On Jan 15, 4:01 am, Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote: > Alright, we have the Neanderthal genome, but do we have the genome of > sapiens contemporaneous with Neanderthal to compare? Of the > Neanderthal genome that dates to 33,000 years ago, do we have the > Sapiens genome of 33,000 years ago to compare. > > For it seems to me that unless we have equi-dated genomes, that much > of what Paabo and Green and Hawks discussed in Decoding Neanderthal > NOVA is just opinion. > > Now do we know what genes indicate hair growth and what genes indicate > the color of skin such as black African or white European? > > So can the Neanderthal genome indicate what color of skin and how much > hair? > Can we make a comparison to a Sapiens of 33,000 years ago as to what > color of skin and how much hair? > > It may turn out, that what Hawks found for the Tuscany Italy genetic > indicators was the mutations of the Sapiens conferring immunology > because they were turning to a whiter skin to absorb more sunlight and > vitamin D. It maybe that Sapiens was even healthier in Europe than the > existing Neanderthals. It may turn out that Neanderthals were prone to > more sickness from the cold than the invading Sapiens from Africa. > > It is puzzling as to what benefits accrued to Sapiens to go from a lot > of hair, a hairy body to a body that is less hair. Does Rock throwing > have more advantage with less hair than more hair? > > The one place on the body that has no hair is the front of the hands > and hair there would be a nuisance to a rock thrower. > > Hair would be important for cold climate and an advantage. So was > Neanderthal hairy or the same hair as Sapiens invading Europe? > > Hair is of a disadvantage for parasites. > > So we need some answers to the above from the genomes of Neanderthal > of 33,000 years ago and from Sapiens that were contemporaries of > Neanderthal. > > Now there has been a theory going around as to the Swimming Sapiens as > the way Sapiens lost most of their body hair and become the hairless > ape. I do not buy that, except for one application. > > How close is Tuscany to the Mediterranean Sea of 33,000 years ago? > > It is possible that the African sapiens that invaded Europe and > extincted Neanderthal were clustered in Tuscany and lived close to the > Med. Sea. It is possible that they spent so much time near the Sea, > that over 10,000 years they would mutate the genes for less hair as an > advantage in swimming. How warm is the Med. Sea in winter in Tuscany? > > Also, I would like to remind the reader that this theory of > Rockthrowing starts in Italy near Sardina some 8 to 10 million years > ago with a ape creature throwing rocks to a habit of throwing rocks > that conferred many advantages and increasing his mating and > offspring. This throwing ape creature would eventually migrate into > Africa, and become Orrorin. So was there a full land bridge between > Tuscany, Sardinia and Africa? > > I know Gilbraltor harbors monkeys from Africa? Do monkeys somehow find > a means of crossing the Med. Sea, on perhaps logs adrift? Could > monkeys and apes some 10 million years ago have made a crossing of > Sicily into Northern Africa? > So it would be ironic that the birthplace of humanity starts in > Sardinia Italy some 8 to 10 million years ago and migrates into Africa > and then some 60,000 years ago the African Sapiens migrated back north > into Europe. So they came full circle. >
Thinking about the above, it dawned on me that the loss of hair, as one author in the 20th century titled his book "The Naked Ape", but the loss of hair was not due to swimming and living near water, but rather this logical means-- how can you have white skin and take in sunlight for Vitamin D if your body is covered in hair?
Has any anatomist researched whether other animals take in sunlight to produce Vitamin D, or is Homo sapiens unique to taking in sunlight for Vitamin D?
So if you had a hairy ape such as a chimpanzee or orangutan or gorilla, could you take in sunlight and convert to Vitamin D for health advantage?
So the logic is, that once you have the genetics that converts sunlight to Vitamin D, then that advantage would spur the genetics for less hair to gain more Vitamin D. Now in the Tropics of Africa, loss of hair would mean sunburn for there is too much sunlight, so for that to balance out, the skin genetics favored dark skin.
So here I think I found the genetic mechanism for loss of hair for Homo sapiens to allow for Vitamin D uptake.
Now I wonder when this took place in Homo sapiens history? Was it 60,000 years ago or earlier? Did Neanderthal have less hair and Vitamin D uptake?
-- Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine- bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here: