Germanic like people conquer a desert region

I dunno, they didn't really last long enough to tell.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandal_Kingdom

to be fair, any artwork done for WoT is kinda fucky, because it spans such a wide length of time, the author kinda forgot some things. I am re-re-re-reading book four right now- shadow rising- and that is the book where aiel culture is heavily introduced. they are described as being tan almost to the point of brown. the art doesnt come off that way, because everyone starts their aiel concepts off of Rand, who is only half aiel. I imagine they are somewhere around a half-arabic color tan, with the build and hair of a sweede (not the blonde ones you fucks, the real ones with red hair).

fuck, meant for this guy

evolution happens in a rapid series of cascades, where a population is forced through a funnel selection-wise.
behavioral traits are going to be selected long before skin tone or any other related polymorphism.
>knowing just enough North Africa history to make retarded statements

Thousands? Maybe.
Millions? Definitely.

>Would white people become brown in a hot/desert region after thousand years?
No. It would take more than a thousand years.

Their melanin levels would adjust with a few hundred. other features like hair and eye color, and structural distinctions, would persist as long as they did not breed outside of their ethnic communities.

>Because this is an intelligent society who has the ability to both go inside, make clothing, have air conditioning
>>>>>>>>>>implying

Given tanning, they'll be a healthy brown within one year.

Gradual environmental pressure would probably do it over hundreds of thousands or millions of years, lots of inbreeding a native darker skinned population would do it a lot faster, if they altered their environment instead (building lots of shaded structures) and avoided mixing with dark skinned native people then it might never happen. Assuming though that they spend time in the sun regularly they'll get a few shades darker over any prolonged period of time.

Its closer to millions if they dont interbreed with local populace but only a matter of 2 or three generations if they decide to tap dat sweet coffee coloured ass

>humans 200,000 years old
>takes millions to develop different skin tones

I just pared off a pocket universe and tried it. It took about 12,000 years before I couldn't see any noticeable difference in their skin tone and that of their predecessors. That could be because I had a pretty small starting population though, there wasn't a lot of genetic diversity to begin with. A population with more latent genes available will almost always adapt faster.

>Its closer to millions

Man, they aren't kidding when they say they don't teach evolution properly in the US.

They try to avoid even mentioning it if they can get away with it.

>not one word about in-group sexual selection
It would largely depend on which social behaviors would arise even if there was no mixing with locals

The Vandals did it, but they never supplanted the native population. Then again, the natives of North Africa aren't THAT different from Southern Europeans, right? Especially if you include those with lighter regions that are found in the Rif and Kabyle areas as well as parts of the Levant to name a few.

That said, I'm no evolutionary expert but I think Australia proves that these people won't suddenly get darker. They'll develop a tan in the same way going to Spain for a month will make you darker or sitting in a room for a month without ever going outside will make you lighter, but Australians didn't naturally start getting darker with every passing generation discounting the fact that white Australians are being displaced just the same as whites around the world. There is simply no evolutionary pressure to adapt in terms of skintone when everyone has a next to 100% chance of survival and solid chances of reproduction. In fact, in those regards Australian abbo's actually have lower odds than Australian whites.

They were genetically as impactful as the Normans in Southern Italy I'd wager. They never supplanted the native population.

>State funded schools in America avoid teaching evolution
>Catholic schools are obliged to teach evolution unless it contradicts state law

>some of the answers in this thread to a primary education level question

Evolution isn't about being the best, it's about surviving and passing on your genes over thousands of generations.

If those Germanic people had consistent shelter and resources they wouldn't change much at all over 10,000 years.

The only one pointing put the obvious is Look at the Vandals. They conquered North Africa over a thousand years ago. Today the N. African population is a mix of middle eastern and arabic influences, with faint traces of Vandals.

The Vandals would not physically change over a period of a thousand years provided they do not mingle with other populations over time. This would require some pretty insistent apartheid policies, and might lead to inbreeding problems unless the population consistently remains large. It wouldn't really make much sense to do so, and insisting on having a large with population either exterminating or practicing segregation against a native population has some weird overtones even without reaching /pol/ levels. But it could theoretically be done.

Well, personally I can only see Vandal influence reaching as far as Norman influence in England. That would mean that the Germanic upper class would eventually mix with the Berber lower classes, but in turn heavily dillute their culture as well. For example, the language of the Vandal kingdom would become some Berber-Germanic hybrid.

Now I'm sad this never happened, because I have absolutely no idea how the fuck a Berber-Germanic language hybrid would sound. I guess the Germans, Dutch and Swedes will be able to answer that in 2 or 3 centuries. Though then again, there's this extinct North African romance language that the Berbers of the region spoke until the Arabs invaded, right? (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Romance). If that mixed with the language of the Vandals, would you end up with some kind of Bizarro-English? How would French colonialism in the region (assuming it happens in the first place and the fact that North Africa remains Christian doesn't utterly change the definition of "Europe") affect said language?

Well, there are plenty of very pale people of normandic heritage in souther italy, expecially in sicily

>murica education

How is he wrong though? I admit I'm no biologist, but evolution happens through mutations and selection, right? Mutations would happen no matter where the population in question is. While some mutations (like darker skin?) would indeed aid survival in hotter and more arid areas, bumping up your chances of survival/reproduction from 90.3% to 92.6% is barely impactful on the total population.

He's a greentexter AND a redditspacer, ignore him

>Catholic schools are obliged to teach evolution unless it contradicts state law
To be fair, the Catholic church isn't anti-evolution. It's usually protestants who go full retard on the subject.

>Would white people become brown in a hot/desert region after thousand years?
I have nothing solid to back me up on this, but a thousand years don't seem like it's a long enough period of time to effect major changes in skin tone, at least under normal circumstances. If you figure there are 30 generations in a thousand years, and 1% of the palest individuals in each generation die without procreating due to skin cancer or severe effects of sunburn or some shit, you effectively end up with the darker 74% of the population passing on their traits a thousand years down the line. That's probably a measurable difference in skin tone, but not an extreme one. And sure that's a simplistic way of calculating shit, and doesn't take everything into account, but I still feel like it gives us some basis for viewing the extent of changes. But again, I'm just talking out of my ass here.

>If... 1% of the palest individuals in each generation die without procreating
Or, I should say, the equivalent of that. It's obviously not just really pale people not procreating at all that's the issue. It's pale people procreating less (due to dying earlier from sun-related shit) and dark people procreating more. But an overall 1% difference due to the sun seems plenty big enough to me.

Evolution takes a long ass time you dumb motherfucker

We are one million years separate from chimps

ITT: people whose idea of evolution stems mostly from fourth-hand sources and speculation. And making fun of other people who are exactly as misinformed as they are.

In 1000? No. In the long run? Yes. See the actual Egyptians, who were an offshoot of caucasoids.

Yeah in the particular case of skin color, theres only a couple genes involved and there's surprising variation in even a fairly homogeneous population. So that particular trait evolves pretty quickly compared to others, probably to support migration like op's scenario.

>humans 200,000 years old

I want to fuck Futo cross-eyed.

The correct answer is "we don't know." There just isn't enough observation to prove any casuality, let alone develop strong theories that create consensus.

And in ~200,000 we have gone from whatever colour the proto-humans were to every variation we see today.

So when OP posted
>Would white people become brown in a hot/desert region after thousand years?

the answer is yes. Yes it would.

This retard
Claiming it would take millions of year is wrong, because it hasn't.

>Believing in the evolutionary jew
Jesus Christ, you guys have swallowed the """theory""" of evolution hook, line and sinker, haven't you?

Aint that the truth.

Evolution it's a christian theory. Only dumb USA protestant or Muslims thing otherwise.

...

don't respond to the protestant, anons.

Have you ever heard about Vandals?

If there is evolutionary pressure to do so, yeah.

There are other survival pressures than just dying of skin cancer, mind - people who tan well and have darker skin will be able to work outside longer, and can afford to wear less clothes doing it, saving on both supplies and water and thus allowing them to support more children. You can't just assume everyone is going to have the luxury of an indoor job.

And it'll only take a few generations before the tan, ripped guy who unloads carts in the square is seen as more attractive than the pasty shopkeeper nerd who faints if he's outside without a sun hat.

We can kind of see the rate at which human skin color can adapt to a different latitude in the Americas: slowly. Native Americans experienced a genetic bottleneck when they crossed the Bering Strait (~20,000 years ago), and it happened much later than Caucasoids and Mongoloids split from Negroids and then from each other (~50,000 years ago.)

And after 20,000 years, their skin tone varies much less across the Americas than the rest of humanity's does over Africa and Eurasia. Compare an Inuit to an Aztec. There's only a shade or two difference between them, despite living in the Arctic and at the equator respectively.

As others have noted, admixture changes things. If the pseudo-Germanics breed with locals then 1000 years is plenty of time for the resulting people to begin to breed true with a darker skin color while retaining some Germanic-esque features.

Gross

What if.. what if instead of developing brown skin, they become nocturnal and develop night vision because fuck hot days? It makes just as much sense as what you're asking.

>That's what the blue eyes are for
I like it.

Short answer, probably.

Long answer, highly dependent on the scenario, as other anons are pointing out. If the mutation exists and is an evolutionary advantage, without mitigating factors to prevent its expressions, you'd definitely see SOME change in skin tone over that length of time. Assuming we're dealing with regular human physiology, some people will tan better or worse, there will be slight variation in base skin pigmentation that would lead to better resistance vs. sun based wear and tear.

That being said, even just the ability to clothe themselves from the sun or seek shelter would slow the process down, because technology then compensates for biological advantage. The higher tech they are, the less likely a mutation for darker skin, which becomes less advantageous, is selected for over time.

If you did it with humans it would probably need closer to a million years.

Even if you did it with rodents which have large litters and very fast breeding rates you would still need hundreds if not over a thousand years of artificial selection.

>Would white people become brown in a hot/desert region after thousand years?
As evidenced by ancient Egypt, no. There would have to be a clear evolutionary advantage as well as an evolutionary stressor, possibly over thousands of years.

That is not how evolution works. Things don't just happen collectively like that.

If they didn't used anything to protect them from radiation, then yes.

No fucking way. My family has been living in a hot hellhole for centuries and we still have the same skin tone as our euro forebears

>What does that change?
Nothing. It's an advanced society. Without evolutionary stress, they will not be forced to adapt, and this is so fucking low on the list of priorities it wouldn't even register genetically, if some of them randomly develops darker skin.

It's not 'murricans not understanding basic fucking evolution. It's endemic throughout the entire western world.

Depends. If they mix with the locals (likely) they'll probably become darker skinned. Culture will also have a significant affect, so if their standards of beauty move more towards darker skin it'll change faster than if not. You could find reason to make the argument either way.