It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Either that, or a cave man mated with an alien, eh?
UV rays produce vitamin D and reduce folate when they hit naked skin. And embryos are terribly vulnerable to both substances in the mother. When it comes to sunlight and skin tone, furless humans are balanced on a knife-blade. Too much UV penetrating the skin (too pale-skinned under intense sunlight) increases Vitamin D but reduces folate. Lack of folate causes neural tube defects in the fetus, causing such congenital abnormalities as craniorachischisis, anencephalus, and spina bifida, leading to many miscarriages. On the other hand, too little UV penetrating the skin (too dark-skinned under dim sunlight) increases folate but reduces vitamin D. Lack of vitamin D causes skeletal neonatal abnormalities (skull, chest, and leg malformations), rickets being the best known. Again, this causes miscarriages. And so, humans adapt very quickly to solar UV. Prehistoric groups that migrated towards the equator got darker. Prehistoric groups that migrated away from the equator got lighter. But this explanation fails for Europe. Northern Europeans are lighter than everyone to the south (Mediterraneans), to the east (Mongols and east-Asians), to the west (Native Americans across the Atlantic), and to the North (Inuit, Sammi, Chukchi, Aleut).
Here is another map of skin tone. Again, the blob surrounding the Baltic Sea is like nothing else on the planet. That this pale population surrounds the Baltic gives the first hint. It must have something to do with the oceans.
Clearly, there once was a factor at work in Europe other than dim sunlight.
Originally posted by KyleOrtonArmy
Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by KyleOrtonArmy
This is a very interesting and controversial topic. I have been in several conversations with individuals about the term "race" as they attempt to assure me that they are not racists. In my opinion that comment, "I am not a racist", is generally a racist comment. For this reason I have a difficult time with the US Census because I believe we are all of the same race, Human, or that which is born of this Earth. Our genetic connections or the question of our possible alien origin is another topic. We are all born of this Earth and therefore we are all connected, i.e. brothers.
The differing races, or nomenclature of humans, was an invention for the separating of people for the purpose of concurring. All men are created equal in the eyes of God and those that lower themselves for the purpose of power and control are less. Power is thus an illusion because we must give up that which is far more valuable in order to gain this power. This is not an easy concept to understand by many because it goes against what we all have been taught but I see it as the truth none-the-less.
Well, scientifically, race doesn't and has never existed. And this thread ain't about who is and who isn't a racist. Race is again, a social construct, and a way to identify one's self by expressing a cultural background. It's not one I use to identify though, as I don't belong to any of the races.
Anyway, let's not derail the thread by making this a race issue.
Studies indicate that people with dark skin need as much as six times more sunlight than those with light skin to reach the same blood level of vitamin D
Originally posted by ChrisCrikey
That was an interesting read so thanks OP. I keep on the lookout for information about my land of origin and people to help me make decisions about what the ideal diet might be for me. I'm also aware of the possibility that changing up one's diet and climate or leading a more nomadic lifestyle might have beneficial effect as we can become food sensitive to foods that we eat too much and more prone to region specific seasonal allergies the longer we stay in one place.
I wish I could get more affordable fish that's not poisoned with heavy metals etc. and lots of lamb and do this just to see if I'd feel better eating a diet closer to that of "my people". In the global economy and current environment many would say I wish to eat too "high on the food chain"...and I'm not saying the science of this is established but what if "de-pigmented" people really did need this "high on the food chain" and less grains diet to maintain maximum health? I'm almost feel like a racist even contemplating this but I have a lot of food sensitivities and just wondering and looking for answers from a medical point of view.
Originally posted by Aeons
The people around the Baltics have relied heavily on fishing as a staple in their diet for thousands of years. Viking relied heavily on fish. Modern people rely on fish.
You are talking about people who eat things like luttafisk.
And I did read your article KOA - I just happen to think its bunk.