The evolution of skin color
One of the most conspicuous signs of human variation is skin color, which can range from the color of espresso or milk chocolate to cafe au lait or light peach. Such variation results from a combination of evolutionary selection pressures, especially differences in exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Environmental UV levels account for up to 77% of variation in human skin color.

Consequently, populations native to the tropics and people descended from them tend to have well-melanized skin to screen out excessive UV. Populations native to far northern and southern latitudes, when the sunlight is weak, ten to have the light skin to allow for UV penetration.

But for multiple reasons, there are exceptions to this trend. UV exposure is determined by more than latitude. It increases at higher elevations and in dry air, because the thinner, drier atmosphere filters out the les UV. This helps to explain the darker skin of people indigenous to such localities as deserts, the Andes Mountains, and the ight plateaus of Tibet and Ethiopia. Some other exceptions may be the result of human migrations from one latitude to another occurring too recently for their skin color to have adapted to the new level of UV exposure. Variation may also result from cultural differences in clothing and shelter, intermarriage among people of different geographic ancestries, and darwinian sexual selection - a preference in mate choice for partners of light or dark complexion, thereby perpetuation and accentuation ethnic differences in color.

It is not the skin color that troubles me, but why only when they made it to the caucasian race that they became intelligent and not anytime (black or brown) before?

One of the originators of the Physical Evolution Theory, Dr. A. R. Wallace was the first to strike down the Social Evolution Theory. He rightly affirmed that: "The Veda admittedly the oldest book in the library of mankind contains the essential teachings of the most advanced religious thinkers and is a vast system of religious teachings which are pure and lofty."

My reasoning tells me that white is irreversible and so is black which means only the brown can go either way. The logic is Africans weren’t the first race as the science of evolution indicated.

Debating Evolution

(1) There is no such thing as a “caucasian race” (nor ANY race of humans). The genetic variation between different “black” ethnicities of Africa is far greater than the genetic variation between all other ethnic groups on earth, because most of human evolution occurred on the African continent before humans first migrated from there. “White” people are no different from “black” people (actually much less so) than Congolese or Yoruba are from Ethiopians.

(2) Your assumption about intelligence is utterly wrong, ignorant, and racist.

(1) Come on Ken, what world are you living in man! There are many races and it was the white man who saw the other races as inferior to them, even that much to subjugate and enslave them.

(2) How is it an assumption? Wasn’t it a white man (Darwin) who first came up with the evolution theory? Why it didn’t happen before among the black or brown people?

Anyways I’m trying to educate you to the fact the human race had its origin in the Himalayan region and not Africa. It is the reason I quoted Dr. Wallace.
Science of evolution as Darwin propagated didn’t occur as it is a breach of natural laws which he or you and other scientists knew nothing of.

The ruder stage
"But there is another prejudice which is cherished by many scholars evidently under the impression of its being a well-recognized scientific doctrine. It is that in the ruder stages of civilisation, when the laws of nature are little known and but little understood, when mankind has not enough of the experience of the world, strict methods of correct reasoning are very seldom observed." Swami Dayanand

Albert Einstein agrees - "We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Scholars of theology, except the Aryas, have no understanding at all and for those of science, it is dim.

I’m living in a world of evidence and reason, and a world that repudiates racism. Obviously you are not, so I shall not engage you in any further dialog. I hope some day you get over your ignorance and prejudice.

Yes, the truth offends!
"A lie doesn't become truth, wrong doesn't become right and evil doesn't become good just because it's accepted by a majority." Booker T. Washington

Now I’ve quoted a black (Booker T, a brown (Swami Dayanand) and 2 whites (Einstein & Wallace) in support of my argument. Do you still think I’m a racist?

You’re the racist because you would never peruse my work (vjsinghj.info) as you think only whites are in possession of all that is known in science and reasoning.

Critically-acclaimed author and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and world-renowned theoretical physicist and author Lawrence Krauss discuss biology, cosmology, religion, and a host of other topics.

The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True, an exploration of the magic of discovery embodied in the practice of science.

Out of nothing, nothing can come!

The science of evolution is a breach of natural laws. "We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Albert Einstein

The universe is only 2 billion years old. (Creation)


One of the originators of the Physical Evolution Theory, Dr. A. R. Wallace was the first to strike down the Social Evolution Theory.

He rightly affirmed that: "The Veda admittedly the oldest book in the library of mankind contains the essential teachings of the most advanced religious thinkers and is a vast system of religious teachings which are pure and lofty."

He further wrote in "Social Environment and Moral Progress," strongly refuting the social and moral evolution theory: "In the earliest records which have come down to us from the past, we find ample indications that accepted standard of morality and the conduct resulting from these were in no degree inferior to those which prevail today, though in some respects, they were different from ours. The wonderful collection of hymns known as the Vedas are a vast system of religious teachings as pure and lofty as those of the finest portions of the Hebrew Scriptures. Its authors were fully our equals in their conception of the universe and the Deity expressed in the finest poetic language."

"In it (Veda) we find many of the essential teachings of the most advanced religious thinkers." "We must admit that the mind which conceived and expressed inappropriate language, such ideas as are everywhere present in those Vedic hymns, could not have been inferior to those of the best of our religious teachers and poets to our Milton, Shakespeare, and Tennyson."

Bertand Russell was an avowed atheist .. as was Albert Einstein .

They both had to be more than that in the last years of their lives in putting up such rational arguments which only one of such high philosophical ideas can easily recognize.

The same with me. I was also an avowed atheist, but what atheists would admit to being intelligent and full of doubts, and what atheists would admit to having a dim understanding of natural laws?

"Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Einstein

So, no actual thoughts of your own?....just regurgitate others people’s work/opinions? I’m sorry you can’t think for yourself.

If the thoughts of famous people are meaningless to you, how would mine make a difference? It is only those who can think would use "others people's work/opinions" which are in harmony with theirs. And if you can think why haven't you commented on them?

"Wisdom outweighs any wealth." Sophocles

Here is one of my thoughts - IF MANKIND ONLY KNEW HOW RARE A COMMODITY THE TRUTH HAS BECOME, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE PUT DIAMONDS AHEAD OF IT.

If you weren't that stupid you would have gone to the links I provided which are all in support of my thoughts.

No , they did not " have to be more " .... where do you get such notions ?

If you're really interested in where I got it. Check it out

You have no understanding of what an atheist is yet you claim to have been one ? I call bs . Atheists have no use for doubt because they make only one decree ..." No theistic claim put forth yet are convincing enough to justify belief " . The failure is not theirs but that of the claimant .

There must be an end to reasoning and that end comes when one knows (wisdom). It is the reason I'm no longer an atheist. My faith isn't based on belief but knowing because it is in harmony with reasoning and science and in conformity with the laws of nature.

You're out of the woods when it comes to static intellect (stupidity or blind belief) but as an atheist where do you go from there.

"Science without religion is lame........." Albert Einstein.
He is referring to my theology. I would advise you to exercise impartiality if your desire is to know the truth.

"In studying the systems of philosophy the mind must adopt a discipline of sobriety and impartiality."