DrmDoc

In addition to fake peer-reviewers, it seems we have false research to worry about. This recent Veritasium video explores the possibility of most published research being wrong. No wonder I never heard of a Pentaquark and I knew eating chocolate was never a good weight loss regime. Enjoy!

The OP has posted questions elsewhere that appear to reference the Islamic teachings or doctrine he has received relative to these types of topics. It's clear, from his questions, that he is interested in the truth of what he's being taught. In my opinion, what he's being taught is highly influenced by religious doctrine rather than science. Therefore, this is likely our opportunity to enlighten a budding analytical mind against oppressive, uninformed instruction.

I know of no factor in our genes that compels monogamy among humans, which suggests that monogamy among women is more of a choice rather an compulsion by nature--in my opinion.

I agree; however, the early fossil remains of modern humans found at the Omo 1 site in Ethiopia continues to suggest exposure to high UV levels and the probability of darker skin among early humans than populations now found in southern Africa.

If I may and not to again beleaguer the point, early modern humans were exclusively an African population even as they migrated to lower UV (European) climates and evolved lighter skin colors. The research evidence I referenced through the article link I provided is based on DNA samplings linked to those migrating early modern humans.

Humans, humanity, which one would you prefer? To not be misleading, that was "27% of skin color variations in Indians" specifically and was "present in 100% of Europeans" according to the article. Further, as I recall, your previous comments inferred a diversity of skin color has always existed among early modern humans in Africa as they presently do. I provided evidence suggesting the opposite with further evidence suggesting light skinned adaptations didn't arise until early humans reach low UV (European) climates. I believe that is how we engaged this exchange.

I'm not trying to hint anything. In your posted, you asserted that, "There is no single gene for lighter skin." The article I referenced verbatim appears to contradict your assertion. It referenced a "single gene" (SLC24A5) and none of the others you've listed above. If you'll select the link I provide, you will find that the article goes on say, "Lighter skin has less melanin, a pigment that blocks the sun's UV rays; the body uses these rays to make vitamin D. The SLC24A5 gene is linked to less melanin production, so the gene may have become more common in Europe because it allowed people's skin to make more vitamin D in the continent's low-light conditions." The article suggests that this particular gene was critical to the adaptation of low melanin production, which gives us our skin pigment. If you have references to the contrary, I suggest you post them here.

According to this article, that isn't exactly true. From the article: "...Basu Mallick and her colleagues took skin color measurements for about 1,228 individuals in Southern India. The researchers then conducted a genetic analysis and found that about 27 percent of the skin color variation was due to a variation in a skin pigmentation gene. Called SLC24A5, this gene codes for lighter skin and is present in almost 100 percent of Europeans."

I think we all would welcome a link exploring her contributions also. I invite everyone to post a link here to those female scientists whose contributions we should all know better.

Actually, the diversity in Africa today is not entirely representative of the population that left Africa for Europe 40,000 years ago. Also, I found this Live Science article discussing relatively recent evidence suggesting the gene for lighter skin evolved in Europe about 7,000 years ago.

I think the plight of albinos in Africa presently suggest the probability of earlier mutations; however, I firmly believe in what the science appears to suggest about the dark complexion of our African ancestors. Also, I'll try to find a link to research which suggest that generally lighter pigmentations occurred about 20,000 years after our ancestors exodus from Africa.

Most paleoanthropologist agree that modern humans emerge in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Paleoclimatology suggests our African ancestors evolved amid tropic or near tropic conditions. When we couple the place of emergence of modern humans and their likely equatorial climate with contemporary evidence suggesting the equatorial origin of dark skin pigmentation, I believe we can only conclude that the earliest modern humans were singularly dark complexioned.

Post her link here so we may come to know her contributions better.

Indeed, they are all very worthy of our admiration.

How well do you know the contributions of these famous female scientist: Marie Curie (1867-1934) Lisa Mietner (1878-1968) Barbara McClintock (1902-1992) Rosalind Franklin (1920-1958) Jane Goodall (1934-Present) Well, if you don't, here's a Life Noggin YouTube video I recently discovered recounting some of their contributions. I knew a great deal about Madame Curie and Jane Goodall, but not so much about the other three extraordinary women. Enjoy!

You seem to be endorsing a directed indoctrination to the political process devised to produce an elite political class, which doesn't work well in a democracy, in my opinion. I think what you're proposing could easily become a kind of military school for politicians, which could potentially produce an egomaniacal and elitist class of individuals skilled in ways of public manipulation and deception. What we have in place--college level political science courses--is all the training I think the politically ambitious requires. It's up to the public to participate in the election process by educating themselves on the issues and the politicians pressing their votes.

Thriving in the open savannahs of Africa, I think the earliest modern humans were probably darker complexioned due to their likely heavy sunlight exposure and the extra protection to exposure that darker skin provides.

I think the kind of regimented process you're suggesting here is more likely to produce a horde of prep school Manchurian candidates rather than individuals clearly for the will of the people. As long as the people are properly educated and well informed, I think the process we have in place works fine--with the exception of the Electoral College, which is in present times superfluous.

According to most reconstructions from the fossils of the earliest modern humans, whose continental origin is Africa, I think that is a very good approximation of their appearance.

You have a way of raising very difficult questions? I'm a little conflicted now.

I can't say, but proof by "personal revelation" and "Sacred Scripture" certainly seemed serious--to Ockham. And please, let's not get started on the Hobbit! ​ ​

Rhythmic swimming, flame jugging, nose balancing, and ice sculpting...maybe...but cosmetology? Inconceivable!

Didn't the Nazis try something like this? And how did that end? The interesting thing about history is you could learn a lot from it.

If I may, didn't Ockham, a Franciscan monk, believe in the existence of a soul and God by proof of "personal revelation" and the "authority of Sacred Scripture", according the Wiki link? This, If I understand correctly, appears to be the opposite of the principles or thoughts some have expressed in this discussion.

I believe Airbrush said "every conceivable way", which I presume includes Rorschach tests and rectal exams, saliva, stool and urine samples.