Sandwich
Full Member
La pens?e d'un homme est avant tout sa nostalgie
Posts: 208
|
Post by Sandwich on Apr 13, 2004 23:07:56 GMT -5
What would a modern population geneticist make of this? Coon once admitted he didn't understand genetics; does this quote suggest he was right?
|
|
|
Post by Cerdic on May 27, 2004 6:09:47 GMT -5
Sounds like a load of utter rubbish. Loss of pigmentation is associated with living in low sunlight conditions. Contrary to received wisdom most blonds can tan reasonably well (its red-heads who tend not to) so outdoor living is no real problem. Indeed in the summer the people living in high latitudes (where blondism is commonest) have high exposure to sunlight due to the longer day (relative to lower lattudes).
Only in regions where light pigmented people have been artificially and recently introduced, as in Australia, does outdoor work become a potential problem. Speaking of Australia, blond hair is relatively common in the native peoples of the central deserts. Where does the theory stand here? Admittedly blondism in Australian Aborigines is not associated with pale skin colouration.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on May 27, 2004 8:10:20 GMT -5
Loss of pigmentation in skin is just not from adaptation to severe cold, otherwise why aren't the Inuits as lightly pigmented as Europeans? It is due to very low light conditions due to heavy cloud, mists, fogs as well as the shortness of the daylight period. Arctic/Antarctic zones tend to be dry, desert like as far as precipitation with lots of sunny, bright days just freezingly cold. The weather in Northernwest Europe is more cloudy, overcast and misty than sunny and bright. Lightly pigmented skin allows maximum entry of UV light which in winter is necessary. Is it coincidental that redhair and very pale skin is found most commonly in Scotland and Ireland?
|
|