Where do 'White People' come from? MN Historians, Researchers, Anthropologists, please come in.

[CantStayAsleep]

Forgive me, this may be a simple question. It's 4am, can't sleep and a million things have already raced through my mind. I need an answer to this and Google is flooding me with tons of information/articles that aren't getting down to the bottom line. Atleast I can't find the bottom line myself. So over to you MNers. Help me when you're up and can be arsed. Thanks

If Black people = African descent (as many forms state and a lot of people have said), I take this to mean Black people have African ancestry, regardless if it's dating 1 generation or 400 generations ago. So what is white descent? Where have White people descended from?

It also set women back badly. When gathering accounts for the majority of calories, food doesn't keep, hunting is seasonal, you'd better keep women sweet. When we can hoard harvests and physical size is important, women suffer. [] You can argue that fixed agriculture is the start of the patriarchy. Happy International Women's Day!

Was it in the Human Journey ? I recall Professor Alice Roberts noting that the extended female lifespan after menopause was a factor in human societies being able to extract more from the environment than rival/competing species. Neat trick sort of thing.

I also heard that insomnia after menopause is posited as another evolutionary trick so that the fire is tended and the camp watched overnight by someone who doesn't have to hunt or gather in the day. Thanks evolution!

@DGRossetti

It also set women back badly. When gathering accounts for the majority of calories, food doesn't keep, hunting is seasonal, you'd better keep women sweet. When we can hoard harvests and physical size is important, women suffer. [] You can argue that fixed agriculture is the start of the patriarchy. Happy International Women's Day!

Was it in the Human Journey ? I recall Professor Alice Roberts noting that the extended female lifespan after menopause was a factor in human societies being able to extract more from the environment than rival/competing species. Neat trick sort of thing.

That ties in the the "Gay Uncle" theory. People have wondered what's the evolutionary advantage to homosexuality when it doesnt result in offspring. Some have posited that a; we use sex as a bonding tool, similar to primates like bononoboes. So sexual activity helps the tribe be more cohesive. B; sex that doesnt result in offspring gives the tribe another adult to contribute to the welfare of all youngsters that carry their genes, it's a balance - you still need more reproducing pairs than not. But you don't need every sexually active adult to reproduce.

People have wondered what's the evolutionary advantage to homosexuality when it doesnt result in offspring.

All mammals exhibit homosexual traits. It's one thing that binds us all. Trying to ascribe morality to it is as stupid as giving individual cells names and backstories about a life in heaven.

18:327Days

DGRossetti

It also set women back badly. When gathering accounts for the majority of calories, food doesn't keep, hunting is seasonal, you'd better keep women sweet. When we can hoard harvests and physical size is important, women suffer. [] You can argue that fixed agriculture is the start of the patriarchy. Happy International Women's Day!

Was it in the Human Journey ? I recall Professor Alice Roberts noting that the extended female lifespan after menopause was a factor in human societies being able to extract more from the environment than rival/competing species. Neat trick sort of thing.

That ties in the the "Gay Uncle" theory.
People have wondered what's the evolutionary advantage to homosexuality when it doesnt result in offspring.
Some have posited that a; we use sex as a bonding tool, similar to primates like bononoboes. So sexual activity helps the tribe be more cohesive.
B; sex that doesnt result in offspring gives the tribe another adult to contribute to the welfare of all youngsters that carry their genes, it's a balance - you still need more reproducing pairs than not. But you don't need every sexually active adult to reproduce.

Maybe that is why men who have older brothers are more likely to be gay? Scientists found that the more biological (from the same mother) older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be gay. There was no such link for men who were adopted into families with older brothers, or who had older brothers from their father's side; the link was purely how many sons a woman had borne. It seems like Nature decided 'there's enough guys now to spread their seed, let's produce some who won't compete for women'

In a shout out to the Royal Institution, they've put masses of free content of lectures on line. Here's Adam Rutherford noting that most things humans believe are "human" are not. Including sexual behaviour.

Of course some religious types become highly offended when you suggest humans are mere animals (we are). Which always struck me as oddly counter productive. If were are the product of evolution then I will always be living my life in awe of the majesty of nature.

If we are the product of some sort of design - well he fucked that well and truly didn't he ? Zero respect there ....

I didnt imply anything about morality, DGRosetti.

The question is what is the evolutionary driver that selects for homosexuality, in the absence of the obvious.

First I've heard that homosexual traits exist in all mammals - but I'm no expert. Do you mean homosexual activity exists in all mammals?

And I heard, no idea if there's any science, that the sisters of gay men tend towards higher fertility. Whether that's

a. True
b. Genetic or social
c. A strong enough effect for 'gay genes' to have advantage

I don't know if there's any actual facts in there! And I know the 'gay gene' is a very political subject.

Do you mean homosexual activity exists in all mammals?

And some birds. Which means there may have been gay dinosaurs.

No idea about other animals.

@7Days

I didnt imply anything about morality, DGRosetti.

The question is what is the evolutionary driver that selects for homosexuality, in the absence of the obvious.

First I've heard that homosexual traits exist in all mammals - but I'm no expert. Do you mean homosexual activity exists in all mammals?

The vid I linked to is highly informative, but yes.

And beyond - I think birds display it too.

So what is white descent? Where have White people descended from?

Have not nor am I going to RTFT. We all came from somewhere near the Rift Valley and migrated round and outwith the Eastern Mediterranean. My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother to the power of 12,000 did that while carrying her child.

And I am grateful for that. I am white and I am grateful to her.

She would be turning in her grave if she knew what we had become. Black and White finding fault with each other.

@NoMackerelInSwindon

Have not nor am I going to RTFT.

Your choice but it's been pretty interesting.

Regarding epicanthic eyes (new word to me too!) and features we associate with East Asians, you can see it in San and Nama communities of Southern Africa. Look at Mandela for example: round flat face, 'golden' skin and epicanthic eyes. Or this man: nomadtours.co.za/discover/highlights/bushman-san-people/

@DGRossetti

People have wondered what's the evolutionary advantage to homosexuality when it doesnt result in offspring.

All mammals exhibit homosexual traits. It's one thing that binds us all. Trying to ascribe morality to it is as stupid as giving individual cells names and backstories about a life in heaven.

It's nothing to do with morality.

Dawkins revision of Darwin's theory of evolution, aka The Selfish Gene, posits that genes can be thought of as entities whose purpose is to reproduce. On that theory, if homosexuality has at least a partly genetic origin, and homosexuality precludes those individuals from reproducing, there would be strong evolutionary pressure for those genes to disappear. Clearly, they don't. That means that there must be some other evolutionary pressure that ensures they survive and that some people are homosexual. We just don't know what it is yet.

If anything, that supports a morality where homosexual people are not discriminated against.

I wonder, rather than the idea that mutations were influenced by the environment (i.e. that certain individuals had a better chance of survival due to certain naturally occurring mutations), could it not be possible that groups who already had certain characteristics became isolated so those characteristics became more pronounced? e.g. the gene responsible for white skin already existed to a greater degree within the group that migrated to Europe, and its becoming dominant was just because it was already there rather than that it conferred an advantage?

UmmH I dont think it would become dominant unless it conferred an advantage.

Genetic mutations occur all the time. If it doesnt "fit" the environment it will eventually be subsumed by ones that fir better

@7Days

UmmH I dont think it would become dominant unless it conferred an advantage.

Genetic mutations occur all the time. If it doesnt "fit" the environment it will eventually be subsumed by ones that fir better

Well maybe but red hair is a trait in a few pockets and I don't think that confers any advantage over blonde hair. And redheads have less pain tolerance.

Red hair tends to die out in wider populations but in Scotland it's common (not dominant). So I suppose something that is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage could just exist.

However whiter skin confers greater disease resistance in more northern climates while aspects of African genetic make up confers the same in warmer climates (for example sickle cell trait and malaria resistance). It makes sense that white skin became dominant because of advantage.

For international women’s day, this is the first, known, image of a woman. Carved onto mammoth ivory over 26 000 years ago.

I think that homosexuality has been associated with greater fertillity in the female line when male homosexuality is concerned. There is also the thesis that non-breeding members of a social group act as alloparents amongst their relatives and to mitigate competition.

It seems that if there is enough social intelligence within a species then homosexuality emerges. Like gay dolphins, gay penguins and I suspect gay crows.

[quote MrsTerryPratchett]@NoMackerelInSwindon

Have not nor am I going to RTFT.

Your choice but it's been pretty interesting.[/quote]
Thank you for the heads-up. I will go back and read when I have more time. I believe anthropology and genetics is going to smash our recent concepts to pieces.

Like gay dolphins, gay penguins and I suspect gay crows.

And albatross.

Another argument against design - if I was designing a body I would'nt put the anus so close to the vagina - that is a pretty dumb design.

I remember my biology teachers telling me that there is more genetic diversity in a troupe of chimpanzees than the entire human race.

There’s a book about why cultures developed differently called Guns, Germs and Steel. In summary, it’s not because any particular tribe / nationality is superior but it’s down to the environment that each culture developed in. Very interesting.

I think it was Dawkins that suggested farming is not such a great advance as we think it is. It certainly made us far more vulnerable to some really nasty diseases that hunter-gatherers had to out evolve.

Farming is also detrimental to the soil, as opposed to following herds (eg following reindeer).

It's worth noting that there were cities and civilization in North America - only we didn't seem since we'd only thought about how its done in Eurasia.

Given the climate and edibles grown in North America they were best suited for a nomadic population with 'bases' rather than anything more than a small sedentary population. When cities started to densify with people settling they'd collapse after 4-5 generations.

Just goes to show when you see how other people view land and assign value other than what you think you know.