Skin Color

A couple of weeks ago, a co-worker and I were discussing why a person's skin color differs from person to person. I know there a many theories as to why people are different colored. One theory I have heard is because when people settled in different regions of the world, the region changed one's color and physical features. One simple rebuttal to this is if that was the case then when babies are born they would be white because they would not have been exposed to a particular region yet, but that is not the case. One can come to a simple a conclusion that our skin color is imbedded within our DNA. If this is the case then people have been around longer than we would are told, because for that kind of change to occur it would take thousands of years to happen based on evolution. I would propose a much simpler explanation. When humans arrived on this planet, there must have been multiple races and not just one. If anyone else has their own theory or input, I would like to know.

reply to post by jbell1011


I know a lot of people on ATS aren't fans of religion, but I'll take a stab anyway.

In Islam, it says God created Adam (whether a metaphor for man or an actual MAN I dunno) from clay and dirt from various parts of the earth. Obviously, the colors differ in the soil, clay, and dirt around the world...

Other than that, I've never been able to think of a good reason, and I've thought about it a lot..

I think you first need to read up on how long man has been on this Earth and not just modern man.
2nd

its been a common reoccurring thought of mine that skin color is just the basis of humans and the possibility that each race is a different human species, all 'homo-sapien' per say, so extreme but minut definitive dna characteristics. Each race usually have defined characteristics which stand out more than the next race. You can see this by looking at each different race present on the earth. But this shouldn't cause more division, but an embrace that creationism and evolution in its 'darwinian' sense is complete bull# and there is a much bigger theory that needs to be solved.

reply to post by jvm222


That's also true that there are many other differences between races other than skin color, such as facial layout, and the size and placement of various details.

I think before this discussion becomes extensive everybody needs to remember that when turned inside out, we all look exactly the same so appearance/race/skin color should NOT be a dividing factor for humankind.

I too believe that it is because where we are from, but maybe something happens once our colour "sticks".
Clearly our skin colour is determined by DNA. Once the first peoples' colour was determined, skin colour data attached itself to the nucleotides and was then passed on to offspring.
That's just my theory though

reply to post by jbell1011



I think it's the difference in the amount of melanin each race produces.

reply to post by jbell1011


The reason is because the origin of species is driven by solar radiation. Solar mutation can be quite random.

Every race is a mutation.

Originally posted by jbell1011
One can come to a simple a conclusion that our skin color is imbedded within our DNA.

Of course it is... but our DNA is a result of adaptation to regional effects. So your rebuttal isn't really a rebuttal but an appendage of the "theory" of adaptation and is perfectly in alignment with it.

Makes sense to me... Here's a good article that explains the purpose of skin color: Skin Color Adaptation

Before the mass global migrations of people during the last 500 years, dark skin color was mostly concentrated in the southern hemisphere near the equator and light color progressively increased further away, as illustrated in the map below. In fact, the majority of dark pigmented people lived within 20� of the equator. Most of the lighter pigmented people lived in the northern hemisphere north of 20� latitude.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c0050bf732b0.gif[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
I tend to think that it is the result of adaptation over the many, many, many years of human existence. Makes sense to me... Here's a good article that explains the purpose of skin color: Skin Color Adaptation

Before the mass global migrations of people during the last 500 years, dark skin color was mostly concentrated in the southern hemisphere near the equator and light color progressively increased further away, as illustrated in the map below. In fact, the majority of dark pigmented people lived within 20� of the equator. Most of the lighter pigmented people lived in the northern hemisphere north of 20� latitude.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c0050bf732b0.gif[/atsimg]

edit on 28/6/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)

Star from me. Good article.

The thing that confuses me, is that for evolution to cause the difference in skin color between the different races, there would have to be a decent amount of mutations to get passed on.

To change a dark skinned African into a fair skinned European, which according to traditional out of Africa theory, and evolution did happen, dark skinned Africans would have to have a mutation that caused their skin to be lighter, and then pass this mutation on.

We have albino people today, but both light, and dark skinned people can be albino. It's not as if all white people are simply albino version of black people.

So where are these mutations today? Why don't you see a black person born with skin like a white persons? I'm not talking about an albino black person, but just a person born from black parents, but with a skin color of a "normal" white person.

How does light skin help you? Why would light skin help someone survive, and therefore pass their genes on? Is there any advantage to having white skin living in Europe for example? It seems that living in a colder climate, black skin would be better, as it would absorb more heat than white skin, or does the light/dark heat thing not carry over into skin, and only applies to materials?

I am skill a believer in evolution, the degree to which I believe evolution is responsible for modern day man is what I still question a little bit. It's hard to understand the mechanism that would make a modern man out of our ancestors. The main thing I don't get, is why does something go away. Our appendix, for example, we needed it for something in the past. We evidently don't need it anymore, but how did having it as a fully intact and functional organ HURT someone? Meaning, to stop passing on the genes for a fully intact/functioning appendix, possessing an appendix would have to hurt your chance for survival, how does this work?

Some people say that our pinkie toes are starting to disappear because we don't need them. How would this happen? Having large pinkie toes doesn't hurt our chance to survive and reproduce, so why would we loose our pinkie toes? Just doesn't make any sense.

reply to post by James1982


You pretty much outlined the problem, everyone is taught one evolutionary theory as if it were fact.

There are many theories of evolution, the issue you are bringing up is one of the main flaws in the largest theory, that being Darwin's.

Try and expand your knowledge on the subject instead of forcing yourself to "believe" a theory that makes little to no sense.

May I personally recommend you read Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps, things start to make a whole lot more sense, when you read a theory that actually fits with the facts.

Originally posted by jbell1011
A couple of weeks ago, a co-worker and I were discussing why a person's skin color differs from person to person. I know there a many theories as to why people are different colored. One theory I have heard is because when people settled in different regions of the world, the region changed one's color and physical features. One simple rebuttal to this is if that was the case then when babies are born they would be white because they would not have been exposed to a particular region yet, but that is not the case. One can come to a simple a conclusion that our skin color is imbedded within our DNA. If this is the case then people have been around longer than we would are told, because for that kind of change to occur it would take thousands of years to happen based on evolution. I would propose a much simpler explanation. When humans arrived on this planet, there must have been multiple races and not just one. If anyone else has their own theory or input, I would like to know.

OI 'ippy its just due to ONE thing, its called the SUN. when you live nearer the equator it's HOTTER and it is easier to function in that CLIMATE with darker skin. Thats why when people go on holiday and it is to a WARMER climate their skin gets DARKER to help them maintain body temperature, Sillyrollocks! and of course it is DNA CODED FROM THE PARENTS because DNA is not fixed, ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS affect DNA. Not just the colour of your daddy's spunk.

Originally posted by Tephra
reply to post by James1982

 

You pretty much outlined the problem, everyone is taught one evolutionary theory as if it were fact.

There are many theories of evolution, the issue you are bringing up is one of the main flaws in the largest theory, that being Darwin's.

Try and expand your knowledge on the subject instead of forcing yourself to "believe" a theory that makes little to no sense.

May I personally recommend you read Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps, things start to make a whole lot more sense, when you read a theory that actually fits with the facts.

edit on 28-6-2011 by Tephra because: (no reason given)

Darwin's theory wasn't evolution. At least as it is known today. The theory itself has evolved tremendously in the last 100+ years. As well the Modern Scientific Theory of Evolution IS FACT. It is quantifiable, observable, and empirical.

The reason that you don't have pure black parents (if a black person has a white ancestor there is always the chance that their children could be born white) having the random white kid is because that isn't how genetics work. Change isn't spontaneous, it is gradual. If a dark black parents gave birth to a slightly lighter shade of black child due to a random mutation and that child had children with another lighter shade black person the mutation would become reinforced as a trait and if it remained dominant enough, and the trait was either beneficial or neutral (IE it didn't have a negative effect) it would be passed down generation by generation constantly being reinforced. If those lighter skinned blacks kept having children with lighter skinned blacks as their tribe moved farther north where they had a lower chance of being damaged by UV Radiation the lighter skin would not be a negative trait and thus would be reinforced and would spread. Eventually, over time it would be reinforced to the degrees we see today in skin color. Of course the opposite can occur as evident by the darker tones of mesoamericans compared to North Atlantic Natives.

Also, to talk about the "why would light skin be better in Europe" question. The answer is snow. Northern climates get snow, equatorial regions do not. Now tell me which blends in better to a snow bank? A white person or a black person?

Also, why did we get rid of vestigial organs? Well simply put having an organ that isn't used is a waste of energy during development and a waste of blood and nutrients as a mature organism. The same applies to things like the pinkie toe. If we don't need it, why should be continue to waste resources on it?

It's simply called Natural Selection...

"Humans" in different areas and continents, would have evolved into separate beings if given enough time. Society and transportation grew too quickly for that to happen though. There are different traits that ended up specializing though, including skin color. Even amongst white people you can see where a persons genes originate from by their appearance.

Ultimately, I don't think anyone thinking critically would deny that. Most creationists believe in some preposterous line between "macro" and "micro" evolution. The changes we see from people of different locations, could easily be accepted as microevolution, while still insisting that macroevolution is different and impossible.

Instead, I always hear about Adam and Eve being "Halfway between black and white", and some highly coincidental gene grouping regarding the tower of babel. Everyone with similar genes apparently got matched with the same languages, and took off together to certain parts of the world where those genes would soon thrive. It's a lacking theory. As I'm sure most others are too. Why then can't all the people who accept 'micro'evolution just accept the commonly understood theory behind this?

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

Indeed. There is no line between macro and micro evolution. "Macro" evolution is just the cumulative effects of "micro" evolution over time.

Imagine we were all one color...If you can.

Think about it...People would have to find another way to feel like they are superior.
I've heard studies that say we are headed that way.One race of Humanity.
The town I am from, just about everyone is doing their part to make this happen.

the most plausible reason would be god wanted to make it easier for the dim witted folks to figure out who to hate

but seriously

solar mutations and melanin are factors obviously, but I also think sexual selection plays a role.

Originally posted by zbeliever
Imagine we were all one color...If you can.

Think about it...People would have to find another way to feel like they are superior.
I've heard studies that say we are headed that way.One race of Humanity.
The town I am from, just about everyone is doing their part to make this happen.

Oh it will happen, in probably as little as 500,000 years. Assuming we don't wipe ourselves out between then and now.