4 ms·

I'm skeptical that this discovery is anything but political. There is far too much psuedo-science recently pushing the idea of non-whites inhabiting Europe befo

I'm skeptical that this discovery is anything but political. There is far too much psuedo-science recently pushing the idea of non-whites inhabiting Europe before whites. I don't understand the goal of such flaky publishings, but the anti-european sentiment is strong. I'm reminded of the viking with "arabic" jewelry.

prepend 9y ago
I think it highlights how skin color is not that useful in and of itself. Wondering what color skin your genetic ancestors had is certainly curious for cosmetic purposes, but useless for making arguments over what the best skin color is for “true Europeans.”
- Mikeb85 9y ago
  Skin tone has to do with sun absorption, and is a useful adaptation to climate. It doesn't matter much anymore due to things like vitamin D supplements, but it didn't come about for no reason...
  - prepend 9y ago
    Good point. Skin color serves biological purposes. I will refine my idea so that skin color is not useful for purposes of describing one race’s general superiority or inferiority.
    - femidav 9y ago
      Race is defined by common ancestry, not skin color.
alistproducer2 9y ago
> anti-european sentiment The scientists are using evidence to assert something. Maybe it's flawed but unless you're going to publish and refute it, calling it "anti-european sentiment" based on nothing makes it seem a awful lot like you're the one being political.
Geekette 9y ago
The post clearly describes scientists in related fields using scientific mechanisms and tools like DNA analysis to make the discovery based on replicable results. So, I don't see this falls under pseudo-science or "flaky publishings". As it's also widely accepted that earliest humans started in Africa then migrated elsewhere, its quite logical the the first arrivals in Europe would be darkskinned and not surprising that more evidence reflecting that is found. Nothing political or "anti-European" about that. Only problem I see is some people possibly having personal issues with identity of their ancestors, which doesn't change the facts.
- Mikeb85 9y ago
  'Widely accepted', until scientists discovered we're part Neanderthal (among other homo species), and that all homo species are actually 'human'.
  - BirdieNZ 9y ago
    What are your sources on these statements?
    - Mikeb85 9y ago
      It's accepted history now that humans bred with Neanderthals and Denisovans. A quick Google search brings up many sources. This is like asking for a source that humans landed on the moon...
  - Geekette 9y ago
    Neanderthals and modern humans are thought to have descended from Homo Erectus, which also originated and migrated from Africa.
  - posterboy 9y ago
    "We" are probably not, or only to a small degree, descendants of this guy, because Britain was invaded multiple times, but "modern human" definitely implies common ancestors in "modern" paleohistory. The neanderthal genetics don't matter so much as the loss of pigmentation is thought to happen fairly quickly anyway. If this appears like pseudo science, then because little is known and assumptions have to be made. For example they can't extract a full genome. But it is a game of probabilities and statistics. In absence of harder criteria, this is likely the most probable theory, therefore it is worth to be discussed. Likewise, I am not sure how far and quickly was travel at the time or how far the ice had receded 10 kya, but its fair to assume they had fire and ships. Also the isles were connected to continental Europe at the time via doggerland. Maybe they were into timber trade or followed the big game like woolly Mammoths, which are attested 14 kya, or worse taken as slaves or otherwise driven by competing populations.

prepend 9y ago

I think it highlights how skin color is not that useful in and of itself. Wondering what color skin your genetic ancestors had is certainly curious for cosmetic purposes, but useless for making arguments over what the best skin color is for “true Europeans.”

Mikeb85 9y ago
Skin tone has to do with sun absorption, and is a useful adaptation to climate. It doesn't matter much anymore due to things like vitamin D supplements, but it didn't come about for no reason...
- prepend 9y ago
  Good point. Skin color serves biological purposes. I will refine my idea so that skin color is not useful for purposes of describing one race’s general superiority or inferiority.
  - femidav 9y ago
    Race is defined by common ancestry, not skin color.

alistproducer2 9y ago

> anti-european sentiment The scientists are using evidence to assert something. Maybe it's flawed but unless you're going to publish and refute it, calling it "anti-european sentiment" based on nothing makes it seem a awful lot like you're the one being political.

Geekette 9y ago

The post clearly describes scientists in related fields using scientific mechanisms and tools like DNA analysis to make the discovery based on replicable results. So, I don't see this falls under pseudo-science or "flaky publishings". As it's also widely accepted that earliest humans started in Africa then migrated elsewhere, its quite logical the the first arrivals in Europe would be darkskinned and not surprising that more evidence reflecting that is found. Nothing political or "anti-European" about that. Only problem I see is some people possibly having personal issues with identity of their ancestors, which doesn't change the facts.

Mikeb85 9y ago
'Widely accepted', until scientists discovered we're part Neanderthal (among other homo species), and that all homo species are actually 'human'.
- BirdieNZ 9y ago
  What are your sources on these statements?
  - Mikeb85 9y ago
    It's accepted history now that humans bred with Neanderthals and Denisovans. A quick Google search brings up many sources. This is like asking for a source that humans landed on the moon...
- Geekette 9y ago
  Neanderthals and modern humans are thought to have descended from Homo Erectus, which also originated and migrated from Africa.
- posterboy 9y ago
  "We" are probably not, or only to a small degree, descendants of this guy, because Britain was invaded multiple times, but "modern human" definitely implies common ancestors in "modern" paleohistory. The neanderthal genetics don't matter so much as the loss of pigmentation is thought to happen fairly quickly anyway. If this appears like pseudo science, then because little is known and assumptions have to be made. For example they can't extract a full genome. But it is a game of probabilities and statistics. In absence of harder criteria, this is likely the most probable theory, therefore it is worth to be discussed. Likewise, I am not sure how far and quickly was travel at the time or how far the ice had receded 10 kya, but its fair to assume they had fire and ships. Also the isles were connected to continental Europe at the time via doggerland. Maybe they were into timber trade or followed the big game like woolly Mammoths, which are attested 14 kya, or worse taken as slaves or otherwise driven by competing populations.