That arose due to the needs of climate and geography. Genetic science has now established this. Humans started out black.

Not only is Mormon racism wrong, it’s backwards. But then all Mormon doctrine is made up BS. That’s the problem with truth claims. They make you look stupid.

ALL life is a genetic mutation. That's how life works.

nice...

I was cursed with a skin of whiteness to make me uncomely so that the chosen people wouldn’t be tempted to mate with me.

All racism is wrong, including the Mormon version. Like most other species, humans are very adaptable genetically, to function optimally in their given environments. Skin color is just one of many such adaptations from our most distant human history. These days with technology and global travel, these skin color adaptations are irrelevant in most cases. To give these skin color differences any more credit than this, does a dis-service to everyone.

Humans started out lactose intolerant and most are still that way.

White, western civilization has historically made a lot of assumptions about what is normal.

I never even heard of lactose intolerance (or for that matter, gluten intolerance) until I was well into adulthood.

My childhood friend David, who lived across the street, told me at about age 5, that he couldn't drink orange juice, because he was "ler-gict" to it. I asked him what that meant, and he said that it made him sick. Lightbulb moment!

The next time my mother tried to force me to eat canned spinach, I held my flattened hands over my plate to prevent her adding a serving to it, because I had no intention of eating it. She rapped my knuckles with the back of the serving spoon and demanded that I remove them.

I said, "I'm LER-GICT to it. It makes me sick!" (It had made me vomit after the last attempt at forced feeding.) My father, a very wise man, decided at that moment, to pick his battles. He told my mother to just let the spinach thing go.

I learned at the university salad bar that raw spinach was pretty good stuff, which amazed me. How could it undergo such vilification in the canning process??

It isn't. Blackness is and was after our loss of "fur."

I have a lot of freckles, as does my mother and my older sister. My younger sister doesn't have many freckles. My brothers don't. My kids don't. I'm not red-headed. I was blonde and now brunette. People can't really tell I have freckles anymore.

I'm really not surprised at all by this finding.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2019 10:38AM by cl2.

I would replace mutation with adaptation. Same piano, different sonata.

Our differences come from our backgrounds, educations, religions, survival techniques, what we ate, and a particular set of genes passed down that are able to adapt to new circumstance and I could list a thousand more. But, as we become more enlightened, these are all things to make us curious about each other and inspire us to explore, not divide us, or make us feel superior. We have a full spectrum of skin colors. So what?

"The genetic mechanism behind human skin color is mainly regulated by the enzyme tyrosinase, which creates the color of the skin, eyes, and hair shades. Differences in skin color are also attributed to differences in size and distribution of melanosomes in the skin. Melanocytes produce two types of melanin."
‎
Same melanin, different brush strokes.

D&D--Not a scientist.

"Where da White women at?"

  --Judic West, during a reading of his interpretation of Homer's Oddysey

Here, I’ll throw you a line with an easy comeback. “Excuse me EOD, here at RFM we do not end a question with a preposition “.

A UVU student is on the BYU campus and asks a Cougar, "Where's the nearest bathroom at?

The Cougar says, "At BYU we do not end sentences with prepositions."

"Okay," the Ute says, "Where's the nearest bathroom at, asshole?"

Do you put superfluous words at the ends of sentences at all ?


https://i.imgur.com/33SCnmG.jpg

As a grammar nazi, I must point out that in your sentence "at all" is superfluous.

Irony is lost on some people.

No it is not. Never.

No matter where you are at.

You must be irony fortified in your word diet. I prefer my word salads.

A preposition is something you should never end a sentence with.

Yet Churchill is known to have written things like "never end a sentence with a preposition."

Which would seem to violate his own rule.

Haha ha. Took me a second though.

Not to worry. Dave is still trying to figure it out.

Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.

Amusingly, in that sentence "off" is not a preposition!

"Prepositions and postpositions, together called adpositions, are a class of words used to express spatial or temporal relations or mark various semantic roles."

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/grammar-nazi/images/d/dc/Grammar_Seal.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140423121626


Ich bin ein Grammatik-Nazi , ich werde die Art und Weise der Korrektur amerikanischen englischen Grammatik zu wahren . Ich werde in den National Grammarist Partei jetzt und für immer treu sein . Ich werde dafür sorgen, dass jeder Abweichler auf einen Fehler zu machen korrigiert wird. Ich werde die heiligen Codes Forum- Kriegsführung zu wahren , um meinen Sieg zu sichern . Ich muss meine volle Hingabe an Yaska , Vater von Grammatik zu wahren . Denn ich bin ein Grammatik-Nazi , Kämpfer für die englische Sprache .

As a public (dis?)service, I provide a translation from an on-line service:

I am a grammar nazi, I will preserve the way of correcting American English grammar. I will be loyal to the National Grammarist Party now and forever. I will make sure that every dissenter is corrected to make a mistake. I will preserve the sacred codes forum warfare to ensure my victory. I must maintain my full devotion to Yaska , father of grammar . Because I am a grammar Nazi , fighter for the English language .

Ending a sentence with a postposition is something off with which I demand you knock it.

:)

Thus contravening General Maginomity's cultured constructs.

There is an obvious political joke to be made about the Maginot Line but, in deference to our (all hail) glorious leaders I will refrain.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2019 06:02PM by Lot's Wife.

RfM monitors bounced my first try. Maybe they misread it as "malignancy" line. All Hail the Ever-Viligent Monitors!

my advice is not to take my advice.

it would be capital advice except it is missing

Period!

Mark of explanation.

My name isn't Mark, Lot's Wife exclaims!

I once read that our skin probably started out with more of a mottled appearance. Those who stayed south gradually went darker and those who went north lost the darker spots on their skin.

Skin color is generally a function of exposure to sunlight. This is no longer the case given modern technology, but in the past it would change very quickly--over a few 10s of thousands of years. Peoples moving away from the equator generally lost pigmentation, those moving toward it gained pigmentation.

I've not read that early humans had a mottled skin. The consensus, based on genetic studies, is that if you go back a million years the skin color of our ancestors was basically what you find today in sub-Saharan peoples. It was only when groups left Africa and moved into colder climes that major variations began as a reaction to the relative scarcity of ultraviolet radiation to which those people were exposed.

I guess that would have been more human ancestors than homo sapiens.

Yes.

When hair disappeared (adaptation to heat, better ability to regulate temperature through sweat), skin darkened to protect the body against excess ultraviolet light. The process then reversed as people moved away from the original homeland.

The pattern is supposed to have applied to all of the less hairy hominids.

Our source of vitamin D (probably other critical things too) is from sunlight's reaction on the skin. A mother's breast milk doesn't give her baby vitamin D. Although we can get some vitamin D from diet and in pill form, it's not nearly enough from that method (especially for our ancestors who didn't have access to modern dietary supplements). Dietary vitamin D is also not in a very transportable form, to reach everywhere your body needs it, if you injest it. When it comes in through a ultraviolet radiation (wavelength B) against the skin, an extremely transportable form of vitamin D is made in greater quantities in about twenty-minutes of exposure, than most people would ever take enough pills to get the same amount.

For those people in areas of the world where sunlight can be scarce for months at a time, the skin lightened to become more receptive to what little sunlight was available. I have had low vitamin D for most of my adult life. I work inside. I walk in to a building in early morning and leave that building in the late afternoon where I am then inside of my car or home. I learned how to increase my vitamin D drastically a few years ago. Now it stays between middle of the normal range to the upper part of the healthy range and I don't take any vitamin D dietary supplements. I use tanning services three times or so per month. You have to specify a UVB bed (not UVA). Don't go the whole time if you see yourself starting to tan significantly. You don't want the tan. You want the UVB rays. Without modern technology, it is no surprise that some of our ancestors got pretty white. There is a fine line between staying healthy and doing something that can give you cancer. Unlike the sun, the rays from a tanning bed are regulated by law, to protect our health. Only those who abuse them to get real dark are at risk. If all you want are enough rays to get enough vitamin D, you're probably safer using this method than from using natural sun light for the same purpose. Our ancestors didn't live as long as we do now either, for several reasons.

https://www.grassrootshealth.net/canadian-study-finds-tanning-salon-sunbeds-effective-raising-vitamin-d-levels/

From the article: "Most evolutionary biologists believe skin colour evolution occurred when fairer-skinned cultures migrated further from the equator so the skin would more efficiently produce vitamin D in light-deprived parts of the world."



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2019 09:25AM by azsteve.

How do you reconcile that with the mountains of evidence that contradict it? Or is there some reason that the European hypothesis is a priori preferable?

We are all hybrids.
Africans are hybrids of the 12 different sub species of humans (Homos) who coexisted in Africa over the past million years.
Non-Africans are hybridized with the sub-species of humans who coexisted with us in Europe (Neanderthals) and Asia (Denisovans) over the past 60,000 years, who predated Homo Sapiens in Europe by 200,000 yrs.

How do we know this knew piece of information? I for one wasn't there. If we have no evidence (no one saw, smelled, touched, tasted the first white man) then it's childish to claim that we came out of the black people.

Where's the science?

claim, as in it be absolutely certain.

You’re kidding, right? A man who thinks science is a waste of time and has purposely avoided learning it now bemoans his own ignorance.

You can’t make this shit up—at least not intentionally.

When one has yet to realize the sun really doesn't revolve around the earth regardless of their perspective you are going to have a lot of this kinds of things happening. We all have to have to free Galileo from house arrest before we can see something that isn't a part of us but helps us understand the world we live in. <- ends in preposition

What does it matter which color came first or which skin color evolved from the other? From what I've read, I prefer to believe that humanity evolved first around the equator with black skin and then moved north and south from there, getting whiter as they got closer to the polar regions over longer periods of time. If I am wrong, there is no consequences. If I have black ancestors, why should I care?

It matters if one’s sense of self depends on the belief that he is racially superior. Of course such people are by definition racists and, by definition, assholes.

The mormon version of racism believes that not only their race makes them superior, but that also their racial origin itself also makes them superior (two different things). This theory is the more dangerous one because it teaches that god separated the races because he wanted white people to be prejudiced against black people, and that you can be prejudiced and that god approves and encourages that racism. So the racism is ultimately acceptable and even ordained by god. In the mormon version, cain was cursed with black skin and no white person ever descended from cain and thus are not subject to the curse (a prejudice of racial origin). People that believe this cannot be reasoned with because their racism is rooted in a religious belief.

Then there is a racial prejudice that follows Darwin's theories. In that line of thinking, we all descended from apes. At some point in this line of thought, some of the apes evolved to become black humans and then eventually some of those black humans became even more evolved beings, to become white (a terrible, incorrect, and racist belief). If nothing else, this theory has been proven wrong. When equally educated and supported, people of both races perform equally in challenges that require mental development and physical performance. I perceived a sense of possible racism (a rare occurence for me) in the OP's opening post when it appeared that he might be saying that the mormon version of racism is wrong because some reason related to Darwin's theory is actually correct. My point is that darwin's theory is irrelevant if you're not a racist. There might be differences that could give either race some advantages in some given conditions. But those differences are also irrelevant when it comes to the value of the person.

To a non-prejudiced person, neither of these incorrect theories should have any merit. Which takes us back to the premise that no theory really matters other than perhaps we may learn something about ourselves (for example: medical relevance) if we better understand the history of our own race.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2019 10:24PM by azsteve.

I don't think Babylon was endorsing either sort of racism: I believe he was saying that whereas Mormons believe the first humans were created white and then became black as a result of the curse, science indicates that humans started out black and then became white. That, I infer, was what he meant by saying that Mormons got it backwards.

There is no doubt that different groups of humans evolved different adaptations: to take one example, pastoralists evolved the ability for most adults to digest milk. Other groups of humans evolved sickle cells to combat certain infections even while in most other populations the anemic effects of those cells dictated that the adaptation not occur. So yes, there are all sorts of variations that have, via a number of evolutionary mechanisms, developed between different groups.

The point, and I'm confident we agree on this, is two-fold. First, skin color is highly variable, so a group may have one color at one point in time and another color some millennia later. Second, skin color is highly correlated with where people live and not anything more fundamental. There are adaptations that coincide with skin color, like the higher rate of sickle cells in people who live in places that favor certain types of mosquitos; or the prevalence of lactase into adolescence and beyond in populations who live not in the tropics but in grasslands or steppe. But those coincidences are driven by the same underlying geographical conditions and hence are not directly related.

So one cannot make generalizations about human value, enduring skill sets, etc., over time. People who think skin color is more than an adaptation to ultraviolet radiation are seriously deluded--and apparently impervious to evidence.

100% Agree

My family lineage goes back to Sweden and Norway for quite a long history. Growing-up, my family were all big milk drinkers even in to old age. I didn't even hear about lactose intolerance for the first time until I was in my late teens. My parents said that scandinavians don't get lactose intolerance. I don't know if that is true or not. But I've always had to be very careful if I am in the sun without a shirt on for more than a few minutes. Eight-minutes in a tanning bed three times per month took my serious vitamin D deficiency in to the middle of the normal range. I had to start out with four-minute sessions and build-up to eight, to avoid burning. Such a contrast between individuals and families all in the same society tells us that it doesn't take very long for people to adapt.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2019 12:09AM by azsteve.

There were no "white" people on Earth before the last Ice Age.


Sub-Saharan Africans have the highest genetic variation on Earth and the most mutations:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/new-gene-variants-reveal-evolution-human-skin-color



The first modern humans (nomadic hunters) who began to repopulate Europe at the end of the last Ice Age around 10,000 BCE were dark skinned, curly haired, and blue-eyed.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/first-modern-britons-dark-black-skin-cheddar-man-dna-analysis-reveals

https://www.rt.com/news/451766-swedes-outraged-ancestors-documentary/


As the climate warmed, by 6000 BCE tan skinned people from India and Central Asia migrated west to Europe, bringing agriculture with them:

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/ancient-dna-shows-migrants-introduced-farming-to-britain-from-eu.html

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/reconstruction-exhibition-0011411


Climatic conditions in high latitude Europe and the switch from a vitamin D rich game diet to a vitamin D poor agricultural diet favoured light skin. It also explains why coastal people in the southern Mediterranean are darker than northern Europeans as their seafood diet gave them more vitamin D.


Racism and white supremacy are hogwash and have absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever.

There is only one race -- the human race.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2019 03:30PM by anybody.

One correction.

There were modern human beings in Europe 45,000 years ago, not 10,000 years ago.

Yes -- you are correct.

It should say first modern humans to repopulate Europe after the Ice Age.

You may be the wisest person on the board babylon, been following your posts for a long time. Always thought you could teach me a lot face to face. Actually correct things not made up crap like the religion tries to put in your brain over and over for decades.