7
   

How Is Calling A Woman A Neanderthal Sexist?

 
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 07:55 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Besides, Scheer


Scheer is a total asswipe.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 04:01 pm
@coluber2001,
Quote:
Researchers found 78 loci at which Neanderthals had an ancestral state and modern humans had a newer, derived state (Green et al 2010). Five of these genes had more than one sequence change that affected the protein structure. These proteins include SPAG17, which is involved in the movement of sperm, PCD16, which may be involved in wound healing, TTF1, which is involved in ribosomal gene transcription, and RPTN, which is found in the skin, hair and sweat glands. Other changes may not alter the sequence of the gene itself, but alter the factors that control that gene’s replication in the cell, changing its expression secondarily.

This tells us that these traits were selected for in the evolution of modern humans and were possibly selected against in Neanderthals. Though some of the genomic areas that may have been positively selected for in modern humans may have coded for structural or regulatory regions, others may have been associated with energy metabolism, cognitive development, and the morphology of the head and upper body. These are just a few of the areas where we have non-genetic evidence of differentiation between modern humans and Neanderthals.

While the study of DNA reveals aspects of relatedness and lineage, its primary function is, of course, to control the production of proteins that regulate an organism’s biology. Each gene may have a variety of genotypes, which are the variances that can occur within the site of a particular gene. Each genotype codes for a respective phenotype, which is the physical expression of that gene. When we study Neanderthal DNA, we can examine the genotypes at loci of known function and can infer what phenotype the Neanderthal’s mutations may have expressed in life. Below, explore several examples of Neanderthal genes and the possible phenotypes that they would have displayed.

Red-Headed Neanderthals
Ancient DNA has been used to show aspects of Neanderthal appearance. A fragment of the gene for the melanocortin 1 receptor (MRC1) was sequenced using DNA from two Neanderthal specimens from Spain and Italy: El Sidrón 1252 and Monte Lessini (Lalueza-Fox et al. 2007). MCR1 is a receptor gene that controls the production of melanin, the protein responsible for pigmentation of the hair and skin. Neanderthals had a mutation in this receptor gene which changed an amino acid, making the resulting protein less efficient and likely creating a phenotype of red hair and pale skin. (The reconstruction below of a male Neanderthal by John Gurche features pale skin, but not red hair) .How do we know what this phenotype would have looked like? Modern humans display similar mutations of MCR1, and people who have two copies of this mutation have red hair and pale skin. However, no modern human has the exact mutation that Neanderthals had, which means that both Neanderthals and humans evolved this phenotype independent of each other.

If modern humans and Neanderthals living in Europe at the same time period both evolved this reduction of pigmentation, it is likely that there was an advantage to this trait. One hypothesis to explain this adaptation’s advantage involves the production of vitamin D. Our bodies primarily synthesize our supply of vitamin D, rather than relying on vitamin D from food sources. Vitamin D is synthesized when the sun’s UV rays penetrate our skin. Darker skin makes it harder for sunlight to penetrate the outermost layers and stimulate the production of vitamin D, and while people living in areas of high sun exposure will still get plenty of vitamin D, people who live far from the equator are not exposed to as much sunlight and need to optimize their exposure to the sun. Therefore, it would be beneficial for populations in colder climates to have paler skin so that they can create enough vitamin D even with less sun exposure.

From Human Origins.sci.edu
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 04:11 pm
@coluber2001,
Innuit stay away from consuming amount of polar bar liver. A polar bear liver sequesters about 75K IU' of Vitamin A , which at more than a small chunk , if eaten, can cause hypervitaminosis A.

ODing on Vitamin A in our world comes from wacky people ODing on Vitamin supplements.
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 04:39 pm
There is a balance between protection from UVA and the need for UVB and the production of vitamin D.
UVA breaks down folic acid, a vitamin needed for both female and male fertility. A deficiency of folic acid means low sperm count in males, reduced fertility in females, and neural tube defects in the fetus. Darker pigmented skin protects from more intense and direct ultraviolet light, therefore the closer to the Equator the darker the skin.

The farther north in Latitude you go the weaker the intensity of the Sun and the less danger from UVA with the ability to tan.

However, UVB is needed for vitamin D production and, therefore, the need for lighter skin the farther north in latitude you live. There doesn't seem to be a adequate source of vitamin D in food outside of fish.

Colloquium Paper: Human skin pigmentation as an adaptation to UV radiation
Jablonski and Chaplin
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3024016/

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 05:09 pm
@coluber2001,
just dont eat polar bear liver K?. Eskimos use pb liver for bait
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 05:14 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Hypervitaminosis A results from excessive intake of preformed vitamin A. A genetic variance in tolerance to vitamin A intake may occur.[22] Children are particularly sensitive to vitamin A, with daily intakes of 1500 IU/kg body weight reportedly leading to toxicity.[20]

Types of vitamin A
Provitamin carotenoids - such as beta carotene - are “largely impossible” to cause toxicity, as their conversion to retinol is highly regulated.[20] No vitamin A toxicity has ever been reported from ingestion of excessive amounts.[23] Overconsumption of beta carotene can only cause carotenosis, a harmless and reversible cosmetic condition in which the skin turns orange.
Preformed vitamin A absorption and storage in the liver occur very efficiently until a pathologic condition develops.[20] When ingested, 70-90% of preformed vitamin A is absorbed and used.[20]
Sources of toxicity
Diet - liver is high in vitamin A. The liver of certain animals — including the polar bear, bearded seal,[24][25] walrus,[26] moose,[27] — are particularly toxic.
Supplements - usually when taken above recommended dosages - can be toxic. Cod liver oil is particularly high in vitamin A.
Medications - at high doses of vitamin A - are often used on long-term basis in numerous preventive and therapeutic medical applications, which may lead to hypervitaminosis A.[28]
Types of toxicity
Acute toxicity occurs over a period of hours or a few days, and is less of a problem than chronic toxicity.
Chronic toxicity - ingestion of high amounts of preformed vitamin A for months or years - results from daily intakes greater than 25,000 IU for 6 years or longer and more than 100,000 IU for 6 months or longer - are considered toxic.
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 07:30 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
just dont eat polar bear liver K?. Eskimos use pb liver for bait


Never have seen it at the supermarket, and don't care for liver anyway. Not many polar bears in Texas.
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 07:54 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

List an insult against Michelle Bachman that you consider to be sexist


I don't recall any specific insults, but when she was running for POTUS in 2012, they made an issue of the traditional role that she, as a Christian, played in her marriage. That was sexist and unfair.

(not maxdancona) wrote:

How Is Calling A Woman A Neanderthal Sexist?


Neanderthals were all female and reproduced through parthenogenesis.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 11:14 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote ehBeth:
Quote:
Scheer is a total asswipe.

Certainly, nothing in this video poses a challenge to that assessment:


0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2018 09:48 am
@maxdancona,
I wish I could give this comment 10 thumbs up
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2018 10:25 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I wish I could give this comment 10 thumbs up


Thanks Finn.... but you've never heard of sock puppets?
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2018 10:29 am
@maxdancona,
As I recall, Bobsal is serving a three month suspension for doing that.
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2018 12:04 pm
@oralloy,
Was Bobsal's sock puppet a Homo Sapien sock puppet or a Neanderthal sock puppet?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2018 01:26 pm
@oralloy,
Who told you that?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2018 01:57 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
Who told you that?

http://able2know.org/topic/35573-320#post-6510776
http://able2know.org/topic/35573-320#post-6510921
http://able2know.org/topic/35573-320#post-6511445
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2018 05:03 pm
@Blickers,
Quote:
Turnabout is fair play.


Which precisely what is going on in this video.

You don't have to call a woman a slut or pushy bitch to be operating from a sexist mode. If the right honorable cabinet minister was dismissive of the conservative MP and her views because of her gender, any insult he might have chosen would have been hurled with an impetus of sexism. The correlation between neanderthal and presumed antipathy towards technology would be secondary.

Without a whole lot more information (which I have absolutely no desire to seek) it's not possible for me to even guess what might have been in the mind of the cabinet minister when he called the MP a neanderthal.
However, there are other terms he could have used that might have given the opposition less opportunity to turn the tables. Luddite is one and not only is it less susceptible to spurring charges of sexism, it would be far closer to the cabinet ministers apparent point. Flat-earther is another. Even medieval would have been less charged

You are being disingenuous in your explanation of the usage of neanderthal as an insult. Fortunately, there are no longer any neanderthals around to be offended by stereotypes, because the name of their species has become synonymous with low-intelligence, and brutal behavior and our hominid cousins would be justified in organizing marches through the streets of the nation's cities. In fact, it is used far more frequently in describing a sexist lout than someone who is behind the times. In this respect, troglodyte is a far closer synonym for neanderthal than something like fuddy-duddy or reactionary.

I do, though, doubt the cabinet minister was reflecting sexism when he called the woman a neanderthal (unless of course, she is broad bodied and homely). No, he was just being a nasty **** to someone with whom he disagrees politically and that's a good enough reason for him to apologize. Particularly in an age when chivalry is dead, insulting a female colleague is no more rude that insulting a male one, but it remains, at least for a little while longer I hope, rude. They are colleagues in the endeavor to run the Canadian government and while they may not agree on policy, theoretically at least, they share a common goal: to protect and serve the Canadian people. When I worked in Corporate America, I shared a common goal with my colleagues even though, at times, I strongly disagreed with them on how to achieve it. The idea of publically calling one of them any derogatory name, let alone neanderthal, would never have crossed my mind, and if I had been so foolish and rude to do so, I can assure you that the least of consequences would have been my boss requiring I apologize to the person I insulted. Somehow though, the young Mr. Trudeau and his minister believe they are exempt from courtesy, and civil behavior.

(Now, before you launch into a predictable but irrelevant tirade about Trump, his insulting his colleagues is, in my opinion, unseemly and unfortunate. I would much prefer that he not do it, however, we're discussing members of the Canadian government, not Trump and unless you feel that your exoneration of the Canadian cabinet minister extends to our president, there's no need to introduce him to the thread)

Other than the time he pretentiously scolded a Canadian citizen on her use of the term "mankind," this is the first time I've seen Trudeau in action. I was not impressed. I like the tradition of Prime Minister's Questions and I would very much like to see it here in the US. The performances of the PM and the leader of the opposition are not, by themselves, all that is needed to judge the fitness of the leader of the Canadian government, but they do give a good indication of how sharply a person's wit is honed and how well they can think and speak on their feet. Now the times a head of government needs to formulate a response this quickly are few and far between, but I think the ability to do so is a good indication of not only intelligence but a thorough understanding of what is going on in his or her government and country. Trudeau was cringe-worthy in reading a prepared response that I'm sure could have been and was intended to be used for a wide variety of questions. In other words, it wouldn't actually answer any question but would provide the PM with the opportunity to rattle off a canned list of his accomplishments. It's the same, all too familiar, scripted performances we see from our politicians during interviews with the news media.

The opposition leader, on the other hand, appeared quick-witted and articulate. He more than likely had rehearsed the initial question and probably gave thought to how Trudeau would answer, but he clearly left the better impression. I don't know how much weight Canadian voters place on these performances when deciding for who to cast their vote, but if it's heavy and this was a good indication of how they all go, Canada may very well have a new PM after the next election.

There are few more dedicated tribespersons participating in this forum (if any at all) than you Blickers. When I opened this thread I was surprised (for the briefest of moments) to see you defending anyone accused of being a sexist, but then it dawned on me that the person being accused had to be a Democrat...and then I noticed the line "Canadians deserve better" along the top of the video clip and realized, accurately this time, that you were defending a left-winger. You are to the Progressive Caucus, the Democrat Party and and the global Leftist Movement, what Tȟašúŋke Witkó (AKA Crazy Horse) was to the Oglala Lakota, the Lakota peoples and the Sioux Nation. Your predictability tends to be very tiresome, but at least you're consistently loyal to your tribe.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2018 05:14 pm
@maxdancona,
I don't care to create 10 separate e-mail accounts...not even for you max.

I played the game once; a few years ago as "Doctor Gotz." It was intended as a test of my ability to control my emotions when debating and as an experiment designed to tell me something about the crowd dynamics here. It was fun for a short while, but it's hard work trying to post comments that are similar in substance but different enough in style to remain disguised. (When I ended the experiment though, I suspect a lot of folks would have preferred that Finn departed and Dr. Gotz remained. Smile )
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2018 05:23 am
@coluber2001,
Quote:
The Inuits have dark skin

I see the Inuits as "light skin". It's a continuum of shades, I guess, without a cut off point.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2018 05:32 am
@oralloy,
Not that I know of, but i would guess it's related to some pale skin foreigners coming into Western Europe from the Levant, and replacing local darkies...

I'm not kidding. A number of 'invasions' have been theorized; I know of 3 different cases: sapiens pushing back neanderthal circa -40,000; neolithic people from middle east pushing against european hunter-gatherers circa -7000; and the indo-european invasions, around -3000.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/17/2018 at 02:01:25