First European by rue

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

First European

POSTED BY: RUE
UPDATED: Thursday, May 7, 2009 20:37
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1600
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:52 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 11:11 AM

KIRKULES

They are starting to find older and older Homo bones all over the World now. It will be interesting to see what comes of it. The whole " out of Africa" theory is starting to be questioned by some, but so many anthropologists have based their careers on it that it's become pretty entrenched.

I've been trying to keep up on the research on Homo floresiensis (the Hobbit)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis , and it looks like this may be an entirely new species, but there is much resistance to this finding because the idea that an entirely different species of hominid was alive until only 13,000 years ago goes against everything the anthropological community has believed for years.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 11:15 AM

PIRATECAT

Looks like a typical frenchmen. Got those gay guy eyes.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 12:31 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Eyebrows, eyelashes and hair would have helped.

BTW - they don't know if the bones on which the face was modeled belonged to a male or female.

And, for interest

"New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today. “Originally, we all had brown eyes.”New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:46 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today. “Originally, we all had brown eyes.”New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today."

How about green eyes?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:11 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
How about green eyes?

Rue,
Sorry about contributing to the discussion, I will try to not let it happen again.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:12 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Seems like I've seen that face somewhere before....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:19 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BDN

Oh, I missed it !

I take it back - and apologize sincerely.

The article I quoted did mention green eyes. As best I can tell (and I may have got this wrong), green is a variation of brown. Brown eyes have a lot of variability on level of brown-ness and green is in that range. Blue eyes OTOH have a very small amount of variation AND their overall level of pigment is outside of the brown range, leading to the conclusions that blue eyes are a separate mutation and that it is very recent.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:35 PM

KIRKULES

I don't know Auraptor, the photo Rue posted is obviously a full grown adult. Your photo just looks like a pair of miners.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:39 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I don't know Auraptor, the photo Rue posted is obviously a full grown adult. Your photo just looks like a pair of miners.

Well, they did work in some mines......minor miners ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 8:28 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The article I quoted did mention green eyes. As best I can tell (and I may have got this wrong), green is a variation of brown. Brown eyes have a lot of variability on level of brown-ness and green is in that range. Blue eyes OTOH have a very small amount of variation AND their overall level of pigment is outside of the brown range, leading to the conclusions that blue eyes are a separate mutation and that it is very recent.

Cool.
So are grey eyes a variation of blue?
I have blue eyes, guess I'm a recent mutation who should steer clear of all blue eyed beauties given our common heritage.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I don't know Auraptor, the photo Rue posted is obviously a full grown adult. Your photo just looks like a pair of miners.

Top drawer sir, top drawer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 8:35 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Hm, so what about blue-green eyes?

One single mutation from one single biped spreading to millions of people has always seemed... less than feasible to me. Almost freakish, that nothing happened in the early stages to obliterate it, if it truly came from one single person. But then I'm not an evolutionary scientist, maybe there's a valid argument that I haven't seen.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 4:52 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Oddly enough - grey eyes CAN be a result of ineffcient fetal eye color development - all babies start out with a version called 'fetal grey' and then develop real eye color later on.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 4:57 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Hm, so what about blue-green eyes?"

I really don't know and can't even guess !

"Almost freakish, that nothing happened in the early stages to obliterate it, if it truly came from one single person."

In the absence of environmental selection against the variation those genes will be carried at some level through the population - even if, as a recessive gene, you don't see that it is there.

And speaking of recessive genes, there's the one for red hair that hit the news recently:

"The story of redhead extinction has gone around the Internet before, most recently in 2005, with news articles again citing the Oxford Hair Foundation as a source. These articles work on the mistaken assumption that recessive genes -- like the one for red hair -- can "die out." Recessive genes can become rare but don't disappear completely unless everyone carrying that gene dies or fails to reproduce. So while red hair may remain rare, enough people carry the gene that, barring global catastrophe, redheads should continue to appear for some time."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 5:15 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
Looks like a typical frenchmen. Got those gay guy eyes.

Yeah...I heard he was some kind of homo.

Edited to add: And apparently early Europeans were hairless.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 5:38 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Recessive genes can become rare but don't disappear completely unless everyone carrying that gene dies or fails to reproduce.

Which is why I just find it unlikely that one single person had one mutation that spread. It's not impossible, but the odds of that one person surviving, and all their progeny surviving, and the gene spreading to be as prevalent as it is, with the pale eyes corresponding mostly to pale skin and hair... I don't know, I guess it's not impossible. Did blond hair come from a common ancestor, too? Paler skin? I'm really interested in things like this.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 5:44 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Hm, so what about blue-green eyes?"

I really don't know and can't even guess !

I tried to do a little research and just became more confused. It looks like more than one gene contributes to eye color, so those with eye colors other than brown probably have the blue eye gene with the variation caused by another gene.

Looks like I'm going to have to tell my red haired, green eyed daughter that she's the product of inbreeding, but the good news is her kind will be extinct in 100 years.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 5:52 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, on that theme, I still believe the connection between Homo Redneckius, native to the deep south, and Homo Erectus bears out further scientific exploration.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 6:06 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Recessive genes can become rare ..."

While I posted that as a quote, it is not completely true. They got it a little wrong.

The EXPRESSION of recessive genes becomes rare. The genes themselves stay at the same overall rate in the population.

You can work it out yourself by doing those gene crossing algorithms you did in high school. You'll find that recessive genes don't actually go away, and in fact they don't become 'rare' or even decrease in percentage. But in a larger population the chance of two recessive genes finding each other and being expressed does go down.

It takes environmental selection against those genes to make them go away. If they confer no disadvantage, they will remain in the population.

I'm sure you've heard of sickle cell anemia. It is a recessive hemoglobin variant, and when present in a double dose, when the blood oxygen is lower the red blood cells collapse into angular, rigid shapes.

These cells can't make it through small blood vessels, and they clot. That blocks circulation, causing tissue death and eventually patient death.

You'd think that that would be a strong evolutionary disadvantage and the disease itself would die out.

It turns out that that those with the trait - who have just one gene for sickle anemia - are resistant to malaria.

And that's why sickle cell anemia is around to this day.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 7:15 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

PROGRESS

THE CHANGLING

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 7:30 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Looks like a Grell.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 7, 2009 5:58 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Here's some new stuff about the 'hobbits'

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090507/sc_afp/scienceanthropologyindones
iahobbits

Two new studies in the British journal Nature go a long way toward settling the debate.

A team led by William Jungers of Stony Brook University in New York tackled the problem by analysing the hobbit's foot.

In some ways it is very human. The big toe is aligned with the others and the joints make it possible to extend the toes as the body's full weight falls on the foot -- attributes not found in great apes.

But in other respects it is startlingly primitive: far longer than its modern human equivalent and equipped with a very small big toe, long and curved lateral toes, and a weight-bearing structure closer to a chimpanzee's.

Recent archaeological evidence from Kenya shows that the modern foot evolved more than 1.5 million years ago, most likely in Homo erectus.

So unless the Flores hobbits became more primitive over time -- considered extremely unlikely -- they must have branched off the human line at an even earlier date.

For Jungers and colleagues, this suggests their ancestor was not Homo erectus "but instead some other more primitive hominin whose dispersal into southeast Asia is still undocumented."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 7, 2009 8:25 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Recessive genes can become rare but don't disappear completely unless everyone carrying that gene dies or fails to reproduce.

Which is why I just find it unlikely that one single person had one mutation that spread. It's not impossible, but the odds of that one person surviving, and all their progeny surviving, and the gene spreading to be as prevalent as it is, with the pale eyes corresponding mostly to pale skin and hair... I don't know, I guess it's not impossible. Did blond hair come from a common ancestor, too? Paler skin? I'm really interested in things like this.

[/sig]

I thought I'd read that blue was the dominant gene. If so, that would partly account for the widespread disemination (har har) of blue eyes.
However, also consider the mating desirability of blue eyed progenitors. Peacocks thrive because the most colorful plume reaps the most seeding. What if one male with blue eyes seeds multitudes of females, drawn by his blue eyes? And if this happens over a few generations?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 7, 2009 8:37 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Blue is recessive. Lighter colors are always recessive, whether in skin, hair, or eyes. The browns and blacks just color things in, much as they would on canvas. Recessive genes can always be lurking, though. Two people with dark skin can have a child with light skin, if they both carry the gene.
Maybe blue eyes would be more attractive to prospective mates, but what if the 'single mutation' as they claim, was in a woman who could have more limited offspring? What if someone with blue eyes wasn't seen as attractive, but strange? What if this one single mutation had died off in childhood? I just think it's a little more feasible if it came about in multiple carriers, maybe adapting to absorb more light in a rainy area, much as pigment content in the skin changed to suit the area.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE