In regards to what actually addresses the issue, I am seeing that my view and yours are being confused here. You are claiming they migrated to a place where their already altered skin color would be better for them. I am saying their skin color was altered after this migration move, according to their common language and to avoid conflicts with other people.

On the other side issue, I am saying that people back then were probably more fully clothed (wearing full robes - both men and women) than (liberal) people today. So the sun then would not affect them more than it would today. And given their better overall health, they probably could better tolerate it than today. So with both of these factors taken into consideration, if people should be running to a climate that their skin color tolerates, it should e.g, be light skin people running away from sunny climates (e.g., light skin Floridians, Souther Californians, Arizonians, etc indeed the whole U.S. Southern region coast to coast). I lived in Florida, in your above example city Miami for 7 years and I now as a fact that it is indeed constantly above the U.S. average Sunny, with really only rain breaking up this abundant sun dose.

And really, what do you mean exactly by “tolerant”. As far as I know damaging and painful surface sunburns can almost equally occur to person of any shade of skin color. Only the damage by skin penetrating UV rays is what is varyingly blocked by skin color.



If I get your question accurately, I am saying that the genetic control of skin color itself/alone may be the only thing that can be externally affected in order to adequately protect again this UV variation. And that recoding can indeed be passed on their (immediate) offspring. However a lot of constant exposure time by a single person is the key requirement for that genetic recoding.

People today don't need to run from sunny climates. They have sunscreens. They have cars to take them to places, and most of them work indoors. Most men don't have to till the ground. Most men don't have to care for sheep or cattle herds. Women don't have to wash clothes in the river. And so on. Obviously there are much less exposure to the sun rays. Even so, in Brazil (which began to be colonized in 1500) we see that people with lighter skins (mostly from German descent) are located in the colder climate regions (the shouthern part of the country and mountain regions). Regions at or near the Equator (the northern part of the country) are populated by people with a darker skin (European + American Indian or European + African descent). This is clearly perceptible.


Almost equally?


Obviously the tolerance is much higher for some skins than for others.


Where is the scientific basis for this claim? There are indeed some who claim that some acquired characteristics can be transmitted to offspring. However, if this happens at all, it happens within the average modern lifespan; it doesn't require hundreds of years.

This is absolutely silly. I don't know how a dead person can pass on his genes. For that matter, I don't see how a 430-year old, still-alive person can then give his genes to his 400-year old son.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Sure we have different “remedies” and a sheltered lifestyle, but I e.g., still see that people today are, for recently accepted cultural reasons, probably less sun shieldingly dress than many others in the past and that would greatly affect how much constant/consistent sun exposure they get. And all of this non-slave, “household” work would have been done in the past by mostly fully robe-clothed people, only rolling up the bottom of their robe when necessary and probably, in moral groups, when amongst the same gender.

Also, people rarely wear sunscreen except when they plan to lie in the sun for a while.



This is where I would like to know what exactly you understand by “toleration”. Is it, as the data below involves, to avoid sunburns? In that case it that would make sense for them to be migrating elsewhere. However is this only a, relatively, recent (i.e., sometime around and/or into the A.D. era) development. Again the longevity (=health) factor of those living 400+ years needs to be taken into full consideration and this toleration may have become gradually less and less over time, indeed as men’s longevity lessened (=healthiness decreased)

So if my ‘tanning genetic alteration’ hypothesis is valid, “toleration” would not have been the, at least initiating reason for migration destination selections, indeed those skin color changes would have come after those migrations.



Those statistics probably do support your claim in regards to skin color toleration capabilities. I was just informally going by experiential observations were I, particularly in my first sun exposed outing in the Spring time (e.g., a walk or just mowing the lawn) after the long and shielded winter season here in Quebec, Canada, personally can quickly get a sudden blackened blotch on uncovered skin areas (forearms, even forehead, above my sunglasses line).

I also based it on the often and common, particularly lately, (based on apparently some new scientific observations), emphatically said caution that ‘even dark skinned people need to wear sun screen/block when prolongedly out in the sun.’



The study/research of the science of skin genes, especially as they relate to tanning would be in order here, but I don’t presently have various the needed resources for this undertaking. Its time for gene alteration could take a longer while.

The whole study of how lifestyle and other internally “ingested/processed” external affect one’s DNA coding would also be in order here. APL’s seemingly Biblically/Scientifically valid comments above in regards to the hereditary passing on of sin tendencies seems to me to be along this line. Nonetheless sun UV exposure clearly know to begin a biological bodily reaction and DNA affectation, so to me that is a most significant difference to any other such affectations, if they are scientifically true.

Of course, I never said anything at all about either ‘passing on gene (a) after one is dead nor (b) non-sexually’; but of course you typically need to go on to make such “straw man” and red herring circular arguments.

The offspring passing on would of course have to be at some point before they died. So e.g, they, as men could, especially with non-God fearing people who slept around and/or had many wives, could have a son or daughter e.g, 5 years before their final 438th year birthday. As the line of the more than less (God-fearing) Semitic Hebrews through Abraham remained in one ca. original Middle East Region, the did not have striking skin-color variations amongst them.

I don’t know what the genetic change age/time would be, but it quite plausible could be around 100 which is plenty of time to continue to have ‘many more sons and daughters past a first’ (cf. Gen 11:10ff) and since a while, just a little after Moses’ generation (120 years), people have ceased to live into their hundreds, indeed settling around 70-80 as noted by David (Psa 90:10).

Well that sure surprised me. For some reason I thought the poles would have high UV.

Along the same line of reasoning, would that mean that blind cave fish sought out dark areas because they were blind?

The explanation:

The three images above illustrate how a change in angle between the sun and the Earth’s surface affect the intensity of sunlight (and UV-B) on the surface. When the sun is directly overhead, forming a 90° angle with the surface, sunlight is spread over the minimum area. Also, the light only has to pass through the atmosphere directly above the surface. An increased angle between the sun and the surface—due to latitude, time of day, and season—spreads the same amount of energy over a wider area, and the sunlight passes through more atmosphere, diffusing the light. Therefore, UV-B radiation is stronger at the equator than the poles, stronger at noon than evening, and stronger in summer than winter. (Illustration by Robert Simmon)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/UVB/uvb_radiation3.php


That was funny.
No, this is an entirely different case. It's a case of loss of information (microevolution), and natural selection has perpetuated the dominance of this characteristic in its offspring. But blind Cavefish can produce sighted offspring.

Yes, but there is also the issue of blockage which I thought was less at the poles.

Why is it a different case with the fish? I believe NJK and I were trying to say that white people have lost information. Why do you think it is a different case?

By the way, dominance of loss, seems rather conflicting to me. Maybe I'm trying to relate it to dominate genes.

Do you think that white skin is a loss of information? What was the original color? Black, yellow or red? And if white is a loss of information, how did the other two colors (except white and the initial color) originate?

Yes, that's what we've been saying.

A mix of colors. All colors.

Huh? They were not lost.
That seemed like an odd question.