Why does it affect you?

If you're not willing to answer questions about your report, why do you bother to announce it? Nothing but trolling.

Why should I?

I didn't say you should. I asked why you would declare it openly in a thread for discussion if you weren't willing to answer questions.

I did not open it for discussion. Just telling him I was not happy with it.

Race and reality shouldn't appear in the same sentence. At least when it comes to humans.

Sendraks wrote:Take a load of white europeans to Africa, ensure that they live mostly outdoors (rather than in nicely air conditioned houses) and within a few generations their offspring will be noticeably darker skinned.

Seems to me that would only be true if dark skin would be selected for by those with lighter skin dying of skin cancer. If sunscreen gets used properly (or more in general if medical care keeps them alive until after they have reproduced) they would stay white as lilies

Or is it possible that extensive exposure to sun activates previously inactive genes in an individual and this gets passed on genetically through sperm?

My dog has pink skin with brown polka dots.

Your dog would.

Scot Dutchy wrote:I did not open it for discussion. Just telling him I was not happy with it.

This is me not caring what you are happy with.

Address the point of my post by refuting it, correcting it, or clarifying your meaning. I don't care which. Otherwise all you are doing is disrupting.

Papa Smurf wrote:

Sendraks wrote:Take a load of white europeans to Africa, ensure that they live mostly outdoors (rather than in nicely air conditioned houses) and within a few generations their offspring will be noticeably darker skinned.

Seems to me that would only be true if dark skin would be selected for by those with lighter skin dying of skin cancer. If sunscreen gets used properly (or more in general if medical care keeps them alive until after they have reproduced) they would stay white as lilies

Or is it possible that extensive exposure to sun activates previously inactive genes in an individual and this gets passed on genetically through sperm?

I think the lighter/darker skin color difference has to do with vitamin d uptake. Lighter skin absorbs more. Maybe taking vitamin d capsules negates that selection pressure now. My point about our distantly future generations surely evolving into a different order of mammals might also be negated by man-made factors.

scott1328 wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:I did not open it for discussion. Just telling him I was not happy with it.

This is me not caring what you are happy with.

Address the point of my post by refuting it, correcting it, or clarifying your meaning. I don't care which. Otherwise all you are doing is disrupting.

What you are doing is insulting.

Scot Dutchy wrote:
What you are doing is insulting.

No. He isn't. At no point has scott1328 levelled an insult in you.
I understand that you might feel insulted by what he said but, that's a problem you've generated for yourself.

The_Piper wrote:

Papa Smurf wrote:

Sendraks wrote:Take a load of white europeans to Africa, ensure that they live mostly outdoors (rather than in nicely air conditioned houses) and within a few generations their offspring will be noticeably darker skinned.

Seems to me that would only be true if dark skin would be selected for by those with lighter skin dying of skin cancer. If sunscreen gets used properly (or more in general if medical care keeps them alive until after they have reproduced) they would stay white as lilies

Or is it possible that extensive exposure to sun activates previously inactive genes in an individual and this gets passed on genetically through sperm?

I think the lighter/darker skin color difference has to do with vitamin d uptake. Lighter skin absorbs more. Maybe taking vitamin d capsules negates that selection pressure now. My point about our distantly future generations surely evolving into a different order of mammals might also be negated by man-made factors.

Papa makes a fair point, it is unlikely to be just a few generations but, I think I read something a while back about melanin production in humans and it being much more adaptable. However, I can't find the source to back it up, soooo its probably a wash.

What I do know is that the process of evolving from paleskinned hairy apes living in forests to dark skinned hominids out on the savannah, was a process of change over millions of years. Whilst the change from dark skinned hominids to pale skinned europeans, took only a couple of hundred thousand years. And there is some genetic research around how the genes controlling melanin production are more responsive to changes in circumstances.

Sendraks wrote:

The_Piper wrote:

Papa Smurf wrote:

Sendraks wrote:Take a load of white europeans to Africa, ensure that they live mostly outdoors (rather than in nicely air conditioned houses) and within a few generations their offspring will be noticeably darker skinned.

Seems to me that would only be true if dark skin would be selected for by those with lighter skin dying of skin cancer. If sunscreen gets used properly (or more in general if medical care keeps them alive until after they have reproduced) they would stay white as lilies

Or is it possible that extensive exposure to sun activates previously inactive genes in an individual and this gets passed on genetically through sperm?

I think the lighter/darker skin color difference has to do with vitamin d uptake. Lighter skin absorbs more. Maybe taking vitamin d capsules negates that selection pressure now. My point about our distantly future generations surely evolving into a different order of mammals might also be negated by man-made factors.

Papa makes a fair point, it is unlikely to be just a few generations but, I think I read something a while back about melanin production in humans and it being much more adaptable. However, I can't find the source to back it up, soooo its probably a wash.

What I do know is that the process of evolving from paleskinned hairy apes living in forests to dark skinned hominids out on the savannah, was a process of change over millions of years. Whilst the change from dark skinned hominids to pale skinned europeans, took only a couple of hundred thousand years. And there is some genetic research around how the genes controlling melanin production are more responsive to changes in circumstances.

My reply meant to point out that it's absorption of vitamin d, not skin cancer, which is the more important factor in skin color afaik (I may be half wrong). I don't disagree with his point about sunscreen.
From the Wiki article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#Sexual_dimorphism

Adequate vitamin D resources are needed to absorb calcium from the diet, and it has been shown that deficiencies of vitamin D and calcium increase the likelihood of various birth defects such as spina bifida and rickets. Natural selection has led to females with lighter skin than males in all indigenous populations because women must get enough vitamin D and calcium to support the development of fetus and nursing infant and to maintain their own health.[7]

According to that Wiki article, light skin in southern Europe may be a recent thing, only within the last 8000 years or so.
"The SLC24A5 variant spread very rapidly throughout central and southern Europe from about 8,000 years ago, whereas the light skin variant of SLC45A2 spread throughout Europe after 5,800 years ago."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#Europe

The_Piper wrote:My reply meant to point out that it's absorption of vitamin d, not skin cancer, which is the more important factor in skin color afaik (I may be half wrong).

Maybe the selective force depends on the direction you're going. I suppose I could use my Google Fu before theorizing but where's the fun in that . So let me theorize:

• Supposedly furry hominids (hominins?) started out having fair skin (like some but not all other mammals). Fur provided ample protection against UV/skin cancer so fair skin was fine. But how did we (and other furry animals) get our vitamin D with our fur supposedly blocking a lot of the UV we need for synthesizing that in our skin? Just from food intake?
• We lost our fur. Driving force: ? (use Google Fu for theories)
• Our skin got darker. I'm pretty sure the selective evolutionary selective force here was mainly much needed protection against the sun to prevent skin cancer, not to reduce the amount of vitamin D produced in our skin
• Some of us went north to colder regions with much less sun.
  Note that this group did not grow back fur, perhaps because we used clothing instead. This is similar to what I said about how the use of suncreen might prevent re-evolving dark skin if Europeans migrated back to Africa. So we now have two instances where our own 'intelligent' actions prevented 'natural' evolution.
  This group of humans developed lighter skin, driving evolutionary force the need to synthesize more vitamin D in this case
  If we had grown back hair up north, perhaps it would have been transparent like a polar bear's, to let through the sunlight to make vitamin D
• If this group went back to Africa and did not use sunscreen, protective clothing, medical science etc and lived outdoors I suspect the main evolutionary force would be the same as in the original case when we lost our fur: to protect against the sun, not to reduce the amount of vitamin D produced in our skin.

Sendraks wrote:

Rumraket wrote: What would escaping one's ancestry mean?

Homo sapiens are chordate, invertebrate, tetrapodal, mammal, primates - we can't stop being any of those things. To escape our ancestry would mean to be not one of those things. Which is impossible.

Humans are not invertebrates, biologically speaking, although many are psychologically speaking, unfortunately.

Keep It Real wrote:
Humans are not invertebrates, biologically speaking, although many are psychologically speaking, unfortunately.

That was a typo. Well spotted though.

Papa Smurf wrote:

The_Piper wrote:My reply meant to point out that it's absorption of vitamin d, not skin cancer, which is the more important factor in skin color afaik (I may be half wrong).

Maybe the selective force depends on the direction you're going. I suppose I could use my Google Fu before theorizing but where's the fun in that . So let me theorize:

• Supposedly furry hominids (hominins?) started out having fair skin (like some but not all other mammals). Fur provided ample protection against UV/skin cancer so fair skin was fine. But how did we (and other furry animals) get our vitamin D with our fur supposedly blocking a lot of the UV we need for synthesizing that in our skin? Just from food intake?
• We lost our fur. Driving force: ? (use Google Fu for theories)
• Our skin got darker. I'm pretty sure the selective evolutionary selective force here was mainly much needed protection against the sun to prevent skin cancer, not to reduce the amount of vitamin D produced in our skin
• Some of us went north to colder regions with much less sun.
  Note that this group did not grow back fur, perhaps because we used clothing instead. This is similar to what I said about how the use of suncreen might prevent re-evolving dark skin if Europeans migrated back to Africa. So we now have two instances where our own 'intelligent' actions prevented 'natural' evolution.
  This group of humans developed lighter skin, driving evolutionary force the need to synthesize more vitamin D in this case
  If we had grown back hair up north, perhaps it would have been transparent like a polar bear's, to let through the sunlight to make vitamin D
• If this group went back to Africa and did not use sunscreen, protective clothing, medical science etc and lived outdoors I suspect the main evolutionary force would be the same as in the original case when we lost our fur: to protect against the sun, not to reduce the amount of vitamin D produced in our skin.

Sounds plausible to me. Skin cancer would have to regularly be contracted in the first 20 years of life for it to be the major driving force for dark skin, would be my guess. What if too much vitamin d is toxic? Google Fu time.

ETA - a few minutes reading articles suggests that the skin cancer idea is purported by some scientists who know a hell of a lot more than I do. If their only basis is a study of African albinos, then I say " ". Caucasians aren't albinos. Also one of the articles wondered why a certain gene associated with light skin was found in east Africans. To which I say " " again. This time I scratch my head because most articles point out that there is more than one gene associated with light skin, Caucasians are more closely related to east Africans than west or south Africans, and our ancestors had light skin before losing their hair. Oh well. These people know a hell of a lot more about genetics than I do. That's not hard to accomplish either, I know very little.