Skin Color

reply to post by jbell1011


we get something very important from the sun - vitamin D. In places with alot of sunlight this isnt a problem infact protection against too much sun is desired so humans started with dark skin in africa . In places with less sunlight dark skin becomes a danger, it blocks too much sunlight and people who dont get enough vitamin D can become ill and suffer from diseases such as rickets.

People who were then born with the white skin mutation in northern europe had an advantage as it allows them to absorb more vitamin D from the fewer hours of sunshine they get. This gives greater survival rates and protection from vitamin D deficient diseases.

Light skin humans become more successfull over generations and eventually they all have light skin in places where theres less sunlight.

Of course light skin people still retain some protection as when their skin is exposed to the sun it becomes darker. Still not as good protection as someone with naturally darker skin. The key here is any change like skin colour has to be an advantage in evolution, you cant just have a change becuase you dont need it anymore. The advantage for light skin is greater absorbtion of sunlight leading to a healthier population.

hope that helps.

Simple answer to your question.Depending on the exposure to the sun AKA tanning. I am an Indian and since it is a country that contain many different skin colours . The patter is easy to grasp. The people in the south (maximum exposure to the sun) have a dark colour, while the ones near the Himalayas have a light tone. This is just an example, but it applies to all people.

There are 3 main ways that species can change, or evolve:

*Natural Selection, where a species develops a trait that is beneficial to its survival.

*Sexual selection, where a species develops a trait which gives it a higher chance of successfully scoring a mate. This is most prominantly seen in birds e.g peacocks

*Parental Selection, where offspring are born with trait which encourages its parents to look after more than other offspring. This is now the leading theory of how humans became hairless.

It is believed when humans migrated to the northern hemishere the last 2 were the main causal factors for humans becoming lighter skinned. Vitamin D may play a minor role but keep in mind by the time humans reached Europe they were covered in skins and furs to keep warm, so this sort of discounts this theory. Not at all trying to be racsist, but most leading evolutionary anthropologist now believe that early Europeans for whatever reason favoured lighter skin. Obviously this wasn't the case in Africa or Asia as there's nothing attractive about a sunburnt whitey.

White skin has nothing to do with blending in to the snow, as no humans would survive too long running naked around in a European winter. Also if this were the case then you'd expect the majority of caucasians to have white hair as well.

reply to post by 1littlewolf


ok thanks didnt know that

Found this and thought it was relevant. This a scientific and religous perspective. Don't shoot the messenger.



bible-truth.org...

Originally posted by jbell1011
When humans arrived on this planet, there must have been multiple races and not just one.

That's what I believe. Interesting to note that Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese and Japanese all look different too.

Also, why is the white man the only species that has no native background? Most of us couldn't even survive here without someone looking after us like children.

reply to post by yeti101


Very excellent point.

Australia is the "skin cancer capital" of the world due to so many whites living in a black man's land.

Originally posted by zbeliever
Imagine we were all one color...If you can.

Think about it...People would have to find another way to feel like they are superior.

That's easy, the superior ones will have stars on their bellies...

In the future we will all be blue.

Originally posted by James1982
I am skill a believer in evolution, the degree to which I believe evolution is responsible for modern day man is what I still question a little bit. It's hard to understand the mechanism that would make a modern man out of our ancestors. The main thing I don't get, is why does something go away. Our appendix, for example, we needed it for something in the past. We evidently don't need it anymore, but how did having it as a fully intact and functional organ HURT someone? Meaning, to stop passing on the genes for a fully intact/functioning appendix, possessing an appendix would have to hurt your chance for survival, how does this work?

Once something becomes useless, it's no longer conserved by selection, and thus falls prey to mutations.

Click here for more information.

We are all made of the same stuff, right down to our internal and external structure and even how our minds work. We are one of the same, skin colour and racial features are just an appearance perception, nothing more, caused by inbreeding going all the way back through history. If you haven't already maybe you should have a good read through the information in the link I posted not long ago. Even though its a religious based paper it has some good logic and science behind it.

environment suits made from differnt dirt
why are there pyramids everywhere? (WHO LANDED) And was it the same type of technology just different ummmm continential LABS? Good question

Now where did the SOULS COME FROM INJECTED INTO THE SUITS

Originally posted by SG-17
Also, why did we get rid of vestigial organs? Well simply put having an organ that isn't used is a waste of energy during development and a waste of blood and nutrients as a mature organism. The same applies to things like the pinkie toe. If we don't need it, why should be continue to waste resources on it?

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my questions

It does make sense that changes are more gradual than immediate, but the issue I have with that is the development of organs and other things. For instance, an organ that isn't of any use until it's fully formed, what benefit would there be to a half-formed organ, as to be passed on to your offspring enough times to become fully formed?

As far as the pinkie toe thing, I understand that it may be that we don't need it. But, as I understand it, the mechanism of evolution isn't that our DNA is self-aware, and decides "we don't need a pinkie toe anymore, so I'm going to stop growing pinkie toes" But instead, something that hinders your ability to reproduce is phased out, because you can't pass a trait on if you don't reproduce.

So why would people loose their pinkie toes? I don't think there is any reason that having a longer pinkie toe would stop you from reproducing, or that having a shorter pinkie toe would give you an edge in survival or reproduction.

It just seems there is some additional mechanism to the basic idea that helpful traits get passed on, and damaging traits don't. Because, as I said, the size of a pinkie toe is of no consequence to survival or reproduction of modern man, so why would it change? Even if we don't need pinkie toes, what is the mechanism telling our DNA that we don't need them? It can't be natural selection, because pinkie toe size, for the 3rd time, is of no consequence for survival or reproduction.

I'm not a religious person, so don't think I'm trying to push the idea of there being an invisible hand of god getting involved or anything. But I do feel there is something that we are missing. Maybe our DNA or our bodies are kind of self-aware, I don't know. I just don't see how something that doesn't affect survival or reproduction is going to change, based on nothing but natural selection.

reply to post by James1982


When organisms evolve they don't wipe the slate clean and start all over. They pile on top of each other. The appendix is an extension of the large intestine that has been with mammals for as long as we know. The appendix stores bacterial, we know this. However an overly long appendix can become blocked or twisted and get infected, so those with shorter appendixes didn't get appendicitis. Before antibiotics appendicitis was normally lethal.

As for the toes. All of our toes are technically vestigial. Look at the feet of a chimp, notice how their toes have the same level of dexterity as their hands? That is the way it used to be for humans as well. We lived in trees, we needed 4 hands to climb. When we came down from the trees and stood upright having overly long toes inhibited running. The people with the thicker skin on their feet and shorter toes were able to run faster and longer and were able to escape predators (believe it or not humans are the best endurance runners in the animal kingdom, we can run over 50 miles non-stop), thus were able to breed.

Originally posted by James1982
It does make sense that changes are more gradual than immediate, but the issue I have with that is the development of organs and other things. For instance, an organ that isn't of any use until it's fully formed, what benefit would there be to a half-formed organ, as to be passed on to your offspring enough times to become fully formed?

www.youtube.com...

This basically sums up the concept. Any "Half Organs" were probably used for simpler functions, or for the same functions in simpler ways. Our eye's and hearts/vascular systems are really easy ones to understand that with.

Another thing to point out, is that even the slightest advantage of certain traits has a compounded chance over thousands of generations. So something with such a miniscule apparent use, would still emerge dominantly.

I also have a bit of a hard time computing this, but the alternatives(people made from different colored dirt for example) really doesn't compute with me at all.

reply to post by SG-17


EXCELLENT reply about the appendix! That makes perfect sense, thanks! Gotta give you a star for that one.

As far as the toes, I realize when we made the transition from walking on 4 legs to 2 our feet changed, but I've heard that people's feet are still changing, and our pinkie toes are starting to disappear. Now, if this is true, it seems odd, and a pinkie toe isn't effecting our ability to survive or breed anymore, BUT, it's possible the whole thing about our pinkie toes disappearing and getting smaller is just a myth, and isn't actually true, so it might not be the best example.

Thanks again for your reply, it does explain a lot.

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx

but the alternatives(people made from different colored dirt for example) really doesn't compute with me at all.

You an me both, I don't buy the explanation that we are just made with different colored dirt, as believing that would require a faith in the bible, something I don't have

That video was great too, thanks for posting that. It also explained some things for me.

reply to post by James1982

As far as I know there isn't any proof that the pinkie toe is getting smaller with each generation, but it wouldn't be biologically unsound if it did. Refer to my "waste of resources" explanation.