Why are Europeans De-Pigmented, or what you would call white?

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Either that, or a cave man mated with an alien, eh?

Either one, or the other? Not hardly. Neither are proven. Both can be wrong. It could have been to blend into snow better in tundra regions, or any number of things.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


It would be safe to say, but there's just not enough prove to substantiate any of the theories. The one thing we know for sure is the race is different, we can't be sure why yet.

I would have said breeding practices. In Europe for whatever reason back in the ages paler was considered more attractive. Darker skin was akin to a poor laborer who had to work out in the sun.

Chimpanzees are light skinned. Pan and Pongo both have red hair.

Sorry that's chimpanzees and orangatangs. (pan and pongo sub-families)

So I'm going to call this hypothesis a fail. Of the current Hominidae three have red hair groups. Two have white skin. All four have representation of deep black skin. One has brown.

Melanin variation is well represented in that group and does not only appear in one region nor in over one period of time.



[edit on 2010/4/7 by Aeons]

UV rays produce vitamin D and reduce folate when they hit naked skin. And embryos are terribly vulnerable to both substances in the mother. When it comes to sunlight and skin tone, furless humans are balanced on a knife-blade. Too much UV penetrating the skin (too pale-skinned under intense sunlight) increases Vitamin D but reduces folate. Lack of folate causes neural tube defects in the fetus, causing such congenital abnormalities as craniorachischisis, anencephalus, and spina bifida, leading to many miscarriages. On the other hand, too little UV penetrating the skin (too dark-skinned under dim sunlight) increases folate but reduces vitamin D. Lack of vitamin D causes skeletal neonatal abnormalities (skull, chest, and leg malformations), rickets being the best known. Again, this causes miscarriages. And so, humans adapt very quickly to solar UV. Prehistoric groups that migrated towards the equator got darker. Prehistoric groups that migrated away from the equator got lighter. But this explanation fails for Europe. Northern Europeans are lighter than everyone to the south (Mediterraneans), to the east (Mongols and east-Asians), to the west (Native Americans across the Atlantic), and to the North (Inuit, Sammi, Chukchi, Aleut).

Clearly, there once was a factor at work in Europe other than dim sunlight.

Here is another map of skin tone. Again, the blob surrounding the Baltic Sea is like nothing else on the planet. That this pale population surrounds the Baltic gives the first hint. It must have something to do with the oceans.

Seriously guys, actually read this article. Don't just come in and post things like "If we were de-pigmented we'd be albino". I'm not here making a racial statement.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by KyleOrtonArmy]

but it is true. European-descent have less melanin overall perhaps. But we aren't "depigmented."

Argh. I cannot find it. We have a different pigment, and the name of it is gone from my head and I cannot find a reference to it. I think I have a reference to it in a magazine at home .... I'll see if I have enough time to reread the ones I have out and see if it is in them.

Further, this skin type cannot be traced to one factor in the Baltics. Chimpanzees (troglodyte) do not live the Baltics. Red hair is an even more extreme variation of this melanin factor and it is again found in two other modern and existent hominidae.

People living around the Baltic would have gotten more of their vitamin D from FISHING.

reply to post by KyleOrtonArmy



They are not white they are light brown.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


If you're not going to read the study or even the THREAD TITLE don't even post. You're contributing nothing.

Originally posted by KyleOrtonArmy

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by KyleOrtonArmy

 

This is a very interesting and controversial topic. I have been in several conversations with individuals about the term "race" as they attempt to assure me that they are not racists. In my opinion that comment, "I am not a racist", is generally a racist comment. For this reason I have a difficult time with the US Census because I believe we are all of the same race, Human, or that which is born of this Earth. Our genetic connections or the question of our possible alien origin is another topic. We are all born of this Earth and therefore we are all connected, i.e. brothers.

The differing races, or nomenclature of humans, was an invention for the separating of people for the purpose of concurring. All men are created equal in the eyes of God and those that lower themselves for the purpose of power and control are less. Power is thus an illusion because we must give up that which is far more valuable in order to gain this power. This is not an easy concept to understand by many because it goes against what we all have been taught but I see it as the truth none-the-less.

Well, scientifically, race doesn't and has never existed. And this thread ain't about who is and who isn't a racist. Race is again, a social construct, and a way to identify one's self by expressing a cultural background. It's not one I use to identify though, as I don't belong to any of the races.

Anyway, let's not derail the thread by making this a race issue.

Well i can submit this link for you guys...

LINK

Have a nice reading...

reply to post by OddTimeSignature


This thread was not created to discuss race, nor do I want to hear about any 'master race', we are discussing depigmentation. Please do not post another link about a master race in my thread. There are plenty of other threads on other websites you can go to to discuss your master race. I ask that you keep it out of this thread.

reply to post by KyleOrtonArmy


Well i think you really misunderstood my purpose...the post was ironical, and in a progressive way i said just the same thing you told me...dont make this thread a racial thread...sorry if i was vague in my irony...

\\OTS

That was an interesting read so thanks OP. I keep on the lookout for information about my land of origin and people to help me make decisions about what the ideal diet might be for me. I'm also aware of the possibility that changing up one's diet and climate or leading a more nomadic lifestyle might have beneficial effect as we can become food sensitive to foods that we eat too much and more prone to region specific seasonal allergies the longer we stay in one place.

I wish I could get more affordable fish that's not poisoned with heavy metals etc. and lots of lamb and do this just to see if I'd feel better eating a diet closer to that of "my people". In the global economy and current environment many would say I wish to eat too "high on the food chain"...and I'm not saying the science of this is established but what if "de-pigmented" people really did need this "high on the food chain" and less grains diet to maintain maximum health? I'm almost feel like a racist even contemplating this but I have a lot of food sensitivities and just wondering and looking for answers from a medical point of view.

reply to post by KyleOrtonArmy


Very interesting article.

So if it was possible to examine the burials sites of the regions first settlers practising agriculture , there should be a greater prevalence of abnormalities relating to calcium metabolism such as rickets.

Apparently reductions of a trait are easier to evolve than elaborations , perhaps a few hundred generations is all it took for this de pigmentation process to take place.

Studies indicate that people with dark skin need as much as six times more sunlight than those with light skin to reach the same blood level of vitamin D

link



The foraging which would accompany a hunter gather lifestyle would of provided for a more diverse diet, though a lot less secure. Those farming would of had a more secure source of calories but with the cost of deficiencies of vitamins and trace nutrients.

If you had various grains , mutton, maybe some beef , milk and eggs provided by your farm ....... why would you feel the need to go fishing ?

Thanks for posting this KyleOrtonArmy .

Originally posted by ChrisCrikey
That was an interesting read so thanks OP. I keep on the lookout for information about my land of origin and people to help me make decisions about what the ideal diet might be for me. I'm also aware of the possibility that changing up one's diet and climate or leading a more nomadic lifestyle might have beneficial effect as we can become food sensitive to foods that we eat too much and more prone to region specific seasonal allergies the longer we stay in one place.

I wish I could get more affordable fish that's not poisoned with heavy metals etc. and lots of lamb and do this just to see if I'd feel better eating a diet closer to that of "my people". In the global economy and current environment many would say I wish to eat too "high on the food chain"...and I'm not saying the science of this is established but what if "de-pigmented" people really did need this "high on the food chain" and less grains diet to maintain maximum health? I'm almost feel like a racist even contemplating this but I have a lot of food sensitivities and just wondering and looking for answers from a medical point of view.

Evidence in studies points to that peoples who moved from sunny countries in the south of Europe, to the Scandinavia have a much higher rate of getting diabetes type 2, because the imminent lack of sun and D vitamin...


\\OTS

reply to post by UmbraSumus


Just when I started to think everyone here was too lazy to read an article your great post comes by.

The people around the Baltics have relied heavily on fishing as a staple in their diet for thousands of years. Viking relied heavily on fish. Modern people rely on fish.

You are talking about people who eat things like luttafisk.


And I did read your article KOA - I just happen to think its bunk.

Originally posted by Aeons
The people around the Baltics have relied heavily on fishing as a staple in their diet for thousands of years. Viking relied heavily on fish. Modern people rely on fish.

You are talking about people who eat things like luttafisk.


And I did read your article KOA - I just happen to think its bunk.

In Scandinavia we calls the fish Lutfisk or in direct English Lyefish...Its dried fish, which is then bathing in Sodium bicarbonate for a while, then baked in owen...the earliest writings about the fish is from about 1460 ad or something, and not used by the vikings whos era was much earlier...
The vitamines are probably destroyed in the process but the fish is very basic in PH value almost in the same region as calcium oxide...and therefor very healthy for reset the acid in the body...


\\OTS

reply to post by jjkenobi


Funny how trends change.

Being able to tan, does that actuallly mean de-pigmented?

Also, then whey weren't Native Canadians a lighter color, if it had to do with reduced vit D. And wouldn't there be other, smaller locoal ecologies that could have this same effect.

I don't buy that you have pigment or your dont. There are many shades in between. Many japanese don't look much darker then Europeans. Then you have the olive shades of the Mediterranean, but a different shade of Native American. I dont' quite buy it.

The answer is so obvious and simple, it simply doesn't merit this much thought. Melanin (which is the pigment which determines one's hair, eye, and skin adaption to ultraviolet light) is most strongly pronounced in humans and animal (really, one and the same) species most prominently in regions toward the equator, is simplistically speaking evidence that the people who survive in that region, over time, evolved genetic mutations which were more favorable to the climate they live in. This applies for those of us who are more fair skinned as well. Since we hail from climates that tend to be more isolated as a whole from sun exposure, in contrast to our southern neighbors who are closest to the equatorial regions of the planet; our ability to make vitamin D would be more restricted as a result. Thus, paler skin allows more of the UV light that is needed in such processes to absorb more readily, as well as the fact that in climates extending further north, there is not as much of a need for protection against UV light. One of the primary tenets of evolution is the notion that what ' you don't use, you lose'. Those managing to migrate toward more northern climates did not have need for as much protection from UV light as their counterparts closer to the equator. So over many generations, they lost the melanin pigment, because it was no longer needed, and in fact hindered those living in the northern climates from processing vitamin D as efficiently. When you see higher rates of skin cancer, you must also factor in, based on the above factors, that historically, those who had evolved and had become acclimated to northern climates; are not designed to live in areas like Florida, or the Mediterranean. This also explains why the palest have the highest rates of skin cancer; we are simply living in areas we are not adapted to living in.