If one were to assume that evolution were true, what skin color were the original homo sapiens? My somewhat educated guess would be black or pretty dark since evolution says the origin of humans is in Africa and black skin was better equipped for that environment.
-This question just crossed my mind and figured the board might have some good input...(I couldn't find the question already posted)
The Origin of Race
Moderator: Moderators
Post #2
I think your hypothesis is reasonable.
A couple of comments. It seems to me that where you draw the line and say 'here are the first homo sapiens' is a little difficult, even if we had an unbroken line of fossils from 'every generation' of homo sapiens and their (our
) ancestors.
Also, our ancestors were entire populations of individuals that may have displayed some variety in skin color. Perhaps there was enough differentiaion in skin color in our ancestors so that the races actually pre-dated the species.
A couple of comments. It seems to me that where you draw the line and say 'here are the first homo sapiens' is a little difficult, even if we had an unbroken line of fossils from 'every generation' of homo sapiens and their (our
) ancestors. Also, our ancestors were entire populations of individuals that may have displayed some variety in skin color. Perhaps there was enough differentiaion in skin color in our ancestors so that the races actually pre-dated the species.
Post #3
How could separate traits (races) in a species have existed before the species itself existed, Mictala? Isn't that like saying Fords, Toyotas and BMWs existed before the invention of the motor car?
As far as skin color goes, this has little to do with what we commonly regard as "races." Currently the lightest-skinned individuals on Earth are Caucasians, and the darkest -- Caucasians. (The darkest Dravidians are darker than the darkest Negros).
It is assumed that the first sparsely-haired hominids, living in equatorial Africa, had the same dark skin color as their cousins the chimps.
As far as skin color goes, this has little to do with what we commonly regard as "races." Currently the lightest-skinned individuals on Earth are Caucasians, and the darkest -- Caucasians. (The darkest Dravidians are darker than the darkest Negros).
It is assumed that the first sparsely-haired hominids, living in equatorial Africa, had the same dark skin color as their cousins the chimps.
Post #4
Its an interesting question:
Melanocytes are responsible for skin colour. When a specific melanocyte-stimulating hormone binds to the meanocyte cell receptor site, it stimulates the production of melanine, the dark pigment.
There's also a protein called agoutie signalling protient that can block where the melanocyte hormone would go.
Thus, you have two variables that can affect skin colour easily. When you think about that, it would only require a short amount of time (relative time) for skin colour to change either way.
Out of all the complex changes we've gone through in evolution, I think skin colour could have changed much easier than say, the evolution of a part of the brain and vocal cords that allow speech.
More melanocyte hormone means more pigment production, but less ability to produce Vitamin D
Less means more abililty to produce Vitamin D, but less pigment production.
Keeping in mind, that the same applies to hair growth. We have muscles called arrector pili which are found in chimpanzees. When a chimpanzee gets cold/frightened they activate, and make hair stand up on end. We get goose bumps.
Our ancestors that had more hair than us, would have had hair as a form of sun protection and may not of required sun protection from there skin. What may have happened is as skin got darker (for whatever reason), hair became less useful (or hair may become less apparent on a species, so skin had to become darker)
Im not sure if its possible for there to be an 'inbetween', maybe light brown, and as our ancestors explorered hotter or cooler climates, the skin colour adjusted to suit the region.
Why is there so much hate in the world over such an insignificant part of our biochemistry! (dont answer that! rhetorical! stay on topic
)
Melanocytes are responsible for skin colour. When a specific melanocyte-stimulating hormone binds to the meanocyte cell receptor site, it stimulates the production of melanine, the dark pigment.
There's also a protein called agoutie signalling protient that can block where the melanocyte hormone would go.
Thus, you have two variables that can affect skin colour easily. When you think about that, it would only require a short amount of time (relative time) for skin colour to change either way.
Out of all the complex changes we've gone through in evolution, I think skin colour could have changed much easier than say, the evolution of a part of the brain and vocal cords that allow speech.
More melanocyte hormone means more pigment production, but less ability to produce Vitamin D
Less means more abililty to produce Vitamin D, but less pigment production.
Keeping in mind, that the same applies to hair growth. We have muscles called arrector pili which are found in chimpanzees. When a chimpanzee gets cold/frightened they activate, and make hair stand up on end. We get goose bumps.
Our ancestors that had more hair than us, would have had hair as a form of sun protection and may not of required sun protection from there skin. What may have happened is as skin got darker (for whatever reason), hair became less useful (or hair may become less apparent on a species, so skin had to become darker)
Im not sure if its possible for there to be an 'inbetween', maybe light brown, and as our ancestors explorered hotter or cooler climates, the skin colour adjusted to suit the region.
Why is there so much hate in the world over such an insignificant part of our biochemistry! (dont answer that! rhetorical! stay on topic
)Post #5
No, not really. For example, let's suppose both Ford and Chevy made horse drawn wagons in the 1800's. Subsequently, both Ford and Chevy incorporated motors into their wagon designs to create automobiles. We could say the wagons were of different 'races' but the same species, and kept some of their distincitiveness as they evolved into automobiles.seyorni wrote:How could separate traits (races) in a species have existed before the species itself existed, Mictala? Isn't that like saying Fords, Toyotas and BMWs existed before the invention of the motor car?
Good point.As far as skin color goes, this has little to do with what we commonly regard as "races." Currently the lightest-skinned individuals on Earth are Caucasians, and the darkest -- Caucasians. (The darkest Dravidians are darker than the darkest Negros).
-
nikolayevich
- Scholar
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:51 pm
- Location: Vancouver
Post #7
It's a good point, and yet, there is the potential with the original question, perhaps modified somewhat, to discuss how the first homo sapiens whether evolved or created would have had to appear, to allow for the diversity of "color" (not to be confused with race as noted previously by seyorni) that we see around us.McCulloch wrote:This is all very interesting and about science but I cannot for the life of me see how this relates to the forum of "Science and Religion".
Would the original man look different whether evolved or created?
Is it possible that one finding would support one origin theory over the other?
As for the basic question of original skin color, if I remember correctly from comments others have made, heredity would probably dictate that it would be medium brown, as darker and lighter shades of this color can be produced in offspring. As Answers in Genesis likes to point out, we are all just "shades of brown" or varying degrees of the same pigment. There isn't really such a thing as black, white, etc.
Post #8
I would argue, McCulloch, that this is relevant to Science and Religion because of the religious codification of racial presumptions. The bible explains why god turned some people dark, and even goes so far as to suggest that they be enslaved. The book of mormon says something similar, but the story is different. That is, races have origin-explanations in religious texts. The scientific explanation is different.
As noted by micatala and teegstar, our ancestral African population would have been in the selective environment of high-UV-light. This selects for adequate melanin to shade the skin and prevent UV-induced mutation to skin cancer, and prevent UV-induced breakdown of folic acid.
There probably were lighter-skinned variants, but they would have been selected against in equatorial Africa. Upon migration to Europe, where there's less UV, selection went the other way, and light-skinned variants became common.
But color is not the basis of race. Genetically, most humans are very close. The greatest genetic diversity is in Africa (as we might expect), looking like there might be several African races of humans, one of which migrated out and colonized the world. We can probably forgive our forebears for thinking skin color mattered, because they didn't understand genetics or why skin color matters in life. Now that we know, we (ie humans in general) should get off this stupid racism kick and try to do things that are helpful in the world.
As noted by micatala and teegstar, our ancestral African population would have been in the selective environment of high-UV-light. This selects for adequate melanin to shade the skin and prevent UV-induced mutation to skin cancer, and prevent UV-induced breakdown of folic acid.
There probably were lighter-skinned variants, but they would have been selected against in equatorial Africa. Upon migration to Europe, where there's less UV, selection went the other way, and light-skinned variants became common.
But color is not the basis of race. Genetically, most humans are very close. The greatest genetic diversity is in Africa (as we might expect), looking like there might be several African races of humans, one of which migrated out and colonized the world. We can probably forgive our forebears for thinking skin color mattered, because they didn't understand genetics or why skin color matters in life. Now that we know, we (ie humans in general) should get off this stupid racism kick and try to do things that are helpful in the world.
Panza llena, corazon contento
Re: The Origin of Race
Post #9It all depends whether H. sapiens first evolved from early and archaic H. sapiens in Africa or Eurasia, or whether early and archaic H. sapiens in Africa, Asia and Europe all evolved into modern H. sapiens at approximately the same time in their repesective geographic areas, since according to the fossil record, early and archaic H. sapiens have been present on both continents for the last 400 hundred thousand years.Q wrote:If one were to assume that evolution were true, what skin color were the original homo sapiens? My somewhat educated guess would be black or pretty dark since evolution says the origin of humans is in Africa and black skin was better equipped for that environment.
It is an unlikely and unequal scenario that all modern Homo sapiens originated in Africa out of a subspecies of early and archaic African Homo sapiens though, because that would entail the gradual evolution of African people into Orientals and Caucasians while Africans didn't change at all racially, and the original millions of early and archaic Oriental and Caucasian H. sapiens descendents of Homo erectus in Eurasia would all have to be replaced by a new breed of Africans who would evolve into the modern version of Oriental and Caucasian people. That's a rather far-fetched scenario, and the chances of it ever happening are zilch, don't you think?
-
Arthur-Robin
- Student
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:58 pm
- Location: Antipodes
- Contact:
Post #10
From a biblical point of view Adam was the "red earth man". The red Adam was either brown/dark or pink. In the bible it seems that David &/or JC were ruddy, (while the women were fair). I think it makes sense to say that the original colour was neither pink/bleached nor black but brown/bronze. In Egypt and India the highest colour was red. In the Avestas men were burnt/burned by the sun (pink or black like Ethiopians?)
It is possible that origin of the races may have something to do with the Angels mixing with humans.
I personally am not wholly convinced that the accursed Ham (really Canaan) was black or at least it is not the skin colour which is a curse. It has been pointed out that pink skin ie sun burning is more a curse.
It is true that race does not equal skin colour. Moreover the 3 sons of Ham may not correspond to the 3 races but to the 3 body/character types?
It is possible that origin of the races may have something to do with the Angels mixing with humans.
I personally am not wholly convinced that the accursed Ham (really Canaan) was black or at least it is not the skin colour which is a curse. It has been pointed out that pink skin ie sun burning is more a curse.
It is true that race does not equal skin colour. Moreover the 3 sons of Ham may not correspond to the 3 races but to the 3 body/character types?
