Why is the white race so different?
" Why is the White Race so Different " ? The white race isn't any different . People of every race in mankind bleed red, we all have to take a pee and a shit. We all have to eat food and drink water to survive. And we all need to sleep. And there are good and bad in every race of people. I think that about covers it. Peace out, Mr. Flipper
May be it is not about race , but about climate, The white north, snow country. Makes you thrifty, strive and thrive. It also makes melanin redundant, a liability.
the Texas answer bsw. The junior geniuses: not white. (East Indian/Chinese I believe).
remember that in bygone times parents made selections as well - by marrying their cousins and by choosing which baby to keep. on top of that the climate generated selections too
The white isn't very different and the reason the white race is white is only because of vitamin D deficiency. The humbolt current made Europe lack sunlight and poor Europeans didn't eat much meat. This resulted in a vitamin D deficiency with the only option to evolve with less melanin thus whiter skin and less melanin in the eyes. An increase of eye melanin gives green eyes to hazel eyes etc.
Athletically the black peoples have advantages in many sports while Asians are the least Athletic the whites are in the middle. Thats just my opinion could be wrong.
IQ tests find white Asians the smartest whites are second while blacks rate the worst. These are averages and many whites and blacks can be smarter than Asians.
White mans poo is by far the smelliest.
Ok my questions were never intended to be racist, I was just wondering if they mated let's say with Cro-Magnon man or Heidelberg man and that's why the differences. The Bask people of Spain and another group in north Western Africa are light skinned can have blonde hair and blue eyes. Both groups have a higher rate of RH negetive blood then any other group in the world. Again could this group have mated with some pre human species that maybe most other humans did not.
I think the problem is that you assume all white people are one race. There is no one white race. There are several white races. There are also several black races. You have a very simplistic view of race based purely on skin color. The Italians are a different race from the scandinavians but they both have white skin. A race is nothing more than a very large family with persons sharing a few common genetic traits that give them common phenotypical characteristics. These large family groups with common traits arose because of populations being isolated resulting in the same genes recurring over and over and becoming very common within the group. The less isolated a group is, the greater diversity will exist within it. If there is greater diversity among people of the white races it could be due to the fact that there has been a lot of wars of conquest and migration among people in the northern hemisphere in the relatively recent pass resulting in a lot more mixing in the gene pool of the white races. But there is also a lot of diversity among other races too but maybe your eyes are not trained to notice it because you don't interact with people of other races quite as much as you interact with people of white races.
What I'm saying is the white race is the only one that has a verity of eye and hair colors , so what gives?
What gives is that you have made an incorrect assumption. The Earth is filled with variety and here's an example that, while it may seem rare to you, it truly is not:
Unfortunately, we have been bombarded with the images of what Hollywood and other media project for us. The reality is that all over the world, there is a great variety of not only traits in hair, eye color and skin color but also other no-so-noticeable qualities. Here's an article I wrote on the subject. of blue eyes. I apologize if some of the links are broken:
Blue eyes or having what appear to be blue-colored eyes is considered a relatively new mutation in evolutionary terms, between 5,000 and 7,000 years. Remarkably only 8% of the world’s population has “blue” eyes. It is caused by a mutation within the HERC2 gene along with the OCA2 gene, both located in chromosome 15. http://www.examiner.com/…/daily-thought-blue-eyes-and-other…
The OCA2 gene, when it’s mutated, is responsible for “pink eye”, associated with albinism. But, it is a specific mutation in the HERC2 gene which allows for the manifestation of the OCA2 gene to present “blue” eyes. There is no blue in “blue” eyes. It is simply an absence of melanin, which is responsible for skin, hair and eye color pigmentation. “Green” eyes and “grey” eyes involve another genetic region. The absence of melanin in the eyes is characterized in children of European descent. Many have “light” colored eyes when born but develop melanin after the age of one and their eyes turn brown.
More remarkable is that there is no such thing as “black” eyes, only very dark brown. It stands to reason because it just means that very dark eyes (my personal favorites) have a higher concentration of melanin. The "blue eye" mutation has survived better in certain races due to successful progeny. But it happens everywhere nonetheless.
I noticed that the mutation may have occurred between 7 to 10 thousand years ago, according to another source. It's really hard to say when it happened or even to geographically place the mutation accurately. The article in “Daily Thought” states: "The gene mutation is not specific to White's or Black's but is actually found in many tribes of Africa as well as numerous other world populations where deep, darkened skin humans are born with blue eyes."
Due to that article, I would not specifically associate the mutation with any particular race – perhaps its proliferation – but not any particular racial origin. I noticed years ago that popular culture associated Scandinavian people as being blonde and blue-eyed. But I've heard from many natives that this just isn't so.
In a sense, any eye color difference is a variant of brown eyes simply because "brown" appears to be dominant (with various degrees of melanin content). In the case of blue, the mutation takes away melanin. In other colors, it appears there's a collection of other pigments. For example, Amber eyes have deposits of Lipochrome, a yellow pigment. Grey eyes have deposits of collagen, which reflects the light in such a way that they appear grey.
Of course, the present day distribution of the mutation shows its association with certain groups or races and their genetic proliferation. But I'm not sure that speaks to its original inception (and how it propagated) or its rate of occurrence in less genetically successful races or groups.
The obscurity of the mutation regarding who had it, when and where is difficult to unravel. Really, it could have happened anywhere, although there's no evidence that earlier hominids had it because it involves different genetic mechanisms in other animals or species than in humans.
I do think however, that there is a "given" predilection among humans for their own or similar set of genes. So, whites tend to marry whites and Asians tend to marry Asians. However, leave it to Nature to always introduce variations and so you will have people who seek out differences. That's why there will always be inter-racial partnering in a biological sense.
Some suggest that this is an evolutionary mechanism to introduce diversity into the gene pool. There's indication that mixing races can actually protect against some diseases by offsetting genetic errors with another non-mutated parental chromosome.
In my opinion it is better to have more melanin that less. So, if you've got more and live in a cold climate, it doesn't seem to hurt either way. I guess that sub-Saharan people of dark color are well protected. They are not as prone to skin cancer (Melanoma) as much as whites living in the same climate. But, that's pure conjecture on my part.
There have been many other similar mutations throughout time and people have tolerated them. I've heard of only one place where being an albino is frowned upon, even though they are not completely outcast. On the other hand, superstition might have elevated the bearer to a unique status.
I was confused about one thing: My understanding is that darker colors absorb more light (energy) and light colors tend to reflect light. So, wouldn't the darker individuals have more exposure than light skinned individuals? And, wouldn't light skinned individuals reflect out more light out of less available light in the northern countries? But, it seems that melanin, while absorbing more energy also protects cells and lowers the production of vitamin D. So, dark skinned people need more sunlight to compensate.
I found this in Wikipedia: "With humans, exposure to sunlight stimulates the skin to produce vitamin D. Because high levels of cutaneous melanin act as a natural sun screen, dark skin can be a risk factor for vitamin D deficiency in regions of the Earth known as cool temperate zones, i.e., above 36 degrees latitude in the Northern hemisphere and below 36 degrees in the Southern hemisphere. As a result of this, health authorities in Canada and the USA have issued recommendations for people with darker complexions (including people of southern European descent) to consume between 1000-2000 IU (International Units) of vitamin D, daily, autumn through spring." So, the northern exposures and fair skinned people appear to be suited for one another. I send a warm hello to my ocular-melanin-less friends.Etude.
I suppose 3,781 years ago, admirers of Nimrod were wondering the same.
"Why are we Black people so different? Just look at what we have accomplished! Why, our civilization has conquered the world. Now, let's take a shot at Heaven!"
According to the Bible, our troubles began in a Garden, then later, on an Ark.