• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

Is racial characteristics based on geographical location?


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 The Immortalist

  • Guest
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 17 April 2011 - 02:05 AM


I was wondering if the reason people develop different characteristics over time is because of the location they are in in the world.
In a hypothetical scenario let's say if all of the races except black people were gone from the earth and all the black people were magically transported to western Europe. If the population that was transported there stayed in western Europe for thousands and thousands of years would the population eventually turn into Caucasian white people?

#2 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 17 April 2011 - 03:31 AM

I was wondering if the reason people develop different characteristics over time is because of the location they are in in the world.
In a hypothetical scenario let's say if all of the races except black people were gone from the earth and all the black people were magically transported to western Europe. If the population that was transported there stayed in western Europe for thousands and thousands of years would the population eventually turn into Caucasian white people?

Aside from the magic transportation (they walked), that's what happened the first time. People who had lighter complexions made more vitamin D in the low-light conditions of the north, so they had a survival advantage. Their darker-complected friends gradually died out. I imagine it would happen again, unless this time they had iherb accounts and could supplement D3. If you really wanted them to turn into Caucasian White people, you'd probably want to throw in some Neanderthals for them to interbreed with, and I guess you'd need the paleolithic flora and fauna of the region to be there as well. If all the ingredients were in place, maybe you would get June and Ward Cleaver again, although I suppose things could go off in some other weird direction.

#3 enfield

  • Guest
  • 35 posts
  • 17
  • Location:California

Posted 17 April 2011 - 03:50 AM

It seems to be that human variation is more the result of genetic drift than natural selection brought on by the environment.

For example, the migration out of africa by a group of humans 70,000 years ago may have been quite a self-selected group. It may have been a population distinct from the rest with, therefore, different allele frequencies, and thus a population that would be prone to genetic drift. It was once thought that climate change motivated the migration, but people are now linking it with innovation. So maybe it was increases in intelligence that motivated it. It could be it was a group of more intelligent humans, humans with a novel desire to explore, that left. Evidence for this perhaps comes from the fact that there was a greater number of males among them.

Although mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA are particularly useful in deciphering human history, data on the genomes of dozens of population groups have also been studied. In June 2009, an analysis of genome-wide SNP data from the International HapMap Project (Phase II) and CEPH Human Genome Diversity Panel samples was published.[32] Those samples were taken from 1138 unrelated individuals.[32] Before this analysis, population geneticists expected to find dramatic differences among ethnic groups, with derived alleles shared among such groups but uncommon or nonexistent in other groups.[33] Instead the study of 53 populations taken from the HapMap and CEPH data revealed that the population groups studied fell into just three genetic groups: Africans, Eurasians (which includes natives of Europe and the Middle East, and Southwest Asians east to present-day Pakistan), and East Asians, which includes natives of Asia, Japan, Southeast Asia, the Americas, and Oceania.[33] The study determined that most ethnic group differences can be attributed to genetic drift, with modern African populations having greater genetic diversity than the other two genetic groups, and modern Eurasians somewhat more than modern East Asians.[33] The study suggested that natural selection may shape the human genome much more slowly than previously thought, with factors such as migration within and among continents more heavily influencing the distribution of genetic variations.[34]



http://en.wikipedia....enomic_analysis

Skin color was geographically influenced though. I read about this awhile ago...lighter skin wasn't a mutation, but the expression of a trait that had always been suppressed in Africa. and then it actually turned out to have benefits in the regions where it could be expressed (more vitamin D absorption being one of them). But so the answer to your question is probably no - black africans would probably turn more into white africans over time, not Caucasian white people

Edited by enfield, 17 April 2011 - 03:54 AM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 j03

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -46
  • Location:...

Posted 22 April 2011 - 02:38 AM

I believe you would need cross-breeding for a species to mutate. How long have the Eskimo's been in the arctic and they haven't developed light hair or eyes yet.

#5 j03

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -46
  • Location:...

Posted 22 April 2011 - 02:41 AM

Although i think Asian people were evolved to cope with extreme cold in Mongolia so maybe they don't have any reason to evolve out of their current form?

I think i read the slanted eyes were evolutionarily developed to let in less glare off the ice for the hunters in Mongolia... and the epicantic fold was to provide an extra layer of fat for warming the eye.

Edited by Iosif, 22 April 2011 - 02:42 AM.


#6 lunarsolarpower

  • Guest
  • 1,323 posts
  • 53
  • Location:BC, Canada

Posted 01 May 2011 - 08:39 AM

Genetics gets pretty complicated once you move beyond pea plant variations. Certainly things like sickle cell trait have been selected for by local factors (the presence of malaria in that case). Even if evolution results in a similar solution to a previous one the solutions will usually use different mechanisms to achieve their results.

http://evolution.ber...omologies.shtml

#7 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 02 May 2011 - 04:38 AM

It seems to be that human variation is more the result of genetic drift than natural selection brought on by the environment.

For example, the migration out of africa by a group of humans 70,000 years ago may have been quite a self-selected group. It may have been a population distinct from the rest with, therefore, different allele frequencies, and thus a population that would be prone to genetic drift. It was once thought that climate change motivated the migration, but people are now linking it with innovation. So maybe it was increases in intelligence that motivated it. It could be it was a group of more intelligent humans, humans with a novel desire to explore, that left. Evidence for this perhaps comes from the fact that there was a greater number of males among them.

Although mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA are particularly useful in deciphering human history, data on the genomes of dozens of population groups have also been studied. In June 2009, an analysis of genome-wide SNP data from the International HapMap Project (Phase II) and CEPH Human Genome Diversity Panel samples was published.[32] Those samples were taken from 1138 unrelated individuals.[32] Before this analysis, population geneticists expected to find dramatic differences among ethnic groups, with derived alleles shared among such groups but uncommon or nonexistent in other groups.[33] Instead the study of 53 populations taken from the HapMap and CEPH data revealed that the population groups studied fell into just three genetic groups: Africans, Eurasians (which includes natives of Europe and the Middle East, and Southwest Asians east to present-day Pakistan), and East Asians, which includes natives of Asia, Japan, Southeast Asia, the Americas, and Oceania.[33] The study determined that most ethnic group differences can be attributed to genetic drift, with modern African populations having greater genetic diversity than the other two genetic groups, and modern Eurasians somewhat more than modern East Asians.[33] The study suggested that natural selection may shape the human genome much more slowly than previously thought, with factors such as migration within and among continents more heavily influencing the distribution of genetic variations.[34]



http://en.wikipedia....enomic_analysis

Skin color was geographically influenced though. I read about this awhile ago...lighter skin wasn't a mutation, but the expression of a trait that had always been suppressed in Africa. and then it actually turned out to have benefits in the regions where it could be expressed (more vitamin D absorption being one of them). But so the answer to your question is probably no - black africans would probably turn more into white africans over time, not Caucasian white people


You say that skin color is geographically influenced but it's also believed that nose structures can change due to the environment and region?

Here's some info: http://en.wikipedia....human_evolution

""Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances. These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes.""

#8 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 02 May 2011 - 10:33 AM

Some aboriginal groups in west central Australia have blond hair. Hardly a European type climate. This would tend to buttress the "genetic drift" explanation over the "climate cause" theory.

#9 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 02 May 2011 - 06:02 PM

Some aboriginal groups in west central Australia have blond hair. Hardly a European type climate. This would tend to buttress the "genetic drift" explanation over the "climate cause" theory.


According to wikipedia blonde hair in aboriginals is associated with children and women, but that the hair usually turns dark brown as they age. I believe this is also seen in some white people who are born with blonde hair but as they age it turns brown or black. Eitherway, weren't we more or less discussing skin color and facial structures being affected by the climate/ and or environment change?

#10 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 03 May 2011 - 01:04 AM

Some aboriginal groups in west central Australia have blond hair. Hardly a European type climate. This would tend to buttress the "genetic drift" explanation over the "climate cause" theory.


According to wikipedia blonde hair in aboriginals is associated with children and women, but that the hair usually turns dark brown as they age. I believe this is also seen in some white people who are born with blonde hair but as they age it turns brown or black. Eitherway, weren't we more or less discussing skin color and facial structures being affected by the climate/ and or environment change?

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Note the distribution of blond hair (and somewhat lighter skin) does not follow climate zones. The hottest, sunniest areas have the most blonds. And how much of that dark skin is due to sun exposure from a very early age?

Posted Image

Edited by maxwatt, 03 May 2011 - 01:06 AM.


#11 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 03 May 2011 - 06:36 PM

Some aboriginal groups in west central Australia have blond hair. Hardly a European type climate. This would tend to buttress the "genetic drift" explanation over the "climate cause" theory.


According to wikipedia blonde hair in aboriginals is associated with children and women, but that the hair usually turns dark brown as they age. I believe this is also seen in some white people who are born with blonde hair but as they age it turns brown or black. Eitherway, weren't we more or less discussing skin color and facial structures being affected by the climate/ and or environment change?

...
Posted Image

Note the distribution of blond hair (and somewhat lighter skin) does not follow climate zones. The hottest, sunniest areas have the most blonds. And how much of that dark skin is due to sun exposure from a very early age?
...



I'm no expert on this but looking at google some scientists believe the cause is that some aboriginals have been mixing with white Australians, while others believe it's because Aboriginals are a type of Caucasian race (not all Caucasians are white skinned; Indians being another example). Either-way there doesn't seem to be a dominate theory on what makes people have blonde hair many believe it was a mutation to help those in the North better synthesize Vit. D while others believe it was due to sexual selection, that blonde hair was a sign of fertility or at least that's what our ancestors believed.

Anyway, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to stir up with this discussion. Are you trying to say that since hair color might not have anything to do with environment change that perhaps skin color and facial structures could fall into the same line?

Edited by maxwatt, 04 May 2011 - 11:08 AM.


#12 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 04 May 2011 - 11:06 AM

I'm no expert on this but looking at google some scientists believe the cause is that some aboriginals have been mixing with white Australians, while others believe it's because Aboriginals are a type of Caucasian race (not all Caucasians are white skinned; Indians being another example). Either-way there doesn't seem to be a dominate theory on what makes people have blonde hair many believe it was a mutation to help those in the North better synthesize Vit. D while others believe it was due to sexual selection, that blonde hair was a sign of fertility or at least that's what our ancestors believed.

Anyway, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to stir up with this discussion. Are you trying to say that since hair color might not have anything to do with environment change that perhaps skin color and facial structures could fall into the same line?


The blond hair appears to be its own distinct mutation, and is most predominant in areas where the aboriginal population has had the least contact with Caucasians. Hair color, at least, appears to be unrelated to climate, and may be caused by genetic drift if there are not other selective pressures. Skin color is likely selected for by exposure to sunlight. The extra fat pads around the eyes in some peoples has been said to be an advantage to protect the eye in cold winds on the steppes of Asia, but it has been retained by peoples for whom it provides no advantage. I'd say it is like the quantum view of the electron: sometimes it behaves like a wave, sometimes a particle, It is both and neither at the same time. So with evolution: sometimes climate is a factor, sometimes genetic drift, and sometimes merely the capricious choices of females in mate selection.

#13 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 07 May 2011 - 09:23 AM

I'm no expert on this but looking at google some scientists believe the cause is that some aboriginals have been mixing with white Australians, while others believe it's because Aboriginals are a type of Caucasian race (not all Caucasians are white skinned; Indians being another example). Either-way there doesn't seem to be a dominate theory on what makes people have blonde hair many believe it was a mutation to help those in the North better synthesize Vit. D while others believe it was due to sexual selection, that blonde hair was a sign of fertility or at least that's what our ancestors believed.

Anyway, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to stir up with this discussion. Are you trying to say that since hair color might not have anything to do with environment change that perhaps skin color and facial structures could fall into the same line?


The blond hair appears to be its own distinct mutation, and is most predominant in areas where the aboriginal population has had the least contact with Caucasians. Hair color, at least, appears to be unrelated to climate, and may be caused by genetic drift if there are not other selective pressures. Skin color is likely selected for by exposure to sunlight. The extra fat pads around the eyes in some peoples has been said to be an advantage to protect the eye in cold winds on the steppes of Asia, but it has been retained by peoples for whom it provides no advantage. I'd say it is like the quantum view of the electron: sometimes it behaves like a wave, sometimes a particle, It is both and neither at the same time. So with evolution: sometimes climate is a factor, sometimes genetic drift, and sometimes merely the capricious choices of females in mate selection.


I see, but Evolution is a slow process which can sometimes take millions of years so just because some people have retained an appearance for a few hundred or a few thousand years despite moving from a region which no longer requires said advantage does not mean that climate should be left out of the equation when things don't seem to add up.

#14 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 07 May 2011 - 12:20 PM

I'm no expert on this but looking at google some scientists believe the cause is that some aboriginals have been mixing with white Australians, while others believe it's because Aboriginals are a type of Caucasian race (not all Caucasians are white skinned; Indians being another example). Either-way there doesn't seem to be a dominate theory on what makes people have blonde hair many believe it was a mutation to help those in the North better synthesize Vit. D while others believe it was due to sexual selection, that blonde hair was a sign of fertility or at least that's what our ancestors believed.

Anyway, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to stir up with this discussion. Are you trying to say that since hair color might not have anything to do with environment change that perhaps skin color and facial structures could fall into the same line?


The blond hair appears to be its own distinct mutation, and is most predominant in areas where the aboriginal population has had the least contact with Caucasians. Hair color, at least, appears to be unrelated to climate, and may be caused by genetic drift if there are not other selective pressures. Skin color is likely selected for by exposure to sunlight. The extra fat pads around the eyes in some peoples has been said to be an advantage to protect the eye in cold winds on the steppes of Asia, but it has been retained by peoples for whom it provides no advantage. I'd say it is like the quantum view of the electron: sometimes it behaves like a wave, sometimes a particle, It is both and neither at the same time. So with evolution: sometimes climate is a factor, sometimes genetic drift, and sometimes merely the capricious choices of females in mate selection.


I see, but Evolution is a slow process which can sometimes take millions of years so just because some people have retained an appearance for a few hundred or a few thousand years despite moving from a region which no longer requires said advantage does not mean that climate should be left out of the equation when things don't seem to add up.


Evolution can happen very quickly in the right circumstance. Small population will drift, and desireable changes spread quickly. In a large population, advantageous mutations can sweep rapidly through a large population. This seems to have happened with the microcephalin gene spreading through Europe in the last 500 years, until almost universal in that population. Another factor: epigenetic changes (changes in the way a gene expresses) are heritable, so a tru mutation is not always necessary. It is now realized that such changes can happen much faster than was thought when the textbooks were written.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users