• Current Events, Politics
    & Science

    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • CEPS Moderators: cduggles | Deru | mal3volent
  • Bluelight HOT THREADS
  • Let's Welcome Our NEW MEMBERS!

Study Reveals First Britons Were Black

CFC

Tech Support
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Messages
14,010
Location
The Shire
The first Britons were black, Natural History Museum DNA study reveals






The earliest Britons were black-skinned, with dark curly hair and possibly blue eyes, new analysis of a 10,000-year-old Somerset skeleton has revealed.


Scientists at the Natural History Museum have used pioneering genetic sequencing and facial reconstruction techniques to prove that the first hunter-gatherers successfully to inhabit Britain were far darker in complexion than previously thought.

The groundbreaking discovery was made in a ?stroke of luck? after archeologists found scraps of DNA in the ear of the Mesolithic ?Cheddar Man?, the oldest complete skeleton ever found in the UK and one of the museum?s most treasured specimens.

They then cross-referenced the genomes of modern inhabitants of Cheddar, near Gough?s Cave in the Cheddar Gorge where the remains were discovered in 1903, as well as other fossils from across Europe.

The results show, contrary to popular belief, that the founding generations of Britons owed more in appearance to Paleolithic Africans, from whom all humans descend.

Scientists said they show that commonly understood racial categories are historically only ?recent constructions?
Read the rest here
 

swilow

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
31,877
Location
Your double slit
I love these sort of findings and how much they say fuck you to at the white supremacists. It shows that this thing they so deeply admire is just the product of a random mutation. It confirms what the rest of us 'normal' folks already know, skin deep and all that.
 

LucidSDreamr

Bluelighter
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
5,029
Location
Silicodone Valley
I love these sort of findings and how much they say fuck you to at the white supremacists. It shows that this thing they so deeply admire is just the product of a random mutation. It confirms what the rest of us 'normal' folks already know, skin deep and all that.
most white supremacists are christian/creationists. Therefore they don't really believe in science or genetics or evolution. The first humans were black which we all descend from, but this is proven through science, which they don't believe.

lack of education an exposure to anyone outside of their backwoods village. result in their hatred of races they have never met or spoken to because their leaders like to tell them that the reason they are losers without $ or success is because of other races, not that they are just stupid which is the actual case
 

Tubbs

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Sep 29, 2017
Messages
9,245
Location
Down the rabbit hole
Yeah Jesus was middle eastern.

And you can't say that white supremacy is a result of being uneducated, I grew up in rural illinois, I knew doctors and lawyers who moved to the area because it was mainly white. It's more based on tribalism, we used to group with like individuals, therefore someone who looked different was an enemy. Most of us go against that sort of tribalism, others don't. There is racism in all communities.
 

zephyr

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
19,674
Location
Your dads face
The polynesians traveled wide expanses of ocean. He looks polynesian to me and shame hes dead. Id be keen.
 

What 23

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
3,832
I feel I am going against my better judgment with entering into this conversation, I admit; How is this person "black"? Two people have written things relating this to "black"-people. One includes some bit of a jab at "white supremacy" (inject identity...stuff). This is desperate, or something.

I would like to point out that highly-pigmented skin became "supreme" in certain regions of the world, where the sunlight was generally much more intense. This makes sense. Gradually, although this 1ST ONE DUDE(! the best...down white supremacy!) to a land some identify now with people who happen to be distinguished from others, as white, was with highly pigmented skin, mutations that gave much lighter skin occurred in some, and then became favored among populations there, due to the low level of light. So for some reason(s), these mutations (that may be random, and are called random by some, but might not be, fully?) that made "white people" 'white' (relatively, or as a name-designation based on some awareness of wider contrast) were selected-for and made their way from a few key people (perhaps), to be represented in nearly all people in Europe in some capacity. They didn't spontaneously arise in all at once, like magic -- they were selected for, over many years. Was the selection just random, to reach such concentration/ubiquity? Can you tell me how that would make sense? If something is favored, doesn't that mean it's..."supreme" (? - ha, I'm not wrong!) in some or more than one sense (yes, it may be circumstantial, and is-- a white person would fry in Africa, without clothes...)?

Calling this person "black" seems kind of like calling a Japanese person "white", if we're associating it with anything that exists in the modern day(?). Where do we stop with this? "We were all worms once"(?)?

I'm really not looking to get into a conversation, or argument. I wish you all a good life. But by all means, if you actually have a real argument other than some shit-throwing, personal attacks (or attacks on a people/peoples), etc....please, go right ahead.

Is this supposed to be political?
Current events? I knew this in 2015, at least:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ns-brought-Europe-Near-East-study-claims.html ...and it was pretty much an assumed-fact before that, if the out-of-Africa theory is correct - that the "default" trait is darker-pigmentation, and that light skin is a result of mutations, that were favored in different environments (or/and perhaps simply because it looked better - to them - or maybe facilitated communication in some way..blushing skin, ability to see the pupils of eyes in lighter eyes to gauge emotional state, which may have been advantageous, or...).
How would we make this political? Wouldn't Science and Tech be a much better sub-forum? I'm not saying it can't be political. Do you think it's worth it?
 
Last edited:

Morninggloryseed

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Aug 22, 2000
Messages
13,792
Location
Semi Retired
How does this say 'fuck you' to white supremacists?

I love these sort of findings and how much they say fuck you to at the white supremacists. It shows that this thing they so deeply admire is just the product of a random mutation. It confirms what the rest of us 'normal' folks already know, skin deep and all that.
 

SheWasLvL18

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
813
Location
Persepolis
most white supremacists are christian/creationists. Therefore they don't really believe in science or genetics or evolution. The first humans were black which we all descend from, but this is proven through science, which they don't believe.

lack of education an exposure to anyone outside of their backwoods village. result in their hatred of races they have never met or spoken to because their leaders like to tell them that the reason they are losers without $ or success is because of other races, not that they are just stupid which is the actual case
The biggest white supremacist I know isn't even white and that scares me
 

Escher's Waterfall

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
8,577
Location
In the desert, worshipping thirst
The question of why some people became pale is actually a bit more complicated than just the amount of sun exposure.

One of the theories is that reliance on grains may be a factor - grains are low in vitamin D. Therefore, while we were hunters, we all had dark skin since we could get vitamin D from eating meat. But as some in the northern latitudes became farmer, lighter skin became selected for.

That theory maps better with what we know, but it ain't perfect either. Probably some other factors are in play. And it could just be that vitamin D wasn't required, but the selective pressure for darker skin was relaxed in northern latitudes, allowing some populations to propagate a mutation in the pigmentation gene that lead through a population of paler-skinned people via genetic drift. It could even be some screwed up sexual selection - lighter eye colors in humans have no advantage that we know of, and may have some disadvantages with damage to the eye over time, yet there are populations where lighter eye color is common. Maybe lighter eye color were considered more desirable in some populations, despite the disadvantages. Maybe the same for skin color.

Or maybe it's linked to some other gene that allowed certain populations to survive a disease that's no longer with us. We don't know.
 

cduggles

Moderator: CEPS, Words
Staff member
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
12,397
Location
A chromatically corrected world
How would we make this political? Wouldn't Science and Tech be a much better sub-forum? I'm not saying it can't be political. Do you think it's worth it?
CE&P is Current Events and Politics.

While this discovery was made using genetic sequencing and facial reconstruction techniques, it is also a "Current Event".

What about politics? Considering Brexit, the rise of right-wing, white nationalism in W. Europe among other places including the US, and racial tensions at a high point in politics and elsewhere, etc., the idea that racial constructs are quite recent is interesting and topical.

Regarding some of your assertions about non-random selection and science in general, I don't find much merit in them. One of my huge pet peeves is the usage of terms/concepts from biology (e.g., Darwinism) and physics (e.g., Occam's razor). Even ?bermensch doesn't quite have the meaning most ascribe to it. (The question mark is a capital "U" with an umlaut.)

(Some scientists post here. Suprise.)

Feel free to post it in another forum and please link back here so we can follow the fun there, please. Thanks!
 

tathra

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 30, 2001
Messages
22,672
Location
some yandere's basement
One of my huge pet peeves is the usage of terms/concepts from biology (e.g., Darwinism) and physics (e.g., Occam's razor).
sometimes a term works outside of its originating field and best describes the item at hand. "occam's razor" simply means that the one with the least assumptions in it is most likely right - this can apply to pretty much anything. i like to use "cows arent spherical" as an analogy to explain why simplistic ideas about economic policy (like the idea that market prices are solely determined by supply and demand and nothing else) dont work in the real world.
 

Scrofula

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Messages
5,420
Location
California
If you stand on a beach in Hawaii and observe the tourists, you will notice that Americans are generally spheroid with dark red skin, moving slowly as small family units. Japanese are much smaller, have snow-white skin and move in multi-family groups. Knowing as I do that Americans consume more red meat (though the Chinese have surpassed them in total animal protein), I assume the coloration has to do with excessive circulating myoglobin, or maybe oxygen saturation due to CPAP machine usage.

Last I heard, the time scales involved ruled out anything but sexual selection (which applies just as much to dark-skinned people). Some Northern European gentlemen came across mutant blondes and preferred them to their cave-brunettes (don't feel bad, brunettes, the blondes might have been neanderthals).

But with the OP, it's not like they've been so gracious as to give us a peer-reviewed publication anyway. Just how "dark-skinned" are they talking, keeping in mind there's more than just one human pigment. The Cheddar Man they admit was unrelated to any of the other, much older skeletons in the cave, and comes from a haplotype shared with only 10% of modern British people.

A more enlightening take-away is that the area was much more diverse 10,000 years ago than people seem to assume, which should piss off white supremacists more. Diversity! In the paleolithic! Even English cave men were committing white genocide! The SJW cuck family tree goes all the way back to the beginning!
 

cduggles

Moderator: CEPS, Words
Staff member
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
12,397
Location
A chromatically corrected world
sometimes a term works outside of its originating field and best describes the item at hand. "occam's razor" simply means that the one with the least assumptions in it is most likely right - this can apply to pretty much anything. i like to use "cows arent spherical" as an analogy to explain why simplistic ideas about economic policy (like the idea that market prices are solely determined by supply and demand and nothing else) dont work in the real world.
That's not actually a correct definition.

Start here: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate".

Occam (aka Ockham) himself argued for empirical evidence.

I have no idea how cows simplify anything. :\
 
Last edited:

zephyr

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
19,674
Location
Your dads face
I dont think the guy they found really gave a second thought to futuristic racial division when he died. Seemed like in his prime.

Anthropologically speaking, his corpse is interesting.

He should be laid to rest now. This isnt a respectful way to treat our past.
 

Scrofula

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Messages
5,420
Location
California
A few posts back you wanted to bone him, Zephyr. What happened?

ACK! I see, Ms. Duggles, once again you lured me in to your cesspool of contention. I thought this was the SciFi forum.

ETA: EJECT! EJECT!!
 
Top