DNA results in for first modern Britons

originally posted by: Spider879
Why would black ppl hunt at night, if so then they should have cat's or owl like eyes and be more prone to color blindness, if not, they are much more likely to be midnight snacks for the truly nocturnal.

I'm thinking that dark skin pigment is a slightly easier adaptation than night vision. But even if they weren't hunting at night (when a lot of their food critters are moving around), dark skin is still a good nighttime, shadow forest camouflage.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Well yes it do make for better camouflage in some cases , but in any case that's not the reason dark skin developed in humans.
But interesting outta the box thinking tho.

originally posted by: Spider879
Well yes it do make for better camouflage in some cases , but in any case that's not the reason dark skin developed.
But interesting outta the box thinking tho.

I know the standard explanation. It just seem like one of those things people cite as true because it makes a bit of logical sense so why bother thinking about it further? Bunk, in other words.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Painterz


Absolutely fascinating stuff.

We can look at the Polar Bear compared to the Brown bear as another example...

Proof of devolution. Blank skin has no advantage whatsoever.

originally posted by: AdKiller
Proof of devolution. Blank skin has no advantage whatsoever.

No true, it do well in overcast regions with low U.V , very dark skins are prone to frostbite and other cold weather injuries in such environments.

a reply to: Spider879

" overcast regions with low U.V" yup sums up British weather...

a reply to: Blue Shift

Thats an interesting perspective to take.

The wonder of genetics is that one change can have multiple benefits throughout a system. I suppose it is somewhat possible that along with the benefits to vitamin D uptake, there may be some element of camouflage in the change undergone by our ancestors. Its likely to be incidental to the vitamin issue, but possibly a secondary, but definitely desirable trait... that being said, you would have thought there would be more green in the human spectrum if that were really the case!

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Spider879

" overcast regions with low U.V" yup sums up British weather...

Especially true today where I am, but last year I had an actual tan from actual lots of sunshine. It was very odd.

Well Michel Jackson done it in under 50 years..
So it must be true.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
that being said, you would have thought there would be more green in the human spectrum if that were really the case!

No, human beings don't do green very well. Chlorophyll is generally not our style.

Still, I suppose skin pigmentation has an effect on heat absorption and dissipation. I wonder if it would actually be better to have black skin in a cold climate so it would be easier absorb heat. Or if there's some kind of advantage to having black skin at night so that you lose heat faster and fade into the background to hide from predators better.

Again, I'm just pondering. I don't doubt that light skinned people get more Vitamin D from the sun, but I wonder if there is an actual micro-adaptive causality to it. After all, white people in cold climates also tend to wear more clothing. Would that be a factor?

The first migrants to settle on the continent of Europe came from the Middle East. I recall hearing somewhere that they may have traveled through the Iberian Peninsula, but I'm not entirely sure if that piece of trivia is accurate. Either way, Caucasians descended from Arabs and only lost their melanin as an evolutionary adaptation to cold, dreary climates (lighter skin facilitates more efficient absorption of vitamin D from sunlight).

a reply to: Blue Shift

Wearing more clothing, or thicker clothing, is just a sensible precaution against extremes of cold, and I think you will find that people from every cold climate, generally tend toward wearing more, regardless of the specifics of their skin tone. There are exceptions, like certain monks from certain religious orders. But aside from that, no matter where you go, if its chilly out, people wrap up. Even in the places where people could be argued to be genetically predisposed toward dealing well with a cold climate, folks wrap up when it is cold out.

It took more than a lack of sunlight to cause modern humans to evolve lighter skin tones - it also took a major change in diet. Inuits are darker skinned because they retain a largely meat-based diet. They can derive enough vitamin D from their diet alone. Lighter-skinned Europeans came about with an influx of neolithic Middle-eastern farmers (Indo-Europeans) migrated across Europe with an agrarian diet. That diet combined with the limited sunlight available in northern latitudes is what resulted in lighter skinned Europeans. Modern humans did NOT inherit lighter skin tones from Neanderthals.

originally posted by: Xaphan
The first migrants to settle on the continent of Europe came from the Middle East. I recall hearing somewhere that they may have traveled through the Iberian Peninsula, but I'm not entirely sure if that piece of trivia is accurate. Either way, Caucasians descended from Arabs and only lost their melanin as an evolutionary adaptation to cold, dreary climates (lighter skin facilitates more efficient absorption of vitamin D from sunlight).

The gist of what you're saying is more-or-less correct, except "Arabs" are a modern ethno-political group. Neolithic Middle-easterners would have been better.

A great thread guys!! I think the idea of a modern "Briton" shouldn't really be talked about until doggerland disappeared. Britain was connected to so part of Europe till about 6500BC.