possible origin of Caucasians

[Wolfstrike]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Tiras was, according to Genesis 10 and Chronicles 1, the last-named son of Japheth who is otherwise unmentioned in the Hebrew Bible. According to the Book of Jubilees, the inheritance of Tiras consisted of four large islands in the ocean.

Josephus wrote that Tiras became ancestor of the "Thirasians" (Thracians) — a "flame-haired" (red or blond haired) people according to Xenophanes. Tiras or Tyras in antiquity was also the name of the Dniester river, and of a Greek colony situated near its mouth; the native inhabitants of the surrounding region Tyragetae. The Getae were one of the major components of the Thracians (Herodotus 4.93, 5.3), who the Greeks held to descend from the eponymous Thrax.

Some, including Noah Webster, have suggested that Tiras was worshiped by his descendants as Thor, the god of thunder, equating both these forms with the Θουρος (Thouros) mentioned by Homer as the "Ares (Mars) of the Thracians". The Icelandic saga Prose Edda names Thor (or Tror) as a fair-haired chieftain ancestral to the Germanic peoples, and a king of Thrace.

In 1838, the German scholar Johann Christian Friedrich Tuch[1] suggested identifying Tiras with the Etruscans — who, according to Greek and Roman sources such as Herodotus (I, 94), had been living in Lydia as the Tyrsenoi before emigrating to Italy as early as the 8th century BC. Some scholars have additionally connected both Tiras and the Etruscans with Troas (Troy), as well as with the contingent of Sea Peoples known to New Kingdom of Egypt as the "Tursha" (Ramesses III inscription) or "Teresh of the Sea" (Merneptah Stele).[2][3]

According to tractate Yoma, in the Talmud, Tiras is the ancestor of Persia.

The medieval rabbinic text Book of Jasher (7:9) records the sons of Tiras as Benib, Gera, Lupirion, and Gilak, and in 10:14, it asserts that Rushash, Cushni, and Ongolis are among his descendants. An earlier (950 AD) rabbinic compilation, the Yosippon, similarly claims Tiras' descendants to be the Rossi of Kiv, i.e. Kievan Rus, listing them together with his brother Meshech's supposed descendants as "the Rossi; the Saqsni and the Iglesusi".

Another mediaeval Hebrew compilation, the Chronicles of Jerahmeel, aside from quoting Yosippon as above, also provides a separate tradition of Tiras' sons elsewhere, naming them as Maakh, Tabel, Bal’anah, Shampla, Meah, and Elash. This material was ultimately derived from Pseudo-Philo (ca. 75 AD), extant copies of which list Tiras' sons as Maac, Tabel, Ballana, Samplameac, and Elaz.

The Persian historian Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (c. 915) recounts a tradition that Tiras had a son named Batawil, whose daughters Qarnabil, Bakht, and Arsal became the wives of Cush, Put, and Canaan, respectively.

Movses Khorenatsi, 5th century Armenian historian, attributed the founder of Armenian nation, Hayk, to being a grandson of Tiras.

 

[SwimExpert]

 

[Asclepias]

My opinion has evolved to believe whites were a mixture of albinos and other light skinned outcasts. Then I saw this which basically confirms my theory.

Light skin colour in Europeans stems from ONE 10,000-year-old ancestor

 

[waltky]

I've often wondered if the different races...

... descended from different primates...

... on the evolutionary tree.

If color were the only differences between the races...

... then I would agree to the single primate ancestor...

... but since there are other differences such as facial structures.

For example, could the red-hair gene come from an ancestor...

... that was evolved from orangutans?

You don't see many blacks with naturally red hair...

... so maybe different evolutionary ancestors accounts for the differing races.

 

[Asclepias]

No. A lot of Black and African people I know have red to reddish brown hair as young kids and some never really loose it as adults. The research done in the Genome Project pretty much puts that theory to rest. While there have been contributions from other hominids there really is no such thing as different races. Just different genetic mutations. They know that all people descended from Black Africans. Most mixed with Neanderthals (europe and northern asia) and Denisovans (south asia and australia) outside of Africa. Some Black Africans mixed with other unknown hominids inside of Africa. The oldest known DNA in the human race is found in the area of Cameroon and from a Black guy in North Carolina I believe.

It was s. carolina.

Earliest African American Man Dated : DNews

 

[SwimExpert]

Every single one of you is a ******* moron. A species does evolve from multiple vectors. I don't think you all even know what constitutes a human species, which makes all your moronic talk somewhere between laughable and painful.

 

[Asclepias]

Every single one of you is a ******* moron. A species does evolve from multiple vectors. I don't think you all even know what constitutes a human species, which makes all your moronic talk somewhere between laughable and painful.

Homo Sapiens is the only human species and there is no doubt our DNA came from Africa. That doesnt mean other human like creatures didnt exist. That just means those homonids didnt pass on their DNA and their pure lines died out just like the neanderthals

 

[SwimExpert]

Homo Sapiens is the only human species

The only extant human species.

and there is no doubt our DNA came from Africa.

Would you care to time stamp that? Because there's also no doubt that our DNA came from the oceans.

That doesnt mean other human like creatures didnt exist. That just means those homonids didnt pass on their DNA and their pure lines died out just like the neanderthals

Here's a pro tip for you: Neanderthals were human.

You may blow your mind now.

 

[Ravi]

Northern hemisphere dwellers bleached from lack of sun.

 

[SwimExpert]

Northern hemisphere dwellers bleached from lack of sun.

More or less, though "bleaching" sort of implies the mechanism was a development of something new; it's probably more appropriate to say that humans "faded" when reduced exposure of solar radiation rendered darker skin no longer necessary. There has been research that suggests that the transition from dark to fair skin (or vice versa) takes about 20,000 years, assuming that a population remains generally non-migratory after an initial migration into an appropriate environment. But a fact that many people don't realize is that dark skin color developed post hairlessness. The earliest human species were fair skinned and developed darker skin as a result of their environment.

 

[Asclepias]

Homo Sapiens is the only human species

The only extant human species.

and there is no doubt our DNA came from Africa.

Would you care to time stamp that? Because there's also no doubt that our DNA came from the oceans.

That doesnt mean other human like creatures didnt exist. That just means those homonids didnt pass on their DNA and their pure lines died out just like the neanderthals

Here's a pro tip for you: Neanderthals were human.

You may blow your mind now.

Homo Sapiens is the only human species still existing yes.

Why would I need to timestamp it when the scientific community can only guestimate?

 

[Asclepias]

Northern hemisphere dwellers bleached from lack of sun.

I posted a link earlier that shows the gene for light skin developed in humans about 10k years ago in the area of India and spread to europe about 7K years ago.. Before that everyone was Black all over the world..

 

[Asclepias]

Northern hemisphere dwellers bleached from lack of sun.

More or less, though "bleaching" sort of implies the mechanism was a development of something new; it's probably more appropriate to say that humans "faded" when reduced exposure of solar radiation rendered darker skin no longer necessary. There has been research that suggests that the transition from dark to fair skin (or vice versa) takes about 20,000 years, assuming that a population remains generally non-migratory after an initial migration into an appropriate environment. But a fact that many people don't realize is that dark skin color developed post hairlessness. The earliest human species were fair skinned and developed darker skin as a result of their environment.

There is nothing to support the theory of fading. As I said above the gene for light skin was a mutation that occurred around 10k years ago. Black/melinated skin developed long before our ancestors became homo sapiens/human. This was to protect against skin cancer and was a extremely early development in our evolution.

 

[Agit8r]

Tundra fever:

Archaic human admixture with modern humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SwimExpert]

There is nothing to support the theory of fading.

Except, ya know, the fact that it's true. The real problem here is that you're an ignorant moron, poorly educated on a subject you're trying to champion through the annals of pop-science.

The earliest humans had fair skin. Dark skin developed in response to environmental factors. When humans migrated to different environments, those populations became fair skinned again. I really don't know why you are being so pig headed and refusing to accept this, other than the fact that you clearly are trying to push a tangential agenda while having a corrupted perception of various principles.

As I said above the gene for light skin was a mutation that occurred around 10k years ago.

Let's get one thing straight: Your link is nothing more than an interesting tidbit to ponder for a moment. Beyond that, it's worthless pop-science. It doesn't even come close actually demonstrating any definitive. The true science is nowhere near what the article attempts to paint. Problem the first is the fact that article outright assumes an Out-of-Africa hypothesis. There's nothing that can justify that assumption, and in fact that assumption masks the alternate possibility that the gene always present and its absence was the mutation. To make things even worse, you are now here trying to use that assumed hypothesis as evidence to support that same hypothesis.

Black/melinated skin developed long before our ancestors became homo sapiens/human. This was to protect against skin cancer and was a extremely early development in our evolution.

Yes. So what? I'm sure you're going to continue your back pedaling try to brush off the fact that our species is only one of many human species. But you're still an idiot.

 

[Asclepias]

There is nothing to support the theory of fading.

Except, ya know, the fact that it's true. The real problem here is that you're an ignorant moron, poorly educated on a subject you're trying to champion through the annals of pop-science.

The earliest humans had fair skin. Dark skin developed in response to environmental factors. When humans migrated to different environments, those populations became fair skinned again. I really don't know why you are being so pig headed and refusing to accept this, other than the fact that you clearly are trying to push a tangential agenda while having a corrupted perception of various principles.

As I said above the gene for light skin was a mutation that occurred around 10k years ago.

Let's get one thing straight: Your link is nothing more than an interesting tidbit to ponder for a moment. Beyond that, it's worthless pop-science. It doesn't even come close actually demonstrating any definitive. The true science is nowhere near what the article attempts to paint. Problem the first is the fact that article outright assumes an Out-of-Africa hypothesis. There's nothing that can justify that assumption, and in fact that assumption masks the alternate possibility that the gene always present and its absence was the mutation. To make things even worse, you are now here trying to use that assumed hypothesis as evidence to support that same hypothesis.

Black/melinated skin developed long before our ancestors became homo sapiens/human. This was to protect against skin cancer and was a extremely early development in our evolution.

Yes. So what? I'm sure you're going to continue your back pedaling try to brush off the fact that our species is only one of many human species. But you're still an idiot.

Your opinion is not fact. If that was true then you should have no issue showing me the supporting evidence. I have evidence homo sapiens begin with Black skin. No need to get emotional. It shows that your logic is compromised due to your emotional attachment to the belief that white people were here first which is laughable but shows the level of ignorance.

There is no way you can get anything straight until you leave your emotions behind. Now you try and discredit science but still offer nothing whatsoever to prove your point. If its pop science as you claim I will need you to prove this. I know you cant but it should be fun watching you try. I know its alarming and causing you much trepidation to ponder such a fact. If you were a true scholar you would remain objective but I see you are only invested in trying to prove a point.

One doesnt have to assume an out of Africa theory. The Genome Project has proven it beyond a shadow of doubt.

I see in your last sentence you finally accept the fact that Black skin developed long before homo sapiens appeared. How can I brush off or back off the fact that our species is only one of the homo genus? My first sentence admits this. Youre flailing around using a logical fallacy to deflect from the fact you didnt know what you were talking about regarding skin color.

 

[Asclepias]

Tundra fever:

Archaic human admixture with modern humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think I read this paper a couple years ago. It suggest that Asians were here first and then whites were a subgroup that developed from them.

 

[SwimExpert]

Your opinion is not fact.

You're making excuses for your own ignorance being slapped down by someone who is actually informed on the matter. All you've done is spout some trite opinions of your own and are now trying to claim them as facts.

If that was true then you should have no issue showing me the supporting evidence. I have evidence homo sapiens begin with Black skin.

The problem here is that your ignorance confines you to such a small and narrow work space, you just can't get anything through your head. And that is why you're a god damned moron on this. You're no better than some creationist idiot.

No need to get emotional. It shows that your logic is compromised due to your emotional attachment to the belief that white people were here first which is laughable but shows the level of ignorance. There is no way you can get anything straight until you leave your emotions behind.

You've been slapped down with facts so now you're only recourse is to attempt to discredit me with this nonsense. It takes no emotion to call you out as a ******* idiot when you are in fact being a ******* idiot. It's just the facts.

Now you try and discredit science but still offer nothing whatsoever to prove your point.

What the? Dude, you're the one who is lacking in the science department. You're operating on a 7th grade level of knowledge and comprehension and you're stubbornly insisting that you should be some kind of expert. You don't know enough. Your knowledge is very limited. You are abandoning science in favor of your own ego which wants to believe your knowledge is substantial.

If its pop science as you claim I will need you to prove this.

It's the ******* Daily Mail. Enough said.

If you were a true scholar you would remain objective but I see you are only invested in trying to prove a point.

Says the one who can't see past his own nose!! Your projection is amazing. I'd be impressed at its strength, if it weren't so pathetic.

One doesnt have to assume an out of Africa theory. The Genome Project has proven it beyond a shadow of doubt.

*facepalm*

Wow. That you believe that demonstrates your fantastic ignorance.

1 - I don't think you even comprehend what the Out-of-Africa hypothesis actually means in the first place.

2 - It would be impossible for the Human Genome Project to have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the Out-of-Africa hypothesis. The project sequenced the human genome. That is the end of it.

3 - The common school of thought most recently is that, in fact, Homo sapiens

I see in your last sentence you finally accept the fact that Black skin developed long before homo sapiens appeared. How can I brush off or back off the fact that our species is only one of the homo genus? My first sentence admits this. Youre flailing around using a logical fallacy to deflect from the fact you didnt know what you were talking about regarding skin color.

Once again you show how little you know, how narrow your perspective is, and how dumbed down your information is. There is more to human skin complexion than black or white. Melanin comes in many shades and quantities. Humans developed melanin before our own species. That does not mean that they were black. There are some scientists who subscribe to the Out-of-Africa theory but believe that our species arose in northern Africa. We have no the skin color of the earliest Homo sapiens. We can only speculate. For all we know, they were from the Egypt region, which would make it most likely that they were not dark skinned.

 

[SwimExpert]

Tundra fever:

Archaic human admixture with modern humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think I read this paper a couple years ago. It suggest that Asians were here first and then whites were a subgroup that developed from them.

No, you moron. The admixture theory suggests that post-migratory human populations may have interbred with Neanderthals. It's also hypothesized that the commonalities between modern Eurasian DNA and Neanderthal DNA could be explained due to migration from Africa early enough that would be consistent with a certain degree of multi-regional evolution of Homo sapiens. Certain alleles could have been retained as common in migrating late Homo erectus but became less common (possibly eliminated) among African populations. Subsequently, early Homo sapiens populations from outside of Africa would naturally have a higher rate of alleles in common with Neanderthals.

 

[Asclepias]

Your opinion is not fact.

You're making excuses for your own ignorance being slapped down by someone who is actually informed on the matter. All you've done is spout some trite opinions of your own and are now trying to claim them as facts.

If that was true then you should have no issue showing me the supporting evidence. I have evidence homo sapiens begin with Black skin.

The problem here is that your ignorance confines you to such a small and narrow work space, you just can't get anything through your head. And that is why you're a god damned moron on this. You're no better than some creationist idiot.

No need to get emotional. It shows that your logic is compromised due to your emotional attachment to the belief that white people were here first which is laughable but shows the level of ignorance. There is no way you can get anything straight until you leave your emotions behind.

You've been slapped down with facts so now you're only recourse is to attempt to discredit me with this nonsense. It takes no emotion to call you out as a ******* idiot when you are in fact being a ******* idiot. It's just the facts.

Now you try and discredit science but still offer nothing whatsoever to prove your point.

What the? Dude, you're the one who is lacking in the science department. You're operating on a 7th grade level of knowledge and comprehension and you're stubbornly insisting that you should be some kind of expert. You don't know enough. Your knowledge is very limited. You are abandoning science in favor of your own ego which wants to believe your knowledge is substantial.

If its pop science as you claim I will need you to prove this.

It's the ******* Daily Mail. Enough said.

If you were a true scholar you would remain objective but I see you are only invested in trying to prove a point.

Says the one who can't see past his own nose!! Your projection is amazing. I'd be impressed at its strength, if it weren't so pathetic.

One doesnt have to assume an out of Africa theory. The Genome Project has proven it beyond a shadow of doubt.

*facepalm*

Wow. That you believe that demonstrates your fantastic ignorance.

1 - I don't think you even comprehend what the Out-of-Africa hypothesis actually means in the first place.

2 - It would be impossible for the Human Genome Project to have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the Out-of-Africa hypothesis. The project sequenced the human genome. That is the end of it.

3 - The common school of thought most recently is that, in fact, Homo sapiens

I see in your last sentence you finally accept the fact that Black skin developed long before homo sapiens appeared. How can I brush off or back off the fact that our species is only one of the homo genus? My first sentence admits this. Youre flailing around using a logical fallacy to deflect from the fact you didnt know what you were talking about regarding skin color.

Once again you show how little you know, how narrow your perspective is, and how dumbed down your information is. There is more to human skin complexion than black or white. Melanin comes in many shades and quantities. Humans developed melanin before our own species. That does not mean that they were black. There are some scientists who subscribe to the Out-of-Africa theory but believe that our species arose in northern Africa. We have no the skin color of the earliest Homo sapiens. We can only speculate. For all we know, they were from the Egypt region, which would make it most likely that they were not dark skinned.

Just as I knew. You have no evidence and no links so you resort to name calling to hide your ignorance and lack of evidence. I will allow it.