Skin color is one of the most obvious and (literally) superficial ways humans differ. But the evolutionary story behind this variation is shared: Over the course of human evolution, complexion evolved from light to dark to a continuous gradient, mediated by geography, genes and cultural practices.
And it shows us the stupidity of racism, as pigmentation is one of the most evolutionarily plastic characteristics of mammals.
I’d like to think this is one thing that everyone across the debate can agree with, but I know better. Thankfully, people across the debate (including YEC and ID) will agree with the stupidity of racism, but there will always be some who just do not get it.
So it seems like this is saying that racism is essentially using a convenient (easily identifiable) “token” to identify and segregate those that, for whatever religious/political/economic reason, you want to oppress.
Yes. The Northern Irish do a fine job of this despite all of them being very white.
I could be completely wrong about this, but it fits with what I know about the genetic complexity of mouse pigmentation (which of course involves the same genes) but I remember some population geneticist saying that if you moved a group of Scandinavians to the tropics, their descendants would be black in only 40 generations, and the converse for central Africans moved to Scandinavia. I think the latter would be faster, though, given that central Africans are far more polymorphic.
Saying skin colour is a superficial difference is like saying male/female bodyplans differences are superficial.
Surely irrelevant to a science article but nobody EVER was racist/prejudice against anybody because of skin colour. Any ideas from one people group to another was based on the traits of each people group.
No dark people ever though bad about white people based on colour. Not the opposite.
This is a weird myth. Colour differences was just a minor detail. it was more then that. Blacks in america today are called African american and not black american.
Its about people tribes and not colour tribes.
Anyways.
This article is all wrong.
We did not start in africa. There is no evidence for having pale skin under fur. they just presume that because of apes.
I do agree colour change was from needs for vitamins etc. Except I think dark skin was meant to protect however.
We probably originally had some light tan/brown skin at babel and then migration brought changes .
Colour change would of hit each segregated group independently and so shows its a innate reaction. nOt random mutations.
they should bring up about the whitest people. Redheads. their bodies were so desperate to get the bodyneeds that all pigmentation was squeezed into the smallest places. thus they had red spots and red hair. Then the hair had to go. Redheads have the lowest hair count and the men easily would not of needed to shave for weeks or months. no body hair.
so its not just colour change but hair interference.
Human skin colour is great evidence for innate mechanisms in the human/animal body to change instantly to needs.
This article did not say how skin change would happen in a population. What good is intermediate stages? would everyone die off except the most changed couple?
And you were right!
They aren’t comparable. Skin color comes down to how much of one type of protein, melanins, that you have in your skin. That’s it. The differences between male and female are much more drastic than that.
Note to self: Re-read titles. When I first saw this one I read it as “Vitamin D, Foreskin and our color”.
And you don’t think that this Wall discussion is about race and skin color?