add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
| advertise add site services publishers database health videos
| | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
Dry Skin & Oily Skin - DDF Skin Peels instantlaserclinic.com.au | Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking... independentliving.com | Uneven Skin Color - Skin Rx Clinic skinrxclinic.com | Skin Cancer in Skin of Color annieappleseedproject.org |
[edit] Claim that dark skin was the original human modeThere is no evidence that proves what skin color ancient Africans had. We just know they did not have the mutations present in Europeans for pale skin. They still had the capacity for a wide range of skin colors. We know that even in the heart of Africa we have populations referred to as Khoisanid who have some of the most ancient lineages and still were considerably lighter than Bantu populations. Furthermore, Bantu populations have also shown signs of skin color selectivity to get darker. So skin color could have had a wide range in ancient Africa as it does today. Remember that those ancient Africans had to shed hair and progressively darken as they went from hairy apes to naked hominids. How dark they went would depend on area, time, diet, and environment. It is erroneous to assume all Africans went all the way to very dark skin and then some lightened back to somewhere in between. We just don't know at this time. A letter I got confirming this by a geneticist who is studying genes and skin color quote From: Heather Norton Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 5:29 PM Subject: Re: Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians Thanks for your interest in my work. Before I get to your questions, I think that I need to clear up a bit of confusion about these pigmentation genes, particularly some confusion about the use of the terms gene and allele. First, yes, these genes exist in other primates. That is to say, primates have stretches of DNA sequence that produce the same protein in humans and in chimps, and these are usually found in the same corresponding region on their chromosomes. So, it would be correct to say that both humans and chimps, for example, have the gene for ASIP, OCA2, MC1R, etc. When we look at the sequence of individual nucleotides (A, C, G, or T) that make up a particular gene, we may see small differences between chimps and humans. So, for example, at one place in the OCA2 gene chimps might all have a G base, where humans all carry an A in the corresponding position. This is what is known as a fixed difference, and studying fixed differences may help us to understand why humans and chimps differ for certain traits. However, you can imagine that there may be other cases were chimps carry a G at a certain position while some humans carry the G and others carry an A. When we see the same nucleotide being carried in both species (in this case, the G) we call it the ancestral allele. When the nucleotide differs (in this case, the A) we refer to it as the derived allele. The term allele here is used to refer to a different versions of the same gene. So, while chimps and humans have the same pigmentation genes (so do mice, and pigs, and fish), they may carry slightly different versions of that gene. Sometimes we see slightly different versions of a gene within the same species. These different versions may explain some of the physical differences (like skin pigmentation) that we see among individuals. In other cases, though, these differences dont affect the protein that the gene produces, and so they dont seem to explain physical differences. So, onto your questions. The question of the San and Sandawe is an interesting one. We are not sure if the alleles that explain why their pigmentation is so different from neighboring populations reflect new (derived) mutations or if instead maybe they are actually ancestral alleles shared with light-skinned primates. I would say that this is an area of open investigation. As for ASIP and OCA2I think that even if you ignored the contribution of these two genes to pigmentation variation we would still see good range of diversity. For example, genes like SLC24A5 and MATP also have a major impact on phenotype. I would also assume that in the past there was variation in human skin color. It would be unlikely to be as much variation as we see across the human species today, since today modern humans live in a range of environments where different pigmentation types are more or less adaptive. In general, I would say that the pigmentation of early humans, who originated in Africa, was dark to provide protection against the damage that ultraviolet radiation can do. However, when we look at populations in Africa today (or populations living in other places where ultraviolet radiation is strong) we see a wide range of variation in pigmentation. I suspect that if we could go back in time we would probably see similar levels of diversity to those that we see in Africa today. end quote. In other words, there is no evidence to indicate that the huge variation of skin color already existent in Africa wasn't always there. This is a South African San: http://www.nma.gov.au/shared/libraries/images/temporary_exhibitions/extremes/extremes_large/africa/a_khoisan_man_northern_cape_south_africa/files/6398/nma.img-ex20042116-262-vi-vs1.jpg Now the earliest skull we have found is in Ethiopia. But human remains are notorious for not surviving in many environments. Sarah Tishkoff just finished her decades long DNA study. It turns out that the San bushmen of southern Africa have the most distinct, and therefore oldest, genetic sequences. Then also consider that the mostly disappeared Bisa Sandawe of Tanzania were markedly lighter than their Bantu neighbors. JCTrevor reported this in 1947, So did Ten Raa. I confirmed this with Imogene Lim, a Japanese anthropologist who lived among them: quote From: Imogene Lim Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:17 PM Subject: RE: Rock-shelter Use Today: An Indicator of Usandawe Prehistory If you look at recent photographs, there has been increasing intermarriage between groups. Certainly when I conducted my field work some 20 years ago, there were those who shared strong resemblance to their southern counterparts, the Ju/hoansi and other Bushmen/San, the only other true Khoisan language speakers. After being in the field over a year, I was darker in skin tone than many of the Sandawe in the community where I lived. Eric Ten Raa who studied among the Sandawe in the early 1960s has photographs in one particular article showing the distinction between the Tehla and Bisa Sandawe. If you have done your reading, you will know that the latter are the ones who exhibit the classic Sandawe phenotype. end quote This is Imogene Lim. http://www.viu.ca/images/portraits/limi.jpg So a tanned Japanese woman could be darker than some Africans. Africans with some of the oldest genetic markers in existence. It just goes to show you the huge variety already in Africa. To assume the earliest Africans were as dark as Bantu populations, when we have populations like that of the San, is just that, an assumption. We do not have clear evidence to make such a claim. --Salsassin (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC) [edit] new theoryWhat about the new theory that melanin is an anti-infection agent and that rather than people evolving lower melanin in order to let in more light, they did it because they weren't as healthy and so couldn't afford the metabolic cost of melanin production? According to this theory, melanin corresponds to humidity levels (which many viruses and bacteria depend on) instead of light levels. --Ark
Heh. It came up either in Scientific American or New Scientist. Probably sometime in the last year. In the last two years definitely. :) Basically it was speculation based on some preliminary finding. I don't remember what the finding was though. I just mentioned it because like you said, it's so interesting. -- Ark
I remember seeing a little article in New Scientist at least five and probably ten or more years ago on this. One point that I did remember was the comment about there often being a concentration of melanin around that particular part of the anatomy where, as they say, "the Sun don't shine". This fits with the antiseptic hypothesis, and not with the solar radiation/vitamin D/sunburn theory. Of course, there could be some truth in both theories. --ADM What does this mean?
Was the above sentence intended to support idea that acquired characteristics can be inherited? I thought Lysenkoism had been thoroughly discredited. --Ed Poor 19:59 Sep 6, 2002 (UCT)
Right, I understand about the "genes being passed on" part. And it accords with ethnographical observations of Northern Europeans being light-skinned and equatorial Africans and Caribbeanns being dark-skinned. My confusion was about the "recent ancestors" claim in the sentence I first quoted way above. I'd like to revise it so it doesn't give the impression that the process takes place over a couple of generations. Doesn't it take centuries before we start to see any significant differences? --Ed Poor
I thought of "recent ancestors" as not more than 4 generations back, like my great-great-grandparents, who are Polish and Russian Jews (on my mother's side). Thanks for the scientific help. I think I have enough information to edit the article. What means "The lighter skin of women results either from sexual preference or from the higher calcium needs of women during pregnancy and lactation."??? Can I see the ``sexual preference of a woman in her skin color? There has been no proven correlation between lighter skin and gender, in any culture or race. Beauty standards in the modern age, a byproduct of colonialism, are purely cultural. In addition, Vitamin D in high levels is toxic, such that people with melanin were at a biological advantage in high-sunlight areas in their ability to regulate, thus prevent over-production of, the vitamin. -M What he is trying to say is that women with lighter skin are supposedly prettier. He should look at Beyonce Knowles and reconsider. Cameron Nedland 03:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC) There is a school of thought suggesting that light skin, blond hair, and pale blue eye color arose in part among European populations during the last Ice Age as a way for females to attract males. The lighter-skinned females stood out from the others and were more "exotic," hence more desirable as mates. There is solid evidence that there was a gender imbalance in Europe at that time (for varous reasons), and that strong males were in shorter supply. So in addition to other environmental factors selecting for light skin, demographics may have also played a role. Sociobiologists can see in populations today that small numbers of different looking females are viewed as particularly attractive sex partners by dominant males. On study in Finland showed that while racist views were quite prevelant in the overrall population, the small population of young black and asian women resident there received a higher degree of sexual advances from Finnish males than the average young ethnic Finn did; the "exotic" theory at work. In general, however, given the smaller number of very light-skinned females in most societies, it will be these who are considered the most attractive, Beyonce notwithstanding. Recent studies on internet pornography tend to support this. Both black and white males are drawn in far greater numbers to websites featuring light-skinned, white girls. There are, of course, sites featuring Latinas and black women, but far fewer. None of this is politically correct, of course, and most scientists won't touch these issues. I work in a related field myself, and I admit that I won't sign my name here because of the fear of being labelled racist, etc. I don't think any of that means that light-skinned females are "better" than dark-skinned females, etc. That's not what it's about. And cultural factors are obviusly involved too. But there is quite a bit of rather dry evidence to support that in general, males in most populations are somewhat "hard-wired" to prefer light-skinned gals over dark-skinned ones. Let's put it this way. As any biologist will tell you (and I'm one), all animals use visual markers and signals to attract and select mates, and obervation of any species will identify certain physical characteristics, especially marking and color patterns, that invariably attract more attention. Humans are no different. Difficult for us to talk about or admit given the way that "race" has negatively impacted so many people throughout the world. But from a cold scientific standpoint, it's true. no dear its not true white people like whites and dark people like darks naturally. asians prefer asians but when whites are always humiliating black people(dont deny it )and all other people like asians and other races and due to increasing domination of your culture(north america and europ)by goods,advertisements,movies etc yes they prefer their child be one of you and belong to you (better race) sorry im very frank but just look at mis world selection they selected a blond girl in my country no one think that she is better than others or even beauteful.my people (in your opinion of cours uncivilized!!!)dont like very thin and very white girls they call them corps (you know dead body is bloodless and white!)and light eyes have always been the symptom of villainy! sorry i dont want to insult you but it was like this. Why/how is it that the Tasmanian Aborigine, a population isolated for thousands of years so far south, retained such dark skin? Tasmania is as close to the South Pole as Southern Europe, mid-North-America, or Japan is from the North, and the populations of those areas were much lighter. -- stewacide 20:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) I'm a tad confused as well. For vitamin D production, the amount of time spent in the sun is trivial -- say, about 15 minutes/day, for a light-skinned person. For a dark skin person, they might need 6 times that -- Say, an hour and a half. Thus, the skin-color/vitamin D link seems a tad weak. I believe Darwin wanted to chalk skin color up to sexual selection. The Tasmanians have been isolated in Tasmania for thousands of years -- the disappearance of the Tasmanian-Australia landbridge is known. At the same time, the retreat of the glaciers from northern Europe happened later. But the typical northern European has light skin, Tasmanians have dark skin.
[edit] Is the skin color link appropriate?The external link to Asian skin color should be deleted. The site that the link takes you to is not a scholarly source, but merely a joke-website made to ridicule asians. -- 70.105.1.158 (from the PageHistory)
[edit] van Luschan scaleFelix von Luschan, (1854-1924)
[1] dab 11:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) [edit] Eyes colorNon-white people are only brown-eyed, it's impossible for a non-white person to naturally have non-brown eyes, the only way is to have one white parent, & one non-white, then he/she may earn his white parent's eye-color, which may be blue, green or hazel, but multiracial people are very rarely non-brown-eyed.
When I was in India there were people there (that were darker than most blacks) that had blue eyes.Cameron Nedland 16:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Forget it, I'm full Chinese and my right eye is already look hazel while left eye is golden brown. Person who put that about it being impossible for a non-white to naturally have non-brown eyes, you were greatly misinformed.
i dont think like you in my country (before haliwood movies )many years before cultural attacks of chalcy people (very white)people admired black eyes if we are talking about a correlation between eye pigmentation and the concentration of melanin in the skin. I do not believe you have a scientific basis for making that conclusion. The Wikipedia article "Eye color" lists references 12,13, and 14 as material related to this. You may wish to examine those references before making a generalization. While the altering of code in gene OCA2 has impact on skin, hair and eye colour, it is not sufficient to conclude that a high concentration of melanin in the skin is incompatible with a low concentration in the eyes, and in fact, there are living, human examples to refute your hypothesis. A quick GIS turned up http://www.africancolours.net/media/10929_2_03,%20Miss%20Richard%20Wachira.jpg 72.53.30.175 (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC) [edit] Eye color & Ancestry Debate???The preference over which eye color is attractive, depends on one's culture (taught beliefs, media portrayals, etc.) and it does not matter to me what eye colors people find attractive. I like dark eyes, as long as they are medium to big in size and have an oval or almond shape. This is because most of the people in my adopted family are gracious and easy to entreat full blooded Native Americans (Choctaws) and I am Ethiopian. The indigenous people of Ethiopia in my opinion are the best looking in the world as are Native Americans.But every country/ethnicity can have beautiful looking and symmetrical people regardless of skin/ hair or eye color. Beautiful is beautiful, Period!:)) I would also like to add that brown (dark eyes) are dominant and are seen in more than 90% of the world's total population (look at Indigenous Africans, Asians, Australians, North and South Americans). Dark eyes have more melanin and greater resistance to solar radiation and are less liely to get sun damaged in warm climates. Light eyes (blue, gray, green, etc) are recessive and seen mostly in indigenous European peoples, due to the fact that Europe had abundant snow and was very cold. Dark eyes would have been susceptible to snow blindness. As for skin color determining eye color, usually melanin rich complexions (by melanin I mean eumelanin--- brown and black skin tones)are usually paired with dark eyes (brown or black). And non pigmented peoples have blue, gray and green eyes. However, in areas where genetic mixing was common ( places colonized by Europe ---- West Africa, North and South America, and parts of India) generational mixing led to different phenotypes uncommon to Europeans, Africans, and AMericans. Past genetic mixing, can make it where 2 parents (from the present---who might both have dark eyes and dark skin) have children with dark skin and light eyes. Simply because a great great grand parent was of European descent or had mixed ancestry. Duh! Vice versa, two parents with phenotypes--- blonde hair, blue eyes--- can have dark haired and dark eyed kids. Because one or both parents carried alleles for pigmented features (maybe from past generations intermarrying with non Euro people).
[edit] Hexidecimal RGB ValuesAre there any rules for getting a flat, decent looking flesh-tone with a program that uses #RGB, such as Flash, Fireworks, or even MS Paint? i heard there is a rule for good skin-tones,but i can't find it... Thanks, -Grim- 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cutting two dubious "See also" linksThe above two links were inserted by User:80.46.154.123 at this edit. Going out of my way to assume that this prank was done in Good faith, I am leaving this record for someone to revert if generic History and "Tom Irwin" are renowned experts in Skin color that I cannot find in Google. 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 19:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) [edit] latitude Note however, that "darker shades" of skin color correlate, not with latitude, but with a thousand-year cumulation of 1) total annual UV striking the ground through the cloud cover and 2) lack of sources of Vitamin D in the diet such as from fresh fish. Hence, notice the darker shade of skin color at the equator, comparing South America to Africa--because there is much more cloud cover annually over South America. See text. it seems strange to say that skin colour is not correlated to latitude but rather to the amount of UV radiation, since clearly the latter is correlated to the former. dab (ᛏ) 19:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The inuit are probably a poor example, since high latitudes have alternating patterns of extremely high (or at least constant) sunlight followed by almost none. so far the adaptations i'd heard of included the narrow eyes.. though now that i think of it, that's universal mongoloid, so that makes no sense. anyway, i've never seen a 'relatively dark' inuit, so that part doesn't make sense to me.
Cameron Nedland 03:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] About that mapI've deleted the above image from the article. "Be bold." Well, I removed the above map. When I first saw this image, my first reaction was, "This can't possibly be correct!" I Googled it, and the first thing I consulted was this.[3] I don't know where the information about Basutti's "methodology" and the "use with caution" notation came from (somewhere else here?), but it is terribly improper to present this as factual/credible -- and with no notation whatsoever about its shortcomings/limitations. deeceevoice 07:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
--- The image that was removed in this edit should be restored. The image is a good one.
That any reader has the response "That can't possible be right" is appropriate. Many people do not know that the image is basically right. --Rednblu 16:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Inuits and Saami have darker skin than Scandinavians because they have smaller body (than Scandinavians). --- Surely you are right that the deleted image should be updated to include more detailed recent data. But would you agree that the deleted image represents the data in Jablonski's article fairly well? --Rednblu 18:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
"Note that the "natives" of South America immigrated some 20k years ago, the Australians some 70k years ago, while the Africans were in Africa "forever"." While perhaps strictly true this statement is highly misleading in the context it is being stated. Most of sub-Saharan Africa was peopled by Khoisan prior to the Bantu expansions which were even more recent than the crossing of the Bering Strait or the peopling of Australia. This is highly relevant since, while bones are not proof of pigmentation, there is a significant difference in skin tone between Bantu and Khoisan people today. This suggests that if the (more recent than the two events you cite) Bantu pastoralist expansion had not occurred most of sub-Saharan Africa would probably be lighter skinned, perhaps not dissimilar to the natives of the Americas, or at least closer to them than it is 80.229.27.11 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC) [edit] No such thing as black skin mutationTo do a section on "The origins of black skin" is backward it should be "The origins of white skin".The article misstates the fact that the mutation is from dark skin and kinky hair to white skin and straight hair,the first humans were black. the mutation is of the other races.
Cameron Nedland 03:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Vehgah Not all chimps have "white" skin [http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/img/chimpanzee.jpg link]
--65.188.253.47 21:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
"When Hominids evolved relative hairlessness (the most likely function of which was to facilitate perspiration)" Is it not true that hominids don't have relative hairlessness over other great apes, rather we have a similar number of hairs but each hair is much less coarse in modern humans? Perhaps "... relatively finer hair ..." or similar would be preferable? Or is this venturing too far from lay english?81.141.18.176 (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC) [edit] Rev. Moon quoteWhy is there a quote by Sun Myung Moon in the article? it seems totally random and doesn't belong, there are many quotes about skin color out there, why should this be included in the article? I'm removing it, unless someone can offer a valid reason to keep it.--Kewp (t) 20:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC) [edit] CONTRADICTIONThis article says that skin color is determined by a set of genes. Later, it says women have lighter skin than men. Since the genes are the same whether the person is male or female, the article contradicts itself, or at the very least, leaves out an additional determinant for skin color besides genes, one which is tied into gender.
No contradiction. The lighter skin in females is related to their higher need of vitamin D during gestation. --Salsassin (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC) [edit] I'm stupid, and I have a question about skin color and genetics.When I was born, and for most of my childhood, I had light skin. But then as time I went on, my skin began to darken (because of not using sunscreen), and, although this sounds bad, I started to become a bit depressed. I like the look of light skin over dark skin, but I'm not a racist as I don't discriminate based on skin color. Let me get to my question. If I had a child with a light-skinned woman, would our child still come out dark because of the darkening of my skin, or does that not tie into the genes that I'll pass onto my child? I'm guessing that it won't because I inherited most of my mother's physical traits (with the exception of a few noted below), but recessive genes aren't eliminated but supressed, leaving them a chance to spring back up in another generation. It sounds like a dumb question, and it is, but it's one that I can't answer, and I don't know how to search for this specific question on Google. But because I don't talk to anyone on my father's side of the family (my father is dark-skinned), and because I felt out of place at most family gatherings (for being darker than everyone on my mother's side of the family), I was hoping maybe the chances of me having a light-skinned baby would still be really high to keep my child from feeling alienated like I did. Here's some extra information about me in case this would affect anything: - I adopted most of my mother's physical features except hair. Everyone on her side of the family has straight brown hair, and I have curly black hair. - My mother is between 12 - 15 on that skin color scale up there, and my father is between 27 - 30. I was born somewhere in between 12 - 15, but now I'm in between 24 - 27.
Please remember that the talk page is for discussion of ways to improve the article itself, not general discussion of the article's topic. Ketsuekigata (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC) [edit] Use of shelter or cavesThere seems to be no mention of the use of shelter or caves having an effect on pigment. For example if people who leave in a very cold area live in caves or shelters most of the day and only venture outside to hunt then surely they would lose their pigmentation very quickly. But then if they live in a temperate area that is not extremely hot or cold then the use of shelters would have a similar effect. [edit] "Yellow" skinI read a first year Biology textbook a few months ago which said that the reason why far Easterners have yellowish skin tone is due to a second factor determining their skin colour, namely carotene. However, this article does not mention this at all. Was the claim incorrect? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 16:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Info on cancerThis article omits two very important- though little know facts about skin color and sun cancer. First being this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5219752.stm I think this is reffering to the fact that pitch black skin compared to pale white skin filters only twice less UV radiation than light skin. That's a rather sizable difference, but minute for a color on a wholly different side of the spectrum- not to mention the skin colors inbetween. And of course this: http://www.mercola.com/2000/sep/3/vitamin_d_cancer.htm http://www.myhealthsense.com/F020604_somesun.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5334534.stm A better vitamin D metabolism and the like would obviously correct for much of this though. I'm not sure how to frame these into the main article, but they're very important pieces. [edit] i heared...I heared that the reason why Africans have Black/Dark brown Skin and Europeans have White-ish skin was because of genetic mutations due to the change of temperature... like when Homo Sapiens Sapiens moved out of Africa, their skin colUr changed due to the change in temperature. [edit] skin colorsingle-orgin hypothesis: lived only in Africa dual-orgin hypothesis: lived Africa and Europe Nagara373 03:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC) I believe it's Asia, not Europe. As the dual origin hypthesis, link 06:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Nagara373 05:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Asia orgin is not dual origin hypthesis. dual-orgin hypthesis in Asia are immigrate from Europe (Eurasian and African). The single-orgin hypthesis, people moved from Africa to Europe, then people moved from Europe to Asia. Africa -> Europe -> Asia -> America Nagara373 05:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
in Europe: Homo Sapiens + Neanderthal in Asia: Homo Sapiens + (Homo E + Neanderthal) Nagara373 05:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC) [edit] retain heatMen with lighter skin/hair/eye color can retain heat than either men with darker skin/hair/eye color or women with any skin/hair/eye color. Because men with lighter skin/hair/eye color are bigger and stockier than either men with darker skin/hair/eye color or women with any skin/hair/eye color. Nagara373 05:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC) I couldn't find the reason why light skins retain heat better than dark ones so I'm asking you to give me more info about your reference, like: some physical or chemical explanation, because I can't check any of that (I have no sources to answer my question apart from wikipedia...), is it something recently proven, who proved it, any other info that could help me understand would do. Till now I always heard that dark skin (like any dark body actually) absorbed more radiations in general (which is why those bodies are black, they do not render light...). There is also the fact that melanin transforms the UV radiation into heat, which would produce extra heat in any person that has extra melanin... If I'm wrong it might be due to a misunderstanding in the retain/absorb and heat concepts... thanks for answering. Sinekonata (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC) [edit] Color of dandruffPlease add to the article if the color of dandruff is related to the color of the skin, or if (the differences are only skin deep☺, and) it will always be the same no matter what race. Also mention it on the dandruff page. Jidanni 11:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)== [edit] Colour of cave figuresThis seems like weak evidence for a recent shift in skin colour among Europeans. Is it not possible that the figures only appear dark so that they are contrasted to the relative paleness of the stone? [edit] WikiProject class ratingThis article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC) [edit] Changes over lifespan?Leaving aside exceptional cases like Michael Jackson, what is known about changes in skin coloration over an individual's lifespan? I know that infants of African descent are often born with fairly pale skin, which darkens over the first few months of their lives. And I believe that old people's skin sometimes lightens, but I'm not sure whether that's due to lessened exposure to sunlight or something else. Is there any scientific account of these changes in skin coloration? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] lighter feet and handsWhy do many (all?) people with darker skin have paler skin on the inside of their hands and the bottom of their feet? People with lighter skin don't seem to have paler skin in these areas. Herorev (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC) The reason must be that the scin there is different to "normal" skin. For example, you have no hairs there, different somatosensory receptors and stuff like that. Dunno the English name, in German this kind of skin is called "Leistenhaut". It probably lacks of pigmentation as well, that's why the skin is much paler in people with dark scin compared to the rest of their body. But it might be that it's still a little darker than a pale person's inside of the hand. I guess the contrast between the lighter parts and the darker parts of the scin play a role so you get the impression as if the difference was very big. --EnduroLM (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)enduroLM [edit] Inaccurate mapThe map in the beginning of the article is obvsiously fake and not reflective of reality about North-Africa and the Arabian peninsula at least. Indeed, according to this map Saharan Maghrebis (Northwest Africans) are as light skinned as Scandinavians, they even appear on the map to be lighter skinned than Northern Maghrebis and Southern Europeans like Iberians, Italians, and Greeks. As for Yemen and Western Oman in Arabia, their people are not known to be as dark as Sub-Saharan Africans or darker than them as the map pretends. i agree the map is very dubious and as stated underneath it may be inaccurate so why have it up?--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
it seems there is starting to be a consensus for removal of this outdated map--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC) The map is a joke, take it down. Nippler998 (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I removed it. Ketsuekigata (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Black skin may enhance the body’s natural immune systemBlack skin may enhance the body’s natural immune system, and provide better protection against disease than white skin. Evidence shows that melanization of skin and other tissues form an important component of the innate immune defense system (Mackintosh, 2001; Nosanchuk and Casadevall, 2006).
[edit] Graphical representation of skin tonesThis article needs more information about the individual skin tone categories as well as a graphical representation of skin tones either through the use of just colored blocks, or actual images of human skin. I came here looking for information about my skin tone, being slightly olive. And while there is an article for olive skin tones on wikipedia (which is in dire need of more information btw), the different tones are not mentioned or linked here in the main article. The article mentions the range (from near black to pink), but what if I want to know if I'm pink, yellow, olive, beige, brown, dark brown, black or some other tone? 63.139.220.200 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)TC [edit] Migration and skin colourAccording to this article, dark skin got lighter as people migrated north. If people of light skin migrated from say northern Europe to hot sunny equatorial regions, would their skin and hair darken genetically from birth? And if so, how many years/centuries would this take. Thank you Chwyatt (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] names of Fitzpatrick typesYes, the common names of the "white" types I to IV, viz. "Celtic", "Nordic", "average Caucasian" and "Mediterranean" hark back to terms in scientific racism ( [edit] No clear correlation with multiple sclerosisQuoting from an article's abstract, "The prevalence of multiple sclerosis in the world: an update."
These people have varying degrees of skin coloration, but African blacks and Maoris are clearly dark skinned and yet are listed within the low risk, at the same time that the high-hisk group also does not have an overall pattern of dark skin. Judging by this abstract alone, the pattern seems to be more likely the opposite, if any. --Extremophile (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC) This article is written like a conversation between undergrad students; not very encyclopedic at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.144.115 (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC) [edit] Specious claimI removed the following claim:
This is (a) speculation and uncited, (b) probably false. A genetic predisposition to dying with even a modest chance of 1 in 1000 before reproductive age relative to another type, as with skin cancer, is in fact an incredibly strong evolutionary selection pressure and would be a strong influence on genetics. I don't know enough to comment on what's more important, folate or skin cancer, but the notion that skin cancer is insignificant is absolutely wrong. Graft | talk 22:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Confusing picturesFor some reason Jóhanna appears to be paler than MacNiven in the pictures displayed. I have already changed the picture of Berry for the same reason, and I would fix this myself, but there isn't any other picture of either Jóhanna or MacNiven on Wikipedia. If we can't find free pictures of them in which MacNiven is paler, maybe we can use a different person altoghether for one of those two examples? --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 10:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This article is not about reporting on Fitzpatrick's 1975 classification. And the declaimer is insufficient to warrant a POV on the article. You don't say "I am going to inaccurately describe the content of the article" as a disclaimer, then do so. Furthermore, you went out of your way to make sure only one black person is indicated, while you have 4 white people. Why? IN regards to sun tanning, darker skinned people tan also. I showed distinctions from the darkest to the middle, I made no effort to go beyond the darkest person on there. This nonsense about suntanning through the day is unrelated to the article and is ignored. The differences you see in Group III is not objective, it's based on your own subjective opinion. You're describing your personal experiences which is not a basis for contribution. So we cannot even use your digression as it does not address the objectivity. I do not know if I need another scale to balance against the obviously inbalanced scale, I will talk to an ADMIN to find out. --Panehesy (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, but in all fairness, it doesn't matter. You gave it much weight by putting so many pictures and detail in it and trying so hard to work through it. Instead of treating it as a fringe theory that it is. Just put a link to the scale instead of all of that work. The article is not a referendum in supporting the Fitzgerald/Fitzpatrick classification, and therefore it should not be given so much attention. All people will burn in the sun. The darkest person is still in danger of melanoma and that has been cited recently as a problem. It makes perfect sense because Fitzgerald's classification has nothing to do with suntanning or the danger of overexposure. He needs his own article because honestly, the one citation doesn't even describe the relevance. Finally, your wording is somewhat offensive. You speak of obvious differences between the skin color of Italians, yet speak also of the "little sense" it makes in distinguishing the two. Does it sound offensive if I say "it makes little difference to distinguish the slight variations among the Italians if they both burn in the hot sun anyway"? The differences between a 10 and 15 may be striking to you, but to me, the difference between Mandela and Seal are far more striking. This is an example of how a POV of one perspective is given more undeserved value than another all things being equal. We cannot do that here. --Panehesy (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Correction, Fitzpatrick's classification does deal with skin cancer, what it does not do however is make the racial links that are found in the article. In fact, Fitzpatrick describes the type 5 as being found among some blacks (which is omitted in the article here). It would seem logical that Type I and II found among whites, type III found among bi-racial people. Type IV and V found among blacks. That's neutral and closer to Fitzpatrick. The way it's interpreted however is very prejudiced and biased. [Virginia.org] has a type, where by the time you're at type III you're still at "Cream" white. But this may be more of an indicator of the majority population and their necessary concerns about sun safety and their lack of understanding that all people must be safe in the sun, even darker colored people. --Panehesy (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC) [edit] Skin Tone VariabilityThe skin tone variability section is very skewed to a POV that is not objective. If you look at the basic skin tone from the lightest person in the scale to Hally Berry, there is a lot of focus on a small variation there. Yet from Hally Berry to Michael Jordan, there is an enormous jump exceeding the entire gamut previous. This is the result, clearly, of a racial point of view regarding "black" people who are uniformly lumped together without regard for their variation. It is unacceptable and non-scholarly to focus so much on the skin tones between whites to such a degree that the contributors here cannot even agree on who is the lightest, yet on the darker shade, you take one example, showing absolutely NO variation from the median hue to the darkest. Hally Berry is lighter than the middle ground complexion between the darkest and lightest. --Panehesy (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I changed it so the variation between the darkest four is varied as the lightest four. Although still, I find quite a bit of missing gaps in the darker hues. The fact is guys, there is a mental preoccupation to equate the darkest European (at least in this article) with the midground of the entire human race. This is not so. Unless you find some really dark Italians, Greeks, and Spaniards, you're perpetuating a racist legacy of keeping the European white people "pure" and unblemished by darkness, while simultaneously trying to fit a very unbalanced view of the entire human race in a manner as to give the white 50% of the measure. This is not scholarly, this is simply ethnocentricism. --Panehesy (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Or let me put it to you another way, the Von Luschan's scale as applied here is very biased towards expressing the delicate variations among whites while ignoring the much greater varations among blacks and others. If even they made an equal effort for blacks and others that would be at least an attempt, but that is not even attemtped. I look at the scale, and I see such minute detail in the lighter shade that it's almost comical in it's attempt to distinguish one tone from the next. While the last 6 or so darker tones make great leaps (relative to the light ones) from one shade to the next. This is not observably objective. Simple question: Can anyone really see a gradual difference between 1 and 14? I can't. I can see variations but it averages out between 1-14. Now look at the last two dark shades. You can easily see how it jumps from dark brown to blue. Where is all of that delicate variation there? There certainly are humans who exhibit those variations in between. Yet they are not counted. That is due to a racist interpretation of human variation. I.E. It's assumed to be noticable in whites, and not blacks. Well I can see the clear difference here, and I can see it elsewhere.
[edit] Removal of Skin Colour and Perception SectionThe Skin Colour and Perception section appears to be original research, and should be removed from the article, or referenced and (possibly) integrated into the rest of the article. twilsonb (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC) [edit] human skin colorwhat makes the human colour so different from one another?is there any relation with the evolution ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.65.56 (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Removed invalid referenceRemoved reference to a forum thread in Yahoo Answers: "However, some have postulated that it may also derive from sexual selection [1]." Lucio Gutiérrez, 189.178.48.74 (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC) [edit] Is it true that "all human skin color is on a scale of brown"?The lede should summarize the article, yet this unsourced claim, made in the first sentence, is never subsequently developed (or mentioned at all). Several questions come to mind: What is the source of this brown coloration when melanin is absent (as in the case of albinos)? Are skin cells themselves slightly brownish? The article doesn't explain this. Someone who has little melanin—but considerable pink coloring from pheomelanin and from hemoglobin—may not appear brown at all to the naked eye (even though a microscopic examination would reveal scattered particles of melanin). If you matched this person's skin color in paint, and painted your kitchen that color, nobody would call the color a shade of brown; we usually decide what color something is according to what the eye sees. Certain areas of some people's skin are deep pink (nipples, lips, ears, sometimes whole faces); is this not considered human skin? In short, the claim that all human skin is on a scale of brown seems an oversimplification. Ewulp (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC) [edit] Von Luschan's chromatic scale and mapThis map is wrong. I am from spain, a spaniard. How, suspiciously, this map shows that only catalans and basques have the lighter skin? this is FALSE ¿racial/politics purpuses?. Catalans and basques are not lighter than any other region on average. We can read in The Von Luschan's chromatic scale page (on wikipedia) : Though the von Luschan scale was used extensively throughout the first half of the twentieth century in the study of race and anthropometry, it was considered problematic, even by its practitioners, because it was very inconsistent. In many instances, different investigators would give different readings of the same person. It was largely abandoned by the early 1950s, replaced instead by methods utilizing reflectance spectrophotometry. Then, why are u using this map tat uses an inconsistent method when there are better methods. U can read in the "white skin" page (wikipedia) : Europeans have lighter skin (as measured by population average skin reflectance read by spectrophotometer at A685) than any other group that was measured. Southern Europeans (measures taken from Spaniards) show a skin pigmentation in parts of the body not exposed to the sun similar to that of Northern Europeans and, in some cases, even lighter. So, i repeat the question. ¿why this page use this map? A wrong map based on incosistent method, and abandoned. I know that von Luschan's scale is a "de facto" scale. So is spected that we spaniards are a bit darker on average because of sun compared to, lets say, germans. But, again, ¿why catalans and basques are lighter than castilians, asturians or galicians by giving you some examples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.16.10 (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] No such thing as yellow skinI've been to Japan and there is no such thing as yellow skin. In fact, most people in Japan are whiter than most Europeans. Yellow skin was coined way back in order to differentiate Europeans from Asians. I have never seen anyone with "yellow skin" before. The only people who have yellow skin are people with jandice. Nippler998 (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
LOL most japanese are like ghost white. The only euros lighter than them are the irish. Edgeco550 (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] PEQPEQ 4 PREZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.143.83 (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Categories: Unassessed Anthropology articles | Unknown-importance Anthropology articles | B-Class medicine articles | Low-importance medicine articles | Start-Class color articles | High-importance color articles | Wikipedia requested photographs of medical subjects | Articles which may no longer need images | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |
![[5]](http://www.backintyme.com/essay021215_files/image004.jpg){kind=link}
