Quote:
Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS
So without genetic mutations, all humans would be (insert complexion)? Eh....genetic mutation/evolution explanations have not been accepted across the board so you can debate that with yourself. 
More importantly, this thread is about intragroup prejudice, regardless of the different theories behind where light/dark genetically came from. Albinism is an extreme and relatively rare condition that isn't about being "lightskinned." So to attempt to discuss albinos in a light/dark discussion is like discussing vitiligo or burn victims whose skin have been darkened. It is difficult to know whether these people will have certain advantages of disadvantages based on "colorism" versus being treated a certain way because they have a CONDITION. Conditions can generate intrigue and celebration or they can generate fear and disgust.
My stomach turned when I saw those albino photos but my stomach doesn't turn when I see photos of lightskinned or pale skinned blacks--unless the person is UGLY. While a lot of people are quick to call lighter blacks "pretty" just because they exist--I have never seen an albino black person even called "attractive." |
Firstly, without genetics or epigenetics we cannot discuss ANYTHING about the human form...
Full Albinism are hotspot point mutations in the Tyrosinase gene for both alleles. There are also co-dominant effects, so that when one allele is normal for tyrosinase production toward melanin, the other mutant allele will "outrank" the absence of the allele.
The epigenetic effects of Albinism has not been extensive studied. But they exist. There are at least 3-4 forms of melanin along with the production from the TYR gene too. All varies with location, thought to be controlled by the epigenetic phenomena.
Just because there is an "absence" of melanin does not mean there is NO melanin production in ALL albinos. Melanin also aggregates in focal points in the skin. Especially in dark hued individuals and the high Sun exposure. In fact, there is thought that Sun exposure did not cause darker hues in humans. That humans were dark first, and then the color changes shifted to lighter complexions due to environmental exposures and changes. I.e. colder climates, lack of Vitamin D, Rickettsia and/or lack of sun exposure.
My references are from the discussions that took place after the Mitochondrial Eve and the Out of Africa hypotheses.
Virtiligo is a different set of genes altogether. And burn victims do not have darkened skin after the burn heals, they have a complete loss of their skin layer and zero organization of any epithelia cells altogether... So, that is outside this discussion.
Back in ancient days, people did not understand "CONDITIONS"... A culture, much like a leper colony was developed when these children were born... Think about how their minds developed, who they bred with, and how the "mutation" or "epigenes" were transmitted? So over time, it would be in the same league as how colorism could develop for various groups of people. These populations of people probably also had to migrate from the home clade because of the fear or disgust...
Over time, features changed--that which takes millenia. Many are unsure why. It is thought that it was due to a Supervolcano explosion ~100,000 years ago. Slowly eye structure, hair texture and nose shape, as well as other attributes, height, body structure changed. Probably because of food source changes--from sea to inland... More hunters than gatherers. Modern humans look like us, today. With an already mutagenized system and inbreeding, it is possible why we see this polymorphism in humanity.
Basically, we see similar activities in numerous other animals, how come we wouldn't expect to see it in humans?
Now, over time, we have diverse, random mating than we ever have seen before. Probably what we will see are taller or fatter humans and changes in ageing if we humans don't decide to change that directly.
Threaded Mode