Health & Climate

[livingthelife]

Fair skin is an advantage where there is a less sunlight. Fair skin absorbs more vitamin D from the sun, so people with dark skin have a harder time getting necessary vitamin D in colder climates.

This is the explanation I am familiar with, that the change occurred due to an adaptation along the lines of natural selection.

Where there is snow there will be sunglare - and tanning of exposed skin even in "winter" or overcast conditions.

[PaleoPhil]

The only Inuk I've ever seen with shirt off had skin as white as any white man. His face, however, was as brown as any others who spend much time outside. Not as brown as mine when I returned from a three week vacation in the Caribbean many years ago.

If it was at all brown then it was browner than my skin ever gets. Really pale skin never gets brown, especially when eating a modern diet. My skin started tanning a little on Paleo and a bit more on RPD, but still never comes close to brown. I'll bet that Inuk's untanned skin was still darker than mine.

Tyler wrote:

For such a trait to arise it had to be a positive selective trait.

Not if diet was a factor. Sexual selection of a trait also doesn't necessarily have to produce a survival advantage, AFAIK.

I've seen many pictures of Sami with much lighter complexions:-

I have too, and as I mentioned, they have mixed with lighter skinned peoples ("Some of them have become pale by mixing with paler peoples"). I never said there are NO pale Arctic people today. I'm saying that if diet has nothing to do with skin color, then how do you explain the Arctic peoples whose skin gets darker than that of Swedes, Finns, Scots, English, Irish, Dutch, etc., and the darker-on-avg skin that scientists claim Arctic peoples had vs. Scandinavians before intermixing and that some of the less-mixed folks still have? If climate were the only factor, as some seem to be suggesting here, then we should not expect to find ANY swarthy-looking people in the Arctic, no matter how much time they spent in the sun and Sami, Inuit, Nenets, etc. should be no darker than Scandinavians. They should be as pale as the palest Caucasians, given that they live in more Northerly lattitudes, with less sun than anyone else. This is something that has puzzled scientists for decades, and the dietary hypothesis is the latest answer that has been proposed.

And why do you seem so predisposed against most connections of phenomena to diet? Haven't you experienced benefits from dietary change that most scientists label impossible, such as some of those that RPDers like Lex and I have?

...i was thinking that it would make sense that lighter skinned people live where it is more likely to snow purely for camouflage reasons. thoughts?

This is the explanation I am familiar with, that the change occurred due to an adaptation along the lines of natural selection. ....

Lack of sunlight necessitating pale skin to absorb vitamin D is a hypothesis proposed in the past behind why Scandinavians are pale, but scientists have been puzzled for decades as to why indigenous peoples are not even paler, given that they've been living even farther north and for much longer. Doesn't that puzzle you? If climate and environment are the only or main factors, then why aren't the indigenous peoples paler than the Caucasians?

I have long believed there are likely multiple factors. I think everyone can agree that genetics are one factor, and sexual selection is probably another, but I wouldn't rule out diet and its influence on epigenetics (and in the longer term, genetics) as a factor. Particularly when it comes to super-pale skin. There are still unanswered questions and no apparent consensus (either in the scientific community or here), so it should be interesting to see what future research reveals.

[yon yonson]

i see what you mean phil. it is strange that arctic peoples are not all light skinned. you know, now that i think about it, the two palest skin types (white and asian) have depended on grains for the longest. whites with wheat, barley, etc and asians with rice. i don't know, just an idea

[PaleoPhil]

Thanks Yon. That's all I'm saying. It's a possibility and it's too early in the research to dismiss it. I predict we'll see more research connecting diet to pale skin in the future.

I believe that level of sunlight and adaptation to it's lack (due to variations in climate and geography) is one of the factors affecting genetic development of skin color. I just don't buy that sunlight is the only factor.

[RawZi]

it is strange that arctic peoples are not all light skinned. you know, now that i think about it, the two palest skin types (white and asian) have depended on grains for the longest. whites with wheat, barley, etc and asians with rice.

    Vitamin D (the sunshine vitamin that darkens skin) deficiency and allergy to grains (celiac) go hand in hand.  I wonder if this could be related to a race evolving to have lighter skin.

[RawZi]

    Sunshine may be very important so that people can tolerate grain.  In sunnier climes grain may be tolerated better for a number of reasons.  Also there may be less incidence of autoimmune disease there for a number of integral reasons.

Do Vitamin D Deficiency, Gut Bacteria, and Gluten Combine in Infancy to Cause Celiac Disease?
This article appeared in the Summer 2008 edition of Celiac.com's Scott-Free Newsletter.

Celiac.com 06/16/2008 - Do vitamin D deficiency, gut bacteria, and timing of gluten introduction during infancy all combine to initiate the onset of celiac disease? Two recent papers raise the potential that this indeed may be the case. One paper finds that when transgenic mice expressing the human DQ8 heterodimer (a mouse model of celiac disease) are mucosally immunized with gluten co-administered with Lactobacillus casei bacteria, the mice exhibit an enhanced and increased immune response to gluten compared to the administration of gluten alone.[1] A second paper finds that vitamin D receptors expressed by intestinal epithelial cells are involved in the suppression of bacteria-induced intestinal inflammation in a study which involved use of germ-free mice and knockout mice lacking vitamin D receptors exposed to both friendly and pathogenic strains of gut bacteria.[2] Pathogenic bacteria caused increased expression of vitamin D receptors in epithelial cells. Friendly bacteria did not.

If one considers these two papers together, one notices: (1) Certain species of gut bacteria may work in conjunction with gluten to cause an increased immune response which initiates celiac disease; (2) The presence of an adequate level of vitamin D may suppress the immune response to those same gut bacteria in such a way as to reduce or eliminate the enhanced immune response to gluten caused by those gut bacteria, thus preventing the onset of celiac disease.

Vitamin D has recently been demonstrated to play a role in preserving the intestinal mucosal barrier. A Swedish study found children born in the summer, likely introduced to gluten during winter months with minimal sunlight, have a higher incidence of celiac

[PaleoPhil]

Yes, I think that sunlight, diet and sexual selection are probably all factors.

The dietary factor was also discussed in the The Paleo Diet Newsletter of May 15, 2006, but the links are expired. Here's an excerpt:

Putting It All Together: The Bigger Picture

   The reason why Northern Europeans evolved extreme dermal de-pigmentation was two fold.  First vitamin D metabolism was slightly compromised in these people from reduced sunlight exposure by living at higher latitudes. But more importantly, regular consumption of whole wheat, because of its high WGA content, pushed vitamin D metabolism to the breaking point, likely causing an epidemic of rickets during the Neolithic.   Remember that WGA gets into the bloodstream by binding the EGF-R, and then impairs vitamin D metabolism by blocking the nuclear pore, thereby preventing vitamin D from doing its job.  So, one evolutionary strategy employed to overcome WGA’s deleterious effect upon vitamin D metabolism was to select genes coding for lighter skin so that more vitamin D could be synthesized during intermittent sunlight exposure.

So Cordain hypothesizes that diet was the primary factor in the development of the palest skin. I don't know what the relative importance was, as I'm not as well versed in this stuff as Dr. Cordain, but it does seem plausible as one of multiple factors, and who knows, maybe Dr. Cordain is right about it being the primary factor in the development of the palest shades of "white" skin.

I think where some confusion may have arisen, is by pale skin I meant the shades of northern and western Europeans, not the darker shades of "white" (Mediterranean, Balkan, Inuits, Sami, Nenets, etc. outside of those who have partial northwestern European ancestry). There are maps of the shadings. This link has maps of hair, eye and skin color: http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/category/evolution/page/7/. Re: "pale," I'm referring to the Europeans from the areas with the lightest shades on those maps, concentrated in the areas of Scandinavia and to its southeast, northern Europe, the British Isles and Iceland. Notice that Asia and North America have a darker skin color shade. I'm not talking about those shades of white/Caucasian and Asian.

[TylerDurden]

Tyler wrote:Not if diet was a factor. Sexual selection of a trait also doesn't necessarily have to produce a survival advantage, AFAIK.

Generally, sexual selection usually does involve some form of advantage, however slight. As for diet, as I pointed out, re that previous blog, red hair (and therefore coinciding lighter skin)came to modern humans at least many tens of thousands of years before any change in the diet, so claiming that agrarian diets led to paler skin just doesn't make any sense. Plus, grains were first introduced into the Middle-East and even the Indians had grains well before Northern Europeans(there are articles showing that dairy and grains came much later to Northern Europe) - so one would expect Middle-Easterners and Indians to have paler skin than Europeans, if your theory had any validity at all. Besides, evolution, as has been pointed out by palaeos, stopped dead at the end of the palaeolithic(and maybe even before).

Incidentally, have you ever heard of the phenomenon of blond Australian Aborigines? These are definitely not the result of admixture with Europeans:-

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/blonde-australian-aboriginals.php

The fact that such lighter-coloured hair could originate in the tropics is rather interesting. The fact that Australian Aborigines only changed their palaeo-style diet to SAD very recently in historical terms, with the blond-hair phenomenon being present well before that dietary change. This  strongly indicates that diet has no link to pale traits, whether lighter hair or lighter skin.

I have too, and as I mentioned, they have mixed with lighter skinned peoples ("Some of them have become pale by mixing with paler peoples"). I never said there are NO pale Arctic people today. I'm saying that if diet has nothing to do with skin color, then how do you explain the Arctic peoples whose skin gets darker than that of Swedes, Finns, Scots, English, Irish, Dutch, etc., and the darker-on-avg skin that scientists claim Arctic peoples had vs. Scandinavians before intermixing and that some of the less-mixed folks still have? If climate were the only factor, as some seem to be suggesting here, then we should not expect to find ANY swarthy-looking people in the Arctic, no matter how much time they spent in the sun and Sami, Inuit, Nenets, etc. should be no darker than Scandinavians. They should be as pale as the palest Caucasians, given that they live in more Northerly lattitudes, with less sun than anyone else. This is something that has puzzled scientists for decades, and the dietary hypothesis is the latest answer that has been proposed.

As I pointed out before, the Inuit simply haven't been around long enough in the Arctic for all of them to develop pale skin in that time, due to climate. It takes much longer, that is if climate is involved. Also, given that the Inuit/Nenets etc. have been largely isolated societies in most regions for millenia, with some of them having virtually no intermarriage-rate with Caucasians until very recently, and given the added fact that such societies routinely show far more paler-skinned Inuit etc. than darker-skinned Natives, it's clear that the climate theory might well be right.

And why do you seem so predisposed against most connections of phenomena to diet? Haven't you experienced benefits from dietary change that most scientists label impossible, such as some of those that RPDers like Lex and I have?

Well, no. My current diet has helped a lot but it's more the absence of certain foods that has helped(ie primarily the wholesale reduction in the levels of heat-created toxins in my body due to not eating cooked foods, and the removal of raw dairy in my diet). And my previous conditions, prior to this rawpalaeodiet, such as chronic fatigue or adrenal burnout etc., are certainly not considered impossible to cure by scientists, just rather difficult to cure, that's all. That's why I am truly sceptical of claims that diet can do magical, supernatural  things like remove inherited genetic conditions or change skin-colour.

Lack of sunlight necessitating pale skin to absorb vitamin D is a hypothesis proposed in the past behind why Scandinavians are pale, but scientists have been puzzled for decades as to why indigenous peoples are not even paler, given that they've been living even farther north and for much longer. Doesn't that puzzle you? If climate and environment are the only or main factors, then why aren't the indigenous peoples paler than the Caucasians?

Like I said, those Natives came to those Arctic regions only recently in epochal terms(a palaeoanthropologist once  mentioned to me that the Inuit only moved  to the Arctic c.6,000 years ago, for example, hardly enough time for a full-scale shift in skin-colour from very dark to ultra-pale).

 For my own part, I am deeply unconvinced at the notion that Caucasians originated in colder climes, simply because East Asians are more adapted to colder climes given their short body structure etc., one reason given for Inuit tribes' higher chances of survival in the Arctic than the Vikings, in ages past.


Also, the vitamin D theory, was called faulty by someone else who pointed out that wild animals with fur can still get plenty of vitamin D, so that I don't see how the sunlight factor is all that relevant re pale or dark skin.

[TylerDurden]

Yes, I think that sunlight, diet and sexual selection are probably all factors.

The dietary factor was also discussed in the The Paleo Diet Newsletter of May 15, 2006, but the links are expired. Here's an excerpt:

So Cordain hypothesizes that diet was the primary factor in the development of the palest skin. I don't know what the relative importance was, as I'm not as well versed in this stuff as Dr. Cordain, but it does seem plausible as one of multiple factors, and who knows, maybe Dr. Cordain is right about it being the primary factor in the development of the palest shades of "white" skin.

Cordain simply quotes from scripture, so to speak. Given that his acid/alkaline theory appears to be dead in the water, I can't see how the above is plausible either. At any rate, claims that lighter skin originated so late in human evolution are clearly bogus since features like red hair(which coincide with pale skin) came many tens of millenia before this, plus 10-12,000 years is too short for such a major feature as pale skin to become prominent in a population. Evolution is a slow process. Come to think of it, if climate influenced pale skin/lighter hair, one would logically have to assume that the Palaeolithic Ice Age was instrumental in producing such paler skin, in which case one would have to drive back the origin thereof far further back than you think.

I think where some confusion may have arisen, is by pale skin I meant the shades of northern and western Europeans, not the darker shades of "white" (Mediterranean, Balkan, Inuits, Sami, Nenets, etc. outside of those who have partial northwestern European ancestry). There are maps of the shadings. This link has maps of hair, eye and skin color: http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/category/evolution/page/7/. Re: "pale," I'm referring to the Europeans from the areas with the lightest shades on those maps, concentrated in the areas of Scandinavia and to its southeast, northern Europe, the British Isles and Iceland. Notice that Asia and North America have a darker skin color shade. I'm not talking about those shades of white/Caucasian and Asian.

There's a great deal of overlap. Like I said, I've seen ethnic (unmixed Chinese with skin colour the same as Northern Europeans.

[cherimoya_kid]

G

 For my own part, I am deeply unconvinced at the notion that Caucasians originated in colder climes, simply because East Asians are more adapted to colder climes given their short body structure etc., one reason given for Inuit tribes' higher chances of survival in the Arctic than the Vikings, in ages past.

Asians aren't genetically short.  When Chinese people come to the US, their children that are raised on an American diet are usually 6 or 8 inches taller than their parents, on average.  It's the almost total lack of animal foods in the Chinese diet that make them short, for the most part.  Also, Koreans are naturally pretty tall.  I imagine that Koreans might even be taller than Americans, on average, if they were raised on the same diet.

[RawZi]

    I have a Korean friend raised mostly on SAD.  Turned out very short, not a dwarf or anything though.

    I don't think it's only what we eat, but what we digest.  I was raised on VAF and I didn't get very tall.  Then I became vegan and grew no more.  In my forties I started to eat RVAF, and almost immediately I got taller (than I ever was).  A portion of our population would be taller (and of course healthier) if so much wasn't pre-pasteurized and cooked.

[PaleoPhil]

Good point cherimoya_kid. It's also interesting that Manchurians of northeastern China tend to be taller than the southern, warmer-climate Chinese:

Northeast
M-177cm/F-163cm

South-central western China
M-168cm/F-157cm

(Source: http://forums.skadi.net/archive/index.php/t-49965.html)

Rawzi, good point on digestion and I agree that digestion and absorption are part of the overall nutritional picture, but are you sure that you literally grew taller, or might there have been some straightening involved? I know I straightened a little on Paleo and then a tiny bit more on RPD so far (my physical therapist friend also noticed a more dramatic result I've had that I missed: less-rounded shoulders).

[RawZi]

Rawzi, good point on digestion and I agree that digestion and absorption are part of the overall nutritional picture, but are you sure that you literally grew taller, or might there have been some straightening involved? I know I straightened a little on Paleo and then a tiny bit more on RPD so far (my physical therapist friend also noticed a more dramatic result I've had that I missed: less-rounded shoulders).

    I always had excellent posture, no holding my shoulders rounded either ever.  My back always hurt, for decades.  It could be that the cushioning between the vertebrae is what "grew" and got rid of pain.

[PaleoPhil]

Interesting. That's the first I've seen that phenomenon reported. Thanks for sharing it.

[TylerDurden]

Asians aren't genetically short.  When Chinese people come to the US, their children that are raised on an American diet are usually 6 or 8 inches taller than their parents, on average.  It's the almost total lack of animal foods in the Chinese diet that make them short, for the most part.  Also, Koreans are naturally pretty tall.  I imagine that Koreans might even be taller than Americans, on average, if they were raised on the same diet.

I've been to the US and seen Asian citizens there and have also spotted  Asian American actors/actresses in the media and they are definitely not 6 to 8 inches taller than their counterparts in Asia, they're still very short. Plus, the 1 or 2 articles I've read on the subject described only a small increase in height for Asian Americans(although it was described as still ongoing, whereas, oddly, the height of Caucasian Americans has gone straight down vis-a-vis Europan Caucasians, despite the fact that Americans were one of the world's tallest populations up to a century ago or so). In other words, diet and height are not inextricably interlinked, there are many other factors.

I vaguely recall 1 article that claimed that increased height was actually a sign of a sort of malnutrition(ie the result of eating lots of food rather than too little, but with the huge amounts of food actually lacking in essential nutrients). Can't remember where I found that article.

Oh, and if height is supposedly linked to diet (specifically raw or cooked animal products)  then, why oh why are the Inuit so short?

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/83/why-do-eskimo-people-stay-there

[TylerDurden]

Good point cherimoya_kid. It's also interesting that Manchurians of northeastern China tend to be taller than the southern, warmer-climate Chinese:

Northeast
M-177cm/F-163cm

South-central western China
M-168cm/F-157cm

(Source: http://forums.skadi.net/archive/index.php/t-49965.html)

I'm afraid that's a bad example to give. The (unmixed) Manchus are a separate ethnic group(Tungusic) from the Chinese. I seem to recall from reading about China that the Manchus had some Caucasian admixture, which would explain the difference in height. On a side-note, last I checked Chinese history, the Manchus of the Qing dynasty prized beard-growth and  beard-growth is more of a Caucasian etc. trait than an Oriental one.

[PaleoPhil]

No single factor yet explains the evolution of light skin, hair and eye color completely. Which is why I think there are multiple factors involved and have not claimed otherwise (if I did then I must have had a brain fart ). Problems arise when trying to use any single factor as the explanation. For example...

Some Problems With Sexual Selection As The Sole Factor:

Why is there a dramatic increase in paleness in a concentrated area around 6,000 - 12,000 years ago? Was there a sexual/social revolution?
Why did blondness only arise in one small area of Aboriginal Australia instead of across its entirety and diffusely across the globe?
Why did the alleged sexual selection of the most intensely pale, blond/red haired blue/green eyed people only take place in one small region of the world, and not among numerous populations around the globe?
If red hair and pale skin arose due to a sexual preference, why did three studies find that red hair was seen as a negative for attractiveness and other criterion, and actually rated dead last among all the compared basic appearance types in one study? (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED136161&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED136161) And please don't anyone respond with something inane like "I prefer red heads." I'm readheaded myself, so I thank you , but that means nothing scientifically. Statistically significant numbers are what count in such matters, not the opinons of a handful of individuals. Admittedly, some of these studies do not appear to be the best, but the fact that they produced the opposite effect of what we would expect if red hair were sexually selected is telling.

Because pale skin and red hair are perceived as feminine (see Exploring Male and Female Perceptions,  http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_frost61z/fwdm4.htm) and less unattractive on women, it's less of a problem for them, but it's still a minus overall for sexual selection. There's even an article where a red-haired journalist grouses about it and discovered how it surprisingly has a significant impact on advertising and other matters in the UK:

Seeing red about gingerphobia
30 April 2007
John McNight
http://jonmcknight.typepad.com/jon_mcknight/2007/04/seeing_red_abou.html

.... He interviewed a geneticist about the "ginger gene" to find out whether it conveyed any benefits that might offset the tough time most redheads were in for throughout their lives.

The only crumb of comfort the scientist could offer was that ginger-haired people were better at absorbing Vitamin D. ....

The fashion editor of a leading men's magazine stated, candidly, that if a high street fashion chain used ginger male models, sales would plummet overnight.

Notice that the sole proposed benefit is better vitamin D absorption, lending further credence to the sunlight and dietary hypotheses.

BTW, I think that sexual selection is a positive factor when it comes to blue/green eyes and blond hair, but not for the palest of skin in general or red hair (and please remember that I am red-haired myself, so no hate mail please ). This may help explain why blue/green eyes are spread more diffusely across the globe and why blond hair is found among Australian aborigines.

Some Problems With Sunlight As The Sole Factor:

Why were pre-intermixed Sami peoples darker than Scandinavians, despite the fact that the Sami lived farther north and were there before the arrival of the Scandinavians?
Why are coastal and Nile delta Africans so much lighter than peoples just south of the fertile coastal and river valley areas? European intermixing does not appear to explain it completely.
Why are western Europeans lighter in skin color than eastern Europeans at the same latitude?

Despite the Problems, the Current Consensus is Still Sunlight:

"The consensus explanation for the evolution of light hair is related to the requirement for Vitamin D synthesis and northern Europe's seasonal deficiency of sunlight.[18] Lighter skin is due to a low concentration in pigmentation, thus allowing more sunlight to trigger the production of Vitamin D. In this way, high frequencies of light hair in Northern latitudes are a result of the light skin adaptation to lower levels of sunlight, which reduces the prevalence of rickets caused by Vitamin D deficiency."

I think this factor is probably the consensus because it's so intuitive and doesn't threaten the profits of the food industry, in addition to the supporting evidence. Yet the consensus answer appears to leave unanswered my above questions. Why did this adaptation to low levels of sunlight with the palest of skin, blond and red hair, and blue/green eyes occur in Scandinavia and the British Isles, but not in Arctic Asia or North America? That's where the dietary hypothesis of Cordain and others may come in. The northwestern Europeans reportedly adopted wheat and bovine dairy as staple foods earlier and more thoroughly than the indigenous Arctic Asians or North Americans. Diet could be one of the key missing pieces of this puzzle that has baffled the consensus-view scientists. There is a history of some dairy consumption (largely reindeer) among Arctic Euro-Asians too, so more research is needed on what the extent of the dietary differences, yet there is likely to be little funding for such endeavors.

Conclusion: Multifactorial
So the causes of the palest shades of skin/eye/hair color appear to be multifactorial, with scientific evidence suggesting that diet is one of the factors. There are still many questions to be answered.

Generally, sexual selection usually does involve some form of advantage, however slight.

I can believe that, but my only point was it doesn't have to.

Europeans, if your theory had any validity at all. Besides, evolution, as has been pointed out by palaeos, stopped dead at the end of the palaeolithic(and maybe even before).

I don't know any prominent Paleos who believe all genetic and epigenetic change stopped 10,000 years ago. Can you point me to where they say this so I can check it out? Cordain is a Paleo who supports diet as A factor in the evolution of the lightest skin shades.

Incidentally, have you ever heard of the phenomenon of blond Australian Aborigines? These are definitely not the result of admixture with Europeans:-

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/blonde-australian-aboriginals.php

Notice that the author is extremely tentative about his hypothesis and offers two possible factors (sexual selection and genetic drift due to some unknown advantage/function of blond hair). It also does not fully explain why the preference for blond hair did not lead to a wider distribution of blond hair in Australia, Europe, Asia or North America, nor does he purport to explain the much greater prevalence of blond hair in northwestern Europe.

As I pointed out before, the Inuit simply haven't been around long enough in the Arctic for all of them to develop pale skin in that time, due to climate.

Most of the sources I've read said that the Inuit originated from Siberian Asia. Hardly tropical.

Well, no. My current diet has helped a lot but it's more the absence of certain foods that has helped(ie primarily the wholesale reduction in the levels of heat-created toxins in my body due to not eating cooked foods, and the removal of raw dairy in my diet). And my previous conditions, prior to this rawpalaeodiet, such as chronic fatigue or adrenal burnout etc., are certainly not considered impossible to cure by scientists, just rather difficult to cure, that's all. That's why I am truly sceptical of claims that diet can do magical, supernatural  things like remove inherited genetic conditions or change skin-colour.

I think this could be the crux of the matter. Your results have been less positive in general than most Paleo dieters I'm familiar with, which may explain your tendency to dismiss suggestions that diet may be related to unusual health improvements and other natural phenomena. I do not believe in magic or the supernatural, so your speculations about that are irrelevant to me, since if the evidence for the dietary component of the explanations for the palest skin shades were purely supernatural I would have no interest in it. Drs. Cordain, Eaton, Lindeberg, Phinney, Wartman and others who are studying matters of Paleolithic nutrition that I and others here have discussed are scientists and physicians, not magicians. They get things wrong at times, like any human beings, and you can offer counter evidence to demonstrate that, but simply implying that they are engaged in superstition is thoroughly unconvincing. Show me where Cordain promotes magic or superstition in his scientific analysis of diet and skin color. You have cited him yourself before so I'm surprised you would associate his research with superstition.

Also, the vitamin D theory, was called faulty by someone else who pointed out that wild animals with fur can still get plenty of vitamin D, so that I don't see how the sunlight factor is all that relevant re pale or dark skin.

"Fur bearing animals and many birds make cholecalciferol [from sun-exposed oils secreted onto] their fur or feathers since sunlight can not get to their skin. Interestingly, mammals and birds then eat the cholecalciferol by licking their fur (grooming) or rubbing their beaks on their feathers (preening)." --John Jacob Cannell, MD, "Vitamin D Physiology," http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/vitaminDPhysiology.shtml

[TylerDurden]

Some Problems With Sexual Selection As The Sole Factor:

Why is there a dramatic increase in paleness in a concentrated area around 6,000 - 12,000 years ago? Was there a sexual/social revolution?

Short answer, there wasn't a dramatic increase in paleness, only the appearance of 1 minor gene. As pointed out in a previous article, the genes for red hair(which go hand in hand with paleness of skin in humans) originated much earlier, and the author makes it clear, based on that and other scientific evidence, that the skin of the Cro-Magnon whio existed well before 12,000 years ago, was just as pale as modern Caucasians:-

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/red-hair-skin-pigmentation-and-the-mcr1-variants/

Why did blondness only arise in one small area of Aboriginal Australia instead of across its entirety and diffusely across the globe?

Actually, if you check the data, something like 90% of central Western Aboriginal Australians have blond hair as infants(turning to brown in adulthood):-

"especially in the west-central parts of the continent, have a high frequency of natural blond-to-brown hair,[22][23] with as many as 90-100% of children having blond hair in some areas"

derived from:-  http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/blonde-australian-aboriginals.php

The article also mentions that the blond Aboriginal phenomenon  appears on the southwest coast as well as the centre of the Continent and up North to Arnhem land. It is absent in eastern Australia , but that's easy to explain, as Australia isn't exactly easy to cross, given deserts etc. Plus, Australian Aborigines have been largely geographically isolated for c.40,000 years from the rest of the world.

Actually, there are similiar examples of this "blond nonwhite" phenomenon as it also " found in some other parts of the South Pacific such as the Solomon Islands Vanuatu and Fiji":-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond

Given that blondness is found among Pacific Islanders weren't able to  interbreed with the Aborigines until very recently, due to geographical isolation, one can safely conclude that that particular gene for blond (nonwhite) hair appeared AT LEAST 40,000 years ago when the Australian Aborigines split from the rest of  Southeast Asia and the Pacific, and most likely far, far before that date.

Why did the alleged sexual selection of the most intensely pale, blond/red haired blue/green eyed people only take place in one small region of the world, and not among numerous populations around the globe?

Well, there is widespread speculation, actually, where Northern Europeans came from. Some claim Siberia, others the Caucasus, no one really knows. Similiarly, red hair is spread throughout the world, not just the fringes of Western Europe, such as the Udmurt People of Asia, implying a more widespread origin than just Western Europe.Also,  you are making a completely false assumption, that a particular genetic mutation should eventually appear worldwide. The whole point of different genes is that they offer different advantages, so one type of gene might predominate in 1 area due to a particular advantage( greater stamina or greater physical attractiveness, say), while the population of  another region might prefer another kind of mutation, due to a preference for some other advantage( increased longevity, say)(not necessarily related to climate).

If red hair and pale skin arose due to a sexual preference, why did three studies find that red hair was seen as a negative for attractiveness and other criterion, and actually rated dead last among all the compared basic appearance types in one study? (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED136161&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED136161)

Those studies are heavily flawed. For one thing, as pointed out in wikipedia,
"Some have speculated that the dislike of red-hair may derive from the historical English sentiment that people of Irish or Celtic background, with a greater prevalence of red hair, were ethnically inferior.:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6725653.stm

What I find interesting is that the childish anti-ginger prejudice/gingerism(mostly against redheaired males) is only really found in the UK. Red-haired acquaintances of mine have stated that they don't get this sort of prejudice elsewhere in the world. Indeed, in many other areas like Malta, red hair is actually prized along with blond(no doubt due to rarity).

Another simpler explanation for modern prejudice re red hair:-

"Workplace psychologist Professor Cary Cooper, of Lancaster University, says abuse can be "an unhealthy release valve for stress" and redheads, as a visible minority not protected by law, have become a target.

While other forms of the discrimination are the subject of marches, lobbying and education campaigns, redheads cannot expect the arrival of the politically correct cavalry anytime soon."

Who knows there could be other possibilities. As mentioned in the article, red hair is seen as the colour of the devil, the colour of blood, and so is feared by some. Perhaps we got red hair from interbreeding with Neanderthals and so it's due to an ingrained racial bias against Neanderthals - though that's less likely than the other notions.

And, of course, studies on personal attractiveness are inevitably going to be loaded with bias due to ingrained notions and behavioural/cultural imprinting etc.. I think there was 1 study, mentioned somewhere or other, which tested babies' responses to photos of attractive women around the world and brown-haired women were rated at the top. Can't find the study, no matter but studies of this sort should be done on infants who haven't been influenced culturally.

And please don't anyone respond with something inane like "I prefer red heads." I'm readheaded myself, so I thank you , but that means nothing scientifically.

Not that it matters, but I do prefer them. Incidentally,if you are indeed red-haired, isn't claiming that red hair is a negative trait, therefore a form of self-hatred? Besides, red hair is pretty widespread, these days, so it has to have some advantage.

Because pale skin and red hair are perceived as feminine (see Exploring Male and Female Perceptions,  http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_frost61z/fwdm4.htm) and less unattractive on women, it's less of a problem for them, but it's still a minus overall for sexual selection.

Actually, red hair is seen as a rather savage, masculine trait:-

"Red hair was thought to be a mark of a beastly sexual desire and moral degeneration. A savage red-haired man is portrayed in the fable by Grimm brothers (Der Eisenhans) as the spirit of the forest of iron. Theophilus Presbyter describes how the blood of a red-haired young man is necessary to create gold from copper, in a mixture with the ashes of a basilisk." taken from:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#Beliefs_about_temperament

The rest of the paragraph goes on with superstitious comparisons between redheads and vampires(note how vampires have a strong sexual aspect in mythology).

Notice that the sole proposed benefit is better vitamin D absorption, lending further credence to the sunlight and dietary hypotheses.

Actually, redheads have been cited as being more sensitive to pain(which can actually be an advantage if you think about it, warning more often against possible injuries):-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#Sensitivity_to_pain_and_injury

Also, Wikipedia mentions a study which claimed that the sheer vividness of red hair and its rarity value led to a positive sexual selection pressure for red hair:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15372380

Oh, and here's a reference to a study on German women in general which showed that redheaded women have more sex and more partners. That would certainly imply a strong sexual selection trait in favour of redheads:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-400779/Redheads-sex-blondes-brunettes.html

This may help explain why blue/green eyes are spread more diffusely across the globe

That merely happened because of light-skinned conquering peoples invading the various areas, nothing to do with climate or anything else.

and why blond hair is found among Australian aborigines.

Strictly speaking, the Aboriginal blond hair isn't blond, it involves a gene or two which causes a lack of pigmentation creating a blond-like colour. Which is interesting as a gene for such a paler trait shouldn't appear in the tropics if the climate/Vitamin D theory was correct.

Some Problems With Sunlight As The Sole Factor:

Why were pre-intermixed Sami peoples darker than Scandinavians, despite the fact that the Sami lived farther north and were there before the arrival of the Scandinavians?

The Sami only became distinct from other populations c.10,000 years ago, judging from the data, nowhere near enough time for such a dramatic change to paler skin to occur. Even then, they've always intermixed with Scandinavian populations, Finno-Ugric peoples etc.:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people#Genetics_and_the_history_of_genetic_studies_on_the_Sami

Anyway, any claims re the Sami and darker skin are arbitrary, just look at the photos on the above link, you'll find not too many dark-skinned examples of the Sami people, to put it mildly!

Why are coastal and Nile delta Africans so much lighter than peoples just south of the fertile coastal and river valley areas? European intermixing does not appear to explain it completely.

Actually, it does. Bear in mind that Arabs(who have hefty Caucasoid admixure) invaded those areas, along with the blue-eyed Sea Peoples in the far past etc.

Why are western Europeans lighter in skin color than eastern Europeans at the same latitude?

Ahem! Having visited Western European and Eastern European countries frequently and knowing people who've been elsewhere in Eastern Europe(I'm part-Austrian and lived in Austria for many years), I can attest to the fact that this is just not true. If you'd been to Leningrad or Kiev or  Slovakia/Bratislava, for example, you would have seen a remarkably high number of pale-skinned blonde-haired/blue-eyed people walking the streets.

I think this factor is probably the consensus because it's so intuitive and doesn't threaten the profits of the food industry, in addition to the supporting evidence. Yet the consensus answer appears to leave unanswered my above questions. Why did this adaptation to low levels of sunlight with the palest of skin, blond and red hair, and blue/green eyes occur in Scandinavia and the British Isles, but not in Arctic Asia or North America?

Ah, but like I said, there is no proof whatsoever that blue eyes or blond hair originated in Europe.Many people view western Siberia or the Caucasus or other regions as far more likely places of origin for those characteristics. And, it's impossible for those traits to have appeared in North America as humans only entered that continent c. 15,000 years ago, the geentic change would have been too slow to occur in that period.

 

That's where the dietary hypothesis of Cordain and others may come in. The northwestern Europeans reportedly adopted wheat and bovine dairy as staple foods earlier and more thoroughly than the indigenous Arctic Asians or North Americans.

Like I said before, the dietary notion is utterly destroyed by the fact that those populations in the Middle-East and elsewhere which adopted grain-/dairy-filled diets long before Northern Europeans did, have not developed skin-colour as pale or paler than Northern Europeans.
Conclusion: Multifactorial

I don't know any prominent Paleos who believe all genetic and epigenetic change stopped 10,000 years ago. Can you point me to where they say this so I can check it out?

This is just ridiculous. You know as well as I do, that the vast majority of palaeolithic anthropologists claim that, genetically, we are virtually identical to palaeo humans. Incidentally, epigenetics only changes gene-expression, it can't change/mutate genes completely to produce completely different colours.

Here is an excerpt from beyondveg.com citing a study re this:- "Humans may have indeed eaten these foods for "millennia," but millennia (even 10 millennia) in the overall timeframe of human existence represents 0.4%. Because the estimated amount of genetic change (0.005%) which has occurred in the human genome over this time period is negligible, the genetic makeup of modern man has remained essentially unchanged from that of pre-agricultural man [Eaton et al. 1985]" taken from :-

http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/grains-leg/grains-legumes-1a.shtml

The irony is that Cordain wrote that himself, thus detroying his absurd claim that a Neolithic diet could lead to paler skin. Besides, if Australian Aborigines could develop blond/pale hair on their Palaeolithic diet, then it's obvious that such a dietary notion is patently absurd.
 

Most of the sources I've read said that the Inuit originated from Siberian Asia. Hardly tropical.

I have my doubts, the few Inuit who are really dark-skinned tend to have the kind of dark skin found in more southerly latitudes. All those sources can claim is that the Inuit had to move from Siberia to North America via the Bering Strait. There's no real evidence to suggest that they didn't migrate into Siberia from other parts before that period.

I think this could be the crux of the matter. Your results have been less positive in general than most Paleo dieters I'm familiar with, which may explain your tendency to dismiss suggestions that diet may be related to unusual health improvements and other natural phenomena.

Utter balderdash. If you had read my testimonial on rawpaleodiet.com, you would have noticed that my health-improvements have been quite remarkable on this diet, certainly far greater than any cooked-palaeo's experience,  and on a par with many RPDers(if one counted every minor to major symptom I got rid of, it would come to something like 60-80 of them). It's merely that I have come across so many absurd claims from numerous gurus claiming miraculous healing properties from foods(Hulda Clarke/Marshall protocol etc. etc.) that I don't believe that diet is a cure-all for almost everything. My experience on raw boards/forums is that for people with very serious conditions(like I had) it can take a long time for full recovery(though there were dramatic initial improvements) and that some conditions(eg:- genetic-related) are indeed largely irreversible(ie autistics can heal their digestive system/improve their mood on this diet but not cure their actual condition etc.)

 

Show me where Cordain promotes magic or superstition in his scientific analysis of diet and skin color. You have cited him yourself before so I'm surprised you would associate his research with superstition.

I was actually suggesting, in the past, that you were prone to superstition, not Cordain(all those Noble Savage references, remember). As for Cordain, he seems to have really shot himself in the foot with that unproven acid/alkali theory of his. He seems not to have done much in the way of truly groundbreaking research and , more or less, relied on other scientists to provide this, which makes me sceptical of him. The only benefit I see in him is that he promotes some aspects of cooked palaeo(if not all the good ones)  and is therefore a little right(and mostly wrong) from our POV.

[PaleoPhil]

... This is just ridiculous. ....

You've apparently decided to ignore my request that you tone down the insulting language. I've decided for now at least that I'll tolerate it without additional requests for civility, as such obstreperous language is common on the Internet, so your use of it may serve to teach me patience and perseverance and the self discipline to avoid letting myself get dragged down into it, which I have not always exhibited in the past.

...Utter balderdash. If you had read my testimonial on rawpaleodiet.com, you would have noticed that my health-improvements have been quite remarkable on this diet, certainly far greater than any cooked-palaeo's experience,  and on a par with many RPDers(if one counted every minor to major symptom I got rid of, it would come to something like 60-80 of them). ...

There was no Tyler Durden testimonial on the testimonial link, so I checked your early journal entries and found this: "Ah yes, here is my testimonial:- http://old.rawpaleodiet.com/geoff-purcell/." So you're Geoff Purcell--I thought you were two different people. LOL OK, yes, I'm a little dense--my excuse is years of past SAD and near-vegetarian diets. This explains some things. If you told me that you are Geoff in the past then I must have forgotten (the SAD did leave me with a rather poor memory as well). I was not as familiar with you as Geoff as I am as Tyler, though I do remember some of your posts at PaleoFood as Geoff--such as your extreme distaste for Wrangham. The mere mention of his name seemed to throw you into conniptions, as I recall. I am the same PaleoPhil as the one at PaleoFood, in case you weren't already aware. I admit I tended to skip over your posts early on there unless you responded to one of the topics I was discussing, because I was not interested in an all-raw diet at the time, especially as propounded so vociferously. It was others who were more subtle and good-humored in their approach, like William and Lex, that eventually did more to convince me to give it a try, though your experience did add to the numbers and make them more convincing. If I had read more of your posts there I might have realized you were one in the same. I had briefly checked out your Yahoo forum in the past, but was also turned off by the stridency there, and when you referred to that forum here and there, I thought you meant that you ("Tyler Durden") were a member, not the founder, though I found the similar stridency in favor of 100% raw eating to be an interesting coincidence.

I googled "Tyler Durden" and see it is a movie character's name I had never heard of in a movie I've never seen. I don't watch a lot of movies or TV (I don't own a TV) and I have little to no interest in celebrities, so those sorts of references tend to escape me.  

Given that you revealed your name in the testimonial, why do you use a handle to post with? Wouldn't it be less confusing for newcomers to use your real name at this point?

I had read your Geoff Purcell testimonial before and I don't mean to poo-poo it or anything, but I found it to be less dramatic and unusual than the other testimonials and the avg Paleo diet success story I've encountered in the real world and on the Internet. The sorts of improvements you list of gaining energy, better digestion, loss of potbelly, etc. are the sorts that are attested to by people on nearly every diet. They are not the sorts, in my experience, that generate responses of "That's impossible!" I suspect your testimonial would be much more dramatic if you included more of your illness and symptom improvements. Were you concerned that would make it overlong?

I also haven't noticed you discussing your improvements, how great you feel, etc. much in your posts, so I honestly didn't get the impression that your results had been that amazing and I was thinking that maybe as a result when you hear amazing results from some of the rest of us it causes you to be skeptical or even dismissive. Your explanation about coming across many questionable claims from bogus gurus on the Internet does help explain matters.

I was actually suggesting, in the past, that you were prone to superstition, not Cordain(all those Noble Savage references, remember).

It was you who engaged in the "noble savage" ad hominem, remember? As I recall, it was you who raised the subject by implying that I was motivated by a belief in Stone Age peoples being "noble savages." It doesn't bother me if you don't believe some of my claims or don't find many of my speculations to be plausible, but I can assure you that I am not superstitious. I don't even believe in the supernatural at all--period. I have been accused many times in the past of being "too coldly rational," too focused on science and not enough on emotion and the human spirit, and the like, which I didn't mind owning up to at all (one TV and movie character I am familiar with that was one of my favorites was the Spock character on Star Trek). You are only the second person ever to imply that I'm superstitious or unscientific and the other was very recent and which you witnessed. Maybe I'm developing some humanity finally after all this time. If you read enough of my posts at PaleoFood you may be aware that my opinion about raw foods has changed. If my opinion at the time that raw eating was not necessary to my health had been based on magic or superstition, I would not have changed my mind because of the experiences of other Paleo dieters and some scientific articles that I read. If superstition is my guidepost, then what is the superstitious reason that is supposed to have led to my trying a raw diet?

Thanks for providing some research, which I will look into. Research and scientific explanations are much more likely to sway me than your opinions that such or other is balderdash or superstitious. If you keep in mind that I love science and do not believe in magic or the supernatural at all (though I don't tend to disparage believers either), it should improve the effectiveness of our communications, with less time wasted on irrelevant matters.

Since you seem absolutely convinced that you are correct and don't seem the slightest bit interested in anything I've posted on this subject, why don't you expound more on your hypothesis re: skin/hair/eye color and provide some more supporting evidence for me to evaluate. For example, do you think sexual selection is the only factor behind the palest shades?

[djr_81]

I googled "Tyler Durden" and see it is a movie character's name I had never heard of in a movie I've never seen. I don't watch a lot of movies or TV (I don't own a TV) and I have little to no interest in celebrities, so those sorts of references tend to escape me.  

I know it's WAY off topic but you really should watch Fight Club sometime Phil. Excellent movie and intelligent enough to hold the attention of anyone on this forum IMO.

[PaleoPhil]

All right, thanks djr. I'll add it to my list of movies to watch. Unfortunately, it's pretty rare that I watch any, so it may be a while before I do. 

[TylerDurden]

I was not as familiar with you as Geoff as I am as Tyler, though I do remember some of your posts at PaleoFood as Geoff--such as your extreme distaste for Wrangham. The mere mention of his name seemed to throw you into conniptions, as I recall.

What annoys me about Wrangham is that there is a small group of people(non-scientists) who believe every single word he utters, yet Wrangham's scientific conclusions are so obviously wrongheaded(with most other scientists ridiculing him for that) that I tend to get annoyed when other people talk about him with quasi-Biblical reverence. I shouldn't though have been so strident on that forum re raw issues as it's really a cooked-palaeo forum - plus, there were a lot of cooked zero-carbers who were rather fanatical in trying desperately to debunk my points re cooked animal food being unhealthy(unsurprising, as those types don't eat anything raw at all).

I googled "Tyler Durden" and see it is a movie character's name I had never heard of in a movie I've never seen. I don't watch a lot of movies or TV (I don't own a TV) and I have little to no interest in celebrities, so those sorts of references tend to escape me.

I don't have a TV either. I used to and it led to me watching rubbish after a while. These days I  have my PC and do dvd-rentals or buy the occasional dvd-set, so that I only watch the very best.

Given that you revealed your name in the testimonial, why do you use a handle to post with? Wouldn't it be less confusing for newcomers to use your real name at this point?

It's standard for people to have usernames which reflect the character of the forum. Using one's own name as a handle seems to me to be lacking in imagination. I used the Tyler Durden reference because of 1 passage in that film:-

"In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway. " 
Unfortunate reference to corn, which is decidedly non-palaeo but it seemed to me that Tyler Durden was an anarcho-primitivist of sorts. Actually, I should have chosen the username "Cro Magnon" which is more suitable, but, I suppose it's too late to change and would simply confuse everybody.

I had read your Geoff Purcell testimonial before and I don't mean to poo-poo it or anything, but I found it to be less dramatic and unusual than the other testimonials and the avg Paleo diet success story I've encountered in the real world and on the Internet. The sorts of improvements you list of gaining energy, better digestion, loss of potbelly, etc. are the sorts that are attested to by people on nearly every diet. They are not the sorts, in my experience, that generate responses of "That's impossible!" I suspect your testimonial would be much more dramatic if you included more of your illness and symptom improvements. Were you concerned that would make it overlong?

I'll probably change the testimonial in the future and make it more detailed re my former health-problems. It's just that I really dislike the modern habit of "letting it all hang out" Jerry-Springer-style, and prefer a certain reserve.

I also haven't noticed you discussing your improvements, how great you feel, etc. much in your posts, so I honestly didn't get the impression that your results had been that amazing and I was thinking that maybe as a result when you hear amazing results from some of the rest of us it causes you to be skeptical or even dismissive. Your explanation about coming across many questionable claims from bogus gurus on the Internet does help explain matters.

If you looked at the early posts on the rawpaleodiet yahoo group, you'd have seen me mention all sorts of things such as chronic fatigue(CFS), dizziness, agonisingly painful stomach-aches(after eating any cooked animal food whatsoever), rapid irregular heartbeat, muscle-wastage,teeths so loose they would have fallen out within 6 months if I hadn't turned to RVAF diets, inability to do exercise for more than a few minutes at a time before collapsing and so on and so forth. Like I said before, in total I had something like 60-80 minor to major conditions.

It was you who engaged in the "noble savage" ad hominem, remember? As I recall, it was you who raised the subject by implying that I was motivated by a belief in Stone Age peoples being "noble savages." It doesn't bother me if you don't believe some of my claims or don't find many of my speculations to be plausible, but I can assure you that I am not superstitious. I don't even believe in the supernatural at all--period. I have been accused many times in the past of being "too coldly rational," too focused on science and not enough on emotion and the human spirit, and the like, which I didn't mind owning up to at all (one TV and movie character I am familiar with that was one of my favorites was the Spock character on Star Trek). You are only the second person ever to imply that I'm superstitious or unscientific and the other was very recent and which you witnessed. Maybe I'm developing some humanity finally after all this time. If you read enough of my posts at PaleoFood you may be aware that my opinion about raw foods has changed. If my opinion at the time that raw eating was not necessary to my health had been based on magic or superstition, I would not have changed my mind because of the experiences of other Paleo dieters and some scientific articles that I read. If superstition is my guidepost, then what is the superstitious reason that is supposed to have led to my trying a raw diet?

Strictly speaking, everybody has their own superstition/religion. Even the religion-hating Richard Dawkins is religious in a sense, it's just that he believes Darwin to be his "god".

Thanks for providing some research, which I will look into. Research and scientific explanations are much more likely to sway me than your opinions that such or other is balderdash or superstitious. If you keep in mind that I love science and do not believe in magic or the supernatural at all (though I don't tend to disparage believers either), it should improve the effectiveness of our communications, with less time wasted on irrelevant matters.

Since you seem absolutely convinced that you are correct and don't seem the slightest bit interested in anything I've posted on this subject, why don't you expound more on your hypothesis re: skin/hair/eye color and provide some more supporting evidence for me to evaluate. For example, do you think sexual selection is the only factor behind the palest shades?

Probably not. The climate notion sounds like an additional possibility though I'm sceptical of the notion that Caucasians are the best adapted to colder climates. I was merely against the notion of pale skin originating as a result of diet as evolutionary pressure/natural selection was effectively dead-in-the-water by the start of the Neolithic era. Plus, as I said before, one would expect Middle-Easterners to have the palest skin in the world if Neolithic diets really did contribute to paler skin, as they were the first to go in for such diets. At any rate, I doubt that paler skin is a recent trait - it seems the DNA for it was already present in our common ancestor with the apes, judging from that scientist's comments I referenced previously.

[William]

Strictly speaking, everybody has their own superstition/religion. Even the religion-hating Richard Dawkins is religious in a sense, it's just that he believes Darwin to be his "god".

Religion was invented in the Middle East/Egypt  by trolls as a means of preventing people from killing the murderous thieves who seek to oppress them. For instance "my mum was a goddess, so you should not kill me or she will get you". Presently known as the divine right of kings, and also the "God's chosen people" ploy - every coin in my pocket bears the inscription "D.G.REGINA", meaning "by the grace of God, Queen".


Almost universally successful due to the stupidity resulting from the brain damage cause by consumption of cereal grains and other carbohydrates along with fat deficiency. Spread by empire-builders.
The antidote is the popular  Christianity understood by the rebels who created the U.S.A. - note their war cry: "No King But Jesus"; anathema to politicians, churchmen and other trolls.

[PaleoPhil]

....I don't have a TV either. I used to and it led to me watching rubbish after a while. These days I  have my PC and do dvd-rentals or buy the occasional dvd-set, so that I only watch the very best.

Yeah, I've started doing that recently too, so I don't end up too "out of it."

It's standard for people to have usernames which reflect the character of the forum. Using one's own name as a handle seems to me to be lacking in imagination. I used the Tyler Durden reference because of 1 passage in that film:-

OK, thanks for the explanation.

I'll probably change the testimonial in the future and make it more detailed re my former health-problems. It's just that I really dislike the modern habit of "letting it all hang out" Jerry-Springer-style, and prefer a certain reserve.

Yeah, me too. I shared some personal stuff at the Paleofood forum, but not a lot, partly because I'm a private person, and partly because I still had some significant health issues there and didn't know whether they were going to resolve or not. Once it looked like I finally had found what works for me here and was impressed by Lex's journal, I felt like I should return the favor to this forum as best I could by starting my own journal and thought I might learn some more stuff too from it. It's still possible that my immune system could start to malfunction again even on this diet, which is one reason why I suggest people find what works for them rather than necessarily emulating what I'm doing.

If you looked at the early posts on the rawpaleodiet yahoo group, you'd have seen me mention all sorts of things ...

Ah, I see. I didn't read much of that forum, unfortunately.

Strictly speaking, everybody has their own superstition/religion. Even the religion-hating Richard Dawkins is religious in a sense, it's just that he believes Darwin to be his "god".

Well, whatever my superstition or religion is, I hereby renounce and denounce it and offer no fealty to it whatsoever. I don't mind passions, objectives, ethical and cultural codes and traditions, enthusiasms, hobbies, etc., but I don't care to have any superstition or religion. That's why instead of saying something to people like "You must accept that diet is a factor in skin color or be damned to hell eternally," or "Myrrh will help your teeth because of its magical Biblical healing properties that only God can ever fully understand," I say things like "This is the diet that has worked for me and this is why I THINK it's working for me" and "I bought a product that contains need and myrrh and it seems to be helping my dental health so far after several days." If I ever seem to be promoting superstition, then I must be unintentionally miscommunicating, as it is not my intention. Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark is one of my favorite books. I use Sagan's "scientist's toolkit" when examining phenomena, ideas, hypotheses, etc.

I don't share the hatred for religion that Dawkins and Hitchens seem to hold. They give nonreligious people like myself a bad name. I prefer the tolerant rationalism of more reasonable people like Cark Sagan, Nassim Taleb, Albert Einstein and Karl Popper.

As regards skin color shades, I found a scientific hypothesis proposed independently by multiple respected scientists, found it to have some merit, (though it also raises some questions and requires much more research), so I suggested that it might partly explain why climate and genetics alone (the conventional explanation for skin shade differences) don't seem to explain it (and you rightly added sexual selection--which I agree is also a factor).

Probably not. The climate notion sounds like an additional possibility though I'm sceptical of the notion that Caucasians are the best adapted to colder climates. I was merely against ...

You've made pretty clear what you're against. It's what you're for that is still a bit hazy. So it sounds like you view sexual selection as the primary difference in skin color shades, or perhaps genetics, with climate as a much less important factor and diet not a factor at all? Do you think epigenetics has any effect on skin shades? Do you recommend the views of any scientists on this subject?

[William]

 

Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark is one of my favorite books. I use Sagan's "scientist's toolkit" when examining phenomena, ideas, hypotheses, etc.

Bad news - Sagan has been outed by McCanney as possessed of the demon ORTHODOXY.