White People Are The Descendants Of African Albino's.

Yes, light skin in Europeans and Asians is caused by a number of point mutatations. However, these mutations are on different loci from those that cause albinism and can be traced back to groups of humans that migrated from the Indian subcontinent to East and Northeast Asia and Europe. If whites were descendants of African Albino's, their genome would look very different from what it does look like. There is zero scientific evidence supporting the thesis that white people are the descendants of African Albino's, none whatsoever.

Drusilla,

Your conclusions are not supported by the evidence.
1. Yes, white skin is caused by relatively few point mutations.
2. Yes, the lighter skin in East Asians is caused by different mutations than those of Europeans
3. No, light skin in Europeans does not come directly from the first Africans that left the African continent, they come from a subgroup that originated later in the region that is now Pakistan
4. That light skin arose after these people migrated from their core area in Asia
5. East Asians come from a different group than Europeans
6.  "The work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. " is a journalistic liberty the author of the article involved himself in (probably somebody that is not scientifically literate)
7. I Started a thread on "The Peopling of the World". the interactive presentation I linked to gives a good summary of Oppenheimer's findings on the population genetical underpinning of the Out of Africa thesis.

Now, let's get back to what you wrote:
And you have no evidence to support that assertion

No, some people in a subgroup, after homo sapiens left Africa, underwent mutation(s) that caused white skin. You shouldn't put all your faith in an incorrect representation of scientific findings by a journalist. I have read Out of Eden - The Peopling of the World by Oppenheimer and nowhere does he suggest that someone in Africa underwent a mutation causing white skin. That developing of white skin (between 65.000 and 52.000 years ago) happened long after the first modern humans left Africa (between 90.000 - 85.000 years ago)

It's not one person and those people came not directly from Africa

Incorrect. The Group that migrated to Europe originated in he region of modern day Pakistan. Most of the genetic variability of that group (called Nasreen by Oppenheimer for the maternal line) is still available in India/Pakistan. Most are very dark-skinned. The develpment of white skin happened later

East Asians lighter skins are caused by different mutations than European white skin. The Lighter skinned Indians almost all come from the group that also migrated to Europe (Invasian of the Arians/Indus culture, coming from the Pakistani highlands)
So, for Indians, yes, they are related, for East Asians, no, they are not related

It's not as clear cut, for some Asians (Western Asia), they share the same mutations, for other Asians (Eastern Asia), they don't

And you have no evidence to support that thesis

Journalistic liberties by the author of the article. This is not implied by the works of Oppenheimer. Let's just say that the journalist had to work against tight deadlines.
1. The Out of Africa migration happened Earlier
2. Those mutations have nothing to do whatsoever with albinism

These mutations are not related to the migration out of Africa directly. they happened later

There were no white people in Africa. Albino's are relatively well accepted by most cultures in Africa, up to the point of reverence and special status. It's illogical to assume that these older cultures were far less humane than the more recent ones.

Pre modern migration patterns are caused by opportunity, not by exclusion. And once more, there were no white people to leave Africa.

It most definitely is. I advise you to go directly to the source and read about the findings of Oppenheimer's research yourself.

Nferyn, This is just not true. Even to this day Albinos are ostracized in Africa.

Albino's are ostracised in parts of Africa by some cultures. This does not mean that that treatment is universal in Africa and even if we would assume that it were, that would not establish evidence for your thesis

Teeheeheeheehee! So damn funny, thanks Delf747 for being so articulate! I couldnt pass this one by.

As you can see from the previous posts on the thread, Nferyn has painstakingly tried to explain all of this to her, but to no avail simply because Nferyn is white! Even though, ironically, she herself draws from white research to try to prove her supposedly "African centered" views; she doesnt mind butchering Yoruba etymology: breaking oyinbo into oyi-nbo just to create evidence for her spurious claims; she dismisses evidence given that in some African cultures albinos were actually revered, but rather feels more comfortable with the stark generalization that albinos were ostracized in all African cultures, thereby distorting and oversimplifying the complexities and nuances of the variety of African worldviews. She appears to have overlooked the opening qualifier in her own recent citation on the ostracizing of albinos in Africa which clearly states "in some parts!" Hmmm, is she really blind, or just playing blind in order to underhandedly score a point Most ludicrous, every black person who has tried to point this out, including myself has been sentenced to the "mentacide" ward! (That's another word that cracks me up by the way). Maybe you can yet prevail on her though. We the incarcerated black folk locked up in mentacidal cells by the almighty Drusilla need you to prevail so that you can set us free!



Very strong, very terse, very TRUE!

Delf747,

I will deal with you first, since you refuse to read the whole thread.

The idea that Black/Brown people turn white because of their environment is a myth.

Why did so many believe that for years and some still do?

Because we did not understand genes and dna until about 40 or so years ago.

So for years whites taught that the sun makes one dark and snow makes one white.

All of this was refuted by simple groups like the Eskimo's (Inuits) who remained Brown skinned even though their climate was colder than Europe.

Let me put it in simple language so that you can understand it:

If two white married people get a deep dark suntan living in West Africa, it does not mean that their baby will come out with black or brown skin.

Try to understand and remember this and get past the scientific myths of yesterday:

HUMAN CHANGES CAN ONLY BE PASSED ALONG AT THE GENETIC LEVEL.

Forget what false mess you learned about a person with a tan will  then have a black baby.

That was crap from yesteryear. When scientists did not know any better.

Jablonski's whole book is a fairy tale, if she is still pushing that false idea.

Nferyn,

Let's see if what Oppenheimer says supports my theory:

I say that African Albino's left Africa and their descendants became white people.

Oppenheimer says:

Stephen Oppenheimer is a well-known expert in the field of synthesizing DNA studies with archaeological, anthropological, linguistic and other field studies.

The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey Out of Africa. The latter focuses on his hypothesis that modern humans emerged from Africa in a single major exodus, numbering no more than a few hundred individuals. This lone group of wanderers is ancestral to all non-Africans and most North Africans, their descendants having since radiated into a plurality of physical characteristics, languages, ethnicities and cultures today.

Sounds to me that the only word difference between my theory and Oppenheimers, is that I would add the word Albino's.

So the whole theory of the African (Albino's) leaving Africa in an exodus, is proven by Oppenheimer.

Now to as whether these were Albino's are not.

Yeh right.

Your not really here for the attention eh?

You 'forgot' to answer the relevant part of my post:

Drusilla, your defense of Welsing's idiotic theory gets more desperate with every passing day.

You're playing on semantics and show a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.
The environment imposes selective pressures on populations. With differential reproductive success within those populations, beneficial mutations get selected for, detrimental mutations get selected against. Light skin is definately beneficial the further you get from the equator, as it allows to synthesise sufficient vitamin D with less unlight.

Irrelevant. Folk tales does not science make.

1. The Inuit are part of a relatively recent migration to the colder lattitudes and thus did not have that long a time to evolve much lighter skin.
2. The selective pressure on the Inuit to develop lighter skin tones is greatly reduced because the majority of their diet consists out of fish, which has an abundance of vitamin D, they do not need to synthesise it at all

Oh irony 

Of course it doesn't, but how that supports your story is elluding me (actually it isn't, but it is based on a misguided understanding evolutionary principles)

You are he only one making such claims. Delf747 did no such thing.

And you assumption that she would make such claims is based on what exactly?

@ To All




I am a black American and I am not sold on trying to blame everything on race but I do believe in the truth even if a race issue is attached, call it what you may.

I do agree with Welding or is it Welsing? Because white people do lack melanin, they do have anti social behavior because they feel left out and they wish they had the melanin so that they could fit in with people of color which out numbers them (white people). White people are always truly the minority but they call everyone else the minority, again, a sign of anti social behavior. The hate, killings, rape, colonization, in humane slavery, stealing and going around the world to do these things is the direct evidence that shows white people are really the inferior ones and they are out of touch with nature. Being out of touch with nature is also attributed to the lack of melanin. I do not agree that white people descend from African Albino's because if they did to me that would mean they are Africans. No way in the world can an African, or anything deriving from an African, could be capable of doing what white people do and have done. Not only that, white people can have albino babies too. However, I do believe that white people are albino's, they are just a different type of albino  a different breed if you will. I don't know where they came from, they could be the fallen angels God kicked out of heaven, who knows. It does appear however though that they really do not have an origin and that they some how popped up. Their time line begins 2000 years ago, Africans however go way, way back and then some.

Bull.,.,. tishoo.,.,. t

Delf747,

And you can find this information all over the web about Africans having the best bones and being the strongest physically of any race because of our bone density but here is just one from a medical website:


http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/29/1/85?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1062017706112_1830&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=5000&journalcode=intjepid

Delf747,

And here is another one showing that Blacks are bigger than whites.



The mean femur weight and skeletal weight of the black men and women were greater than those of the white men and women, respectively. The circumference and amount of compact bone of the shaft of the femur were also greater in blacks than in whites. Additionally, the authors noted that blacks have proportionally longer forearms and legs than do whites.
Seale analyzed 100 dry, fat-free skeletons with a wide age range (25–100 y) evenly divided into black and white men and women. Total skeletal weight was significantly greater in blacks than in whites (3340 compared with 2870 g; P < 0.001 after sexes were combined). In addition to being weighed as a whole, each skeleton was divided into skull, trunk, upper extremities, and lower extremities. Analysis of covariance was done to correct for differences among total skeletal weights; proportional differences were noted. Although no racial differences existed for the skull and trunk, blacks had significantly heavier upper and lower extremities than whites. Additionally, the percentage contribution of the upper limbs to total skeletal weight was greater in blacks than in whites (19.5 ± 1.0% compared with 18.5 ± 1.2% in men, P < 0.001; 16.8 ± 0.7% compared with 16.2 ± 1.3% in women, P < 0.001).

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/6/1392

American racial studies only include African Americans (West Africans) and not all black people.

Oh but every evolutionist website you go to goes to great lenghts to prove that when they put Africans in Zoo cages because Africans are just monekys in the 20th century, that is came from that racist area and modern evolutionists should not be blamed for that racist era.

Yet here we are, a Nigerian in the 21st century on this board pushing the idea that Africans are just primates and have more monkey dna.

I tell evolutionists all the time, despite what they think -- too many people still believe that racist shyte from the 19th and 20th century and they have to deal with it.

The racist argument that Africans are closely related to monkeys is the same as white people are closely related to albinos.

That is an argument YOU have been pushing Drusilla.

Take some of your own medicine.