Scandinavians are darker than Finns, Balts, and British Islanders. Is it because Scandinavians have

[L3mon J3lly]

No it won't if you don't live dozens of longitudinal degrees closer to the equator than your skin is meant to or if you don't stay under the sun for long period of times just because. Melanoma is all things considered not even that common until old age, after people usually have kids.

Everyone outside subsaharan Africa and Papua has a skin type that is too light for its latitude. Ancient DNA evidence has proven that everyone outside Africa originally had a skin color that was dark brown to black, even above the 50th parallel, and that artificial selection lightened it to an unnatural degree over the last ~5000 years.


Also, the genetic mutations and folate degradation that accumulate from UV exposure happen during adolescence and are passed on to your offspring. The median age of skin cancer diagnosed patients is also decreasing.

[Ymyyakhtakh]

Apparently this thread was about skin color, but in the case of eye color or hair color, Finnics (in the sense of the word "Finnic" where it is a synonym of "Baltic Finnic") might barely be lighter than Scandinavians, but there's no way Balts are. Estonians are not Balts.

I think the prevalence of light-colored eyes among both Finnics and Scandinavians is frequently overestimated, and it is possibly closer to 80% than to 90%.

In 4 different Swedish football leagues, among players who I estimated to be ethnic Swedes, Danes, Icelandics, or Norwegians, the prevalence of eyes which I classified as light-colored was only around 80% in each league:

Allsvenskan (premier men's league): 130/161 (~81%)
OBOS Damallsvenskan (premier women's league): 129/159 (~81%)
Superettan (second-level men's league): 152/189 (~81%)
Elitettan (second-level women's league): 167/208 (~80%)

I even had liberal criteria for what I considered light-colored eyes, so that I didn't count dark green eyes as dark-colored unless they clearly looked yellowish or brown, and so that I also counted some light hazel eyes as light-colored.

Among 4 different Finnish national hockey teams, the total prevalence of eyes which I classified as light-colored was also only 75/92 (~81%):

IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship 2019: 22/25
IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship 2019: 20/22
IIHF Ice Hockey U18 World Championship 2019: 17/23
IIHF Ice Hockey U18 Women's World Championship 2019: 16/22

[SharpFork]

Everyone outside subsaharan Africa and Papua has a skin type that is too light for its latitude. Ancient DNA evidence has proven that everyone outside Africa originally had a skin color that was dark brown to black, even above the 50th parallel, and that artificial selection lightened it to an unnatural degree over the last ~5000 years.

No, ancient DNA evidence has proven that people as light as modern South European existed at least since the Neolithic era in Europe. There is no "artificial selection" or "unnatural" in evolution, if the UV light damage did not offer enough counterweight to sexual selection or vitamin D deficiency, then dark skin was clearly not naturally better.

Also are you arguing that even Indonesians, Indians and Arabs are lighter than they should be, what? How come most of the world magically became ligther all at the same time within mere millennia so consistently? It's almost as if you are just spouting bullshit.

Also, the genetic mutations and folate degradation that accumulate from UV exposure happen during adolescence and are passed on to your offspring. The median age of skin cancer diagnosed patients is also decreasing.

Citation needed for both claims:

https://www.mja.com.au/sites/default....00725-gr2.jpg

It only affects older people and even only relevantly in places like Australia or Southern US.

[ciftci]

Everyone outside subsaharan Africa and Papua has a skin type that is too light for its latitude. Ancient DNA evidence has proven that everyone outside Africa originally had a skin color that was dark brown to black, even above the 50th parallel, and that artificial selection lightened it to an unnatural degree over the last ~5000 years.


Also, the genetic mutations and folate degradation that accumulate from UV exposure happen during adolescence and are passed on to your offspring. The median age of skin cancer diagnosed patients is also decreasing.

This means non-black people had racist ancestors favoring light skinned ones always.

[L3mon J3lly]

No, ancient DNA evidence has proven that people as light as modern South European existed at least since the Neolithic era in Europe.

No way buddy, no study ever said that.

There is no "artificial selection" or "unnatural" in evolution, if the UV light damage did not offer enough counterweight to sexual selection or vitamin D deficiency, then dark skin was clearly not naturally better.

Our ancestors didn't live in evolution; they lived in cities and felt covered wagons.

Also are you arguing that even Indonesians, Indians and Arabs are lighter than they should be, what?

Yes. Arabs in particular are way too light. Indians: depends on admixture with ASI.

How come most of the world magically became ligther all at the same time within mere millennia so consistently? It's almost as if you are just spouting bullshit.

It's almost as if you're a bot, because actual humans shouldn't be this retarded. The "lightening" of the world corresponds to the rise of mobile warlords with domesticated horses and wheels... Everywhere, but mostly originating out of the Steppes.

https://www.mja.com.au/sites/default....00725-gr2.jpg

It only affects older people and even only relevantly in places like Australia or Southern US.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...report=classic

Mutations are induced by not only intrinsic factors such as inherent molecular errors but also by extrinsic mutagenic factors such as UV radiation. Therefore, identifying the mutational properties for both factors is necessary to achieve a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary processes both in nature and in artificial situations. Although there have been extensive studies on intrinsic factors, the mutational profiles of extrinsic factors are poorly understood on a genomic scale. Here, we explored the mutation profiles of UV radiation, a ubiquitous mutagen, in Escherichia coli on the genomic scale. We performed an evolution experiment under periodic UV radiation for 28 days. The accumulation speed of the mutations was found to increase so that it exceeded that of a typical mutator strain with deficient mismatch repair processes. The huge contribution of the extrinsic factors to all mutations consequently increased the risk of the destruction of inherent error correction systems. The spectrum of the UV-induced mutations was broader than that of the spontaneous mutations in the mutator. The broad spectrum and high upper limit of the frequency of occurrence suggested ubiquitous roles for UV radiation in accelerating the evolutionary process.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...?dopt=Abstract

How somatic mutations accumulate in normal cells is central to understanding cancer development but is poorly understood. We performed ultradeep sequencing of 74 cancer genes in small (0.8 to 4.7 square millimeters) biopsies of normal skin. Across 234 biopsies of sun-exposed eyelid epidermis from four individuals, the burden of somatic mutations averaged two to six mutations per megabase per cell, similar to that seen in many cancers, and exhibited characteristic signatures of exposure to ultraviolet light. Remarkably, multiple cancer genes are under strong positive selection even in physiologically normal skin, including most of the key drivers of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas. Positively selected mutations were found in 18 to 32% of normal skin cells at a density of ~140 driver mutations per square centimeter. We observed variability in the driver landscape among individuals and variability in the sizes of clonal expansions across genes. Thus, aged sun-exposed skin is a patchwork of thousands of evolving clones with over a quarter of cells carrying cancer-causing mutations while maintaining the physiological functions of epidermis.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22747844/

Folate is essential for human health in the prevention of megaloblastic anemia and neural tube birth defects and plays important roles in cardiovascular disease and cancer. Therefore, research into environmental factors that may impact folate status, such as solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation, is of great health significance. In vitro studies have shown that UV radiation can degrade folate and folic acid in human blood and this has been confirmed in several human studies. Despite these findings, there is a dearth of epidemiological research into investigating the relationship between folate status and the links to solar UV exposure.

[Nordarya]

It's because of shitskin Haplogroup I1.








https://www.theapricity.com/snpa/troeplate04.htm


Note that Coon said brunn race is highest in Goteborg where the Haplogroup I1 is highest.

Between I1 Sweden, R1b Denmark and R1a Norway, each has a higher percentage than the other two in one haplogroup. Now, the irony is that Swedish Cuckistan imports boatloads of J rapefugees, so it must be a biological imperative to reclaim IJ relations, no different than the Balkanisation of I and J. As someone who is R1a, I guess I belong in the Americas with all the Q, for QR aka P.

The British albino-looking types are their own type ,they should have their own subrace ,it's a shame to equate them with the gold-tanned niggers of Scandinavia ,CE&EE.

Probably daughter of some R1b. Definitely my type.

[Septentrion]

Apparently this thread was about skin color, but in the case of eye color or hair color, Finnics (in the sense of the word "Finnic" where it is a synonym of "Baltic Finnic") might barely be lighter than Scandinavians, but there's no way Balts are. Estonians are not Balts.

I think the prevalence of light-colored eyes among both Finnics and Scandinavians is frequently overestimated, and it is possibly closer to 80% than to 90%.

In 4 different Swedish football leagues, among players who I estimated to be ethnic Swedes, Danes, Icelandics, or Norwegians, the prevalence of eyes which I classified as light-colored was only around 80% in each league:

Allsvenskan (premier men's league): 130/161 (~81%)
OBOS Damallsvenskan (premier women's league): 129/159 (~81%)
Superettan (second-level men's league): 152/189 (~81%)
Elitettan (second-level women's league): 167/208 (~80%)

I even had liberal criteria for what I considered light-colored eyes, so that I didn't count dark green eyes as dark-colored unless they clearly looked yellowish or brown, and so that I also counted some light hazel eyes as light-colored.

Among 4 different Finnish national hockey teams, the total prevalence of eyes which I classified as light-colored was also only 75/92 (~81%):

IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship 2019: 22/25
IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship 2019: 20/22
IIHF Ice Hockey U18 World Championship 2019: 17/23
IIHF Ice Hockey U18 Women's World Championship 2019: 16/22

Yeah light eyes for Scandinavian and Baltic populations usually range between 80% - 90%.

[Septentrion]

I think having pale skin with ability to tan without burning is good. You can get enough d during harsh winters or can stay under sun without fear of burning.
I have this kind of skin, I get pale and tanned very easily.

You have skin phototype 3. Yes this would seem «pale» in your population as it is non - European Mediterranean one.

[Septentrion]

The British albino-looking types are their own type ,they should have their own subrace ,it's a shame to equate them with the gold-tanned niggers of Scandinavia ,CE&EE.

Most British and Irish belong to a special Nordid type called Keltic. The skin is pale reddish white, often freckled, usually with the physiological inability to tan. It is the lightest or palest skin type. This is why the British are lighter or fairer than Scandinavians or Balts or whoever else.
Examples:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...716ef3c786c7-c
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...2a70e3fd8404-c

[CommonSense]

Maintenance, is that you?