Even white supremacists have African ancestors
http://www.afrol.com/articles/26180
"All humans originated at single point in Africa"
20 July, 2007 –
"All humans originated at single point in Africa"
20 July, 2007 –
New genetic research claims to have "proved" that all humans originate from one single ancestor in sub-Saharan Africa. Researchers until now have been divided by two competing theories, the other holding that populations of modern humans evolved at several locations around the world. New research published in the scientific journal 'Nature' yesterday aims to prove the single origin of humans theory by combining studies of global genetic variations in humans with skull measurements across the world. The research, at the University of Cambridge, is said to "represent a final blow for supporters of a multiple origins of humans theory."
Competing theories on the origins of anatomically modern humans claim that either humans originated from a single point in Africa and migrated across the world, or different populations independently evolved from homo erectus to home sapiens in different areas. The researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in physical attributes.
Lead researcher and zoologist, Dr Andrea Manica, explained: "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population." "However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world. We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in sub-Saharan Africa," Ms Manica added.
We all therefore trace the root of our genealogical tree to the same forefather and foremother - which were modern human beings. The merry couple probably lived in south-eastern Africa. The research team also found that genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were - a result of "bottlenecks" or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration. They then studied an exceptionally large sample of human skulls. Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team showed that not only was variation highest amongst the sample from south-eastern Africa but that it did decrease at the same rate as the genetic data the further the skull was away from Africa.
To ensure the validity of their single origin evidence the researchers attempted to use their data to find non-African origins for modern humans. Researcher Dr Francois Balloux explains: "To test the alternative theory for the origin of modern humans we tried to find an additional, non-African origin. We found this just did not work. Our findings show that humans originated in a single area in sub-Saharan Africa."
© afrol News
Competing theories on the origins of anatomically modern humans claim that either humans originated from a single point in Africa and migrated across the world, or different populations independently evolved from homo erectus to home sapiens in different areas. The researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in physical attributes.
Lead researcher and zoologist, Dr Andrea Manica, explained: "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population." "However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world. We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in sub-Saharan Africa," Ms Manica added.
We all therefore trace the root of our genealogical tree to the same forefather and foremother - which were modern human beings. The merry couple probably lived in south-eastern Africa. The research team also found that genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were - a result of "bottlenecks" or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration. They then studied an exceptionally large sample of human skulls. Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team showed that not only was variation highest amongst the sample from south-eastern Africa but that it did decrease at the same rate as the genetic data the further the skull was away from Africa.
To ensure the validity of their single origin evidence the researchers attempted to use their data to find non-African origins for modern humans. Researcher Dr Francois Balloux explains: "To test the alternative theory for the origin of modern humans we tried to find an additional, non-African origin. We found this just did not work. Our findings show that humans originated in a single area in sub-Saharan Africa."
© afrol News
Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin
Washington Post
By Rick Weiss
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.
Washington Post
By Rick Weiss
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.
The discovery, described in today's issue of the journal Science, was an unexpected outgrowth of studies Cheng and his colleagues were conducting on inch-long zebra fish, which are popular research tools for geneticists and developmental biologists. Having identified a gene that, when mutated, interferes with its ability to make its characteristic black stripes,the team scanned human DNA databases to see if a similar gene resides in people. To their surprise, they found virtually identical pigment-building genes in humans, chickens, dogs, cows and many others species, an indication of its biological value. They got a bigger surprise when they looked in a new database comparing the genomes of four of the world's major racial groups. That showed that whites with northern and western European ancestry have a mutated version of the gene.
Skin color is a reflection of the amount and distribution of the pigment melanin, which in humans protects against damaging ultraviolet rays but in other species is also used for camouflage or other purposes. The mutation that deprives zebra fish of their stripes blocks the creation of a protein whose job is to move charged atoms across cell membranes, an obscure process that is crucial to the accumulation of melanin inside cells. Humans of European descent, Cheng's team found, bear a slightly different mutation that hobbles the same protein with similar effect. The defect does not affect melanin deposition in other parts of the body, including the hair and eyes, whose tints are under the control of other genes.
A few genes have previously been associated with human pigment disorders -- most notably those that, when mutated, lead to albinism, an extreme form of pigment loss. But the newly found glitch is the first found to play a role in the formation of "normal" white skin. The Penn State team calculates that the gene, known as slc24a5, is responsible for about one-third of the pigment loss that made black skin white. A few other as-yet-unidentified mutated genes apparently account for the rest. Although precise dating is impossible, several scientists speculated on the basis of its spread and variation that the mutation arose between 20,000 and 50,000 years ago. That would be consistent with research showing that a wave of ancestral humans migrated northward and eastward out of Africa about 50,000 years ago. Unlike most mutations, this one quickly overwhelmed its ancestral version, at least in Europe, suggesting it had a real benefit. Many scientists suspect that benefit has to do with vitamin D, made in the body with the help of sunlight and critical to proper bone development.
Sun intensity is great enough in equatorial regions that the vitamin can still be made in dark-skinned people despite the ultraviolet shielding effects of melanin. In the north, where sunlight is less intense and cold weather demands that more clothing be worn, melanin's ultraviolet shielding became a liability, the thinking goes. Today that solar requirement is largely irrelevant because many foods are supplemented with vitamin D. Some scientists said they suspect that white skin's rapid rise to genetic dominance may also be the product of "sexual selection," a phenomenon of evolutionary biology in which almost any new and showy trait in a healthy individual can become highly prized by those seeking mates, perhaps because it provides evidence of genetic innovativeness.
Cheng and co-worker Victor A. Canfield said their discovery could have practical spinoffs. A gene so crucial to the buildup of melanin in the skin might be a good target for new drugs against melanoma, for example, a cancer of melanin cells in which slc24a5 works overtime. But they and others agreed that, for better or worse,the finding's most immediate impact may be an escalating debate about the meaning of race.
Recent revelations that all people are more than 99.9 percent genetically identical has proved that race has almost no biological validity. Yet geneticists' claims that race is a phony construct have not rung true to many nonscientists -- and understandably so, said Vivian Ota Wang of the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda. "You may tell people that race isn't real and doesn't matter, but they can't catch a cab," Ota Wang said. "So unless we take that into account it makes us sound crazy."
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.
The discovery, described in today's issue of the journal Science, was an unexpected outgrowth of studies Cheng and his colleagues were conducting on inch-long zebra fish, which are popular research tools for geneticists and developmental biologists. Having identified a gene that, when mutated, interferes with its ability to make its characteristic black stripes,the team scanned human DNA databases to see if a similar gene resides in people. To their surprise, they found virtually identical pigment-building genes in humans, chickens, dogs, cows and many others species, an indication of its biological value. They got a bigger surprise when they looked in a new database comparing the genomes of four of the world's major racial groups. That showed that whites with northern and western European ancestry have a mutated version of the gene.
Skin color is a reflection of the amount and distribution of the pigment melanin, which in humans protects against damaging ultraviolet rays but in other species is also used for camouflage or other purposes. The mutation that deprives zebra fish of their stripes blocks the creation of a protein whose job is to move charged atoms across cell membranes, an obscure process that is crucial to the accumulation of melanin inside cells. Humans of European descent, Cheng's team found, bear a slightly different mutation that hobbles the same protein with similar effect. The defect does not affect melanin deposition in other parts of the body, including the hair and eyes, whose tints are under the control of other genes.
A few genes have previously been associated with human pigment disorders -- most notably those that, when mutated, lead to albinism, an extreme form of pigment loss. But the newly found glitch is the first found to play a role in the formation of "normal" white skin. The Penn State team calculates that the gene, known as slc24a5, is responsible for about one-third of the pigment loss that made black skin white. A few other as-yet-unidentified mutated genes apparently account for the rest. Although precise dating is impossible, several scientists speculated on the basis of its spread and variation that the mutation arose between 20,000 and 50,000 years ago. That would be consistent with research showing that a wave of ancestral humans migrated northward and eastward out of Africa about 50,000 years ago. Unlike most mutations, this one quickly overwhelmed its ancestral version, at least in Europe, suggesting it had a real benefit. Many scientists suspect that benefit has to do with vitamin D, made in the body with the help of sunlight and critical to proper bone development.
Sun intensity is great enough in equatorial regions that the vitamin can still be made in dark-skinned people despite the ultraviolet shielding effects of melanin. In the north, where sunlight is less intense and cold weather demands that more clothing be worn, melanin's ultraviolet shielding became a liability, the thinking goes. Today that solar requirement is largely irrelevant because many foods are supplemented with vitamin D. Some scientists said they suspect that white skin's rapid rise to genetic dominance may also be the product of "sexual selection," a phenomenon of evolutionary biology in which almost any new and showy trait in a healthy individual can become highly prized by those seeking mates, perhaps because it provides evidence of genetic innovativeness.
Cheng and co-worker Victor A. Canfield said their discovery could have practical spinoffs. A gene so crucial to the buildup of melanin in the skin might be a good target for new drugs against melanoma, for example, a cancer of melanin cells in which slc24a5 works overtime. But they and others agreed that, for better or worse,the finding's most immediate impact may be an escalating debate about the meaning of race.
Recent revelations that all people are more than 99.9 percent genetically identical has proved that race has almost no biological validity. Yet geneticists' claims that race is a phony construct have not rung true to many nonscientists -- and understandably so, said Vivian Ota Wang of the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda. "You may tell people that race isn't real and doesn't matter, but they can't catch a cab," Ota Wang said. "So unless we take that into account it makes us sound crazy."
http://community-2.webtv.net/Nubianem3/BlackAfrican/
BLONDE HAIR AMONG THE PUREST BLACKS
Blonde hair is found among some of the purest and most isolated Negro/Black people on planet earth. This means that blonde hair is not found only in Nordics but actually originated and first came out of the Negroid/Black race. Blonde hair is found among Black Melanesians, Black Tribals of India, Australian Aborigines and Blacks in parts of Africa. In fact both blondish and red hair is found among some African Blacks.
WHAT CAUSES BLONDE/RED HAIR
Blonde and red hair are caused by environmental factors and the lack of certain nutrients in the body. The blonde and reddish kinky hair found in Blacks of Australia, Melanesia and parts of Africa is due to natural processes. In Nordics, the blonde hair is also due to environmental processes, possibly nutrition and not this idea of "racial purity" that many people seem to think is the cause. In fact, many whites are fooled to believe that having blonde hair and blue eyes is evidence of being "more white." Of course this only points to having recessive traits.
Australian Aborigines (Koori and other tribes) have naturally blonde hair. Some Black tribals of India also have naturally blonde hair and Negroid Black skin, Negroid faces, bone and skull structure and Negroid genetic structure. See www.dalitstan.org/books/sudroid
http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/runoko.html
http://community.webtv.net/nubianem
http://community.webtv.net/paulnubiaempire (check first page for sites with pictures)
Hence, it is proper to say that blonde hair originated in Black Negroids long before the adaptation of the Black Negroid Grimaldis to Europe and the lightening of their skin from Black to fair about 30,000 years ago.
(Read more on this from "Susu Economics," pub. By www.AuthorHouse.com also "Civilization or Barbarism," by Cheikh Antah Diop, Laurence Hill Publishers)
BLONDE HAIR AMONG THE PUREST BLACKS
Blonde hair is found among some of the purest and most isolated Negro/Black people on planet earth. This means that blonde hair is not found only in Nordics but actually originated and first came out of the Negroid/Black race. Blonde hair is found among Black Melanesians, Black Tribals of India, Australian Aborigines and Blacks in parts of Africa. In fact both blondish and red hair is found among some African Blacks.
WHAT CAUSES BLONDE/RED HAIR
Blonde and red hair are caused by environmental factors and the lack of certain nutrients in the body. The blonde and reddish kinky hair found in Blacks of Australia, Melanesia and parts of Africa is due to natural processes. In Nordics, the blonde hair is also due to environmental processes, possibly nutrition and not this idea of "racial purity" that many people seem to think is the cause. In fact, many whites are fooled to believe that having blonde hair and blue eyes is evidence of being "more white." Of course this only points to having recessive traits.
Australian Aborigines (Koori and other tribes) have naturally blonde hair. Some Black tribals of India also have naturally blonde hair and Negroid Black skin, Negroid faces, bone and skull structure and Negroid genetic structure. See www.dalitstan.org/books/sudroid
http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/runoko.html
http://community.webtv.net/nubianem
http://community.webtv.net/paulnubiaempire (check first page for sites with pictures)
Hence, it is proper to say that blonde hair originated in Black Negroids long before the adaptation of the Black Negroid Grimaldis to Europe and the lightening of their skin from Black to fair about 30,000 years ago.
(Read more on this from "Susu Economics," pub. By www.AuthorHouse.com also "Civilization or Barbarism," by Cheikh Antah Diop, Laurence Hill Publishers)
Scientists Discover Tanning Cream That May Deflect Skin Cancer
September 21, 2006
Shaveta Bansal - All Headline News
September 21, 2006
Shaveta Bansal - All Headline News
Scientists at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Children's Hospital in Boston have discovered a new cream that they say could effectively tan the skin without exposure to sun and may help prevent serious skin cancers like melanoma. The cream has not been tested on humans but researchers say the tests on lab mice have been promising.
Researchers say that the tanning mechanism of the cream is different from the sunless tanning lotion presently available in the market. The new cream alters the skin pigmentation by recreating a process that occurs naturally when ultraviolet sunlight strikes skin cells. Researchers tested the cream by applying it on lab mice once a day, five days a week. "Within a couple of days you could clearly see they were becoming darker," David Fisher, director of the Melanoma Program and senior author of the study told Reuters. The cream "switched on the tanning machinery" in mice skin cells that were genetically designed to resemble those in blond and redheaded people, researchers said in the study published in the Journal Nature. The mice experienced no dangerous side effects, scientists said.
The research was based on the fact that dark skinned people or the people who tan easily are far less likely to develop skin cancer than those with fair skin. Researchers noted that the skin cells respond differently depending on a person's skin type. For people who tan well, the sun's ultraviolet rays initially harm DNA in the skin, but this is followed by robust tanning that curbs the DNA damage.
The research was based on the fact that dark skinned people or the people who tan easily are far less likely to develop skin cancer than those with fair skin. Researchers noted that the skin cells respond differently depending on a person's skin type. For people who tan well, the sun's ultraviolet rays initially harm DNA in the skin, but this is followed by robust tanning that curbs the DNA damage.
However, for lousy tanners, even a light tan can trigger significant DNA damage that can lead to cancers like melanoma by causing pigment-making skin cells known as melanocytes to begin dividing rampantly. The researchers say a darkening in pigmentation can help these people reduce that risk. "Our strategy turns on pigment but doesn't touch the DNA," said Fisher. "This actually may represent a broader strategy to prevent the damage that UV causes in the skin, shielding the skin in ways that traditional sunscreens cannot."
Fisher said they will now test the cream on humans to see whether UV light follows the same path to stimulating pigment change as in the mice, which have thinner skin. According to the American Cancer Society, melanoma accounts for 62,000 new cases of cancer a year and nearly 8,000 deaths in the United States.
Straight talk from Hort
Now this article is very interesting because it raises this question, “how can the other races be superior, or genetically more intelligent than Africans if Africans are their ancestors?” Of course the real reason behind the multiple origins theory of mankind is to prove that white people have a different origin and are therefore superior to all other races and that the mythical Adam and Eve, (the first white man and woman) were the first human beings. As a result, archeologists have now dug up every continent in the hope of confirming this theory, but alas, they continually dig up Osiris and Isis, (the first mythical African man and woman.) Here is what archeologists now know about the evolution of mankind:
The first homo sapiens appeared 150,000 years ago in Africa. The are known as Omo 1 and Omo 2.
33,000 years ago, these black people from Africa invaded Europe. They are known as the Grimaldi negros.
The first white man, known as Cro Magnon, appeared 20,000 years ago in Europe.
The aborigines arrived 30,000-20,000 years ago in Australia.
17,000 years ago the Chinese homo sapiens appeared, and the present day Chinese only appeared 6,000 years ago.
Finally, the Japanese only appeared 4,000 years ago.
So as you can see Africans win, hands down, everywhere, even in Europe since the first homo sapians in Europe were black people. Now you may understand where sayings such as “tall, dark and handsome,” “the black knight, ”the black virgin and a host of other expressions and concepts in the English language that may have baffled you, come from.
First of all, it’s logical that the first people were Africans, since in order for life to take hold you need the sun and only a melanated people can tolerate the sun. Have you ever seen a plant grow under ice and snow? What is ironic is that black people bleach their skin thinking it is abnormal when in reality it’s the exact opposite. It is white skin that is a defect of nature and that is why scientists are doing everything to make white skin tan more easily to reduce the devastating effects of the sun. (see enclosed article) According to Dr. Cress Wesling, in the plant and animal kingdom, the absence of colour is also a genetic flaw. So, why do they always show white rabbits and white rats in laboratory experiments when the scientific world knows that these are only mutations? This is part of a slick marketing campaign to give people the false impression that white is the norm.
Secondly, how could white people be the original people when white cannot produce colour, only white. Do you remember when Michael Jackson produced 2 completely white babies as his biological children? Every scientist on the planet knew that was a genetic impossibility. Why? Because white people have recessive genes while black people have dominant genes. Therefore, any black man who has a child with a white woman, will always produce a coloured child. For Michael Jackson to produce two completely white children he would have had to have them with a black woman because only a black woman can biologically produce a child of any colour, since only African people can produce the whole spectrum of human beings on this planet. We can produce from blue black to lily white skin, from short, curly to long, straight hair, from broad to straight nose, from jet black to blond hair, from short to tall people and African people can even produce what they call the “Chinese fold” of the eyes. (the San people in Namibia)
It is this evidence which has finally forced them to concede after many centuries of trying to prove otherwise that indeed Africa is the cradle of mankind, yet they continue to invent new ways to “prove” that blacks are an “inferior” race. For example, some have tried to link crime to the black race by saying it's hereditary, but when it was pointed out that the biggest criminals on the planet were white, not black, they backed down. We all know about school IQ tests. Lately, they have been stigmatizing black people in the West as freeloaders who don’t want to work but live off the state, yet all those Africans putting their lives at risk and even dying off the coast of Spain and Italy certainly disprove this theory as they repeatedly tell reporters that all they want to do is to work in Europe. Finally, the expression "to work like a nigger” has never as far as I know, implied idleness but as I’ve said many times before, when you are operating in the world of the absurd, logic has absolutely no place.