Theory about British whiteness

[DrZoidberg]

Brits are pale. I recall, paler than any other race of people. Melanin content in the skin is a very rapidly adaptive trait.

Could it be related to the industrial revolution and the Brits enthusiasm about coal?

In 1850 most Brits lived in industrial cities and rarely saw the sun. And when they did it was through the thickest smog known to mankind. Due to the Burning of coal. If I recall correctly lung disease was the leading cause of death, with 20%. By 1900 90% of all Brits lived in cities.

Rickets was chronic in most (if not all) urbanites. Mortality rate was extremely high. As were births.

It seems to me like the perfect conditions to speed up evolution. Especially considering the scale of it.

But this was only from 1750 to about 1900. Then electricity came.

Is it enough time to make a difference? How could we test this?

 

[iolo]

Brita are pale. I recall, paler than any other race of people. Melanin content in the skin is a very rapidly adaptive trait.

Could it be related to the industrial revolution and the Brits enthusiasm about coal?

In 1850 most Brits lived in industrial cities and rarely saw the sun. And when they did it was through the thickest smog known to mankind. Due to the Burning of coal. If I recall correctly lung disease was the leading cause of death, with 20%. By 1900 90% of all Brits lived in cities.

Rickets was chronic in most (if not all) urbanites. Mortality rate was extremely high. As were births.

It seems to me like the perfect conditions to speed up evolution. Especially considering the scale of it.

But this was only from 1750 to about 1900. Then electricity came.

Is it enough time to make a difference? How could we test this?

Well, I've got no wisdom teeth - obviously I am the (pale) Superman!

 

[skepticalbip]

Is it enough time to make a difference? How could we test this?

I know diddly-squat about genetics but I kinda doubt that a couple hundred years would be sufficient for it to make a noticeable evolutionary change.

We could look at other populations. The Inuit get very little sun on their skin, being completely covered except for a bit of their face. This population has lived this way for at least 20,000 years yet they still have the skin tone of their Asian ancestors.

Possibly what you have noticed has more to do with the specific individuals, those who consciously avoid the sun. Personally, I become quiet pale by the end of winter but, during the summer, I am quite active outdoors and acquire a very deep tan.

 

[TSwizzle]

Their weather is shite and they spend all their time in the boozers and bookies.

 

[barbos]

Is it enough time to make a difference? How could we test this?

I know diddly-squat about genetics but I kinda doubt that a couple hundred years would be sufficient for it to make a noticeable evolutionary change.

We could look at other populations. The Inuit get very little sun on their skin, being completely covered except for a bit of their face. This population has lived this way for at least 20,000 years yet they still have the skin tone of their Asian ancestors.

Possibly what you have noticed has more to do with the specific individuals, those who consciously avoid the sun. Personally, I become quiet pale by the end of winter but, during the summer, I am quite active outdoors and acquire a very deep tan.

Inuit get their vitamin-D from livers of the animals they eat, no need for pale skin.

 

[Trausti]

Europeans and Northeast Asians are both "white" by convergent evolution; but have different phenotypes.

Genetic Mechanism for Convergent Skin Lightening

Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians

 

[bilby]

As anyone who has ever gotten a suntan can tell you, skin colour is determined by BOTH genetic AND environmental factors.

The Brits are very pale because both factors apply; When those same Brits go to the Mediterranean for their summer holidays, they return home with much darker skin than when they left.

The variation in skin colour across Britain and Northern Europe, amongst people whose ancestors have lived in the region for many thousands or tens of thousands of years, is largely environmental; And skin colour does not appear to significantly affect reproductive success in this region - Folate and Vitamin D deficiencies are fairly rare, and have only minor impact on reproductive success. Given these facts, there would seem to be very little selection pressure towards genetic changes in skin colour; and given that Spina Bifida (associated with low folate, which can occur due to excessive sun exposure) and skin cancer is more likely to impact reproductive success in these populations than is Rickets (associated with low Vitamin D due to inadequate sun exposure), what little genetic pressure there is would likely be in the direction of darker, rather than paler, skin. There is probably some pressure in the opposite direction for people whose ancestry is more equatorial, and who therefore have genetically darker skin - but in both cases, the pressure is low, and a few centuries are far too little time for any evolutionary changes to become noticeable.

Any such changes are likely overwhelmed by the influx of darker skin genes from immigration over the past 2,000 years anyway - and of course since the mid 20th Century, the widespread use of vitamin supplements will have significantly reduced what little selection pressure there was in wither direction.

TL;DR - Poms are pale because they don't get enough sun to get a tan. This is environmental, not genetic. Their weather is shite and they spend all their time in the boozers and bookies.






BTW, the OP propounds an hypothesis, not a theory. And it's not even a very good hypothesis.

 

[barbos]

Vitamin D deficiency is widespread in Middle East - 80% of women have it (stupid religion of theirs)
It's also widespread among British immigrants from the South (Pakistan/India/etc)

 

[bilby]

Vitamin D deficiency is widespread in Middle East - 80% of women have it (stupid religion of theirs)
It's also widespread among British immigrants from the South (Pakistan/India/etc)

Melanoma is widespread in Australia.
Plants make sugars by absorbing sunlight.

But as these observations, like yours, are (while true) completely irrelevant to the OP, I didn't bother mentioning them.

The OP is about selection for extreme paleness amongst already pale-skinned British people. Whatever happens in the Middle East, or to non-pale immigrants to Britain is of zero consequence here.

 

[barbos]

Vitamin D deficiency is widespread in Middle East - 80% of women have it (stupid religion of theirs)
It's also widespread among British immigrants from the South (Pakistan/India/etc)

Melanoma is widespread in Australia.
Plants make sugars by absorbing sunlight.

But as these observations, like yours, are (while true) completely irrelevant to the OP, I didn't bother mentioning them.

The OP is about selection for extreme paleness amongst already pale-skinned British people. Whatever happens in the Middle East, or to non-pale immigrants to Britain is of zero consequence here.

It's an accepted scientific fact that going white is due to Vitamin-D deficiency which is wide spread around the world and which you discounted.

 

[DrZoidberg]

BTW, the OP propounds an hypothesis, not a theory. And it's not even a very good hypothesis.

Yes. For this I feel shame. It's a pretty basic fuck up.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Vitamin D deficiency is widespread in Middle East - 80% of women have it (stupid religion of theirs)
It's also widespread among British immigrants from the South (Pakistan/India/etc)

Just the last thing we need, Barbos turning into another Derec/Angelo clone. It's spreading!!!

I'm calling this new form of brain damage "Islamic tourettes". Ie, jump in any topic, no matter how irrelevant it is, and mention that, whatever it is, Islam is worse.

It's a bit like telling somebody who's cut themselves on a knife to stop whining because during the French revolution loads of noblemen got their whole head chopped off.

Barbos... NOT RELEVANT. UVA and UVB goes right through cotton. A t-shirt has about the equivalent of SPF 15. If you live on the equator you will get enough sun. The difference in UVA and UVB between somebody dressed in regular clothes and somebody in a full covering burkha is negligible. If any. I think you're just mindlessly repeating a dumb ass myth you heard. I also failed to find any recent study on it, that wasn't a bullshit vitamin sales pr page for a webshop.

The main cause of Rickets today is obesity. They got obese to begin with because of a shitty diet (low veg, high fat and carb diet). So not enough vitamin d to begin with. Vitamin d is distributed evenly in all soft tissues which means that obese people have less of it is present in the skin exposed to the sun = much greater chance of rickets.

The Middle East has an obesity epidemic, due to the fact that they still have a food culture based on calorie availability in the bad old days. So pre 70'ies. This is true for any country that has gotten their shit together economically and become a modern industrial country. It always results in an obesity epidemic, with rickets following.

I hope this is enough to help you realise that you may be Islamophobic?

 

[barbos]

Vitamin D deficiency is widespread in Middle East - 80% of women have it (stupid religion of theirs)
It's also widespread among British immigrants from the South (Pakistan/India/etc)

Just the last thing we need, Barbos turning into another Derec/Angelo clone. It's spreading!!!

I'm calling this new form of brain damage "Islamic tourettes". Ie, jump in any topic, no matter how irrelevant it is, and mention that, whatever it is, Islam is worse.

It's a bit like telling somebody who's cut themselves on a knife to stop whining because during the French revolution loads of noblemen got their whole head chopped off.

Barbos... NOT RELEVANT. UVA and UVB goes right through cotton. A t-shirt has about the equivalent of SPF 15. If you live on the equator you will get enough sun. The difference in UVA and UVB between somebody dressed in regular clothes and somebody in a full covering burkha is negligible. If any. I think you're just mindlessly repeating a dumb ass myth you heard. I also failed to find any recent study on it, that wasn't a bullshit vitamin sales pr page for a webshop.

The main cause of Rickets today is obesity. They got obese to begin with because of a shitty diet (low veg, high fat and carb diet). So not enough vitamin d to begin with. Vitamin d is distributed evenly in all soft tissues which means that obese people have less of it is present in the skin exposed to the sun = much greater chance of rickets.

The Middle East has an obesity epidemic, due to the fact that they still have a food culture based on calorie availability in the bad old days. So pre 70'ies. This is true for any country that has gotten their shit together economically and become a modern industrial country. It always results in an obesity epidemic, with rickets following.

I hope this is enough to help you realise that you may be Islamophobic?

Dude, it's not me it's you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickets#Epidemiology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_deficiency#Sun_exposure

Clothing which covers a large portion of the skin, when worn on a consistent and regular basis, such as the burqa, is correlated with lower vitamin D levels and an increased prevalence of hypovitaminosis D

 

[DrZoidberg]

Just the last thing we need, Barbos turning into another Derec/Angelo clone. It's spreading!!!

I'm calling this new form of brain damage "Islamic tourettes". Ie, jump in any topic, no matter how irrelevant it is, and mention that, whatever it is, Islam is worse.

It's a bit like telling somebody who's cut themselves on a knife to stop whining because during the French revolution loads of noblemen got their whole head chopped off.

Barbos... NOT RELEVANT. UVA and UVB goes right through cotton. A t-shirt has about the equivalent of SPF 15. If you live on the equator you will get enough sun. The difference in UVA and UVB between somebody dressed in regular clothes and somebody in a full covering burkha is negligible. If any. I think you're just mindlessly repeating a dumb ass myth you heard. I also failed to find any recent study on it, that wasn't a bullshit vitamin sales pr page for a webshop.

The main cause of Rickets today is obesity. They got obese to begin with because of a shitty diet (low veg, high fat and carb diet). So not enough vitamin d to begin with. Vitamin d is distributed evenly in all soft tissues which means that obese people have less of it is present in the skin exposed to the sun = much greater chance of rickets.

The Middle East has an obesity epidemic, due to the fact that they still have a food culture based on calorie availability in the bad old days. So pre 70'ies. This is true for any country that has gotten their shit together economically and become a modern industrial country. It always results in an obesity epidemic, with rickets following.

I hope this is enough to help you realise that you may be Islamophobic?

Dude, it's not me it's you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickets#Epidemiology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_deficiency#Sun_exposure

Clothing which covers a large portion of the skin, when worn on a consistent and regular basis, such as the burqa, is correlated with lower vitamin D levels and an increased prevalence of hypovitaminosis D

Did you read the link you posted? Don't bother answering. I know the answer. "Socioeconomic factors" (in the article) mostly means obesity. Poor people in developed countries tend to be fat. While religion is correlated with poverty. In countries where everybody is Muslim that is obviously not the reason for rickets (since in that country it's not a socioeconomic factor).

In Europe poor Muslim immigrants will have more rickets than the average European. And due to the (probably) higher melanin content of their skin, higher than members of the same social class. But not higher than poor non-Muslim immigrants from the same country/race. Wealthy Muslim immigrants are likely to not have rickets at all, just like their European counterparts.

 

[barbos]

Dude, it's not me it's you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickets#Epidemiology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_deficiency#Sun_exposure

Clothing which covers a large portion of the skin, when worn on a consistent and regular basis, such as the burqa, is correlated with lower vitamin D levels and an increased prevalence of hypovitaminosis D

Did you read the link you posted? Don't bother answering. I know the answer. "Socioeconomic factors" (in the article) mostly means obesity. Poor people in developed countries tend to be fat. While religion is correlated with poverty. In countries where everybody is Muslim that is obviously not the reason for rickets (since in that country it's not a socioeconomic factor).

In Europe poor Muslim immigrants will have more rickets than the average European. And due to the (probably) higher melanin content of their skin, higher than members of the same social class. But not higher than poor non-Muslim immigrants from the same country/race. Wealthy Muslim immigrants are likely to not have rickets at all, just like their European counterparts.

You should read your posts before replying.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Dude, it's not me it's you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickets#Epidemiology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_deficiency#Sun_exposure

Clothing which covers a large portion of the skin, when worn on a consistent and regular basis, such as the burqa, is correlated with lower vitamin D levels and an increased prevalence of hypovitaminosis D

Did you read the link you posted? Don't bother answering. I know the answer. "Socioeconomic factors" (in the article) mostly means obesity. Poor people in developed countries tend to be fat. While religion is correlated with poverty. In countries where everybody is Muslim that is obviously not the reason for rickets (since in that country it's not a socioeconomic factor).

In Europe poor Muslim immigrants will have more rickets than the average European. And due to the (probably) higher melanin content of their skin, higher than members of the same social class. But not higher than poor non-Muslim immigrants from the same country/race. Wealthy Muslim immigrants are likely to not have rickets at all, just like their European counterparts.

You should read your posts before replying.

Lol. Another one of these discussions.

 

[Hickdive]

Their weather is shite so they spend all their time in the boozers and bookies.

Fixed it for you.

Seriously though, there is no mystery. The weather is the British Isles is reliably poor and that is the reason we're all so pallid.

You don't need a big experiment - simply observe that Ireland in the period suggested was not nearly as industrial as the rest of Britain and yet the Irish are similarly pale.

 

[TSwizzle]

Vitamin D deficiency is widespread in Middle East - 80% of women have it (stupid religion of theirs)
It's also widespread among British immigrants from the South (Pakistan/India/etc)

I live in Southern California and this winter I had a vitamin D deficiency and had to take supplements which was a first. We had a very wet winter and I just wasn't outside as much. I'm actually indoors quite a lot no matter the weather.

Their weather is shite so they spend all their time in the boozers and bookies.

Fixed it for you.

Seriously though, there is no mystery. The weather is the British Isles is reliably poor and that is the reason we're all so pallid.

LOL, maybe. Good weather doesn't keep them out the boozer though. It gets them into the beer garden though. I wonder if British men have vitamin D deficiency more than women do. Because no matter what the weather, the British women are wearing that next to nothing little black dress.