Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Human ethnic groups...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tericl2" data-source="post: 176364" data-attributes="member: 573"><p><em>As an example, consider a group of people who moved to a cold region with little sunlight. Here, the dark-skinned members would not be able to produce enough vitamin D, and thus would be less healthy and have fewer children. So, in time, the light-skinned members would predominate. If several different groups went to such an area, and if one group happened to be carrying few genes for lightness, this particular group could, in time, die out. Thus, natural selection acts on the characteristics already present, and does not create new ones.</em></p><p><em>It is interesting to note that the ancient Neanderthals of Europe, recognized as fully human, show evidence of vitamin D deficiency in that many of their bones were bent. In fact, this, plus a large dose of evolutionary prejudice, caused them to be classified as "ape-men" for a long time. It is thus quite plausible that they were a dark-skinned people who were unfit for the environment into which they moved because of the skin color genes they began with. Notice (again) that this natural selection, as it is called, does not produce skin colors, but only acts on the created capacity for making skin pigment that is already there.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em> </em></p><p><em>Conversely, fair-skinned people in very sunny regions could easily be affected by skin cancer. Thus, in these regions dark-skinned people would more readily survive and come to predominate.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>So we see that the pressure of the environment can (a) affect the balance of genes within this group, and (b) even eliminate entire groups. This is why we see, to a large extent, that the physical characteristics of people tend to match the environment where they live (e.g., Nordic people with pale skin, equatorial people with dark skin).</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>But this is not always so. The Inuit (Eskimo) have brown skin, yet live where there is not much sun. Presumably they all have a genetic makeup such as MAMAmBmB which would not be able to produce lighter skin. On the other hand, native South Americans living on the equator do not have black skin. These examples confirm that natural selection does not create new information -- if the genetic makeup of a group of people does not allow variation in color toward the desirable, natural selection cannot create such variation.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Pygmies live in a hot area, but rarely experience strong sunshine in their dense jungle environment; yet they have dark skin. Pygmies may be a good example of another factor that has affected the racial history of man: discrimination.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>People different from the "norm" (e.g., a very light person in a dark people group), have historically been regarded as abnormal and rejected by the group. Thus, such a person would find it hard to get a marriage partner. This would further tend to eliminate light genes from a dark people, and vise versa. In this way, groups have tended to "purify" themselves.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Also, in some instances, interbreeding within a small group can accentuate a commonly occurring unusual feature that would otherwise be swamped by marriage outside the group. There is a tribe in Africa whose members all have grossly deformed feet as a result of this inbreeding.</em> </p><p>copied from <a href="http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-skincolor.html" target="_blank">Answers</a> </p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't really see where a problem would arise. Just look at the birth rate of today. Now look back at history and see that people used to live longer in those days and they most likely had far more children than each couple has today. The population would have increased exponentially very easily and quickly.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tericl2, post: 176364, member: 573"] [I]As an example, consider a group of people who moved to a cold region with little sunlight. Here, the dark-skinned members would not be able to produce enough vitamin D, and thus would be less healthy and have fewer children. So, in time, the light-skinned members would predominate. If several different groups went to such an area, and if one group happened to be carrying few genes for lightness, this particular group could, in time, die out. Thus, natural selection acts on the characteristics already present, and does not create new ones. It is interesting to note that the ancient Neanderthals of Europe, recognized as fully human, show evidence of vitamin D deficiency in that many of their bones were bent. In fact, this, plus a large dose of evolutionary prejudice, caused them to be classified as "ape-men" for a long time. It is thus quite plausible that they were a dark-skinned people who were unfit for the environment into which they moved because of the skin color genes they began with. Notice (again) that this natural selection, as it is called, does not produce skin colors, but only acts on the created capacity for making skin pigment that is already there. Conversely, fair-skinned people in very sunny regions could easily be affected by skin cancer. Thus, in these regions dark-skinned people would more readily survive and come to predominate. So we see that the pressure of the environment can (a) affect the balance of genes within this group, and (b) even eliminate entire groups. This is why we see, to a large extent, that the physical characteristics of people tend to match the environment where they live (e.g., Nordic people with pale skin, equatorial people with dark skin). But this is not always so. The Inuit (Eskimo) have brown skin, yet live where there is not much sun. Presumably they all have a genetic makeup such as MAMAmBmB which would not be able to produce lighter skin. On the other hand, native South Americans living on the equator do not have black skin. These examples confirm that natural selection does not create new information -- if the genetic makeup of a group of people does not allow variation in color toward the desirable, natural selection cannot create such variation. Pygmies live in a hot area, but rarely experience strong sunshine in their dense jungle environment; yet they have dark skin. Pygmies may be a good example of another factor that has affected the racial history of man: discrimination. People different from the "norm" (e.g., a very light person in a dark people group), have historically been regarded as abnormal and rejected by the group. Thus, such a person would find it hard to get a marriage partner. This would further tend to eliminate light genes from a dark people, and vise versa. In this way, groups have tended to "purify" themselves. Also, in some instances, interbreeding within a small group can accentuate a commonly occurring unusual feature that would otherwise be swamped by marriage outside the group. There is a tribe in Africa whose members all have grossly deformed feet as a result of this inbreeding.[/I] copied from [URL=http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-skincolor.html]Answers[/URL] I don't really see where a problem would arise. Just look at the birth rate of today. Now look back at history and see that people used to live longer in those days and they most likely had far more children than each couple has today. The population would have increased exponentially very easily and quickly. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Human ethnic groups...
Top
Bottom