British Have Changed Little Since Ice Age

[Drooperdoo]

Berter,
In Spain, a national trait--ugly though it may be--is black hair on the head . . . and then when the beard grows in it grows in red. Pablo Picasso had that embarrassing two-tone hair. Imagine how strange--such a dark man with pitch-black hair--and an incongruously red beard.
As I said, it's very common in Spain--sadly.
Recently, in reading up on Phoenicians in Spain, one website [that I'm looking for again now] contained a quotation from the Roman period. The Galicians in Northern Spain fought the Romans on the side of the Phoenicians. The quote from a Roman historian went: "Beware those short, redheaded Galicians--they know no fear."
Galicia is in Northern Spain, right next to the Basque country.
The Galicians are called the Celts of Spain--their name derives from "Gaul," they play Celtic drums and use bagpipes, and their original pre-Roman language is considered a form of proto-Celtic.
So who knows how red hair got to the Atlantic coast of Europe. The only thing for sure is that it is far older than later Indo-European invasions and that all the people who carry it [from Spain to Ireland] have so-called "Basque Y-chromosomes".

P.S.--Statements that "Neanderthalers" were taller than modern man are somewhat deceptive. Average Neanderthal height was 5'9'', while average modern human height is 5'8''. [If you factor out Asians, human height goes up an inch or so.] So Europeans and Neanderthalers weren't that much different--height-wise.

P.P.S.--Some of the first people to examine Neanderthal skulls said that they reminded them of Basque skulls. Look at this crazy link called "How the Neanderthals Became Basques". www.aoi.com.au/bcw/neanderbasque.htm

[Crimson Guard]

Why would I embrace the very creatures I hunted down and slaughtered ...all that mattered to me was the howls of Lust and Fury! HA!

[iberomaurusian]

drooperdoo said:

Berter,
In Spain, a national trait--ugly though it may be--is black hair on the head . . . and then when the beard grows in it grows in red. Pablo Picasso had that embarrassing two-tone hair. Imagine how strange--such a dark man with pitch-black hair--and an incongruously red beard.

One of my aunts have two sons with that trait (black head hair and red beards). Why its ugly!?
Btw, thanks for the info!

[Drooperdoo]

Crimson,
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

[iberomaurusian]

1) Neandertal

2) Picasso

[Drooperdoo]

Berter,
[Laughter] That's hilarious. Picasso was built just like a caveman, incidentally. He only stood about 5'4''--but, according to his tailor, he had the chest-size and arm-length of a 6'-tall man. His legs were disproportionately short. He was hairy and had a massive barrel-chest.
A shrimpy, furry caveman.

If Caucasoids really do turn out to be Homo Sapiens-Neanderthal hybrids, it would answer one question I always had--why Caucasoids are so much hairier than negroes and Orientals.

P.S.--Picasso's genealogy says that his father's family are actually Basque. His father had reddish-blond hair, by the way.

[Ponto Hardbottle]

You are assuming Neanderthals were hairy. They just might have been as hairless as a baby or covered in lanugo. Isn't the difference in hairiness due to adaptation. Caucasoids come from the cold temperate zones, Mongoloids from the sub arctic zones and Negroids from moist, tropical zones.

[Drooperdoo]

Ponto,
If one believes in Lamarckian evolution , one observes that Asians adapted to the cold in a different way than Caucasoids. Caucasoids are hairy. Asians, contrariwise, developed squat bodies which retain heat better. [Most anthropologists think that that's why Mongoloids developed the epicanthic fold over the eyes. It lets out less heat.] As a result, Asians tend to have shorter bodies, almost non-existent necks, and flat noses (which also let out less heat).

As to whether Caucasoids inherited their body fur from Neanderthals or not is pure speculation. What we know is that only Caucasoids came into contact with Neanderthal. Neanderthal skeletons are found in the Middle East and Europe--their longest cohabitation with modern man taking place in Western Europe, where they finally died out in Spain and Southern France.
So it's interesting to note that blacks and Asians aren't hairy, but Caucasoids are. So what happened differently in Caucasoid development?
Why do only Caucasoids have red hair, and other allegedly Neanderthal traits?
It makes you wonder.

[Melnorme]

I don't think that gradual cold adaptation has anything to do with the theories of Lamarck.

[Drooperdoo]

Melnorme,
The classic example of Lamarckian evolution is the giraffe. In his theory [if not in reality] giraffes had short necks, but wanted leaves on the top of trees. So their bodies--reacting to their desire--produced longer necks in offspring, and still longer necks in later descendants . . . until we get the giraffes of today with extremely long necks.

Following this Lamarckian example, humans in cold climates "evolved" either hair or squatter bodies to deal with the frigid temperatures.

Modern evolutionary models abandon this concept. Random genetic mutations are the basis for modern evolution. In other words, one accidentally and with no purpose in sight developed mutations which helped in an environment. I find this idea just as absurd, because it implies that a stick-insect that looks exactly like the leaves of its environment coincidentally looks just like its environment.
I find "random genetic mutations" hard to accept when so many animals look EXACTLY like their surroundings. And the argument can't be made--which evolutionists love--that all the animals without the adaptation died out. Because there are so many insects and animals that live in EXACTLY the same location, without the adaptation and they thrive.
So it just beggars credulity when we are told that they had to have their particular adaptation to survive, because so many don't have it--and live just fine.

P.S.--The example of Mongoloids and Caucasoids is one forcefully in point. Evolutionists would say, "Caucasoids are hairier as an adaptation to the cold. All the ones who didn't have hair died out because they didn't have the more successful adaptation." --This implies that hairiness is required to survive. Mongoloids prove this assertion false. They survived in frigid climates without evolving thick body-hair. In fact, they live in far colder climates--as the Eskimos show. So it's a false premise to say that it is necessary. . . . So much of evolution relies on dogma. If you examine it critically, it crumbles just as easily as Creationism.
The intellectually honest man takes the middle position of Socrates: "I am the wisest because I realize that I am ignorant." --All those calling themselves wise are arrogant fools. Anyone telling you he has the answer is half-lunatic, half-moron. And anyone telling you evolution is a proven fact hasn't really looked into it deeply.

[Melnorme]

Your giraffe example is correct. The typical theory of cold adaptation, OTOH, is classic Darwinian evolution.

It would be Lamarckian if said humans somehow purposely groomed their hair to be extra long, and 'evolved' longer hair in that fashion. Or if they constantly hunched down and 'evolved' squatter body builds in that fashion. And so forth.

[Ponto Hardbottle]

I don't see the effects of natural selection, and the so called survival of the fittest as having anything to do with Lamarck. You misunderstood. The difference between most humans in hair covering or their cousin the Chimpanzee, is not the number of hairs on the body. It is the size and shape of the hairs. There are only a few spots on the integument of the human body that does not have hair. So caucasoids are obviously hairy looking, but your apparently hairless Japanese mongoloid has just as many hairs, only fine, unpigmented and downy. So if humans have exactly the same number of hairs on their body but the size, shape and pigmentation varies with each race of human then differences between the races must be the result of natural selection. Despite what you may believe, environment does place a part in natural selection not in some Lamarckian manner but by favoring those with characteristics that make them more successful than their fellows in longevity, reproductive outcomes, sexual attraction and so on. Having long hairs in a sub arctic environment would be unfavorable to survival by allowing places where breathe and sweat could freeze onto directly onto the body. In the humid tropics, hair absorbs moisture and would leave the skin continually damp and subject to the egress of microorganisms and fungi. It is no accident that negroid head hair is so tightly coiled and acts as a barrier to the scalp.

[Drooperdoo]

Ponto,
I didn't misunderstand natural selection at all. Nor was I confusing natural selection with Lamarck. I was criticizing the old Darwinian model and Lamarckian evolution.
I didn't mention natural selection at all. You did.
Firstly, Darwin had two models: Micro-evolution and macro-evolution. His theory on micro-evolution [called "natural selection"] was true; his theory for macro-evolution [where one species changes into another] has largely been abandoned.
Natural selection is not evolution in the true sense. Natural selection is an aspect of eugenics, of breeding. You can change a dog by selectively breeding it--and turn what was once a German shepherd into a poodle. That's natural selection: Change through selective breeding.
Natural selection should never be confused with evolution. Natural selection can change the shape of a dog, but it remains a dog. The dna never changes enough for each "race" of dogs to be called a new species.
Evolution is more radical--as in a dinosaur evolving into a bird.

Darwin thought that, with enough selective breeding, eventually you could turn a dog into, say, a horse.
Darwin unfortunately didn't have access to what we now know about dna. Animals aren't merely the sum-total of their limbs, but a sum-total of their dna--and dna actually limits the amount of change that's possible.
Darwin didn't know that--and he shouldn't be faulted for it.
But his model was--as modern evolutionists admit--flawed.
Evolution [according to current models] relies on random mutation of genes. Note the term "random". It's important. In other words, random genetic accidents result in major changes--not selective breeding.
Like no one bred to change brown hair into red. Red hair couldn't have come about through selective breeding. Rather, it's a random genetic mutation of the 22nd chromosome.
And it happened accidentally.
In that first person who had it, it couldn't be bred in.
That's all I'm saying.

So I take your point: You're saying that people in cold climates didn't evolve in the true sense of the word. But, rather, they were the product of natural selection--of breeding. Micro-evolution, versus macro-. Men with particular traits were found to be more attractive, hence women bred with them and not with "undesirable types".
Change occurred in that way, not via old models of Lamarckian evolution. And to that I whole-heartedly agree.

P.S.--It's humorous to read the first generation of Darwinists embarrassingly echoing Lamarck. I recall the example of an evolutionist in the 19th Century saying that the evironment itself exerts an influence on skin-color, noting that blacks in England were getting whiter with each generation. [Of course, it didn't occur to him that they were getting whiter through admixture with locals.] He assumed [hilariously] that just living in England was turning them whiter. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha.

[Faelcind]

Drooperdoo, darwins theory of evolution has by no means been abandoned its simply been added to. Darwin assumed there was variation that could be selected for mutation simply adds to that variation. Your distinction between the breeds of dogs and dinosaurs to birds is false. All the variations between dogs arose as mutations of alleles just as those differing birds from their dinosaur ancestors. The difference is simply a matter of degre, contingent on time. Many types of dogs are breed for particular well understood mutations, such as acromegaly in mastiff's or dwarfism in corgis and daschsunds.

BTW Neanderthals allmost all experts beleive neanderthals were shorter then modern humans I have seen either 5^6 or 5^4 as average heights f.e here check the major fossil discoveries paragraph too
www.iisac.org/AVvol2%20pdf/28%20Menos%20Evolution.pdf

Average Paleolithic modern human height was 5^9 in contrast.(check our kind marvin harris, or neanderthal necklace john luis arsuaga).

Crimsonguard, Read Relethford, Templeton, Wolpoff and trinkaus there is by no mean consensus among scholars that neanderthal were a different species the the physical evidence is quite the opposite and the genetics is ambigious.

[Marobud]

drooperdoo said:

More recently, sites in the Czech republic have yielded human-Neanderthal mixes--skulls that showed both traits of modern man and Neanderthal. Anthopologists have gone over the skulls and admitted that--despite Out-of-Africa rhetoric--it does appear that there was some mixture between the two groups.

Well, OK, I am Czech and our family is redheads!

By the way, quite strong redheads "community" are Bavarians. Caused by their Celtic origin I think. Or there is a Neanderthal -> celtic tribe of Boi -> Bohemia -> Bavaria link?