Large family of Albinos found in India

[MeachTheMonster]

I think you're confused on what lighter skin is and how/why it came about. Not due to the sun and clouds.

Speaking of research, the majority of research on this subject has been determined to be either racist or wrong by modern biologist.

Black skin is obviously better for warm environments, but is also less venerable to cold damage... look at the people in arctic areas.

Skin color is more dependent on vitamins rather than your position on Earth in relation to the sun.

Imo, There was a minor genetic mutation that caused the changes to lighter skin colors.

Skin color has nothing to do with temperature/climate and has everything to do with UV exposure. Darker skin is protection from harmful UV rays. People who moved from Africa to Europe developed lighter skin because they didn't need that protection. Evolution used the extra biological capitol for other adaptations.

Doesn't matter if you want to call it a mutation or adaptation, it was advantageous for some human beings to develop lighter skin amongst other biological changes that occurred from relocation.

 

[Blackking]

Skin color has nothing to do with temperature/climate and has everything to do with UV exposure. Darker skin is protection from harmful UV rays. People who moved from Africa to Europe developed lighter skin because they didn't need that protection. Evolution used the extra biological capitol for other adaptations.

Doesn't matter if you want to call it a mutation or adaptation, it was advantageous for some human beings to develop lighter skin amongst other biological changes that occurred from relocation.

The conversation started with daz saying dark skin is something our ancestors evolved as they lost their hair and that we can't point to any modern human and say this is the color of all of our ancestors.

I disagreed with that statement, not that UV rays affected the evolution of skin tone.

"Evolution used the extra biological capitol for other adaptations." - Meaning what? features?

"People who moved from Africa to Europe developed lighter skin because they didn't need that protection." - I don't think it's as simple as this. Moving away from the equator doesn't equal lighter skin automatically. Arctic people remain dark-skinned. I believe error in genetic code and disadvantageous mutations also occur. NTM, populations with diets rich in seafood can afford to remain dark skinned in low UV areas.

How is it advantages to be 10 times more likely to suffer cancer risks from beings exposed to most areas on our planet and to be more prone to fertility issues?

In addition.... MC1R.

"As humans migrated north, the absence of high levels of solar radiation in northern Europe and Asia relaxed the selective pressure on active MC1R, allowing the gene to mutate into dysfunctional variants without reproductive penalty, then propagate by genetic drift"

As we advanced into modern humans, losing hair, developing more sweat glands, natural selection was putting these "pressures" on our development just as daz said. I just think that when we relaxed those pressures it caused dysfunction.. And with that dysfunction "evolution used the extra biological capitol for other adaptations".

 

[daze23]

The initial changes in genomic sequence happens when there are errors, viruses, and other random things..

If you say no mutation catches on without some pressure.. then that's you saying it's a mutation.. and my response to that is: if there are no benefits, if lighter skin isn't beneficial for our survival in any environment and actually hurts our reproduction and advancement as a species (biologically) then are you saying that it's a harmful mutation?

"mutation" was your claim. my point is that even if it were "just a mutation", it would never last if it wasn't somehow beneficial

We know that albinism is particularly harmful.

You paper is recent (1999), I don't have anything more recent, just things that say that over a million years ago eretus and ergaster had similar skin tone as modern African. The initial studies, research, and theories about skin getting darker over time came from agenda based assumptions about race.

you're really not saying much here. you're just making a baseless claim that all the research has a racist agenda

 

[daze23]

I don't agree with anything you said about losing hair, uv rays, or basically anything you said in this thread.

I disagreed with that statement, not that UV rays affected the evolution of skin tone.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

The conversation started with daz saying dark skin is something our ancestors evolved as they lost their hair and that we can't point to any modern human and say this is the color of all of our ancestors.

I disagreed with that statement, not that UV rays affected the evolution of skin tone.

I didn't comment on this exchange

"Evolution used the extra biological capitol for other adaptations." - Meaning what? features?

Things like more fat under the skin, different bone density etc.

"People who moved from Africa to Europe developed lighter skin because they didn't need that protection." - I don't think it's as simple as this. Moving away from the equator doesn't equal lighter skin automatically. Arctic people remain dark-skinned. I believe error in genetic code and disadvantageous mutations also occur. NTM, populations with diets rich in seafood can afford to remain dark skinned in low UV areas.

Moving away from the equator doesn't equal less uv rays. The suns rays at the poles are much stronger than those in Europe, etc. If you ever go to Alaska take a bunch of sunscreen.

How is it advantages to be 10 times more likely to suffer cancer risks from beings exposed to most areas on our planet and to be more prone to fertility issues?

Same way sickle cell is a good thing for some people.

In addition.... MC1R.

"As humans migrated north, the absence of high levels of solar radiation in northern Europe and Asia relaxed the selective pressure on active MC1R, allowing the gene to mutate into dysfunctional variants without reproductive penalty, then propagate by genetic drift"

As we advanced into modern humans, losing hair, developing more sweat glands, natural selection was putting these "pressures" on our development just as daz said. I just think that when we relaxed those pressures it caused dysfunction.. And with that dysfunction "evolution used the extra biological capitol for other adaptations".

You call it disfunction, nature calls it evolution.

 

[Blackking]

"mutation" was your claim. my point is that even if it were "just a mutation", it would never last if it wasn't somehow beneficial



you're really not saying much here. you're just making a baseless claim that all the research has a racist agenda

I never said that all research was racist. Just that much it was.... which it was racially motivated. And define baseless because that's a fact. And not every mutation with longevity (not that this has shown longevity yet) is beneficial.

 

[daze23]

And define baseless because that's a fact.

you saying this:

The initial studies, research, and theories about skin getting darker over time came from agenda based assumptions about race.

what are these agenda based "initial studies"? and you seem to be suggesting that the paper I posted is just a continuation of these agenda based initial studies

 

[Blackking]

I didn't comment on this exchange
ok


Things like more fat under the skin, different bone density etc.

.... you mean... along with all the other harmful effects (cancers, infertility, etc), a higher rate of osteoporosis is also something else to add on the long list of evolutionarily benefits that came along with the adaption of lighter skin? yeah ok, that's how positive selections work


Moving away from the equator doesn't equal less uv rays. The suns rays at the poles are much stronger than those in Europe, etc. If you ever go to Alaska take a bunch of sunscreen.
Which was my point about UV in colder climates. At what point, in what parts of Europe, did human evolution determine that it didn't need as much melanin? What are the spots in Europe that have heavy snow that don't cause damage to the skin by reflecting UV rays?

Same way sickle cell is a good thing for some people.
lol, no it's not the 'same way'.


You call it disfunction, nature calls it evolution.
So all evolution is beneficiary and non of it is the result of dysfunction? So, as humans moved out of Africa genes didn't mutate into dysfunctional variants?

 

[Blackking]

you saying this:



what are these agenda based "initial studies"? and you seem to be suggesting that the paper I posted is just a continuation of these agenda based initial studies

I apologize.. I only skimmed the paper. I based what I said on what you typed previous to that.. with the whole becoming lighter due to less hair n all that.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I don't think light skin is Directional selection..... you mean... along with all the other harmful effects (cancers, infertility, etc), a higher rate of osteoporosis is also something else to add on the long list of evolutionarily benefits that came along with the adaption of lighter skin? yeah ok, that's how positive selections work

All those things you posted aren't in direct correlation with skin color, if that's the case then our dark skin is to blame for us having higher blood pressure, diabetes, certain cancers, birth defects, amongst plenty of other things.

Which was my point about UV in colder climates. At what point, in what parts of Europe, did human evolution determine that it didn't need as much melanin? What are the spots in Europe that have heavy snow that don't cause damage to the skin by reflecting UV rays?

It's not heavy snow, it's the positioning of the earth. You have all these opinions, but a very limited understanding of science/biology/geography.

lol, no it's not the 'same way'.

why not? It's a painful disorder that could result in early death, yet it is invaluable to life in regions where malaria is present.

So all evolution is beneficiary and non of it is the result of dysfunction? So, as humans moved out of Africa genes didn't mutate into dysfunctional variants?

It's not always beneficial, but in order for an adaptation to catch on and change an entire population it must pose some type of advantage. By your logic we can say that the original humans in Africa where just dysfunctional variants of the being they evolved from.

 

[Blackking]

All those things you posted aren't in direct correlation with skin color, if that's the case then our dark skin is to blame for us having higher blood pressure, diabetes, certain cancers, birth defects, amongst plenty of other things.

This just isn't true. You're saying that fertility and skin cancer and other things have nothing to do with skin color? I mentioned osteoporosis because you said "Things like more fat under the skin, different bone density etc." to somehow answer for "Evolution used the extra biological capitol for other adaptations."
Integrative Medicine: Osteoporosis & Other Physical Changes
Melanin-concentrating hormone directly inhibits GnRH neurons and blocks kisspeptin activation, linking energy balance to reproduction
What
Birth defects, certain cancers, high blood pressure, etc, are effecting blacks due to lifestyle, health care, culture, and diet. Not the same as a white person suffering from sun caused skin cancer, etc.

It's not heavy snow, it's the positioning of the earth. You have all these opinions, but a very limited understanding of science/biology/geography.
Didn't say it was because of the heavy snow. I was referring to the UV rays reflecting off the snow. And you didn't even attempt to prove a point you made or depute one that I made You just talked about the positioning of the earth (which isn't even the case) and talked as if you have an understanding of science and geography- without actually attempting to making a point.

why not? It's a painful disorder that could result in early death, yet it is invaluable to life in regions where malaria is present.

First off, it's not all sickle cell versions that makes a person resistant to malaria. Second, lol, you're going to use a painful disorder's effectiveness against a freckin disease as an example, when that effectiveness is merely happenstance and only pertains to certain regions. really?
Third, you try to correlate to my legitimate (imo) point by speaking about cells getting stuck in blood vessels and, in the weakest way possible, attempting to correlate that to me asking- how being 10 times more likely to suffer from cancer due to being exposed to most areas on our planet and being more prone to infertility issues is evolutionary advantages.

It's not always beneficial, but in order for an adaptation to catch on and change an entire population it must pose some type of advantage.
So we agree it's not always beneficial, or did you just back into a corner?
By your logic we can say that the original humans in Africa where just dysfunctional variants of the being they evolved from.
No. Just saying that it's possible that as humans moved out of Africa genes mutated into dysfunctional variants
Richard Dawkins says that Peter Medawar was the wittiest scientific writer.. and Peter Medawar says, "It is a profound truth that Nature does not know best; that genetical evolution... is a story of waste, makeshift, compromise and blunder."

 

[blackzeus]

Well, I think out-of-africa is true from what we know. But no, this two-colors-mutation idea is not. Black of what shade? What kinda white? You can not mix albino and black people together and create lightskinned black people. Whatever color the child gets is from their black parents genes, current or historic, or the child is an albino as well. Albinism happens in animals as well, it doesn't mean albino alligators mix with non albino alligators to create a race of lightskinned alligators

They are not a big deal because they look caucasoid. You just don't know what the variety of Indian people look like. It's true that some Indians and Central Asians and Middle Eastern and European people are related in some way... but that's also where the cradle of civilization was, Pakistan and Iraq, those areas in Asia

btw another reason we know that Europe wasn't just a bunch of banished white people is that non-human species have also left extensive fossils in Europe.. neanderthals

You make it sound like albinism is something like a broken bone. It's a GENETIC mutation, meaning IT'S IN THE GENES. So of course the skin color can be passed down. You probably can't mix one generation albinos with blacks and get mixed children, but I'm very sure if the albinism is generations deep, the lack of color becomes ingrained into the DNA. For example. If there is a bird with only one stripe of purple on its head, and it immediately mates with a "normal" bird, there is a high possibility the "defective" gene will get wiped out. However, if the bird with purple stripes mates with other birds with only purple stripes, they have formed a new species. Over time, their DNA structure will strengthen, and you may see birds with purple stripes, pink stripes, blue stripes etc from the mixing.

 

[zerozero]

You make it sound like albinism is something like a broken bone. It's a GENETIC mutation, meaning IT'S IN THE GENES. So of course the skin color can be passed down. You probably can't mix one generation albinos with blacks and get mixed children, but I'm very sure if the albinism is generations deep, the lack of color becomes ingrained into the DNA. For example. If there is a bird with only one stripe of purple on its head, and it immediately mates with a "normal" bird, there is a high possibility the "defective" gene will get wiped out. However, if the bird with purple stripes mates with other birds with only purple stripes, they have formed a new species. Over time, their DNA structure will strengthen, and you may see birds with purple stripes, pink stripes, blue stripes etc from the mixing.

but you're guessing breh. We know genetically this is not possible. If there is any pigment in a descendant at all it comes from the other side. Albinism isn't white skin. It's *no* color. It can not cause a "mixing" of a pigment shade.

I don't know why you want to cling to a theory that has no genetic, historical, genealogical, or fossil proof. It's very strange.

 

[Type Username Here]

I don't know why you want to cling to a theory that has no genetic, historical, genealogical, or fossil proof. It's very strange.

They're black supremacists who are grasping straws. They want to believe those lies to show they are somehow superior to all other races to make up for the fact that blacks throughout the world, past and present, have gotten the short of the stick. Instead of gaining and sharing knowledge that might actual benefit their communities, they push this garbage.

Its just not an issue among some in the black community though, you can find white supremacists who believe in pseudoscience to justify prior treatment of African/blacks.

I hear it even from some of my family who are descendants of the indigenous American population. According to one uncle, the Americas was a land of peace and love before the Europeans got here.

 

[Scustin Bieburr]

SMH @ what this thread devolved into. The one thing I learned from reading it is that people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what albinism is and how it works.