Dec 4, 2023 06:43 PM
(This post was last modified: Dec 4, 2023 07:57 PM by C C.)
DNA-researcher: It’s not 'woke' to portray prehistoric Europeans with dark skin. It’s evolution.
https://www.sciencenordic.com/archaeolog...on/2273715
EXCERPT: . . . So, why did people in prehistoric Europe look so different from northern Europeans today?
The answer to this question lies in a complex interplay between our genes, our changing diets, population movements, and the environment.
It has been theorised for some time that lighter skin emerged as an adaptive trait to light poor environments as it allows you to absorb sunlight more effectively, which is essential for the production of vitamin D.
However, it was unclear when this happened.
Early studies suggested that we first may have evolved lighter skin as our ancestors moved out of Africa and into Europe c. 50,000 years ago, but we now believe that this happened much later in European prehistory.
In fact, there is evidence that lighter skin only evolved within the last 5,000 years or so, as a result of genetic admixture from Neolithic farming populations (who carried the skin-lightening variant) and strong selection favouring lighter skin.
In addition, it looks like our changing diets also played a part.
During most of European prehistory people relied on wild resources like nuts, game, and fish that are all rich in vitamin D, which is essential to our health.
That changed dramatically during the Neolithic when people started to rely on a farmer’s diet that was rich in carbohydrates, but poor in vitamin D.
Interestingly, this is exactly the period when we see lighter skin tones evolve in western Europe and we think that the lack of vitamin D in the diet may have increased the selection pressures favouring lighter skin.
All in all, there is solid evidence to suggest that lighter skin tones only evolved in Europe within the last 5,000 years or so, and that people who lived in Europe before then typically had darker skin.
It is not that surprising, then, that Lola had darker skin. It simply reflects the fact that she lived at a time when Europeans had not yet evolved their lighter skin... (MORE - missing details)
- - - - - - - -
Cynic's Corner: Probably the case with respect to the "recent" range of only 5,000 years (it was once depicted as longer ago than that). But in an era of decolonization of knowledge and where researchers get rewarded for interpreting data to accommodate the ideological policies of their science publishers, institute administrators, and industrial employers... And when science journals and magazines like Nature and Scientific American openly print opinion pieces about how science is political and always has been (to justify smuggling in the preferences of humanities culture)... Then you should never invest more than 60% confidence in biological and medical declarations crossing into the soft sciences and human-related disciplines.
https://www.sciencenordic.com/archaeolog...on/2273715
EXCERPT: . . . So, why did people in prehistoric Europe look so different from northern Europeans today?
The answer to this question lies in a complex interplay between our genes, our changing diets, population movements, and the environment.
It has been theorised for some time that lighter skin emerged as an adaptive trait to light poor environments as it allows you to absorb sunlight more effectively, which is essential for the production of vitamin D.
However, it was unclear when this happened.
Early studies suggested that we first may have evolved lighter skin as our ancestors moved out of Africa and into Europe c. 50,000 years ago, but we now believe that this happened much later in European prehistory.
In fact, there is evidence that lighter skin only evolved within the last 5,000 years or so, as a result of genetic admixture from Neolithic farming populations (who carried the skin-lightening variant) and strong selection favouring lighter skin.
In addition, it looks like our changing diets also played a part.
During most of European prehistory people relied on wild resources like nuts, game, and fish that are all rich in vitamin D, which is essential to our health.
That changed dramatically during the Neolithic when people started to rely on a farmer’s diet that was rich in carbohydrates, but poor in vitamin D.
Interestingly, this is exactly the period when we see lighter skin tones evolve in western Europe and we think that the lack of vitamin D in the diet may have increased the selection pressures favouring lighter skin.
All in all, there is solid evidence to suggest that lighter skin tones only evolved in Europe within the last 5,000 years or so, and that people who lived in Europe before then typically had darker skin.
It is not that surprising, then, that Lola had darker skin. It simply reflects the fact that she lived at a time when Europeans had not yet evolved their lighter skin... (MORE - missing details)
- - - - - - - -
Cynic's Corner: Probably the case with respect to the "recent" range of only 5,000 years (it was once depicted as longer ago than that). But in an era of decolonization of knowledge and where researchers get rewarded for interpreting data to accommodate the ideological policies of their science publishers, institute administrators, and industrial employers... And when science journals and magazines like Nature and Scientific American openly print opinion pieces about how science is political and always has been (to justify smuggling in the preferences of humanities culture)... Then you should never invest more than 60% confidence in biological and medical declarations crossing into the soft sciences and human-related disciplines.
