A question about human evolution.

[barleycorn]

Ok...we've magically turned evolution on its head and created a negative. Black is White and White is Black.

 

Now what?

 

I'm really not getting what your problem is as the thought experiment is really quite simple. Allow me to paraphrase...

A global catastrophe occurs resulting in only two disparate human populations surviving. One of the populations is 'white' and in a hot dry high sunlight climate and the other is 'black' in a cold wet low sunlight climate. Under such conditions and devoid of technological advances what will be the effect of evolutionary selective pressures on each group, ergo will the whites darken and the blacks lighten.

 

jb

[MrSmith]

My question is about the evolutionary process that allegedly is responsible for there being various groups of people of differing physical appearance, commonly known as races.

 

I understand and accept the theory of what caused the various physical attributes which gives each race of people their particular look of ethnicity, but if it is simply the melanin in the body reacting to extremes of climate conditions, what would happen if for instance, the world has we know it ended tomorrow due to massive tidal waves of biblical proportions which resulted in 99% of humanity being wiped out.

 

Now only two groups of people exist, a group of only white's in an extremely hot, dry and humid climate, and a group of only black's in an extremely cold,damp and green climate. If both groups lived this way for the next 100,000 years unaltered and uninterrupted by technology or modern day science, (as the world as we know it no longer exists remember) would the white group eventually evolve and develop the physical appearance of black people (and vice versa ) due to the extremes of climate which they have been accustomed to?

 

Mutated genes are usually undesirable in any species but very occasionally a mutation will be a benefit to the species. The mutation that caused some humans to become white was one of those beneficial mutations; because it was benefits to be lighter in colour in a colder climate the lighter people did better than the darker people and white became the dominant colour. No guarantee it would happen again or happen in reverse.

[skinz]

I'm really not getting what your problem is as the thought experiment is really quite simple. Allow me to paraphrase...

A global catastrophe occurs resulting in only two disparate human populations surviving. One of the populations is 'white' and in a hot dry high sunlight climate and the other is 'black' in a cold wet low sunlight climate. Under such conditions and devoid of technological advances what will be the effect of evolutionary selective pressures on each group, ergo will the whites darken and the blacks lighten.

 

jb

 

But the present template says no..how do you re-invent the present template as a thought experiment? Guess? I'm trying to understand how that can logically happen. I don't have a prob with the question, and every answer to date is based on evolution as we know it, not on how we pretend it is or could be.

 

I'm not fighting the hypothesis, I'm trying to understand how you even begin to explain it. For the hypotheses to be seen to be working you have to at least give an explanation as to how that could happen. For every explanation of how we evolved you'd have to come up with a credible alternative..I just can't see it somehow, but ready to take it on board.

[barleycorn]

But the present template says no..how do you re-invent the present template as a thought experiment? Guess? I'm trying to understand how that can logically happen. I don't have a prob with the question, and every answer to date is based on evolution as we know it, not on how we pretend it is or could be.

 

I'm not fighting the hypothesis, I'm trying to understand how you even begin to explain it. For the hypotheses to be seen to be working you have to at least give an explanation as to how that could happen. For every explanation of how we evolved you'd have to come up with a credible alternative..I just can't see it somehow, but ready to take it on board.

 

The present template says no to what? I have no idea what your issue with this is. You do realise the hypothetical catastrophe is to happen in the future don't you? There is no need to turn evolution as we know it on its head.

 

jb

[flamingjimmy]

what would happen if for instance, the world has we know it ended tomorrow due to massive tidal waves of biblical proportions which resulted in 99% of humanity being wiped out.

 

Now only two groups of people exist, a group of only white's in an extremely hot, dry and humid climate, and a group of only black's in an extremely cold,damp and green climate. If both groups lived this way for the next 100,000 years unaltered and uninterrupted by technology or modern day science, (as the world as we know it no longer exists remember) would the white group eventually evolve and develop the physical appearance of black people (and vice versa ) due to the extremes of climate which they have been accustomed to?

 

Not necessarily no, although it might happen. It would certainly be more likely than the light skinned people getting even paler and the dark skinned people getting even darker.

[danot]

But the present template says no..how do you re-invent the present template as a thought experiment? Guess? I'm trying to understand how that can logically happen. I don't have a prob with the question, and every answer to date is based on evolution as we know it, not on how we pretend it is or could be.

 

I'm not fighting the hypothesis, I'm trying to understand how you even begin to explain it. For the hypotheses to be seen to be working you have to at least give an explanation as to how that could happen. For every explanation of how we evolved you'd have to come up with a credible alternative..I just can't see it somehow, but ready to take it on board.

Why do we need an alternative evolutionary hypothesis? The only thing that would be different about this evolutionary process is that both groups would be living under climate conditions that are the extreme opposite to those their predecessors experienced. What makes you believe that this evolutionary process might be radically different to the last?

[danot]

Not necessarily no, although it might happen. It would certainly be more likely than the light skinned people getting even paler and the dark skinned people getting even darker.

If the various skin tones, hair types, facial features and so forth are a result of it having already happened, I would expect the likelihood of a recurrence of the previous evolutionary process to be fairly high if the circumstances and conditions were as I stated.

[barleycorn]

If the various skin tones, hair types, facial features and so forth are a result of it having already happened, I would expect the likelihood of a recurrence of the previous evolutionary process to be fairly high if the circumstances and conditions were as I stated.

 

It would be a question of your light skinned humans surviving long enough in an environment better suited to their dark skinned counterparts (and vice versa) for not only beneficial mutations to occur but for them to be selected for.

Furthermore any beneficial mutations may not lead to say darker skin tones, for example some other work around to photodestruction of folate may well develop.

Also, in the envisioned scenario we are kind of being thrown in at the deep end and told, evolve or die. To stay with the skin colouration theme it likely happened alongside other changes such as a gradual loss of hair, hair which would offer protection to the light skin underneath, ie gradual loss of hair accompanied by gradual darkening of skin. Both of these developments allowed for exploitation of new niche environments.

 

jb

[flamingjimmy]

If the various skin tones, hair types, facial features and so forth are a result of it having already happened, I would expect the likelihood of a recurrence of the previous evolutionary process to be fairly high if the circumstances and conditions were as I stated.

 

I just think there are far too many factors involved to be able to make that statement with any degree of accuracy at all.