|
Post by Tautamo on May 4, 2005 11:20:51 GMT -5
any opinions? how about the first upper types who entered europe
|
|
|
Post by Tautamo on May 4, 2005 11:27:56 GMT -5
here is a question how come eskimos dont have blue eyes and blonde hair? they live in climates such as the nordics and have been then maybe even longer than the first nords.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on May 4, 2005 13:03:33 GMT -5
Blondism draws its evolutionary advantage from the ability to synthesize more vitamin D in low sunlight exposure enviorments. People with marine diets can get all the vitamin D they need from the animals they eat, so that selective pressure wouldn't effect most eskimo's, while the effects of snow glare might make darker skin actually advantageous.
|
|
|
Post by Tautamo on May 4, 2005 13:10:25 GMT -5
Blondism draws its evolutionary advantage from the ability to synthesize more vitamin D in low sunlight exposure enviorments. People with marine diets can get all the vitamin D they need from the animals they eat, so that selective pressure wouldn't effect most eskimo's, while the effects of snow glare might make darker skin actually advantageous. glare would effect the skin? does uvs bounce off snow? also what are you thoughts the "first" europeans what skin color would you say they had?
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on May 4, 2005 15:58:56 GMT -5
Ever been skying Tautamo. I have never been under any conditions were you get sun burned then in heavy snow glare on spring day.
As for early european I would guess they were a brunette skin tone that tanned very easily similar to Australoid peoples.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on May 4, 2005 18:13:23 GMT -5
Do you mind phrasing this in a more grammatical way so I can quote it in the future? He is not being shabby with words, Human2. Falecind is a little bit dyslexic, so you have to get used to his style. The contains of what he says is well worth it.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on May 5, 2005 0:11:28 GMT -5
Thanks knockwr. I am actually quite dyslexic its an effort to produce posts as clear as I do. It would be a fun experiment to see how well I was understood posting my posts without editing for week.
|
|
|
Post by zemelmete on May 5, 2005 1:22:14 GMT -5
I think that the first humans had light skin colour. Many dark-skinned people have light skin in those parts of body which aren't exposed in the sun. That could mean that they originally were light skinned but later, when the biggest part of body got tanned, those un-exposed parts stayed light.
|
|
|
Post by buddyrydell on May 5, 2005 2:07:24 GMT -5
Well, speaking as someone who's not an anthropologist, I would think that the first humans had dark skin as they evolved in the climates of sub-Saharan Africa. This isn't to say that they looked identical to modern sub-Saharan Africans, but as far as pigmentation goes, they were probably somewhere within that range.
I believe that Faelcind is correct in his analysis of Vitamin D intake being facilitated by less solar exposure. Thus, as the first modern humans advanced into Europe, natural selection favored fairer pigmentation as humans sought greater amounts of the necessary Vitamin D.
|
|
|
Post by zemelmete on May 5, 2005 4:18:47 GMT -5
Well, speaking as someone who's not an anthropologist, I would think that the first humans had dark skin as they evolved in the climates of sub-Saharan Africa. This isn't to say that they looked identical to modern sub-Saharan Africans, but as far as pigmentation goes, they were probably somewhere within that range. I believe that Faelcind is correct in his analysis of Vitamin D intake being facilitated by less solar exposure. Thus, as the first modern humans advanced into Europe, natural selection favored fairer pigmentation as humans sought greater amounts of the necessary Vitamin D. But where then africans and australian aborigenes got light toes, hands and nails? If they would be dark skinned from beginning, then they should have dark all parts of body, but it isn't like that.
|
|
|
Post by Zapiens on May 5, 2005 9:00:30 GMT -5
I think that the first humans had light skin colour. Many dark-skinned people have light skin in those parts of body which aren't exposed in the sun. That could mean that they originally were light skinned but later, when the biggest part of body got tanned, those un-exposed parts stayed light. Most lighter-skinned people living in tropical and equatorial areas have spread to these areas (relatively) recently, and are supposedly descended from people who lived in temperate or cold climates and likely did not have dark skins. I primarily mean natives of Central and Southern Americas, and inhabitants of SE Asia. An interesting question is why Southern Australian aboriginals, and especially Tasmanians, did not evolve a ligther pigmentation.
|
|
|
Post by SensoUnico on May 5, 2005 10:08:26 GMT -5
Maybe it is due to the type of cold or type of winters experienced in Tasmania. That island does get cold in winter and bitterly cold in the northwest of the island but parts of the SE where most of the aborigines lived was in a rain shadow and had a low rainfall combined with the fact the Australia receives a lot of sunlight and UV even in winter. Compare this to Europe where it is rainy, gloomy, dull and gets a lot of fogs and mists. The amount of sunlight and UV is low in winter. Even South Europe experiences rainy and gloomy days in winter especially as most of Southern Europe is mountainous. Australia is a relatively flat landscape.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on May 5, 2005 22:12:28 GMT -5
When thinking about human skin colour its usefull to consider our closest relatives the chimps who have either pinkish white skin or blueish black like the skin of black haired dog. The pinkish white colour is much more similar in tone to humans so I think its probably a fairly reasonable to assume we started pinkish white, Imagine as soon as we lust the fur(probably as erectus) melanin devolpment become a big fitness advantage in the southern latitudes most of H. lived.
|
|
|
Post by SensoUnico on May 6, 2005 2:04:06 GMT -5
In NW Tasmania is snows every winter and the area has a severe climate. You cannot compare Australia with any other place on latitude. It does not work. It is like comparing Italy with Korea which are basically on the same latitude. Australian Aborigines have been in Australia for more than 40 ky. Is that not long enough to depigment if that was advantageous to the Tasmanians. The Tasmanians were a little different in phenotype to mainland Aborigines in that they were more negrito like with short, kinky hair and darker skin.
By the way, using abos is derogatory and is equivalent to calling a negroid man the N word. Please stop using it, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 6, 2005 17:07:50 GMT -5
And although things do evolve, do they necessarily have to?
|
|