GrandMasterK Posted March 4, 2006 Posted March 4, 2006 I got kicked out of a classroom for thinking black people are black because of the warm climate and that they are still evolving out of it. I made a polar bear and brown bear reference and it really pissed the teacher off. I'm wondering, am I wrong and there just happen to be black and white and everything inbetween people, or is it really because of the climate? Please don't mistake this as racist, for any of you extremely easily offended. I've never read anything about it but I think I did hear on discovery once "dark skin to help fight the heat" or something to that affect. If we all started living in spaceships in outerspace and the blacks kept mating with the blacks and the whites kept mating with the whites, would we all end up being really pale thousands and thousands of years later?
Milken Posted March 4, 2006 Posted March 4, 2006 I got kicked out of a classroom for thinking black people are black because of the warm climate and that they are still evolving out of it. I made a polar bear and brown bear reference and it really pissed the teacher off. I'm wondering' date=' am I wrong and there just happen to be black and white and everything inbetween people, or is it really because of the climate? Please don't mistake this as racist, for any of you extremely easily offended. I've never read anything about it but I think I did hear on discovery once "dark skin to help fight the heat" or something to that affect. If we all started living in spaceships in outerspace and the blacks kept mating with the blacks and the whites kept mating with the whites, would we all end up being really pale thousands and thousands of years later?[/quote'] 1) There's only one race, the human race. All our differences are negligible on a genetic scale 2) All humans have melanin, it's what gives us our skin tone, the more you have the darker you're allowed to get. Technically we're all shades of the same color, melanin. 3) Who want's skin cancer, and to visibly age quicker? The more melanin you have the slower you absorb vitamin D, the less you have the faster you absorb it. If you have alot of melanin and live in a sunless environment you can get vitamin D defi, the other way around you're more at risk for skin cancer. In other words we're fit for our original environment. 4) Everyone agrees the man originated in Africa, we're all still evolving. 5) We're all adapted to our ethnic region. No amount of time would make anyone, totally abandon there genetically determined skin tone. That would be like a giraffe's neck getting longer because it keeps reaching higher to eat, it's been disproven around 100 years ago.
AzurePhoenix Posted March 4, 2006 Posted March 4, 2006 In warmer, sunnier climates, it benefits to have lots of melanin to block out excess UV rays that cause skin cancers. On the other hand, dark skin can cause a problem in northern latitudes where sun-light isn't as strong or prevalent, because the heavy pigments block out enough sun to cause a vitmain D defficiency and cause rickets. However, hair seems to be a less specific trait. Basically everyone in afirca, the middle east and asia, and the americas had/have dark hair, while the paler europeans and the dark skinned australian aboriginees have/had a greater range of hair colors.
Milken Posted March 4, 2006 Posted March 4, 2006 Peak Oli Man, you're right, I accidentaly pressed send. A post boo boo if you will. You know what's odd, primates (chimps I believe) have dark skin on the sunexposed areas but under their skin it's fair. Hmmmmmmmm. . . .
GrandMasterK Posted March 4, 2006 Author Posted March 4, 2006 so.....yes then? We are different colors because of our "original environment"? You say we don't abandon that, but I thought everybody was black when humans were first around? Or did whites just evolve from chimps in a different part of the world? Did we start from africa and move out or did the first group of humans to come in existance just live in africa? Nobody answered my question if we all started living in space, if black would evolve out to being white and whites would just be...well about as white as you get if not a smickle of sun hits you.
GrandMasterK Posted March 4, 2006 Author Posted March 4, 2006 I never asked if we were two different species. If you stuck a bunch of whites in africa and let them evolve out for a couple thousand years would they start becoming black? If you took a bunch of blacks and let them live in greenland or upper canada for thousands of years, would they start to turn white? Are there any white african tribes? Are there any black Eskamos....im sure I spelt that wrong.
GrandMasterK Posted March 4, 2006 Author Posted March 4, 2006 Why would you have to have a "white" gene in you for your skin to evolve white. Hey, one shot and a humans skin can turn green. Then again I guess I can ask myself a question, why don't babies come out darker if both partners have sex with a heavy tan.
Y-S Posted March 4, 2006 Posted March 4, 2006 Not racist at all, i can tell you're just observing or exploring for answers, it's all good the fact is that people who are black probably have been created in africa, and therefore in africa there's always sun and hot and which is probably made them black, from sun.............
Y-S Posted March 4, 2006 Posted March 4, 2006 Also, don't forget that humans are part of nature, that's why we have different colors, it was meant as beauty of nature. For instance, there is browns too, light-browned, white, dark-white, etc....
Billwaa Posted March 4, 2006 Posted March 4, 2006 I think that people in Africa have to have dark skin because it's hot there and they need darker skin to not get sun burn. People who live in Europe are white because they need white skin to reflect UV light. They eventrually adapt to it and past on to their offspring.
AzurePhoenix Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 I think that people in Africa have to have dark skin because it's hot there and they need darker skin to not get sun burn. People who live in Europe are white because they need white skin to reflect UV light. They eventrually adapt to it and past on to their offspring. Erm, right for the first, not the second. The pale skin is specifically to abosrb MORE light in lowlight conditions see post five
Steph Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 I never asked if we were two different species. If you stuck a bunch of whites in africa and let them evolve out for a couple thousand years would they start becoming black? If you took a bunch of blacks and let them live in greenland or upper canada for thousands of years, would they start to turn white? Are there any white african tribes? Are there any black Eskamos....im sure I spelt that wrong. In our world, it doesn't matter anymore. Vit. D deficiency is irrelevent in developped countries so darker people won't die of it (no natural selection). second, skin cancer when caught early is rather easy to cure, so if you are pale and live in an area at risk (like australia), you just go see the doctor and get checked often. of course, you would have the odd death, but that wouldn't be statistically significant. Of course, going to underdevelopped countries, you have a different dynamic, but we are talking about thousands of years of evolution, whereas the time gap between poor and rich countries is at most 100 years (and i think i'm exaggerating).
tuzzer Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 How about the first native people and the inuit people, which are living in nothern part of Canada or even the north pole? They are not white, but they are really living in a very cold environment.
Milken Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 I never asked if we were two different species. If you stuck a bunch of whites in africa and let them evolve out for a couple thousand years would they start becoming black? If you took a bunch of blacks and let them live in greenland or upper canada for thousands of years, would they start to turn white? Are there any white african tribes? Are there any black Eskamos....im sure I spelt that wrong. No, we'd never completely turn into an opposite shade of color. Just like other genes there's limits to it. Characteristics aren't simply inherited from the environment, it's genetic. Oddly enough(highly improbable), it's possible for two dark people to have a light child, but not the other way around. Remember, technically we're all different shades of melanin.
AzurePhoenix Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 How about the first native people and the inuit people, which are living in nothern part of Canada or even the north pole? They are not white, but they are really living in a very cold environment. They could simply not have adapted for it, jsut because something is usefull or beneficial doesn't men it will arise. And it's not temperature so much as uv rays from sunlight itself. Maybe I'll pitch a speculation and say it has something to do with uv rays reflected off snow and ice (snow burn can really suck ) Or maybe if not that there was something in their diet that provided more vitamin D, or maybe even a physiological adaption to just deal with it, I know they have a few adapted traits for withstanding the environment. ---edit--- apparently fish and fish oils have high levels of vitamin D
bascule Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 There's only one race, the human race. All our differences are negligible on a genetic scale Humans are all the same species. That doesn't make the concept of race irrelevant. From a genetic perspective, race is irrelevant: only a handful of alleles hold the race together which are greatly outweighed by the sheer amount of alleles in the human gene pool. Members of one race are genetically as similar to any member of any other race. If that's the point you're trying to make, you're correct. However, that doesn't equate to "there's only one race". Race is still manifested in surface level phenotypical features and is easily distinguishable by everyone on the planet. In such a sense it's mostly a sociological construction, but that doesn't make it just go away.
MM Posted March 22, 2006 Posted March 22, 2006 Humans are all the same species. That doesn't make the concept of race irrelevant. From a genetic perspective' date=' race is irrelevant: only a handful of alleles hold the race together which are greatly outweighed by the sheer amount of alleles in the human gene pool. Members of one race are genetically as similar to any member of any other race. If that's the point you're trying to make, you're correct. However, that doesn't equate to "there's only one race". Race is still manifested in surface level phenotypical features and is easily distinguishable by everyone on the planet. In such a sense it's mostly a sociological construction, but that doesn't make it just go away.[/quote'] I agree that it is a sociological construction therefor one should not use the term race regarding humans but to see the differences as ethnic groups or heritage.
prion Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 In our world, it doesn't matter anymore. Vit. D deficiency is irrelevent in developped countries so darker people won't die of it Vit D deficiency is actually getting to be more recognised. There are people campaigning for the elderly in care homes to be put on vit D supplements because they're not getting enough sunlight and are getting worse osteoporosis. Also it is well known in the UK at least that vit D deficiency is a risk for women who for religious/cultural reasons cover themselves all the time (esp if they have darker skin) and traditionally have a low vitamin D diet. They are at increased risk of osteoporosis and if they have children relying on their breast milk then the children can be at risk of rickets. Lancet review
Steph Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Vit D deficiency is actually getting to be more recognised. There are people campaigning for the elderly in care homes to be put on vit D supplements because they're not getting enough sunlight and are getting worse osteoporosis. Also it is well known in the UK at least that vit D deficiency is a risk for women who for religious/cultural reasons cover themselves all the time (esp if they have darker skin) and traditionally have a low vitamin D diet. They are at increased risk of osteoporosis and if they have children relying on their breast milk then the children can be at risk of rickets. Lancet review I stand corrected. I was saying this though, because i live in Canada and I'm black. during the winter months, I used to spend weekdays without seeing the sun (waking up early, going to school then coming out when its dark again). This would technically be enough to have symptoms if it wasn't for what i'm getting in my diet no? and I'm not taking any supplements.
prion Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 well vit D can be stored in the liver, so presumably that would tide you over as long as you were spending time outside summer and eating an unrestricted modern supermarket diet! I expect it was only a major issue historically because of poorer diet. People working in health labs swear there is a dip in people's calcium levels in the winter though.
Dark Photon Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 you were wrongfully kicked out, black people are black because of high menalin in thier skin cells, designed to absorb ionising radiation therby protecting them in areas of high sunlight. however the drawback is less vitamin d . in hot countries the protection against radiation is more important than vitamin d but in europe (where americans came from so we account americans) vitamin d is more important as teh sunlight isnt so harming. so gather your evidence from official sources and present it to appropiate authorities and demand an apology
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now