned it would be interesting. 10 thousand years is barely measurable.

[Player Twelve]

Doesn't pale skin make it easier to absorb sunlight and create more D-vitamin. Quite useful in areas that have little sunlight, like northern Europe. Seems like a more plausible cause for why we have lighter skin up North :P

Yes, it does. Despite that a lot of the people here are deficient in it and have to take supplements.

[zealo]

Doesn't pale skin make it easier to absorb sunlight and create more D-vitamin. Quite useful in areas that have little sunlight, like northern Europe. Seems like a more plausible cause for why we have lighter skin up North :P

Yes it does. That have little to do with the colour of the food though.

[Theodarzna]

To think that eating pale or white-coloured food makes your skin white is scientifical, dumb.

No, its specific to the type of vitamins being absorbed through the food. Agriculture changed the proportions of vitamins we got and how we got them.

[Elegiac]

One of the things people miss is that neolithic peoples would have been pretty much just as intelligent as we are, today. They lacked information, in certain aspects, but that also left them open to collecting huge amounts of knowledge that we overlook or take for granted. Navigational information like landmarks, exactly what plants are edible and how to recognize them, how to build shelters out of basically anything, etc.

We have this idea that peoples from earlier eras were stupid, but they weren't. They had a different informational plateau, and that generally meant they had more in-depth understanding of what they did know than we do today; they had the same capacity for learning and memory, but less to apply it to, so it would get focused a fair bit more.

They may not have been as open to what we call "higher thinking", like philosophy and such, but when it came to hunting and gathering, they were aces. These were peoples who saw mammoth and cave bears and said either "that looks tasty, I'm a kill that and eat it" or "that thing's dangerous, time to kill it and every other one of it we can find". Given that humanity also has a solid 15 years before a new infant is borderline capable of contributing to that kind of dangerous hunting, they also couldn't approach those if there was much risk; predators are generally very risk-averse. It's why startling a bear usually means that bear runs away. It's why songbirds can chase off hawks ten times their size. It's not that a one-on-one fight is in question, it's that you might injure them in some way that ruins their capacity to hunt, so they avoid the risk. Well, humanity is an apex predator; we do much the same thing. We hunted megafauna to extinction not because we were crazy SOBs, but because we could hunt them safely and easily. There'd always be SOME risk, but you wouldn't be losing a handful of hunters every year in a tribe of 50, because you'd run out of hunters right quick.

We see this with modern tribal groups in places like the Amazon; the traditional knowledge these folks have is incredibly detailed and they tap into it incredibly casually, and just from memory/observation.

I have actually read Guns, Germs, and Steel, for the record.

Though the point about avoiding a primitivist attitude was actually brought home to me in my study of Art History; namely in that it's always best to assume that any given artist is a master of their craft and seek to understand supposedly 'primitive' representations as a function of both available technology, but more importantly understanding the stylistic reasonings behind it.

But yeah, history is a lot less glamorous and vastly more interesting once you step away from the high school textbook narrative.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Yeah. One supported by fact and not just discomfort at having shared common ancestry with the coloreds.



This is the same sort of situation that encourages things like creationism and anti-vaccination.

The reason these arguments are dismissed out of hand is not because they are used to draw loathsome conclusions by, you know, racists. It's because they lack any sort of supporting substance, or they are just repackaged versions of obsolete theories.

Like I said I'm not offering an alternate hypothesis, because I lack sufficient knowledge to do so. The study of genetic markers though has opened a whole new door in the greater study of human history, whereas linguistics and to fossil record were our best tools previously. I mentioned earlier in the thread an article I read an article that referenced a study showing higher concentrations of Neanderthal DNA in European populations. It is possible that various groups of hominids, which covered the entire Eurasian landmass by the time of Homosapian's arrival to the fossil record, were more closely related than we previously believed, and were able to create offspring that could mate with each other, resulting in a single species with a fair amount of variation. I admit even as I type it that the scenario seems far fetched, but I never underestimate the ability of the geneticists to surprise me. I found the whole Neanderthal thing fascinating, and not because I find being related to a short, heavy-boned, hairy caveman any more appealing than being related to a black man.

[Elegiac]

Like I said I'm not offering an alternate hypothesis, because I lack sufficient knowledge to do so. The study of genetic markers though has opened a whole new door in the greater study of human history, whereas linguistics and to fossil record were our best tools previously. I mentioned earlier in the thread an article I read an article that referenced a study showing higher concentrations of Neanderthal DNA in European populations. It is possible that various groups of hominids, which covered the entire Eurasian landmass by the time of Homosapian's arrival to the fossil record, were more closely related than we previously believed, and were able to create offspring that could mate with each other, resulting in a single species with a fair amount of variation. I admit even as I type it that the scenario seems far fetched, but I never underestimate the ability of the geneticists to surprise me. I found the whole Neanderthal thing fascinating, and not because I find being related to a short, heavy-boned, hairy caveman any more appealing than being related to a black man.

Right, and as we said the key difference here is that there is actually substance to support that argument; it's not attempting to repackage a debunked theory in order to perpetuate a particular narrative in the same way that people who object to the Out of Africa hypothesis tend to do so based on....well, racism.

[Macaquerie]

Is there any scenario where you are willing to accept that new data might present itself which will cause a reasonable, non-racist, researcher to re-examine that theory and present an alternate hypothesis? I mean, I'm not an expert in the field, so I generally accept the findings of others, but denying the possibility of any other explanation strikes me as very unnecessary and dogmatic.

Well the alternative would require several different isolated subspecies that each migrated to their respective homelands and evolved separately in parallel, but somehow retained the ability to interbreed despite being geographically isolated for thousands of years, in some cases up until modern times.

[Deleted]

One of the things people miss is that neolithic peoples would have been pretty much just as intelligent as we are, today. They lacked information, in certain aspects, but that also left them open to collecting huge amounts of knowledge that we overlook or take for granted. Navigational information like landmarks, exactly what plants are edible and how to recognize them, how to build shelters out of basically anything, etc.

We have this idea that peoples from earlier eras were stupid, but they weren't. They had a different informational plateau, and that generally meant they had more in-depth understanding of what they did know than we do today; they had the same capacity for learning and memory, but less to apply it to, so it would get focused a fair bit more.

They may not have been as open to what we call "higher thinking", like philosophy and such, but when it came to hunting and gathering, they were aces. These were peoples who saw mammoth and cave bears and said either "that looks tasty, I'm a kill that and eat it" or "that thing's dangerous, time to kill it and every other one of it we can find". Given that humanity also has a solid 15 years before a new infant is borderline capable of contributing to that kind of dangerous hunting, they also couldn't approach those if there was much risk; predators are generally very risk-averse. It's why startling a bear usually means that bear runs away. It's why songbirds can chase off hawks ten times their size. It's not that a one-on-one fight is in question, it's that you might injure them in some way that ruins their capacity to hunt, so they avoid the risk. Well, humanity is an apex predator; we do much the same thing. We hunted megafauna to extinction not because we were crazy SOBs, but because we could hunt them safely and easily. There'd always be SOME risk, but you wouldn't be losing a handful of hunters every year in a tribe of 50, because you'd run out of hunters right quick.

We see this with modern tribal groups in places like the Amazon; the traditional knowledge these folks have is incredibly detailed and they tap into it incredibly casually, and just from memory/observation.

- - - Updated - - -


I'm always open to new data.

The problem is that all the data we currently have reinforces the Out-of-Africa theory, with the only real debate about how many "waves" there may have been.

And my reason for targeting those opposing the Out-of-Africa theory in the way I did is precisely because of the character of their specific arguments; I have never seen an argument against it that did not devolve into racism.

It's what I'm saying. We don't give them enough credit.
At the same time, expanding and exploring isn't easy. The things they did and how they did them were still exceptional ventures and risks.

[Deleted]

Right. Opposition to the Out-of-Africa theory basically boils down to people who don't want to admit that they're cousins to Africans, but want to pretend that they evolved as a distinct and unrelated subspecies. It's pretty blatantly racist.

So we are to outright dismiss all other finding that are contradictory to OOA theory because muh rasism? You liberals can be more dogmatic than the religious folks. I suppose you will all just dismiss the Crete footprint, China skull and myriad of other findings that all points to OOA being partially or completely wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

We have many ethnicity's in Britain and we all for the most part get along fine. You don't here protests against the Indian's, the carrabians, the Chinese, the medeteranians, the Jews, the slavs, the Germans e.t.c

Open your ears there very specific on what they don't want. Self rule and no Islam. Now there's a debate there about the pros and con's but tacking on more issue's that don't exist in a vapid attempt to build a moral high ground out of a swap isn't going to do what you want to achieve which is changing voters mind's

That's my biggest gripe with American politics atm non of them are clear on what exactly it is they want and non of them are doing anything productive to sway what matters and that's voters.

In Britain it's very clear what the right and left want.
The right wants self rule, controlled immigration, secular society, integration and a solid economy. The left wants more open immigration, eu rule, multiculturalism, a better benefits system, more NHS funding, more done to tackle poverty and borrowing to invest in growth.

Americas last election was fought with a smear campaign who's candidate's arguments boiled down to "I'm a woman" and "I like walls and inappropriate touching" talk about a vapid system

- - - Updated - - -



It's a pritty we'll supported theory with acheological evidence.

I think you'll have more luck arguing with a flat earther than that guy though.

Hurb durb we sailed here on nohas ark

With hundreds of contradictory pieces of evidence found already and more getting unearthed every year. How long before it's "ok' to challenge OOA theory? Never is the correct answer because it might say something you liberals don't like.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, and as we said the key difference here is that there is actually substance to support that argument; it's not attempting to repackage a debunked theory in order to perpetuate a particular narrative in the same way that people who object to the Out of Africa hypothesis tend to do so based on....well, racism.

The same way you violently lash out on anyone who is questioning out of Africa hypothesis with the same old liberal rhetoric. Hurr durr flath earth christian Trump supporters. Don't you dare try to take the high road on this one, you ain't fooling me.

[Techno-Druid]

So we are to outright dismiss all other finding that are contradictory to OOA theory because muh rasism? You liberals can be more dogmatic than the religious folks. I suppose you will all just dismiss the Crete footprint, China skull and myriad of other findings that all points to OOA being partially or completely wrong.

We have genetic and archeological evidence which overwhelmingly supports an Out of Africa Theory. The Crete footprints are from 5.7 million years ago and couldn't possibly be from an anatomically modern human or close human ancestor (.i.e. Homo heidelbergensis). The skull found in China only proves that humans unsuccessfully attempted to migrate out of Africa earlier but failed due to the presence of other human species like Homo erectus.

[Travis B]

I think it's more of a perception that modern humans have always mostly looked how we look now.

That's to be expected from people who believe the Earth is only 6000 years old.

[Deleted]

So, who cares? Does it matter what happened thousands of years ago? I don't get this point.