Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,327
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
For the MEGA-UMPTIETH time, no, that link and map are not about UV Index but about solar irradiance in general. UV rays are part of sunlight, and it is them that affect the skin, not all solar light:
http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/uva-and-uvb/understanding-uva-and-uvb
The levels of UV rays vary throughout the year, and in fact they have been increasing and decreasing over different areas:
http://wwws1.eea.europa.eu/publications/92-9167-205-X/fig9.3.gif
A lot of Europe has been receiving more UV rays in the past few decades than previously.
Some elementary logic, please! First you accused me of posting a map which just captures one day's UV radiation. When I pointed out it is a map of average ANNUAL radiation, you quibble that it is not relevant because somehow UV levels do NOT correlate to solar radiation!!??
Then you bring in the ABSOLUTE levels of radiation. Did I propose anywhere that a specific level of solar radiation was of any importance to the hypothesis? The point is that RELATIVE levels of exposure to the sun result in RELATIVE differences in pigmentation through the operation of positive selection for de-pigmentation mutations. Or at least that's the hypothesis which scientists are proposing, in so far as I understand it. Has it escaped your attention that, in general, pigmentation levels correlate with distance from the equator?
You know, like why polar bears are white? Positive selection of certain mutations in response to environmental differences? Simple enough concept. Unless we're going to go back and debate evolution? Do you also belong to the flat earth society?
And what on earth, pray, is the relevance of the fact that solar radiation is increasing have to do with anything? We are discussing an evolutionary process, that even if it is short as these things go, took place over the LAST 6-8,000 years or so, at least.
I don't pretend to have all the answers. Even the scientists don't have all the answers. All of these things are open to honest debate. However, I'm not going to allow totally illogical, nonsensical arguments to go un-rebutted.
You can attempt to use bullying tactics all you like; I am not intimidated.
You can also repost the same single study of a virtual handful of people chosen who knows how which you don't even interpret properly, and through which you would have us believe that the Portuguese are fairer than the Poles, ad infinitum. Your argument is as unconvincing at this moment as it was the first time you advanced the point.
(You know, when you and your cohorts run on and on about this in your attempt to prove that Iberians are somehow transplanted British Islanders or Swedes, I am so tempted to post pictures from events held at our local Portuguese American Society functions. Almost all of them from Porto, by the way, first and second generation. Very nice people, which is why I don't post the pictures. They don't deserve to be dragged into this nonsense. I don't even tell my friends from that community what kind of nonsense their supposed compatriots post about these things. I don't want to hurt them by telling them their compatriots are ashamed of the appearance of many of them.)