HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2019, 7:41 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
h. sapiens sapiens also went out on the first wave but didn't get very far. Not like the second wave 70,000 years ago where they competed with and eventually drove (or bred out) other human species into extinction...well almost.
That is a theory - that the first wave was unsuccessful. However, it has been pointed out that there is evidence that suggests that the first wave did make it out and did not return to Africa.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2019, 7:52 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbermingham123 View Post
I will always wonder how much history was wiped out when the sea levels rose again 12K years ago. I doubt its a coincidence that history seems to start around 10K BC.. there is probably evidence of a much more gradual development of civilization, language, etc but it is all underwater just off the coast of every continent. Pretty much every community around the world has a flood story and many communities have an atlantis story. Not a coincidence
Back to this post about floods, the Missoula Floods were a reoccurring flood scenario from the rapid melt waters of the North American glacier fields.

When these ice dams broke, it released more water than all the rivers combined in the world. This flooding took place over a period of 2,000 years, roughly from 15,000 - 13,000 years ago.

There are massive boulders in the middle of fields that could have only have been transported by a flood of biblical proportions.

The Channeled Scabland has incredible in your face evidence of a flood that is difficult to comprehend.

https://site.extension.uga.edu/clima...es-in-climate/

Quote:
the largest discharging ≈10 cubic kilometers per hour (2.7 million m³/s, 13 times the Amazon River). Alternate estimates for the peak flow rate of the largest flood include 17 cubic kilometers per hour and range up to 60 cubic kilometers per hour. The maximum flow speed approached 36 meters/second (130 km/h or 80 mph).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2019, 6:37 PM
muppet's Avatar
muppet muppet is offline
if I sang out of tune
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,776
Cheddar Man was originally thought to be fair skinned but recent DNA finds have shown he had very dark skin (and very blue eyes). A new model of his head is now coming to the museum I work at in London, where his bones are on display:



Back in the day prehistoric man looked like a mix of all races. Only after we started farming (and restricting our diet a bit more) did we start to diverge in skin colour, a mix of our limited access to vitamins, which we instead started getting from the sun.

Thus in some areas skin lightened to make more use of the sun sensitivity, when their grains were lacking. In places where the sun doesn't tan so much their skin stays pale.

For example many Middle Easterners, although living in some of the worlds hottest and sunniest places will go very pale if transplanted to be born in northern climes. Ergo many are 'naturally' pale skinned:


https://shalom.kiwi


Likewise vice versa for East Asians moving south, they can occupy both ends of the spectrum


www.aljazeera.com


More here:

Surprise! Ancient European had dark skin and blue eyes, DNA reveals




An ancient Romanian - reconstruction of features from a 37,000 year old skeleton. Basically homo sapiens was for most of our history just a mix of what we call disparate 'races' today:



Another ancient Briton, the Whitehawk Woman



and an ancient African:


Last edited by muppet; Nov 19, 2019 at 7:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2019, 8:30 PM
RCDC's Avatar
RCDC RCDC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: DC, an eruptive vent of wealth
Posts: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
Side note: isn't it amazing how quickly skin will turn white in a period of 10,000 years!
Go figure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 2:18 AM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppet View Post
Thus in some areas skin lightened to make more use of the sun sensitivity, when their grains were lacking. In places where the sun doesn't tan so much their skin stays pale.

For example many Middle Easterners, although living in some of the worlds hottest and sunniest places will go very pale if transplanted to be born in northern climes. Ergo many are 'naturally' pale skinned:


https://shalom.kiwi


Likewise vice versa for East Asians moving south, they can occupy both ends of the spectrum


www.aljazeera.com
While people of any background can suntan (well, except for gingers) with enough exposure, most differences in skin color come down to genetics. An easy way to see this is to look at Native Americans. When they migrated into the Americas from Siberia, many of the genes for very dark skin had already been purged from their gene pool - presumably because it wasn't adaptive so far north. Once they were purged, they couldn't easily re-evolve dark skin again. This makes sense, because its easier to break a gene for generating melanin through random mutation than it is for random mutation to fix it again. Regardless, there is not a tremendous difference in skin color between Native Americans who live in northern Canada and by the equator, despite the latter group getting just as much solar radiation as Africans.

So, the Yemeni you posted has black skin because he has different genes for pigmentation than most Middle Easterners. Similarly, really dark skinned Southeast Asians exist because before the expansion of agriculture from southern China, everyone in Southeast Asia pretty much looked "black."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 2:21 AM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is online now
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 6,661
sexual selection could also be at play in whitening certain races.

Quote:
Sexual selection has continued to be suggested as a possible explanation for geographical variation in appearance within the human species; in modern hypotheses, marriage practices are proposed as the main determinant of sexual selection. John Manning[42] suggests that where polygyny is common, men face intense competition for wives and are more likely to be completely unsuccessful in reproducing, and the result is strong selection of males for traits which are adaptive for successful reproduction. He proposes a link to skin color through selection of males for testosterone-mediated traits which confer an ability to successfully compete for females. He suggests testosterone makes the human immune system less competent to resist pathogens. In this view the antimicrobial properties of melanin help mitigate the susceptibility to disease that polygyny induces by increasing testosteronization. According to this argument, the anti-infective qualities of melanin were more important than protection from ultraviolet light in the evolution of the darkest skin types. Manning asserts that skin color is more correlated with the occurrence of polygyny – explicable by it having an antimicrobial function – than the latitudinal gradient in intensity of ultraviolet radiation, and he points to the lack of very dark skin at equatorial latitudes of the New World and the relatively light skin of Khoisan people in Africa.[42][43]

Research seems to contradict Manning's explanation about skin color. In 1978, NASA launched the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer, which was able to measure the ultraviolet radiation reaching Earth's surface. Jablonski and Chaplin took the spectrometer's global ultraviolet measurements and compared them with published data on skin color in indigenous populations from more than 50 countries. There was an unmistakable correlation: The weaker the ultraviolet light, the fairer the skin.[44] Rogers et al. (2004) performed an examination of the variation in MC1R nucleotide sequences for people of different ancestry and compared the sequences of chimpanzees and humans from various regions of the Earth. Rogers concluded that, at the time of the evolutionary separation of chimpanzees and humans, the common ancestors of all humans had light skin that was covered by dark hair. Additionally, our closest extant relative, the chimpanzee, has light skin covered by thick body hair.[45] Over time human hair disappeared to allow better heat dissipation through sweating[46] and the skin tone grew darker to increase the epidermal permeability barrier[47] and protect from folate depletion due to the increased exposure to sunlight.[48] When humans started to migrate away from the tropics, there was less-intense sunlight, partly due to clothing to protect against cold weather. Under these conditions there was less photodestruction of folate, and so the evolutionary pressure stopping lighter-skinned gene variants from surviving was reduced. In addition, lighter skin is able to generate more vitamin D (cholecalciferol) than darker skin, so it would have represented a health benefit in reduced sunlight if there were limited sources of vitamin D.[46] The genetic mutations leading to light skin may have experienced selective pressure due to the adoption of farming and settlement in northern latitudes.[49]

Anthropologist Peter Frost has proposed that sexual selection was responsible for the evolution of pigmentary traits of women in Northern and Eastern European populations. He contends that the diversity of hair and eye color in Northeast European populations originated as a consequence of intense female-female competition, and is an adaptation for reproductive success in women.[50][51]
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete

Last edited by dc_denizen; Nov 20, 2019 at 2:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 5:03 AM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danie View Post
What city is the oldest in the world ?
Fresno
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 5:15 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
>~< , QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: South Loop, Chicago
Posts: 1,471
It's got to be The Villages.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead. Trump delenda est.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 3:08 AM
dubu's Avatar
dubu dubu is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: bend oregon
Posts: 1,227
ive heard someone say a year ago that most likely atlantis will be coming back soon. i just came across the video and thought maybe im wrong that we will just be building smart cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 4:23 AM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 4,123
Looks like we got the proof right here:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 8:32 AM
muppet's Avatar
muppet muppet is offline
if I sang out of tune
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
While people of any background can suntan (well, except for gingers) with enough exposure, most differences in skin color come down to genetics. An easy way to see this is to look at Native Americans. When they migrated into the Americas from Siberia, many of the genes for very dark skin had already been purged from their gene pool - presumably because it wasn't adaptive so far north. Once they were purged, they couldn't easily re-evolve dark skin again. This makes sense, because its easier to break a gene for generating melanin through random mutation than it is for random mutation to fix it again. Regardless, there is not a tremendous difference in skin color between Native Americans who live in northern Canada and by the equator, despite the latter group getting just as much solar radiation as Africans.

So, the Yemeni you posted has black skin because he has different genes for pigmentation than most Middle Easterners. Similarly, really dark skinned Southeast Asians exist because before the expansion of agriculture from southern China, everyone in Southeast Asia pretty much looked "black."
Not necessarily, my skin goes from pale flesh coloured that's the norm most of the time, to the usual summer tan, to one shade off proper chocolate brown if I don't do any protection (I only discovered this when I lived in Egypt during its summer 20 years ago and came back to find myself darker than my Bangladeshi mate), and is always something my workmates find ker-azee that I can change so much. With my cap on that year I occasionally got mistaken for Black, but as you mentioned this is probably because of my genes from a tropical part of China, complete with jungles, tribes, elephants and coral reefs. I'm basically from the same place as the dark skinned dude on the boat, a sea gipsy. However that was the last year before I started to burn under the sun - never had an issue before - probably after prolonged exposure to colder climes and diet.

this my 'normal' summer tan, which usually comes on very fast after a few days and is what I reckon is my natural skin tone: khaki. In the past it could get waaay darker.



But now I have increasingly pale skin, not far off my Polish friend, and have started to get sun sensitivity and damage to boot (freckles and moles on the side of my face), As of 2011 I started to get bright pink sunburn and peeling skin if straying in the sun too long, had no idea it could be so painful and itchy.




The native Americans are different in skin tone, from the white of the Inuit (although they tan from the ice glare) to the red/ auburn tones further south. Even on the same latitude - cross from say Yakutia in northern Siberia/ Inuits in the Arctic to Chukotka or the Athapascans next door, and skin tone can be just as varied.


traditionaly pale Inuits and dark skinned Athapaskan



pale Yakuts and darker Chukots


https://www.quora.com/Who-are-Yakuts, http://siberiantimes.com

Basically some people are genetically darker as you mention, and some people who live in sunny places and are thought of as naturally dark can be just a 'tan' - though one can argue vice versa. Then there are those who I reckon develop sun sensitivity, 'genetically' changing after prolonged exposure to a changed climate and diet, like me I reckon. And there's sexual selection - with those who favoured lighter skinned people to have kids with, traditionally a sign both in the southern (such as the 'red' and 'yellow' women of African beauty lore well before conact with the West) and in the northern societies (the 'English rose' or 'porcelain beauty' within Europe/ Asia) of people who don't have to work the fields all day, becoming a sign of class and thus beauty ideal (though that's been upturned since the 1950s as a 'healthy' tan indicated you were rich and could afford to fly off on holidays, and nowadays are an outdoorsy, sociable, sporty health guru whose mixed race kids will be assumed as 'beautiful' and have stronger DNA). It's a mix of all of them. They think the original Africans had the same reddish skin tones, as seen in their closest DNA relatives, the San/ Bushmen.


Aztecs


www.mexicolore.co.uk

San Bushmen (the closest fit to prehistoric Homo Sapiens DNA - a mix of all races, and our original template. Even though they live under the desert sun as one of the last remaining hunter-gatherer societies, their skin often does not go as dark as their African Namibian counterparts)


https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/129830401734102076/


compared to other parts of Africa, who like the rest of the world, diversified into what we call the major races today. Alot of people misconstrue the idea that when we came from Africa we looked like how Africans look today, and that they're our original ancestors.


https://face2faceafrica.com/article/...er-skin-colour


All they can agree on is that it seems our skin tones diversified around the start of farming (and restriction of diet and intake of vitamin D, plus stronger sexual selection), not on our contact with varying sun levels - where dark skinned people lived in cold climates for tens of thousands of years previously.

Last edited by muppet; Nov 21, 2019 at 4:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 3:25 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
Looks like we got the proof right here:

Except permanent settlements go back much further than these.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 3:44 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
While people of any background can suntan (well, except for gingers) with enough exposure, most differences in skin color come down to genetics. An easy way to see this is to look at Native Americans. When they migrated into the Americas from Siberia, many of the genes for very dark skin had already been purged from their gene pool - presumably because it wasn't adaptive so far north. Once they were purged, they couldn't easily re-evolve dark skin again. This makes sense, because its easier to break a gene for generating melanin through random mutation than it is for random mutation to fix it again. Regardless, there is not a tremendous difference in skin color between Native Americans who live in northern Canada and by the equator, despite the latter group getting just as much solar radiation as Africans.

So, the Yemeni you posted has black skin because he has different genes for pigmentation than most Middle Easterners. Similarly, really dark skinned Southeast Asians exist because before the expansion of agriculture from southern China, everyone in Southeast Asia pretty much looked "black."
I don't think this is correct. Tanning is literally the reaction of the skin producing more melanin in reaction to sun rays. Some peoples skin just naturally produces more melanin, which is why there is skin color variation, but light skinned people can produce dark skinned children, and vice-versa.

Last edited by iheartthed; Nov 21, 2019 at 4:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 4:34 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 4,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
Except permanent settlements go back much further than these.
MAYBE... but nothing outside of the USA matters, right?!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 5:08 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
MAYBE... but nothing outside of the USA matters, right?!
Correct nothing does matter outside the us Stay mad nerd.

But I am referring to permanent settlements within the USA, that map only counts European colonial cities
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 5:27 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 4,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
Correct nothing does matter outside the us Stay mad nerd.

But I am referring to permanent settlements within the USA, that map only counts European colonial cities
Well yeah, but they're the ones settled by humans, not some wild savage tents and mud huts (which certainly don't count).





*fully joking for satirical effect
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 5:29 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is online now
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
Correct nothing does matter outside the us Stay mad nerd.

But I am referring to permanent settlements within the USA, that map only counts European colonial cities

Those are the oldest continually inhabited cities in the US. Could be wrong, but I don't think there were any pre-Colombian towns or cities north of Mexico that have been continuously settled.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 5:31 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
Those are the oldest continually inhabited cities in the US. Could be wrong, but I don't think there were any pre-Colombian towns or cities north of Mexico that have been continuously settled.
Manhattan?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 6:12 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
Those are the oldest continually inhabited cities in the US. Could be wrong, but I don't think there were any pre-Colombian towns or cities north of Mexico that have been continuously settled.
I think that would be a really lose definition of Continually, there are ruins all over the southwest within cities or very nearby that have been continually inhabited for centuries even millennia maybe not always in the exact settlement but close enough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 8:43 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is online now
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Manhattan?

I don't think the founding of New Amsterdam would represent a continuous line of habitation from where the Lenape villages of Manhattan Island left off. The history or New York as we know it really begins in 1624.

Likewise, many other cities of North America have the ruins of former indigenous settlements within their present-day borders (which in most cases were abandoned prior to the arrival of European settlers anyway; so not continuous). But those European colonial settlements were founded independently of whatever might have already existed in its surrounding area. This is a bit different from places like Mexico City or Cusco, where the process of colonization moreso took the form of the existing cities changing hands to new rulers - thus we can still say that today's Mexico City was founded as Tenochtitlan in 1325.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:35 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.