Question at Quora: "If humans have evolved from the same ancestry, why do we have different physical appearance and faces in different regions?"

My answer:
All species in evolutionarily “short” times adapt geographically, e.g. bears are brown (etymol.”bear” = the brown one), and grizzleys (grey) & polar bears (white) are still interfertile = the same species. In humans we see something comparable: most Africans are black (dark forest), but Bushmen, Berbers & Austr.aboriginals (sunlight) are more brownish-ochre. Scandinavians are blond, etc.
Camouflage is extremely important: Raymond Cowles 1896–1975. That’s why we get color in Summer (even + counter-shadow!) & even freckles: sunlit forest in Britain? The dark Italians & blond Scandinavians split <5 ka: both speak Indo-European.
The short noses of Africans are possibly heat-adaptations? their curly hair protects against the sun? The narrow lips of northern people are cold-adaptations?? etc.
Evolution happens often faster than we thought, google e.g. “human evolution Verhaegen”. :-)

On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 03:59:32 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Question at Quora: "If humans have evolved from the same ancestry, why
>do we have different physical appearance and faces in different regions?"
>
>My answer:
>All species in evolutionarily “short” times adapt geographically, e.g. bears are brown
>(etymol.”bear” = the brown one), and grizzleys (grey) & polar bears (white) are still
>interfertile = the same species. In humans we see something comparable: most Africans
>are black (dark forest), but Bushmen, Berbers & Austr.aboriginals (sunlight) are more
>brownish-ochre. Scandinavians are blond, etc. Camouflage is extremely important:
>Raymond Cowles 1896–1975. That’s why we get color in Summer (even + counter-shadow!)
>& even freckles: sunlit forest in Britain? The dark Italians & blond Scandinavians split <5 ka: both
>speak Indo-European.

It's well-known that skincolor correlates with environmental UVR.
That's why Australian aboriginals from Darwin have skin reflectance
similar to people from Mozambique (Chopi), and people from Mali
(Dogon) similar to people from India (Orissa). See table 6 in "The
evolution of human skin coloration" by Jablonski & Chaplin (2000) in
JHE:
https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.2000.0403
Full text:
http://sites.psu.edu/ninajablonski/wp-content/uploads/sites/10224/2014/02/Jablonski.2000.JHE_.57ff.pdf

See also more recent papers:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pcmr.12976

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.24564

Has nothing to do with camouflage.

> >Question at Quora: "If humans have evolved from the same ancestry, why
> >do we have different physical appearance and faces in different regions?"

> >My answer:
> >All species in evolutionarily “short” times adapt geographically, e.g. bears are brown
> >(etymol.”bear” = the brown one), and grizzleys (grey) & polar bears (white) are still
> >interfertile = the same species. In humans we see something comparable: most Africans
> >are black (dark forest), but Bushmen, Berbers & Austr.aboriginals (sunlight) are more
> >brownish-ochre. Scandinavians are blond, etc. Camouflage is extremely important:
> >Raymond Cowles 1896–1975. That’s why we get color in Summer (even + counter-shadow!)
> >& even freckles: sunlit forest in Britain? The dark Italians & blond Scandinavians split <5 ka: both
> >speak Indo-European.

Kudu runner:
> It's well-known that skincolor correlates with environmental UVR.

:-DDD
Yes, yes, my little boy, that's why eskimos are darker than Scandinavians.

Already caught your kudu?
Only incredible imbeciles deny that skin color has a lot to do with camouflage.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 06:00:38 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >Question at Quora: "If humans have evolved from the same ancestry, why
>> >do we have different physical appearance and faces in different regions?"
>
>> >My answer:
>> >All species in evolutionarily “short” times adapt geographically, e.g. bears are brown
>> >(etymol.”bear” = the brown one), and grizzleys (grey) & polar bears (white) are still
>> >interfertile = the same species. In humans we see something comparable: most Africans
>> >are black (dark forest), but Bushmen, Berbers & Austr.aboriginals (sunlight) are more
>> >brownish-ochre. Scandinavians are blond, etc. Camouflage is extremely important:
>> >Raymond Cowles 1896–1975. That’s why we get color in Summer (even + counter-shadow!)
>> >& even freckles: sunlit forest in Britain? The dark Italians & blond Scandinavians split <5 ka: both
>> >speak Indo-European.
>
>Kudu runner:
>> It's well-known that skincolor correlates with environmental UVR.
>
>:-DDD
>Yes, yes, my little boy, that's why eskimos are darker than Scandinavians.

What use is darker skin as camouflage in a snowy environment?

https://hereditasjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41065-017-0036-2

"Another interesting issue concerning human skin color adaptation
comes from the arctic people. The Inuit people, in far North Eastern
Asia and the American Subarctic, have yellowish-brown skin despite the
far northern latitude at which they live, unlike other populations
living at the same latitude, such as the Swedes and Finnish (Fig. 4b).
This makes the Inuit population an exception of the
latitude-correlated distribution of skin color. One possible reason is
that the dark skin could protect the Inuits from the severe UV
exposure because of the long daylight hours in winter and high levels
of UV reflection from the snow. While the dark skin is a disadvantage
for vitamin D production, plenty of vitamins including vitamin D could
be compensated from their diets [91, 92]. Another cause could be the
founder effect of the ancient East Asian ancestry of the Inuits, who
have inhabited the arctic region since nearly 5000 years ago, and had
higher melanin production than the European ancestry. However, very
few genetic studies have been conducted to determine the genetic basis
of dark skin in arctic populations."

....
> >> >All spp in evolutionarily “short” times adapt geographically, e.g. bears are brown (etymol.”bear” = the brown one); grizzleys (grey) & polar bears (white) are still interfertile (same species). In humans we see something comparable: most Africans are black (tropical forest), but Bushmen, Berbers & Austr.aboriginals (sunlight - savanna) are more brownish-ochre. Scandinavians are blond, etc. Camouflage is extremely important: Raymond Cowles 1896–1975. That’s why we get color in Summer (even + counter-shadow!) & even freckles: sunlit forest in Britain? The dark Italians & blond Scandinavians split <5 ka (both speak Indo-European).

Kudu runner:
> >> It's well-known that skincolor correlates with environmental UVR.

> >:-DDD Yes, yes, my little boy, that's why eskimos are darker than Scandinavians.

> What use is darker skin as camouflage in a snowy environment?

Do you really believe eskimos are naked??
Never heard of seal skins??
:-DDD

Pandora wrote:

> It's well-known that skincolor correlates with environmental UVR.

But that's Intelligent Design, not evolution... "it would be better if
their skin was darker, so make it dark!"

A <BostonTalk> Wicked Pissah </BostonTalk> analog here would
be American regional accents. I think.

I know I've read in the past that American regional accents are a
reflection of immigration. People sounded like the time (period) and
the place that immigrants came from. And then so very much like
Wolpoff's Multi Regionalism (or Regional Continuity) as new arrivals
were absorbed they emulated the people who were already there.

Of course we're talking biology, not culture, so it's more complicated.
Maybe the new arrivals were viewed as more attractive (which I'm
sure was the case of Neanderthals looking at so called "Moderns"),
maybe they were seen as less attractive. Maybe culture did play a
huge role and newer arrivals were seen as inferior... typical human
bigotries, which had to exist.

> That's why Australian aboriginals from Darwin have skin reflectance
> similar to people from Mozambique (Chopi), and people from Mali
> (Dogon) similar to people from India (Orissa).

Evolution is the furthest thing from logic.

Europeans were supposedly a great deal darker in the past. No, they
weren't "Africans" as many WokeTards like to pretend. But they were
darker.

..."But I looked at all paintings & stuff. They were all very light."

Two issues: Generally when someone posts a selfie it's because they
think it really looks good. Not necessarily the most accurate depiction
of themselves, the "Best" looking one. Same with paintings. They often
embellished one's attractiveness. Light skin was considered attractive.

Secondly, you're not looking at Europeans. You're looking at the very
slim percentage of people who could affording paintings: A subset at
best.

Europeans only really got "White" after the plagues.

Some claim it was natural selection favoring lighter skin because it
was better at acquiring Vitamin D, others claim that it was natural
selection at work because lighter skin could more easily spot a flee
and pick it off...

No, I think your explanation eats rotten eggs on moldy toast, and likes
it....

Where I differ from the good Doctor the most is in the fact that I not
only see Multi Regionalism/Regional Continuity but, very different
reproductive strategies (habits? Customs?).

Some groups were sexually selected. And they would have selected
for lighter skin. But, lighter skin in the wrong environment is an
invitation to cancer -- FAR MORE SO before evolution improved our
mtDNA.

Yes, mtDNA relates to cancer...

So when we were a tropical species into the sub tropics, and we
were still tens of thousands of years away from some way neato
new mtDNA lines, the sun put the brakes on skin lightening.

Yes, there could just be a simple "Founder effect" were the earliest
Eurasians were lighter so *That* happened, but I don't see it likely.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/709529851983544320

On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 13:30:42 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>...
>> >> >All spp in evolutionarily “short” times adapt geographically, e.g. bears are brown (etymol.”bear” = the brown one); grizzleys (grey) & polar bears (white) are still interfertile (same species). In humans we see something comparable: most Africans are black (tropical forest), but Bushmen, Berbers & Austr.aboriginals (sunlight - savanna) are more brownish-ochre. Scandinavians are blond, etc. Camouflage is extremely important: Raymond Cowles 1896–1975. That’s why we get color in Summer (even + counter-shadow!) & even freckles: sunlit forest in Britain? The dark Italians & blond Scandinavians split <5 ka (both speak Indo-European).
>
>Kudu runner:
>> >> It's well-known that skincolor correlates with environmental UVR.
>
>> >:-DDD Yes, yes, my little boy, that's why eskimos are darker than Scandinavians.
>
>> What use is darker skin as camouflage in a snowy environment?
>
>Do you really believe eskimos are naked??

Then why the dark face?
https://www.aci-iac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/art-books_3_j-dewey-soper-portrait-of-ashoona-contextual.jpg

>Never heard of seal skins??

Or caribou:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_clothing

Pandora wrote:

> >Do you really believe eskimos are naked??
> Then why the dark face?
> https://www.aci-iac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/art-books_3_j-dewey-soper-portrait-of-ashoona-contextual.jpg

You just utterly destroyed your own position. Their diets are rich
in Vitamin D. They should be darker than the darkest sub Saharan
African, by your model: Lots of UV radiation, zero need for sun
exposure to make vitamin D... they should be the darkest humans
on the planet! By your model.

Oh. I should probably point out: They're not.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/709529851983544320

On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 22:13:04 -0800 (PST), JTEM is so reasonable
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pandora wrote:
>
>> >Do you really believe eskimos are naked??
>> Then why the dark face?
>> https://www.aci-iac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/art-books_3_j-dewey-soper-portrait-of-ashoona-contextual.jpg
>
>You just utterly destroyed your own position. Their diets are rich
>in Vitamin D. They should be darker than the darkest sub Saharan
>African, by your model: Lots of UV radiation, zero need for sun
>exposure to make vitamin D... they should be the darkest humans
>on the planet! By your model.
>
>Oh. I should probably point out: They're not.

So you think that solar irradiance at 70 degrees latitude is the same
as at 0 degrees latitude? You believe the earth is flat?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance

Pandora wrote:

> So you think that solar irradiance at 70 degrees latitude is the same
> as at 0 degrees latitude?

They don't need any sunlight for vitamin D and snow/ice is reflective
so they effectively double the sunlight.

> You believe the earth is flat?

Do you believe you have a point? Why?

Your straw man reveals the opposite.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/709529851983544320

snorkel noser wrote:
> ...
>>>>> All spp in evolutionarily “short” times adapt geographically, e.g. bears are brown (etymol.”bear” = the brown one); grizzleys (grey) & polar bears (white) are still interfertile (same species). In humans we see something comparable: most Africans are black (tropical forest), but Bushmen, Berbers & Austr.aboriginals (sunlight - savanna) are more brownish-ochre. Scandinavians are blond, etc. Camouflage is extremely important: Raymond Cowles 1896–1975. That’s why we get color in Summer (even + counter-shadow!) & even freckles: sunlit forest in Britain? The dark Italians & blond Scandinavians split <5 ka (both speak Indo-European).
>
> Kudu runner:
>>>> It's well-known that skincolor correlates with environmental UVR.
>
>>> :-DDD Yes, yes, my little boy, that's why eskimos are darker than Scandinavians.
>
>> What use is darker skin as camouflage in a snowy environment?
>
> Do you really believe eskimos are naked??
> Never heard of seal skins??
> :-DDD

Do you really believe Scandinavians are naked?

Kudu runner:

> Do you really believe Scandinavians are naked?

???

https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Kudu runner:
>
>> Do you really believe Scandinavians are naked?
>
> ???
>
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>

Scandinavians and eskimos live in similar circumstances.
And they both *hunt*. It's the only way to survive winters.

snorkel noser wrote:
> ...
>>>>> All spp in evolutionarily “short” times adapt geographically,
e.g. bears are brown (etymol.”bear” = the brown one); grizzleys (grey) &
polar bears (white) are still interfertile (same species). In humans we
see something comparable: most Africans are black (tropical forest), but
Bushmen, Berbers & Austr.aboriginals (sunlight - savanna) are more
brownish-ochre. Scandinavians are blond, etc. Camouflage is extremely
important: Raymond Cowles 1896–1975. That’s why we get color in Summer
(even + counter-shadow!) & even freckles: sunlit forest in Britain? The
dark Italians & blond Scandinavians split <5 ka (both speak Indo-European).
>
> Kudu runner:
>>>> It's well-known that skincolor correlates with environmental UVR.
>
>>> :-DDD Yes, yes, my little boy, that's why eskimos are darker than
Scandinavians.
>
>> What use is darker skin as camouflage in a snowy environment?
>
> Do you really believe eskimos are naked??
> Never heard of seal skins??
> :-DDD

Do you really believe Scandinavians are naked?

Kudu runners don't know the difference between Pleisto- & Holocene:

> Do you really believe Scandinavians are naked?

Google "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen"

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Scandinavians and eskimos live in similar circumstances.
> And they both *hunt*. It's the only way to survive winters.

That, and shopping at the market.

> Do you really believe Scandinavians are naked?

As has already been pointed out, though that never matter to a mentally
unhinged troll, diets rich in vitamin D don't need any sun.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/711897171629326337

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> Scandinavians and eskimos live in similar circumstances.
>> And they both *hunt*. It's the only way to survive winters.
>
> That, and shopping at the market.

THey had markets thousands of years ago? Yoiu really believe that?

>> Do you really believe Scandinavians are naked?
>
> As has already been pointed out, though that never matter to a mentally
> unhinged troll, diets rich in vitamin D don't need any sun.

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself and mv...

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Kudu runners don't know the difference between Pleisto- & Holocene:
>
>> Do you really believe Scandinavians are naked?
>
> Google "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen"
>

Google nostrils on the tip of the nose