The Vitamin D Hypothesis (VDH) purports to explain the range of skin colors observed between races/ethnies around the world. Since there are little UVR and even less vitamin-D-producing UVB in the northern hemisphere, other ways of producing/getting ample amounts of vitamin D were imperative for survival. Locations such as the far north were uninhabited up until 12,000 years ago—the explanation being that populations didn’t have the culture to survive such harsh conditions (see Goebel, 1999; Bergman et al, 2004). However, a more likely reason was that there were biological limits on the production of vitamin D due to the lack of UVB rays for most of the year. In this article, I will discuss the skin color of Arctic peoples and why it does not follow the simple gradient of UVB around the world.
To overcome the biological limitations of little to no UVB throughout the year, they needed to supplement with foods to get ample amounts of vitamin D—to cover what they did not get from the weak UVB rays. To overcome the limitation of their environment and vitamin D production, they had to consume fatty animals who had ample stores of vitamin D in their systems. The types of foods allowed peoples to live so far north, since there were little vitamin-D-producing UVB rays, lifestyle and culture is how we conquered the unforgiving far north.
Peoples like the Inuit and Saami eat a diet that is high in vitamin D. Inuits, for example, eat a diet high in vitamin D and n-3 fatty acids (Schaebel et al, 2015). Due to the high vitamin D intake from their diet, they were able to supplement what they did not get from the sun in their diet and thusly were able to live in the unforgiving cold north due to their diet high in vitamin D (Deng and Xu, 2018). Their dark skin color can be explained in a few ways: their diet (high in vitamin-D-rich marine mammals), UVB rays bouncing off ice, snow, and water, and they are recent migrants to those climes, which would explain their darker skin color compared to other populations that have evolved for a longer time in these climates (Jablonski and Chaplin, 2002).
When people look at Arctic people such as the Inuit, they look at their skin color and see the amount of UVB rays they receive during the year and presume that the VDH is wrong because, according to the VDH, Arctic peoples should have the lightest skin but have dark skin—compared to others who evolved recently in those latitudes—but they have dark-ish skin for that latitude. The answer is simple: they were able to consume enough vitamin D in their diet—a lack of vitamin D production/consumption was one barrier to living in the far north which was then overcome with culture and the foods peoples eat.
The environment of the Arctic is dim and dark for most of the year, though during the summer, of course—when they are most active—they are bathed in solar radiation which is then reflected by the snow, ice, and water. Fresh white snow reflects 94 percent UVA rays and 88 percent of UVB rays. Chadysiene and Girgzdys (2008; 87) write:
The average data of experimental measurements show that maximum albedo of UVA radiation (of about 94%) was at 1 p.m. in comparison with albedo of UVB radiation of about 88% at 2 p.m. The measurements of albedo were performed on fresh snow with big crystals.”
For example, Inuit populations in northern Greenland report spending up to 16 hours outdoors in the spring and summer months, and would be exposed to UV rays bouncing from ice, snow, and water (Andersen, Jakobsen, and Laurberg, 2012). Exposure to UV rays for this extended period of time—along with eating a diet high in vitamin D—is enough to explain their skin color.
Clearly, Arctic people get bathed in UVB and UVA rays from being reflected off the snow and ice, which gives them their darker skin color. They have the ability to tan (which is distinct from the American term “tanning”) and their tanning ability protects them from high doses of UVR that are reflected from the snow whereas their diet high in vitamin D gives them their darkish skin color and allows them to remain healthy in such a harsh, unforgiving environment.
Nina Jablonski has been writing about the VDH for about 30 years. Jablonski writes in her book Living Color: The Biological and Social Meaning of Skin Color (2012: 68):
Traditional cultures of the Inuit and the Saami center on harvesting vitamin-D-rich foods. The dietary focus for both groups has compensated for the vitamin D they cannot produce in their skin. Both peoples remain healthy when they stick to their traditional diets but suffer badly from vitamin D deficiencies when they switch to Western diets that are lower in vitamin D.
Here’s the thing: when these populations move away from their natural, vitamin-D-rich diet, they suffer from many deficiencies regarding vitamin D, even today many Inuit populations suffer from vitamin D deficiency, both children, and adults (Hayek, 2011). So the change in the Inuit diet is the cause of these deficiencies—their traditional diet was high in vitamin D, but their new diet (the Western diet) is low in vitamin D; since they have dark skin and the UVB is so variable throughout the year, they then suffer from vitamin D deficiencies (Sharma et al, 2011). Sharma et al (2011: 475) conclude that Arctic people are at-risk for vitamin D deficiency due to lack of UVB exposure, moving away from a traditional diet high in vitamin D to a Western diet low in vitamin D, combined with their dark skin.
Frost (2012) claims that while the explosion of rickets in Arctic populations is due to a change in diet (shifting away from a high meat diet) and “increased consumption of certain reactive substances: phytic acids in commercially processed cereals; sodium bicarbonate in baking soda; and aluminum hydroxide in antacids” (Frost, 2012). The dominant source of vitamin D for the Inuit is their diet (Schaebel et al, 2015), and so, due to their shift away from their natural diet high in fatty fish and vitamin D, once they began eating a diet not ancestral to them, then the maladies began. We can see this with every country/population that begins to eat a new diet full of processed foods.
Since the frequency of rickets has exploded in populations that eat a Western-like diet and not their traditional diet, this implies that the traditional diet provided enough vitamin D, and when they began eating a new diet with less vitamin D, then these problems such as rickets occurred.
To end these implications, the Inuit need to return to consuming a traditional diet, since their traditional diets have the adequate vitamins and minerals needed to survive in the environment they are currently in (Koladhooz et al, 2013). Higher BMI (body mass index), their skin color, and the latitude of where they live contribute to low vitamin D production. Inuits who consumed a low number of traditional food items were more likely to be deficient in vitamin D (Anderson et al, 2013) while this deficiency is seen even in Inuit school children (Hayek, Egeland, and Weiler, 2010; Singleton et al, 2015).
In sum, there is no anomaly regarding the skin color of Arctic peoples; the hypothesis is called “the vitamin D hypothesis”, and so they get ample vitamin D from the reflection of UV rays from the snow, ice, and water. Reasons for the darkness of their skin include the fact that they are recent migrants to those locations, they consume a diet high in vitamin D, and the reflection of UV rays from albedo surfaces.
The hypothesis that UVB exposure explains the observed skin gradients predicted a novel fact—that populations that migrated out of Africa would be seen to have light skin. This occurred multiple times through three different molecular pathways, in the Neanderthals (Lalueza-Fox et al, 2007) and Europeans and East Asians (different molecular mechanisms for them; Norton et al, 2007). This was a risky, successful and novel prediction made by Jablonski and Chaplin (2000). That this does not hold for Arctic people is not a blow to the hypothesis; it is perfectly explained by the bouncing of UVR off of albedo surfaces and a high vitamin D diet. Skin color is an adaptation to UV rays.
Bad theory.
When you can show me Vitamin D related disease susceptibility statistics of Blacks in Canada like I can show you skin cancer statistics of Whites in Australia, I’ll believe it.
How is it bad? Arctic people get vitamin D from their diet. They get vitamin D and UV radiation from the reflection of UV rays off snow, ice and water (see cite in the article).
Here’s my article on race and vitamin D deficiency.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/05/06/race-and-vitamin-d-deficiency/
It’s impossible to prove the theory without further study on the negative effects of Vitamin D deficiency in humans. I hate correlations. i need to know factually that Vitamin D deficiency causes evolutionary death in the same way skin cancer causes actual death, without knowing this, I can’t say ‘White skin evolved for Vitamin D’ as a conclusive fact.
Until then, in my opinion at least, it’s another correlation theory. Not that you have to care, just saying.
How is it impossible? The logic is sound. They’re recent migrants to those areas. They eat a diet high in vitamin D. Sun’s rays reflect off ice, water, and snow. (See citation in the article.) What’s correlative about that?
Nutrology is a pseudo-science…
right now ”we have” a ”nordic diet”…
What is “nutrology” and how is it pseudoscience?
just so stories, specially about ”explanation for ‘darker’ skin of arctic people’s”.
so ALL arctic people’s are suffering from ”lack of vitamin d”,
or.. not all
”In sum, there is no anomaly regarding the skin color of Arctic peoples; the hypothesis is called “the vitamin D hypothesis”, and so they get ample vitamin D from the reflection of UV rays from the snow, ice, and water. Reasons for the darkness of their skin include the fact that they are recent migrants to those locations, they consume a diet high in vitamin D, and the reflection of UV rays from albedo surfaces.”
A sane stupidly easier explanation:
almost arctic people’s are from mongoloid branch which have a lighter but not very-lighter skin IS a very predominant feature…
Yes, in the same way if most east asians were exposed to sun they become tanner, but without this exposure they keep lighter. This explain why so many east asian women avoid as possible the exposure to sun light.
There is a interesting ritual in some brazilian tribes where the younger woman, pre-marriage, is placed within a house to avoid sun light and to become lighter. When she out of this place she’s quite lighter than she was before the ritual.
This look like
a complicated/”scientific narrative” to say the obvious [typical].
Many arctic men because their ”traditional” lifestyle inevitably become tanner, but their skin color without this over-exposure is basically the same than their asian cousins.
Dark skin seems have little to do with their ”traditional” diet, period.
le ènd!
I explained this.
“Their dark skin color can be explained in a few ways: their diet (high in vitamin-D-rich marine mammals), UVB rays bouncing off ice, snow, and water, and they are recent migrants to those climes, which would explain their darker skin color compared to other populations that have evolved for a longer time in these climates (Jablonski and Chaplin, 2002).”
“Dark skin seems have little to do with their ”traditional” diet, period.”
Again, this is explained in the article. Their diet and UV rays reflecting off ice, water and snow.
Their over-exposure to light sun resulting in darker-skins is obvious BUT you just say about hypothetical causation of diet style and skin color, you don’t explained how this mechanism happens, seems it was not empirically proven, it is a correlation that was transformed in hypothetical causality.
A group of mongoloid people’s live in arctic borders, have that diet and daily high-exposure to light sun resulting in darkening of their skin color.
Light sun-alone can easily explain their darker-skin color.
Their diet is high in vitamin D. Read my citations.
And they also get a large amount of UV rays in the spring and summer months. Again, read my citations.
I read your citations, but it’s not proven explanations…
Again, it’s obvious that they get tanner skin after prolonged period of sun light exposure, specially in near-north pole places, and specially because they are from mongoloid macro-race. Put japaneses or chineses in the same place with the same lifestyle and they will become tanner too.
What i’m counterrarguing is about your extrapolation, that their diet type also have causal impact on their skin color. You must prove this in mechanical/ gradual way. So if a red haired european person decided to have the same diet and without over-exposure to arctic sun light s/he will become tanner… it’s what you are saying.
I know vitamin D is very important for ”bone health”.
No the individual would not “become tanner” because you’re forgetting that Arctic people are recent migrants to the Arctic.
They are NOT recent migrants to Arctic;
They become tanner because over-exposure to light sun and in north pole, where the light is more intense, but their natural skin color is similar to the northeastern asians before/without this…
I’m not saying they are fixed dark-skinned but tanned when they are exposed to light sun as well ”low classe” workers in China or Koreas.
Inuits are descended from a people called the Thule who came from Western Alaska about 1000 kya.
I’ve already explained their skin color.
You explain nothing…
Yes, they came from SIBERIA, basically the same climate than North pole America…
You didn’t read anything.
One of the most interesting aspects of this investigation was the examination of groups that did not precisely fit the predicted skin-color pattern. An example is the Inuit people of Alaska and northern Canada. The Inuit exhibit skin color that is somewhat darker than would be predicted given the UV levels at their latitude. This is probably caused by two factors. The first is that they are relatively recent inhabitants of these climes, having migrated to North America only roughly 5,000 years ago. The second is that the traditional diet of the Inuit is extremely high in foods containing vitamin D, especially fish and marine mammals. This vitamin Drich diet offsets the problem that they would otherwise have with vitamin D synthesis in their skin at northern latitudes and permits them to remain more darkly pigmented.
[…]
In some places, they also had the ability to harvest foods that were extraordinarily rich in vitamin D, as in the case of the Inuit. These two factors had profound effects on the tempo and degree of skincolor evolution in human populations.
Click to access skin_deep.pdf
Humans inhabiting Zone 3 are at highest risk of severe vitamin D3 deficiency. Successful, long-term human habitation of this zone has depended upon two key factors: the evolution of a depigmented integument capable of permitting maximum cutaneous previtamin D3 synthesis under conditions of available UV radiation and the consumption of foodstuffs naturally high in vitamin D3 (such as fish and marine mammals). Recent migrants to high latitude regions, such as Greenlanders, appear to be only very slowly undergoing depigmentation because of their vitamin D3-rich diet.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.462.4020&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Again, all of these “objections” are easily addressed if you read my citations.
STOP TO REPEAT it idiot!!!!!!!!!!!
you only prove again how retarded you’re
WHY [redacted by pp, may 16, 2018]
proved FUCKING NOTHING
only think i was precipitated was about the fact they are indeed recent migrants, the rest… pure bullshit coming from a PSEUDO scientist.
Why so angry? You let internet comments get to you this much?
One possibility to prove it is: If they tan homogeneously…
if not…
stupid people as you make me angry.
Nah, internet comments get you angry. Chill out.
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssúuuuuuuuuuus
even to….
even to have a funny or interesting and/or astute answer this wall is a capable…
Personally I think light skin is artificially selected for by humans to the maximum possible degree [limited by environment] in every society. Once your skin starts peeling in the sun it’s no longer attractive. Dark skin is associated with low class and low intelligence in nearly all human societies. I believe light-skin is another example of selection by attraction as opposed to selection by death.
The reason Europeans are the lightest skinned is simply that they are the most recently evolved, blonde hair and blue eyes still occur in the North African population at rates of up to 15% and they’re very prized and sexually selected for with intense pressure. For me, this is a just-so story and the diet & snow reflection theories are ridiculously ad hoc. I don’t know what RR was thinking.
Also the Danish ate more sea food than Inuit & also have uv reflecting from the sea, yet they’re white as hell
Arctic peoples whole living is basically fatty fish and blubber. Look what happens when they change their diet; tons of problems related to vitamin D deficiencies.
Furthermore, what you’re missing is the fact that they were recent migrants from Siberia. A paper that was also published within theast week shows that mutations in North Asian populations allowed more vitamin D to be passed through breast milk.
We hypothesize that selection on EDAR V370A occurred in the Beringian refugium because it increases mammary ductal branching, and thereby may amplify the transfer of critical nutrients in vitamin D-deficient conditions to infants via mothers’ milk. This hypothesized selective context for EDAR V370A was likely intertwined with selection on the fatty acid desaturase (FADS) gene cluster because it is known to modulate lipid profiles transmitted to milk from a vitamin D-rich diet high in omega-3 fatty acids.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/04/18/1711788115
You’re really grasping at straws here…
Danes never ate more seafood than Inuits. Inuits almost only eat meat, fish and eggs. No cereals, almost no vegetables.
Afro, Peter Frost disagrees with you:
In actual fact, if we look at the indigenous peoples of northern Asia and North America above 47º N, most of them live far inland and get little vitamin D from their diet. For instance, although the Athapaskans of Canada and Alaska live as far north as the Inuit and are even somewhat darker-skinned, their diet consists largely of meat from land animals (caribou, deer, ptarmigan, etc.). The same may be said for the native peoples of Siberia.Conversely, fish consumption is high among the coastal peoples of northwestern Europe. Skeletal remains of Danes living 6,000-7,000 years ago have the same carbon isotope profile as those of Greenland Inuit, whose diet is 70-95% of marine origin (Tauber, 1981). So why are Danes so light-skinned despite a diet that has long included fatty fish?
Of course early Northern Europeans are largely not the direct ancestors of today’s Danish, but genetic evidence shows light skin was already present in North European hunter-gatherers:
Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.
wtf?
the inuit eat more seafood than danes, BUT is that “seafood” 100% marine mammals vs fish, shellfish, etc.?
White skin evolved 4000 years ago with agriculture, European Hunter Gatherers were as dark as Arctic, Siberian and Canadian natives although that’s considered light skin compared to tropical and subtropical peoples.
it seems 100% CERTAIN that danes have ALWAYS consumed MORE seafood than eskimos when marine mammals are excluded from “seafood”.
because…they have ALWAYS had superior boats.
inuit boats aren’t made for fishing.
Frost fails to discuss the maximum albedo of UVA and UVB radiation. Frost fails to discuss how much time, for example, Greenland Inuits report spending outside during the spring and summer months.
The VDR (vitamin D receptor) helps humans adapt to changes in UV radiation.
Click to access 307-311.pdf
Regarding your second source talking about vitamin D synthesis a
Since the article is from 2015, let’s check the recent literature:
The VDR promoter and skin color genes are epistatic.
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1534/g3.115.026773
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.01.012
Skin pigmentation determines plasma vitamin D levels and VDR autoregulation.
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.gene.2015.02.024
The VDR works in concert with retinoic acid receptors which then bind to nucleotide base pairs called the vitamin D-responsive elements (VDRE) which then exert their effects on gene expression.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2879406/
http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/18/6/1323/htm
Frost’s work is currently outdated; more strides have been made in this research. Peter Frost presumably knows all of this…
“For me, this is a just-so story and the diet & snow reflection theories are ridiculously ad hoc. I don’t know what RR was thinking.”
How is it a just-so story? It’s been independently observed.
The average data of experimental measurements show that maximum albedo of UVA radiation (of about 94%) was at 1 p.m. in comparison with albedo of UVB radiation of about 88% at 2 p.m. The measurements of albedo were performed on fresh snow with big crystals.”
Click to access JEELM_ISSN_1648-6897_Vol16_No2_2008_83-88_Chadysiene.pdf
Read my citation on how Greenland Inuits spend 16 hours outside per day in the spring and summer months.
What I wrote explaining their skin color re being outside for hours a day in the spring and summer which caused them to be bathed in UV rays from the reflectors of snow, ice and water along with their diet explains their skin color.
It’s “the vitamin D hypothesis”. They get enough vitamin D from their diet and environment around them in the spring and summer months. It’s perfectly explainable with the current paradigm. You should read my citations too.
All of these “objections” can be fixed by reading my article, reading it again then reading the citations I’ve provided.
”What I wrote explaining their skin color re being outside for hours a day in the spring and summer which caused them to be bathed in UV rays from the reflectors of snow, ice and water
…
…
along with their diet explains their skin color.”
Another simple fact rr complicate….
A whole life to understand the differences between
hypothesis and proven theories…
What isn’t proven?
reading issues
DIET AND SKIN COLOR COR-RELATION
You have the reading issues. I’m not repeating myself.
Now look like a precox dementia…
If you don’t have anything to say then don’t respond. I’ve explained the position numerous times.
EXPLAIN NOTHING MACARRONI!!!!
In your warped world.
A complete retarded…
only you who can’t understand how idiot you’re…
again or you’re a PROFESSIONAL TROLL or you’re this..
we are talking about the BASICS of scientific method
Remember one very important thing
If you think you’re capable to be a scientist, it’s don’t mean you’re…
When someone complicates obvious things it’s mean something very harsh about this person.
Even Fenuck can understand this, only pseudo as you can’t…
maybe he could be a better scientist than you.
inuits are arctic mongoloid people who live in north america, they have the same or very similar skin color of almost arctic and northeastern asians/mongoloids.
They have a lifestyle based on daily high exposure to sun light and in north pole borders, where the sun is more intense [interesting would be to know about their incidence of skin cancer]. So, they become tanner. If a group of normal skinned chineses is placed in this environment they will become tanner as inuits, PERIOD.
Based on scientific method you must need to prove, empirically or gradually, step by step, how a diet style can or not alter skin color.
What you have, brainless, is a CORRELATION between this two variable.
But you treat this as if it’s already a proven theory [a fact], it’s a hypothesis with no evidence until now.
Yes, light skin is better and/or faster to take vitamin D but i really doubt diet style have any causal influence to change skin color. Digestive system must have some direct channel with skin cells or whatever, first of all, to alter radically the skin color.
So, in sum, inuits become tanner not because they take too much vitamin d but because as they are mongoloid they can become tan and very tanner when they are over-exposed. It’s happen with majority of east asians.
Yea it’s vitamin D consumption from diet and UV rays reflecting from sea, ice, and snow. Done repeating myself. Read my citations.
What I’m denying RR, is that Vitamin D selection pressure is high enough to cause light skin. Vitamin D deficiency doesn’t kill like cancer does. Light skin is a lot more likely to be an attraction [sexual selection] pressure, not an elimination by death [natural selection] pressure like dark skin is. It seems to me like you’re forcing the theory to work where it doesn’t, hence the ad hoc.
There is no ad-hoc explanation here. It’s perfectly consistent with the hypothesis.
You’re wrong; vitamin D deficiencies affect humans at all points of our life history:
1) Vitamin D deficiency causes rickets and illness in the young affecting survivability;
2) Vitamin D deficiency causes infections, cancers, cardiovascular problems etc in those of reproductive age affecting survival;
3) Rickets causing pelvic deformities affecting fecundity; and
4) Due to osteoporosis, cancer, infections, autoimmune and cardiovascular disease etc, this affected longevity.
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.08.007
Vitamin D deficiency causes rickets and illness in the young affecting survivability
Except it didn’t:
there was no evidence of excessive rickets in the late Pleistocene and early Holocene, when humans were expanding northward
Try again!
Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence.
If people migrating North were more likely to get rickets, there’d be clear evidence in their bones. Since we have the bones, it’s not absence of evidence, it’s evidence of absence.
But maybe the rickets didn’t start until after agriculture, when people lost dietary sources of vitamin D.
But then we’d expect tropical hunter-gatherers to be darker skinned than tropical farmers (controlling for latitude).
If people migrating North were more likely to get rickets, there’d be clear evidence in their bones. Since we have the bones, it’s not absence of evidence, it’s evidence of absence.
Populations have diverged in skeletal morphology over fast periods on the scale of evolution and the archaeological record doesn’t reflect how it gradually happened. There are typically multiple thousands years gaps in the fossil record, you could not track the evolution with the accuracy of a time machine just from archaeological findings. That’s why genetic evidence is much more compelling, and it supports the VDH.
But maybe the rickets didn’t start until after agriculture, when people lost dietary sources of vitamin D.
That’s what happened in the case of Europe, more research is needed in the rest of the world.
But then we’d expect tropical hunter-gatherers to be darker skinned than tropical farmers (controlling for latitude).
No, because tropical hunter gatherers aren’t significantly more carnivorous than tropical farmers, and because solar radiation close to the equator is so strong that it provides enough vitamin D for vegetarians and it selects strongly against light skin because of the risk of sunburns and skin cancer.
Populations have diverged in skeletal morphology over fast periods on the scale of evolution and the archaeological record doesn’t reflect how it gradually happened.
But vitamin D theory makes a clear prediction: The ancestors of light skinned people should have more rickets. Since rickets is easy to detect in ancient skeletons, the failure to find this pattern undermines the theory.
That’s why genetic evidence is much more compelling, and it supports the VDH.
It supports it how? By showing skin colour is genetic? Who didn’t already know that? What’s lacking is strong evidence that vitamin D was the specific selection pressure.
That’s what happened in the case of Europe, more research is needed in the rest of the world.
So last week you were arguing that Europeans were whiter than arctic people because they ate less sea food and had less reflective snow, and this week it’s because they adopted agriculture. It just goes to show how ad hoc the vitamin D theory is. It’s so open-ended, that if one source of vitamin D can’t be proven, there’s always another one waiting to jump in.
No, because tropical hunter gatherers aren’t significantly more carnivorous than tropical farmers, and because solar radiation close to the equator is so strong that it provides enough vitamin D for vegetarians
How much is enough? Isn’t more still better? Vitamin D deficiency is still a problem in Africa.
and it selects strongly against light skin because of the risk of sunburns and skin cancer.
Everyone in the tropics would face selection for dark skin, but those who ate less vitamin D should face balancing selection for light skin, and thus be somewhat lighter on average.
Rickets deforms the female pelvis.
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/aa.1934.36.3.02a00100
Rickets was observed in antiquity; even if it were a 1 to 2.7 percent incidence rate, identified in the archaeological record, it still would have been enough to cause selective pressure, never mind other problems with vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D is, again, the only agent that can explain the differences in skin color around the world.
Click to access 0408d870ef1f22b74df6e1da8d4a8391d7ef.pdf
Also, the frequency of the FLG LoF (loss of function) variants do not correlate with latitude; FLG LoF variants also have no observable fitness effects:
https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/8/10/3240/2939580#87292793
“Until recently it was widely thought that vitamin D deficiency and cases of rickets were not present before the Industrial Revolution (Holick 2003), but advances in the use of historical texts and skeletal paleopathology have shown these assumptions to be incorrect (Giuffra et al. 2015; Ortner and Mays 1998; Steinbock 1993). Among anthropologists it is widely assumed that vitamin D deficiency occurred only once humans left Africa (Jablonski and Chaplin 2013).
[…]
Data reviewed here provide clear evidence that vitamin D deficiency has been present in human communities from the earliest time periods
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/691683
because tropical hunter gatherers aren’t significantly more carnivorous than tropical farmers
FALSE!
Why do you ignore sexual and artificial [human] selection pressures RR?
Sexual selection explains the dimorphism in skin color.
All the more reason why it would explain the colour itself, since sexual selection was operating.
It doesn’t. Peter Frost was rebutted there. I meant to post something on that last night but I fell asleep. Will provide later.
Genetic evidence supports the VDH. Light skin evolved independently 3 times: Europeans, Neanderthals, and East Asians.
“What’s lacking is strong evidence that vitamin D was the specific selection pressure.”
Again, vitamin D is the only agent that could explain the pattern.
The VDH is not ad hoc. You’re more than welcome to jump into the literature on the matter.
Genetic evidence supports the VDH. Light skin evolved independently 3 times: Europeans, Neanderthals, and East Asians.
That just proves that light skin was lo longer selected AGAINST once you leave the tropics. It doesn’t prove it was positively selected FOR let alone that the selection force was vitamin D. It could have been genetic drift as non-tropical people passed through bottlenecks or sexual selection for white skin in climates where being white was no longer hazardous.
Again, vitamin D is the only agent that could explain the pattern.
Sexual selection explain it too. And population size: with the emergence of agriculture there were enough people to mutate rare light skin variants which arctic people didn’t have given their low numbers. Once these variants appeared, they may have been sexually selected.
Yes it does. I showed thst Greenland Inuits are slowly becoming lighter.
Sexual selection can explain the dimorphism in skin color, but not the gradient seen throughout the world.
RR, if there’s sexual selection for white skin all over the world, but natural selection for dark skin in only sun damaging areas (tropics, arctic), then the gradient seen around the world is explained: light skin dominates in low UV areas cause there’s no natural selection for dark skin to balance the sexual selection for light skin.
”Sexual selection explain it too. And population size: with the emergence of agriculture there were enough people to mutate rare light skin variants which arctic people didn’t have given their low numbers. Once these variants appeared, they may have been sexually selected.”
Population size alone don’t explain why east asians don’t evolved to more variability of their skin color/general pigmentation as caucasians.
Remember that neanderthals, with their low demographic density and size, evolved/mutated to this pigmentation variability.
Emergence of agriculture not just increase the population size but itself also changed the type of selective pressure, for example, increasing ”self”-domestication, and domestication is related with pigmentation changes.
Sexual selection can be by
laboral specialization among sexes [sexual dimorphism]
masculine competition.
Arctic mongoloid women are more equal to men or otherwise*
Lighter pigmentation among women and less among men seems a general human pattern.
Neanderthals had 400,000 years for light skin mutations to occur, so didn’t need big population
“That just proves that light skin was lo longer selected AGAINST once you leave the tropics. It doesn’t prove it was positively selected FOR let alone that the selection force was vitamin D.”
Basically this. I would go into more detail [regarding sexual selection theory for light skin] but all further input I have on the topic is just-so story so I won’t. The most I can say is this, and I think you going further into Vitamin D [with ad hoc theories to counter all challenges] is going further into just-so story territory.
How is what I’m saying about vitamin D reflecting off surfaces and their diet ad hoc? It’s called the *vitamin D hypothesis.*
“RR, if there’s sexual selection for white skin all over the world, but natural selection for dark skin in only sun damaging areas (tropics, arctic), then the gradient seen around the world is explained: light skin dominates in low UV areas cause there’s no natural selection for dark skin to balance the sexual selection for light skin.”
Yes exactly.
See my comment on VDR and skin color genes. Was VDR sexually selected?
https://pumpkinperson.com/2018/05/15/arctic-skin-color-and-the-vitamin-d-hypothesis-by-race-realist/#comment-90530
Fenoopy, that the VDH can counter all counters to it doesn’t mean it’s ad hoc.
.
Peter Frost was rebutted on his hypothesis. The study was on skin reflectance. I have it in my notes on my laptop, I’ll give the citation later.
And as I’ve said numerous times, genomic evidence from Neanderthals independently verifies the VDH.
PP,
“natural selection for dark skin in only sun damaging areas (tropics, arctic)”
Inuits are recent migrants. Diet, reflectance of UV off surfaces etc. I’ll go in depth later when I get home and cite the evidence against sexual selection.
VDR was not sexually selected but if VDR is one of the causes of light skin, it might have been a spandrel of sexual selection for light skin.
The Neanderthals verify that light skin evolves at higher latitudes, but they don’t specifically confirm the vitamin D hypothesis since there could have been sexual selection for light skin in Neanderthals too (which only gained traction at high latitudes where dark skin wasn’t needed)
Metabolism is different in cold climate than hot climate. If you watch the show The Ice Man, he is from Poland and he climbed Mount Everest in shorts to the peak. He can be in a box of ice 2 hours and not lose core temperature. This is an example of how whites could survive cold winters and hunt with no clothes or near none. White skin like white fur on animals would be adaptive along with maintaining core temperature. I suppose assortative mating helps too. If your super white and you meet another super white person you may prefer them to less white males and females around you. People just want to be around people like them. Look at all the white ethnicities there are. Very different. Migration and ethnicity are heavily influenced by assortative mating and environmental selection.
“Metabolism is different in cold climate than hot climate”
I know.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/30/human-physiological-adaptations-to-climate/
“sexual selection for light skin.”
We tested the hypothesis that human sexual dimorphism of skin color should be positively correlated with distance from the equator, a proposal generated by the sexual selection hypothesis. We found no support for that proposition. Before this paper was written, the sexual selection hypothesis was based on stated male preference data in a number of human groups. Here, we focused on the actual pattern of sexual dimorphism. We report that the distribution of human sexual dimorphism in relation to latitude is not that which is predicted by the sexual selection hypothesis. According to that hypothesis, in areas of low solar radiation, there should be greater sexual dimorphism, because sexual selection for lighter females is not counterbalanced by natural selection for dark skin. Our data analysis does not support this prediction.
Click to access Madrigal%20L%20and%20Kelly%20W%20132%20470%20482%202007.pdf
According to that hypothesis, in areas of low solar radiation, there should be greater sexual dimorphism, because sexual selection for lighter females is not counterbalanced by natural selection for dark skin. Our data analysis does not support this prediction.
This only undermines sexual selection if it’s assumed that only light skinned women are attractive. If light skinned men are also attractive, though to a lesser degree, we would not expect dimorphism to increase in low solar areas.
The hypothesis was falsified. Read the paper.
nearly 100% of ”rretard papers” are extremely confuse even to make a simple conclusion…
Not a response.
Sexual selection also cannot explain the gradient of skin color seen. That agent does not account for it, but the agent of vitamin D does. Again, read my comment on VDR and how VDR affects skin color genes. Byproduct explanations are just-so stories too if they can’t be independently verified. The cites paper fully rebut the sexual selection hypothesis of skin color.
I’m going to read it when I have time because I’m very busy this week, but I highly doubt it rebuts anything. Can you explain in short-hand why exactly it rebuts sexual selection?
The ozone layer prevents most harmful UVB wavelengths of ultraviolet light (UV light) from passing through the Earth’s atmosphere.
UVB IS MORE INTENSE IN POLAR REGIONS AND IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
DRRR!
NO MENTION OF THE OZONE HOLE OVER THE NORTH POLE.
RR MUST ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE JEWS THAT THIS HOLE IS SOMETHING ENTIRELY MAN MADE.
SAD!
I thought the ozone hole was only in Antarctica.
it’s just bigger over antarctica than over the north pole.
it’s been so big that it has included punta arenas. i recall a bbc reporter saying how the sun stung even though punta arenas is at the same latitude as liverpool.
besides, the inuit are NOT dark skinned.
and the sami are lighter skinned than the inuit.
THE contradiction rr has not addressed is why these arctic peoples aren’t bigger. they follow allen’s rule but they do not follow bergmann’s rule.
allen’s rule also explains the bbc. afro doesn’t need air conditioning. when it gets really hot in nante afro just whips it out.
It makes sense for smaller, stockier bodies to have an advantage in the cold.
stockier but not smaller…unless larger human bodies can’t be as stocky as smaller ones.
the largest bear and the largest deer (the moose) both live partly in the arctic.
also the siberian tiger is the world’s largest land predator and a fortiori larger than any other feline.
he is the hakuho of cats.
i should have been corrected.
the polar bear is heavier than the siberian tiger. and i suppose that the polar bear doesn’t eat anything other than meat…whereas other bears do?
siberian tiger: 701 to 847 lbs
polar bear: 772 to 1,543 lbs
Although grizzlies are of the order Carnivora and have the digestive system of carnivores, they are normally omnivores: their diets consist of both plants and animals.
and from the pov of a human i can say…
i would not be afraid that a polar bear would eat me. or not much.
but a tiger is f—ing scary.
the largest predator iirc is the orca, the killer whale.
also the smallest bear lives in tropical se asia, the sun bear.
but the smallest dear lives in temperate chile.
bergmann’s and allen’s rules are both the result of selection for a lower surface area to volume ratio in cold climates.
for a given series of congruent shapes, the perimeter or the surface area fall relative to volume as volume increases. this is bergmann’s rule.
the smallest deer is the southern pudu. it lives near puerto montt. temperate.

whereas the largest rodent (capybara) and the largest primate (gorilla) live on the equator. nutria are also large tropical rodents, but they lived in the millrace near my college dorm.
would be interesting to know if beavers (second largest rodent i would guess) in far northern canada and alaska are bigger than those in florida. bergmann’s rule originally applied only within one species, the moose (of sweden).
beavers were introduced to chile from canada in 1946, i suppose for their fur. they have thriven.
as may have been alluded to a reason for their diminutiveness may be that they have not been in the arctic for very long.
That probably has a lot to do with it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2017/11/09/how-the-black-death-caused-medieval-women-to-shrink/#810eda41c3bf
Shocking news: disease and physiologic stress causes problems.
melo,
“P1 ad hoc hyohtesis cannot be independently verified,
P2 All historical hypothesis are Ad hoc
P3 VDH is Ad hoc
C1 VDH cannot be independently verified”
Garbage.
VDH was independently verified:
Click to access 0408d870ef1f22b74df6e1da8d4a8391d7ef.pdf
“You just stated AD hoc hypothesis cannot be independently verified so why is VDH exempt from this rule? Either you are bias or have misinterpreted the literature.”
The VDH isn’t ad hoc. The VDH isn’t “exempt”, the VDH was independently verified with molecular genetics. I’m not biased (appeal to motive) and I didn’t misinterpret the literature. I’ve shown the definition of ad hoc hypothesis, a hypothesis that cannot be independently verified of the data it purports to explain. The VDH has been independently verified, therefore it’s not a just-so story.
Nope. You stated that Ad hoc cannot be indepenently verified as in no observation can verify them. All Historical science is AD hoc, therefore VDH is Ad hoc
This is why I asked for the distinction between ‘have not’ and ‘would never’ if you actually meant the former than that means VDH can be independently verified but that also means EP hypothesis can too, which I’ve provided evidence of some EP hypothesis being independently verified, like Schizophrenia as a byproduct.
What’s ad hoc about the VDH?
I don’t think it is. i was just stating the implications of your backward ass logic.
So there’s no objection.
i was just stating the implications of …
^^^AUTISM^^^
one thing a non-nerd never does is post on “what women want” on peepee’s blog…
unless they’re, trans like peepee.
how can i, a trans male, con women to have sex with me?
IT’S SIMPLE PEEPEE!
YOU’VE GOT IT OR YOU DON’T.
A DICK.
SAD!
“A byproduct of what? What evidence would convince you … for breastfeeding and for the mother’s own overall health.”
I want to see real life statistics, not theories. Skin cancer statistics are real. Infant morality rates of Blacks in Canada would be real. Show me that Blacks are at a disadvantage living in a cold climate in the real world, not the theoretical one.
“I want to see real life statistics, not theories. Skin cancer statistics are real.”
Theories aren’t real?
“Show me that Blacks are at a disadvantage living in a cold climate in the real world, not the theoretical one.”
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/05/06/race-and-vitamin-d-deficiency/
Vitamin D insufficiency is more prevalent among African Americans (blacks) than other Americans and, in North America, most young, healthy blacks do not achieve optimal 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations at any time of year.
https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/136/4/1126/4664238
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/750013
https://www.nature.com/articles/jp201664.pdf?origin=ppub
So what could skin color be a byproduct of?
Sexual selection for light skin and environmental selection for dark skin explains all in a simple sentence. To work, your theory needs a hundred supporting ad hoc theories. Vitamin D doesn’t explain skin color variance between genders, let alone the stark skin color variation within the same ethnic group. The higher classes of any ethnicity are almost universally lighter skinned than the lower classes.
That said, I’ve already made up my mind [I will however read your papers later just in case] and I know you won’t change your mind.
“Sexual selection for light skin and environmental selection for dark skin explains all in a simple sentence.”
If it were true then there would be a positive correlation between sexual dimorphism in skin color and distance from the equator. There is no positive correlation between sexual dimorphism in skin color and distance from the equator. Therefore the sexual selection hypothesis for skin color has been refuted.
“That said, I’ve already made up my mind [I will however read your papers later just in case]”
It’s cool you, don’t have to. The VDH is already false according to you and you’ve made up your mind so don’t waste your time reading it and go do something more productive since it won’t change your kind.
“I know you won’t change your mind”
I will with sufficient arguments. I’ve yet to see them. Either way check out my comment on VDR and genes and get back to me because that’s yet to be addressed.
If it were true then there would be a positive correlation between sexual dimorphism in skin color and distance from the equator
If only women were sexually selected for light skin we’d expect dimorphism to increase as we move from equator
But if both sexes equally sexually selected for light skin there’d be no dimorphism anywhere
But if men were sexually selected but not as much as women, we’d expect dimorphism to be everywhere yet not increase as we moved from equator
There is no positive correlation. Therefore it’s falsified. My points on VDR are apt here as well. The adaptation occurs due to need for vitamin D. You’ve yet to address what I wrote on VDR and skin color genes and how VDR affects gene expression. That further buttresses the argument I’ve made regarding skin color and vitamin D. The only agent that can explain the skin color observation is vitamin D. No other agent can account for the skin color observation. (Don’t even get me started on Rushton and Templer 2012 : https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/02/15/do-pigmentation-and-the-melanocortin-system-modulate-aggression-and-sexuality-in-humans-as-they-do-in-other-animals-a-response-to-rushton-and-templer-2012/)
“It’s cool you, don’t have to. The VDH is already false according to you and you’ve made up your mind so don’t waste your time reading it and go do something more productive since it won’t change your kind. ”
Sounding like Melo now, RR.
If you’ve made up your mind already what’s the point of reading the paper?
“If it were true then there would be a positive correlation between sexual dimorphism in skin color and distance from the equator”
PP usually writes retarded just-so stories just for fun, but PP can understand basic logic at the very least. You’re delving into studies and ignoring the most basic deductions even a child could make. I don’t know how you can write this sentence and not squint. Maybe this is the difference between PP’s 135 Raven’s and your 126.
“There is no positive correlation. Therefore it’s falsified.”
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
The hypothesis that skin color dimorphism is due to sexual selection is falsified due to the fact that there is no positive correlation with sexual dimorphism in skin color and distance from the equator. What I wrote is not a just-so story. There’s nothing wrong with the sentence I wrote.
My 135 IQ was on the Wechsler not Raven. RR has not taken Raven but his scores range from IQ 60 (SAT) to IQ 120 (Gestalt test i gave readers)
Click to access Madrigal%20L%20and%20Kelly%20W%20132%20470%20482%202007.pdf
sub-human paper, idiots shouldn’t be allowed to do science
Solid argument.
“The hypothesis that skin color dimorphism is due to sexual selection is falsified due to the fact that there is no positive correlation with sexual dimorphism in skin color and distance from the equator.”
“We tested the hypothesis that human sexual dimorphism of skin color should be positively correlated with distance from the equator, a proposal generated by the sexual selection hypothesis”
Why should it be positively correlated with distance from the equator, RR? How exactly does sexual selection of light skin in humans necessarily mean “skin color dimorphism should correlate with distance from the equator”?
If I’m wrong I’ll write touche and change my views, but you’re making me raise my eyebrows here.
Whoops, that’s not an argument it’s just a waste of my time. Step your game up, Fenoopy. Address my VDR arguments.
“Why should it be positively correlated with distance from the equator, RR? How exactly does sexual selection of light skin in humans necessarily mean “skin color dimorphism should correlate with distance from the equator”?”
Because the proposed argument is that as migrations occurred OoA, selection for skin color was sexual, not natural. Numerous authors have proposed that skin color should show this dimorphism as distance from the equator increases but it’s not true.
Why should it be positively correlated with distance from the equator, RR? How exactly does sexual selection of light skin in humans necessarily mean “skin color dimorphism should correlate with distance from the equator”?
Let’s chill with the insults for a second, I’m genuinely curious. Please answer my question. I can’t understand this and can’t continue without understand what you’re trying to tell me here.
It is proposed that sexual selection regarding skin color dimorphism would increase as one moves from the equator. This isn’t what we observe. Therefore the hypothesis is falsified. It’s what was proposed by the proponents of the sexual selection skin color hypothesis. Frost et al state that environmental selection relaxes as peoples migrate north and what explains the skin color gradation is sexual selection. It’s false.
“Numerous authors have proposed that skin color should show this dimorphism as distance from the equator increases but it’s not true.”
They’re stupid and wrong and their predictions are false, yes.
So we agree?
Ignore the repeat of the question above, comments were published in the wrong order, this conversation is a little hard to follow.
Claim: “skin color should show dimorphism as distance from the equator increases”
“So we agree?”
Presuming that’s the claim, yes, it’s false. There is no increased dimorphism as distance from the equator increases, established fact. I don’t agree with you on any of the Vitamin D points though.
Yes that’s the claim pushed by those who advocate the sexual selection hypothesis. Why don’t you agree with my points on vitamin D? What about the VDR? If the agent of vitamin D can’t explain the observed gradation, then what does?
Among singles, women are 53%, men are 47%.
meaningless or false.
at what age is the sex ratio .47/.53 = .89?
answer: ca 70
did you count that time at the citgo bathroom glory hole? i did.
I’ll will be making new arguments on my blog on the vitamin D receptor and skin color tonight which will further buttress my argument as a whole regarding the VDH.
Fenoopy, since there is no positive correlation regarding skin color dimorphism and distance from the equator the hypothesis that sexual selection explains the skin color gradation is falsified. Again, the only agent that can explain the observation is vitamin D. Check my arguments and citations I made regarding the vitamin D receptor.
“Fenoopy, since there is no positive correlation regarding skin color dimorphism and distance from the equator the hypothesis that sexual selection explains the skin color gradation is falsified.”
What kind of leap in logic is this? The difference in skin color between male & female niggers is greater than the difference in skin color between male & female crackers, therefore the MASSIVE difference in skin color between niggers and crackers in general, correlated with distance from the equator is falsified
?????????????
two completely different variables here honey
What do you mean what kind of leap in logic? Again, the proposed hypothesis is that sexual dimorphism increases as distance from Africa increases. This is false therefore their study falsifies the sexual selection hypothesis based on the available data.
If you have arguments against mine regarding the VDR and skin color genes, I’m all ears.
“the proposed hypothesis is that sexual dimorphism increases as distance from Africa increases”
No it isn’t? The proposed hypothesis is that light skin is sexually selected for; to the extent that natural selection against it allows.
No it isn’t. Sexual selection cannot explain the observed skin color gradation. The agent vitamin D can, and it’s the only agent that can account for the observation. Again, my points on VDR are apt. VDH skeptics have yet to address is.
My claim: “light skin is sexually selected for; to the extent that natural selection against it allows.”
Your response: “Sexual selection cannot explain the observed skin color gradation.”
It doesn’t, natural selection [for dark skin] explains the gradation. Sexual selection for light skin always progresses to be as light as it’s permitted to be.
“Sexual selection for light skin always progresses to be as light as it’s permitted to be.”
How if there’s no positive correlation?
Madrigal and Kelly found that the most dimorphism in skin color was observed in medium populations at medium latitude.
I’m not speaking about dimorphism at all, I’m not sure how it keeps coming into the conversation. I’m referring to general skin color of the population.
Fenoopy, put simply, RR thinks sexual selection can only make women white (since he thinks whiteness is only valued in women). Since men became white too, sexual selection can not be the explanation.
The reasoning is logical but the premise is highly questionable.
Fenoopy, that’s what the hypothesis predicts. What’s the argument that sexual selection can explain the graduation in skin color over the hypothesis that skin lightened in women first for vitamin D efficiency which ensured enough calcium for lactation and pregnancy?
PP, pretty much. The selection was for skin color. VDR is crucial for human adaptation to vitamin D. VDR and skin color genes are epistatic. That further buttresses my argument.
PP, pretty much.
Except you realize your argument depends on the questionable assumption that light skin is only sexually valued in women?
VDR is crucial for human adaptation to vitamin D. VDR and skin color genes are epistatic. That further buttresses my argument.
No one disputes that light skin is better for vitamin D, but that doesn’t prove it evolved for that reason. That could have just been a nice byproduct.
I explained why it first appeared in women. Vitamin D synthesis is why.
“That could have been a byproduct.”
Byproduct of what? Genomic evidence falsifies a byproduct hypothesis.
I don’t believe it’s a byproduct like PP does, it is a pressure [undeniable fact given there are survival advantages and survival advantages are necessarily selected for by the environment no matter how small, all it takes is one incidence] albeit a very weak one, I contest that:
1. It’s the only pressure, let alone the most important one
2. It’s the primary pressure
Your theory ignores all other pressures and singles out Vitamin D as the only and primary selection pressure, in my humble opinion Vitamin D selection is a very weak pressure compared to the intense pressure of human cosmetic selection [so strong in humans it can almost be dysgenic]. A peacock’s feathers are just one example of strong sexual selection pressure.
“Your theory ignores all other pressures and singles out Vitamin D as the only and primary selection pressure, in my humble opinion Vitamin D selection is a very weak pressure compared to the intense pressure of human cosmetic selection [so strong in humans it can almost be dysgenic]. A peacock’s feathers are just one example of strong sexual selection pressure.”
Does the color of the peacock make the peacock produce an important steroid? The color of humans makes them produce a certain steroid in certain climates. There is no analog with human skin color and peacock color.
And your opinion on vitamin D production being “a very weak pressure” shows your own ignorance to the physiology of the steroid in the human body.
Yes, the entire basis of my argument is that I believe:
1. Sexual selection is a very strong pressure
2. Lack of Vitamin D isn’t lethal to the individual or their reproductive ability
If there’s evidence that lack of Vitamin D is as lethal as waltzing around in Sahara desert sun with European skin tone, I could be convinced Vitamin D is the primary pressure but I don’t believe there is.
“Lack of Vitamin D isn’t lethal to the individual or their reproductive ability”
False.
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/aa.1934.36.3.02a00100
“I could be convinced Vitamin D is the primary pressure but I don’t believe there is.”
You only need to know physiology. You can also read this paper and the others I’ve cited.
Amazing how all the blacks have survived in north america for so long with black skin being so lethal at this latitude
Is what I said wrong?
Here’s the most recent review on the hypothesis. Coincidentally enough, the authors make the same arguments I did on VDR and skin color.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/10/5/554/htm
Vitamin D deficiencies for females wouldn’t just show deformed pelves due to rickets. See other comments.
The hypothesis is most definitely important when explaining disease disparities.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/05/06/race-and-vitamin-d-deficiency/
RR can you actually show me real world evidence? Like skin cancer statistics? Or rickets statistics in Blacks in Canada? Something real, not a theory.
Its clear what selected for Vit D was education and eliminating urban poverty. If this didn’t happen we would still all be black. It just goes to show the power of education.
“According to Gates, one of the biggest issues in public education is inequality. “Melinda and I made public education our top priority in the U.S. because we wanted to do something about the disparity in achievement and post-secondary success for students of color and low-income students,” he says. “That inequity persists today, and we are just as determined now to eliminate it as we were when we started.”
Heckuva job Bill!
I didn’t read all the comments but why would we find white skin more attractive in first order ?
What is the universal advantage of having white skin that would make people all around the world more attracted to it ?
What is the universal advantage of having white skin that would make people all around the world more attracted to it ?
When traits have an obvious survival advantage, you don’t need sexual selection to explain why they evolved, the survival itself explains it. Darwin created sexual selection theory to explain why traits with no obvious survival advantage were selected, such as a peacock’s feathers. Since Darwin couldn’t see any survival value, he assumed they were selected not because they helped with survival (natural selection) but because they helped with attracting mates (sexual selection). In other words, some traits are selected because they’re pretty, not useful.
“explain why traits with no obvious survival advantage were selected”
But might skin has an obvious survival advantage in colder climates. Sexual selection is secondary, light skin facilitates vitamin D synthesis which ensures enough calcium for pregnancy and lactation. That’s the primary cause.
Concerning peacock’s feathers I thought they were seen as a sign of strenght because they were clearly a disadvantage so male that could afford this were perceived as stronger. Something along those lines.
They’re very colorful so I assume they evolved to get mates. They’re also very disadvantageous because they can be spotted by predators and make it hard to move quickly. A trait that reduces survival by 50% can still be passed down if it increases mates by 200%, because the whole point of survival is to reproduce.
In my opinion all peacocks of all races look equally handsome and to say otherwise is bordering on racist.
I don’t think there’s any survival advantage, though it may help with Vitamin D synthesis.
PP’s peacock explanation is good.
African slaves were worth significantly more than Irish slaves as they didn’t burn in the sun and were suitable for field work.
Lighter skin is a sign of higher class as lighter skin is unsuitable for field work.
This is part of the reason why lighter skin is so sought after in China.
It isn’t a trait exclusive to Europeans at all, though Europeans do benefit from it (stemming from the Middle Eastern Chechens in the Caucus, Circassian girls and youths considered to be the most beautiful, etc)
Today a tan is considered beautiful in Europe because a tan is associated with social class [money for holidays, cosmetics, exotic quality etc] though dark skin is still considered low-class
“I don’t think there’s any survival advantage, though it may help with Vitamin D synthesis.”
“There is no survival advantage, except maybe vitamin D synthesis.” Doesn’t make sense.
That is the primary cause light skin evolved. You’ve not presented any arguments in favor of sexual selection over adaptation to climate.
I know Vitamin D is a survival advantage, though I don’t feel it was a primary advantage or strong enough to be a selection pressure. There’s a small chance may be right RR, just there’s no conclusive evidence and I don’t feel convinced at all. Sexual selection is a strong pressure and your theory completely ignores it. The most likely answer is a combination of pressures lead to light skin, ignoring nothing.
“your theory completely ignores it.”
It’s secondary to the adaptation of skin color to climate. Again, that the VDR and skin color genes are epistatic buttresses my point.
Ultimate cause:vitamin D synthesis.
Secondary cause: sexual selection.
Though, again, the hypothesis was falsified. Sexual selection for women occurred after vitamin D synthesis which ensured more calcium for pregnancy and lactation. What’s the argument against it?
Nevermind the novel fact the VDH predicted: that hominins that migrated OoA would have light skin. Molecular genetic evidence corrobates this.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/05/06/cold-winter-theory-the-vitamin-d-hypothesis-and-the-prediction-of-novel-facts/
Sexual and natural/vitamin synthesis OFTEN occur at the same time… i don’t think it’s possible only select for sexual traits but not for non-sexual issues, even because reproduction/sex is absolutely important for all sexual life forms, so…
a possible semantic trap here
sexual and natural selection is often the same
it’s just like the difference between religion and culture, their co-occurence is such a robust pattern.
rr think vitamin synthesis COME BACK probably because lighter skinned people live more and was being more selected than darker skinned… Another possible factor is: self domestication. All humans are ”self”-domesticated to be capable to cooperate decently in their communities but some self-domesticated more than others.
But, too fair skin don’t appear to be advantageous or have a blue eye, even there are some studies showing average-advantages, but it’s seems very conjectural.
Another argument for more-sexual selection is
gracilization of eurasian faces.
Caucasian ”big” noses, even many people dislike, tend to shape a good looking.
BEFORE and not ”back”
lighter skinned SURVIVE more, and not live more, even… whatev
It’s not a “semantic trap”; light skin was needed first in order to ensure enough calcium for pregnancy and lactation and if the mother did not have enough vitamin D, the fetus took the calcium from the mother’s bones.
Something everyone here needs to understand is that we’ve been naked for largely our whole evolutionary history. So it’s obvious that UVR caused natural selection on skin color.
No, traits are survival selected, sexually selected, and selected by colonialism. As we all know the legacy of colonialism hangs heavy on the shoulders of all animals, especially marsupials and cranes.
and as i’ve commented before…
bergmann’s rule is confirmed in europe and in the new world, north AND south.
and confirmed in greater china.
it’s NOT just desperation or an accident that mongols have dominated sumo for the last 15 years.
nor that mongols are the most “successful” mass murderers in history.
the large body throws off heat MUCH less efficiently than the small body.
icelanders are the biggest people in europe on average…
so i imagine that if the inuit had been in the arctic for 24k years, rather than 12k years…
they would make hakuho look like gary coleman/afro.
So inuit have not been in arctic long enough to display Bergmann’s rule, yet have been in the arctic long enough to be the quintessential example of Allen’s rule?
And yet in the past you blamed the large brains of arctic people on Bergmann’s rule.
And inuits have been in the arctic longer than Icelanders have been in Iceland. Europe’s current population is overwhelmingly descended from Middle Eastern farmers who almost completely replaced the locals some 5000 years ago.
The Inuit are descendants of the Thule culture who came from Western Siberia 1kya.
”And inuits have been in the arctic longer than Icelanders have been in Iceland.
The Inuit are descendants of the Thule culture who came from Western Siberia 1kya.”
Siberia = arctic or near…
Many people already perceived that rr often repeat same sentences… weird.
Because it’s true? Weird…
Yes your rrepetition is true
Ulaanbaatar is the world’s coldest capital city.
Vitamin D and folate have differing sensitivities to UVR. Vitamin D can be synthesized following UVR exposure, folate may be degraded. So the VDH proposes that the two differing skin colors (light and dark) evolved at differing latitudes as a “balancing mechanism” to maintain adequate levels of the two agents vitamin D and folate. Since adequate levels of vitamin D and folate were maintained, there would be no ill health effects after migrating into colder climates. Vitamin D and folate both act as photoprotectors of the skin and can decrease environmental stressors. Vitamin D also exerts important effects on adipocites—both types—which then further aid in human physiologic adaptations to the cold. Perhaps most importantly, the VDR and skin color genes are epistatic—the VDR is imperative in the human body’s adaptation to new climates.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/05/20/the-vitamin-d-receptor-and-the-updated-vdh/
In real science you need evidence of causality or better, CAUSATION, what was already caused, to validate given hypothesis.
What you are repeating here is correlations [light skin and cold places] and its effects [light skin seems better adapted to cold places… BUT NOT dark skinned].
But many of this adaptations don’t mean that people cannot adapt, what PP said about dark skinned people living in cold places, such dark skinned mongoloid people in Himalaya’s altitudes…
Many of this adaptations happened in subsequent periods but it’s doesn’t mean all them are uber-restricted, i mean, ”light skinned appeared in tempered/to cold places, so… if light skinned people was placed in tropical places the will perish in faster speed and will replaced by darked skinned or in the opposite hypothetical scenario”.
Are you suggesting that light skin cannot be sexually selected only-naturally*
Did you read my new article?
We know why light skin is needed for vitamin D synthesis. We now know the physiological processes of these vitamins/steroid. They’re the only agents to explain skin gradation.
What else explains it better? Please, enlighten me.
We know why light skin is needed for vitamin D synthesis.
We also know that light skin is considered attractive which supports sexual selection
We now know the physiological processes of these vitamins/steroid.
We know the physiological process of sexual selection: Sex
They’re the only agents to explain skin gradation.
Other than sexual selection which would produce the exact same gradient since in places with less skin burning sun, sexual selection for white skin gains traction
What else explains it better? Please, enlighten me.
Sexual selection explains it about as well. Yes vitamin D is a plausible theory, but nothing you’ve said proves it’s significantly more plausible than sexual selection.
“We also know that light skin is considered attractive which supports sexual selection”
This doesn’t rebut anything about synthesis of vitamin D and light skin. The hypothesis was falsified.
“We know the physiological process of sexual selection: Sex”
And? The physiology 9f the discussed agents points to adaptation to climate. Please jump into the physiology of this stuff to prove me wrong. I’d love to see that.
“Other than sexual selection which would produce the exact same gradient since in places with less skin burning sun, sexual selection for white skin gains traction”
But it doesn’t. Read Madrigal and Kelly (2007).
“Sexual selection explains it about as well. Yes vitamin D is a plausible theory, but nothing you’ve said proves it’s significantly more plausible than sexual selection.”
No it doesn’t. Vitamin D is the only agent to explain it. Sexual selection cannot explain the observed gradation and its definitely more plausible than sexual selection which has been falsified.
Also see the physiological functions of vitamin D on adipose tissue.
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2016.08.004
Vitamin D regulates adipogenesis and adipocite apoptosis. Tetrahydrobiopterin also acts as a cofactor in the synthesis of nitric oxide which is important in regard to vasoconstriction (blood vessel constriction). Vasoconstriction is related to increased heat flow since blood vessels are constricted, along with an increase in heart rate. So, with the advent of light skin when migrating into low UVB climates, vitamin D synthesis further helped our ancestors adapt physiologically to the cold.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/30/human-physiological-adaptations-to-climate/
I don’t think you understand what i said. I said: yes, it’s also happened, but it was a historical evolutionary highlights, it doesn’t mean that a dark skinned person would not survive in cold places in any instances or light skinned in hot places [not so light skinned]. Light skin don’t appear to be ”just” a product of environmental adaptation but also increased self-domestication process and sexual selection. Self domestication process is correlated with lighter skin as well sexual selection, and yes, women tend to be fairer than men and, seems, in all human populations.
How to explain dark skinned tibetans who live/adapt in cold and hilly places* or even dark skinned amerindians*
Maybe light skinned is less likely to survive in hot places but not the opposite, dark skinned is not less likely to survive in cold places..
Tibet experiences high UVR on the plateau.
https://books.google.com/books?id=L1bPx8djLVkC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=Nina+Jablonski+Tibetan+skin+color&source=bl&ots=M5ZLzFZIAk&sig=DZI2WrCRodVRLrasAtXQ4AAKGr0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiX_cnXkJfbAhWCnFkKHeFuCJw4ChDoATAFegQIAxAB#v=onepage&q=Nina%20Jablonski%20Tibetan%20skin%20color&f=false
American Indians, like the Inuit, are recent migrants.
My arguments in my new article explain what you’re speaking of in this comment. Read it and quote what you have a problem with then we can discuss
RR, the problem is there are two plausible selection mechanisms for light skin: vitamin D and sexual selection, and you’re just arbitrarily deciding vitamin D is the better theory.
It’s no different from big heads evolving in cold climates: did they evolve for thermoregulation or because they made people smart enough to survive cold. Both plausible, but you just arbitrarily favour one theory over another.
Before you said it was impossible to know if a trait was an adaptation or a byproduct, but when it comes to light skin and big heads, you seem 100% certain which it is.
Sexual selection is secondary to light skin being needed for vitamin D synthesis. I’ve showed that the proposal for the sexual selection skin color hypothesis was falsified. The only agent that can explain the gradation is vitamin D, folate, VDR and genes working in concert to have humans adapt to new climates.
I’m certain skin color is an adaptation to UVR since I know the physiology behind the proposed agents. You can either show me where the logic is wrong there or concede to me.
Sexual selection is secondary to light skin being needed for vitamin D synthesis. I’ve showed that the proposal for the sexual selection skin color hypothesis was falsified.
All you showed was that sexual dimorphism for skin color fails to increase with equatorial distance. This only falsifies sexual selection if sexual selection were exclusively driven by female beauty. If male light skin is attractive too, you’ve falsified nothing. Do you see what I’m saying? I only ask because I’ve had to repeat this point several times.
The only agent that can explain the gradation is vitamin D, folate, VDR and genes working in concert to have humans adapt to new climates.
See above
I’m certain skin color is an adaptation to UVR since I know the physiology behind the proposed agents.
No one is disputing the physiology RR. What we’re disputing is whether that selection pressure was strong enough to cause such a rapid change in color, especially when there are viable alternative explanations.
You can either show me where the logic is wrong there or concede to me.
The logic is wrong because you assume a plausible selection pressure is necessarily the strongest or only selection pressure
“This only falsifies sexual selection if sexual selection were exclusively driven by female beauty. If male light skin is attractive too, you’ve falsified nothing.”
If light skin was attractive in both sexes but light skin conferred no survival benefit in the new location it would not be selected for. My points on lactation and pregnancy regarding vitamin D explain how sexual selection is secondary, not primary.
How can *just sexual selection* explain the observed gradation? No other agent combined with it? Only selection by sex?
“What we’re disputing is whether that selection pressure was strong enough to cause such a rapid change in color, especially when there are viable alternative explanations.”
What viable alternatives? I’ve shown that the so-called competing hypotheses overlap with the VDH and so they were integrated into the hypothesis. How can sexual selection explain the observed gradation? Enlighten me.
“The logic is wrong because you assume a plausible selection pressure is necessarily the strongest or only selection pressure”
I’ve stated that sexual selection is secondary, light skin for vitamin D synthesis is primary, along with the physiological processes of vitamin D on the adipocites and gene expression which have us adapt to those new climates. The updates hypothesis, in my opinion, will be extremely tough to refute. Just saying “what about sexual selection” doesn’t cut it because it’s all laid out in that article. The physiological processes of vitamin D, folate and the interaction between those agents and the VDR and genes.
“light skin conferred no survival benefit in the new location it would not be selected for.”
Light skin is associated with higher class in nearly every human society. There are differences in skin color between the higher and lower classes in nearly every race.
Many cultures have historically favored lighter skin for women. Before the Industrial Revolution, inhabitants of the continent of Europe preferred pale skin, which they interpreted as a sign of high social status. The poorer classes worked outdoors and got darker skin from exposure to the sun, while the upper class stayed indoors and had light skin. Hence light skin became associated with wealth and high position.
Women would put lead-based cosmetics on their skin to whiten their skin tone artificially. However, when not strictly monitored, these cosmetics caused lead poisoning. Other methods also aimed at achieving a light-skinned appearance, including the use of arsenic to whiten skin, and powders. Women would wear full-length clothes when outdoors, and would utilize gloves and parasols.
This isn’t a modern phenomenon. It isn’t exclusive to Europeans. Light skin color is strongly associated with social class.
basically light skin is shit in physical qualities but pretty. surviving with shit quality skin means high class because how else did you do it? if you get put in the fields like an irish slave you cook like a rotisserie chicken and that’s the end of you — but if you’re a slave master, having irish skin doesn’t put you at a disadvantage so isn’t weeded out of the gene pool
indian priests are lighter by FAR than indian low-caste field workers and rice pickers, those guys are so black they look almost like [redacted by pp, may 21, 2018]
field worker
slave master
how did the difference between those two women arise RR? the light girl lived in the mountains and needed some vitamin d ?
by your theory she should be blacker than afrosapiens, same UV exposure as fucking nigeria
and indeed, the black indian IS blacker than afrosapiens. vitamin d definitely has physiological benefits but i have yet to see negroe skin peeling off and getting cancer because lack of vitamin d in canada (figure of speech, don’t take it literally). the white indian should burn into a crisp but she’s high class, she doesn’t go out in the scorching sun and when she does it isn’t for extended periods like slave [redacted by pp, may 21, 2018] indians have to do when picking cotton. easy logic to follow
“Light skin is associated with higher class in nearly every human society. There are differences in skin color between the higher and lower classes in nearly every race
Hence light skin became associated with wealth and high position”
So what?
“how did the difference between those two women arise RR? the light girl lived in the mountains and needed some vitamin d ?”
I don’t know. How? Sexual selection? What’s the argument?
“by your theory she should be blacker than afrosapiens, same UV exposure as fucking Nigeria”
Exposure to UVR doesn’t cause dark skin? What does?
It’s been a long time, Jimmy. How you been?
”American Indians, like the Inuit, are recent migrants.”
Recent migrants from the same environment type… do you can deal with this*
And how to explain tibetan diet*
So, if a light skinned population is placed permanently in tropical places they will, without any differential selection, become darker by spontaneous mutation*
Or the opposite, it’s what you’re saying*
Native Americans migrated into higher UV environments.
Tibetans are in a high UV area.
I’m not Jimmy though, this is the only name I have ever posted under. Most of the time my views are very similar to yours, that doesn’t mean we’re the same person or that we’ll always agree. That Jimmy agrees with me on other points doesn’t mean we’re the same person. The smarter people get, the more their opinions tend to converge, given smart people believe whatever is ‘right’ as opposed to dogma or personal prejudices [most of the time, given the information available to them].
“So what?”
Your argument was that with “no survival benefit in the new location it would not be selected for.” I refute this by explaining that light-skin is sexually attractive even without a survival benefit given it’s a genetic expression of social status over many generations so is attractive and sexually selected for.
“I don’t know. How? Sexual selection? What’s the argument? ”
Yes, correct.
“Exposure to UVR doesn’t cause dark skin? What does? ”
Exposure to intense sunlight selects for dark skin with sun burn and skin cancer, the statistics of which I have posted before.
“Your argument was that with “no survival benefit in the new location it would not be selected for.””
That’s not an argument.
“I refute this by explaining that light-skin is sexually attractive even without a survival benefit given it’s a genetic expression of social status over many generations so is attractive and sexually selected for”
This “refutation” means, therefore, skin color evolved due primarily to sexual selection? Doesn’t follow.
“Yes, correct.”
What’s the argument? Your claims in your previous comment don’t cut it.
“Exposure to intense sunlight selects for dark skin with sun burn and skin cancer, the statistics of which I have posted before.”
Exposure to fewer UV rays doesn’t lighten skin?
”Exposure to intense sunlight selects for dark skin with sun burn and skin cancer, the statistics of which I have posted before.”
Yes rr so why amerindians no have a black skin*
Skin cancer doesn’t explain dark skin. You can reread what I posted last night regarding the updated hypothesis.
Natural selection to promote continued vitamin D production through loss of constitutive pigmentation under conditions reduced UVR was strong, and its independent action on hominin populations dispersing to low UVR habitats was inferred before genetic evidence demonstrating positive selection for depigmentation became known(7). [<——- this is the successful prediction of a novel fact.] Generally low and highly seasonally variable levels for UVB created a selective environment favoring the capture of UVB photons required for vitamin D3 photosynthesis through loss of melanin pigmentation. Genetic verification of three independent occurrences of evolution of depigmented skin in hominin populations has been documented in the lineages leading to modern northern Europeans and modern east Asians (54, 55) and in Homo neanderthalensis [further genomic evidence that it occurred due to lack of UVB.](56).
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/Supplement_2/8962
You seem to have completely misunderstood the post in its entirety.
What did I misunderstand?
You forgot to mention that smart people also tend to enjoy posting pictures of beheaded algerians and fantasize about afro’s wife.
Afro never shuts up above his wife, Melo is telling Afro he’ll fuck his wife right this moment.
I don’t care dude. Talk about this in the open thread. This is about the VDH.
I don’t care that you don’t care. I’m not your dude, buddy. That said, if me defending myself from accusations of being Jimmy is not allowed, so should accusing me of being Jimmy.
So do it in the open thread dude.
Okay that will be the last off-topic comment in this thread
“What did I misunderstand?”
It’s pointless to continue. Let’s agree to disagree. I understand that Vitamin D may be a viable selection pressure but don’t believe you have enough evidence to presume it’s not a byproduct, let alone the primary selection pressure. All your ‘refutations’ refute nothing at all, to the point I feel you’re doing this intentionally or are unskilled with language, one of the two.
I can agree to disagree. I’ll go in depth on why sexual selection can’t explain the gradation this afternoon and we can continue there.
Fenoopy
The Indian subcontinent is/may not be not a great example because; many Indians, to widely varying degrees, have ancestry from later waves of caucasoid Eurasian migrations (mixed with ancestry) from older more native and much darker proto-Austaloid peoples,
Northern Indians (and to a lesser, extent sometimes high caste Indians across regions) tend to have more ancestry from the later caucasoid (neolithic wave, then bronze age wave) waves of lighter peoples who migrated from Western Eurasia—first Iran, the proto-Dravidians. Then another wave from Ukrainian Steppe (by way of Iran), the Indo-Europeans/Aryans (long after the earlier darker peoples who were a kind of proto-Australoids—whose ancestry is more common in the South, in non-casted tribal groups, and lower castes—had already been established in the Indian subcontinent since the paleolithic). The later waves conquered the earlier ones (but made a smaller impact in the south), which is part of why higher caste people tend to be lighter there (at least in some, perhaps many, regions). Southerners also usually have more Proto-Austaloid ancestry and are generally darker, and Northerners usually have more caucasoid ancestry and are lighter on average
Those two Indian women probably are not from the same region (if I had to guess). The first is very Southern looking, and the second is likely northern (though there are some light southerners, they are just not common—and there are some dark northerners. And phenotype spectrums of Central Indians, are in general, in between)
“…many Indians, to widely varying degrees, have ancestry from later waves of caucasoid Eurasian migrations (mixed with ancestry) from older more native and much darker proto-Austaloid peoples,…”
And the later waves of caucasians did come originally from regions (The Eurasian steppe/Ukraine area, and the greater Iran region) that were overall a lot less hot/had less UV exposure than the Indian subcontinent (whose native/original peoples were the various types of dark proto-Australoids)
the first early caucasoid wave (from Iran who spoke proto-Dravidian or proto Elamo-Dravidian) were probably a little darker (coming from Iran, and may have resembled modern Persians) than the later wave of Indo-Europeans (who came from Ukrainian and may have originally resembled modern Ukrainians/Western Russians—though by the time the Indo-European subgroup that invaded India reached the Indian subcontinent region, they had passed/migrated through the Iran/Afghanistan region first on the way and would have thus been somewhat hybridized already with the somewhat swarthier caucasoid types that lived there)
Well touche. Do you know any examples of skin tone disparities based on class, JM8? What about the Chinese? What do you think about Vitamin D vs Sexual Selection?
Fenoopy
There may be, in some cases, some quite minor skin color differences based on class. But I think, in general, (without/when not being caused by major or significant differences in ethno-racial ancestry like in India) they are usually very minor/not significant or pronounced if they exist at all (and then, they may not be genetic or significantly so, but rather be caused—or enhanced—by environmental factors: like the lower classes working out in the fields and the higher classes spending more time inside).
I think vitamin D absorption is probably a major factor (in global pigment variation).
I’d think protection from UV damage leading to skin cancer (and other problems) may be another factor.
Regions with high sun exposure require more melanin (or rather having more melanin is optimal in those climates) to protect from the damaging effects of UV, and vitamin D is more easily available in such places due to the high sun exposure (so having skin with a lot of melanin, which absorbs less vitamin D from the sun, is not a problem, as sun exposure is greater). In higher latitudes with more cloud cover and especially those with colder temperatures, lighter skin (with less melanin) which absorbs more vit. D is advantageous, and melanin as protection from UV damage is less necessary.
Regarding pigment variation within northern Europe between groups at similar latitudes like for instance the British/Irish vs Danes), I have for a while suspected that
differences in diet (w/ a similar phenomenon, but to a lesser extent, as in the Inuit) between the ancestors of peoples in different regions (due to different ancestral migration routes) may have had some role: (In the case off Southern Europeans and Mediterranean people: of course, they are darker on average because their ancestors were not exposed to as cold temperatures for as long as Northern Europeans; they live/their ancestors lived in more southern climates with higher temperatures/more sun exposure)
(as I once posted a while back somewhere else):
I suspect that the slightly darker average pigmentation of the British Isles peoples for instance on average, esp. Welsh/Cornish (and some-many other British/Irish/British Isles groups) vs some other Northern Europeans like Scandinavians or Northern Germans (despite the fact that Brits/Irish overall have no more neolithic Mid. Eastern farmer DNA than Germans or Danes do) may partly relate to sources of vitamin D. Vitamin D is adsorbed from the sun (thus is is more advantageous for high-latitude peoples to be lighter-skinned), but it is also acquired fro salt water fish. The accessibility to the later source would often take at least some (perhaps a little) of the pressure off of a population to absorb as much D from the sun as possible through their skin.
The British/Irish (outside SW Britain especially), in general tend to be quite pale skinned, but they (including the non-Welsh British and the Irish) do have somewhat darker hair on average than some other North European groups and occasionally/rarely produce people with slightly beige/tan skin who resemble some SW European types like Iberians—whereas I believe such people are almost nonexistent in similar latitudes in Scandinavia, Northern Germany and the Netherlands, and average hair color is also a bit—often quite bit—lighter in those places as well than in the British Isles.)
Many of the ancestors of British Isles peoples (pre-AngloSaxon migration stock that is, and the pre-IndoEuropean fraction of the ancestry of the preceding pre-Saxon peoples) reached their northern latitudes largely or partly by coastal routes in the mesolithic (around and/or just after the Ice age), and some later in the neolithic (from SW Europe up along the Atlantic coast.) where salt water fish were a large part of their subsistence—a bit, but not as much as, like with the Inuit and similar peoples, who often still retain an average beige complexion despite living in the Arctic—and ended up in the British Isles where many continued to be coastal. It seems that more of the ancestors of other North Europeans (like Scandinavians, North Germans, or Baltic people and others in North Eastern Europe) reached their high lattidudes by land route (up through Central Europe from around the Balkans—or from Ukraine/West Russia over land toward the North or NorthWest in the case of the Yamnaya/early Indo-Europeans) before they reached their later locations, and thus generally had less access to the alternative source of D that salt water fish provides until they reached the northern end phases of their migration. (This at least might be a modest factor in the pigmentation variations in some groups)
See mesolithic era migration map in middle of page at the link below (the last map) titled “Europe – 10,000 Years Ago – Migration Routes”
http://www.abroadintheyard.com/mapping-mankinds-trek-ancient-coastlines-land-bridges/
Neolilthic expansion map (second map down at right) into different parts of North Europe:
http://thewaythetruthandthelife.net/index/2_background/2-5_societal/0-000-043-000-bc-to_2-011-ad_2-5-1_peopling-europe/0-000-043-000-bc-to_2-011-ad_2-5-1-06-first-farm.htm
The neolithic bell beakers migration map (the different routes to the British isles—including along the west):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture#/media/File:Beaker_culture_diffusion.svg
Fenoopy,
“but don’t believe you have enough evidence to presume it’s not a byproduct.”
A byproduct of what? What evidence would convince you?
Skin color differences between men and women first arose to ensure women enough calcium for lactation and pregnancies. Since skin pigmentation protects against UVR but also must generate vitamin D, it must be light or dark enough to ensure ample vitamin D production in that certain climate, along with protecting against the UVR in that climate. So women needed sufficient vitamin D, which meant they needed sufficient calcium to ensure a strong skeleton for the fetus, for breastfeeding and for the mother’s own overall health.
Though breastfeeding new babes is demanding on the mother’s body (calcium reserves are depleted four times quicker), and the calcium the babe needs to grow its skeleton comes directly from the mother’s bones. Even a mother deficient in vitamin D will still give calcium to the babe at the expense of her own health. But she then needs to increase her reserves of calcium in order to ensure future pregnancies aren’t fatal for her or her offspring.
Though, at the moment to the best of my knowledge, there are no studies on calcium absorption, vitamin D levels and the recovery of the female skeleton after breastfeeding. (Though n3 fatty acids are paramount as well, and so a mother must have sufficient fat stores.) Thus, light-skinned women are most likely at an advantage when it comes to vitamin D production: The lighter they are, the more vitamin D and calcium they can produce for more pregnancies. Since light skin synthesizes vitamin D more efficiently, The body cannot use and absorb calcium unless vitamin D is present. Since the fetus takes calcium from the mother’s skeleton, ample amounts of vitamin D must be present. For ample amounts of vitamin D to be present, the skin must be light enough to ensure vitamin D synthesis which would be needed for calcium absorption.
Nina Jablonski writes in her book (Living Color, page 77):
Women who are chronically deficient in vitamin D because of successive pregnancies and periods of breastfeeding experience a form of bone degeneration called osteomalacia. This has serious consequences for infants born of later pregnancies and for mothers themselves, who are at greater risk of breaking bones. It makes sense that protection of female health during the reproductive years would be a top evolutionary priority, so we are now investigating whether, in fact, slightly lighter skin in women might be a fairly simple way of ensuring that women get enough vitamin D after pregnancy and breastfeeding to enable their bodies to recover quickly. The need for maintaining strong female skeletons through multiple pregnancies may have been the ultimate evolutionary reason for the origin of differences in skin color between men and women.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/05/23/why-are-women-lighter-than-men-skin-color-and-sexual-selection/
why should i give free math lessons to an ungrateful [N word redacted by pp, may 24, 2018]
men are MORE numerous than women until age what?
and after that age at what age are women 51%?
http://overflow.solutions/demographic-data/the-male-to-female-ratio-of-america-by-age-range/
http://www.upcisam.com/about/singles-statistics/
Among singles, women are 53%, men are 47%. Which means 113 single women for 100 men. Now if you subtract the men who are in jail, homeless, in the army, on very remote work locations, recent immigrants and all other demographics that aren’t reached by surveyors (most of them are overwhelmingly male-dominated), there could be close to 120 single women for 100 men in the typical population.
Men and women lie as in men counting a handjob as a sexual encounter whereas women would deny that a blowjob has to be counted as sex. But as the whole, they would accurately estimate the number of sexual they had.
Yes rr, so…
why tibetans ARE NOT very fair-skinned…
rr don’t understand that if only-latitude or cold can explain lighter skin so any human groups who had in such places must be the lightest of all, as happen with northern europeans… period.
No, not “period”, as is the case with the Inuit which is what the article you’re commenting on is about. Also gotta address the other arguments.
”only-latitude or cold CAN’T … explain lighter skin.
If it was correct so inuits would be very whiter, more than europeans. Yes, they are recent migrants to AMERICAN arctic but they came from Siberia, ASIAN arctic… same environment… it’s near to impossible they came from a completely different environment and in so little period to be capable to adapt in that climate.
“If it was correct so inuits would be very whiter, more than europeans.”
Nope, I already explained this enough.
“migrants to AMERICAN arctic but they came from Siberia, ASIAN arctic… same environment… it’s near to impossible they came from a completely different environment and in so little period to be capable to adapt in that climate.”
So? Look at pictures of the Thule people. The population that the Natives derived from is also darkish as well; is that evidence against the hypothesis too Santo?
Either way, this does not ride against the UVH, it’s new and improved so you need to start discussing that.
If I properly understood this sexual selection theory imply that arctic people have darker skin than Whites for the same reasons they have lower IQ despite bigger brains ? Small population. There are not enough of them to produce many high IQ mutation AND for sexual selection to fully work (less choice for mating).
Again I didn’t read the whole discussion, I might be saying nonsense.
If I properly understood this sexual selection theory imply that arctic people have darker skin than Whites for the same reasons they have lower IQ despite bigger brains ? Small population. There are not enough of them to produce many high IQ mutation AND for sexual selection to fully work (less choice for mating).
That’s one reason since no one had white skin until recent population expansions. Another more speculative possibility is you need dark skin in the arctic to protect your face from sunlight reflecting off the snow.
Sorry i forgot to don’t change the nickname
Sexual selection can’t explain the gradation. I’ll go in depth this afternoon.
But they no have darker skin. they have yelloish skin and become darker when they are over-exposed to arctic sunlight.
”is you need dark skin in the arctic to protect your face from sunlight reflecting off the snow.”
This type of narrative doesn’t work well, seems like they were absolutely selected because this factor or if they were aware about that and decided to select ”darker skins”.
Again, one way to try to figure out if the rr hypothesis is correct is looking for their levels of homogeneity in darkening of their skin colors.
If their non-exposed body parts don’t become darker as the exposed, so it’s may mean that causality between diet and skin color is not true.
Seems ”yellowish” skin levels is already enough so whiter skin look like due to another factors.
And remember that very pale skin is common in celtic places [where red hair is also more common] while scandinavians, germans and northern slavians, on avg, can tan easier… than british, for example. Celtic genes seems is spread throught oceanic places in Europe from British Island and Northern Iberia to Estonia, a gradient from western to eastern Europe.
What i already said, sexual selection co-occur with natural selection, seems little problematic differentiate both as if they can’t happen at the same time and space or if they aren’t part of the same broader process.
“Another more speculative possibility is you need dark skin in the arctic to protect your face from sunlight reflecting off the snow.”
How is it “speculative”? Is this “speculative” PP?
The average data of experimental measurements show that maximum albedo of UVA radiation (of about 94%) was at 1 p.m. in comparison with albedo of UVB radiation of about 88% at 2 p.m. The measurements of albedo were performed on fresh snow with big crystals.”
Click to access JEELM_ISSN_1648-6897_Vol16_No2_2008_83-88_Chadysiene.pdf
Nevermind their diet high in vitamin D.
“What i already said, sexual selection co-occur with natural selection, seems little problematic differentiate both as if they can’t happen at the same time and space or if they aren’t part of the same broader process.”
Light skin occurred first in women to synthesize vitamin D and ensure enough calcium for pregnancy and lactation, for the nth time. Sexual selection is secondary, vitamin D synthesis is primary. It’s that simple. Either way, sexual selection hypotheses don’t hold up.
One of your main problem rr is that you’re exceptionally DISHONEST AND you believe we are that dumb enough to fall in your short-term manipulations. You said ”only-vitamin D synthesis” and now you’re accepting sexual selection as another factor specially to explain white caucasian skin. Why not be sincere and honest here and say ”i commited a mistake, yes, you’re right about it”. Again another huge Strawman… I don’t believe any person here disagree ”with you” about vitamin D synthesis.
Our major differences in this issue is:
– the role of diet in skin color
– and your affirmations about ”only-vitamin D synthesis” hypothesis OR theory.
Tell me how in your mind this process happened, step by step, and without doc Jablonsky studies.
by… natural selection isn’t*
Stating that it’s secondary course contradicts nothing that I’ve said. There is no strawman.
With ample vitamin D from diet its possible for skin to stay dark along with reflectance from light surfaces in the Arctic. Vitamin D synthesis is the only explanation for the gradation in skin color. I’ve come across no argument that would explain sexual selection, a good one, anyway.
“Tell me how in your mind this process happened, step by step, and without doc Jablonsky studies.”
Dark skin can’t synthesize vitamin D as well in low UVB areas. Thus, light skin evolved to synthesize vitamin D. This is why it first evolved in women, and so ample vitamin D would ensure enough calcium for the growing fetus in the womb.
Natural selection is primary, sexual selection is secondary. Stating that sexual selection is secondary is not a contradiction.
See also the physiological functions of vitamin D. On adipose tissue, as I said yesterday.
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2016.08.004
VDR and vitamin D metabolizing enzymes are present in adipose tissue. Then you have to think about tetrahydrobiopterin; which acts as a cofactor in the synthesis of nitric oxide and its primary function is as a vasodilator in the blood vessels (meaning that blood pressure is increased, to keep more heat in the cold). Since vasodilation is the body’s primary response to heat stress, blood flow increases which allows heat to leave the body. Therefore, the human body’s ability regarding vasodilation and vasoconstriction mechanisms were important in surviving areas with varying UVR.
Furthermore, since these mechanisms are brought on by short-term changes, we can infer that it would hardly be of any use in high UVR environments and would be critical in temperate environments. So, vasodilation and vasoconstriction have little to no benefit in high UVR environments but seem to be imperative in temperate environments where UVR varies. It’s also likely that vitamin D influences vasodilation by influential nitric oxide synthesis and vasoconstriction by influencing the renin-angiotensin system.
This would have conferred great benefit to our ancestors as they migrated into more temperate and colder climates. You can read this for information on how adaptive our physiology is and why it’s like that. Because we went into numerous new environments and natural selection couldn’t act quickly enough, therefore the human body’s physiology is extremely adaptive.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/30/human-physiological-adaptations-to-climate/
So there’s your physiology lesson for the day, Santo. Fenoopy, this is why the hypothesis makes a ton of sense. Not to mention the successful predictions it has made. Learn some physiology, especially the roles of vitamin D on adipose tissue and how it confers survival advantages in the cold before spewing the sexual selection hypothesis. Because the adaptive physiology of the human body is imperative for survival in New new environments, which also, of course, lends strong credence to the VDH.
RR, you realize people thrived in Europe for 30,000 years with dark skin right? Why did light skin only get selected in the last 10,000 years? Because agriculture reduced vitamin D in the diet? But Neanderthals didn’t have agriculture and they evolved light skin. How do you explain that?
Despising your flagrant dishonesty in the beggining… i will not debate with it…
”With ample vitamin D from diet its possible for skin to stay dark along with reflectance from light surfaces in the Arctic. ”
There are hybrid arctic mongoloid people in Siberia who have light eyes and skin, how they can survive** Even in Mongolia, many them become with their cheek red-ish. Why not the more-obvious explanation, many they have facility to tan their skins as majority of east asians.. period.
”Dark skin can’t synthesize vitamin D as well in low UVB areas.”
can’t*** or spend more time to do it*
”Thus, light skin evolved to synthesize vitamin D. This is why it first evolved in women”
this why…
an…
why it first evolved in women*
you don’t explain honey.
”and so ample vitamin D would ensure enough calcium for the growing fetus in the womb.”
Seems just stay a long time exposed to light sun seems enough to absorb the vitamin d or at least a important part…
”Natural selection is primary, sexual selection is secondary. Stating that sexual selection is secondary is not a contradiction.”
If you remember you don’t said this…You said only natural selection and no have sexual dimorphism…
”See also the physiological functions of vitamin D. On adipose tissue, as I said yesterday.
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2016.08.004
VDR and vitamin D metabolizing enzymes are present in adipose tissue. Then you have to think about tetrahydrobiopterin; which acts as a cofactor in the synthesis of nitric oxide and its primary function is as a vasodilator in the blood vessels (meaning that blood pressure is increased, to keep more heat in the cold). Since vasodilation is the body’s primary response to heat stress, blood flow increases which allows heat to leave the body. Therefore, the human body’s ability regarding vasodilation and vasoconstriction mechanisms were important in surviving areas with varying UVR.
Furthermore, since these mechanisms are brought on by short-term changes, we can infer that it would hardly be of any use in high UVR environments and would be critical in temperate environments. So, vasodilation and vasoconstriction have little to no benefit in high UVR environments but seem to be imperative in temperate environments where UVR varies. It’s also likely that vitamin D influences vasodilation by influential nitric oxide synthesis and vasoconstriction by influencing the renin-angiotensin system.
This would have conferred great benefit to our ancestors as they migrated into more temperate and colder climates. You can read this for information on how adaptive our physiology is and why it’s like that. Because we went into numerous new environments and natural selection couldn’t act quickly enough, therefore the human body’s physiology is extremely adaptive.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/30/human-physiological-adaptations-to-climate/
So there’s your physiology lesson for the day, Santo. Fenoopy, this is why the hypothesis makes a ton of sense. Not to mention the successful predictions it has made. Learn some physiology, especially the roles of vitamin D on adipose tissue and how it confers survival advantages in the cold before spewing the sexual selection hypothesis. Because the adaptive physiology of the human body is imperative for survival in New new environments, which also, of course, lends strong credence to the VDH.”
Their diet don’t make them diet…
their diet don’t make them DARKER [and not dieet, lol]
PP,
“RR, you realize people thrived in Europe for 30,000 years with dark skin right? Why did it only get selected in the last 10,000 years? Because agriculture reduced vitamin D in the diet? But Neanderthals didn’t have agriculture and they evolved light skin. How do you explain that?”
So what? It’s explained through need of vitamin D synthesis. And you should remember that that was the novel prediction that Jablonski and Chaplin (2000) made, which was successful.
What you wrote isn’t relevant to why I wrote about vitamin D’s physiology.
Santo,
“There are hybrid arctic mongoloid people in Siberia who have light eyes and skin, how they can survive** Even in Mongolia, many them become with their cheek red-ish. Why not the more-obvious explanation, many they have facility to tan their skins as majority of east asians.. period.”
So what? Not “period”, what does “tanning” mean in this context?
I explained how light skin first arose in women. Light skin is more sufficient than dark skin than synthesizing vitamin D in low UV environments.
“Seems just stay a long time exposed to light sun seems enough to absorb the vitamin d or at least a important part…”
UV rays are lower in colder climates. So clearly not.
“If you remember you don’t said this…You said only natural selection and no have sexual dimorphism…”
I said it doesn’t explain the gradient.
Unfortunately, a picture of a painting doesn’t say anything to what I wrote about vitamin D and its physiological functions in the human body.
PP:
“RR, you realize people thrived in Europe for 30,000 years with dark skin right? Why did light skin only get selected in the last 10,000 years?”
They were darker than most modern Europeans, but skin tones had been lightening gradually before that, though much lightening also occurred after ca. 10,000 bc, (and some of the lightest tones present in modern—esp. Northern—Europe began to occur at significant levels ca 7,000 bc our so in Northern parts of the continent). There had already been some lightening previously in the paleolithic. it is unlikely that Europeans (or many of them) were dark brown or dark mid-brown prior to 10k bc—they were no longer as dark for instance as most SS Africans, South Indians, or Australian Aborigines, etc are on average (like their ancestors would likely have been when they left Africa and perhaps when they first entered Europe)—They (mid-late paleolithic to early mesolithic Europeans: like Cheddar man or the La Brana specimen) would likely rather have ranged from shades light and/or mid-brown to beige/tan before ca 10-7 ka bc (and I suspect that some of the of them in the tan range might’ve resembled some current darker SW Europeans, like certain Iberian types)
Regarding the genetics of paleolithic European pigmentation:
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/02/22/mesolithic-and-paleolithic-of-cheddar-and-bread/
“Cheddar Man and the WHG in general were probably darker than modern Northern Europeans. There is detectable selection in modern Europeans for pigmentation alleles down to the present, and Northern Europeans are the palest people in the world. And, pigmentation is polygenic, but it’s not hyperpolygenic. That’s why GWAS and early selection tests picked up pigmentation loci as hits so often.
Cheddar Man and the WHG in general were probably not as dark as tropical people….”
Cheddar Man may not have been as dark as Africans but he likely was darker than Inuit & much much darker than Neanderthals.
Why are modern Europeans so much whiter than both Cheddar and Inuits?
Change in diet caused by agriculture? If that were the cause why did neanderthals go white?
The best explanation i can think of is the population explosion of agriculture gave rise to freak white skin mutations that are too rare for smaller populations like Inuit or Cheddar’s.
Neanderthal’s had small population too but since they lived in Europe for hundreds of thousands of years, there was plenty of time for rare mutations to occur & be selected, since it offered some advantage in low UV areas (either sexual or survival)
”UV rays are lower in colder climates. So clearly not.”
but ice and snow reflect…
why not if mongoloids have natural light skin* [not lighter] and… lighter the skin, quick the absorption.
http://scienceline.org/2007/06/ask-dricoll-inuiteskimos/
”My hypo-thesis”, they ”inherited” their variably lighter to ‘darker’ skin from… east asians.
AGAIN rr, you and your jablonsky colleagues MUST prove this empirically.
One possible way is
if is true that diet confer this change in their skin so it’s must happen in all parts of body, non-exposed included isnt’*
If we look at to the non-exposed inuit body parts and they are tan as the exposed…
Ok, sunlight in poles is the less intense, but they keep all day exposed to this.
”So what? Not “period”, what does “tanning” mean in this context?”
”I explained how light skin first arose in women.”
So, repeat this, i don’t remember.
” Light skin is more sufficient than dark skin than synthesizing vitamin D in low UV environments.”
…………………..i know……………… little bit, but i know………..
You don’t wrote you copied and glued.
”Norwegians have always eaten fatty fish (full of Vitamin D), yet they are still very pale.”
“but ice and snow reflect…”
In the Arctic.
“http://scienceline.org/2007/06/ask-dricoll-inuiteskimos/”
“But Inuits vitamin D intake wasn’t dependent upon the sun. They get all that they need from their diet, heavy on types of fatty fish that are naturally rich in vitamin D. The plentiful amounts of the vitamin kept them from developing less melanin. In fact, before milk was fortified with D, people living outside of Northern Canada and Alaska loaded their diets with fishy products, such as cod liver oil, to get their daily supplement. So despite their chilly climate and lack of sun exposure, it’s the Inuit diet that has kept them in their natural glow.”
Thanks for proving my point.
And my citation on the reflectance of surfaces further buttresses the argument.
“if is true that diet confer this change in their skin so it’s must happen in all parts of body, non-exposed included isnt’*”
They get dark on the parts of the body exposed, again, see the citation on Greenland Inuits:
“Protective clothing is necessary in Ilulissat during spring, where the average ambient temperature rises from 2208C in March to 20·58C in May and reaches a maximum of 7·58C in July(12). Still, Inuit hunters reported spending up to 16 h in outdoor activity during spring and summer, and some sun exposure was evident from their marked facial sun tan. Also, arms of hunters may be exposed to the sun during \ \ working hours in spring and summer.
The local Inuit diet was important for serum 25OHD production in Inuit and non-Inuit population in the capital Nuuk in West Greenland and in rural Ammassalik district in East Greenland(21).”
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1017/s0007114512004709
“So, repeat this, i don’t remember.”
https://pumpkinperson.com/2018/05/15/arctic-skin-color-and-the-vitamin-d-hypothesis-by-race-realist/comment-page-1/#comment-91517
“…………………..i know……………… little bit, but i know………..”
https://pumpkinperson.com/2018/05/15/arctic-skin-color-and-the-vitamin-d-hypothesis-by-race-realist/comment-page-1/#comment-91545
“”Norwegians have always eaten fatty fish (full of Vitamin D), yet they are still very pale.””
https://pumpkinperson.com/2018/05/15/arctic-skin-color-and-the-vitamin-d-hypothesis-by-race-realist/comment-page-1/#comment-90530
yes rr…
it was not intentionally but you keep proving our hypothesis about you…
do you know you just copied and glued the same thing you’re repeating here**
Do you know what empirical mean**
Your colleagues proved, empirically, their hypothesis or theories**
….Lack of sun exposure….
….but you said they get darker skin also because ice and snow reflectance/excessive sunlight exposure…
”Still, Inuit hunters reported spending up to 16 h in outdoor activity during spring and summer, and some sun exposure was evident from their marked facial sun tan. Also, arms of hunters may be exposed to the sun during \ \ working hours in spring and summer.”
you attack most of our points as baseless, exceptionally vague just so stories while you refute them with…
true just so stories…
”Women who are chronically deficient in vitamin D because of successive pregnancies and periods of breastfeeding experience a form of bone degeneration called osteomalacia. This has serious consequences for infants born of later pregnancies and for mothers themselves, who are at greater risk of breaking bones. It MAKES SENSE that protection of female health during the reproductive years would be a top evolutionary priority, so WE ARE NOW INVESTIGATING whether, in fact, slightly lighter skin in women MIGHT BE a fairly simple way of ensuring that women get enough vitamin D after pregnancy and breastfeeding to enable their bodies to recover quickly. The need for maintaining strong female skeletons through multiple pregnancies MAY HAVE BEEN the ultimate evolutionary reason for the origin of differences in skin color between men and women.”
the final part is interesting though.
So…
white women are considerably stronger in their bones than black women**
Yes, i’m not expert, i’m trying to learn but…
“The best explanation i can think of is the population explosion of agriculture gave rise to freak white skin mutations that are too rare for smaller populations like Inuit or Cheddar’s.
Neanderthal’s had small population too but since they lived in Europe for hundreds of thousands of years, there was plenty of time for rare mutations to occur & be selected, since it offered some advantage in low UV areas (either sexual or survival)”
That seems pretty much a plausible possibility (as far as I can tell).
“If that were the cause why did neanderthals go white?”
Do we know how white neanderthals (the lighter ones from Europe that is—those in the Middle East were likely darker) were (I’m not entirely sure)?
I guess some had red hair (but many in Europe did not), which may suggest that some could have been pretty white (unless it was not necessary accompanied by extremely pale skin as it usually is in modern humans). Apparently at least some neanderthals in Europe were perhaps a little bit swarthy. There is a study that finds a few of the genes (though contributing only a small fraction to/of the pigment genes in Europeans, most of which are of sapiens origin and thus ultimately mutations of African sapiens genes) in Europeans (in Britain specifically) contributing to pigmentation may come from neanderthals (though, as mentioned, the majority of skin pigmentation and other pigmentation genes in Europeans and other light-colored groups are of—ultimately African—sapiens origin and arose due to the local mutation/adaptation of sapiens-derived genes). And some of those neanderthal-derived genes code for (or contribute to) swarthier coloring and others for whiter coloring, indicating a range among European neanderthals.
https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(17)30379-8
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/10/05/555592707/neanderthal-genes-help-shape-how-many-modern-humans-look
“Dannemann says they found multiple Neanderthal genes that affected hair and skin tone, some lighter and some darker. He says this suggests that Neanderthals themselves may have had variation in those traits too, meaning, maybe they too had a range of skin and hair tones.”
It does seem though that neanderthals were in general (as you say) lighter/whiter than paleolithic European homo sapiens were (even if not all European neanderthals were extremely white), and their likely (relatively) greater whiteness may have been (or partly so) for the reason you suggest.
“…the majority of skin pigmentation and other pigmentation genes causing light skin in Europeans and other light-colored groups are of—ultimately African—sapiens origin and arose due to the local mutation/adaptation of sapiens genes…”
‘do you know you just copied and glued the same thing you’re repeating here**”
I “copied and glued” because I’m sick of repeating myself to you and I “copied and glued” previous responses and linked previous responses because you continuously ask the same dumb questions I’ve already answered.
“Do you know what empirical mean**”
What does it mean?
“….but you said they get darker skin also because ice and snow reflectance/excessive sunlight exposure…”
Reread this whole comment thread.
“you attack most of our points as baseless, exceptionally vague just so stories while you refute them with…
true just so stories…”
It holds explanatory power and made successful novel predictions, and still holds explanatory power. Skin color is clearly an adaptation to UV, I’ve yet to see anything convincing from anyone here on sexual selection (that’s the just-so story).
“the final part is interesting though.”
What’s wrong with the logic? Do you know enough about physiology to point anything out or not?
“white women are considerably stronger in their bones than black women”
Black women have stronger bones.
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/82/2/429/2823249
And do you realize that your link in your previous comment proved my point about Arctic people’s skin color?
“”…there was plenty of time for rare mutations to occur & be selected, since it offered some advantage in low UV areas (either sexual or survival)””
“That seems pretty much a plausible possibility/contributing factor (as far as I can tell).”
“The best explanation i can think of is the population explosion of agriculture gave rise to freak white skin mutations that are too rare for smaller populations like Inuit or Cheddar’s.”
Just-so stories. This is the same exact thing that Lynn said about the Inuit and “IQ”. So no, it’s not the “best explanation”; the best explanation is the need for vitamin D synthesis. The best explanation is vitamin D synthesis and also how vitamin D may exert effects on the adipose tissue which then made it possible to maintain energy homeostasis and energy in colder and colder environments.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/05/23/vitamin-d-physiology-and-the-cold/
“Neanderthal’s had small population too but since they lived in Europe for hundreds of thousands of years, there was plenty of time for rare mutations to occur & be selected, since it offered some advantage in low UV areas (either sexual or survival)”
Would you say that light skin was “selected” due to beauty? That the mate chose the light-skinned individual due to light skin being beautiful and that they had “good genes”?
Just-so stories. This is the same exact thing that Lynn said about the Inuit and “IQ”.
Exactly, that’s where I got the idea. Evolution speeds up when you have a big population. So modern Europeans were able to achieve the same degree of skin lightness in tens of thousand years as Neanderthals were able to achieve in hundreds of thousands of years and inuits were never able to achieve; because modern Europeans had a huge population
So no, it’s not the “best explanation”; the best explanation is the need for vitamin D synthesis.
According to this article, light skin is poor at getting vitamin D:
Most people get enough vitamin D with short exposures to the sun (10 to 15 minutes a day). A small amount also comes from the diet in foods like oily fish and dairy products.But people with fair skin do not seem to be able to get enough, according to Prof Julia Newton-Bishop and her team at the University of Leeds. Part of the reason might be that people who burn easily are more likely to cover up and avoid the sun. But some fair-skinned individuals also appear to be less able to make and process vitamin D in the body, regardless of how long they sit in the sun for.
Would you say that light skin was “selected” due to beauty? That the mate chose the light-skinned individual due to light skin being beautiful and that they had “good genes”?
Humans have a primordial fear of the dark, so when white skinned mutants appeared, everyone wanted to mate with them, so every generation they had more babies until the population was completely white. That might be a just-so story but it’s just as plausible as vitamin D.
Inuits are slowly getting lighter. I’ll remind you that light skin evolved independently 3 different times through different molecular genetic pathways. Inuits “were never able to achieve” light skin because of their environment.
What’s the point of that article? How does that say anything about the relationship between physiology, light skin, and vitamin D?
That is a just-so story and just-so stories are “plausible” because you can craft any story to fit the data. VDH is not a just-so story since it’s made successful predictions.
What’s the point of that article?
That light skin blocks vitamin D; the exact opposite of what VDH predicts
That is a just-so story and just-so stories are “plausible” because you can craft any story to fit the data. VDH is not a just-so story since it’s made successful predictions.
The only successful prediction it’s made is that Neanderthals had white skin, but sexual selection theory can also claim this as a prediction, since both theories claim white skin evolves when folks leave the tropics. A novel prediction unique to VDH would be that the ancient ancestors of light skinned people will show more rickets if we examine the archeological record. That would be very convincing evidence if the pattern was consistent (i.e. proto-whites show more rickets than proto-Inuits and proto-Bushmen who show more rickets than proto-Bantu)
“That light skin blocks vitamin D; the exact opposite of what VDH predicts”
If we assume that skin color plays no role in vitamin D synthesis then we would observe no population, whether light or dark, having vitamin D deficiencies. But I’ve written about vitamin D deficiencies in blacks, and numerous people who have migrated from their ancestral climates have problems with vitamin D synthesis. Dark skin, furthermore, needs 6 times more UVB than light skin to generate the same amount of vitamin D. So what does that tell you? Read this paper.
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2009.04.009
How can sexual selection explain Neanderthal skin color if that hypothesis has been refuted? That citation I just left also shows evidence of Nordic skeletons showing signs of rickets in a cold period between 1350 to 1450.
Everything I’ve written recently about the physiology of vitamin D and folate and their effects on adipose tissue regarding homeostasis and temperature regulation are apt here and lend strong credence to the hypothesis.
Cont. : “..since it offered some advantage in low UV areas (either sexual or survival)”
I think survival (and/or fitness) due to D absorption would likely be the main reason for the selection of lighter skin in those areas (along with a greatly reduced need for the selection/maintenance of dark pigment due to lower UV levels).
I think survival (and/or fitness) due to D absorption would likely be the main reason for the selection of lighter skin
How do you know sexual selection was not the bigger factor?
rr,
you have huge basic problems to understand the meaning of words and its better applications, you don’t know what ”prove” mean…
the link repeat what you said with some addictional informations.
Prove empirically is my example of next and or hypothetical procedibility.
IF diet have that impact so it’s expect all body parts will be affected [may be not, but to me it’s makes sense] as well to be a universal effect.
IF diary exposure to arctic sunlight, spend most part of the day with the face and arms to the sun even in the arctic will have a expected impact… even if it was the case, also we have another complementary possibility: inuits varies in their skin color, some of them are naturally more darker than others, what just happen with most east asians…
”I “copied and glued” because I’m sick of repeating myself to you and I “copied and glued” previous responses and linked previous responses because you continuously ask the same dumb questions I’ve already answered.”
I ask basic questions you’re not capable to answer and prefferencially with your own words. If you’re the guy here who know more than us about this stuff so you should be capable to explain and with your own words.
Even the way you put your hypothesis don’t look like organized in progressive ways, explaining step by step, jut gross chains of abstractions.
Your main exceptionally dumb pseudo-argument is the fallacious and malignant try to put everything of this matter in so-called ”physiology”, which look like to me as ”natural sociological pseudo-science”, move on..
Accept this as a mature person you think you’re: psychology is not a pseudo-science and can explain behavior and even evolution and adaptation without your jablonsky copies.
First lesson about pseudo-science
more difficult to read or excessively pompous is the text:
– this stuff is very difficult
or
– this is a garbage masked by a chain of difficult words.
Second lesson
if you’re not capable to explain what you wrote with your own words, so you did not understand it.
”It holds explanatory power and made successful novel predictions, and still holds explanatory power. Skin color is clearly an adaptation to UV, I’ve yet to see anything convincing from anyone here on sexual selection (that’s the just-so story).”
In mars your diagnosis would be ”high functioning retardation”…
Keep repeating this sentences, please… and keep tossing strawmen everywhere everytime…
The first sentence is GOLD!!! typical from pseudo-scientis..
self-knowledge IQ = monkey levels.
in your parallel world you did this.
nobody says only-sexual selection retarded… it’s super difficult not be impolite with you.
you started to saying ”only-natural selection” and know you accept sexual selection as secondary factor, but… look impossible have sexual selection without natural selection, not in this world.
natural selection = to survive = most adapted survive.
sexual selection = select attractive features to reproduction and to survive [natural selection] = most sexually atttractive survive BUT it’s often mean most adapted too, specially if adaptation also mean ”high reproductivity”.
It’s possible we have natural selection without INTENSE sexual selection but not the otherwise, seems.
what is happening with humans is typical for humans, we as a aberration of nature, as a huge exception to the rule.
”Black women have stronger bones.”
So how explain the ”lighter skin x stronger bones” you linked*
Humans have a primordial fear of the dark, so when white skinned mutants appeared, everyone wanted to mate with them, so every generation they had more babies until the population was completely white. That might be a just-so story but it’s just as plausible as vitamin D.
LMAO! Tell an African albino how much his fellow people like him.
I think pale folks would have been badly treated when they were the minority and only spread their genes because the vitamin D their skin produced made their bones stronger, less prone to injuries and rickets.
Albinos are an extreme case that may not reflect the correlation between beauty & colour in the normal range
I didn’t post your reply to Fenoopy to prevent any further off-topic drift
When asked to describe what they are looking for a in a man, many women reply that they prefer a man who is tall, dark and handsome.
While this may seem discriminatory, there is actually some evolutionary evidence that guides this preference, but if you happen to be a short, balding, red faced, pale fellow of average looks, fear not, women are attracted to other traits and often how you act is more important to a woman than what you look like.
Research has shown that being tall gives a man an evolutionary advantage over someone who is short. Height is equated with good health and athletic ability.
Tan skin equates to spending more time outside, having more leisure time and being less susceptible to certain skin disorders. The pigment in the skin of dark and brown haired people also tends to promote more even skin tone with less blotchiness.
Darker skin tones have a tendency to hide flaws while whiter skin sets off broken blood vessels, bruises and flushing of the skin and tan lines (think farmer’s tan, freckling and red necks).
When someone is sick, we refer to them as looking pale, though fake tans which glow orange or red or overly dark skin which hides facial features, and sun damaged skin, may all be turn offs rather than turn ons. Each individual is different and part of the preference for darker skinned males may be due to cultural norms which change over time.
Darkness also refers to hair preference. Dark hair has more eumelanin than lighter hair and tends to be thicker and reflects light more than light hair in general, though again this is not always the case, but thick, shiny hair is also a positive sign of good health.
It may be that dark hair tends to accentuate facial features as well, which is one reason why women apply dark mascara and eyeliner and eyebrow pencil, to attract males to their facial features.
Some feel that darkness holds a quality of mystery for a woman and equates with dangerous men which may be more sexually exciting, but again it is more than just hair and skin color that attract a woman to a man.
In general all people, no matter what their gender prefer attractive mates with symmetrical features. If you have a narrow nose, big ears, close set, small eyes or a pointy chin or large brow, you may have less success with women than someone with more evenly matched features.
All humans tend to associate certain facial traits with intelligence, kindness and temperament. You can’t change your facial features, but you can change your facial expressions to become more welcoming. If you are scowling all the time or walk around day dreaming with your mouth hanging open not making eye contact, chances are your success rate with women will be lacking.
No matter what your hair and skin color or physical build there are certain attractive features and traits that you can control and others than you cannot.
https://pairedlife.com/dating/talldarkandhandsome
The sexual selection hypothesis is not tenable from the fact that women prefer dark men. And since between-male sexual competition is a a winner takes all game with the top dudes being able to spread their genes almost to the infinite while a significant minority would have no descendant and these would tend to be lighter skinned. On the other hand, women of all shades would have children.
“you have huge basic problems to understand the meaning of words and its better applications, you don’t know what ”prove” mean…”
What does it mean?
“Prove empirically is my example of next and or hypothetical procedibility.”
I did both.
“IF diet have that impact so it’s expect all body parts will be affected [may be not, but to me it’s makes sense] as well to be a universal effect.”
“may be not”?
“some of them are naturally more darker than others, what just happen with most east asians…”
So what? What’s this have to do with UV reflecting off snow, ice and water along with their diet and their being recent migrants?
“I ask basic questions you’re not capable to answer and prefferencially with your own words. If you’re the guy here who know more than us about this stuff so you should be capable to explain and with your own words.
Even the way you put your hypothesis don’t look like organized in progressive ways, explaining step by step, jut gross chains of abstractions.”
Every comment I linked was “in my own words”, but if f you insist:
As humans migrated out of Africa, lighter skin was needed to synthesize vitamin D. This was especially important to women, who needed higher amounts of vitamin D, in order to produce enough calcium for lactation and pregnancy—so the babe had enough calcium to grow its skeleton in the womb. With the uptake in vitamin D synthesis, this then allowed more adaptive physiologic changes that occurred due to the cold, and along with vasodilation and vasoconstriction, along with shivering and adapting behaviorally to the new environments, were our ancestors able to survive. Dark skin cannot synthesize vitamin D as well as light skin in low UV environments; this also can be seen with the lowered production of nitric oxide-dependent vasodilation in dark-skinned populations. Thus, vasoconstriction conferred no physiologic benefit in high UV environments, but almost certainly conferred a physiologic benefit in low UV environments.
“Your main exceptionally dumb pseudo-argument is the fallacious and malignant try to put everything of this matter in so-called ”physiology”, which look like to me as ”natural sociological pseudo-science”, move on..”
How is it fallacious? How is it pseudoscience? How is physiology natural sociological pseudoscience?
“if you’re not capable to explain what you wrote with your own words, so you did not understand it.”
I’ve done so numerous times. You’ve not given any type of response to what I’ve written about vitamin D, physiology or the VDR. Give it a shot.
“How do you know sexual selection was not the bigger factor?”
How do you know that women didn’t select darker men?
“LMAO! Tell an African albino how much his fellow people like him.”
What a stupid éxample. We’ré compareng Jairemy Meeks to Djimon Hounsou, not Albino fréaks of natuair.
rr,
maybe you have full time to answer about your cognitive deficits instead the subject in scrutiny but i no have, i will not answer yours
”no i did not”
yes you did…
Don’t forget to thanks PP for this space she always give to you.
Most of hypothesis you fall in love always look like excessive and not just trying the easier firstly but also denying them.
The type of diet inuits have no doubt help them to survive in arctic and pre-arctic environments but i doubt it’s even change their skin color.
There are easier explanations
first of all
they have a variable skin color and inuit males may have a darker skin, firstly because it’s a common feature in human males, secondly because they are continuously exposed to arctic sunlight during the spring and summer, thirdly because they are descendent from mongoloid macro-race who migrated to Americas and have basically the same or very similar skin color variation and capacity to tan.
It’s needed to prove empirically that their diet type have this power to alter their skin color, all body and not just the exposed body parts and be a universal trend. We have norwegian or scandinavian example, people who eat fish a lot and don’t become darker, we have japanese example too, and they are the lightest of east asians..
How can RR keep a straight face as he quotes his shitty straw-man dimorphism studies and claims it’s only females who’re more attractive with light skin is beyond me. Both those men have very similar facial structure, only Meeks is stunning and Djimon is an ‘African Kang’ that only Afro could love [because Afro would rather be dishonest than admit any fact against his ethnic genetic interests].
The lightness of Meek’s features are what set him apart. In any pick up competition, Meeks will crush Djimon effortlessly.
Black women prefer dark skinned blacks.
The fair maiden of myth appears to have a basis in scientific reality, according to new research. Scientists looking into attractiveness in men and women suggest that men of all races are subconsciously attracted to fairer-skinned women, while women are more drawn to dark-complexioned men.
The researchers, whose study shows that across different races, lighter-skinned women are seen as the ideal, say the attraction is driven by preferences based on moral assumptions.
Men are subconsciously attracted to fairer skin because of its association with innocence, purity, modesty, virginity, vulnerability and goodness, according to researchers at the University of Toronto. Women are attracted to men with darker complexions because these are associated with sex, virility, mystery, villainy and danger.
Le jeu le plus addictif de 2018
Throne: Jeu en Ligne Gratuit
Ces acteurs qui ont refusé le rôle de leur carrière
Télé-Loisirs.fr
Les plus beaux looks de Meghan Markle
Vie Pratique Féminin
by Taboola Sponsored Links
From Desdemona to Nicole Kidman, fair-skinned beauties have been celebrated by artists and poets for centuries. Meanwhile, millions of women have been drawn to dark, brooding males, from Heathcliff to actor Javier Bardem.
In an analysis of more than 2,000 advertising photographs of men and women, the researchers found that the skin of white women was 15.2 per cent lighter than the skin of white males, and the skin of black women 11.1 per cent lighter than the skin of black men.
Advertising photographs were chosen because almost invariably the models were considered to be among the most attractive people of the races and genders.
“What the research shows is that our aesthetic preferences operate to reflect moral preferences. Within our cultures we have a set of ideals about how women should look and behave. Lightness and darkness have particular meanings attached to them and we subconsciously relate those moral preferences to women,” said Dr Shyon Baumann, a sociologist at the University of Toronto. In effect, a preference for Colin Farrell over Daniel Craig or Monica Bellucci over Michelle Pfieffer expresses a preference for danger.
The researchers say many judgements about beauty are made at a conscious level, such as about height, weight, leg length, and the shape of the nose and the mouth. “In contrast, other physical attractiveness ideals, including complexion… are made at the subconscious level,” they say.
When they analysed adverts featuring white women only, they found that women with the darkest complexions were more likely to be in an advanced state of undress. They were also more likely to have a bared midriff, and only they are shown with bared feet or are implied to be totally nude.
The darkest-complexioned women in this group were also likely to be provocatively dressed, wearing underwear or similar clothing. Women with the lightest complexion are more likely to be conservatively dressed and portrayed as friendly, happy and honest.
The researchers say the scale of the differences between male and female skin colour selected for their attractiveness is too big to be explained by pure biology. “I contend the complexion findings should be understood as a product of deeply rooted and enduring cultural values,” says Dr Baumann.
“My argument to explain the findings has two key features. First, it is based on the meanings that lightness and darkness have in our culture. Second, it highlights the links between moral and aesthetic judgements.
“Physical lightness and darkness are aesthetic characteristics that… exemplify the link between aesthetic and moral judgements. On average, fair complexions in women are the dominant aesthetic ideal because sexual modesty and conventional femininity are the dominant behavioural ideal for women. However, there also exists an appreciation for a darker complexion in women, though less common, and this less-common aesthetic preference appears to coexist with a view of such women as more overtly sexual… darker women are seen as more promiscuous.”
Monica Bellucci
Men who favour darker-hued beauties such as the Italian model-turned-actress supposedly have a subconscious urge for danger
Nicole Kidman
It’s one-nil for Kidman versus her darker-complexioned sisters because men just can’t help preferring fairer-skinned women
Colin Farrell
No wonder the Irish star of ‘Phone Booth’ and ‘Miami Vice’ hit the big time: women are drawn to Heathcliff types who symbolise sex and virility
Daniel Craig
The latest 007 may not measure up to the subliminal female ideal of the dark, brooding hero but that doesn’t seem to have hampered his career
Thandie Newton
No matter the race, it’s the fairer the better when it comes to female sex symbols for the world’s men
Marianne Jean-Baptiste
Men see the ‘Secrets and Lies’ star as dangerous and sexy because of her darker complexion, research shows
Gary Dourdan
The forensic investigator Warrick Brown from ‘CSI’ cuts an attractive figure with his fair skin and green eyes
Djimon Hounsou
The ‘Blood Diamond’ actor was snapped up by Calvin Klein to model underwear. Research shows he oozes sex appeal
Hahahahaha! Stay mad.
In an analysis of more than 2,000 advertising photographs of men and women, the researchers found that the skin of white women was 15.2 per cent lighter than the skin of white males, and the skin of black women 11.1 per cent lighter than the skin of black men.
That only shows white skin is more valued for women then men. Doesn’t prove it has no value for men.
Height for example is more attractive in men than women, but still attractive in both
Swank claims black men are less atteactive than short men & he’s a super liberal
Yeah but Swank bases his claim on online dating stats which aren’t a representative sample of the whole population, and dating is influenced by more factors than pure sexual attraction, like racism.
But it’s a fact that women prefer darker men at least within their race. And that as a whole black is the top heterosexual fantasy of women watching porn.
Men are subconsciously attracted to fairer skin because of its association with innocence, purity, modesty, virginity, vulnerability and goodness, according to researchers at the University of Toronto. Women are attracted to men with darker complexions because these are associated with sex, virility, mystery, villainy and danger.
This was the important part btw.
Interesting graph.
“In mars your diagnosis would be ”high functioning retardation”…”
Irrelevant to what I wrote.
“Keep repeating this sentences, please… and keep tossing strawmen everywhere everytime…”
Where are the strawmen?
“The first sentence is GOLD!!! typical from pseudo-scientis..”
How is that pseudoscientific?
“you started to saying ”only-natural selection” and know you accept sexual selection as secondary factor, but… look impossible have sexual selection without natural selection, not in this world.”
I said sexual selection can’t explain the gradation. It doesn’t follow that sexual selection is irrelevant.
“So how explain the ”lighter skin x stronger bones” you linked*”
Blacks have a different physiology than whites. Read the paper. I’m not here to educate you.
“How can RR keep a straight face as he quotes his shitty straw-man dimorphism studies and claims it’s only females who’re more attractive with light skin is beyond me”
How is it a strawman when it was proposed by two researchers? Explain how it’s a strawman. Also how do you know that women didn’t select darker men?
afro-tard,
men lie and women lie. the average for straights has to be exactly the same except for threesomes. are they common in france?
black men lie the most because black men are dumb and they value themselves by how many women they’ve slept with even if these women are hideous waddling white land whales covered in tattoos.
this is why africa and haiti are doomed…FOREVER.
100 women in 10 years OR an actual member of an SSPX church…
it can’t be both.
it’s also impossible that afro doesn’t have herpes, an incurable STD. it’s also unlikely he hasn’t had many curable STDs. but if these women were actually women or afro is a top it is unlikely he has HIV unless he got it from his biological mother.
You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
The chart isn’t about averages, it’s about percentage of people having a certain count of partners in a year. 10 partners or more in a year is only unbelievable to a sexually impotent man of your type. There are 52 weekends in a year, you just need to pick up a new chick every two Saturday nights and you’re at 26. Nothing easier when you’re a good-looking clubber.
As for STDs, I’ve had a few but they were worth the pain. Everybody has had a STD at some point in their life (unless they’re virgin like you), so I don’t understand the shaming.
And no, my Church is the Catholic Church, I only attend approved Tridentine masses and been in approved Traditionalist Fraternities. I’m sorta over it now though.
As for averages, men are expected to have more sex than women because there are more women than men of reproductive age. Especially among singles.
You can look at the sex ratio for singles with characteristics you prize here:
https://singlesatlas.com/usa
The whole ‘Blacks are virile, polygamous, sexual beasts’ narrative coming from Afro is very, very tiring.
“black men are dumb and they value themselves by how many women they’ve slept with even if these women are hideous waddling white land whales covered in tattoos.
this is why africa and haiti are doomed…FOREVER.”
Yep.
Swank claims black men are less atteactive than short men & he’s a super liberal
I said that being a black man is like being short (as in like 5’6-5’7), only worse — how much worse, I can’t say.
But I said this to put the handicap in perspective. (1) it’s nothing that can’t be ‘overcome’ to a substantial degree and (2) it’s social. And it’s relative to the dominant culture — so, i.e. ‘white’
all men are most attractive to women of their own race.
but dating != raw attraction. and “raw attraction” is mostly based on culture anyway — people like what they are told to like physically, especially women. but society also regulates couplings, so outsiders are treated with contempt and disdain and people who mingle with outsiders don’t fare much better.
so the message for women is — someone with these traits who is ALSO an ‘insider.’
which is why — get this! — someone can be BOTH very physically attractive to a woman and NEVER get an opportunity with the same woman. and the WOMAN is the one who will ensure that….
Here’s the rule gents: people want above average, but not much more. The general rule of thumb is somewhere around 1 SD.
Is darker skin more culturally manly?
YES. It’s stupid to argue otherwise. tall, dark, and handsome. doy.
the problem a black man faces, as opposed to a bi-racial, latino, middle eastern or southern italian man, is that he’s simply TOO FAR away from the population average.
the black man is TOO culturally different.
being too culturally different is DANGEROUS. and a woman knows that she risks complete estrangement from many groups if she wanders outside the lines too much.
so what happens when you get the combination of (1) a woman ignores social reality around (2) a cultural outsider who (3) is very physically attractive?
In this instance, a teen claimed she was repeatedly raped by two Sacred Heart University football players in a tiny basement bathroom while the party raged on.
But months after the players were dismissed from the team and had withdrawn from the school 18-year-old Nikki Yovino confessed she had made the rape allegations up to gain the sympathy of a prospective boyfriend, police said.
She admitted that she made up the allegation of sexual assault against (the football players) because it was the first thing that came to mind and she didn’t want to lose (another male student) as a friend and potential boyfriend,”
https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Police-Football-players-falsely-accused-of-rape-10950934.php
people make fun of Barack for being too skinny or not alpha enough or whatever…
…but let’s be real…
if he were not to the left 1 SD on those traits, he would never have been elected.
men lie and women lie. the average for straights
which is why sex surveys tend to report medians…
YOUR CHURCH IS NOT THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH AFRO.
NOT EVEN CLOSE.
YOU’RE LIKE A QUAKER WHO’S IN FAVOR OF NUCLEAR WAR.
PEEPEE IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE SO INSANE THAT FEW CAN BELIEVE ANY ONE COULD BE SO INSANE SO THEY DON’T NOTICE.
IT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR MEN TO HAVE MORE SEX THAN WOMEN AFRO-TARD.
UNLESS, LIKE YOU, THEY COUNT OTHER MEN AS WOMEN.
when afro and swank talk about banging a new “side chick” every weekend i think…
why? why would anyone do that? were you raped?
Why did you do that Karen?
okay enough, drifting off-topic again.
The whole ‘Blacks are virile, polygamous, sexual beasts’ narrative coming from Afro is very, very tiring.
The narrative is much older than me, you’re so mad about it that you have to call women “coal burners”.
Now you’re free to believe you’re too smart to have sex. And as far as sexual selection is concerned, women’s preference for darker men cancels out or even reverses men’s preference for light skin.
Swank, Europeans prefer dark Caucasiod men because a tan is associated with fitness and high class in the modern day [though 200 years ago things were very different and Europeans were trying their hardest to keep their skin as pale as possible with parasols and whitening powders in ways similar to the Chinese of today], in both males and females. North Africans and Middle Easterners definitely prefer light skin to dark skin, for exactly the same reasons. Light skin is associated with wealth and class. No race finds very dark skin attractive.
Swank, black men face no problem either in intraracial or in interracial dating.
As a whole, black men are more likely to marry interracially than Asian men. Hispanic men are the most likely to marry out of their group, but a lot of them are basically dark whites and they tend to live in more progressive areas. Asians fare the worst, they live in progressive areas too but they’re light skinned, short, with weak morphology.
However, I think all the social factors that influence long term mating have no importance whatsoever in casual sex where things just come down to where people hang out and meet. In these instance, there definitely is a black stud premium.
Mug of pee, do you understand sex-ratio?
INAcCURAte STAStiTIsCs EvERYBOdy KnowS WhitE WImmeNS Love BlACk sTUDS
LOL! Online dating…
Why don’t you post a chart of the preferences of female cosplay club members?
What’s wrong with using online dating stats?
Because as a general rule, people who date online are the least endowed of their group.
Secondly, dating online is not the same as dating IRL because it relies on a description and a few pictures. So the impression is not the same as the feelings you get from stumbling on someone IRL. Not to mention people using fake pictures, lying on their height, job, weight… and the fear of a bad encounter.
Thirdly, we don’t know if the characteristics of dating apps users are the same across racial lines. I would argue that the blacks that use dating apps are much uglier than the whites and a smaller share of the black population. Whereas the whites and Asians would tend to be closer to the average and be using these apps because they’re more introvert and also busier with less time to hang out and pick up.
Finally, few online encounters end up in an actual date, let alone romance and sex. So we can’t know what’s left of these racial preferences when people meet IRL.
So if we want to talk about raw attraction, it’s much better to rely on porn stats, which reflect people’s fantasies no matter the sampling. Whereas trends in intermarriage and mixed-race births are accurately depicted by census data.
Except porn stats don’t reflect the race of the watchers. We have no way of knowing the race of the women watching the porn and searching the terms. Certainly, the testosterone filled negro female is the most avid watcher of porn, reflected by the search terms.
In the Arab world, the most popular search term by race is Arab. MENA women aren’t into bestiality.
Ebony searches come primarily from Africa, as you might expect.
And indeed, even in the USA, ebony searches come primarily from those places dominated by Blacks.
So Afro, how can you prove the primary demographic for female porn watchers isn’t black females? Certainly seems to be, and most likely is, given they’re the most slutty, easy women of all the races, using your own statistics?
They certainly seem to have a higher sex drive, one almost twice that of other women, so it’s no wonder they watch so much porn with all that testosterone running through their veins. [redacted by pp, may 25, 2018]
These are women’s top searches in general and most watched gay categories (that excludes women watching women). As you can see, black is by far the most searched category (especially when you add the quasi-synonymous terms such as big dick, interracial, ebony, big black dick) and that can’t be explained by demographics.
Blacks are a very small share of internet users and other racial categories such as Latino, Indian, Chinese (though they might be watching Japanese videos instead) or Arab should come first from the demographic factor alone.
Within the US, Canada and the UK, Black has more relative searches even in areas with small black populations and/or aren’t the largest minority.
This includes:
England
Ontario
New York
Florida
Texas
Arkansas
Tennessee
Illinois
Michigan
New Jersey
Delaware
the only other racial category to dominate relative searches is Japanese in British Columbia and Asian in Hawaii. Hispanics in the US and Asians, especially South Asians are remarkably absent in the UK and Canada. And Arabs are nowhere to be seen.
It all comes down to a fact that you will never swallow: black is a huge fantasy for women of all races. You’ve never talked about sex with a woman so you can’t know it. But being black in the sex game comes with a reputation for superior endowment and incredible stamina. Is it true or not? Never mind, women want to see for themselves, though a lot will probably never fulfill this fantasy because of numerical mismatch.
Notice how lesbian themes dominate the search terms even though only a small percentage of women are attracted to women. By the same logic, blacks can dominate the search terms even if only a small percentage of women are attracted to blacks (many of whom are black themselves). The reason is you don’t need to type in “white” or “Caucasoid” when searching porn because that’s what the industry bombards you with. As for the absence of more specific ethnic groups; these generally have their own cultures to search porn in.
A better way to test Afro’s theory is to find a list of the most successful male porn stars and count how many are black. According to this list only 10% are black, despite blacks being 13% of America:
Oh no believe me, a large minority of women have some sort of attraction for other women.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34744903
Black men may be “only” 10% of the world’s best paid actors, but blacks are much much much less than 10% of the world’s porn viewers. Not to mention that the industry was and is still racist to a certain degree. So this 10% figure is impressive. However, what can’t be ascertained is how much this reflects females preferences, because male actors aren’t the focus of the straight porn industry and the men are not really selected for their attractiveness.
Well i don’t know anything about the porn industry, but typically show business success is driven by popularity in America, so the relevant question is what percentage of American porn fans are black? Blacks are 13% of America and stereotypically more interested in sex.
Porn is mostly watched by men, and yet some male porn stars have vastly far more market value than others. This likely reflects their popularity with the few women who watch or gay men, or maybe straight men fantasize about looking like them. Whichever of the three, it’s a measure of their sex appeal.
No, many things are popular in America and not so big elsewhere. You can hardly break world records if the majority of your audience is only in the US, America isn’t the center of the world.
So, one black among the world’s top 10 best paid actors is a lot, especially when blacks are usually not paid as much in the show business.
Either way, I’ve never seen a scene with any of these actors nor do I know a woman that has. They all seem pretty ugly to me. I don’t know if all their money just comes from acting or if they ventured in production and other businesses. They also look pretty old, they started their careers when black sex was still a huge taboo in the US and where there were much fewer blacks elsewhere in the developed world.
So I don’t know what to say about this list and what it tells about female preferences.
Top pornstar is Kim Kardashian fucked by her black boyfriend. Mia Khalifa, Brandi love and Lisa Ann do a lot of interracial. Mandingo is the second most popular male actor searched by women and he’s black. So I guess it cognates with the search keywords.
How do you know women are searching for Kim to see her black boyfriend and not her huge ass (which broke the internet when it first went public)?
Anyway, Cosmo polled its readers on who the sexiest men are, and only 2 blacks made the top 25 (8%). Similar to only 10% of the richest male porn stars being black:
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/love-sex/g31/cosmos-25-sexiest-men-85353/?slide=26
How do you know women are searching for Kim to see her black boyfriend and not her huge ass (which broke the internet when it first went public)?
I think I’ve watched this video with all of my girlfriends. It’s the whole stuff that’s really nasty. First it’s a home video, poorly filmed, then it’s a big booty brunette with a black guy. It’s incredibly hot. Now as for what is the number one turn on, judging from the fact that black ranks much higher than big booty in women’s searches, I’d say it’s the black guy.
Anyway, Cosmo polled its readers on who the sexiest men are, and only 2 blacks made the top 25 (8%). Similar to only 10% of the richest male porn stars being black:
Careful with these lists, they have arbitrarily pre-selected candidates. Lots of men I’ve heard much more of, both black and white aren’t there.
As for the lack of specific ethnic searches beside black. First you notice there are no searches for specific European traits like blonde, hairy, redhead, fair skinned etc.
Hispanics, in the US and non-blacks all over the world aren’t particularly attracted to their own. But Africans despite having their own culture watch black porn whereas Asians rather watch Caucasian anime characters than actual people.
An interesting case is Russia
Black comes third behind all combinations of Whites and Asians. These are general statistics blending male and female viewers. But seeing how black is so much more popular for female viewers compared with male viewers (and also relative to other races), it tells you that even in an ethnocentric country like Russia, black remains among women’s favorite porn searches.
^^^AUTISM^^^
what % of pornhub users fill out a “my personal info” form on pornhub? what % lie?
“ebony” refers ONLY to black women.
who are all these straight women fapping to lesbians?
The data is drawn from google analytics.
Ebony refers to black on black porn. Women watching ebony porn go there for the men as seen from their gay porn searches.
As for straight women fantasizing on other women, you’d know if you weren’t a virgin that it’s extremely common. Most times they can’t explain it and think they’d never do it in real life or only in a threesome.
Except… the most popular category in Arab countries is Arab and Lesbian, not Negroid and Lesbian?
And of course ebony would appear in the search terms, you sub-human. You have to specifically search for it before you get it, while every other category of porn including lesbian is automatically White.
Meaning people prefer White about 5x more before they even begin to search ebony.
People never search for Mongoloid men because they’re unattractive. The only attractive men are Caucasoid and Negroid men. Caucasoid men are however more attractive than Negroid men.
Afro, who is mentally retarded, thinks women that watch porn is more representative of women, than women who do online dating. TATTTH MATTTH SENTTTH!!
Hahaha! I love how you can’t conceal your bitterness.
Look, I’ve got some more for you:
Search gangbang on pornhub and you’ll see that there are three interracial videos in the top results. Only one of them is labelled as interracial, one is labelled as French. Generic categories without a specific racial label do not equal white, they’re overwhelmingly white because most porn is produced in the West and these videos targeting a white male audience feature white male actors they can relate to. But when there is a non-white character in a race-neutral video, it’s most often a black man or an Asian woman. The most viewed video is Kim Kardashian and Ray J’s sex tape. The title is race-neutral, but the women who’ve watch it know the video is interracial, searching Kim Kardashian is exactly the same as searching BBC.
Secondly, no one sticks to a specific category, what search results indicate is that when women look for a specific type of man, they most commonly look for a black. Not blond, not Arab, not an Indian. The stats don’t imply there are women who search lesbian porn and watch nothing else, black porn and nothing else etc. It just reflects the frequency to which the average female porn user searches a certain category.
Thirdly, women primarily fantasize about specific men they know, so it’s only normal that they more often look for males of their own group. So you get Arab among the top searches in the Arab world, but look at Afghanistan, ebony is the most watched category there. It implies ebony is in the top three most searched heterosexual categories by women all over the world. Contrast that with Russia where a lot of people are from the Caucasus and Central Asia yet Arab and Turk searches are far below ebony in the general population and probably even more among women.
Paint yourself black and hang out at night, you’ll see how reality often surpasses erotic fiction.
“It implies ebony is in the top three most searched heterosexual categories by women all over the world.”
Yes, except you’re missing the fact that the most searched heterosexual category by women all over the world is:
1. People of their own race
2. Whites
3. [N word plural redacted by pp, may 25, 2018]
As you’d expect.
“Cosmo polled its readers on who the sexiest men are, and only 2 blacks made the top 25 (8%). Similar to only 10% of the richest male porn stars being black”
Afro’s denial is so strong it’s absurd, he’s in the same category as the Wakandans and ‘We Wuz Kangz’ groups and he tries to paint his theories as scientific as they do
Afro, who is mentally retarded, thinks women that watch porn is more representative of women, than women who do online dating. TATTTH MATTTH SENTTTH!!
60% of women watch porn weekly you moron. 18% daily.
https://mashable.com/2017/04/12/youporn-women-porn-data/#wyaW3pv.BmqP
“60% of women watch porn weekly ”
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Good old Afro. Afro believing this makes me think Afro has never talked to a woman about sex.
“he’s in the same category as the Wakandans”
Whats a Wakandan?
“Whats a Wakandan?”
What Blacks would be without ol’ whitey.
@Fenoopy
What is that? Blacks didnt even invent the wheel and now they have bridges and planned urban spaces HAHAHA.
This is off-topic pill. Take it to the open thread.
yes afro. i know that. female bisexuality is a real thing, whereas the majority of so-called MSMs are disgusted by women/100% gay. or so i have read. could santo even get it up for the girl from ipanema?
i also know that the trope “your sexuality is what you fap to” is false, especially now with free motion picture porn.
when i was in hs and college i could get off just thinking of girls i went to school with and my female teachers. can’t do that anymore. sad!
Back in Black was released in 1980.
Yes, except you’re missing the fact that the most searched heterosexual category by women all over the world is:
1. People of their own race
2. Whites
3. [N word plural redacted by pp, may 25, 2018]
White isn’t searched by women, it’s imposed to them. There is no single search word that indicates that women are specifically researching whites and that white would be more prized than black if the majority of videos were produced in Africa.
Note to PP: I don’t see the point of your moderation, you can either translate fenoopy’s buttsore babble in civilized language or let it show as it is.
Afro’s denial is so strong it’s absurd, he’s in the same category as the Wakandans and ‘We Wuz Kangz’ groups and he tries to paint his theories as scientific as they do
Poor kid, you’d feel safer circle jerking on 4chan.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Good old Afro. Afro believing this makes me think Afro has never talked to a woman about sex.
LMAO! look into your sister’s phone when you get a chance.
What is that? Blacks didnt even invent the wheel and now they have bridges and planned urban spaces HAHAHA.
https://www.ekoatlantic.com/
“White isn’t searched by women, it’s imposed to them.”
Ok.
Delusion levels are too high.
“yes you did…”
Where?
“Most of hypothesis you fall in love always look like excessive and not just trying the easier firstly but also denying them.”
How?
“The type of diet inuits have no doubt help them to survive in arctic and pre-arctic environments but i doubt it’s even change their skin color.”
It did; it helps keep it darker.
“they have a variable skin color and inuit males may have a darker skin, firstly because it’s a common feature in human males, secondly because they are continuously exposed to arctic sunlight during the spring and summer, thirdly because they are descendent from mongoloid macro-race who migrated to Americas and have basically the same or very similar skin color variation and capacity to tan.”
Glad to know we agree.
“It’s needed to prove empirically that their diet type have this power to alter their skin color, all body and not just the exposed body parts and be a universal trend. We have norwegian or scandinavian example, people who eat fish a lot and don’t become darker, we have japanese example too, and they are the lightest of east asians..”
You provided a reference that stated it was diet; did you read the article?
”What’s the point of that article? How does that say anything about the relationship between .. physiology”
Your dirty game here is visible. Even if you’re that expert of so-called ”lamarckiology”.
What’s my “dirty game” and how is it “visible”?
Fenoopy, I agree people are attracted now to white skin because of it’s association with high statuts everywhere in the world but what would make prehistorical humans more attracted to white skin than to dark skin ?
but what would make prehistorical humans more attracted to white skin than to dark skin ?
Humans have a primordial fear of the dark, because darkness represents the unknown, shadows, and night, so perhaps once humans moved into climates where it was safe to have light skin without burning, people preferred to have sex with the light skinned people, and so each generation became whiter than the one before, because no one wanted to make babies with the darkest folks. In the tropics they have no choice because everyone must be dark to survive the sun.
Also, it’s easier to read facial expressions on light skinned people which would also make them more attractive.
This is evidence for the sexual selection hypothesis?
Furthermore, what PP and fenoopy propose (that environmental selection was relaxed after migrating to northern climates which causes sexual selection for lighter skin) was rebutted by Madrigal and Kelly (2007). So that’s out of the question.
You keep saying that and quoting that shitty dimorphism study. I can’t tell if you’re dense or doing it on purpose RR, probably the latter. Neither of us believe it’s exclusively females who’re attractive when lighter and neither of us have mentioned dimorphism, so enough with that.
“You keep saying that and quoting that shitty dimorphism study.”
Why is it shitty?
“Neither of us believe it’s exclusively females who’re attractive when lighter and neither of us have mentioned dimorphism, so enough with that.”
Dimorphism doesn’t matter? Sexual—and parental—selection hypotheses don’t make any sense; skin color being an adaptation is extremely clear.
My hypothesis PP, ai ai ai
Afro’s sister
vs Khoisan babe
Which are you more attracted to Lyrion and why? Think carefully about the subconscious reasoning behind your choice.
RR, did you ever make that post explaining why sexual selection is impossible? I must have missed it.
‘impossible’? It doesn’t—and cannot—explain the observed gradation in skin color around the world. The agents vitamin D and folate do. Read up on the physiology of those agents and get back to me.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/05/23/why-are-women-lighter-than-men-skin-color-and-sexual-selection/