More to it than just that. Blacks in northern climates who supplement their diet with vitamin D are under no selective constraints to have lighter skin. Similarly, whites in equatorial climates who wear covering and sun screen are also under no selective pressure to have darker skin.
But if there is another mechanism, other than evolution through natural selection of genetic variation, that explains why different human populations look differently and are locally adapted to environmental conditions - I would certainly like to hear it.
So, if my family had moved to florida at one point, I or some of my heirs might be black??
Intersting. I would have guessed that in the tropics natural selection would have FAVORED darkly pigmented individuals. I had NO idea that a theory could be imbued with the power of creation.
One of the worst sunburns I've ever gotten on my face occurred in the dead of winter, on a ski slope. This is not uncommon. "Tanning" also occurs due to wind and cold.
Either someone is not very good at explaining themselves, or the theory needs work.
This pigment "science" is the same thing.
This is hogwash. They are trying to use apples to prove oranges.
No one denies that existing physical traits will become dominat or recessive based on environmental conditions.
If a famine comes along, the people that naturally carry more fat tend to survive the famine (and reproduce). The people that naturally didn’t store much fat die (and don’t reproduce). Humans as a group become “fatter”.
But it doesn’t explain where the fat cells came from to begin with. That’s the big question evolution can’t answer.
What this article describes is nothing more than selective breeding. Anyone adept at breeding animals can produce these kind of changes. A great example is the dog.
The dog is an animal breed 100% created by mankind. Wolves took up with humans. By selectively breeding wolves, we produced dogs (a lot of differnt kinds of dogs). But the truth is, a dog is (in every way that matters) exactly like a wolf. Everything about a dog—from hair to organs—is just a variation on a wolf.
Evoluntion talks about jumps. New species developing from existing species. There isn’t any evidence for that at all.
MICRO-evolution, that is, which isn't what evolution is really about. I want to know what skin color has to do with evolving from an amoeba.
ML/NJ
Professors in universities can teach whatever nonsense they wish, but teachers in public schools should not waste class time with discussions on origins.
Actually, it’s a good example of genetic selection.
None of these people have evolved into another species, have they? That is what evolution teaches. That one species mutates over time into a better, more highly evolved and complex, species.
If which case, which of the directions we are headed (black, white, or Asian) is the “better” one? I know black people are more susceptible to diabetes, sickle cell anemia, and high blood pressure.
Are they on the “old species” side? Are whites the new and improved? We are more susceptible to skin cancer, right?
Are we speciating now? Is that what is going on?
(insert eyeroll)
Has anyone else noticed a change in the vocabulary of the evolution faithful???
Just like the climate faithful had to change their rhetoric when global warming was debunked, so, too, have the evolutionists had to change their rhetoric with more and more evidence of intelligent design, and, therefore, a Designer.
The sly change: Instead of evolution being the origination of all species from a single cell (as was the previous montra), they now speak of adaption as evolution.
For the uninitiated (or willingly ignorant):
- Adaption (species adapting to their environment, even when that environment changes) is undisputed - it’s part of the design.
- Evolution (all species originating from a single cell) continues to be an unproven theory, while the proof of intelligent design and creation continues to grow.
Adaptation, not evolution. We are all still humans and will always all still be humans.
Stopped right there! Probably has a "trick" to "hide this- or-that" Just like that Mann guy up at Penn who's tree ring BS was heavily supplemented with BU!!SH!T.....
If you think about it. If it isn't a formulaic provable function and you rely on samples from different places, he who controls what samples from where controls the outcome.
OK, so Glowball Warming causes skin to darken...is that the gist of this..../sarc
So Al Gore is against Glowball Warming = Al Gore is a Racist
Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha! No! Stop! You’re killing me! Oh! Let me catch my breath! Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha! Really! Where do they find these people? Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!
Skin color related to EVOLUTION? Talk about POLITICALLY INCORRECT!!
Hmmm...3.5 million years of natural selection in isolation and no new species of genus homo, just variations of skin color and complete interbreeding capacity. Wonder why.
.... oh, dear. This will not sit well with the “no genetic basis for race” crowd....
A quick test for evolutionary religious zealots:
- How many DNA pairs are in the human genome?
- How many of those human DNA pairs differ from those of a chimp?
- How long would it take for a human to evolve from a chimp, assuming the necessary DNA mutations take place in exactly the right sequence, without any mistakes, and at the rate that is survivable.