Human race question?

Question

I noticed a lot of people believe the human race began in Africa and I am really interested to know why. Is there an explanation of how it came about that "black" and "white" people appear different to eachother?

This will sound blunt, but how did someone change even if over time, from a "black" person to a "white" person in order to adapt to a different environment? I am a slightly deepful thinker... :/

Answer 1

Europeans evolved light skin to survive. The darker a person's skin, the more resistant they are to the effects of the sun. Aside from getting sunburn, people also absorb Viitamin D through their skin via sunlight. In Africa, where sunlight is abundant, you could have dark skin and still absorb all the Vitamin D you need. In Europe, however, there is a lot less sun, so people living in Europe evolved lighter skin to allow more of the available sunlight, and more Vitamin D, to be absorbed.

Answer 2

When a group of humans migrated to a cold northern environment, the melanin in their skin blocked out too much sunshine. melanin both filters sunlight and gives color for any race. It is the amount of this substance that determines if a person is dark or light. Living in an environment where sunlight is limited, those with less melanin in their skin was better able to handle it. Among any race, the level varies. Those with a lower amount would be the fittest. They would be the most affective. They would become the leaders and they would have greater chances of survival. All of this means that they would produce more offspring then those with high levels of melanin. So the next generation would be lighter. Among a lighter generation, the chances of even lighter skin genes developing in their offspring would be greater. Each generation would be lighter than the last.

Answer 3

As humans moved north out of Africa, the amount of melatonin (black pigment) in the skin interfered with the ability to produce sufficient vitamin D in the less direct sunlight of the northern latitudes. The skin makes vitamin D using the sunlight it absorbs. Those who had somewhat less melatonin produced more vitamin D, were healthier, and more likely to survive to produce offspring. This effect is amplified by the importance of sufficient vitamin D during pregnancy. Childbearing women have a higher demand for vitamin D; thus we see that, within any population, the women are somewhat lighter skinned than the men.

Answer 4

Well of course historic experience has contributed to the ideal that the given humans would have had to adapt to any situation, man or non-manmade alike. The differences in appearence goes way back to earlier times, due to the one contribution innate factor, vision. Vision, being the dominate sense has a large role on one's judgement of another. An example for instance, if one ''race'' smelled differently from one another, then there wouldn't be much distinction between the two. That is, if in contrast, one race ''looked'' differently from one another, then, there would be a much greater stimuli and noticability toward this near pointless property of the human body. Given time, the term ''race'' is redefined, to split up the human species as you see today.

Answer 5

That is a really fuzzy area. What we are going by and this changes is that the oldest chain of suspected human like species are from Africa. Asia at times has also held this title. What we can be pretty sure of is that America and Australia were not the source. In both areas humans are very much newcomers historically.

Since the two species are not linked tightly it is also possible that humans are actually a blend of multiple ancestors. Asian apes migrating East and meeting with our African ancestors. The combination creating a viable third species. This is a rather odd possibility since most species are either incapable of mating or produce sterile offspring when they do, but there are exceptions. To me it honestly makes more sense that humans arose from the two distinct chains than for human ancestor species to have moved back and forth between Africa and Asia as current theory holds. Since there are many missing links in the chain it's also possible that neither species is really our true ancestor.

What is also very very unlikely is that humans of different ethnicity came from different species unique to that ethnicity. There had to be a base ancestor at one point for humans to be as identical as we are. Asians, Europeans, Hispanics and all races except for African races have a common musculature and other systems. There are minor genetic differences such as hair color, skin pigment, but those are cosmetic differences. With Africans there is a slightly different musculature system. A very minor difference but the only one that I know of that is more than cosmetic difference between different ethnic groups. Still anatomically and in all other respects all humans share far more in common than even different breeds of dogs share. We know for a fact dogs have a common anscestry. So humans almost certainly do as well.

Most of the cosmetic traits can be assigned to the fact that desired qualities mean a person is better able and likely to reproduce. As a species we are becoming a fairer featured race because the simple fact ugly people who do not have something else to offer are less likely to reproduce today. In ancient times when a single male could have controlled the majority or even all of the females in a tribe, then that male's genetics would be passed on. This would create ethnic tendancies. When deeply isolated such as different ethnic groups have done then certain traits would surface. Places with a hot sun will produce peoples with more melatonin thus giving them darker skin for example.

For me the confusing aspect is how lack of melatonin was a survival trait. It might have been a mutation that was prized for cosmetic reasons by certain tribes rather than practical reasons. After 20 generations the lighter skinned tribes winding up in the natural wars. Same thing to produce Japanese ethnicticity, Chinese and so on in Asia.

Answer 6

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_Africa_theory for the evidence
In ancient Greece difference in skin color seemed hardly to be noticed, they made the distinction between Greek and non Greek. This attitude seem to persist in the roman empire. Being a Roman citizen was important, but citizenship could be acquired. In early Christian Europe religion mattered more than race. When exactly things changed I am not sure but by 1600 many Europeans had decided that the Christian prohibition against keeping slaves did not apply to people of color

Answer 7

Because, the earliest human remains have been found in areas like Ethiopia, which may prove that early man probably started in Africa. I believe that if the continents were connected at some point in time, then, we as a human race are all interconnected.

Answer 8

the first human bones were found in Africa. after evaluation the human body changed based on environment. in order for humans to survive their body had to adapt to the world around them. Africans have dark skin, wide noses, thick lips, and kinky hair. all of these features protects them from the sun. while Europeans have light skin, narrow noses, and thin lips because of cooler climates. different parts of Asia have very different climate and as a result their skin, hair, eyes and noses come in different variations based on the climate.

Answer 9

The human race may not have originally been black, perhaps darker than white, though. The climate may not have been as hot as it is now, or Africa may not have been where it is now, due to continental drift.
I think its ironic that even the whitest of white supremacist nazi has an indelible African origin. Cool!

Answer 10

If you find humanoid bones older then "Lucy" in other parts of the world maybe you can change history. As far as I know the oldest humanoid bones found are in Africa including Lucy.