How come I am white ?
P
I have read somewhere that the black type of skin color is a "character"
that is stronger compared to the white one. I also know that mankind came
from Africa. Now something doesn't match:
either people from Africa weren't originally black
or the first theory is wrong.
In both cases my curiosity still asks: how come we have different skin
colors if we all came from the same ancestors ? I can imagine genetic
changes during the centuries and also climate influence...
Does anyone has pointers or answers to this ?
Thanx
Rushtown
>From: "P" nob...@nowhere.com
>Date: 4/24/00 2:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <39041...@news.dada.it>
Every so often there was a lighter skinned individual. He or she had an
advantage in mating in the north because of this lighter skin. As this process
continued lighter skin became lighter and lighter.
You might as well ask, "How come I'm not a monkey.?"
Christian Meyer
Dark skin filters harmful radiation out of the sunlight to protect the
individual. In the tropics the solar radiation is most pronounced,
therefore the dark skin of the people there. Due to the same effect,
albeit on a very limited scale, the skin of people tans after being
exposed to heavy sunlight.
As mankind advanced north the level of solar radiation decreased, as
well as the need to have dark skin. Light skin was no disadvantage in
the northern climates, so natural selection did not impose any pressures
in the direction of dark skin.
Another factor is the production of vitamin D (I think) which is
produced with the help of sunlight on one's skin. If you have dark skin
and the level of solar radiation is low, you cannot produce enough of
it. So, dark skin in a colder climate is a disadvantage and natural
selection would favor lighter skin. In the arctic the level of solar
intensity is too low to let you produce enough of vitamin D and the
people there have to rely on their food to supply them with it. I think
dark skinned American soldiers in Alaska had some problems with that in
the past.
So, dark skin in colder climates is a disadvantage and light skin in hot
climates is also. Think of cancer etc.
Rob Curedale
>that is stronger compared to the white one. I also know that mankind came
>from Africa. Now something doesn't match:
>either people from Africa weren't originally black
>or the first theory is wrong.
>In both cases my curiosity still asks: how come we have different skin
>colors if we all came from the same ancestors ? I can imagine genetic
>changes during the centuries and also climate influence...
>Does anyone has pointers or answers to this ?
>
>Thanx
>
>
I have read that the differences in skin color and hair/ eye color in eurpe
evolved over a relatively short period although I can't remember how long,
maybe 10,000 years.
What I don't understand is how red hair and black hair in Europe exist in
relatively close geographical areas. Why didn't these groups interbreed? I have
heard that black hair/ brown eyes is dominant but not black skin as you
suggest. If a black skinned man and a white woman have a child it will be
coffee colored. The world will be a better place when we are all coffee
colored.
Rushtown
>From: robcu...@aol.com (Rob Curedale)
>Date: 4/24/00 11:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000425023157...@ng-fc1.aol.com>
Eye color and hair color are governed by just a few alleles.(ie sites for genes
or gene pairs). They don't mix like colored water. They mix like particles of
sand.
And when two recessive genes combine the recessive trait is expressed.
Therefore a population with 1/2 brown eyed genes and 1/2 blue eyed would show
1/4th blue eyed people. And this situation could persist
indefinitely---there's be no blending, as long as new genes were not added to
the population.
Hall
for the name Eskimos, but it is most recognized) in Alaska
are pretty dark skinned and their climate is extremely cold
and dark, also snowy in the winter. While the Scandinavians
live in the same climates almost are very fair, and I think
for about the same periods of time, yet they look a lot
different, and are considered a completely different race.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Rushtown
>Date: 4/25/00 5:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <04e9bbf8...@usw-ex0108-061.remarq.com>
>
>Well this doesn't make any sense, because the Eskimos (sorry
>for the name Eskimos, but it is most recognized) in Alaska
>are pretty dark skinned and their climate is extremely cold
>and dark, also snowy in the winter. While the Scandinavians
>live in the same climates almost are very fair, and I think
>for about the same periods of time, yet they look a lot
>different, and are considered a completely different race.
If you look at a map of total solar radiation reaching the ground Mongolia is
fairly high while Northern Europe around the Baltic is
very low (very cloudy). It seems that fair skin and blond hair did evolve in
response to little sunlight (not to intense cold.) BTW there are Northern
Chinese and Koreans with skin as light as the average European----though not as
light as Scandanavians.
David K. Davis
: >I have read somewhere that the black type of skin color is a "character"
: >that is stronger compared to the white one. I also know that mankind came
: >from Africa. Now something doesn't match:
: >either people from Africa weren't originally black
: >or the first theory is wrong.
: >In both cases my curiosity still asks: how come we have different skin
: >colors if we all came from the same ancestors ? I can imagine genetic
: >changes during the centuries and also climate influence...
: >Does anyone has pointers or answers to this ?
: >
: >Thanx
: >
: >
: I have read that the differences in skin color and hair/ eye color in eurpe
: evolved over a relatively short period although I can't remember how long,
: maybe 10,000 years.
: What I don't understand is how red hair and black hair in Europe exist in
: relatively close geographical areas. Why didn't these groups interbreed? I have
: heard that black hair/ brown eyes is dominant but not black skin as you
: suggest. If a black skinned man and a white woman have a child it will be
: coffee colored. The world will be a better place when we are all coffee
: colored.
The world will be a better place when despite various differences we can
all get along. Tolerance, not homogeneity.
-Dave Davis
Hall
> the ground Mongolia is
> fairly high while Northern Europe around the Baltic is
> very low (very cloudy). It seems that fair skin and
> blond hair did evolve in
> response to little sunlight (not to intense cold.) BTW
> there are Northern
> Chinese and Koreans with skin as light as the average
> European----though not as
> light as Scandanavians.
Okay... Sure, like this makes any sense... But if you mean
people evolving to their climate to such an extreme, then
we've heard that before. But it is all theory, just like
everything else you seem so sure about, Rushtown.
Jenn
"Rob Curedale" <robcu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000425023157...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> >I have read somewhere that the black type of skin color is a "character"
> >that is stronger compared to the white one. I also know that mankind came
> >from Africa. Now something doesn't match:
> >either people from Africa weren't originally black
> >or the first theory is wrong.
> >In both cases my curiosity still asks: how come we have different skin
> >colors if we all came from the same ancestors ? I can imagine genetic
> >changes during the centuries and also climate influence...
> >Does anyone has pointers or answers to this ?
> >
> >Thanx
> >
> >
>
> I have read that the differences in skin color and hair/ eye color in
eurpe
> evolved over a relatively short period although I can't remember how long,
> maybe 10,000 years.
>
> What I don't understand is how red hair and black hair in Europe exist in
> relatively close geographical areas. Why didn't these groups interbreed?
They did.
Jenn
"Hall" <warlord30...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:04e9bbf8...@usw-ex0108-061.remarq.com...
> Well this doesn't make any sense, because the Eskimos (sorry
> for the name Eskimos, but it is most recognized) in Alaska
> are pretty dark skinned and their climate is extremely cold
> and dark, also snowy in the winter.
They are lighter skinned than most Africans. They get more sun in the summer
than Scandanavians. In the Baltic the summer is relatively cloudy. Also,
the Eskimos, had dietary sources of Vitamin D, that weren't available to the
Scandanavians. They drink musk ox blood for one thing.
While the Scandinavians
> live in the same climates almost are very fair, and I think
> for about the same periods of time, yet they look a lot
> different, and are considered a completely different race.
Well race isn't that important to most anthopology anymore. Asians would
seem more physically adapted to cold climates. Scandanavians have a better
complexion, but aren't physically as well adapted. Asians have long trunks
and short legs, small noses, and eyes. Much better for living in cold
whether, yet we find them in tropical areas. Scandanavians with the short
trunks and long legs, large eyes and noses, are more adapted to heat, but
they live in the cold.
People don't just adapt to their environments with their bodies like
animals. We also adapt with culture and technology, not to mention
circumstance.
Fact is during the last ice age Africa probably had a colder climate, and
you had more variations in the the skin color, than exists currently.
As the climate change, groups diverged, became more genetically isolated,
and specialized toward a variety of climates.
Without dietary vitamin d, the pelvis of dark skinned Northern European
women, wouldn't have developed properly, and they would have died giving
birth.
After, the climate in Africa became hotter, light skinned people would have
burned severely, and gotten skin cancer.
Beyond that we just don't know. It is simply something that needs more
research. This is the beauty of science. It admits it doesn't have the
complete answer, when this is clearly the case. We know evolution happened,
we are still not sure of all its processes, just like we know the brain
generates thought, while still knowing precious little, on how this
happens..
Rushtown
>Date: 4/26/00 12:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8e7fgr$sbv$1...@news.laserlink.net>
>
>
>"Hall" <warlord30...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:04e9bbf8...@usw-ex0108-061.remarq.com...
>> Well this doesn't make any sense, because the Eskimos (sorry
>> for the name Eskimos, but it is most recognized) in Alaska
>> are pretty dark skinned and their climate is extremely cold
>> and dark, also snowy in the winter.
>
>They are lighter skinned than most Africans. They get more sun in the summer
>than Scandanavians. In the Baltic the summer is relatively cloudy. Also,
>the Eskimos, had dietary sources of Vitamin D, that weren't available to the
>Scandanavians. They drink musk ox blood for one thing.
>
> While the Scandinavians
>> live in the same climates almost are very fair, and I think
>> for about the same periods of time, yet they look a lot
>> different, and are considered a completely different race.
>
>Well race isn't that important to most anthopology anymore. Asians would
>seem more physically adapted to cold climates. Scandanavians have a better
>complexion, but aren't physically as well adapted. Asians have long trunks
>and short legs, small noses, and eyes. Much better for living in cold
>whether, yet we find them in tropical areas. Scandanavians with the short
>trunks and long legs, large eyes and noses, are more adapted to heat, but
>they live in the cold.
Scandanavians still show their African ancestry with the long legs as do most
Europeans. It is clear we did come out of
Africa and got rid of the real (adapted) Europeans, the Neandertals.
Genetic surveys show that the Iranians are more Caucasoid and further removed
from Negroes than are Scandanavians. That's why all this Nordic superiority is
stupid.
Because Scandanavians look the least black it is assumed they are the most
Caucasoid or the furthest removed from Blacks. This is not true.
Rushtown
>Date: 4/26/00 1:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <1db9fb3c...@usw-ex0109-070.remarq.com>
>
>> If you look at a map of total solar radiation reaching
>> the ground Mongolia is
>> fairly high while Northern Europe around the Baltic is
>> very low (very cloudy). It seems that fair skin and
>> blond hair did evolve in
>> response to little sunlight (not to intense cold.) BTW
>> there are Northern
>> Chinese and Koreans with skin as light as the average
>> European----though not as
>> light as Scandanavians.
>
>Okay... Sure, like this makes any sense... But if you mean
>people evolving to their climate to such an extreme, then
>we've heard that before. But it is all theory, just like
>everything else you seem so sure about, Rushtown.
Sure it's all theory. And it's not just my theory. Carlton Coon (no kidding)
a great anthropologist has the maps re solar radiation in his book "Living
Races of Man" and it is he that puts forth this theory.
Darwin thought that racial differences were due largely to sexual selection.
This seems true for blond hair. It has no survival value--it's just good for
attracting mates because it is a (false) symbol of
youthfulness.
The fair skin of Scandanavians was probably partially selected as an adaptation
to climate but then accentuated by sexual selection.
Seeing that blonds have now spread over the world to mostly more sunny climes
it would seem some admixture with darker races would be beneficial.
Jenn
And of coarse we are talking normative morphology too, You will find
short legged Europeans, and fairly reachy Iranians. I happen to come
from some fairly short legged, cold adapted Northern Europeans. 1/4
Irish, 1/4 German, 3/16 Swedish, 1/16 French, 1/8 Old Yankee Stock, 1/8
unidentified Native American, and I am only 5 ft. tall. My Irish
paternal grandfather, was 5 ft 4 in. I probably got it from him,
however, my Saxon German maternal grandfather, was only 5 ft 8 in, My
grandmothers were both 5 ft 4 in respectively. I don't have alot of
tall genes period;-)
--
Jenn
The most potent weapon of the
oppressor is the mind of the
oppressed.
Steven Biko
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
collou...@my-deja.com
> >Date: 4/26/00 1:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <1db9fb3c...@usw-ex0109-070.remarq.com>
> >
> >> If you look at a map of total solar radiation reaching
> >> the ground Mongolia is
> >> fairly high while Northern Europe around the Baltic is
> >> very low (very cloudy). It seems that fair skin and
> >> blond hair did evolve in
> >> response to little sunlight (not to intense cold.) BTW
> >> there are Northern
> >> Chinese and Koreans with skin as light as the average
> >> European----though not as
> >> light as Scandanavians.
> >
> >Okay... Sure, like this makes any sense... But if you mean
> >people evolving to their climate to such an extreme, then
> >we've heard that before. But it is all theory, just like
> >everything else you seem so sure about, Rushtown.
>
> Sure it's all theory. And it's not just my theory. Carlton Coon (no
kidding)
> a great anthropologist has the maps re solar radiation in his book
"Living
> Races of Man" and it is he that puts forth this theory.
Coon? Come on Rushy, you gotta do better than one old crank from the
1960s whose out of date theories have long been demolished. Boy, you
really stuck in the mud aren't you. Coon, you just gotta shake your
head at anyone who thinks citing him is getting him anywhere at all.
Living races of man has long been demolished chico. Give it up.
> Darwin thought that racial differences were due largely to sexual
selection.
> This seems true for blond hair. It has no survival value--it's just
good for
> attracting mates because it is a (false) symbol of
> youthfulness.
Blah blah blah blah. Symbol of youthfulness for who? Pop-psych babble.
> The fair skin of Scandanavians was probably partially selected as an
adaptation
> to climate but then accentuated by sexual selection.
> Seeing that blonds have now spread over the world to mostly more sunny
climes
> it would seem some admixture with darker races would be beneficial.
Ah, bother, what's a little skin cancer? Let em roast.
neurocop
This hypothesis states that, in general, equatorial humans, who are
exposed to much sunlight, have darker pigmentation to reduce the risk of
hypervitaminosis D, since photic calciferol conversion to Vit D takes
place in the exposed skin. Of course, melanotic skin also reduces the
risk of solar skin damage and skin cancer. Lighter skin in the sub-polar
latitudes optimizes Vit D production in the skin. Darker skinned
individuals at such latitudes would be prone to Vit D deficiency.
The dark-skinned Inuit consume a lot of pre-formed Vit D in their diet,
and so they are at no risk of Rickets. Their dark skin may also have
something to do with their relatively recent asiatic ancestors. In any
case, their diet obviates the disadvantage of dark skin. If you fed them
a typical Northern European diet, they would probably develop Rickets,
unless ypu included Vit D-enriched milk...
Drox
Jenn wrote:
> They (Eskimos) drink musk ox blood for one thing.
They do? Amazing. Musk oxen are extremely hard to kill. Even polar bears
don't do it. On the off chance that they did kill a musk ox, I expect Eskimos
would eat the musk ox meat rather than just drinking the blood.
Actually, arctic people eat lots of high-fat fish, which are rich in vitamin D.
-Drox
Stefano Ghirlanda
: fairly high while Northern Europe around the Baltic is
: very low (very cloudy). It seems that fair skin and blond hair did evolve in
: response to little sunlight (not to intense cold.) BTW there are Northern
: Chinese and Koreans with skin as light as the average European----though not as
: light as Scandanavians.
Cavalli-Sforza mentions another factor: Eskimos always had plenty of vitamin D
because of their meat-rich diet, so they did not need to change their skin
color. European populations relied more on agricolture which provides no
vitamin D.
--
Stefano Ghirlanda, Zoologiska Institutionen, Stockholms Universitet
email: ste...@zool.su.se, tel: +46-8-164055, fax: +46-8-167715
the free science campaign: http://ethology.zool.su.se/freescience
Pamela Maddison
neurocop <thal...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3910EF9A...@ix.netcom.com...
It's less noticeable now, particularly after the intervention of the
rationing system during WWII, but among older people in NW England there are
a lot with bowed legs and misshapen pelvises from rickets. The skies are
cloudy a lot.... er, it rains a lot in Manchester... and the problem got
worse in the Industrial Revolution. Clean Air Acts have helped, too, but
even for the white population the situation is marginal; cod liver oil
forced down children's throats in the 1950s may have been unpopular, but it
dealt with the problem. Clear skies make a lot of difference, and that is
something North West Europe often does not have; a slight increase in foggy
conditions is too much even for blue-eyed blondes in some areas.
Jois Lombard
Irish did okay until the second or third child and that/those child/children
would be born with rickets. If the woman had a chance to space the children and
eat well for a while the next would be okay. Bowed legs for both males and
females and the added c-section births for the females.
Jois
Bloody Viking
: worse in the Industrial Revolution. Clean Air Acts have helped, too, but
: even for the white population the situation is marginal; cod liver oil
: forced down children's throats in the 1950s may have been unpopular, but it
: dealt with the problem. Clear skies make a lot of difference, and that is
: something North West Europe often does not have; a slight increase in foggy
: conditions is too much even for blue-eyed blondes in some areas.
And our blond friends in Norway like fish a lot. Little wonder Vikings
liked driving around in ragtop ships.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
John Atkinson
>
> Jenn wrote:
>
> > They (Eskimos) drink musk ox blood for one thing.
>
> They do? Amazing. Musk oxen are extremely hard to kill.
Musk oxen are not all that difficult for people with spears to kill.
They do have an excellent defence strategy against their traditional
predators (mainly wolves) -- they stand and face the pack, rather than
fleeing. This just makes them *more* vulnerable to human predation, and
is probably the explanation why their range has shrunk so much since
humans moved into the American arctic and subarctic.
> Even polar bears
> don't do it. On the off chance that they did kill a musk ox, I expect Eskimos
> would eat the musk ox meat rather than just drinking the blood.
I'm sure this is true!
John.
Andrew
"Rob Curedale" <robcu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000425023157...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> >I have read somewhere that the black type of skin color is a "character"
> >that is stronger compared to the white one. I also know that mankind came
> >from Africa. Now something doesn't match:
> >either people from Africa weren't originally black
> >or the first theory is wrong.
> >In both cases my curiosity still asks: how come we have different skin
> >colors if we all came from the same ancestors ? I can imagine genetic
> >changes during the centuries and also climate influence...
> >Does anyone has pointers or answers to this ?
> >
> >Thanx
> >
> >
>
> I have read that the differences in skin color and hair/ eye color in
eurpe
> evolved over a relatively short period although I can't remember how long,
> maybe 10,000 years.
>
> What I don't understand is how red hair and black hair in Europe exist in
have
> heard that black hair/ brown eyes is dominant but not black skin as you
> suggest. If a black skinned man and a white woman have a child it will be
> coffee colored. The world will be a better place when we are all coffee
> colored.
That is racist. If the colour of someone's skin is not important then it
cannot be important if they are coffee coloured or not - if it cannot ever
be 'bad' then it cannot ever be 'good.'
But of course it does matter. If we were all coffee coloured then part of
human diversity would be lost forever. I personally prefer pale skin to dark
skin.
remmy
the 20'th century more than they did in the past!
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Bloody Viking
: I think it is important to consider that people work indoors in
: the 20'th century more than they did in the past!
And of course, white people lived in cold places and had to wear winter
jackets a lot. After all, a nude Swede wouldn't last long in winter!
Meanwhile, people in Africa had to be nude in the hot sun and needed UV
protection and didn't have sunscreen. The kludgy adaptation for the latter
is dark skin.
Brooke Sheldon
also take into account that Australia has one of the highest skin cancer
rates in the world because there is lots of fair skin and lots of nude
sunbathing.
bally.veronique
Tribes who are expose to Sun are in danger with cancer's skins. Australia
is not the own land where people have these cancers . Most of time, they are
lost of expose to sun and the cancer is go most weather after. There is also
lot of risks for children, thezy don't must go to the sun nude. And that,
people don't know ...
Bye,
Buffy.
Ian Lowery
>also take into account that Australia has one of the highest skin cancer
>rates in the world
It has the highest rate in the world.
>because there is lots of fair skin and lots of nude sunbathing.
Nude sun bathing has little to do with the statistic, it is not that
common, and it has not been generally around long enough to effect the
statistics.
The reasons are a large white, middle class population in a hot, sunny
climate, and an outdoors lifestyle. The relative affluence of the
population allows the indulgence in outdoor activities.
Ian Lowery
------------------------------------------------
To reply, remove "nospam" from my e-mail address.
Bloody Viking
: also take into account that Australia has one of the highest skin cancer
: rates in the world because there is lots of fair skin and lots of nude
: sunbathing.
That's of course the fair-skinned population only arrived in 1788 at the
earliest in known history. Not enough time for evolution to do its trick.
But the abos were there for like 40,000 years, giving lots of time for skin
cancer to weed out any white abos that are born.
That bloody ozone hole doesn't help either.
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227,
any and all unsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Ian Lowery
>Brooke Sheldon (brooke_...@optusnet.com.au) wrote:
>: also take into account that Australia has one of the highest skin cancer
>: rates in the world
>That bloody ozone hole doesn't help either.
It is too early to tell if it has had any effect.
In an island off the southern tip of South America, UV levels when the
area was covered by an ozone "hole" were significantly less than those
for Rio de Janerio in summer. Latitude is the major factor in UV
levels, not damage to the so-called "ozone layer". The problem with
the damage is not really that of what has happened, but what could
have happened if we had not nipped the problem in the bud.