Summations Only

Well thanks for your replies gents. Too many ego's involved here. I had a thought and I posted it. I can't carry any lengthy conversation about my ideas so I guess this ends it. I guess putting me down makes some of you feel powerful, more like...spoiled little brats. By the way, I believe in science...not man made fairy tales.
Thank you

It was simple question, that should have been probably put into the question no debate thread, and it was answered. It is a waste of a thread.
His hypothesis is utterly wrong on so many levels. A simple web search would have found an answer.
"Caucasians" did not come from the breeding and inbreeding of albinos. Case closed. What does that have to do with anything? His pet theory is wrong he is being shown it is wrong. 15 minutes doing a web search he would have learned he is wrong. Atheists are not one big homogeneous group. I am an equal opportunity critic.
Atheists are not all scientifically literate. They are not all critical thinkers. His FBook post clearly shows he is not a follower of the scientific method.The question has been answered, he has no more to add to it. If he presents data and evidence to support his pet theory then the thread should continue. Want to bet on whether he presents any?Now I see he is whining that people put him down. Where is that
? I am reading the thread right now and do not see anyone putting him down. He is being criticized because his pet theory does not stand up to scrutiny. I did not put him down. I simple stated that the thread had been completed very quickly. He obviously did not get the answers he wanted. Did he think he had some sort of epiphany that the scientific community had never thought of? Don't you dare apologize for me for something I did not do. All I stated was the question was answered and no need to continue the thread. If you want to read more into that, then that is your problem not mine.
You need to decide if you are going to be a participant or a moderator. It doesn't work when you play both in a thread.

My view is that skin color is built into the DNA of all human beings, and as it "evolves," meaning as different combinations get selected down the generations and then geographically isolated you can get whole "tribes" of people with a certain shade of skin color. So I believe that the white skin and blue eyes evolved in a certain sense, but as a playing out of preexistent genetic possibilities. I don't believe mutation had antying to do with it. Yes I know mutations can be pointed to here and there but they aren't needed and the built in DNA is enough to have generated every skin color on earth over just a few thousand years.Basic science shows that if you reproductively isolate any part of any gene pool of any species so that they breed only among themselves, they will eventually become a new homogeneous population unto themselves, a new race if you will. All it takes is a few "founders" going off to a new geolographic location and not breeding with other members of the species, just amoung themselves. This group of founders will possess among themselves a particular combination of genetic possibilities that over time will blend together into a particular characteristic of the group as a whole. Half a dozen adults with their children could found a whole new tribe or race over a few hundred years.Here's my favorite Mendel's square that shows how the human race could have started out with all the skin colors in our original parents. They would most likely have had a middle range of skin color themselves but their children would have had combinations of all the colors, and as they microevolved and spread out geographically they would form new groups with their own coloring along with other characteristics that would have been selected in the same way.I post this Mendelian square from time to time and found it this time at Message 127 The square oritginally comes from Gary Parker in a creationist book. It shows the range of colors from darkest to lightest based only on two genes of two alleles each which is sufficient to get the enormous range of skin colors everywhere on earth.By Edit: I tried to post the image URL twice and got an "image not found" message, then "Security violation." Since it seems to have posted all right on the post I linked I don't get why this might be, but I took it down because it was messing up the post. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Added the image to the message.

Hello ski zawaski,Your topic is fine imo, if you would of put it perhaps in the Coffee House forum.The Science forum will draw all sorts of scrutiny from science minded skeptics.It is ok to spitball and postulate things just be ready to draw criticism. Thinskinned folks be warned. Lurk awhile to get the lay of the land.

quote:

---

By the way, I believe in science...not man made fairy tales.

---

And yet you made this up, you prefer it to science and I’d call it a fairy-tale:

I don't do facebook. So, intellectually unable/unwilling is the answer. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Although less melanin is associated with caucasoids, it shouldn't be confused with no melanin or how albinism occurs. Dark skin closer to the equator is extremely beneficial as it creates a barrier to harsh UV light where there is an abundance of it.As migration out of Africa began, some branches of humans migrated to northern climates following big game. The darker skin that was so beneficial in tropical and subtropical climates were somewhat of a liability because the wintery, cloudy environment of the Ice Age. People that just so happened to have been born with lighter skin adapted better in that particular climate whereas it would have been a liability in warmer climates. In this new environment the lighter skin acts as a conduit able to soak up what very little UV light was available. This was important in a harsh and unforgiving climate for Vitamin D synthesis. You either ingest vitamin D or you synthesize it... and if you can't find enough food with sufficient levels of it, you have to be able to get that from the Sun. Well, in Europe during the Ice Age there's not much Sun.As to your point about Eskimos and Mongols, they also have very light skin, likely because it was the most selective adaptation to that particular environment. Eskimos are Native American... the closer to the equator the darker the skin becomes because in that climate they have an abundance of sunlight. Dark skin protects against skin cancer. Same with the Asian population. Lighter skin towards the north (Korean peninsula, China, Japan) and darker towards the south (Vietnam, Myanmar, Indonesia, Phillipines, etc).Dark/light eyes and dark/light hair are fairly benign in terms of offering anyone an environmental advantage from an evolutionary point of view.

Pardon us for being cynical but every creationist says that.

He posted the same thing using the same name on his homepage there.

quote:

---

​

Worked at Screen Actors Guild (SAG)

​

Past: North Sea oil

​

Studied prep for 100 ton Masters License at Chapmans School of Seamanship
Attended from 1998 to 1998

​

Lives in Walhalla, South Carolina
Lived in N. Hollywood Lived in Westwego, Louisiana

---

Could be one of my neighbor's friends ...Enjoy

You do realise that that Mendel’s Square is based on imaginary genes? It really has no value beyond illustrating a theoretical possibility that we now know to be untrue.

It shows that it is possible for all the genetic material to be available since Adam and Eve, the particulars are irrelevant. And I believe skin color is determined by many genes so one square like that wouldn't express the reality. Though it COULD reflect the original situation with some set of genes since what we have now is changes in the genome over thousands of years.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It shows that it is possible for all the genetic material to be available since Adam and Eve...

---

The imaginary genetic material, that is. It doesn’t show anything about the real genes because it doesn’t address them at all.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Nice ride.

No it doesn't, because that does not describe actual skin color genetics.It's like a staw man argument, a construct that does not represent reality.

quote:

---

Genes responsible for diversity of human skin colors identified

​

Summary:

​

A study of diverse African groups by geneticists has identified new genetic variants associated with skin pigmentation. The findings help explain the vast range of skin color on the African continent, shed light on human evolution and inform an understanding of the genetic risk factors for conditions such as skin cancer.

​

FULL STORY

​

Human populations feature a broad palette of skin tones. But until now, few genes have been shown to contribute to normal variation in skin color, and these had primarily been discovered through studies of European populations.

​

Now, a study of diverse African groups led by University of Pennsylvania geneticists has identified new genetic variants associated with skin pigmentation. The findings help explain the vast range of skin color on the African continent, shed light on human evolution and inform an understanding of the genetic risk factors for conditions such as skin cancer.

​

... When people think of skin color in Africa most would think of darker skin, but we show that within Africa there is a huge amount of variation, ranging from skin as light as some Asians to the darkest skin on a global level and everything in between. We identify genetic variants affecting these traits and show that mutations influencing light and dark skin have been around for a long time, since before the origin of modern humans."

​

The region with the strongest associations was in and around the SLC24A5 gene, one variant of which is known to play a role in light skin color in European and some southern Asian populations and is believed to have arisen more than 30,000 years ago. ...

​

Another region, which contains the MFSD12 gene, had the second strongest association to skin pigmentation. This gene is expressed at low levels in depigmented skin in individuals with vitiligo, a condition where the skin loses pigment in some areas.

​

Also of interest was that genetic variants at MFSD12, OCA2, and HERC2 associated with light skin pigmentation were at highest frequency in the African San population, which has the oldest genetic lineages in the world, as well as in Europeans.

​

"In addition," Marks said, "the fact that loss of MFSD12 expression had opposite effects on the two types of melanins, increasing eumelanin production while suppressing pheomelanin, suggests that melanosomes that make pheomelanins might be more related to lysosomes than those that make eumelanin."

​

Additional associations with skin color were found in the OCA2 and HERC2 genes, which have been linked with skin, eye and hair color variation in Europeans, though the mutations identified are novel. Mutations in OCA2 also cause a form of albinism that is more common in Africans than in other populations. The researchers observed genetic variants in a neighboring gene, HERC2, which regulates the expression of OCA2. Within OCA2, they identified a variant common in Europeans and San that is associated with a shorter version of the protein, with an altered function. They observed a signal of balancing selection of OCA2, meaning that two different versions of the gene have been maintained, in this case for more than 600,000 years.

​

A final genetic region the researchers found to be associated with skin pigmentation included genes that play a role in ultraviolet light response and melanoma risk. The top candidate gene in the region is DDB1, involved in repairing DNA after exposure to UV light.

​

The mutations identified by the team play a role in regulating expression of DDB1 and other nearby genes.

​

"Though we don't yet know the mechanism by which DDB1 is impacting pigmentation, it is of interest to note that this gene, which is highly conserved across species, also plays a role in pigmentation in plants such as tomatoes," said Tishkoff.

​

The team saw evidence that this region of the genome has been a strong target of natural selection outside of Africa; mutations associated with light skin color swept to nearly 100 percent frequency in non-Africans, one of few examples of a "selective sweep" in all Eurasians; the age of the selective sweep was estimated to be around 60,000 to 80,000 years old, around the time of migration of modern humans out of Africa.

​

One additional takeaway from this work is a broader picture of the evolution of skin color in humans. Most of the genetic variants associated with light and dark pigmentation from the study appear to have originated more than 300,000 years ago, and some emerged roughly 1 million years ago, ...

---

Note mutations plural for each gene. Occurring at different times in the past. The particulars are relevant because they show your straw-man argument to be incomplete.Enjoy

Yes it shows that it's possible, despite all your evolutionist crap. Mutations schmutations, as long as you deny the truth of the Bible, it's all crap.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.