Because, as my view had implied, not one single person has lived for those 2000 years, (vs. the 438, if not more, years of those living right after the Flood) where their body would have been so constantly affected by an excess or a lack of sunlight to cause a permanent coping recoding in their DNA to deal with this, which then would be passed on, and defaulty implemented in offsprings from their birth. Our current average lifespan of 70-80 years with, moreover a variously sheltered lifestyle, is, according to my hypothesis/theory/understanding not enough to cause this (permanent) DNA recoding.

Where?
Ummmm.... in the hot sun?

Not much? Could you give some quantitative comparisons?


Huh? Why would it be "natural" for lighter skinned people to seek colder climates? If you switched that around and said that people who sought colder climates (actually, more non-equatorial) became lighter skinned, I would agree. Those genes would serve no purpose and die out. "Adaptation" only occurs with death over time.

This is from 2009, but it will do for purposes of comparison:

Average UV index for Alaska, North Pole:
January 0.27
February 0.5
March 1.36
April 2.61
May 3.97
June 4.28
July 4.08
August 3.26
September 1.59
October 0.6
November 0.21
December 0.1
The Average UV Index for 2009 was 1.87
http://www.homefacts.com/uvindex/Alaska/Fairbanks-North-Star-County/North-Pole.html

Average UV index for Miami (which is not in the Equator, but 1,779 miles from it):
January 5.83
February 6.78
March 9.05
April 10.58
May 10.16
June 10.64
July 11.57
August 11.34
September 9.82
October 8.01
November 5.52
December 4.47
The Average UV Index for 2009 was 8.54
http://www.homefacts.com/uvindex/Florida/Miami-Dade-County/Miami.html

In Honolulu, Hawaii, the Average UV Index for 2009 was 9.17.
http://www.homefacts.com/uvindex/Hawaii/Honolulu-County/Honolulu.html

In a city located in the Equator, the UV Index is, most of the year, extreme (above 11).


Because, of course, the lighter your skin the less tolerance you'll have for sun exposure.

That may surfacely seem to be likely, however, as already explained in Post #135256, that does not seem to be the reason for the chosen destinations for post-flood migration. It seems most sequitur to me that the migration came first and then people had to cope with whatever climate they were in, especially as they probably did not have much options for another place without generating a serious conflict with an already occupying group of people.

Also, as EGW states (3SG 78.2), the area where (I extrapolate) Eden and its surrounding was and where most people lived was, because of its elevated populating, was destroyed more than other (uninhabited, even vacant) parts the Earth. (As I see it, the current predominantly barren and desert relief Middle East and Northern Africa). So many people would have preferred going to further places within the contiguous Europe-Asia Continent to find more fertile places to settle in.

Also I see it as logical that people living immediately after the Flood were much healthier in every aspect than people today (which I why I see that they lived ca. 430+ years). They thus would have been able to much better tolerate sunlight exposure, and probably did not have cases of sunlight caused skin cancer as we readily see today. They may not have experienced sun burns, even while they may be tanning.

So to me the darker and lighter skin colors came about simply by the various climate where those most early post flood people persisted in living. And all started by being tanned.

Also your “less tolerance” claim does not explain why many lighter skin people live in e.g., Florida, and if it was geopolitically and socio-economically seamlessly “easy” to do, many would live in more Southern, hotter regions, e.g., Cuba, Jamaica, and Other Carribean and (northern) South America regions.

A very interesting map of the racial distribution of the three primary races (European, Asian, Negroid) as of 1911, still in Mrs. White's day, and somewhat ahead of the global age of travel, can be found here:

http://www.emersonkent.com/map_archive/world_races_1911.htm

Of course, you will notice that some of the migrations of peoples are already in evidence there, such as the darkening of the south-east US, and the Europeans represented in the southern tip of Africa. But if you consider for a moment that both Africa and South America have long traditions with the native peoples there, one might wonder why, if Africans got black through sun exposure, the same did not happen to the the South Americans who are at the very same latitudes.

Again, genotypes have not been proven to "evolve" to black as a result of sun exposure. Nor has the reverse ever been shown to be the case. I think most any bright young, up-and-coming scholar in the scientific world who proposed that black people who had moved to England would in a calculated number of generations, even if strictly marrying with only their own kind, "evolve" into "whites," would be laughed to scorn. Any scientist making such fanciful claims would be held in derision in the scientific community. There is simply no proof of it. Of course, they might say that if we were to give it a few million years that it might occur, but I don't know of any scientist who would risk tarnishing his reputation by even considering such a preposterous evolution in but a few generations. "Few" is a relative term, of course. Six thousand years of life yields very "few" generations in the minds of most of today's scientists.

Considering that for the first 2000 years of this earth's history only 20 generations are recorded in the Bible, that significantly reduces the total possible number of generations that we might arrive at today.

How many generations would it take for "whites" to evolve into "blacks," given a hot, sunny environment?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

???
Obviously I refer to the time when the several peoples first began to look for a place to settle in after the flood, not to modern times. Examples from the modern world make no sense in this discussion. Our lifestyle today is completely different from then.

That does not address my hypothesis. I claim that this change occurred in the first 430+ to even, roughly speaking 800-1100 years (i.e., 2-3 400/300 year generations), right after the flood. You chart is only showing where those races have globally migrated by 1911. Who populous, if any, even lived in areas such a Australia, North and South America before relatively recent times (ca. 1492)??



By the time that “South America” was, even indigenously, populated, in the second half of the 20th century, according to my hypothesis which require a long life by a single ancestor, sun exposure would not be long enough to effectuate this permanent UV protection genetic change.

And if that were substantively applicable, unlike the pre-flood populated, “African/Middle East” Region, which was more severely damaged than the unpopulated South American regions, indeed as seen by the extreme difference in foliage, anyone living in the tropics of South America would predominantly, even deliberately be living under and/or seeking the available natural sun shade. That was not, as enduringly seen today, an availability for post-flood people who lived in the Africa/Middle East region.



I do not even think it has even been hypothesized let alone, then tested and proven.



Objection!! Speculating! Indeed this is just pure subjective/biased speculation on your part and shows/proves absolutely nothing factual.



Obviously you don’t understand my hypothesis. I advance/posit a single generation/person, living 430 years, with constant UV exposure or deprivation to the point where the body genetically, permanently reacts, resulting in this altered skin color coding being fully passed on the next offspring. No “evolving” or ‘gradually become darker/lighter. It is, according to my view, a single generation affectation.



According to my hypothesis: one from a 430+ year, 12-16 hours per day, tropical, unhindered suntanning.

I am fully aware of that and that emphasized specification still does not validate your claim here. Why would light skin people (and most likely equally, if not much more fully clothed than those in our day) today be able to “better tolerate” the sunlight??

Also my view is that all people were tanned to start with and those after the flood who went to live in climates with less sun became gradually then “genetically permanently” lighter over their 400+ year life while the opposite occurred for people living in tropical and “uncovered” places, particularly with those who wore very little clothes.

You yourself pointed out that our lifestyle is now much more sun-sheltered than it was then.


What do you mean is that acquired characteristics can be passed on genetically?