African Genetics

Black Lion · (#1 (**permalink**))

If an African man and woman can reproduce to colonise the earth with diffrent races, how are we then diffrent to those that can't create us?

For eg; Can two Europeans attempt to colonise space or would Africans be needed to do it so as to recreate the human race again?

I'm not sure where I'm going with this one but there must be a major diffrence if a Black man and Woman can rebirth the earth and non are able to re-create us.

How long can a race inbreed before needing new blood to continue their line?

Are the Jewish peoples even Jewish?They would have had to extend their line so many times by now that their origional blood line would have bee more or less lost.

I'll carry on when I can get my mind around it hopefully someone can kinda carry it on, I'll use the space example as its the best way to understand it.

Back Soon

Peace

RL

The Watcher · (#2 (**permalink**))

Are you talking biblical adam and eve tings?confused3

Black Lion · (#3 (**permalink**))

Kinda... I mean, were people diffrent back then?

If man was to try and colonise the moon they'd need a new Adam and Eve, would they have to be black to further themselves or can other races continue in the same way?

Understanding that a race can't inbreed fortoo long without creating deformites etc....

Built myself a new bong so I'll be meditating on it tonight hopefully I can make sence of it causeI can't explain what I mean

DJ1 · (#4 (**permalink**))

This news story may have some answers for you.

Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin

Quote:

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005; Page A01

Scientists said yesterday that they have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago, a finding that helps solve one of biology's most enduring mysteries and illuminates one of humanity's greatest sources of strife.

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. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races.

Leaders of the study, at Penn State University, warned against interpreting the finding as a discovery of "the race gene." Race is a vaguely defined biological, social and political concept, they noted, and skin color is only part of what race is -- and is not.
In fact, several scientists said, the new work shows just how small a biological difference is reflected by skin color. The newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome -- the complete instructions for making a human being.
"It's a major finding in a very sensitive area," said Stephen Oppenheimer, an expert in anthropological genetics at Oxford University, who was not involved in the work. "Almost all the differences used to differentiate populations from around the world really are skin deep."
The work raises a raft of new questions -- not least of which is why white skin caught on so thoroughly in northern climes once it arose. Some scientists suggest that lighter skin offered a strong survival advantage for people who migrated out of Africa by boosting their levels of bone-strengthening vitamin D; others have posited that its novelty and showiness simply made it more attractive to those seeking mates.
The work also reveals for the first time that Asians owe their relatively light skin to different mutations. That means that light skin arose independently at least twice in human evolution, in each case affecting populations with the facial and other traits that today are commonly regarded as the hallmarks of Caucasian and Asian races.
Several sociologists and others said they feared that such revelations might wrongly overshadow the prevailing finding of genetics over the past 10 years: that the number of DNA differences between races is tiny compared with the range of genetic diversity found within any single racial group.
Even study leader Keith Cheng said he was at first uncomfortable talking about the new work, fearing that the finding of such a clear genetic difference between people of African and European ancestries might reawaken discredited assertions of other purported inborn differences between races -- the most long-standing and inflammatory of those being intelligence.
"I think human beings are extremely insecure and look to visual cues of sameness to feel better, and people will do bad things to people who look different," Cheng said.

Read the rest here

Jolie Soie · (#5 (**permalink**))

"For eg; Can two Europeans attempt to colonise space or would Africans be needed to do it so as to recreate the human race again?"

Unless there is another planet that is the exact replica of Earth, the likelihood that Africans (or any other race for that matter) could "recreate" the human race -- as we know it now --is basically zilch.

Even if the new home is a replica, these colonizing Africans will have to retrace all the steps, go through all the genetic mutations, partake of the same diets and dietary changes, etc that the originals did. Add to that the fact that present-day Africans are not exact replicas of the first Homo Sapiens; present-day Africans are not even duplicates of each other -- there's a lot of genetic variation among them.

Thefar distant future descendants ofspacecolonizers will more than likely look quite different than thedescendants of those of us who will never haveleft the Earth.

Black Lion · (#6 (**permalink**))

lol. Yeah.

I think you're slightly missing my point though. I'mcarrying on with the whole genetics thing.

Us Africans are the first, all races carry our genes.So in laymans terms we spawned the human race... each race finding themselves subject to diffrent enviroments (or as posted above, a DNA trigger) and became straight haired and pale...

They on the other hand cannot (from what I know of) recreate us... even if they lived in a hot climate for years like the Arabs they cannotgive birth to a darkskinned baby with curly hair and African features. We are orional.

Now, what was diffrent or is diffrent for humans to be able to inbreed for so long?

If England was locked off and given food supplies via air, the English race would die out after inbreeding for so long they'd create deformities and wouldn't be able to survive as to survive a race needs an influx of new geneseverynow and then... As Africans are we so genetically diverse that we can sustain longer periods of said inbreeding to survive? Are we a kinda batch that keeps the pool flowing as it were if you look at things from beginning to end.

Inbreed Inbreed Inbreed... oh hey new guy/woman.... Breed... inbreed inbreed on and on... where is the influx of new genes flowing from? Can white adam and eve get together in space and not need a new influx? Or would a more genetically diverse African couple be needed to start it off and continue the line?

Shemsi en Tehuti · (#7 (**permalink**))

Rebel-Lion wrote:

Quote:

Us Africans are the first, all races carry our genes.So in laymans terms we spawned the human race... each race finding themselves subject to diffrent enviroments (or as posted above, a DNA trigger) and became straight haired and pale...

I think there is the misconception that Africans cannot naturally have straight hair. I had an apartment with a Nigerian while in college and this brother was dark skinned, yet had straight (although course) hair. It almost looked like Dravidian hair or the hair that Indian people have. However, he was on some stupid stuff, and so wouldn't comb his hair all the time so it would kink upto have an "afro" effect.confused3

Rebel-Lion wrote: They on the other hand cannot (from what I know of) recreate us... even if they lived in a hot climate for years like the Arabs they cannotgive birth to a darkskinned baby with curly hair and African features. We are orional.

Now, what was diffrent or is diffrent for humans to be able to inbreed for so long?

I am not sure, but from the present scientific data, it suggests that "incompleteDNA" forces outbreeding. If a childis produced by two parents who are both missing certain links in their DNA, then the child will most likely come out with a deformity. I know this one married couple (sosad) who both are missing the same links in their DNA, where any child they attempt to have will be born with a bone deformity in its legs (can't remember the name of disease).Both the husband and wife are mixed (Black & White),so I guess it makes you think about having children with a White person...that is, what you may be doing (genetically) to your offspring.

Black Lion · (#8 (**permalink**))

Yeah, my bros got straightish hair. Used to get the comments about how nice his hair is and stuff. My hair on the other hand is as nappy as you'll get, really, can't even comb it sometimes. I've been trying to put the whole ''good hair'' thing down to us prehaps idolizing the Dravidans/East Africansor something rather than white people .lol.

Rickets? Thats the only bone disease I can think of. Sounds horrible. Well sad knowing all your kids will have the same problem, is it then ethical to have a child knowing it'll be born with a deformity?... Ouch.

Black Lion · (#9 (**permalink**))

Why?

Some kinda reference to nappies or something? confused3Kinda like calling my hair nappy.

Shemsi en Tehuti · (#10 (**permalink**))

I don't like the term "nappy" either. It is a rather derogatory term.

Black Lion · (#11 (**permalink**))

Where does it come from?

HLF · (#12 (**permalink**))

Rebel-Lion wrote:

Quote:

Where does it come from?

Quote:

I decided to look at the etymology of the word and this is what I found: That word is most popularly associated with the words "kinky" or "fuzzy", but has an earlier association with the word "downy", meaning soft.