Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: svrn on February 22, 2012, 03:22:02 am
-
How do we explain these people in relation to their diet? Is it the fact that they have incredible control of their minds literally spend their entire life on nothing but training?
Shaolin Kung Fu (exploding the meat myth) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZwmluSn_T0#)
-
Before they became Buddhist, the Chinese had been eating a rice-and-veggies diet for thousands of years. The amount of meat they were eating during that time was very, very small. As a result, they had many generations to gradually adapt to it. One of the adaptations is a larger pancreas and salivary glands to help digest all the starch.
-
But shouldn't the cooked foods be killing them either way?
-
There are a lot of people on this website who believe that cooked foods kill. I personally think this is silly. There are people who live to be over 100 years old and live healthy lives eating cooked foods. What more proof is needed to show that cooked food isn't necessarily harmful? Industrially processed Franken-foods, well now that's a different issue...
-
What more proof is needed that cooked food is harmful than the fact that most people on cooked diets end up with appalling, nasty health-problems such as alzheimer's etc., despite not eating frankenfoods? People tend to forget that people in the Middle-Ages suffered from appalling health-problems and died young etc., despite not eating any frankenfoods.
Now, it is reasonable to state that modern medicine can, to some extent, help people to live longer via drugs, surgery, lowered stress-levels etc., but these are not "healthy" per se, they just, to a limited extent, make up for the fact that cooked foods are harmful.
-
Another thing to note is that many people who are currently living to be very old in my area, would have began their lives on farms eating plenty of raw dairy, wild meat that grazed on land free of pesticides, in an environment free of man-made chemicals. Starting one's life in such a condition has to be beneficial.
-
Another thing to note is that many people who are currently living to be very old in my area, would have began their lives on farms eating plenty of raw dairy, wild meat that grazed on land free of pesticides, in an environment free of man-made chemicals. Starting one's life in such a condition has to be beneficial.
The oldest person I knew was in that category. He grew up on a farm. He used to walk to work at incredibly high speed over a distance of probably 5 miles.
I think diet is part of the issue but obviously these young lads were in peak physical as well as spiritual condition.
Thanks for this one Tyler.
-
What more proof is needed that cooked food is harmful than the fact that most people on cooked diets end up with appalling, nasty health-problems such as alzheimer's etc., despite not eating frankenfoods?
You mean like this 80 year old Shaolin monk?
80 year old shaolin monk doing gymnastics at the 2009 TCAAT Wushu tournament. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZZY7tSNqDI#)
Apologies about the chair.
-
Cooked food, like almost anything, harms some people more than others.
However, I think cooking food is the main reason humans rarely live to 120, even in pretty ideal conditions. For some people grains/dairy are also significant life-shorteners, I am guessing.
Environmental toxins and poor-quality livestock-feeding are also part of the problem, in some cases more than others. But yeah, I think the single biggest contributor is cooking, especially excessive cooking.
I would also say that low Brix and poor quality soil also make a fairly big difference too.
Phil, it is not at all fair to post that video as if it somehow wins the argument. That monk probably eats a very simple diet, not heavily cooked, and has been doing health practices, healing herbs, etc. most of his life. Not only that, he may have some genetic adaptations that give him good health into old age. Come on, man, you're better than that. :)
-
Sedentary life is what does it.
-
Phil, it is not at all fair to post that video as if it somehow wins the argument.
And it's not at all fair to suggest that I was trying to imply that when that thought didn't cross my mind. All I did was ask a question about something that doesn't appear to fit neatly into Tyler's model.
That monk probably eats a very simple diet, not heavily cooked, and has been doing health practices, healing herbs, etc. most of his life. Not only that, he may have some genetic adaptations that give him good health into old age.
Where did I say otherwise? You've apparently read WAY more into that video than I ever dreamed, much less intended.
You made some guesses as to why and how that monk doesn't seem to fit Tyler's model. Your guesses may or may not be right, but at least the video and my question seem to have helped you think about why and how that monk doesn't fit.
I eat a high raw diet myself, so no one has to convince me about the benefits of raw, but don't you think it's also possible to go overboard in attributing harm to cooking or benefits to rawness? Aren't there other potential factors and gradations of harm/benefit to consider? Isn't it possible that there's an ounce of truth in what Eric said?
-
CK is quite right. Showing one example is merely a case of an exception proving the rule that cooked foods are harmful.
In the case of this monk, a sedentary life would have helped, along with considerable training. I mean I have heard of 80-year-olds in one study who regained the muscle-mass they had at the age of 40 solely through weight-lifting, for example. Plus, there is the issue of mind over matter. I recall Tony Robbins in one book mention how a particularly famous pianist had developed very severe arthritis which cripples his hands completely so that he could barely move his fingers - however, when the musician was placed in front of a piano, his fingers would suddenly dance around the keys, making it seem as though he had no such problems.
There are other issues. A Buddhist-type monk would usually be eating a largely cooked vegetarian diet, and I have pointed out many times, via studies, that cooked plant foods produce far fewer heat-created toxins than cooked animal foods. Plus, I have also cited studies which showed that people who exercised or fasted a lot(which is what those monks all do regularly) also had their levels of advanced glycation end products(a heat-created toxin derived from cooking) reduced as a result.
Plus, without a medical test, we don't know whether his liver, for example, is about to conk out, or whatever.
-
I have pointed out many times, via studies, that cooked plant foods produce far fewer heat-created toxins than cooked animal foods. Plus, I have also cited studies which showed that people who exercised or fasted a lot(which is what those monks all do regularly) also had their levels of advanced glycation end products(a heat-created toxin derived from cooking) reduced as a result.
Thanks for answering my question about gradations. In other words, there's a continuum of harm with cooking, rather than all cooked foods being pure poison.
-
My good friend Sifu Jen Sam is a kung fu master and did those monk things and plans to live a very very long time. He is essentially a raw paleo dieter. Because not only is he a kung fu master, he is a well accomplished holistic healer. And he knows raw food / raw paleo diet is the best diet.
Tai Chi Form Tong Gi Kun - Warming up the joints by Sifu Sam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlwIvfefwGc#)
Sifu is not vegetarian at all.
He enjoys with me raw shrimp, raw clams, raw oysters, raw fish.
And he eats very little. And fasts regularly.
And he does get laid quite often.
-
I eat a high raw diet myself, so no one has to convince me about the benefits of raw, but don't you think it's also possible to go overboard in attributing harm to cooking or benefits to rawness? Aren't there other potential factors and gradations of harm/benefit to consider? Isn't it possible that there's an ounce of truth in what Eric said?
Sure, but it's a slippery slope. People are addicted, and lie to themselves "well, one more taco won't kill me", etc.. and so forth.
I'm not saying that's true in your case or mine, but a lot of people are weak-willed and self-indulgent, as well as having addictive tendencies.
-
What more proof is needed that cooked food is harmful than the fact that most people on cooked diets end up with appalling, nasty health-problems such as alzheimer's etc., despite not eating frankenfoods?
Therefore I'm happy that I got sick from "healthy" cooked foods at early age.
Löwenherz
-
Sure, but it's a slippery slope. People are addicted, and lie to themselves "well, one more taco won't kill me", etc.. and so forth.
It's also a slippery slope in the other direction to the extreme of acting like the slightest bit of cooked is poison. I'm not saying anyone is necessarily doing that, just that I read other diet/health forums/blogs and some people at those other sites report perceiving this from raw Paleos and super-strict cooked Paleos and I can see at times how they would get that impression. When we tilt too far that way I suspect we turn off potential newbies and influential people. I know the super strict comments are well intentioned, but I think they unintentionally may backfire at times.
I could be wrong, of course, but when I first joined this forum I recall being a bit turned off by some of the more extravagant or quackish unsupported claims, extreme criticisms of even traditional cooked foods/diets (including cooked Paleo), and other outlandish comments and finding Lex's very reasonable journal to be one of the most enticing parts of the forum (and it's the main reason I joined). Even though Lex's approach is super-restrictive, I've never seen him suggest or even seem to imply without evidence that the foods and cooking techniques he avoids are all pure poison, or that there's only one right way for everyone, or that his experience is hard evidence that applies to the whole human race. He seems to strike about the right rhetorical balance, and I say that even though I disagree with him on some points.
I'm not saying that's true in your case or mine, but a lot of people are weak-willed and self-indulgent, as well as having addictive tendencies.
Sure and I of course disagree with the critics who say that raw Paleo and even cooked Paleo is more restrictive than necessary for anyone. Some people like me need to be more strict than most to avoid negative health symptoms and if someone wants to eat a super-optimal diet and the health benefits and other positives from it outweigh any negatives, I don't see why they shouldn't do it.
-
It all depends on the person.Many people find that cooked-palaeodiets do not help them at all re regaining health. I am one such person. Indeed, I am honest enough to admit that raw vegan diets were more helpful as regards my health than cooked, palaeolithic diets.
-
Agreed.
-
What more proof is needed that cooked food is harmful than the fact that most people on cooked diets end up with appalling, nasty health-problems such as alzheimer's etc., despite not eating frankenfoods?
I think it would be a mental exercise to figure out what kinds of things you couldn't prove with that type of logic.
-
My good friend Sifu Jen Sam is a kung fu master and did those monk things and plans to live a very very long time.
He does all that crazy monk s%$t? I wish I had kung fu parties at my place.
-
It's also a slippery slope in the other direction to the extreme of acting like the slightest bit of cooked is poison. I'm not saying anyone is necessarily doing that, just that I read other diet/health forums/blogs and some people at those other sites report perceiving this from raw Paleos and super-strict cooked Paleos and I can see at times how they would get that impression. When we tilt too far that way I suspect we turn off potential newbies and influential people. I know the super strict comments are well intentioned, but I think they unintentionally may backfire at times.
"You can please all of the people some of the time, or some of the people all of the time...but you can't please all of the people, all of the time."--John Lydgate
ROFL
-
I wasnt on a bad or chemically diet at all before I got sick. I was 100 percent organic for at least a year before I got sick and started doing raw paleo. Going raw is what began to reverse my problems. After 4 months I still have some pain but compared to the pain I was feeling before which would regularly keep me up at night regularly, I am improved by a huge extent and Im sure I will reach 100 percent health or almost eventually. So from personal experience, I know that being healthy isnt just about not eating chemicals because I wasnt doing that and I still got fucked up, as soon as I went raw it reversed.
This almost leads me to believe the health and extreme vibrancy of these monks must come from extremely high level of spiritual and mental strength which i suppose translates into perfect health. Healing on a quantum physics level perhaps. Theres nothing else which can explain these guys to me since based on my experience all that rice really should have a highly damaging effect on them.
It must be the intense spiritual practice and highly trained mind.
-
I wasnt on a bad or chemically diet at all before I got sick. I was 100 percent organic for at least a year before I got sick and started doing raw paleo. Going raw is what began to reverse my problems. After 4 months I still have some pain but compared to the pain I was feeling before which would regularly keep me up at night regularly, I am improved by a huge extent and Im sure I will reach 100 percent health or almost eventually. So from personal experience, I know that being healthy isnt just about not eating chemicals because I wasnt doing that and I still got fucked up, as soon as I went raw it reversed.
This almost leads me to believe the health and extreme vibrancy of these monks must come from extremely high level of spiritual and mental strength which i suppose translates into perfect health. Healing on a quantum physics level perhaps. Theres nothing else which can explain these guys to me since based on my experience all that rice really should have a highly damaging effect on them.
It must be the intense spiritual practice and highly trained mind.
In the video it also says that being a monk is about attrition too.
Some are monk material and some are not.
-
Theres nothing else which can explain these guys to me since based on my experience all that rice really should have a highly damaging effect on them.
It must be the intense spiritual practice and highly trained mind.
From what I've read, East Asians have enlarged pancreas and salivary glands, to help them digest all that starch.
-
It's more interesting that they do perfectly fine with little micronutrients, since rice isn't particularly rich in anything else but carbs and a little protein. Probably they make up with some vegetables.
I'm not sure why rice itself would be health damaging besides the fact that it's not micronutrient dense. Steaming/boiling makes it very digestible, without producing much toxins, and it's very low antinutrient too. I know rice oil is pretty rich with some powerful antioxidants, so maybe normal rice is rich in these too (and in whole form maybe they are even better), which may mean that rice is actually healthy, not health damaging.
But anyway, nutrition is only a part of the picture when it comes to health. Note that these guys live a 'healthy' life since very early age, exercising every day, virtually no stress, low pollution in those mountains, etc. All of this reduces the demand for 'healthy' food, whatever healthy may be. It doesn't mean they won't do even better on raw paleo diet, it just means they already do much better then others on similar or even healthier than their diet because of their lifestyle.
-
"You can please all of the people some of the time, or some of the people all of the time...but you can't please all of the people, all of the time."--John Lydgate
ROFL
Quite true, which is why I don't try to please all people all the time, as demonstrated by my expressing an unpopular view in this thread.
In the video it also says that being a monk is about attrition too.
Some are monk material and some are not.
That's a good point, GS.
I don't want to get into a long debate about rice or cooking. I'm not trying to say that they're optimal, just that not all cooked diets are equally bad. There seems to be a continuum from bad (junk-food-heavy Standard American Diet) to good (raw Paleo).
-
I would just like to point out that the larger pancreas and salivary glands of East Asians is not something that other ethnic groups share.
-
Hoo boy, here we go. OK, I'll bite a little (in the name of science, of course). ;D Could you please start by providing a primary scientific source for the larger pancreas/salivary gland claim, so I can read up on it? And I don't mean second- or third- hand sources like Edward Howell or the WAPF or he said she said, or, worst of all, "I read it somewhere on the Internet." I can certainly believe there is variation in organ size between populations, having read about larger livers among the Inuit, but one question is--how much larger? Double or triple or just slightly larger?
-
I dont believe that having certain glands be larger would create a situation in which a certain type of food which is normally very harmul to humans be not harmful. I believe in variations between races however something so large carries a large burden of proof to me.
-
Hoo boy, here we go. OK, I'll bite a little (in the name of science, of course). ;D Could you please start by providing a primary scientific source for the larger pancreas/salivary gland claim, so I can read up on it? And I don't mean second- or third- hand sources like Edward Howell or the WAPF
I couldn't find anything besides Howell or Sally Fallon (or just me, myself posting it on the Native Nutrition yahoo group) in about 15 minutes of googling. If you really want to dig to the heart of the matter, we're probably going to have to ask an evolutionary biologist, or a physical anthropologist. Are you that interested in it? I'm willing to email a few of those guys, or you can.
-
I dont believe that having certain glands be larger would create a situation in which a certain type of food which is normally very harmul to humans be not harmful. I believe in variations between races however something so large carries a large burden of proof to me.
Yeah, see, here's the thing. The rate of diabetes is TREMENDOUSLY higher (yes, I can provide souces) among Native Americans than among East Asians. Why? They're all the same genetic stock, right?
I think it's because the Native Americans left East Asia before grain cultivation started. They never really adapted to it. Corn wasn't widely eaten in the Americas until around 1000 years ago.
The less adventurous East Asians stayed home and grew grain, and, over the thousands of years they were eating a LOT of grain, they developed the ability to handle it much better than their cousins across the water.
Now it's also possible that, since Native Americans all descend from a small group of people, that one of their ancestors was just very prone to diabetes, in addition to this. That would also make a pretty big difference. I've read that all Native Americans are descended from just 4 women. That's a pretty small gene pool, and any gene that any of those women had is going to have had a very good chance to magnify itself through generations of inbreeding.
And I'm part Cherokee, so don't bother calling me a racist for saying they're all inbred. ROFL
-
First of all i prefer to call them american indians since anyone born in america is a native american and there have been many caucasian mummies dug up here going back further than any american indian remains.
lets not forget that they are the nations poorest race. This goes hand in hand with their rampant alcoholism and substance abuse. I dont buy that crap about them having an alcoholic gene, I just think it's from the poverty. All of this goes hand in hand with the diabetes.
-
First of all i prefer to call them american indians since anyone born in america is a native american and there have been many caucasian mummies dug up here going back further than any american indian remains.
lets not forget that they are the nations poorest race. This goes hand in hand with their rampant alcoholism and substance abuse. I dont buy that crap about them having an alcoholic gene, i just think it from the poverty. All of this goes hand in hand with the diabetes.
I thought the science behind their inability to metabolize alcohol was solid. I haven't investigated it heavily, I just thought it was. I could be wrong.
As far as diabetes goes, here are some quotes, with links:
"Data from the 2009 IHS NPIRS indicate that 14.2 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives ages 20 years or older who received care from the IHS had diagnosed diabetes. After adjusting for population age differences, 16.1 percent of the total adult population served by the IHS had diagnosed diabetes, with rates varying by region from 5.5 percent among Alaska Native adults to 33.5 percent among American Indian adults in southern Arizona."
from : http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/DM/PUBS/statistics/ (http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/DM/PUBS/statistics/)
and
"Diabetes was the:
• Fourth leading cause of death among Asians, Blacks, and Pacific Islanders.
• Fifth leading cause of death among Hispanics.
• Sixth leading cause of death for Two or More Races.
• Seventh leading cause of death among American Indians.
• Eighth leading cause of death for Whites."
from: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/ohir/Pages/Diabetes2008Race.aspx (http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/ohir/Pages/Diabetes2008Race.aspx)
The first statistic is weird. Why would Arizona Indians have such high rates of diabetes? Why are they different? Also, why do Alaskan Indians have such low rates of diabetes? Wouldn't their rate be higher, since they've never eaten grains? The only thing I can think is that they are still eating a lot of traditional foods, in many cases.
However, the 33.5% rate among Arizona Indians isn't just diet and poverty. Those people have something genetic going on. I don't buy the poverty and diet explanation, at least not wholly.
-
A large number of Orientals are well known to be less able to break down alcohol due to producing the wrong enzymes. Though, this apparently seems to make them less likely to become alcoholics, not more:-
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v703658ngu601272/ (http://www.springerlink.com/content/v703658ngu601272/)
I couldn't find any data re the larger pancreas claim other than the Howell/Fallon one. I wish someone who has read Howell's books could tell us. Hmm, I'll ask at allexperts.com, they are often useful.
Incidentally, I winced when that "4 women" figure was mentioned. I can't remember where exactly I read it, but it was mentioned that such claims, along with similiar ones such as the African Eve theory, are quite bogus. We are not all descended from one woman or even 4 or whatever. If we were, we would all be so inbred that we would all be village-idiots with multiple inherited genetic diseases. I will concede that some small Native American tribes currently living in isolated reservations might be prone to inbreeding, but this is a more recent phenomenon, not something that has lasted thousands of years.
-
From what I've read East Asians are plagued by the same diseases as everywhere else, diabetes, strokes, osteoporosis, etc. but somehow they have lower rates of obesity. Even if they have larger pancreases or whatever, that doesn't seem to make them any healthier.
-
Fallon quoted Howell, so we really have just one secondary source at best and it looks like he didn't cite any primary sources--here's a quote of his on it in which he didn't cite any references:
16. The pancreas and salivary glands of Asians on a heat-treated, high carbohydrate rice-type diet, is relatively about 50% heavier than that of Americans. This hypertrophy (enlargement) of the pancreas and salivary glands is in response to the higher intake of enzyme-deficient carbohydrate foods and has also been confirmed in laboratory animals. http://www.phoenixhealth.me/howell_sum_1.htm (http://www.phoenixhealth.me/howell_sum_1.htm)
That's not very promising, though I'm still mildly interested. It would be a bit interesting to find out that there is a difference and it would also be kind of neat to disprove Sally Fallon's poorly supported claim that no one else has apparently bothered to investigate.
-
...there have been many caucasian mummies dug up here going back further than any american indian remains.
Off topic, but this sounds like a pretty extraordinary claim. I assume you mean in the United States?
-
amerinds and diabetes talked about in sidebar portion of this article.
http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional-diets/guts-and-grease (http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional-diets/guts-and-grease)
-
Off topic, but this sounds like a pretty extraordinary claim. I assume you mean in the United States?
Sounds dodgy to me, too. There was that "Kennewick Man", wasn't there, but it was disproven. There is evidence that the Romans may have colonised South America a little bit and that the Vikings colonised North America a tiny bit well before Columbus, but that's all, afaik.
-
Well, this piqued my interest and I did some research of my own. I was not able to find reference to any Caucasian 'mummies', but did find this Discovery Channel documentary called Ice Age Columbus in which the theory is put forward that Europeans crossed an ice bridge from Europe to eastern North American about 17,000 years ago. As evidence they cite
1. A spear point found in Virgina dated to 17,000 years ago that replicates the style of spear point manufacture common to Europe at the time
2. A genetic marker found in supposedly pure-blooded remains of many eastern Native Americans that these populations share with Europeans
I've pasted the documentary below. Folks might find it interesting that the re-enactments portrayed in the documentary show the European colonizers eating all of their meat (and plants) RAW.
Ice Age Columbus, Who Were The First Americans? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maziRFPYU14#ws)
-
An "Ice Bridge" all the way from Europe to North America? That's a real stretch. I could accept claims re Romans, Carthaginians or Vikings having slightly intermixed with Native Americans thousands of years later, but the land bridge requires ice all the way to Iceland, then Greenland and, finally, Canada, a rather overly long area.
-
Ancient caucasian remains can be found pretty much every part of the world.
I will list some mummies that I can find quickly.
Kennewick man, wizards beach man, spirit cave mummies, also skeletons in the humbolds lake bed
also look into legends of the si-te-cah, the warlike red haired enemies of the paiute people. Their legends say these people were chased into the spirit cave and exterminated after a long war
these are just examples which can be proven to be caucasian through skull and bone analysis as well as giveaway clues like red hair.
Theres also plenty of evidence such as megalithic sites throughout north america as well as archaeological finds such as weapons and clothes which I believe could not have been made by the american indians but this is not as solid proof as a skeleton or mummy.
Also many tribes, especially the cherokees clearly have caucasian blood which can be seen just by looking at them.
-
An "Ice Bridge" all the way from Europe to North America? That's a real stretch. I could accept claims re Romans, Carthaginians or Vikings having slightly intermixed with Native Americans thousands of years later, but the land bridge requires ice all the way to Iceland, then Greenland and, finally, Canada, a rather overly long area.
Also the bering strait which was a land bridge is how the mongoloid amerinds got here as well I do not know how the caucasoids got here but an ice bridge is not to be instantly ruled out.
-
and please do not think that this has anything to do with racism. I acknowledge that all races have their strong and weak points, and even recognizing that, you can't judge a certain person of any race based on those general rules as I have personally experienced.
I believe us white men are inferior to the amerinds in many ways. Our addiction to technology and so called advanced civilization has only brought the world pain and suffering as well as some good things. While my people were cooking food and eating lots of grains and becoming riddled with disease all the while thinking we are so smart, the amerinds were eating raw meat and thriving in harmony with nature. I would choose their way of life over my current situation any day of the week. My life's goal is in fact to live like the amerinds did to very large extent and I have a great deal of respect for them. My belief that white people may have been here first has no bearing on that and should not be taken the wrong way.
-
*sigh*, I am appalled at the above drivel by the previous poster. First of all, there is plentiful evidence that the Southern American Indians of the North American Continent went in for cultivating grains in a big way, so they were hardly "palaeo". Even the Northernmost American Indians of that particular Continent went in for making lots of pemmican, which consists, partially, of lots of congealed,rendered/cooked animal fat, so they were hardly "rawists".
The Bering Strait is, incidentally, a very tiny fraction of the size required for a land-bridge between Europe and North America. Besides, there are the Aleutian islands which make the Bering Strait a lot shorter than it seems.
As regards Native Americans, they may have eaten a few raw animal foods at times, but they mostly ate cooked foods. Only the Inuit ate a reasonably high proportion of raw animal foods in their diet.
There is also an inferiority-complex among Caucasians which tries to invent ridiculous theories to get away from the fact that Caucasians conquered the Americas. One myth is that Caucasians had supposedly visited the Americas many thousands of years ago. Thor Heyerdahl was one such foolish proponent, since debunked(though evidence exists re Carthaginian and Roman artefacts). The other myth is that the relevant Caucasian in question was supposedly "descended" from a mythical Cherokee "princess" - the idea being that the Cherokee are most known, among NA tribes, of intermixture with Caucasians.
-
Sounds dodgy to me, too. There was that "Kennewick Man", wasn't there, but it was disproven. There is evidence that the Romans may have colonised South America a little bit and that the Vikings colonised North America a tiny bit well before Columbus, but that's all, afaik.
The Vikings were in Northern Newfoundland Island at a place called Vinland. There have been bits of speculation that they visited NA periodically and that is where Columbus had heard the stories that prompted his excursion.
I hadn't heard the Roman part but it kind of makes sense as the locals there do see to have a bit of Romanesque appearance.
Interesting topic as there has been pottery found in South America that was carbon dated to around 12,000 years ago, which puts a wrinkle in some theories.
-
I hadn't heard the Roman part but it kind of makes sense as the locals there do see to have a bit of Romanesque appearance.
Interesting topic as there has been pottery found in South America that was carbon dated to around 12,000 years ago, which puts a wrinkle in some theories.
The idea behind Roman/Carthaginian evidence is that the currents in the area make it very easy to travel from North Africa to Brazil. North America is another matter. I could concede that the Vikings might have reached North America a thousand years ago or more, but the notion that there was an "Ice Bridge" between Europe and North America at the time, or even many thousands of years before, just doesn't ring true.
-
Here is where they stayed in Northern Nfld.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland)
It's a museum now.
NA is steadily drifting apart from Europe at a rate of around 6" per annum according to one theory http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Continental_Drift_and_the_Age_of_the_Earth.htm (http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Continental_Drift_and_the_Age_of_the_Earth.htm)
-
*sigh*, I am appalled at the above drivel by the previous poster. First of all, there is plentiful evidence that the Southern American Indians of the North American Continent went in for cultivating grains in a big way, so they were hardly "palaeo". Even the Northernmost American Indians of that particular Continent went in for making lots of pemmican, which consists, partially, of lots of congealed,rendered/cooked animal fat, so they were hardly "rawists".
where did you hear me discussing the southern north americans? i was clearly only discussing those indians in what is now the USA, not mayans and aztect who clearly cultivated lots of corn. The north american indians ate mostly raw meat with tiny amounts of corn and were known to eat the liver and heart raw right after a kill. Pemmican was mainly a survival food used for storage and travelling their preferred method of eating meat was.
Also you can shut your stupid mouth about me having an inferiority complex. Why dont you look into those mummies I listed before spewing your ignorance and insulting me. Those mummies are incontrivertible proof that white people were here a very long time ago. also look at the pictures of cherokee indians right here at the very top of the page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee.) Youd have to be either blind or retarded not to see the caucasian blood in almost all those pictured there.
dont be so full of yourself, you dont know everything and history is much more complex and hidden than you can imagine. Also I have zero guilt about conquering the indians since I wasnt even born in this country so that theory also goes out the window.
-
Incidentally, I winced when that "4 women" figure was mentioned. I can't remember where exactly I read it, but it was mentioned that such claims, along with similiar ones such as the African Eve theory, are quite bogus. We are not all descended from one woman or even 4 or whatever. If we were, we would all be so inbred that we would all be village-idiots with multiple inherited genetic diseases.
Umm, no. Are you not familiar with the "mitochondrial Eve"? It's pretty solid science. All women descend, matrilineally, from 1 woman. All men descend, patrilineally, from 1 man.
Genetic diversity decreases the higher up the evolutionary ladder you go. The animals with the greatest genetic diversity are sponges on the seafloor. The ones with the least are primates, and the species with the least genetic diversity of all primates is humans .
The science is very solid. It's pretty obvious how the genetic diversity thing came to happen, too. Less-complex species have evolved multiple times. Humans evolved only once, roughly speaking (granted, Neanderthals contributed to our DNA, and maybe some other proto-humans did as well, but not much).
Here's the link to the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve)
As far as all Native Americans descending from 4 women, it's proven through mitochondrial DNA, again. I'd be happy to research and find you some links, if you want. You have to realize, the Bering Land Bridge was only open for a relatively short time in recent human history. Siberia/Mongolia was EXTREMELY sparsely populated at that time (and still is), so the odds of the few humans living there actually crossing over was pretty low.
-
First of all, I have been extremely suspicious of the scientific integrity/competence of palaeo-era genetics studies ever since numerous DNA-analyses in the past few decades constantly claimed for years that it was physically impossible for the Neanderthals to have interbred with humans. After a long period, it was found that we did indeed mostly have some Neanderthal ancestry, and it wouldn't surprise me if further research indicates a much higher amount of Neanderthal etc. DNA in us than currently claimed.
The other point is that inbreeding carries very severe consequences for the human species, often resulting in infertility. There are classic examples such as the Habsburg Lip caused by generations of royal intermarriage(the worst example, I reckon), and the genetic diseases in various inbred populations such as the Amish, Iceland or Ashkenazi Jews. Now, I'll concede that the Mitochondrial Eve theory suggests that we are all descended from one woman, in the sense that we all may share a very microscopic amount of DNA with this woman, but if there was any more than that, we would, like I said, be so hopelessly inbred that we wouldn't likely have survived.
-
Correct, there may be some misunderstanding here about mitochondrial Eve:
Not the only woman
One of the misconceptions of mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her[;] that she was the only woman alive at the time. [10][11] Nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women alive at Eve's time have descendants alive today, but sometime in the past, each of their lines of descent included at least one male, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent. By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes precisely one purely matrilineal line.[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Not_the_only_woman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Not_the_only_woman)
Mitochondrial Eve is the only woman going back 200,000 years from whom we all share some mitochondrial DNA, but she wasn't the only woman at the time and we all have other ancient ancestors beyond her, including some of us from other species like H. neanderthalis, as Tyler mentioned, Homo denisova, and possibly Homo floresiensis (aka "the Hobbit").
-
Here's a good quote by Tyler on the continuum of harm concept that may be one of many potential factors in Shaolin success:
Cooking in moisture is "less worse" than other forms of cooking. It is true that cooking at lower temperatures for longer periods is better than cooking at higher temperatures for short periods.
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/raw-weston-price/raw-food-and-bone-broth/msg81386/#msg81386 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/raw-weston-price/raw-food-and-bone-broth/msg81386/#msg81386)
-
so mitochondrial wasnt the only one? just the biggest slut?
-
She wasn't the only one and wasn't necessarily the most prolific or multi-partnered mother either (I haven't seen anything on how prolific she was)--just the chance woman who happens to share some mitochondrial DNA with all of us. To go beyond that would be to speculate without evidence. Another way to put it is that she was the only woman 200,000 years ago whose descendants ever since have had at least one female in every generation.
-
well I dont believe in simple chance over such a large timeframe so im going to have to go with the slut theory unless there is another explanation.
-
Troll, you may not be aware that comments along the lines of "slut" seem to turn off at least some of our female members, at least one of whom reported sensing a general sort of female-bashing tone to this forum to me privately and I seem to recall some public complaints as well. As a moderator, albeit just of the moribund carnivore subforum, I should probably make some effort to discourage such comments, which aren't necessary (there are other more scientific terms that are probably more descriptive and less likely to cause dissension in the ranks). I seem to recall it being hinted to me that I should speak out more about it and I guess I have not been outspoken enough on the matter, for which I apologize to our female members. Oh, and please don't try to defend it with straw men tangents like complaints about "political correctness." I'm not calling for that, just trying to avoid unnecessary and unconstructive troubles among our members. One can be politically incorrect without crassness, however well intentioned.
With that out of the way, it would be interesting to learn whether mitochondrial eve was a sort of female Chinggis Khaan, with many partners and offspring. I just haven't seen any evidence on it one way or another.
-
I dont see why that would be viewed as bashing females. Why would any non promiscuous female feel uncomfortable with that term? Iv known several non promiscuous females who use the term slut when talking about our modern debased culture. Slut does not equal woman so women should not feel offended unless perhaps they are sluts.
-
The most any woman has ever achieved was 69 children, 2 of which died in childhood, within recorded history. It's extremely unlikely that any other woman could have gone beyond that number during palaeo times given that infanticide was the norm then due to food-scarcity and the need to migrate meaning that the females could only carry one infant at a time etc. This is another reason why the Mitochondrial Eve claim is so dodgy.
-
Slut does not equal woman so women should not feel offended unless perhaps they are sluts.
I'm not going to tell all women what they should or shouldn't feel offended or made unwelcome by, so I wonder what the opinion is of any of our female members on this defense of yours? It might be healthy and perhaps eye-opening for us males to hear their perspective, and perhaps my judgement was off on this one. Do all ladies here agree with Troll that any woman who is offended by the word "slut" must herself be a slut?
It might also help if you explained what you mean by "slut," Troll, as it's a rather vague term. Also, do you use it in face-to-face conversation with women? For example, if a woman said to you that her grandmother had a lot of children/descendants, would you say directly to her face "she must have been a slut"? If she took offense, would you then say to her, "If you're offended, then you must be a slut too"? And if you said those things to her, do you think she'd be more inclined to give you a hug or a slap in the face?
-
If I might make a point, words are not necessarily insulting in themselves, and another person's interpretation of what someone else says is also invalid. The only thing that matters is the intention of the speaker, not the words he says. Not that I am necessarily in favour of the usage of that word, I'm just speaking in general.
-
I wouldnt considr a woman who ahd and raised a lot of children a slut unless it was with many different men. If it was with one man or maybe another after he died perhaps I consider that great and would actually commend her for raising many kids. To me a slut would be a woman who has sex with lots of men without any attatchment or having kids or a welfare queen who has lots of kids with different fathers who she has nothing to do with when the kid is born. That is a clarification of my definition of slut for you.
Now I know thats not how I used it in the previous context but I was really just being silly when using that. I wasnt being serious or trying to offend anyone. Now please lets stop discussing this on this board. This is not why I come on here.
-
The most any woman has ever achieved was 69 children, 2 of which died in childhood, within recorded history. It's extremely unlikely that any other woman could have gone beyond that number during palaeo times given that infanticide was the norm then due to food-scarcity and the need to migrate meaning that the females could only carry one infant at a time etc. This is another reason why the Mitochondrial Eve claim is so dodgy.
Interesting point. However it may also be worth it to consider that we are a lot less fertile today then we were back then. Also since ancient people ate the raw paleo diet which is known to have a lot less complications in childbirth as well as relatively painless we should consider that this may also have an effect on being able to have more kids. Also the tribal support systems for allowing kids to survive back then were also much much stronger than today.
-
The most any woman has ever achieved was 69 children, 2 of which died in childhood, within recorded history.
Geezus!!!!!!!!! Who was that?
-
Geezus!!!!!!!!! Who was that?
Some Russian woman during the reign of Catherine the Great. She was given some form of decoration for her efforts.
I presume she must have had a lot of triplets and twins and maybe one or two quadruplets as well.
As regards child support in palaeolithic times, these people may have had healthy diets but were also constantly subject to famine at any one moment, plus, unlike settled societies, they did not have the extra more complex social systems needed to maintain larger populations. A larger settled population would be able to support more children and so on...
-
I suspect that children were more of a communal thing so food was spread around when it was acquired. That's not too unusual even nowadays in very small isolated communities.
-
If it was with one man or maybe another after he died perhaps I consider that great and would actually commend her for raising many kids. To me a slut would be a woman who has sex with lots of men without any attatchment or having kids or a welfare queen who has lots of kids with different fathers who she has nothing to do with when the kid is born. That is a clarification of my definition of slut for you.
So then mitochondrial Eve might not have been a slut by your definition, since you don't know how many men she had children with and whether they were one at a time (such as due to the death of one man followed by partnering with another), just like you wouldn't know how many men a grandmother who had many descendents had been with and you wouldn't tell her grandaughter that she must have been a slut, yes?
Now I know thats not how I used it in the previous context but I was really just being silly when using that.
Thanks for the explanation. I have indeed noticed that people tend to say much different things on the Internet than in person, and I don't think many realize how this can come across to others and don't intend harm. I myself have said some things I realized afterwards I would not have said in person. One more way in which modern society can at times bring out the worst in us, though I'm very thankful for the information and sharing that the Internet has provided. It's a double-edged sword. My comments weren't meant as admonitions so much as trying to share female perspectives we males might not always consider.
-
I find that sometimes I can be verbally objectionable in person in a way that I would not do online. Depends on the day.
When I write I can take my time and refine what I say, look back and reflect for a bit before I hit send.
Regarding "slut". I would be unlikely to call anyone that for any reason. If someone called me that and if I were female it would probably be the same as someone calling me a very not-nice name. I realize that we all say things that in retrospect we would probably like scrubbed from the record. I know I have. Many times.
Here is the Urban dictionary version... takes all types... notice the poster cannot spell. (definitely)
slut,
Someone who provides a very needed service for the community and sleeps with everyone, even the guy that has no shot at getting laid and everyone knows it. She will give him a sympathy f#ck either because someone asked her to or she just has to f*ck everyone she knows. These are great people, and without them sex crimes would definitly increase. Thank you slut, where ever you are.
-
This reminds me of the story about the pilots flying into a large airport when ATC calls up and says "XYX I am going to have to give you a hold as the airport is too congested"
Ten minutes later ATC calls back and says "I am going to have to delay your expect further clearance time on the hold another 10 minutes"
Anyways ATC calls again and says "look I am really sorry, but we have to extend your EFC time another ten minutes"
Then there is silence for a few seconds and then someone says "Bullshit".
Then ATC calls up and says "who said that?" (because it is a serious offence to swear on the radio, but there is no way of knowing whodunnit)
Then there is about ten aircraft that call in and say "negative on the BS"
I donno maybe you have to be a pilot to get it but this is the effect of dragging out this conversation on the s word.
-
The most any woman has ever achieved was 69 children, 2 of which died in childhood, within recorded history. It's extremely unlikely that any other woman could have gone beyond that number during palaeo times given that infanticide was the norm then due to food-scarcity and the need to migrate meaning that the females could only carry one infant at a time etc. This is another reason why the Mitochondrial Eve claim is so dodgy.
How is the mitochondrial Eve idea dodgy?
And humans are far, FAR more inbred than any other species. It's just the nature of being the most highly-evolved species on the planet. Recognize that.
For that matter, the most recent common ancestor of every living human only lived around 2000-5000 years ago. Here's the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor)
Also, take a look at the wiki for the Identical Ancestors Point, it's quite interesting too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_ancestors_point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_ancestors_point)
And yes, I know all about the Hapsburg Lip. Disgusting, those cousin-fucking royals.
-
For that matter, the most recent common ancestor of every living human only lived around 2000-5000 years ago. Here's the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor) ...
Again, that doesn't mean that ancestor was the only male or female alive at the time, and we know there were a lot more than two people on the planet 2000 - 5000 years ago. As Tyler pointed out, it only means we all have a tiny bit of DNA from that person.
That wiki says, "The MRCA of living humans may have had many companions of both sexes." I'm not sure where they get the "both sexes" bit, since homosexual sex wouldn't contribute to procreation, but many more offspring than today's avg (currently only about 0.9 per family in the USA) via multiple couplings and/or many children with one or more partners, is a possibility (especially for males, who aren't limited to creating only one pregnancy at a time like females are), and if later generations do the same, the population growth of that line quickly becomes enormous, such as happened with the prolific Chinggis Khaan and his prolific male descendants, and it also incorporated the DNA of many females from various parts of the Mongol Empire and defeated countries.
-
To illustrate, there was, some years ago, a study which showed that a certain UK citizen was directly descended from Genghiz Khan(the correct spelling). However, that person was completely Northern European in appearance, without a trace of Mongolian ancestry.
CK, your 2nd link has a paragraph which merely proves my point exactly:-
"It is incorrect to assume that the MRCA and his/her ancestors passed all their genes down to every person alive today. Because of sexual reproduction, at every generation, an ancestor only passes half of his or her genes to the next generation. The percentage of genes inherited from the MRCA becomes smaller and smaller at every successive generation, as genes inherited from contemporaries of MRCA are interchanged via sexual reproduction.[4] As the human genome consists of roughly 2 the power of 32 base pairs, the genetic contribution of a single ancestor may be flushed out of an individual's genome completely after 32 generations, or roughly 1,000 years."
-
FYI: I tend to use the Mongol's own chosen English spelling of Chinggis' name, as my basic philosophy is to let people name themselves and their own people whatever they wish, as long as I'm able to spell or pronounce the name, though there is some variation in spelling even among Mongols, I'm not a 100% stickler, and I don't expect anyone to follow suit.
Here are some images showing the spelling that is supposedly also the Mongolian government's preferred official spelling:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Chinggis_Khan_International_Airport.jpg/250px-Chinggis_Khan_International_Airport.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTm4BhDCKkMWWSSEvim2P0o9QNP8KZ4Jgvmen6Ek4WtTUbDrhNtJQ)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_XguMC1tW-dE/SLj_XuFXSzI/AAAAAAAAAnA/INrgVJFank8/s400/chinggiskhaan.jpg)
The Mongolian English spelling also comes slightly closer to the way Mongols pronounce Chinggis' name to my ear, though it actually sounds phonetically more like Chengis Haan to me, and sometimes it is spelled that way.
-
If we used your weird interpretation, then all American-English spellings should be instantly changed to British English, since the latter is the original standard for English from which other types of English spelling originated.
-
That's not what I meant. In my approach, I would use British-English spellings for people and places with British names in the UK, which I do. Don't you? Using "Genghis Khan" instead of the Mongols own favored English spellings for their own heroes and places would be the equivalent of using American-English spellings for British-English names. So you might become Tiler Durden, which I can start doing if you prefer. ;D
Oh, and by the way, I saw a travel documentary on Mongolia in which the host, I think he was British, coincidentally, urged viewers to use not only the Mongols' preferred English spelling of Chinggis Khaan, but also something closer to their pronunciation. Per the documentary, it's apparently deemed rather ignorant and/or insulting to some there when foreigners use the "G" sound instead of "Ch." I try not to use insulting spellings, pronunciations and names where less insulting English versions are available, though I'm not always aware of it, of course, and I'm not very good about being a stickler about it, I'm embarrassed to admit.
I figure it's not that big a deal here, because we don't have any Mongolians that I'm aware of, but I'm just explaining why I spell the name the way I do, so I won't waste any of your time spent on correcting me.
-
Persian historian Rashid al-Din recorded in his Chronicles that the legendary glittering Genghis was tall, long-bearded, red-haired, and green-eyed. This is quite common in mongolia which points to a european link. This fact makes me not surprised at all that certain UK citizens share genes with him.
I suspect he probably looked like these people but he also may have been caucasian.
BLONDE MONGOLS WERE WHITE?! nope 100% Asian/Mongoloid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6RwZcethUw#)
-
Scientists are fairly confident that they know Chinggis' patrilineal haplogroup, and it wasn't what is generally considered Caucasian (though all Asians and Europeans share some common ancestors who came from Africa). It was the C3 haplogroup. Here is its current distribution:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Haplogrupo_C3_%28ADN-Y%29.PNG/800px-Haplogrupo_C3_%28ADN-Y%29.PNG)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C3_(Y-DNA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C3_(Y-DNA))
No one knows for sure what he looked like, but this image is apparently widely accepted as probably roughly close to what he looked like in his mature adult days:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg/220px-YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg)
This one looks somewhat idealized:
(http://1110.jasonhall.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/wok-two.jpg)
And here is a portrait of one of his sons, Ögedei Khan:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Ogadai_Khan.jpg/220px-Ogadai_Khan.jpg)
-
either way im sure he ahd red hair and grey eyes since 1) every historian from the time likely to have seen him in person describes him this way and 2) there are so many mongolians with these features around today. Most likely they just have some caucasian blood.
-
That's not what I meant. In my approach, I would use British-English spellings for people and places with British names in the UK, which I do. Don't you? Using "Genghis Khan" instead of the Mongols own favored English spellings for their own heroes and places would be the equivalent of using American-English spellings for British-English names. So you might become Tiler Durden, which I can start doing if you prefer. ;D
Not valid, this is a question of 2 different languages, not 2 different dialects. Sometimes other pronunciations of certain foreign words are more difficult to pronounce or sound ridiculous in another language when they don't share the same exact type of common phonetics/spelling, so it's best to use the foreign wording in the relevant language. The only exception might be in a foreign language which is closely related, and then not all the time.
I do think that dialects should be kept to a single standard as that's a different issue. For example, German has numerous dialects which sound so alien they don't seem at all like "HochDeutsch", the standard German language. It would be ridiculous if Viennese authorities used "Wienerisch" dialect for their road-signs as then Tyroleans in Austria wouldn't understand them, and so on. I wouldn't mind American-English being changed to British English, for example, or Mexican Spanish to be made the same as Castilian Standard Spanish(indeed a fluent Spanish speaking English acquintance has said that he got more respect from people in Central/South America for speaking standard Spanish than the local version, as it's considered to be more educated. In the case of American English, the spelling is too simple, for example "e" instead of "ae" or "o" instead of "oe", and distances the language from its Latin roots. For example, as a result of learning Latin at school, my English vocabulary increased a lot precisely because so many English words had the same spelling as many Latin words.
"Tyler" isn't the standard British-English spelling at all, it is actually "Tyler". Maybe you are thinking of Old English which is so different from modern English as to be a different language.
As regards the "insulting" claim, it's not meant to be insulting so it isn't insulting therefore to say the English version.
-
either way im sure he ahd red hair and grey eyes since 1) every historian from the time likely to have seen him in person describes him this way and 2) there are so many mongolians with these features around today. Most likely they just have some caucasian blood.
Well, the paintings I've seen all show him to be heavily Mongoloid. Then again, the paintings of Jesus have shown a wide difference over the millenia, with Aryan likenesses of Jesus appearing in Byzantium and African ones in modern Africa, so one can't be sure.
-
paintings mean nothing. It just meant that some artist said oh hes mongolian, mongolia is in asia therefore i will paint him this way.
historians who were there have much more credebility.
-
Not valid....
Regardless, I'm going to probably keep using the Chingiss Khaan spelling, except maybe sometimes when quoting text that has the Genghis spelling or such (it will at least be in the quoted text, if not my discussion of it), so you needn't bother correcting me--just letting you know.
There is a legend of Chingiss having had red hair, promulgated by at least the Persian historian Rashid-al-Din (1247–1318), who never saw Chingiss, and the oral history of the Borjigid clan:
No accurate portraits of Genghis exist today, and any surviving depictions are considered to be artistic interpretations. Persian historian Rashid-al-Din recorded in his "Chronicles" that the legendary "glittering" ancestor of Genghis was tall, long-bearded, red-haired, and green-eyed. Rashid al-Din also described the first meeting of Genghis and Kublai Khan, when Genghis was surprised to find that Kublai had not inherited his red hair.[15] Also according to al-Din, Genghis' Borjigid clan had a legend involving their origins: it began as the result of an affair between Alan-ko and a stranger to her land, a glittering man who happened to have red hair and bluish-green eyes. Modern historian Paul Ratchnevsky has suggested in his Genghis biography that the "glittering man" may have been from the Kyrgyz people, who historically displayed these same characteristics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan)
Historians have been known to get a lot of things wrong. I put more weight on the genetic evidence, though even that is not certain, and the general appearance of the people alive today who are believed to be genetic descendants of Chingiss (though they would also have inherited genes from others, so a broad overview of Chingiss' descendants would be better if we had access to such), such as apparently this fellow, who looks like a Kazakh to me:
(http://www.fotoblur.com/imgs/0/0/0/2/7/8/2/180577.jpg?v=1)
And this boy is a Hazara, who are a people that claim to have Chingiss ancestry and scientists did find the alleged Chingiss DNA among them:
(http://www.worldvisionreport.org/stories_img_thumb/bamiyan-orphanage-afghanistan-zahir_306x199.jpg)
I actually think it would be pretty neat if Chingiss had had red hair and shared relatively recent (say within the last 10-20,000 years) DNA with Europeans. After noticing many similarities between the horse cultures of the Mongols and the Irish, I wondered myself whether there might be a relatively recent DNA link and looked into it, but I learned that Chingiss' believed patrilineal haplogroup is C3, which is not one of the European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroup#European_haplogroups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroup#European_haplogroups)) or even proto-European haplogroups, AFAIK.
From this image, it doesn't look like C3 would be closely related to the "European" Y-DNA Haplogroups (R1b, R1a, I, E1b1b, J, G, N, or T--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_European_populations), except perhaps E1b1b (which is found mainly in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and Europe):
(http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~colin/DriscollOfCork//yDNA/tree.gif)
I was mildly disappointed. If you come across any genetic evidence to the contrary, please do share it. Perhaps there's a link just a bit farther back then what I've found in my searches, or on Chingiss' mother's side (mitochondrial haplogroup).
-
all of the red/blonde haired blue/green/grey eyed mongolians as well as the historical record and the horse culture similarities you mentioned are enough evidence of a european connection to me. All of the caucasian red haired tattooed mummies in asia are also proof of caucasians being in the area. This tattoo/ horse/ gold jewellery type culture is quite indicative of a european connection. I believe that the nomadic scythians are a big part of this. There are many caucasoid people all over asia. There are also the ainu people of japan to consider who clearly have lots of white blood.
That khazakh has the jaw and skeletal structure of weston prices raw meat eaters. Where did you find that picture?
-
It's certainly true that there were a lot of Caucasians in those areas in ancient times, given evidence of blond mummies and current DNA tests of that Chinese village showed possible Roman(well, likely Hun) DNA as comprising 50% of total DNA of the inhabitants, so GK might well have had red hair. However, I have read that the Ainu are not Caucasian in any way:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_people#Origins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_people#Origins)
-
I believe that the nomadic scythians are a big part of this.
The Scythians, Uuyghurs, and other peoples with proto-European connections were one of the reasons I thought the Mongols might also have relatively recent proto-European ancestry. I haven't found any genetic evidence of this yet, though, unfortunately. As I said, like you, I thought there might be a closer connection and haven't given up completely on the possibility. Perhaps the connection just may go back a bit farther and scientists may just not have found it yet, but the haplogroup tree doesn't look promising, surely you see that?
Believe it or not there are also Asian horse cultures, not just European. One of the hypotheses of historians is that the Scythians had a wide influence on other cultures of Asia and Europe and that this might help explain the many similarities between Scythian culture and later Asian and European cultures. It will be interesting to see what future archaelogical finds and DNA evidence will produce. I'm rooting for there being more right than wrong about what you've been saying.
That's not to say that there aren't any European genes among the Mongols. After all, they defeated and conquered some Europeans and took some of their women. It's just that so far it doesn't look like the core of the original Mongols, nor the majority of the people, is characterized by European or proto-European genes.
That khazakh has the jaw and skeletal structure of weston prices raw meat eaters. Where did you find that picture?
Google images. He has a hunting bird, so he probably does eat a fair amount of meat, maybe even some of it raw, though more likely boiled or roasted within the animal's hide in relatively traditional ways.
-
i dont care what wikipedia or anyone else says as far as the ainu go. When I look at pictures of these people it is so obvious to me that they have white blood that i tihnk youd have to be blind not to see it.
Also the similarity between japanese heirarchical/warrior culture and that of the europeans is striking.
Also look into the japanese/finnish connection. There are many.
-
I will agree that many Orientals have pale skin that is basically white. Other than the Manchu, though, I doubt that they have more than a tiny amount of Caucasian DNA. I mean if it is possible for some Australian Aborigines to have yellowish hair, then it is possible for other ethnic groups to also develop similiar characteristics to Caucasians without necessarily interbreeding with them.
-
i dont look at skin color as an indicator of race in the least bit. The main thing I look for is skull structure which is very caucasian in the ainu. Also their facial and body hair level is something very rarely seen in asians.
i woud post some blatant pics of this if i knew how
-
CK, your 2nd link has a paragraph which merely proves my point exactly:-
"It is incorrect to assume that the MRCA and his/her ancestors passed all their genes down to every person alive today. Because of sexual reproduction, at every generation, an ancestor only passes half of his or her genes to the next generation. The percentage of genes inherited from the MRCA becomes smaller and smaller at every successive generation, as genes inherited from contemporaries of MRCA are interchanged via sexual reproduction.[4] As the human genome consists of roughly 2 the power of 32 base pairs, the genetic contribution of a single ancestor may be flushed out of an individual's genome completely after 32 generations, or roughly 1,000 years."
As long as you'll admit that humans are the most inbred species on Earth, by far, then I think I've done my job.
-
i think it depends on what humans. The royal families I believe are the most inbred thigns on earth probably while normal humans are inbred to a much lesser extent. Our farm animals and pets id be willing to bet are a lot more inbred than regular humans.
-
As long as you'll admit that humans are the most inbred species on Earth, by far, then I think I've done my job.
Only very partially. A few species seem to have some limited protection against inbreeding, but humans are like cheetahs and many other species which frequently become infertile or develop appalling genetic diseases if they inbreed too much. Dogs are a classic case, as TOD has stated. Dogs have become so inbred that a very large number of dogs have some form of serious health-problem. I'm thinking of pugs and boxers who have breathing problems because their faces were evolutionarily designed by man to flatten, and so on..And since Man has almost killed off many species and limited their former range, there are now lots of species in very small numbers in very small areas, who are forced to inbreed a lot more than before.
If you look at the Habsburg example, you will find that there was a great deal of inbreeding, cousins marrying cousins etc. over generations(even sometimes uncles/nieces) and within only a very few centuries, the result was royal descendants with appalling inherited diseases and facial disfigurements and infertility. Then there was the example of Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs who didn't mind sibling incest. The effects of such inbreeding were dire resulting in infertility etc., so that one could see that if there was so much inbreeding a couple of hundred thousand years ago, we could not possibly have survived util now.