the question is obvious, were different brands of people.
i can guarantee you no matter how much uv crap ya get, youll never switch races.
Skin isnt the only thing, hair, eyes, body comosition, ect.
white people live in Africa and some have for generations, theyre still white.
At the tower of Babel, when God changed the people's languages, i believe he also altered their skin color aswell, explaining why people of a certain color spoke the same language.
Until the age of globalism any way.
Good question.
2007-07-03 06:40:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by Indio 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
In and of itself, skin color has fascinating issues for child birth. It turns out that people towards equatorial latitudes, all other things equal, tend to be darker because the UV rays actually impact survival rates in child birth. UV rays impact the conversion of 7-dehydrocholesterol into the pre-vitamin D3. It is well documented that miscarriage rates change as people change latitudes. First, the change is slow, but second certain Innuit tribes have a diet that compensates for the sunlight. So, while a group of white Scandinavians moving to Equatorial Africa can expect a large jump is miscarriages, so can black people from Equatorial Africa moving to Norway.
When you see a particular adaptation that goes against the simple single variable observation, that there is a direct correlation between skin color and latitude, then you should check other causes within the environment.
2007-07-03 17:04:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by OPM 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
We all have different shades of color in our skin..... My skin has hues of yellow, blue and brown, I'm freckly to.... I don't have the beautiful olive skin of some of my Indian friends, and some of then have freckles as well....
People we call Eskimos originally came from Asia across a land bridge (which no longer exists) into northern North America (now called Alaska). They gradually spread across the Arctic regions of the continent. Eventually they came to live in four countries: (1) the Soviet Union; (2) the United States (Alaska); (3) Canada; and (4) Greenland.
Eskimos are generally smaller and wider in stature to conserve body heat better, due to the cold clement they lived in.
2007-07-03 06:46:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by tippytetoe 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The term 'evolution' is often used to describe how the international began and stepped forward (stepped forward) over an extremely l-o-n-g span of time. i think of this is refered to as Macro. Micro evolution / progression is over a quick span of time. i'm questioning that technology / drugs can observe how countless ailments substitute into proof against drugs over a era of 30 - 40 yrs or so provide or take some years. organic selection / survival of the fittest isn't comparable to how countless animals crossed the line to alter right into a diverse animal. An occasion i'm questioning it relatively is a horse and donkey that could mate however the effect of it won't be able to reproduce. A pelican and a robin, although the two are birds / won't be able to mate and bring yet another chook. Animals of a similar sort and same community section can mate and reproduce. A canines and chipmonk are unlikely to mate and bring yet another sort of animal. needless to say guy and animals are right here. guy needs to describe those without giving God credit for it. That way mankind isn't to blame to a greater robust ability. yet while a guy or woman takes time to think of approximately it -- there has been no choose for animals Or guy to have 'stepped forward'. there substitute into no choose for a huge Bang the two.
2016-10-03 12:05:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by dorais 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because skin tone isn't based on heat, it's based on exposure to UV radiation. And UV radiation is actually VERY high where Eskimos live.
--
EDIT: Brett's answer is probably right. I've heard the explanation I gave tossed around with regard to Alaskan natives.
One thing I'd like to know is this: In Creationism, why did God design people from Europe to have almost no protection against skin cancer?
2007-07-03 06:35:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
I really don't know much about when they moved to the areas they reside. But I doubt that you will find hard evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution.
The vitamin d thing makes sense. They didn't develop lighter skin because it was not favored, they didn't need to change their skin to get the vitamin d they need. They continued to get the d they need from their diet.
2007-07-03 06:37:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Google < inuit skin color > yields 253,000 hits...
"The Inuit and Yupik are special cases: even though they live in an extremely sun-poor environment, they have retained their relatively dark skin. This can be explained by the fact that their traditional animal-based diet provides plenty of vitamin D."
2007-07-03 06:35:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
what people don't seem to understand is that evolution is not an overnight process. in other words, it takes millions and sometimes thousands of years for mutation in genetic coding to change an organism...
.just because a few generations of white people living Africa are still white does not discredit evolution. they won't change skin tones in a few hundred years.
2007-07-03 06:48:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by God ◊ Machine 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You should ask evolution questions in the biology section
2007-07-03 07:00:42
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Haven't been up their long enough is my guess, but I wasn't there and have never read up on it so I'm not sure. UV light. Good thing there are smart people on here, eh?
It's a fact.
2007-07-03 06:36:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋