Out of Afica theory and color. Creation and evolution oh my!!!!

Creation and the out of Africa theory both state that we are all the descendants of one group [in some cases one female] And all the changes that has happened in man has occured over the last 100,000 to 2 million years.

Its said that the first Australians migrated to Australia 50,000 years ago.

It is stated that Asians migrated to Asia 30,000 to 100,000 years ago.

It is stated that Europeans migrated to Europe 30,000 to 60,000 years ago.

It is stated the Native Americans migrated to the Americas 14,000 to 30,000 years ago.

It is stated that homo erectus began migrating to all of these places upto 2 million years ago.

My question is simple, is this enough time for us to evolve different skin color, different hair color and texture, and other differences based on our environments, and if so how are we being affected today by this process as all colors and creeds are spread all over the globe.?

Can we expect those currently living in the America's [or anywhere else] to start turning a more shade of red? and so on and so forth???

reply to post by LDragonFire


Humans are one of the strongest environmental pressures on Earth, especially against each other.
Both attractive beauty, and the horrific act of rape are selected for, for example.

Any slight variation in physical appearance, towards "Attractive", spreads quickly through a shallow gene-pool.

If you're interested in the genetic basis of hair colour, check out wikipedia:
Genetics and biochemistry of hair color

When living naked in the open, skin colour is vital to survival.

Skin too dark for the area, not enough vitamin D is made, people get ill or die of influenza and rickets.
Skin too light for the area, not enough protection from the sun's rays, skin cancer.

When you have a small population with a natural variation in skin colour, these pressures will leave the ones with the most appropriate colour for the area able to stay healthy and pass on their genes, and those less blessed will be less healthy and less able to produce offspring.

What humans consider beauty has always had a strong correlation with health and fertility. Instinctively we look for someone we can make health babies with. So it's not surprising that, under these circumstances, outward appearances rapidly changed.


As we now spend most of out time indoors and wear clothing, natural selection in terms of skin colour is not applicable in the same way, so people in our societies are unlikely to change so quickly again.
A unified human preference for a certain type of mating partner could influence a change, as the non-selected types died out, but people of all appearances are still managing to reproduce. Love can be blind, or desperate, or kinky, and there's always beer.

reply to post by Kailassa


What Im wondering is did this change in color begin before we left Africa or did it start after we left. If it started after we left it seems to me this is a very fast change given the amount of time.

reply to post by LDragonFire


Well, it's something that could happen relatively fast. We've been able to do it with other species in several generations. I'll find a few sources when I can, but selecting for coloration is one of the easier things to do.

Originally posted by LDragonFire
reply to post by Kailassa

 

What Im wondering is did this change in color begin before we left Africa or did it start after we left. If it started after we left it seems to me this is a very fast change given the amount of time.

The Pharmacology of Vitamin D, Including Fortification Strategies

. . . the lack of vitamin D resulted in a natural selection for white skin colour as a way to prevent rickets and osteomalacia within defined environments. Women with osteomalacia would have produced few offspring, while those able to produce enough vitamin D to prevent rickets and osteomalacia would have been the vast majority in any region - survival depended on adequacy of vitamin D nutrition, and natural selection of skin color helped to ensure adequacy.

To explain, dark skin suited the African environment where there was lots of sun, so the melanin was needed to protect from skin cancer and there was still enough sunlight "absorbed" to make adequate vitamin D.

When some humans moved to areas where the sunlight was less intense, they could not stay healthy with such dark skin because they could not absorb enough sunlight. The lighter skinned ones were more able to reproduce, thus the colour of the population quickly changed.

If a few thousand pale-skinned people moved to Africa and spent their days outdoors, almost naked, the least pale skinned ones would be the ones most able to pass on their genes. The palest would be the most likely to suffer severe sunburn and skin cancer. Give them 1000 generations living like that, which in that environment would be 15,000 to 20,000 years, and their descendants would most likely be black skinned.

I want to throw back 1 question and 1 statement of my own to you.

Q: Why Say creation and OOA THEORY. Why not Creation myth and Evolution Theory?

S: I know it is said that we are all supposed to be of one race / species etc. However if the rule of nature holds trues, then we are the only race with one species.

Dogs for example, they are one species, but many breeds, Same all over. And on empirical evidence humans are no different. I say we are breeds of the species. i.e. some evolved from gorillas and others apes. I personally could be orangutan.

But I know I am gonna get flamed for racism here, but I don't care. I think i am right. becuase there is no way some people I know are the same race as me, even if they do have the same skin colour. thats not the issue. their breed just seems different to mine, but yet I have to class them as the same breed as me?

Would you breed a rottweiler with a chihuahua!?? err no.

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
S: I know it is said that we are all supposed to be of one race / species etc. However if the rule of nature holds trues, then we are the only race with one species.

Perhaps you should look up your terms before you try discussing this.
Humans are a member of the ape family.
There are several species of ape within this family.

Dogs for example, they are one species, but many breeds, Same all over. And on empirical evidence humans are no different. I say we are breeds of the species. i.e. some evolved from gorillas and others apes. I personally could be orangutan.

Oh my god ...
The various species of ape cannot interbreed.
If the various "races" of man had descended from different types of ape, we would be separate species, even further apart genetically than the ape species are from each other.
Thus we would be unable to breed.

But I know I am gonna get flamed for racism here, but I don't care. I think i am right. becuase there is no way some people I know are the same race as me, even if they do have the same skin colour. thats not the issue. their breed just seems different to mine, but yet I have to class them as the same breed as me?

We have something in common. I don't care if people flame you for racism either.

Would you breed a rottweiler with a chihuahua!?? err no.

Don't worry. I doubt the rottweiler is going to be attracted to you, either.

I have always wondered if wearing clothing or furs helped to speed up the process of the different colors of humans.

Thanks for the replies most are really good.

I understand the vitamin A thing, but it still seems a super fast evolutionary event that changed our colors from one to several in less than 30,000 - 100,000 years.

Originally posted by LDragonFire
I have always wondered if wearing clothing or furs helped to speed up the process of the different colors of humans.

Possibly.
Covering part of the skin would make it more important that the remainder could asorb ultra violet light efficiently.

I understand the vitamin A thing,

It's vitamin D that's relevant here, not vitamin A, so I guess you don't.

but it still seems a super fast evolutionary event that changed our colors from one to several in less than 30,000 - 100,000 years.

After it being explained to you how natural selection could have caused the changes to take place in far less time than that, your continual harping on this idea of the change being too fast betrays a hidden agenda.

What are you trying to prove?