6 Answers

  1. I will add to the answers that, regardless of whether these people were light-skinned or dark-skinned, they were not Europeans or Negroes in the modern sense of the word. Today's races were formed much later, and those people were likely to have a different genetic diversity than modern races.

  2. The Cro-Magnons who came out of Africa were, of course, black-as they should be. And, as far as can be judged now, quite similar to some groups of modern Negroids. But between the time of leaving Africa and getting to Europe, they managed to brighten up a little, although the skin remained quite dark.

    Neanderthals, who had lived in Europe for hundreds of thousands of years, had light skin. As far as can be judged-depending on the specific place of residence, from slightly dark to almost milky-white (there is no analogue for modern people). After mixing with Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons received the light-skinned gene from them, and it quickly prevailed, since natural selection in low-light conditions clearly favored light-skinned people.

    Denisovans, the inhabitants of ancient Asia, were dark-skinned and dark-haired (but still much lighter than yesterday's Africans). Much the same thing happened there, plus later Neanderthals mixed in.

  3. No one knows for sure right now. Scientists are able to extract DNA from fairly old corpses, but they are not yet able (and will hardly learn in our lifetime) to understand what kind of organism could howl encoded with this DNA. All the properties of an organism are encoded by many genes, and often one gene sets one thing, and another gene blocks it and sets another. Probably evolving in solar latitudes, H. People with darker skin were less likely to have some problems from the sun, and we can assume that it is very likely that their skin was dark. But there is no scientific evidence yet.

    Skin / hair / eye shades depend on the number and distribution of melanin pigments. Color has become a highly politicized aspect in physical anthropology. Earlier in 2018, British scientists published an article (very politically correct and anti-racist), where they analyzed the DNA of a person who lived about 10 thousand years ago, claiming that he had dark skin (popular about her: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42939192 ). �But it soon turned out (link https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5453665/Was-Cheddar-man-white-all.html ), that it was what is called “bad science”.

    Here, for example, is a well-reasoned article (https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(17)30379-8 in English) states that the genes responsible for light skin color in Europeans and Asians may have been inherited from Neanderthals who evolved in less sunny latitudes.. And this popular article https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin утверждает claims that no, light skin appeared later. There is no consensus, and for fear of offending someone, many serious researchers avoid this slippery topic.

  4. Perhaps the Cro-Magnons who came from Africa were more like the Capoids who now live in southern Africa. It is believed that the Khoisan languages are the most archaic and close to the ancient proto-proto language.

  5. I was asked to answer a question and here's what I'll say. Homo Sapiens, which originated 150-100 thousand years ago and left Africa about 100-90 thousand years ago, was most likely dark-skinned. But this did not mean that he was an “equatorial race” (the word “negroid” is practically no longer used in relation to first-order races in world science). In general, skin pigmentation is not a defining racial trait. They live in India and Bangladesh …black Caucasians (people with olive skin color and with a Caucasian structure of the skeleton, skull, etc.). The Mongoloid (Oriental) race generally has two colors-bronze-red (inhabitants of the indigenous peoples of North and South America) and yellow (Chinese, Japanese, etc.). Human races were formed later, about 70-40 thousand years ago and after the settlement of people, their formation is most likely caused by climatic and geographical conditions. It should be noted here that these races actually differ in less than 1% of the human genome and, contrary to some common opinion among ordinary people, are not subspecies! Homo Sapiens is a completely homogenous species, and the races are its genetic variations. In case anyone doesn't know, the difference between subspecies and races is that genetically distant subspecies can produce non-viable offspring or, if crossed, be sterile (not reproduce at all). In the case of humans, this is not the case. Relatively speaking, any man on Earth can have sexual contact with any woman, they can both belong to completely different races and even live in racially isolated populations (and even in different parts of the planet Earth) – while their sexual contact can lead to conception and birth, moreover, their offspring will be completely full-fledged (and even more resistant to diseases, etc. worse things than “racially pure” offspring). Therefore, the so-called “racism” is not just unscientific, it is also nonsense. From the point of view of racists, the more racially isolated races are from each other – the supposedly healthier offspring they have. From the scientific point of view, on the contrary, it is precisely interracial sexual contacts that produce strong, healthy people.

  6. They were white. Since all changes in our species are associated with the habitat. If a Negro lives in Yakutia for ten thousand years, he will turn white and his eyes will narrow.

    Dark skin color is a genetic protection from the sun in the place of its habitat.

    Even calluses on the hands are formed from contact with the environment. Actually, this is evolution – variability in contact with the environment and the consolidation of traits.

Leave a Reply

Categories