The race issue

But then in this case, what you quoted from dennis780 in message 101 isn't inaccurate (although not very specific):

quote:

---

White people have the lowest levels of melanin, and black have the most.
  —dennis780

---

So he had never said it was increase or decrease in one specific type of melanin either.And in fact, your explanation here doesn't fit very well with what you had said in message 101:

quote:

---

What gives human's their skin pigmentation is different types of melanin; it has nothing to do with more or less melanin.
  —onifre

---

Which had given the wrong impression that skin color was the result of what type of melanin you had. If you had 'type A', you were that color. If you had 'type B', you were that color, etc.etc.When in fact it is more like you got 'type A', you are that color. You got 'type A' and 'type B', you are that color. You got 'type A' and B and C, you are that color. etc.etc.Anyhow, details.

Then I guess a more specific explanation from dennis is need. What did he mean by "lowest levels" of melanin.We all have same amount or "levels", just not the same type. I don't see why "lowest" or "more" is needed. It would be more accurate to say that we have different types of melanin that cause different variations in skin pigmentation.Just to note, these different types of melanin also vary the color of hair and eyes, so its not just skin that melanin effects. Also, individual people can have a combination of the different types so they'll vary in not only skin but eye color, hair, etc. A black person can have the dark skin but also have light eyes, produced by having different combinations of melanin types. And vice versa; white people can have different combos producing unique variations in their skin, eyes, hair, etc.To me, it is not accurate nor suffice to simply say, white people have the lowest levels and black people have the most. I was hoping that dennis clarified what he meant though.- Oni

Re-read what he wrote...He was talking about the whole "only a loss of information" thing. If white people did have less melanin and that was a reduction in information then Adam and Eve would have been black because they woulda had so much more melanin.

But they don't...that's the point. We all have the same amount of melanin, just different types that produce different features.- Oni

Oh, sure, he's just plain old wrong, but what he meant seemed to be fairly clear.

Yeah, that's what I though too, but Wounded King and Slev threw me off with their replies. I thought I made a mistake. I only know of this subject from a book I read about 2 years ago, so WK's opinion esp. I would listen to.- Oni

That's the information I'm not sure about. Is that right ? Are you sure it's not a mixt of both different types and different concentrations ?

Shit now I'm confused myself.Working from pure memory serves me no good, so this is currently what I could find: Melanogenesis

quote:

---

The difference in skin color between fair people and dark people is due not to the number (quantity) of melanocytes in their skin, but to the melanocytes' level of activity (quantity and relative amounts of eumelanin and pheomelanin). This process is under hormonal control, including the MSH and ACTH peptides that are produced from the precursor proopiomelanocortin.
Albinos lack an enzyme called tyrosinase. Tyrosinase is required for melanocytes to produce melanin from the amino acid tyrosine.

​

Although human beings generally possess a similar concentration of melanocytes in their skin, the melanocytes in some individuals and ethnic groups more frequently or less frequently express the melanin-producing genes, thereby conferring a greater or lesser concentration of skin melanin.

---

My understand is, it's the different amount or mixture of types of polymers (such as Eumelanin, Pheomelanin or Neuromelanin) that varies the skin pigmentation. So its not that you have more melanin or less melanin, its that you have more of a certain kind of polymer.Maybe a better way to say it is, we all have the same amount of melanocytes just different polymers. Maybe?If someone with more knowledge on this cares to explain it I'm more than willing to be shown where I am wrong.- Oni

I think you have an almost equally over simplified approach as Denis here. Having the same number of melanocytes means nothing, they only produce the melanin so the same number of melanocytes doesn't mean the same amount of melanin.The only well characterised genetic determinant of skin colour at the moment is the types of Melanocortin1receptor (MC1R) an individual has, and there are over 60 identified human MC1R alleles (Rees, 2004).The article I cite above states ... TTFN,WK

Damn, and here I was thinking I made it too complex. Yeah I think I get that now having read it over a few times. So would it be more accurate to say we all have the same amount of melanocytes, we just have different active polymers that result in different skin pigmentation?- Oni

"He was talking about the whole "only a loss of information" thing. If white people did have less melanin and that was a reduction in information then Adam and Eve would have been black because they woulda had so much more melanin."This is exactly the only point I was trying to get across. If creation is true, then God is the source of all information, so information could only be lost over time. Though mutations can occur, it would be the result of pre-existing information.Adam and eve would have been black.I hope everyone did not read too much into my generalization. I was more interested in making the point that useful information cannot be gained over time. Sorry.Dennis.

I'm sorry as well.That is a religious belief that is not confirmed by scientific research. In fact, we see just the opposite.Over the millions of years we see all manner of change, including new information.You may choose to disbelieve this for religious reasons, but that doesn't make it so.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Why are you choosing to stop at homo-sapiens? Adam and Eve would have been hominids. And why stop at hominids? we can keep going to the common ancestor of all mammals, or all vertibrates. Right?Hominids weren't "black" homo-sapiens, were around much earlier and had different amounts of melanin. This screws your whole theory up. The Biblical creation is clearly disproven by these facts. So you're saying *if* YOU'RE version of creation (the christian version I'm assuming) is true...then Adam and Eve were homo-sapiens and black. OkTo quote lyx2no: "*If* worms had machine guns robins wouldn't eff with 'em."If we allow for *if's* nothing is impossible. What does the evidence point to, that's the only thing that matters. No worries. Your ignorance on the subject helped my ignorance on the subject. Thanks. - Oni

Are you saying that the cells that experienced this mutation had pre-existing information that caused the mutation, that all of this information is front-loaded? Or that the mutation changed the existing information into something different?If front-loading, what evidence do you have?If into something different, isn't this the exact thing you are arguing against?In your view, somehow Adam and Eve had the information to construct all 60 alleles of MC1R. Then once again, information for all 60 of these alleles just happened to be found in Noah's 3 sons and their daughters. That is a lot of front-loading for which there is no evidence.

"Pure nonsense. There is just as much carbon 14 at the north and south poles as anywhere else -- it's in the atmosphere!And C14 dating is not a parent-daughter dating method."I'm refering to the NEWER forms of Parent-Daughter dating, poopdink. Such as K-Ar, Ar-Ar, etc.Carbon levels are constantly changing, since the van allen belt is constantly changing (the belt that traps radiation around the earth...but you knew that right?).And since most all animals get their source of carbon from plants, any area where plants to not exist, would not take carbon from the atomsphere, giving any animals in these areas false readings. This is also true with marine life, and should be called into question as well.