On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 12:09 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Cornelius Hunter should read this book...LOL
> > It explains how so many diseases are actually adaptations to > > stresses...better to live to 30 and reproduce than die at 2 and not...
> Maybe people didn't see this thread...a book worth reading!
There's not much to say,unless you've actually read the book. I haven't. I wikipedia'd the title and learned that "Survival of the Sickest" is the fourth studio album of the band "Saliva."
If you want a conversation maybe you could give more details? Just a thought.
> On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 12:09 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Cornelius Hunter should read this book...LOL
> > > It explains how so many diseases are actually adaptations to > > > stresses...better to live to 30 and reproduce than die at 2 and not...
> > Maybe people didn't see this thread...a book worth reading!
> There's not much to say,unless you've actually read the book. I > haven't. I wikipedia'd the title and learned that "Survival of the > Sickest" is the fourth studio album of the band "Saliva."
> If you want a conversation maybe you could give more details? Just a > thought.
I read it, yes, and the theme of the book is classical Darwinian selection FOR such conditions as diabetes, anemia, etc., because of certain sometimes extreme conditions in the past. African-American blacks, for instance, have higher incidences of hypertension than African populations from which they are derived because they are descendants of slaves who made it across the Atlantic without dying in the slave ships, because they held water better than the ones who died of dehydration. Most of theses diseases affect us well past the age of reproduction, but allowed our ancestors to reach the age of reproduction.
> On Nov 20, 5:07 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 20, 12:09 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Cornelius Hunter should read this book...LOL
> > > > It explains how so many diseases are actually adaptations to > > > > stresses...better to live to 30 and reproduce than die at 2 and not...
> > > Maybe people didn't see this thread...a book worth reading!
> > There's not much to say,unless you've actually read the book. I > > haven't. I wikipedia'd the title and learned that "Survival of the > > Sickest" is the fourth studio album of the band "Saliva."
> > If you want a conversation maybe you could give more details? Just a > > thought.
> I read it, yes, and the theme of the book is classical Darwinian > selection FOR such conditions as diabetes, anemia, etc., because of > certain sometimes extreme conditions in the past. African-American > blacks, for instance, have higher incidences of hypertension than > African populations from which they are derived because they are > descendants of slaves who made it across the Atlantic without dying in > the slave ships, because they held water better than the ones who died > of dehydration. Most of theses diseases affect us well past the age of > reproduction, but allowed our ancestors to reach the age of > reproduction.
Adult onset diabetes (they call it type 2 now) really doesn't happen in folks who eat no bread of processed food (except simple cooking) and exercise vigorously 10 hours a week. I don't think it was a problem for hunter-gatherers. It does seem to be most common among those populations who have recently gone through periods of serious famine. It's not clear whether it is a side effect of a famine-induced genetic selection, or just poor folks with bad diets (like the Pima Indians of North America).
As your example with American descendants of African slaves go, the genetic heritage may be result of fairly recent events.
> On Nov 20, 2:14 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 5:07 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 20, 12:09 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Cornelius Hunter should read this book...LOL
> > > > > It explains how so many diseases are actually adaptations to > > > > > stresses...better to live to 30 and reproduce than die at 2 and not...
> > > > Maybe people didn't see this thread...a book worth reading!
> > > There's not much to say,unless you've actually read the book. I > > > haven't. I wikipedia'd the title and learned that "Survival of the > > > Sickest" is the fourth studio album of the band "Saliva."
> > > If you want a conversation maybe you could give more details? Just a > > > thought.
> > I read it, yes, and the theme of the book is classical Darwinian > > selection FOR such conditions as diabetes, anemia, etc., because of > > certain sometimes extreme conditions in the past. African-American > > blacks, for instance, have higher incidences of hypertension than > > African populations from which they are derived because they are > > descendants of slaves who made it across the Atlantic without dying in > > the slave ships, because they held water better than the ones who died > > of dehydration. Most of theses diseases affect us well past the age of > > reproduction, but allowed our ancestors to reach the age of > > reproduction.
> Adult onset diabetes (they call it type 2 now) really doesn't happen > in folks who eat no bread of processed food (except simple cooking) > and exercise vigorously 10 hours a week. I don't think it was a > problem for hunter-gatherers. It does seem to be most common among > those populations who have recently gone through periods of serious > famine. It's not clear whether it is a side effect of a famine-induced > genetic selection, or just poor folks with bad diets (like the Pima > Indians of North America).
> As your example with American descendants of African slaves go, the > genetic heritage may be result of fairly recent events.
> On Nov 20, 2:14 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 5:07 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 20, 12:09 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Cornelius Hunter should read this book...LOL
> > > > > It explains how so many diseases are actually adaptations to > > > > > stresses...better to live to 30 and reproduce than die at 2 and not...
> > > > Maybe people didn't see this thread...a book worth reading!
> > > There's not much to say,unless you've actually read the book. I > > > haven't. I wikipedia'd the title and learned that "Survival of the > > > Sickest" is the fourth studio album of the band "Saliva."
> > > If you want a conversation maybe you could give more details? Just a > > > thought.
> > I read it, yes, and the theme of the book is classical Darwinian > > selection FOR such conditions as diabetes, anemia, etc., because of > > certain sometimes extreme conditions in the past. African-American > > blacks, for instance, have higher incidences of hypertension than > > African populations from which they are derived because they are > > descendants of slaves who made it across the Atlantic without dying in > > the slave ships, because they held water better than the ones who died > > of dehydration. Most of theses diseases affect us well past the age of > > reproduction, but allowed our ancestors to reach the age of > > reproduction.
> Adult onset diabetes (they call it type 2 now) really doesn't happen > in folks who eat no bread of processed food (except simple cooking) > and exercise vigorously 10 hours a week. I don't think it was a > problem for hunter-gatherers. It does seem to be most common among > those populations who have recently gone through periods of serious > famine. It's not clear whether it is a side effect of a famine-induced > genetic selection, or just poor folks with bad diets (like the Pima > Indians of North America).
> As your example with American descendants of African slaves go, the > genetic heritage may be result of fairly recent events.
> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined people in relation to disease. To put it simply, they need more Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. Which prevents overdose.
While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the darker skinned population.
But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the overproduction of VitD in the body. Evolution suggests as humans moved away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the necessary amount of VitD in the body. But we have a problem. Now that darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute as was suggested happened in the past.
So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory. Which means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were, then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the species survival.
Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light. However. What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning less dark with less exposure. So it is clear that skin did not change as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all originate in Africa.
Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for distinction.
I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural selection.
Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response to less sun. Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common African ancestor;" And wrong about what should be natural selection selecting a species for distinction.
> On Nov 20, 6:00 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 2:14 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 20, 5:07 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 20, 12:09 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Cornelius Hunter should read this book...LOL
> > > > > > It explains how so many diseases are actually adaptations to > > > > > > stresses...better to live to 30 and reproduce than die at 2 and not...
> > > > > Maybe people didn't see this thread...a book worth reading!
> > > > There's not much to say,unless you've actually read the book. I > > > > haven't. I wikipedia'd the title and learned that "Survival of the > > > > Sickest" is the fourth studio album of the band "Saliva."
> > > > If you want a conversation maybe you could give more details? Just a > > > > thought.
> > > I read it, yes, and the theme of the book is classical Darwinian > > > selection FOR such conditions as diabetes, anemia, etc., because of > > > certain sometimes extreme conditions in the past. African-American > > > blacks, for instance, have higher incidences of hypertension than > > > African populations from which they are derived because they are > > > descendants of slaves who made it across the Atlantic without dying in > > > the slave ships, because they held water better than the ones who died > > > of dehydration. Most of theses diseases affect us well past the age of > > > reproduction, but allowed our ancestors to reach the age of > > > reproduction.
> > Adult onset diabetes (they call it type 2 now) really doesn't happen > > in folks who eat no bread of processed food (except simple cooking) > > and exercise vigorously 10 hours a week. I don't think it was a > > problem for hunter-gatherers. It does seem to be most common among > > those populations who have recently gone through periods of serious > > famine. It's not clear whether it is a side effect of a famine-induced > > genetic selection, or just poor folks with bad diets (like the Pima > > Indians of North America).
> > As your example with American descendants of African slaves go, the > > genetic heritage may be result of fairly recent events.
> > Kermit- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined > people in relation to disease. To put it simply, they need more > Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because > their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The > reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in > the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs > less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. Which > prevents overdose.
> While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it > was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the > darker skinned population.
> But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the > overproduction of VitD in the body. Evolution suggests as humans moved > away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing > for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the > necessary amount of VitD in the body. But we have a problem. Now that > darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as > strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute > as was suggested happened in the past.
> So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory.
Why not? The "move out of Africa" took place over milennia, holiday travel takes hours. You think we shoudl change colour when on board an airplane?
> means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were, > then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as > suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be > selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the > species survival.
> Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations > of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light. However. > What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their > skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning > less dark with less exposure. So it is clear that skin did not change > as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all > originate in Africa.
> Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of > VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in > higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for > distinction.
Only by an utter moron who does not understand the very basics of evolutionary biology, really.
> I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned > people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again > suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural > selection.
Why? One trait can be favourable or neutral in one environment, anmd a problem in another. Just as ToE says. it is the environment that selects.
> Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in > response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark > skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response > to less sun. Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common > African ancestor;"
If at all, it shows the opposite no? If your analyses were true, lighter skinned people simply revert to a trait that we as species originally posessed, the toher direction is not as straightforward
And wrong about what should be natural selection
> selecting a species for distinction.
> Evolution is wrong on two more counts.
More your understanding of evolution. First, dark vs wite skin is only a "species" barrier in backward countries tha make "miscegenation" illegal, like until recently in the religiously fundamentalist southern parts of the US. Normally, interbreeding is perfectly possible, whatever you'v ebeen told.
Second, evolution doesn't have a plan and does not in any meaningful sens of the word "decide" what traits to select. Certain environemnts faour certain traits, nothing you said contradicts this.
All-seeing-I wrote: > On Nov 20, 6:00 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 20, 2:14 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 20, 5:07 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 20, 12:09 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Cornelius Hunter should read this book...LOL
> > > > > > It explains how so many diseases are actually adaptations to > > > > > > stresses...better to live to 30 and reproduce than die at 2 and not...
> > > > > Maybe people didn't see this thread...a book worth reading!
> > > > There's not much to say,unless you've actually read the book. I > > > > haven't. I wikipedia'd the title and learned that "Survival of the > > > > Sickest" is the fourth studio album of the band "Saliva."
> > > > If you want a conversation maybe you could give more details? Just a > > > > thought.
> > > I read it, yes, and the theme of the book is classical Darwinian > > > selection FOR such conditions as diabetes, anemia, etc., because of > > > certain sometimes extreme conditions in the past. African-American > > > blacks, for instance, have higher incidences of hypertension than > > > African populations from which they are derived because they are > > > descendants of slaves who made it across the Atlantic without dying in > > > the slave ships, because they held water better than the ones who died > > > of dehydration. Most of theses diseases affect us well past the age of > > > reproduction, but allowed our ancestors to reach the age of > > > reproduction.
> > Adult onset diabetes (they call it type 2 now) really doesn't happen > > in folks who eat no bread of processed food (except simple cooking) > > and exercise vigorously 10 hours a week. I don't think it was a > > problem for hunter-gatherers. It does seem to be most common among > > those populations who have recently gone through periods of serious > > famine. It's not clear whether it is a side effect of a famine-induced > > genetic selection, or just poor folks with bad diets (like the Pima > > Indians of North America).
> > As your example with American descendants of African slaves go, the > > genetic heritage may be result of fairly recent events.
> > Kermit- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined > people in relation to disease. To put it simply, they need more > Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because > their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The > reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in > the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs > less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. Which > prevents overdose.
> While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it > was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the > darker skinned population.
> But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the > overproduction of VitD in the body. Evolution suggests as humans moved > away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing > for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the > necessary amount of VitD in the body. But we have a problem. Now that > darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as > strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute > as was suggested happened in the past.
You have a much bigger problem since a large proportion of African Americans have interbred with Europeans, Asians and Native Americans. As a result, African Americans are, on the average, much lighter- skinned than native Africans today.
To support your assumption, you would need detailed population statistics taking into account the genetic mix of each individual. Then you would need to determine what proportion of their "lightness" was due to genetic mixing with other populations, as well as a metric to measure the "darkness" of each individual's skin. Then you would need similar population data from native Africans as a comparison. I doubt such a study would even be feasible.
> So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory. Which > means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were, > then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as > suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be > selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the > species survival.
Not sequitur based on unsupported assumption.
> Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations > of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light. However. > What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their > skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning > less dark with less exposure. So it is clear that skin did not change > as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all > originate in Africa.
Not sequitur based on unsupported assumption.
> Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of > VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in > higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for > distinction.
> I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned > people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again > suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural > selection.
Read what you just wrote. If indeed the darker-skinned trait was selecting against African Americans, and not native Africans, that would actually support the theory that humans evolved to be lighter- skinned once leaving Africa.
> Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in > response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark > skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response > to less sun. Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common > African ancestor;" And wrong about what should be natural selection > selecting a species for distinction.
Lighter-skinned African Americans do get tans during the summer just as Europeans and Asians do. I don't know about darker-skinned ones, but I do know they are susceptible to sunburn as well.
> Evolution is wrong on two more counts.
Non sequitur. You have no data to support this assertion.
In message <bd9eb95f-6048-44c9-96e5-dbebedf0b...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
<snip>
The points are dealt with one by one, then expanded upon at the bottom.
>I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined >people in relation to disease. To put it simply, they need more >Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because >their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The >reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in >the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs >less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. >Which >prevents overdose.
Wrong. It is not possible to overdose on vitamin D from sunlight.
>While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it >was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the >darker skinned population.
>But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the >overproduction of VitD in the body.
Wrong. Light skin is selected for as it produces more vitamin D, dark skin is selected for because it protects the skin from sunburn *not* vitamin D over production.
>Evolution suggests as humans moved >away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing >for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the >necessary amount of VitD in the body.
Correct.
> But we have a problem. Now that >darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as >strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute >as was suggested happened in the past.
Not enough time has passed yet.
>So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory. > Which >means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were, >then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as >suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be >selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the >species survival.
But the effect will only be seen after many generations, and even then it will only show up if vitamin D supplements don't fix the problem artificially.
>Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations >of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light.
So how many generations have their been, and how do you know it's enough to show an evolutionary change?
> However. >What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their >skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning >less dark with less exposure.
It's called tanning. Almost all humans do it to some extent.
> So it is clear that skin did not change >as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all >originate in Africa.
Since your assumption is incorrect so is your conclusion.
>Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of >VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in >higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for >distinction.
It just means that light skin colour will be selected for in locations where there is not much sunlight. And that is exactly what we see. Correlate indigenous skin colour with sun strength around the world.
>I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned >people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again >suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural >selection.
This is just ridiculous. Of course what happens at the Northern latitudes does not affect a population at the equator, and since evolution does not suggest such a thing it is just a strawman attack.
>Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in >response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark >skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response >to less sun.
Wrong. Black people do tan.
>Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common >African ancestor;" And wrong about what should be natural selection >selecting a species for distinction. >Evolution is wrong on two more counts.
Since the assumptions you are basing your reasoning on are wrong so is your conclusion.
On to more detail:
The reason for dark/light skin selection is thought to be down to an equilibrium between vitamin D production and skin damage from sunlight. Dark skin produces less vitamin D but provides high skin protection so is selected for in locations where sunlight is strong. Light skin produces more vitamin D but provides less skin protection, so is selected for in low sunlight locations.
Actually, the light skin of northern races is thought to be due to a form of type II albinoism. That would give an abrupt rather than a gradual lightening of the skin, but it would still take considerable amount of time for the mutation to spread through the population. It would be interesting to investigate whether the instances of type II albinoism is increasing in black populations living in northern latitudes, but I've not found any stats for that.
Type II albinoism is connected to mutations in the OCA2 gene which is associated with melanin production in various parts of the body e.g. the eyes.
The last one is a mutation for blue eyes that took 6,000-10,000 years to spread through the population. Another candidate for the "white skin" mutation is SLC24A5:
Note that one discusses a single codon change "thought to explain between 25 and 38% of skin pigmentation variation between Black African and White European humans."
So, on to the errors in your article:
1) For evolution to take effect it takes time, especially in a slow breeding animal like humans. The few generations that have passed since black skinned people moved to sun poor regions is nowhere near enough for evolution to make much difference. The actual estimate for the spread of the skin colour genes is around 5,000-12,000 years (in a relatively small population) so your expectation that it should be seen in a few hundred years is completely wrong.
Note that vitamin D deficiency *is* a problem for black skinned individuals living in northern latitudes:
Since people with vitamin D deficiency are less healthy than the general population then they will have fewer children, and in the long run (many thousands of years) the average skin colour of the population will lighten over time in places with low sunlight, conversely we would expect white skinned populations living in the tropics to darken over hundreds/thousands of generations as skin cancer is a problem for them there.
2) There are two separate mechanisms at play in skin colour, humans have a natural base level of melanin production then on top of this most people can produce a certain amount of *additional* melanin after the skin has been damaged by UV light. This then darkens the skin i.e. they tan. This process happens in black skinned individuals as well as white i.e. black people *do* tan, it's just not as noticeable:
3) It is virtually impossible to get a an overdose of vitamin D from sunlight because the skin reaches an equilibrium where vitamin D is broken down if too much is produced.
"Ultraviolet exposure beyond the minimal erythemal dose does not increase vitamin D production further. The ultraviolet-induced production of vitamin D precursors is counterbalanced by degradation of vitamin D and its precursors. "
4) You implied that the ToE predicts natural selection should work on a population which are separate i.e. that the selection affecting one population should affect populations in other locations. You then point out that this is not true, but it's not actually a prediction of evolutionary theory therefore it was just another strawman attack.
5) You imply that humans did not originate in Africa, to overturn that theory you have a lot more work to do than just producing poorly researched and erroneous articles on skin colour:
> On Nov 20, 6:00 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 2:14 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 20, 5:07 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 20, 12:09 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Cornelius Hunter should read this book...LOL
> > > > > > It explains how so many diseases are actually adaptations to > > > > > > stresses...better to live to 30 and reproduce than die at 2 and not...
> > > > > Maybe people didn't see this thread...a book worth reading!
> > > > There's not much to say,unless you've actually read the book. I > > > > haven't. I wikipedia'd the title and learned that "Survival of the > > > > Sickest" is the fourth studio album of the band "Saliva."
> > > > If you want a conversation maybe you could give more details? Just a > > > > thought.
> > > I read it, yes, and the theme of the book is classical Darwinian > > > selection FOR such conditions as diabetes, anemia, etc., because of > > > certain sometimes extreme conditions in the past. African-American > > > blacks, for instance, have higher incidences of hypertension than > > > African populations from which they are derived because they are > > > descendants of slaves who made it across the Atlantic without dying in > > > the slave ships, because they held water better than the ones who died > > > of dehydration. Most of theses diseases affect us well past the age of > > > reproduction, but allowed our ancestors to reach the age of > > > reproduction.
> > Adult onset diabetes (they call it type 2 now) really doesn't happen > > in folks who eat no bread of processed food (except simple cooking) > > and exercise vigorously 10 hours a week. I don't think it was a > > problem for hunter-gatherers. It does seem to be most common among > > those populations who have recently gone through periods of serious > > famine. It's not clear whether it is a side effect of a famine-induced > > genetic selection, or just poor folks with bad diets (like the Pima > > Indians of North America).
> > As your example with American descendants of African slaves go, the > > genetic heritage may be result of fairly recent events.
> > Kermit- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
All-screeching-denial, where did you get this argument? Why do you think that people like you survive in our society? Mental incompetence wasn't part of the "sickest," but it does relate to what you write below. It is called relaxed selection where the less advantaged make it long enough so that they might have a chance at reproduction.
> I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined > people in relation to disease. To put it simply, they need more > Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because > their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The > reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in > the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs > less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. Which > prevents overdose.
This is no problem in equatorial regions. It is only a problem where they wear a lot of clothing and do not expose a lot of skin. The darker skin in equatorial regions is likely more protection against the mutagenic effects of the sun rather than to keep the people from over dosing on vitamin D. It is likely that with the darker skin they can still get enough vitamin D made in their skin and they need the darker skin as protection against sunburn and skin cancer.
> While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it > was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the > darker skinned population.
In northern latitudes. A very recent change for these types.
> But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the > overproduction of VitD in the body. Evolution suggests as humans moved > away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing > for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the > necessary amount of VitD in the body. But we have a problem. Now that > darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as > strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute > as was suggested happened in the past.
It may be that the skin got lighter to produce more vitamin D, and there is counter selection against the light skin. It turned out to be either the lesser of two evils or founder effects and the easiest path to take, though maybe not optimum. There are disadvantages to having light skin. Asians can have skin that is very pale, but it can get darker with sun exposer. This would have likely been a better solution, but it may have been that Asians got more vitamin D from their diet than Europeans. My guess is that it was sexual selection for associated characters like hair color. There are some European populations that darken up pretty well when exposed to the sun, and other like red haird individuals that have a problem due in part to the red hair mutation. This leaves them vunerable to sunlight's negative effects and they have a higher incidence of problems like snow blindness and skin cancer. Red hair was likely a culturally, or sexually selected trait, and the negative effects on skin color is just what those individuals have to deal with.
> So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory. Which > means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were, > then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as > suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be > selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the > species survival.
You don't know that, and as I have indicated above the problem is complex and mutiple factors are involved. Sexual selection doesn't have to make sense. It often presents a liability that the individual that has the trait must be able to overcome in order to survive with the trait. Peafowl with the larger tails produce progeny with a higher survival rate to reproductive age. It takes a very fit individual to haul that big tail around. I once saw a male peafowl fly overhead with a full train. It was a pretty impressive sight, and surprised me because I didn't think that they could fly.
> Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations > of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light. However. > What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their > skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning > less dark with less exposure. So it is clear that skin did not change > as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all > originate in Africa.
Have you measured it? Since the African population in North America is racially mixed what is your guess about the average skin color of that population today, compared to what it was two hundred years ago? The answer is that it is lighter in regions like Northern California and darker in the deep south, but not because of the sun light, but because of less racial mixing. We can tell by their genetics that the Norther California population is between 40 and 60% European, but in the deep south like Alabama the % of mixture is much less. There are just other considerations that you are missing that affect population dynamics. Traits are under varied selection environments and pressures.
> Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of > VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in > higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for > distinction.
Latitude and not elevation. Usually, darker skinned people live at higher elevations for the most part because of the negative effects of UV light due to the thinner atmosphere. It isn't a big deal because they can get the vitamin D in the food that they eat. Check out a bottle of milk.
> I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned > people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again > suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural > selection.
Does not logically follow when you consider all the factors. It is a factor that less developed countries are around the equator, and that they are under different selection pressures. We might expect the lighter skinned immigrants to be getting darker. So what? How could you tell selection from interbreeding? How strong is sexual selection and mate choice compared to the selection for darker skin by the intensity of sunlight?
> Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in > response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark > skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response > to less sun. Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common > African ancestor;" And wrong about what should be natural selection > selecting a species for distinction.
Just think about it for a second. Darker skin is most prevalent around the equator where the amount of sunlight is constant. Does that register? Natural selection would not have selected for variable skin color under those conditions where it wasn't needed.
> Evolution is wrong on two more counts.-
Biological evolution is consistent with the skin colors that we see around the world. It is one of the human traits whose selection is fairly straight forward and observable. There are complcating factors and the story is not simple, but it in no way invalidates the theory of biological evolution. In fact, it supports it.
>On Nov 20, 6:00 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 20, 2:14 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 20, 5:07 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Nov 20, 12:09 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > > Cornelius Hunter should read this book...LOL
>> > > > > It explains how so many diseases are actually adaptations to >> > > > > stresses...better to live to 30 and reproduce than die at 2 and not...
>> > > > Maybe people didn't see this thread...a book worth reading!
>> > > There's not much to say,unless you've actually read the book. I >> > > haven't. I wikipedia'd the title and learned that "Survival of the >> > > Sickest" is the fourth studio album of the band "Saliva."
>> > > If you want a conversation maybe you could give more details? Just a >> > > thought.
>> > I read it, yes, and the theme of the book is classical Darwinian >> > selection FOR such conditions as diabetes, anemia, etc., because of >> > certain sometimes extreme conditions in the past. African-American >> > blacks, for instance, have higher incidences of hypertension than >> > African populations from which they are derived because they are >> > descendants of slaves who made it across the Atlantic without dying in >> > the slave ships, because they held water better than the ones who died >> > of dehydration. Most of theses diseases affect us well past the age of >> > reproduction, but allowed our ancestors to reach the age of >> > reproduction.
>> Adult onset diabetes (they call it type 2 now) really doesn't happen >> in folks who eat no bread of processed food (except simple cooking) >> and exercise vigorously 10 hours a week. I don't think it was a >> problem for hunter-gatherers. It does seem to be most common among >> those populations who have recently gone through periods of serious >> famine. It's not clear whether it is a side effect of a famine-induced >> genetic selection, or just poor folks with bad diets (like the Pima >> Indians of North America).
>> As your example with American descendants of African slaves go, the >> genetic heritage may be result of fairly recent events.
>> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined >people in relation to disease. To put it simply, they need more >Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because >their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The >reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in >the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs >less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. Which >prevents overdose.
So, all humans are able to provide adequate vitamin D for themselves if they have enough sunlight, but most do not get enough sunlight in modern culture to do so. That is why we add vitamin D in milk.
>While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it >was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the >darker skinned population.
Does diabetes have anything to do with this? A shortage of vitamin D is a natural result of spending so much time out of the sun and heavily dressed.
>But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the >overproduction of VitD in the body.
I don't recall anyone asserting that this was the only reason.
> Evolution suggests as humans moved >away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing >for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the >necessary amount of VitD in the body. But we have a problem.
Yes, you do. You have inserted intent into evolution.
>Now that >darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as >strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute >as was suggested happened in the past.
How fast do you think this should happen?
>So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory.
They are, you just don't understand evolution.
>Which >means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were, >then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as >suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be >selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the >species survival.
Selection seems to be a concept, along with every other scientific concept, that you do not grasp.
>Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations >of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light.
If you live in a higher elevation, the sunlight is stronger. Presumably you have confused elevation and latitude.
> However. >What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their >skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning >less dark with less exposure. So it is clear that skin did not change >as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all >originate in Africa.
Now you are confusing a suntan with natural pigmentation.
>Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of >VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in >higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for >distinction.
What kind of distinction?
>I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned >people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again >suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural >selection.
The only species we have here is H. sapiens. You are very confused.
>Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in >response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark >skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response >to less sun. Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common >African ancestor;" And wrong about what should be natural selection >selecting a species for distinction.
Your ignorance has caused you, once again, to make a total fool of yourself.
>Evolution is wrong on two more counts.
No, as usual, it is you who are wrong.
You seem to have completely missed the basics of evolution, yet have the arrogance to claim that it is wrong. Your claims are breathtaking.
<ap...@email.com> wrote: >On Nov 20, 6:00 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 20, 2:14 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 20, 5:07 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Nov 20, 12:09 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > > Cornelius Hunter should read this book...LOL
>> > > > > It explains how so many diseases are actually adaptations to >> > > > > stresses...better to live to 30 and reproduce than die at 2 and not...
>> > > > Maybe people didn't see this thread...a book worth reading!
>> > > There's not much to say,unless you've actually read the book. I >> > > haven't. I wikipedia'd the title and learned that "Survival of the >> > > Sickest" is the fourth studio album of the band "Saliva."
>> > > If you want a conversation maybe you could give more details? Just a >> > > thought.
>> > I read it, yes, and the theme of the book is classical Darwinian >> > selection FOR such conditions as diabetes, anemia, etc., because of >> > certain sometimes extreme conditions in the past. African-American >> > blacks, for instance, have higher incidences of hypertension than >> > African populations from which they are derived because they are >> > descendants of slaves who made it across the Atlantic without dying in >> > the slave ships, because they held water better than the ones who died >> > of dehydration. Most of theses diseases affect us well past the age of >> > reproduction, but allowed our ancestors to reach the age of >> > reproduction.
>> Adult onset diabetes (they call it type 2 now) really doesn't happen >> in folks who eat no bread of processed food (except simple cooking) >> and exercise vigorously 10 hours a week. I don't think it was a >> problem for hunter-gatherers. It does seem to be most common among >> those populations who have recently gone through periods of serious >> famine. It's not clear whether it is a side effect of a famine-induced >> genetic selection, or just poor folks with bad diets (like the Pima >> Indians of North America).
>> As your example with American descendants of African slaves go, the >> genetic heritage may be result of fairly recent events.
>> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined >people in relation to disease. To put it simply, they need more >Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because >their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The >reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in >the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs >less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. Which >prevents overdose.
>While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it >was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the >darker skinned population.
>But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the >overproduction of VitD in the body. Evolution suggests as humans moved >away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing >for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the >necessary amount of VitD in the body. But we have a problem. Now that >darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as >strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute >as was suggested happened in the past.
>So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory. Which >means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were, >then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as >suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be >selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the >species survival.
>Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations >of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light. However. >What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their >skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning >less dark with less exposure. So it is clear that skin did not change >as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all >originate in Africa.
>Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of >VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in >higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for >distinction.
>I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned >people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again >suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural >selection.
>Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in >response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark >skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response >to less sun. Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common >African ancestor;" And wrong about what should be natural selection >selecting a species for distinction.
>Evolution is wrong on two more counts.
No, your lies, misinformation and ignorant bullshit above, is wrong.
<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >On 21 Nov, 10:45, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: >> On Nov 20, 6:00 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 20, 2:14 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > On Nov 20, 5:07 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > > On Nov 20, 12:09 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > Cornelius Hunter should read this book...LOL
>> > > > > > It explains how so many diseases are actually adaptations to >> > > > > > stresses...better to live to 30 and reproduce than die at 2 and not...
>> > > > > Maybe people didn't see this thread...a book worth reading!
>> > > > There's not much to say,unless you've actually read the book. I >> > > > haven't. I wikipedia'd the title and learned that "Survival of the >> > > > Sickest" is the fourth studio album of the band "Saliva."
>> > > > If you want a conversation maybe you could give more details? Just a >> > > > thought.
>> > > I read it, yes, and the theme of the book is classical Darwinian >> > > selection FOR such conditions as diabetes, anemia, etc., because of >> > > certain sometimes extreme conditions in the past. African-American >> > > blacks, for instance, have higher incidences of hypertension than >> > > African populations from which they are derived because they are >> > > descendants of slaves who made it across the Atlantic without dying in >> > > the slave ships, because they held water better than the ones who died >> > > of dehydration. Most of theses diseases affect us well past the age of >> > > reproduction, but allowed our ancestors to reach the age of >> > > reproduction.
>> > Adult onset diabetes (they call it type 2 now) really doesn't happen >> > in folks who eat no bread of processed food (except simple cooking) >> > and exercise vigorously 10 hours a week. I don't think it was a >> > problem for hunter-gatherers. It does seem to be most common among >> > those populations who have recently gone through periods of serious >> > famine. It's not clear whether it is a side effect of a famine-induced >> > genetic selection, or just poor folks with bad diets (like the Pima >> > Indians of North America).
>> > As your example with American descendants of African slaves go, the >> > genetic heritage may be result of fairly recent events.
>> > Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>> > - Show quoted text -
>> I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined >> people in relation to disease. To put it simply, they need more >> Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because >> their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The >> reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in >> the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs >> less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. Which >> prevents overdose.
>> While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it >> was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the >> darker skinned population.
>> But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the >> overproduction of VitD in the body. Evolution suggests as humans moved >> away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing >> for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the >> necessary amount of VitD in the body. But we have a problem. Now that >> darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as >> strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute >> as was suggested happened in the past.
>> So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory.
>Why not? The "move out of Africa" took place over milennia, holiday >travel takes hours. You think we shoudl change colour when on board an >airplane?
>> means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were, >> then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as >> suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be >> selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the >> species survival.
>> Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations >> of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light. However. >> What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their >> skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning >> less dark with less exposure. So it is clear that skin did not change >> as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all >> originate in Africa.
>> Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of >> VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in >> higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for >> distinction.
>Only by an utter moron who does not understand the very basics of >evolutionary biology, really.
>> I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned >> people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again >> suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural >> selection.
>Why? One trait can be favourable or neutral in one environment, anmd a >problem in another. Just as ToE says. it is the environment that >selects.
>> Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in >> response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark >> skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response >> to less sun. Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common >> African ancestor;"
>If at all, it shows the opposite no? If your analyses were true, >lighter skinned people simply revert to a trait that we as species >originally posessed, the toher direction is not as straightforward
> And wrong about what should be natural selection >> selecting a species for distinction.
>> Evolution is wrong on two more counts.
>More your understanding of evolution. First, dark vs wite skin is only >a "species" barrier in backward countries tha make "miscegenation" >illegal, like until recently in the religiously fundamentalist >southern parts of the US.
Ach, Herr Burkhard, some data for you. From 1913 until 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that still had them.
That was 42 years ago, two generations, hardly recent. Perhaps you are thinking of South Africa, which did not overturn such laws until 1985, some 18 years later.
Where I live in Texas, there are now many so-called interracial couples. Yet, at the turn of the 20th century, Waco was famous for lynching blacks. There is, unfortunately, still a Klan presence, but it keeps a very low profile.
It takes time for a human population to outgrow parentally inculcated prejudices.
> Normally, interbreeding is perfectly >possible, whatever you'v ebeen told.
Indeed, one of the things about Africa is that European, Arab, Indian and Oriental men have married and interbred with African women in Africa, for centuries.
>Second, evolution doesn't have a plan and does not in any meaningful >sens of the word "decide" what traits to select. Certain environemnts >faour certain traits, nothing you said contradicts this.
Given that there was a homo near extinction event, that happened around 75,000 years ago, we are all more closely related than most realize. This event resulted in the world's human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
For being so inbred, we sure are diverse.
Volcanos seem to be indifferent to plans, even if there were such for evolution.
> In message > <bd9eb95f-6048-44c9-96e5-dbebedf0b...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
> <snip>
> The points are dealt with one by one, then expanded upon at the bottom.
> >I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined > >people in relation to disease. To put it simply, they need more > >Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because > >their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The > >reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in > >the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs > >less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. > >Which > >prevents overdose.
> Wrong. It is not possible to overdose on vitamin D from sunlight.
> >While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it > >was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the > >darker skinned population.
> >But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the > >overproduction of VitD in the body.
> Wrong. Light skin is selected for as it produces more vitamin D, dark > skin is selected for because it protects the skin from sunburn *not* > vitamin D over production.
> >Evolution suggests as humans moved > >away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing > >for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the > >necessary amount of VitD in the body.
> Correct.
> > But we have a problem. Now that > >darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as > >strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute > >as was suggested happened in the past.
> Not enough time has passed yet.
> >So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory. > > Which > >means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were, > >then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as > >suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be > >selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the > >species survival.
> But the effect will only be seen after many generations, and even then > it will only show up if vitamin D supplements don't fix the problem > artificially.
> >Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations > >of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light.
> So how many generations have their been, and how do you know it's enough > to show an evolutionary change?
> > However. > >What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their > >skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning > >less dark with less exposure.
> It's called tanning. Almost all humans do it to some extent.
> > So it is clear that skin did not change > >as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all > >originate in Africa.
> Since your assumption is incorrect so is your conclusion.
> >Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of > >VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in > >higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for > >distinction.
> It just means that light skin colour will be selected for in locations > where there is not much sunlight. And that is exactly what we see. > Correlate indigenous skin colour with sun strength around the world.
> >I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned > >people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again > >suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural > >selection.
> This is just ridiculous. Of course what happens at the Northern > latitudes does not affect a population at the equator, and since > evolution does not suggest such a thing it is just a strawman attack.
> >Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in > >response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark > >skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response > >to less sun.
> Wrong. Black people do tan.
> >Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common > >African ancestor;" And wrong about what should be natural selection > >selecting a species for distinction. > >Evolution is wrong on two more counts.
> Since the assumptions you are basing your reasoning on are wrong so is > your conclusion.
> On to more detail:
> The reason for dark/light skin selection is thought to be down to an > equilibrium between vitamin D production and skin damage from sunlight. > Dark skin produces less vitamin D but provides high skin protection so > is selected for in locations where sunlight is strong. Light skin > produces more vitamin D but provides less skin protection, so is > selected for in low sunlight locations.
> Actually, the light skin of northern races is thought to be due to a > form of type II albinoism. That would give an abrupt rather than a > gradual lightening of the skin, but it would still take considerable > amount of time for the mutation to spread through the population. It > would be interesting to investigate whether the instances of type II > albinoism is increasing in black populations living in northern > latitudes, but I've not found any stats for that.
> Type II albinoism is connected to mutations in the OCA2 gene which is > associated with melanin production in various parts of the body e.g. the > eyes.
> The last one is a mutation for blue eyes that took 6,000-10,000 years to > spread through the population. Another candidate for the "white skin" > mutation is SLC24A5:
> Note that one discusses a single codon change "thought to explain > between 25 and 38% of skin pigmentation variation between Black African > and White European humans."
> So, on to the errors in your article:
> 1) For evolution to take effect it takes time, especially in a slow > breeding animal like humans. The few generations that have passed since > black skinned people moved to sun poor regions is nowhere near enough > for evolution to make much difference. The actual estimate for the > spread of the skin colour genes is around 5,000-12,000 years (in a > relatively small population) so your expectation that it should be seen > in a few hundred years is completely wrong.
> Note that vitamin D deficiency *is* a problem for black skinned > individuals living in northern latitudes:
> Since people with vitamin D deficiency are less healthy than the general > population then they will have fewer children, and in the long run (many > thousands of years) the average skin colour of the population will > lighten over time in places with low sunlight, conversely we would > expect white skinned populations living in the tropics to darken over > hundreds/thousands of generations as skin cancer is a problem for them > there.
> 2) There are two separate mechanisms at play in skin colour, humans have > a natural base level of melanin production then on top of this most > people can produce a certain amount of *additional* melanin after the > skin has been damaged by UV light. This then darkens the skin i.e. they > tan. This process happens in black skinned individuals as well as > white i.e. black people *do* tan, it's just not as noticeable:
> 3) It is virtually impossible to get a an overdose of vitamin D from > sunlight because the skin reaches an equilibrium where vitamin D is > broken down if too much is produced.
> "Ultraviolet exposure beyond the minimal erythemal dose does not > increase vitamin D production further. The ultraviolet-induced > production of vitamin D precursors is counterbalanced by degradation of > vitamin D and its precursors. "
> 4) You implied that the ToE predicts natural selection should work on a > population which are separate i.e. that the selection affecting one > population should affect populations in other locations. You then > point out that this is not true, but it's not actually a prediction of > evolutionary theory therefore it was just another strawman attack.
> 5) You imply that humans did not originate in Africa, to overturn that > theory you have a lot more work to do than just producing poorly > researched and erroneous articles on skin colour:
You prove my point better then I did. But you over look a few things.
1) Darker skin protects from the sun. Why? Because people lived and worked in the sun much of their time. Days were longer. So they got adequate VitD AND skin protection. The reverse for light skin. This clearly shows a complex safety feature that only a designer could think of because it is an attribute that would have to be in place FIRST for species survival.
2) Light skin people within days respond to more sun by turning darker AS WELL AS respond to less sun by turning lighter. This does NOT happen with Africans. They do turn a bit darker or a bit lighter, but not as remarkable as with light skinned people.This suggest that they were the last to migrate to Africa and a mutation kept their skin dark. This also suggest
...
> > The points are dealt with one by one, then expanded upon at the bottom.
> > >I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined > > >people in relation to disease. To put it simply, they need more > > >Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because > > >their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The > > >reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in > > >the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs > > >less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. > > >Which > > >prevents overdose.
> > Wrong. It is not possible to overdose on vitamin D from sunlight.
> > >While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it > > >was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the > > >darker skinned population.
> > >But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the > > >overproduction of VitD in the body.
> > Wrong. Light skin is selected for as it produces more vitamin D, dark > > skin is selected for because it protects the skin from sunburn *not* > > vitamin D over production.
> > >Evolution suggests as humans moved > > >away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing > > >for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the > > >necessary amount of VitD in the body.
> > Correct.
> > > But we have a problem. Now that > > >darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as > > >strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute > > >as was suggested happened in the past.
> > Not enough time has passed yet.
> > >So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory. > > > Which > > >means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were, > > >then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as > > >suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be > > >selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the > > >species survival.
> > But the effect will only be seen after many generations, and even then > > it will only show up if vitamin D supplements don't fix the problem > > artificially.
> > >Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations > > >of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light.
> > So how many generations have their been, and how do you know it's enough > > to show an evolutionary change?
> > > However. > > >What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their > > >skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning > > >less dark with less exposure.
> > It's called tanning. Almost all humans do it to some extent.
> > > So it is clear that skin did not change > > >as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all > > >originate in Africa.
> > Since your assumption is incorrect so is your conclusion.
> > >Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of > > >VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in > > >higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for > > >distinction.
> > It just means that light skin colour will be selected for in locations > > where there is not much sunlight. And that is exactly what we see. > > Correlate indigenous skin colour with sun strength around the world.
> > >I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned > > >people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again > > >suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural > > >selection.
> > This is just ridiculous. Of course what happens at the Northern > > latitudes does not affect a population at the equator, and since > > evolution does not suggest such a thing it is just a strawman attack.
> > >Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in > > >response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark > > >skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response > > >to less sun.
> > Wrong. Black people do tan.
> > >Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common > > >African ancestor;" And wrong about what should be natural selection > > >selecting a species for distinction. > > >Evolution is wrong on two more counts.
> > Since the assumptions you are basing your reasoning on are wrong so is > > your conclusion.
> > On to more detail:
> > The reason for dark/light skin selection is thought to be down to an > > equilibrium between vitamin D production and skin damage from sunlight. > > Dark skin produces less vitamin D but provides high skin protection so > > is selected for in locations where sunlight is strong. Light skin > > produces more vitamin D but provides less skin protection, so is > > selected for in low sunlight locations.
> > Actually, the light skin of northern races is thought to be due to a > > form of type II albinoism. That would give an abrupt rather than a > > gradual lightening of the skin, but it would still take considerable > > amount of time for the mutation to spread through the population. It > > would be interesting to investigate whether the instances of type II > > albinoism is increasing in black populations living in northern > > latitudes, but I've not found any stats for that.
> > Type II albinoism is connected to mutations in the OCA2 gene which is > > associated with melanin production in various parts of the body e.g. the > > eyes.
> > The last one is a mutation for blue eyes that took 6,000-10,000 years to > > spread through the population. Another candidate for the "white skin" > > mutation is SLC24A5:
> > Note that one discusses a single codon change "thought to explain > > between 25 and 38% of skin pigmentation variation between Black African > > and White European humans."
> > So, on to the errors in your article:
> > 1) For evolution to take effect it takes time, especially in a slow > > breeding animal like humans. The few generations that have passed since > > black skinned people moved to sun poor regions is nowhere near enough > > for evolution to make much difference. The actual estimate for the > > spread of the skin colour genes is around 5,000-12,000 years (in a > > relatively small population) so your expectation that it should be seen > > in a few hundred years is completely wrong.
> > Note that vitamin D deficiency *is* a problem for black skinned > > individuals living in northern latitudes:
> > Since people with vitamin D deficiency are less healthy than the general > > population then they will have fewer children, and in the long run (many > > thousands of years) the average skin colour of the population will > > lighten over time in places with low sunlight, conversely we would > > expect white skinned populations living in the tropics to darken over > > hundreds/thousands of generations as skin cancer is a problem for them > > there.
> > 2) There are two separate mechanisms at play in skin colour, humans have > > a natural base level of melanin production then on top of this most > > people can produce a certain amount of *additional* melanin after the > > skin has been damaged by UV light. This then darkens the skin i.e. they > > tan. This process happens in black skinned individuals as well as > > white i.e. black people *do* tan, it's just not as noticeable:
> > 3) It is virtually impossible to get a an overdose of vitamin D from > > sunlight because the skin reaches an equilibrium where vitamin D is > > broken down if too much is produced.
> > "Ultraviolet exposure beyond the minimal erythemal dose does not > > increase vitamin D production further. The ultraviolet-induced > > production of vitamin D precursors is counterbalanced by degradation of > > vitamin D and its precursors. "
> > 4) You implied that the ToE predicts natural selection should work on a > > population which are separate i.e. that the selection affecting one > > population should affect populations in other locations. You then > > point out that this is not true, but it's not actually a prediction of > > evolutionary theory therefore it was just another strawman attack.
> > 5) You imply that humans did not originate in Africa, to overturn that > > theory you have a lot more work to do than just producing poorly > > researched and erroneous articles on skin colour:
> You prove my point better then I did. But you over look a few things.
> 1) Darker skin protects from the sun. Why? Because people lived and > worked in the sun much of their time. Days were longer. So they got > adequate VitD AND skin protection. The reverse for light skin. This > clearly shows a complex safety feature that only a designer could > think of because it is an attribute that would have to be in place > FIRST for species survival.
> >> > On Nov 20, 2:14 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Nov 20, 5:07 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > On Nov 20, 12:09 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > Cornelius Hunter should read this book...LOL
> >> > > > > > It explains how so many diseases are actually adaptations to > >> > > > > > stresses...better to live to 30 and reproduce than die at 2 and not...
> >> > > > > Maybe people didn't see this thread...a book worth reading!
> >> > > > There's not much to say,unless you've actually read the book. I > >> > > > haven't. I wikipedia'd the title and learned that "Survival of the > >> > > > Sickest" is the fourth studio album of the band "Saliva."
> >> > > > If you want a conversation maybe you could give more details? Just a > >> > > > thought.
> >> > > I read it, yes, and the theme of the book is classical Darwinian > >> > > selection FOR such conditions as diabetes, anemia, etc., because of > >> > > certain sometimes extreme conditions in the past. African-American > >> > > blacks, for instance, have higher incidences of hypertension than > >> > > African populations from which they are derived because they are > >> > > descendants of slaves who made it across the Atlantic without dying in > >> > > the slave ships, because they held water better than the ones who died > >> > > of dehydration. Most of theses diseases affect us well past the age of > >> > > reproduction, but allowed our ancestors to reach the age of > >> > > reproduction.
> >> > Adult onset diabetes (they call it type 2 now) really doesn't happen > >> > in folks who eat no bread of processed food (except simple cooking) > >> > and exercise vigorously 10 hours a week. I don't think it was a > >> > problem for hunter-gatherers. It does seem to be most common among > >> > those populations who have recently gone through periods of serious > >> > famine. It's not clear whether it is a side effect of a famine-induced > >> > genetic selection, or just poor folks with bad diets (like the Pima > >> > Indians of North America).
> >> > As your example with American descendants of African slaves go, the > >> > genetic heritage may be result of fairly recent events.
> >> > Kermit- Hide quoted text -
> >> > - Show quoted text -
> >> I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined > >> people in relation to disease. To put it simply, they need more > >> Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because > >> their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The > >> reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in > >> the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs > >> less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. Which > >> prevents overdose.
> >> While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it > >> was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the > >> darker skinned population.
> >> But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the > >> overproduction of VitD in the body. Evolution suggests as humans moved > >> away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing > >> for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the > >> necessary amount of VitD in the body. But we have a problem. Now that > >> darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as > >> strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute > >> as was suggested happened in the past.
> >> So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory.
> >Why not? The "move out of Africa" took place over milennia, holiday > >travel takes hours. You think we shoudl change colour when on board an > >airplane?
> >> means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were, > >> then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as > >> suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be > >> selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the > >> species survival.
> >> Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations > >> of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light. However. > >> What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their > >> skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning > >> less dark with less exposure. So it is clear that skin did not change > >> as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all > >> originate in Africa.
> >> Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of > >> VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in > >> higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for > >> distinction.
> >Only by an utter moron who does not understand the very basics of > >evolutionary biology, really.
> >> I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned > >> people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again > >> suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural > >> selection.
> >Why? One trait can be favourable or neutral in one environment, anmd a > >problem in another. Just as ToE says. it is the environment that > >selects.
> >> Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in > >> response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark > >> skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response > >> to less sun. Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common > >> African ancestor;"
> >If at all, it shows the opposite no? If your analyses were true, > >lighter skinned people simply revert to a trait that we as species > >originally posessed, the toher direction is not as straightforward
> > And wrong about what should be natural selection > >> selecting a species for distinction.
> >> Evolution is wrong on two more counts.
> >More your understanding of evolution. First, dark vs wite skin is only > >a "species" barrier in backward countries tha make "miscegenation" > >illegal, like until recently in the religiously fundamentalist > >southern parts of the US.
> Ach, Herr Burkhard, some data for you. > From 1913 until 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced > anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court > unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws > are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in > effect in the remaining 16 states that still had them.
> That was 42 years ago, two generations, hardly recent. > Perhaps you are thinking of South Africa, which did not overturn such > laws until 1985, some 18 years later.
[snip]
Well, honestly, just because there were no laws against it doesn't mean the social pressure didn't continue full force. There were plenty of places in the south that treated whites who associated with blacks even worse than the blacks. Fortunately the followup anti-discrimination laws have helped alleviate much of the problem. But there are still places you can find pockets of people who will act significantly differently toward mixed couples than non.
On Nov 21, 1:37 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote: [snip]
> You prove my point better then I did. But you over look a few things.
lol
> 1) Darker skin protects from the sun. Why? Because people lived and > worked in the sun much of their time. Days were longer. So they got > adequate VitD AND skin protection. The reverse for light skin. This > clearly shows a complex safety feature that only a designer could > think of because it is an attribute that would have to be in place > FIRST for species survival.
If people were hairy then skin tone was not a factor the hair could protect from the sun. But people with darker skin tones could survive with less hair. Hotter places would make less hair a possible advantage. I will assume you are totally confused at this point and have no idea what I'm getting at. Bluntly: no, not a complex "safety feature" only a designer could come up with.
> 2) Light skin people within days respond to more sun by turning darker > AS WELL AS respond to less sun by turning lighter. This does NOT > happen with Africans. They do turn a bit darker or a bit lighter, but > not as remarkable as with light skinned people.This suggest that they
You have your facts wrong.
> were the last to migrate to Africa and a mutation kept their skin > dark. This also suggest your theory being wrong about skin tones. > Starting with a created man, that had a "ruddy" complexion (The Hebrew > word Adam (Aw-dawm) comes from the root word Adam (Aw-dam). “aw-dam: > to show blood (in the face).” (Strong’s Dictionary of Hebrew and > Chaldee, p.8 #119) , this shows that Adam was light complected. Then > as man moved out from the garden of eden he became darker from living > in regions that had longer days and more sun light. By the time of > Noah's generation the earth was populated with mixtures of skin tones > as we see today. But Noah's sons were Black, Caucasian and Yellow.
Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong.
> Which is just what we see today.
> The bible and most ancient texts are correct. They line up with what > we see today
heekster wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:25:42 -0800 (PST), Burkhard > <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On 21 Nov, 10:45, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: >>> On Nov 20, 6:00 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 20, 2:14 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Nov 20, 5:07 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 20, 12:09 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Cornelius Hunter should read this book...LOL >>>>>>>> It explains how so many diseases are actually adaptations to >>>>>>>> stresses...better to live to 30 and reproduce than die at 2 and not... >>>>>>> Maybe people didn't see this thread...a book worth reading! >>>>>> There's not much to say,unless you've actually read the book. I >>>>>> haven't. I wikipedia'd the title and learned that "Survival of the >>>>>> Sickest" is the fourth studio album of the band "Saliva." >>>>>> If you want a conversation maybe you could give more details? Just a >>>>>> thought. >>>>> I read it, yes, and the theme of the book is classical Darwinian >>>>> selection FOR such conditions as diabetes, anemia, etc., because of >>>>> certain sometimes extreme conditions in the past. African-American >>>>> blacks, for instance, have higher incidences of hypertension than >>>>> African populations from which they are derived because they are >>>>> descendants of slaves who made it across the Atlantic without dying in >>>>> the slave ships, because they held water better than the ones who died >>>>> of dehydration. Most of theses diseases affect us well past the age of >>>>> reproduction, but allowed our ancestors to reach the age of >>>>> reproduction. >>>> Adult onset diabetes (they call it type 2 now) really doesn't happen >>>> in folks who eat no bread of processed food (except simple cooking) >>>> and exercise vigorously 10 hours a week. I don't think it was a >>>> problem for hunter-gatherers. It does seem to be most common among >>>> those populations who have recently gone through periods of serious >>>> famine. It's not clear whether it is a side effect of a famine-induced >>>> genetic selection, or just poor folks with bad diets (like the Pima >>>> Indians of North America). >>>> As your example with American descendants of African slaves go, the >>>> genetic heritage may be result of fairly recent events. >>>> Kermit- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined >>> people in relation to disease. To put it simply, they need more >>> Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because >>> their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The >>> reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in >>> the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs >>> less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. Which >>> prevents overdose.
>>> While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it >>> was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the >>> darker skinned population.
>>> But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the >>> overproduction of VitD in the body. Evolution suggests as humans moved >>> away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing >>> for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the >>> necessary amount of VitD in the body. But we have a problem. Now that >>> darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as >>> strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute >>> as was suggested happened in the past.
>>> So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory. >> Why not? The "move out of Africa" took place over milennia, holiday >> travel takes hours. You think we shoudl change colour when on board an >> airplane?
>>> means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were, >>> then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as >>> suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be >>> selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the >>> species survival.
>>> Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations >>> of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light. However. >>> What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their >>> skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning >>> less dark with less exposure. So it is clear that skin did not change >>> as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all >>> originate in Africa.
>>> Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of >>> VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in >>> higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for >>> distinction. >> Only by an utter moron who does not understand the very basics of >> evolutionary biology, really. >>> I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned >>> people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again >>> suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural >>> selection. >> Why? One trait can be favourable or neutral in one environment, anmd a >> problem in another. Just as ToE says. it is the environment that >> selects. >>> Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in >>> response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark >>> skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response >>> to less sun. Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common >>> African ancestor;" >> If at all, it shows the opposite no? If your analyses were true, >> lighter skinned people simply revert to a trait that we as species >> originally posessed, the toher direction is not as straightforward
>> And wrong about what should be natural selection >>> selecting a species for distinction.
>>> Evolution is wrong on two more counts. >> More your understanding of evolution. First, dark vs wite skin is only >> a "species" barrier in backward countries tha make "miscegenation" >> illegal, like until recently in the religiously fundamentalist >> southern parts of the US.
> Ach, Herr Burkhard, some data for you. > From 1913 until 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced > anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court > unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws > are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in > effect in the remaining 16 states that still had them.
> That was 42 years ago, two generations, hardly recent.
I tend to call everything that is "in living memory" recent, and in this case, heard the stories from someone directly affected, which makes it in a way even more recent for me. They are friends in Munich, a mixed race couple and now of course getting a bit long in the tooth, who settled eventually in Germany precisely because of this. He was a black GI, she a German girl - in his home town, they would have been arrested, and the people they had to avoid in Germany were white US MPs who, according to him, would beat up mixed race couples if they found them and put the GI's involved in prison for up to six month (and yes, the irony never escaped them, either).
I go this book from him a couple of years back, it made very interesting reading (and made my blood boil with respect to both countries - so glad I'm Scottish these days, where everybody is part black since the 17th century ;o));
Heide Fehrenbach: Race after Hitler: Black Occupation Children in Postwar Germany and America Princeton University Press
> Perhaps you are thinking of South Africa, which did not overturn such > laws until 1985, some 18 years later.
> Where I live in Texas, there are now many so-called interracial > couples. Yet, at the turn of the 20th century, Waco was famous for > lynching blacks. There is, unfortunately, still a Klan presence, but > it keeps a very low profile.
> It takes time for a human population to outgrow parentally inculcated > prejudices.
> Indeed, one of the things about Africa is that European, Arab, Indian > and Oriental men have married and interbred with African women in > Africa, for centuries.
>> Second, evolution doesn't have a plan and does not in any meaningful >> sens of the word "decide" what traits to select. Certain environemnts >> faour certain traits, nothing you said contradicts this.
> Given that there was a homo near extinction event, that happened > around 75,000 years ago, we are all more closely related than most > realize. This event resulted in the world's human population being > reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a > bottleneck in human evolution. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
> For being so inbred, we sure are diverse.
> Volcanos seem to be indifferent to plans, even if there were such for > evolution.
All-Seeing-I wrote: > On Nov 21, 8:06 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org> > wrote: >> In message >> <bd9eb95f-6048-44c9-96e5-dbebedf0b...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, >> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>> <snip>
>> The points are dealt with one by one, then expanded upon at the bottom.
>>> I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined >>> people in relation to disease. To put it simply, they need more >>> Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because >>> their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The >>> reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in >>> the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs >>> less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. >>> Which >>> prevents overdose. >> Wrong. It is not possible to overdose on vitamin D from sunlight.
>>> While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it >>> was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the >>> darker skinned population. >>> But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the >>> overproduction of VitD in the body. >> Wrong. Light skin is selected for as it produces more vitamin D, dark >> skin is selected for because it protects the skin from sunburn *not* >> vitamin D over production.
>>> Evolution suggests as humans moved >>> away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing >>> for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the >>> necessary amount of VitD in the body. >> Correct.
>>> But we have a problem. Now that >>> darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as >>> strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute >>> as was suggested happened in the past. >> Not enough time has passed yet.
>>> So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory. >>> Which >>> means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were, >>> then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as >>> suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be >>> selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the >>> species survival. >> But the effect will only be seen after many generations, and even then >> it will only show up if vitamin D supplements don't fix the problem >> artificially.
>>> Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations >>> of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light. >> So how many generations have their been, and how do you know it's enough >> to show an evolutionary change?
>>> However. >>> What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their >>> skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning >>> less dark with less exposure. >> It's called tanning. Almost all humans do it to some extent.
>>> So it is clear that skin did not change >>> as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all >>> originate in Africa. >> Since your assumption is incorrect so is your conclusion.
>>> Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of >>> VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in >>> higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for >>> distinction. >> It just means that light skin colour will be selected for in locations >> where there is not much sunlight. And that is exactly what we see. >> Correlate indigenous skin colour with sun strength around the world.
>>> I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned >>> people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again >>> suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural >>> selection. >> This is just ridiculous. Of course what happens at the Northern >> latitudes does not affect a population at the equator, and since >> evolution does not suggest such a thing it is just a strawman attack.
>>> Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in >>> response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark >>> skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response >>> to less sun. >> Wrong. Black people do tan.
>>> Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common >>> African ancestor;" And wrong about what should be natural selection >>> selecting a species for distinction. >>> Evolution is wrong on two more counts. >> Since the assumptions you are basing your reasoning on are wrong so is >> your conclusion.
>> On to more detail:
>> The reason for dark/light skin selection is thought to be down to an >> equilibrium between vitamin D production and skin damage from sunlight. >> Dark skin produces less vitamin D but provides high skin protection so >> is selected for in locations where sunlight is strong. Light skin >> produces more vitamin D but provides less skin protection, so is >> selected for in low sunlight locations.
>> Actually, the light skin of northern races is thought to be due to a >> form of type II albinoism. That would give an abrupt rather than a >> gradual lightening of the skin, but it would still take considerable >> amount of time for the mutation to spread through the population. It >> would be interesting to investigate whether the instances of type II >> albinoism is increasing in black populations living in northern >> latitudes, but I've not found any stats for that.
>> Type II albinoism is connected to mutations in the OCA2 gene which is >> associated with melanin production in various parts of the body e.g. the >> eyes.
>> The last one is a mutation for blue eyes that took 6,000-10,000 years to >> spread through the population. Another candidate for the "white skin" >> mutation is SLC24A5:
>> Note that one discusses a single codon change "thought to explain >> between 25 and 38% of skin pigmentation variation between Black African >> and White European humans."
>> So, on to the errors in your article:
>> 1) For evolution to take effect it takes time, especially in a slow >> breeding animal like humans. The few generations that have passed since >> black skinned people moved to sun poor regions is nowhere near enough >> for evolution to make much difference. The actual estimate for the >> spread of the skin colour genes is around 5,000-12,000 years (in a >> relatively small population) so your expectation that it should be seen >> in a few hundred years is completely wrong.
>> Note that vitamin D deficiency *is* a problem for black skinned >> individuals living in northern latitudes:
>> Since people with vitamin D deficiency are less healthy than the general >> population then they will have fewer children, and in the long run (many >> thousands of years) the average skin colour of the population will >> lighten over time in places with low sunlight, conversely we would >> expect white skinned populations living in the tropics to darken over >> hundreds/thousands of generations as skin cancer is a problem for them >> there.
>> 2) There are two separate mechanisms at play in skin colour, humans have >> a natural base level of melanin production then on top of this most >> people can produce a certain amount of *additional* melanin after the >> skin has been damaged by UV light. This then darkens the skin i.e. they >> tan. This process happens in black skinned individuals as well as >> white i.e. black people *do* tan, it's just not as noticeable:
>> 3) It is virtually impossible to get a an overdose of vitamin D from >> sunlight because the skin reaches an equilibrium where vitamin D is >> broken down if too much is produced.
>> "Ultraviolet exposure beyond the minimal erythemal dose does not >> increase vitamin D production further. The ultraviolet-induced >> production of vitamin D precursors is counterbalanced by degradation of >> vitamin D and its precursors. "
>> 4) You implied that the ToE predicts natural selection should work on a >> population which are separate i.e. that the selection affecting one >> population should affect populations in other locations. You then >> point out that this is not true, but it's not actually a prediction of >> evolutionary theory therefore it was just another strawman attack.
>> 5) You imply that humans did not originate in Africa, to overturn that >> theory you have a lot more work to do than just producing poorly >> researched and erroneous articles on skin colour:
> You prove my point better then I did. But you over look a few things.
> 1) Darker skin protects from the sun. Why? Because people lived and > worked in the sun much of their time. Days were longer. So they got > adequate VitD AND skin protection. The reverse for light skin. This > clearly shows a complex safety feature that only a designer could > think of because it is an attribute that would have to be in place > FIRST for species survival.
> 2) Light skin people within days respond to more sun by turning darker > AS WELL AS respond to less sun by turning lighter. This does NOT > happen with Africans. They do turn a
>> >> > On Nov 20, 2:14 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > > On Nov 20, 5:07 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > > On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > > > > On Nov 20, 12:09 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > Cornelius Hunter should read this book...LOL
>> >> > > > > > It explains how so many diseases are actually adaptations to >> >> > > > > > stresses...better to live to 30 and reproduce than die at 2 and not...
>> >> > > > > Maybe people didn't see this thread...a book worth reading!
>> >> > > > There's not much to say,unless you've actually read the book. I >> >> > > > haven't. I wikipedia'd the title and learned that "Survival of the >> >> > > > Sickest" is the fourth studio album of the band "Saliva."
>> >> > > > If you want a conversation maybe you could give more details? Just a >> >> > > > thought.
>> >> > > I read it, yes, and the theme of the book is classical Darwinian >> >> > > selection FOR such conditions as diabetes, anemia, etc., because of >> >> > > certain sometimes extreme conditions in the past. African-American >> >> > > blacks, for instance, have higher incidences of hypertension than >> >> > > African populations from which they are derived because they are >> >> > > descendants of slaves who made it across the Atlantic without dying in >> >> > > the slave ships, because they held water better than the ones who died >> >> > > of dehydration. Most of theses diseases affect us well past the age of >> >> > > reproduction, but allowed our ancestors to reach the age of >> >> > > reproduction.
>> >> > Adult onset diabetes (they call it type 2 now) really doesn't happen >> >> > in folks who eat no bread of processed food (except simple cooking) >> >> > and exercise vigorously 10 hours a week. I don't think it was a >> >> > problem for hunter-gatherers. It does seem to be most common among >> >> > those populations who have recently gone through periods of serious >> >> > famine. It's not clear whether it is a side effect of a famine-induced >> >> > genetic selection, or just poor folks with bad diets (like the Pima >> >> > Indians of North America).
>> >> > As your example with American descendants of African slaves go, the >> >> > genetic heritage may be result of fairly recent events.
>> >> > Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>> >> > - Show quoted text -
>> >> I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined >> >> people in relation to disease. To put it simply, they need more >> >> Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because >> >> their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The >> >> reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in >> >> the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs >> >> less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. Which >> >> prevents overdose.
>> >> While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it >> >> was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the >> >> darker skinned population.
>> >> But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the >> >> overproduction of VitD in the body. Evolution suggests as humans moved >> >> away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing >> >> for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the >> >> necessary amount of VitD in the body. But we have a problem. Now that >> >> darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as >> >> strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute >> >> as was suggested happened in the past.
>> >> So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory.
>> >Why not? The "move out of Africa" took place over milennia, holiday >> >travel takes hours. You think we shoudl change colour when on board an >> >airplane?
>> >> means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were, >> >> then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as >> >> suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be >> >> selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the >> >> species survival.
>> >> Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations >> >> of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light. However. >> >> What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their >> >> skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning >> >> less dark with less exposure. So it is clear that skin did not change >> >> as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all >> >> originate in Africa.
>> >> Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of >> >> VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in >> >> higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for >> >> distinction.
>> >Only by an utter moron who does not understand the very basics of >> >evolutionary biology, really.
>> >> I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned >> >> people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again >> >> suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural >> >> selection.
>> >Why? One trait can be favourable or neutral in one environment, anmd a >> >problem in another. Just as ToE says. it is the environment that >> >selects.
>> >> Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in >> >> response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark >> >> skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response >> >> to less sun. Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common >> >> African ancestor;"
>> >If at all, it shows the opposite no? If your analyses were true, >> >lighter skinned people simply revert to a trait that we as species >> >originally posessed, the toher direction is not as straightforward
>> > And wrong about what should be natural selection >> >> selecting a species for distinction.
>> >> Evolution is wrong on two more counts.
>> >More your understanding of evolution. First, dark vs wite skin is only >> >a "species" barrier in backward countries tha make "miscegenation" >> >illegal, like until recently in the religiously fundamentalist >> >southern parts of the US.
>> Ach, Herr Burkhard, some data for you. >> From 1913 until 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced >> anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court >> unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws >> are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in >> effect in the remaining 16 states that still had them.
>> That was 42 years ago, two generations, hardly recent. >> Perhaps you are thinking of South Africa, which did not overturn such >> laws until 1985, some 18 years later. >[snip]
>Well, honestly, just because there were no laws against it doesn't >mean the social pressure didn't continue full force. >There were plenty of places in the south that treated whites who >associated with blacks even worse than the blacks.
Same thing happened in Los Angeles and New York in the 1940s. And you have spent how much time in the South? And lived in which Southern States?
>Fortunately the followup anti-discrimination laws have helped >alleviate much of the problem.
No, the problem was the parental inculcation of prejudicial attitudes. You snipped what I wrote about it. It might be worth your while to go back and read it.
> But there are still places you can find >pockets of people who will act significantly differently toward mixed >couples than non.
That is true, regardless of where in the world you go. The Japanese, e.g., are still famous for their xenophobia, and so-called "mixed bloods" do not fare well there, due to the ostracism. Now, not all Japanese are so xenophobic. Some cultures are extremely clannish, and some are open and embracing. The latter are exemplified by the Lumbee Indians in North Carolina, who have had trouble with the fedgov refusing to recognize their tribe. Originally Cheraw, seems that they took in runaway slaves, drifters, and others.
<allseei...@usa.com> wrote: >On Nov 21, 8:06 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org> >wrote: >> In message >> <bd9eb95f-6048-44c9-96e5-dbebedf0b...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, >> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>> <snip>
>> The points are dealt with one by one, then expanded upon at the bottom.
>> >I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined >> >people in relation to disease. To put it simply, they need more >> >Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because >> >their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The >> >reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in >> >the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs >> >less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. >> >Which >> >prevents overdose.
>> Wrong. It is not possible to overdose on vitamin D from sunlight.
>> >While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it >> >was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the >> >darker skinned population.
>> >But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the >> >overproduction of VitD in the body.
>> Wrong. Light skin is selected for as it produces more vitamin D, dark >> skin is selected for because it protects the skin from sunburn *not* >> vitamin D over production.
>> >Evolution suggests as humans moved >> >away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing >> >for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the >> >necessary amount of VitD in the body.
>> Correct.
>> > But we have a problem. Now that >> >darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as >> >strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute >> >as was suggested happened in the past.
>> Not enough time has passed yet.
>> >So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory. >> > Which >> >means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were, >> >then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as >> >suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be >> >selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the >> >species survival.
>> But the effect will only be seen after many generations, and even then >> it will only show up if vitamin D supplements don't fix the problem >> artificially.
>> >Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations >> >of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light.
>> So how many generations have their been, and how do you know it's enough >> to show an evolutionary change?
>> > However. >> >What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their >> >skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning >> >less dark with less exposure.
>> It's called tanning. Almost all humans do it to some extent.
>> > So it is clear that skin did not change >> >as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all >> >originate in Africa.
>> Since your assumption is incorrect so is your conclusion.
>> >Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of >> >VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in >> >higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for >> >distinction.
>> It just means that light skin colour will be selected for in locations >> where there is not much sunlight. And that is exactly what we see. >> Correlate indigenous skin colour with sun strength around the world.
>> >I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned >> >people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again >> >suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural >> >selection.
>> This is just ridiculous. Of course what happens at the Northern >> latitudes does not affect a population at the equator, and since >> evolution does not suggest such a thing it is just a strawman attack.
>> >Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in >> >response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark >> >skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response >> >to less sun.
>> Wrong. Black people do tan.
>> >Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common >> >African ancestor;" And wrong about what should be natural selection >> >selecting a species for distinction. >> >Evolution is wrong on two more counts.
>> Since the assumptions you are basing your reasoning on are wrong so is >> your conclusion.
>> On to more detail:
>> The reason for dark/light skin selection is thought to be down to an >> equilibrium between vitamin D production and skin damage from sunlight. >> Dark skin produces less vitamin D but provides high skin protection so >> is selected for in locations where sunlight is strong. Light skin >> produces more vitamin D but provides less skin protection, so is >> selected for in low sunlight locations.
>> Actually, the light skin of northern races is thought to be due to a >> form of type II albinoism. That would give an abrupt rather than a >> gradual lightening of the skin, but it would still take considerable >> amount of time for the mutation to spread through the population. It >> would be interesting to investigate whether the instances of type II >> albinoism is increasing in black populations living in northern >> latitudes, but I've not found any stats for that.
>> Type II albinoism is connected to mutations in the OCA2 gene which is >> associated with melanin production in various parts of the body e.g. the >> eyes.
>> The last one is a mutation for blue eyes that took 6,000-10,000 years to >> spread through the population. Another candidate for the "white skin" >> mutation is SLC24A5:
>> Note that one discusses a single codon change "thought to explain >> between 25 and 38% of skin pigmentation variation between Black African >> and White European humans."
>> So, on to the errors in your article:
>> 1) For evolution to take effect it takes time, especially in a slow >> breeding animal like humans. The few generations that have passed since >> black skinned people moved to sun poor regions is nowhere near enough >> for evolution to make much difference. The actual estimate for the >> spread of the skin colour genes is around 5,000-12,000 years (in a >> relatively small population) so your expectation that it should be seen >> in a few hundred years is completely wrong.
>> Note that vitamin D deficiency *is* a problem for black skinned >> individuals living in northern latitudes:
>> Since people with vitamin D deficiency are less healthy than the general >> population then they will have fewer children, and in the long run (many >> thousands of years) the average skin colour of the population will >> lighten over time in places with low sunlight, conversely we would >> expect white skinned populations living in the tropics to darken over >> hundreds/thousands of generations as skin cancer is a problem for them >> there.
>> 2) There are two separate mechanisms at play in skin colour, humans have >> a natural base level of melanin production then on top of this most >> people can produce a certain amount of *additional* melanin after the >> skin has been damaged by UV light. This then darkens the skin i.e. they >> tan. This process happens in black skinned individuals as well as >> white i.e. black people *do* tan, it's just not as noticeable:
>> 3) It is virtually impossible to get a an overdose of vitamin D from >> sunlight because the skin reaches an equilibrium where vitamin D is >> broken down if too much is produced.
>> "Ultraviolet exposure beyond the minimal erythemal dose does not >> increase vitamin D production further. The ultraviolet-induced >> production of vitamin D precursors is counterbalanced by degradation of >> vitamin D and its precursors. "
>> 4) You implied that the ToE predicts natural selection should work on a >> population which are separate i.e. that the selection affecting one >> population should affect populations in other locations. You then >> point out that this is not true, but it's not actually a prediction of >> evolutionary theory therefore it was just another strawman attack.
>> 5) You imply that humans did not originate in Africa, to overturn that >> theory you have a lot more work to do than just producing poorly >> researched and erroneous articles on skin colour:
>You prove my point better then I did. But you over look a few things.
>1) Darker skin protects from the sun. Why? Because people lived and >worked in the sun much of their time. Days were longer. So they got >adequate VitD AND skin protection. The reverse for light skin. This >clearly shows a complex safety feature that only a designer could >think of because it is an attribute that would have to be in place >FIRST for species survival.
>2) Light skin people within days respond to more sun by turning
> >> >> > On Nov 20, 2:14 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > On Nov 20, 5:07 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > > On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > > > On Nov 20, 12:09 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > Cornelius Hunter should read this book...LOL
> >> >> > > > > > It explains how so many diseases are actually adaptations to > >> >> > > > > > stresses...better to live to 30 and reproduce than die at 2 and not...
> >> >> > > > > Maybe people didn't see this thread...a book worth reading!
> >> >> > > > There's not much to say,unless you've actually read the book. I > >> >> > > > haven't. I wikipedia'd the title and learned that "Survival of the > >> >> > > > Sickest" is the fourth studio album of the band "Saliva."
> >> >> > > > If you want a conversation maybe you could give more details? Just a > >> >> > > > thought.
> >> >> > > I read it, yes, and the theme of the book is classical Darwinian > >> >> > > selection FOR such conditions as diabetes, anemia, etc., because of > >> >> > > certain sometimes extreme conditions in the past. African-American > >> >> > > blacks, for instance, have higher incidences of hypertension than > >> >> > > African populations from which they are derived because they are > >> >> > > descendants of slaves who made it across the Atlantic without dying in > >> >> > > the slave ships, because they held water better than the ones who died > >> >> > > of dehydration. Most of theses diseases affect us well past the age of > >> >> > > reproduction, but allowed our ancestors to reach the age of > >> >> > > reproduction.
> >> >> > Adult onset diabetes (they call it type 2 now) really doesn't happen > >> >> > in folks who eat no bread of processed food (except simple cooking) > >> >> > and exercise vigorously 10 hours a week. I don't think it was a > >> >> > problem for hunter-gatherers. It does seem to be most common among > >> >> > those populations who have recently gone through periods of serious > >> >> > famine. It's not clear whether it is a side effect of a famine-induced > >> >> > genetic selection, or just poor folks with bad diets (like the Pima > >> >> > Indians of North America).
> >> >> > As your example with American descendants of African slaves go, the > >> >> > genetic heritage may be result of fairly recent events.
> >> >> > Kermit- Hide quoted text -
> >> >> > - Show quoted text -
> >> >> I read some interesting information on Vitamin D and darked skeined > >> >> people in relation to disease. To put it simply, they need more > >> >> Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because > >> >> their dark skin absorbs less. The problem is compounded with age. The > >> >> reason their skin absorbed less is two fold. 1)they generally lived in > >> >> the sunlight for longer periods of time and 2) the darker skin absorbs > >> >> less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. Which > >> >> prevents overdose.
> >> >> While VitD deficiency is not exclusive to darker skinned people, it > >> >> was most prevalent; And so are such diseases as diabetes within the > >> >> darker skinned population.
> >> >> But what is most remarkable is the skin being darker to prevent the > >> >> overproduction of VitD in the body. Evolution suggests as humans moved > >> >> away from areas of stronger sunlight the skin became lighter allowing > >> >> for better absorption of radiation that would in turn generate the > >> >> necessary amount of VitD in the body. But we have a problem. Now that > >> >> darker skinned people are living in areas where the sun is not as > >> >> strong the skin is not showing signs of changing the darker attribute > >> >> as was suggested happened in the past.
> >> >> So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory.
> >> >Why not? The "move out of Africa" took place over milennia, holiday > >> >travel takes hours. You think we shoudl change colour when on board an > >> >airplane?
> >> >> means evolution may not be entirely correct in theory. If it were, > >> >> then the darker skin should be showing signs of becoming lighter as > >> >> suggested it did in the past. Because having lighter skin should be > >> >> selected as a feature needed for the darker skinned segment of the > >> >> species survival.
> >> >> Clearly we do not seeing such taking place after many many generations > >> >> of Africans living in higher elevations with less sun light. However. > >> >> What we can observe is light skinned people do indeed show signs their > >> >> skin turning darker in response to more sun exposure and then turning > >> >> less dark with less exposure. So it is clear that skin did not change > >> >> as humans moved out of Africa, probably because they did not all > >> >> originate in Africa.
> >> >> Now, it could be argued that disease, which is caused from a lack of > >> >> VitD production in the body due to dark skinned people living in > >> >> higher elevations, is causing N.S. to select the species for > >> >> distinction.
> >> >Only by an utter moron who does not understand the very basics of > >> >evolutionary biology, really.
> >> >> I do not think this is the case however, Because the darker skinned > >> >> people that remain close to the equator would still survive. Again > >> >> suggesting that evolution is wrong WRT the forces of natural > >> >> selection.
> >> >Why? One trait can be favourable or neutral in one environment, anmd a > >> >problem in another. Just as ToE says. it is the environment that > >> >selects.
> >> >> Light skin people will turn darker and then back to lighter in > >> >> response to sunlight but the same does not appear to be true for dark > >> >> skined people. They do not show signs of turning lighter in response > >> >> to less sun. Suggesting that evolution is wrong about the "common > >> >> African ancestor;"
> >> >If at all, it shows the opposite no? If your analyses were true, > >> >lighter skinned people simply revert to a trait that we as species > >> >originally posessed, the toher direction is not as straightforward
> >> > And wrong about what should be natural selection > >> >> selecting a species for distinction.
> >> >> Evolution is wrong on two more counts.
> >> >More your understanding of evolution. First, dark vs wite skin is only > >> >a "species" barrier in backward countries tha make "miscegenation" > >> >illegal, like until recently in the religiously fundamentalist > >> >southern parts of the US.
> >> Ach, Herr Burkhard, some data for you. > >> From 1913 until 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced > >> anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court > >> unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws > >> are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in > >> effect in the remaining 16 states that still had them.
> >> That was 42 years ago, two generations, hardly recent. > >> Perhaps you are thinking of South Africa, which did not overturn such > >> laws until 1985, some 18 years later. > >[snip]
> >Well, honestly, just because there were no laws against it doesn't > >mean the social pressure didn't continue full force. > >There were plenty of places in the south that treated whites who > >associated with blacks even worse than the blacks.
> Same thing happened in Los Angeles and New York in the 1940s. > And you have spent how much time in the South? And lived in which > Southern States?
> >Fortunately the followup anti-discrimination laws have helped > >alleviate much of the problem.
> No, the problem was the parental inculcation of prejudicial attitudes. > You snipped what I wrote about it. It might be worth your while to go > back and read it.
> > But there are still places you can find > >pockets of people who will act significantly differently toward mixed > >couples than non.
> That is true, regardless of where in the world you go. The Japanese, > e.g., are still famous for their xenophobia, and so-called "mixed > bloods" do not fare well there, due to the ostracism. Now, not all > Japanese are so xenophobic. Some cultures are extremely clannish, and > some are open and embracing. The latter are exemplified by the Lumbee > Indians in North Carolina, who have had trouble with the fedgov > refusing to recognize their tribe. Originally Cheraw, seems that they > took in runaway slaves, drifters, and others.
I think we agree more than disagree, I was just pointing out that written law isn't the only bar to "miscegenation". I personally never LIVED in a southern state, but most of my relatives live in Oklahoma, and I visit them there. Also I was brought up on horror stories my mom told from the time she and my dad lived in Mobile in the early 60s/late 50s time frame. And a couple of years in grade school in a DC suburb, during the early 70s, exposed me to a few more choice pieces of information. So I am not entirely ignorant of what I speak.
|
