Talk:Human skin color

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] new theory

What 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

Hum, -- never came up in my immunology, antomomy or human evolution classes and I can't find anything about it on Google either. It does sound interesting. Do you have a webpage or better yet a peer-reviewed journal article to point me to for more information? --maveric149, Tuesday, June 11, 2002

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

Cool I try to find it. It's probably a bit too new and unvarified to include in this article though. --maveric149

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?

In general, people with recent ancestors in sunny regions have darker skin than people with recent ancestors in regions that lack much sunlight.

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)

I think you can get that with usual natural selection arguments. White skin is more susceptible to skin cancer, so you could eliminate them from the gene pool because of that.AstroNomer (Who is not a biologist and is just waving hands)

• I also am not a biologist. However, my understanding is:
  • If you are born light-skinned in a region with intense sunlight levels, your chances of skin cancer are much greater. Ergo genes for fair skin are much less likely to be passed on. There are probably other factors like increased vulnerability to disease as a result that would intensify this.
  • If you are born dark-skinned in a region with low sunlight levels, your body doesn't synthesize as much of a certain nutrient (vitamin D?), which is best catalyzed by sunlight on skin. Ergo, your resistance to disease and such goes down, and again, your genes are far less likely to be passed down through the generations.
• Over many generations this dual selection effect may lead to the grouping of prevalent skin colors according to the amount of sunlight received by, oh, the past few hundred generations in a given locale. -- April

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 see what you mean. Probably he was meaning e.g. african-americans: they have "recent ancestors" from Africa, that were dark skinned because they had had lots of ancestors living there. There is a step missing in the chain.AstroNomer

• Going out on a limb here, with my shaky bio knowledge, but I'd guess that the genes for most skin levels would be present, if not common or commonly expressed, in just about any population. So if two groups of humans colonize a high-sunlight planet and a low-sunlight planet, and then are cut off from intermarriage outside the group, we'd start seeing significant changes between the populations in... well, if you take a "generation" as about 20 years... at a very rough guess, maybe a few centuries?

• I suspect that by "recent" the person was thinking "hundreds or thousands of years in the same place" as opposed to, say, ten thousand to a hundred thousand years, which is (I think) the scale of many major population migrations. Add a lot of caveats that I could be talking complete nonsense here, 'cause I'm far from expert. :) -- April

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?

  -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.

The climate in Tasmania is only marginally colder than the coastal temperate areas of mainland Australia (for example Melbourne and Sydney) and Aboriginals on Mainland Australia mainly lived in those cooler temperate areas and not in the deserts until Europeans arrived.

[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)

• I changed the description of the site. Is that better? I looked at 1) the linked page and 2) other pages on that site. The person who put up the site has a definite point of view. I would summarize that point of view as follows. There is nothing special about Asian skin color or Non-Asian skin color. In fact, the variations in Asian skin color are caused by variations in the same combinations of three parameters that cause variations in the skin color of people everywhere. The three parameters are: 1) vegetation reducing UV radiation striking human skin over many generations, 2) persistence of snow cover increasing the UV radiation striking human skin over many generations, and 3) closeness to the equator that increases UV flux over many generations. Would you agree? Also, please sign the end of your postings with 4 ~ marks so that the computer will insert your signature and time of your posting. Thanks. --Rednblu 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] van Luschan scale

Felix von Luschan, (1854-1924)

In anthropology, verbal descriptions of skin colors ("white," "yellow," "black," "brown," and "red") were replaced by color-matching methods during the early twentieth century (Olivier 1960, von Luschan 1897). The most popular of these methods was the von Luschan scale, based on the use of colored tablets or tiles of different colors and hues with which the colors of unexposed skin were matched. These and similar matching methods could not be consistently reproduced, however, and were swiftly abandoned when reflectance spectrophotometry was introduced in the early 1950s

[1] dab 11:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Eyes color

Non-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.

Thats far from the truth, their are a lot of dark-skinned people on both sides that Have light eyes. Not that light eyes are anything to admire. --65.188.253.47 01:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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.

Not necessarily. See Indo-Aryan migration, Tocharians and Seres for information on why some "dark-skinned" groups, especially in India and China, may have white admixture. --Jugbo 21:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmm. I just noticed this: "not that light eyes are anything to admire." Well, yes, they are. They're a reproductive, or sexual, adaptation, meaning that they confer no environmental advantage, like camouflage or speed, on their carriers, who are rather supposed to look better to the opposite sex because of them. They're similar to art. Whether or not you personally like Michelangelo's David, it was meant to be admired. --Jugbo 15:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Cutting two dubious "See also" links

, History, Tom Irwin.

The 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

Historical data for "native populations" collected by R. Biasutti prior to 1940. Darker shades represent darker skin color.

---

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)

• For example, if you look at the map, natives to Africa have much darker skin than natives to South America at the same latitudes. That is because there is much more cloud cover over South America than over Africa. Good suggestion! :) I will add an explanatory note to the caption to make your point clear. ---Rednblu | Talk 23:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You'll need an entire subsection soon. But I don't agree with your interpretation. 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". So even if there was as much Sun in South America as in Africa, people may not have been there long enough to adapt. Your explanation is simplistic, as if humans were uniformly distributed on the Earth at one time and then started to adapt. Human migration is at least as important a factor for explaining the patterns. e.g. the pink corner in South Africa is not due to a permanent cloud-cover, but almost certainly to inter-marriage with immigrants. dab (ᛏ) 08:47, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• That's all right. You missed the Jablonski 2000 article. [2] No big deal. 8)) The adaptation takes place in a few thousand years. And the data is only for "Natives" who have been relatively fixed for a thousand years. No intermarriage is in the data. You can compare the raw data in the tables at the back of the Jablonski article to the map. ---Rednblu | Talk 12:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

interesting. although I find it hard to believe. this borders on Lamarckism. Do you mean the map on page 77? I'm sorry. I am not an expert, but I suppose unless the data is cross-referenced to genetic analysis (mitochondrial etc.), the matching of skin shade to latitude is rather pointless. You would have to show that adaptation is quicker than migration, eg. for South Africa. Do they say somewhere that South Americans are lighter because there is less UV there than on similar latitudes in Africa? Anyway, I don't have the time to dig into this right now, so I just assume you are right. dab (ᛏ) 14:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

also, your caption is suggestive that the map should be taken at face value. While it is of course good enough to give a general idea, I was very careful to state on the Image page that it is outdated, and should not be used as an up-to-date reference. dab (ᛏ) 08:51, 23 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.

The Inuits/Eskimos (I'm not racist) were able to survive with their dark skin at northern latitudes because a huge part of their diet, the seal, has a lot of vitamin D.

Cameron Nedland 03:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About that map

I'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)

User:FrankWSweet's article The Paleo-Etiology of Human Skin Tone that I added to External Links on 6 Dec has discussion of the Biasutti map, its faults, and a couple of updated maps. I don't know the copyright status of the updated maps. Frank did not change the map in the article when he later showed up on Wikipedia; not sure if he didn't notice it, didn't think it was wrong enough to be significant, or if copyright status wasn't sufficient.

answers.com is a Wikipedia mirror and not citable as a non-Wikipedia source. The Wikipedia link for that image is: which is exactly the image that was referenced by the article, and in the image page's history (not the file history) you can see User:Dbachmann added those cautions. --JWB 13:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The image that was removed in this edit should be restored. The image is a good one.

• An example of the raw data underlying the patterns that the image summarizes can be found in Prof. Jablonski's article, for example.
  1. Those making the measurements of skin color tried to select only subjects whose ancestors had lived in the same general area for thousands of years--thus, minimizing the effects of moving to a different geographical area.
  2. What is measured is underarm skin color where there is minimum tanning.
  3. Underarm skin color is measured by an optical instrument that measures the percentage of light of a standard color that the subject's underarm skin reflects to the standardized photocell. The underarm skin of the whitest person in the sample reflected less than 70% of the incident light.
  4. Underarm skin color correlates, not with latitude, but with the annual intensity of UV radiation striking the ground where people live.
  5. Hence, for example, looking along the equator, one sees that skin color is lighter around the Amazon basin where most sunlight is blocked from striking the ground where people live--by both high vegetation and cloud cover.
• Furthermore, as JWB notes above, the "use with caution" at [4] means nothing to us on Wikipedia because that site merely copied the "use with caution" that has been on Wikipedia for a long time.
• As with any image, it would be good to develop a fifth approximation that fits all the recent data better. But let's not throw out the very good first approximation that the deleted image is!

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)

Well, Rednblu, because I know I don't know everything, I googled the map before deleting it. What caused me immediately to be skeptical of the map are two things: the 1) the shading for Lower Egypt is the same as for Saudi Arabia and portions of the Maghreb, 2) and it is also the same for the area occupied by South Africa and Namibia. This calls into question the population samples utilized in the map's preparation (if not Biasutti's fundamental powers of reasoning). Did Biasutti leave Egypt's major cities (where the majority of Arabs are concentrated) and examine the true Egyptians? The peasants? Highly doubtful. The Fellahin as a group are quite swarthy and downright obviously Negroid-looking the farther south one travels. (To Biasutt's credit, the area occupied by Egypt does appear to be darker to the south.) The map refers to "native" populations, and the methodology stated above maintains the subject populations had lived in the areas for "thousands of years." Um, 'scuse me. Stretching that "thousands" to hyyperbolic proportions, that might work for someone with an "I'm doin' the the elitist tourist route 'cuz I don't wanna get my hands dirty" approach for the Arab and Arabized populations in Lower Egypt's major cities, since the Arabs overran the area in the 7th century A.D. But how on earth can one say that with a straight face about South Africa? The Boers didn't get there until 400 years before Biasutti did, and I haven't gone around sniffin' up under people's armpits, but I've never met an indigene from South Africa who was as fair-skinned as an Italian. Anyone? (How 'bout you Rednblu?) Even if you want to quibble about Lower Egypt, the South Africa/Namibia representation is glaringly inaccurate, not to mention mind-blowingly counterintuitive. I can't even begin to rationalize how he came up with a Maghreb/Arab skin tone for, say, the Xhosa, Zulu or Ndebele of the region.

Even if Biasutti lazily decided not to examine the native populations and simply fudge the data there as he did with the northern Maghreb, it still makes no earthly sense. It seems to me that not only did Biasutti take the tourist route, not bothering to get outside the Cairo city limits, but he also failed to venture beyond the Boer and European-controlled areas in South Africa/Namibia. Cutting him some slack, this is somewhat understandable. After all, many are reluctant to sacrifice creature comforts for the sake of knowledge. Sill, I'm puzzled. It seems to me not even a staunch supporter of the racist Boer regime would dare claim with a straight face that Europeans had been there since ancient times. Such a bald-faced absurdity then would call into question the integrity of the entire effort. Yet Biasutti has done so. And even more mind-blowing, his b.s. seems to have gone right over people's heads.

I mean am I missing something here? Have I lost my mind? What are you white folks thinking? Someone (anyone? how 'bout you, Rednblu?) wanna try explaining to me how I'm wrong -- because I "do not know that the image is basically right"? deeceevoice 17:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

you seem sure this map is incorrect, but did you take quantitative measurements of light reflectivity under fellahin armpits? the renderings we have of fellah don't seem to be all that dark-skinned

Justforasecond 18:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Fille Fellahin" of Egypt.

Characteristically, JFAS, yours is an utterly unhelpful comment that sheds absolutely no light on the situation, imparts no information, reflects no knowledge. deeceevoice 12:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can't believe I am winding up defending the damn map, but after reading your specific points, I think you actually are missing a couple of things. The pink shading (18-21) for Egypt and Western Cape / Southern Namibia corresponds to a pretty dark color, even if far from the darkest. People of the Arabian peninsula can also be fairly dark, so I don't find this correspondence too far-fetched, but if data was missing for any of these, it's probably for Sa`udi Arabia, as there was not much travel in or out of there in Biasutti's time, while Egypt and South Africa were both accessible destinations. I do notice that all of Sau`di Arabia except the south is the same pink, whereas my understanding is that people of the Gulf are darker than those of the center and northwest, unless Biasutti is trying to project back to before the Abbasid-area slave trade (see Zanj Rebellion). The revised Figure 11-3 on Frank's page does push its 'medium light' slightly farther south into Sa`udi Arabia. [5]

The pink at the Cape is for the Khoisan, not the Boers, who would be white (below 12) as Northern Europe is. The pink (18-21) is also two steps darker than Italy, which is the lightest green (12-15), and darker than the Maghreb, which is 12-15 north of the Atlas, and 15-18 (miscolored on map as below 12) until well into the Sahara. And the map shows central and eastern South Africa and the Xhosa, Zulu or Ndebele as dark brown (27-30). --JWB 18:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. The map is still noticeably off. The Khoikhoi are nowhere near the same color as Arabs. And if the map represented the Arab slave trade, then all of the Arabian peninsula would be the darker colors represented in the two lower segments. Besides, according to the methodology, the shades represent indigenous peoples. Further, there is ample evidence to suggest that the people of Egypt have changed considerably over the centuries as a result of miscegenation -- since dynastic times forward. So, how are the indigenous Africans of Egypt supposed to be as pale as all of the Saudi peninsula, Malaysia and Southeast Asia? The map is seriously flawed and shouldn't be presented as fact. deeceevoice 12:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The map doesn't reflect recent work at all. Anything on race pre-1950s should be viewed with strong suspicion, especially if based on something as suspicious as the von Luschan scale. The map could be used for historical representations of work on race but shouldn't be used for modern conceptions at all. If we really want something about skin color distributions, there are modern works on the subject which are far more reliable. --Fastfission 21:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yah, sure. Which one of those maps is out of copyright? Do you know of one that is better than the current image? --Rednblu 22:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission, what maps are those? If you have access to them, are they eligible for reproduction here? If there's something better/more recent, then, by all means, they should be used. deeceevoice 12:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

---

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)

No, not really. There are only broad and irrelevant similarities (Africa is dark, Europe is light, Asia in in between), but if you look at any individual region (such as Europe) there are major differences. In any case, the Jablonski article does not contain any full-scale maps which are meant to be actual representations of skin color distributions, that I can see, but only different predictions and simulations. --Fastfission 21:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No such thing as black skin mutation

To 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.

The skin of the chimpanzee, beneath their hair, is white --JPotter 19:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Assuming that ancient humans and chimpanzees had the same skin color, the genes for darker skin would have to be a mutation.

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]

All of them except Bonobos.

--65.188.253.47 21:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW the article is about *Human* skin color not chimps.

[edit] Rev. Moon quote

Why 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)

your skins is ugly

[edit] CONTRADICTION

This 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.

Um, "gender" is "tied" to genes. JPotter 15:35, 1 July 2006 (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.

My first response was, "Jeeze. This guy is really sad/obsessed." The second was to delete this all together -- but I thought better of it. (Should it go? It's got no relevance to Wikipedia at all.) deeceevoice 10:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Something you do during your lifetime (like sun exposure) should not affect the genes you pass on to your children. See Lamarckianism for more on that. --JWB 20:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's sad, I know, but it's something I think about quite a bit. Thanks, JWB.

[edit] Use of shelter or caves

There 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.