White People Are The Descendants Of African Albino's.

Jakumo,

It's hard on the ears, the first go round. But it grows on you. Smile.  


1. All of our offspring carries the genes of Albinism, we passed it on to them. This would not interfere with the theory.

2. They would not say: Albino Africans but it is fact that they do consider whites to be the genetic offspring of Equatorial Africans. This theory, especially at this point, just adds the word Albino basically to their theory about where whites come from.


1. Facial features are neither here or there. Their mostly myth from what I can tell. I do not need to bore you with pictures of Africans where all DNA has been traced back to East Africa (even west Africans -- go back east for their beginnings) slim noses, aquiline noses, slender bodies, etc.

2. Of course, you still have a very valid point. If this theory were true, there should be a basic Negro bone found in Europe, showing that they retained a great deal of their African basic structure even though their skin was changed.

Good news. There is, of course. The Grimaldi skeletons of course are Africoid. i.e. Negroid in the old, old documents you can read whitemen writing about them. Here is an Afrocentric site featuring some of those writings about the oldest bones in Europe being Negroid bones and the words of Dr.Diop. Plus it has pictures. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/grimaldi.html

The spread would be very different and the occurencey higher, which it not the case.

Current scientific research does not point to a Equatorial African origin of Europeans. The point is mute.

Meaning?

Not only that, but it would be visible in the genome, which it is not. There are no population geneticists supporting the view of Dr. Welsing, not a single one.

And this does nothing to support Welsings view

Jakumo ~ Drusilla is talking about genotype and you're referring to phenotype. Have you ever heard of the Ice Age? It ended some ten thousand years ago. Another one is upon us. We live in a Cyclical Universe, where what goes around, comes around.

The end of the Ice Age results in the formation of Sahara desert, which was once heavily forested. Can you believe that the desert was once a forest?

In a temperate region, Oyinbo does not need broad nostril. He does not need full lips. He does not need a curly hair. The nose becomes narrower, due to the cold air in the frigid North, the lips become thin due to the cold bite and the hair is straighter to trap the heat from dissipating, in essence, a warming effect. A curly hair allows the heat to dissipate easily, which is a cooling effect in the tropics.

In this situation, Albinos 'll naturally prefer a colder climate compared to a scorching tropics. Over many generations, the phenotype changes.

Think about this.

1. Skin cancer is more numerous than all other cancers put together. It by far effects whites more than other races.

2. The Inuits (eskimo's) stayed brown even though they lived in the very, very cold. So we have here something that is inconsistent with the idea that lack of melanin is a benefit for people who live in the cold.

3. The Sun is human beings greatest source of energy. It's really good for you. It would only seem natural that the Earth would grow a people that were made to interact in the sun, without the Sun being their enemy.

If whiteskin was such a beneficial mutation as the current theory holds for the development of white skin, over time due to the weather, then simply put, whites have yet to see the benefits outweigh the more numerous deficits this gradual change caused them.

Humans desparately need the Sun, but you decide to change my color, to one, that makes the Sun my enemy?

Somethings wrong with that theory that white skin color is a beneficial change to Humans ANYWHERE. 

This is why I say that the mutation to whiteskin can not be placed in the class of gradual phenotypical changes, as you have places broad noses, thin noses, etc. Those were areas that actually benefited.

With white skin, we still basically have the same being burned up problems associated with say Albino's (or Lepers?) in Europe but it is called skin cancer now. So nothing changed for them. It was not beneficial.

Drussilla, hopefully you get this message before you go. I am wondering what the reasoning behind this thread is. I see that you are insinuating that racism is just retaliation for albinos (In your opinion, the ancestors of White people) being treated as out kasts. Now, if that is true, by your own reasoning, is racism not justified then?

Another point I would like to make, do you have any idea how unlikely it is for mutational bias to exist for hundreds of thousands of years? Unless you are one of those silly people that believe human beings have only existed for 5 thousand years.

Lastly, I see that you complain a lot about racism. Well, here is a thought, blame your fucking GOD! He has all the power. Tell him to stop being a fuckin jackass and fix sh it. Of course, he really is not as nice as the "chosen" (Think: people like you) make him out to be. In all honesty, if I saw your "GOD" I will cut off his head.

And that still doesn't make it anywhere near relevant.  If Europeans are genetically closer to very dark skinned Indians than Yorubas are to Sans or even Igbos, what does that tell you? The biological basis for race is there, but it is as relevant as the biological base for tall people versus short people.  The variation within a race (if it is already possible to demarcate the boundaries of race) is far lager than the variation between races, making any predictions based on that biological racial basis almost impossible. The only level at which it can be predictory is where simple mutation are more or less widespread among specific racial populations (e.g. sickle cell anamia, lactose tolerance or skin colour)

Yes and that link does not say anything in support of Welsing's ideas. It only says that skin colour among Europeans is caused by a few simple mutations, as if I would be rejecting that. It only supports the fact that even though populations may look very different, they are far more similar than appearances would suggest.
Why on earth do you use a source that does not give any evidence at all, but that superficially, if one doesn't really read any further, might be interpreted as supportive for a sub-element in the theory without establishing any evidentiary link. This is empty rhetoric.
Why not give the genetical evidence for the Welsing's theory. It's easy to find and would be very conclusive  as mutation rates among poulations would give an easily measurable divergence of the original albinism mutation in the genetic makup of European (falsification criterium for Welsing's theory).  The evidence simply isn't there. Santa Clause isn't real because people celebrate him and he has been spoted on various locations.


Explain the mechanism then where, with equal mutation rates among populations in an environment where albinism is less detrimental to survival in a population (less selection pressure against albinism) that is orginally fully made up by albino's the spread of albinism is lower than among the population that cast out it's albino's.
Either you are clueless when it comes to science or you are simply dishonest.

I already replied to that erronous line of reasoning. Nothing in your reply supports Welsing's view.

Let me try to be clear here. All of Welsing's ideas hinge on the hypothesis that Europeans are the offspring of African Albinos.
* there is no genetic evidence in favor of that hypothesis and plenty of evidence that falsifies it. that alone should be enough to throw those 'theories' in the trash bin of oblivion. Only true believers, believers in the face of overwhelming evidence, can still hold on to those ideas.
* There is no archeological or other historical evidence to support that hypothesis and lots of anthropological findings that go against the casting out of albinos in African societies.

As the genetic evidence falsifies the founding principles of Welsing's theories, they cannot possibly be true.

When I said that I didn't see her agenda, I meant that she's quite clever at hiding her motivation. It's extremely difficult to make her explicitely state her opinion. Using second hand sources, not finishing a line of reasoning, but at the same time leaving a very clear mesage behind, etc are all methods she uses to cloud her real agenda. It can be quite tiring to discuss anything with such a person, it's very much like discussing evolution theory with religious zealots 
One of the things I find troubling to see is that the legacy of e.g. the Black Panther movement is being hijacked by those black supremacists. In French there is a very good expression for this: Les extrèmes se touchent (white supremacists / black supremacists). Legitimate activism is being tainted by these infectuous preachers of hate.

I also wonder why she starts such a thread knowing very well that if it were pursued to the end, she could never ever win the argument. Quite convenient to leave on a 'sabbatical' after you started a fire in the kitchen.

white man descended from african albinos?
LMAO          

anyway, i don't think so. but i aint going to argue with drusilla. i'm yet to recover from the last one i had with her.

               LMAO.

may be she is right  

don't know, don't care.  

What is the purpose of this thread

If white people are descendent of African Albinos, how do you explain their facial features, nose shape and hair? I knew this albino girl in my primary school; the only thing that makes her different is the lack of melanin production in her skin. She has the same nose and hair texture as any other African.

But there is a clear distinction between African nose and Caucasian nose. Every cosmetic surgeon is made aware of this fact. We Africans have a totally different anatomy from the white people this line can never be crossed even by genetic mutations.

How do explain the fact that Africans that were born outside of african and have never been to africa still have nappy hair?

hmmmm---still doesn't sound factual to me. Does it make us feel better if we know that white people are our direct descendants?

Unfortunately, that article is only available for subscribers. 
Anyway. The ice ages (there were many of them) had a profound effect on human development because:
- they created population bottlenecks (it is assumed that all modern humans descend from no more than 10-15.000 people in total and all non-African people from even less than that)
- it provides an intenseselection pressure, as ice ages non only affect the colder regions, but also Africa, as much of the usable water is caught up in the ice sheets, resulting in a very arid climate and challenging conditions for humans to survice
The most current research tells us that the out-of-Africa migration from which all non-african populations descend was a single migration during a warm interglacial period through the southern Arabian peninsula to India about 85.000 years ago. From there on people spread to people the whole world. Around 65.000 years ago they reached Australia, 45.000 years ago the first modern humans reached Europe. A second Migration wave from Pakistan entered Europe and north-east Asia 20-30.000 years ago. America was reached around 22-25.000 years ago

This is about right except for the straight hair.

Albino's don't prefer colder climates, but just less sun rays. Anyway, that's not how it went. There was no exodus of albino's from Africa.

Pseudo-scientific bull. Radiation is a minor factor in mutations compared to simple copying errors and radiation doesn't only occur when there are maginetic pole reversals. Mutations, combined with selective pressure (natural and sexual selection) produce the wonderful biodiversity we encounter in our world. Detrimental mutations get selected out, beneficial mutations get selected for and neutral mutations can remain in the DNA untill at some time the changed selective environment makes those mutations either beneficial or detrimental.

heh, everyone here, including Drusilla and Argument speak on human migration and evolution like it is all not theoretical at this point. The Ice age theories on migration and how it affected immigration are just that, theories, there have been several over decades from archealogical based ones to historical based to climatographically based to genetics based, they all have their strengths and weaknesses and each one isn't the end all and be all and the one you seem to espouse certainly isnt the strongest or better canditate out of them all so please argument, quit putting down other peoples theories like yours is fact, certainly the climatographical one you propose is way stronger that Drusillas and espoused by many scientists but even the scientists (and you certainly aren't one) will tell you they are THEORIES.

Anyway this topic is irrelevant. Obviously the humans that migrated from Africa and those that stayed in Africa have both evolved over millions of years. What irks me is foolish idiotic scientists who tried to look for the origins of man by examining prexisting Africans which implies that somehow the microevolutionary changes that occured in the European contents did not occur in the African continents, evolution occurs all the time, the Africans of today are equally as different as whites from the africans of 1 million years ago. Looking for what evolutionary man looked like 1 million years ago or half a millenia ago in the existing African population is racist and supremacist.

Shango ~ You hit the bull's eye. All these postulations are just theories, but where there's smoke, there's fire.

Argument was just arguing blindly, a typical educated illiterate. One could attest that he was just doing copy and paste.

Mr. Kabiyesi, I urge you to substatiate this personal attack or retract it.
1. Show we where I have proven to be an educated illiterate
2. Show me where my arguments were just doing copy and paste