Guild Wars 2

I wanna know if anyone did a black african norn character ingame like mine? There are some with dark skinned tone but has caucasian or white faces.

They look cool! and they feel unique among the norn NPCs in Hoelbrak and other players.

Please share yours!

Watch out and change the title STAT! This topic violated the rules of conduct.

Well, there is a problem.

If you remove “black” from the title, you’re going to be called a rasist since creating an African Norn would sort of assume a common African appearance. This is not generally say… green.

If you remove “African” from the title, you’re still going to be called a rasist since you created an African looking Norn and just called him a black Norn. He is clearly not black though, just a shade of brown (you can create completely black skins ingame). Which imply that the “Black Norn” is indeed not just “black”, but rather of a black African design.

If you remove both words from the title, then it will simply be called “Norns”. Which doesnt really explain what the thread is about and probably go against forum rules of conduct too, you cant create thread titles like that in the Norn forum.

So you’re in quite a pickle here.

I’ve seen a couple posted on the forums. There was one awesome looking bald female but I forget where she was posted.

Here’s mine exotic guardianess

Wow, that looks cool. I prefer the white european look instead.

Funny how perspective changes a lot of things…

My favorite medium armor atm, but it doesn’t show off my tattoos as much as I would like. It really kills me inside too lol. The moment I saw that tattoo scheme, I chose it without a second though.

Not everyone from Africa is black(please check Northern Africans), so the title itself does not incur any violations

Also this isn’t a racist violation thing since its how the people are describe, the racist one is the american slang that most people know or have heard.

matemaster.2168:

Here’s mine exotic guardianess

Wow that is one nicely made female norn, I tried to make one but I couldn’t quite make it out right, the only thing that lacked were those tattoes!

matemaster.2168:

Here’s mine exotic guardianess

What top and gloves are those?

The Norn in this thread look great

matemaster.2168:

Here’s mine exotic guardianess

Get rid of the wings, it doesn’t fit. The look is perfect without them.,

If you allow me… not my Norn (he is more “snow skinned”) but my Human African Hunter (probably need a better screenshot where you can actually see the color of his skin lol)

Lorelei.7809:

matemaster.2168:

Here’s mine exotic guardianess

What top and gloves are those?

The Norn in this thread look great

The top is gladiator chestplate
gloves are hellfire vambraces

I made mine dark-skinned, but I always thought of it as, since she follows bear’s spirit, she was blessed by bear and her skin tone is a symbol of that. It’s always been my theory that black skin in norn is a trait due to being a shapeshifter/being blessed by the spirits. In particular, it would make sense for bear and raven norn.

Well, I think the current Speaker of Raven is a black-skinned Norn woman, so there’s evidence in support of your theory there.

there’s no real need to rationalize it. While light or dark skin is prevalent, it is also not unheard for any skin colour to come from any body. So sure, one pc’s color may be seen as a sign of a blessing in any particular settlement. but dark skin comes from light people and vice verca. at least in RL humans.

while I have seen plenty of darker skined norns i don’t think one can call them “Black African” as there is not a place in Tyria called Africa and norns are from the shiverpeaks so calling them an elonin norn does not work either.

One of my Norn looks like Uncle Phil from Fresh Prince of Bel Air… and is named Uncle Phil. Haven’t played him much yet, mostly spvp, but I really only made him to reserve the name anyway. :P

Here my main character

Black African? hahaha, really?

Parktou.4263:

Black African? hahaha, really?

Yes, as opposed to North African, the people of which are Arabic or related Semitic ethnicities. And for that matter there are Boers and other white Africans, the people of Madagascar are Austronesian, Mauritius is Indian (and there are also quite a few Indians on the continent), etc.

Now, in answer to the original question…
Yes, I have a Norn female warrior. She has very dark skin, and her facial features aren’t Caucasian. She has a shock of white hair, so she actually looks a bit like Storm, from the X-Men. I’ll try to put up a screenshot.

I have two, my necro and my new engineer. I’ll post some screens later on. Great looking Norns on here so far.

Here’s my lovelies. First my Necro – Dethsting. Next my new Engineer – Galaxy Duskfire.

Mines one of the ones with the white faces….

Here’s mine… voodoo necromancer named Tamtam Spirit (french name of Tom-tom), brother of One Eye.
Those that know shall understand.

Well im happy that there are players adding some "diversity" in tyria. I love having india-brown characters because thats what i am. Does get lonely because tyria is of the lighter shade varience.

Naranek.3467:

Parktou.4263:

Black African? hahaha, really?

Yes, as opposed to North African, the people of which are Arabic or related Semitic ethnicities. And for that matter there are Boers and other white Africans, the people of Madagascar are Austronesian, Mauritius is Indian (and there are also quite a few Indians on the continent), etc.

As someone born in Africa, I’m not sure if your attempt at education is racist or just plain ignorant.

That aside, syntactically the OP was wrong with the title of this thread. It’s either “African Norn” or “Black Norn”. One says “African American” or “Black American,” not “Black African American”. Parktou was therefore right to laugh and scoff.

Awesome black norns in this thread though!

KyreneZA.8617:

Naranek.3467:

Parktou.4263:

Black African? hahaha, really?

Yes, as opposed to North African, the people of which are Arabic or related Semitic ethnicities. And for that matter there are Boers and other white Africans, the people of Madagascar are Austronesian, Mauritius is Indian (and there are also quite a few Indians on the continent), etc.

As someone born in Africa, I’m not sure if your attempt at education is racist or just plain ignorant.

That aside, syntactically the OP was wrong with the title of this thread. It’s either “African Norn” or “Black Norn”. One says “African American” or “Black American,” not “Black African American”. Parktou was therefore right to laugh and scoff.

Awesome black norns in this thread though!

I think you read too fast. Parktou was laughing and scoffing at the term “Black African”. Not “Black African American”. Naranek rightly pointed out that not all Africans are black, therefore the scoffing was actually a display of ignorance. OP mentions nothing about Americans. Black or otherwise.

Would me saying: One says “African European” or “Black European,” not “Black African European” help you with getting my point? Replace “European” with “Asian” if required, as “American” was only used by way of example.

While “Black” and “African” are both acceptable words to describe someone of darker skin from our own perspective, “Black African person” is just plain wrong—a pleonasm when referring to skin colour. “African” technically being even more wrong since we are dealing with Tyria and Tyrians.

I get your point. but your premise is flawed. especially if you are going to claim that anything naranek said could have been either racist or ignorant. Since the terms “Black” and “African” refer to multiple things, then “Black African” is also correct because it specifies something.

“Black African” isn’t wrong at all. No more wrong than “White African” would be. They are descriptive terms thatonly specify characteristics of a known idea. You’ve already endorsed the term “African” and the term “Black”. Combining them doesn’t disqualify them since the combination specifies an idea that is more specific than either of the two terms, alone.

Dustfinger.9510:

I get your point. but your premise is flawed. especially if you are going to claim that anything naranek said could have been either racist or ignorant. Since the terms “Black” and “African” refer to multiple things, then “Black African” is also correct because it specifies something.

“Black African” isn’t wrong at all. No more wrong than “White African” would be. They are descriptive terms thatonly specify characteristics of a known idea. You’ve already endorsed the term “African” and the term “Black”. Combining them doesn’t disqualify them since the combination specifies an idea that is more specific than either of the two terms, alone.

I agree with you in terms of use for geographical or ethnic distinction. For use as colour description, no.

The use of the term “Boer” (literally translates as farmer actually—but used in a derogatory manner to refer to Afrikaners, the Afrikaans speaking white Africans) has serious racial overtones for anyone living in post-apartheid South Africa. It is also ignorant, in that there are not just “Boers” that are Afrikaans speaking white Africans in Africa. I could go into detail about some other ignorant/racially charged ‘facts’ Naranek stated, but we are already far into off-topic land here. If you wish to, PM me and I’ll elaborate.

It’d not just a color description. It’s a color description coupled with a cultural flavor and common physical features.

So the only way it could be wrong is if we assume that all black people around the world have the same cultural flavor. The fact that the OP used the term “African” to further specify “Black” could tell us that he/she is asking about qualities that may be more prevelant in Africa among their black people, rather than qualities that are common to all black people around the world. e.g.: The term “black aborigionals of Australia” can have different color, facial features and cultural tones than black Africans. Even the term “Black American” can specify different common features than “Black African”.

Personally I don’t get why Anet even allowed the option to make a norn with black skin colour. I’m very confused re: how this even makes sense in the lore.

Given that norn come from the arctic there is no anthropological explanation for why they would have dark skin. Maybe if they spent several dozen generations in a desert environment this could happen, eventually, but we can easily rule out that possibility because A: they were geographically extremely isolated just two centuries ago, and B: the norn with black skin tone are found all over continental Tyria, making it unlikely that they came from Elonia recently enough for this to make sense. They certainly weren’t around in the time of the first game.

As for the discussion at hand about the title of the thread, it’s actually quite ridiculous as well. Here’s the reason the title makes no sense: because there is no Africa in Guild Wars lore. So all they are is “Black Norns.” It makes no sense to bring “racism” into this discussion as we are not even discussing a real race, we’re discussing a skin colour of a fictional species in a video game.

Norn are not big humans. They are a whole other species. They may have different genes than humans that allow them to adapt to climate in only a generation or two the way hogs do. So if the norn already carry the gene for a myriad of skin color then their environment may bring it out in their children or grand children.

In nature we see even more drastic physical changes. When a domesticated pig gets in the wild it starts growing course hair. In two generations it’s snout and legs get longer. This is wholly independent of the lean frame that comes from a changed diet. Also, a feral hogs tail is long and strait. http://www.ehow.com/info_8603818_difference-wild-pigs-farm-pigs.html

Dustfinger.9510:

Norn are not big humans. They are a whole other species. They may have different genes than humans that allow them to adapt to climate in only a generation or two the way hogs do. So if the norn already carry the gene for a myriad of skin color then their environment may bring it out in their children or grand children.

In nature we see even more drastic physical changes. When a domesticated pig gets in the wild it starts growing course hair. In two generations it’s snout and legs get longer. This is wholly independent of the lean frame that comes from a changed diet. Also, a feral hogs tail is long and strait. http://www.ehow.com/info_8603818_difference-wild-pigs-farm-pigs.html

Right, but those things directly improve the hog’s ability to survive in those environments. Sprouting charcoal-black skin just because you’re living in a moderately warm climate does not help survival. We can easily rule out the possibility of all black norn having been born in Elona, so what’s the hottest environment they could have originated from — Brisban Wildlands? A place where I can’t recall seeing a single native norn NPC.

In the books, Magnus is described as dark, but only dark relative to other norn; we can see in the game itself that he’s basically just tanned, from being weathered on the open seas for most of his life.

Elricht Kaltwind.8796:

Dustfinger.9510:

Norn are not big humans. They are a whole other species. They may have different genes than humans that allow them to adapt to climate in only a generation or two the way hogs do. So if the norn already carry the gene for a myriad of skin color then their environment may bring it out in their children or grand children.

In nature we see even more drastic physical changes. When a domesticated pig gets in the wild it starts growing course hair. In two generations it’s snout and legs get longer. This is wholly independent of the lean frame that comes from a changed diet. Also, a feral hogs tail is long and strait. http://www.ehow.com/info_8603818_difference-wild-pigs-farm-pigs.html

Right, but those things directly improve the hog’s ability to survive in those environments. Sprouting charcoal-black skin just because you’re living in a moderately warm climate does not help survival. We can easily rule out the possibility of all black norn having been born in Elona, so what’s the hottest environment they could have originated from — Brisban Wildlands? A place where I can’t recall seeing a single native norn NPC.

In the books, Magnus is described as dark, but only dark relative to other norn; we can see in the game itself that he’s basically just tanned, from being weathered on the open seas for most of his life.

I don’t think we can really rule anything out given how little we know of norn skin coloration. But the norn don’t need or depend on large settlements in order to live anywhere. And game population is hardly an indicator of fantasy world population.

edit: Magnus doesn’t really speak to the theory since he is tanned by the sun. Would his kids come out darker so the need for tanning is lessened? that’s the question.

Living in the arctic doesn’t preclude black skin, by the way. A little known fact: polar bears actually have black skin. This lets them soak up as much heat from the sun as possible to help keep them warm. Their fur, on the other hand, is white so as to help camouflage them on the ice while hunting.

That said, I do agree it’s kind of weird that there are now darker skinned Norn when we didn’t see a single one in GW1, but I’m willing to chalk that up to “technical reasons”, same way we never saw any female Charr in GW1.

Ah. good info. And good theory there. that Norn may always have had the darker tones in their society. We just never saw them. And the physical ability of the norn doesn’t necessitate a lighter skin tone to survive in arctic environments.

(yes, I know forum goers that there probably isn’t an artic area in Tyria. Terms like “African” and “Arctic” can just be descriptive terms that we RL humans can use as a reference to point to similar characteristics. :P )

Zaxares.5419:

Living in the arctic doesn’t preclude black skin, by the way. A little known fact: polar bears actually have black skin. This lets them soak up as much heat from the sun as possible to help keep them warm. Their fur, on the other hand, is white so as to help camouflage them on the ice while hunting.

While that is a good example of an exception, norn also don’t feel cold, so they’ve already adapted to it in other ways and therefore wouldn’t need dark skin to help them absorb sunlight.

That said, I do agree it’s kind of weird that there are now darker skinned Norn when we didn’t see a single one in GW1, but I’m willing to chalk that up to “technical reasons”, same way we never saw any female Charr in GW1.

That was also for lore reasons — Charr women had no rights beyond basically subservience back then in Charr society, they definitely couldn’t fight. As far as I’ve heard there is absolutely no explanation in lore for why there are black-skinned norn or how this anthropologically came about in the past two centuries.

To say that we “just didn’t see them,” well it should just go without saying that that is an extremely poor explanation. A large fraction of the norn in the game now have black skin but yet two hundred years ago there was not one to be found anywhere, a bit too much to be a “coincidence.”

Now that I think about it is really isn’t an exception at all. Considering seals, sea lions, walrus and (I feel stupid for not thinking of it before) penguins can all be black. And polarbears have thick fat, insulting fur and black skin so that’s three ways of dealing with the cold.

This may not have come about in the past 2 centuries. In GW1 we had a limited number of models. e.g.: All charr mesmers looked the same. There isn’t a lore reason for that. It isn’t a “coincidence” it’s simply a technical reason. But evolution doesn’t only pass on what’s is absolutely needed for survivability. It passes on what isn’t a major hinderance. So dark skin being passed on makes as much sense as eskimos not being the same light shades as the ancient Germanic people.

We really have no idea of how the ancient norn lived before the Dragons rose the last time. But we do know they may have been the plentiful and spread out during The Age of Giants. When Thruln reports that they ruled Tyria and that they protected and defended other races.

Now we can call Thrulns account into question but none of those questions exclude the possibility of the norn from having developed dark skin centuries ago.

edit: If a-net adds new charr horn options, are we going to say that it’s just a “coincidence” that we didn’t see them or are we going to accept that they were already there lorewise, even though they weren’t represented?

All that’s fine, but I don’t think it at all answers the anthropological question of why black-skinned norn exist. We know that they are totally resistant to cold, which must mean that all norn were geographically isolated to the Shiverpeaks until recently, otherwise their species would not have adopted this universal trait. Your suggestion that norn might have black skin to protect them from cold is also inconsistent because otherwise all norn would have dark skin; we can say with certainty that dark skin isn’t what protects them from cold, or only black-skinned norn would have that trait, which is of course preposterous.

I’m also not at all satisfied by simply shrugging it off as “we don’t know enough about norn biology to say why they might have black skin.” We can easily assume that the very simple process of adaptation applies to them the way it applies to every other living creature.

You suggest that adaptation doesn’t “only pass on what is absolutely needed for survival,” but in this case that’s not true. Black skin caused by some random mutation would not be a trait that would be passed down because it wouldn’t offer any survival benefit and so would simply phase out like any other benign but useless trait — unless in a desert environment. So then the question is, does any lore exist to support the possibility of norn existing for many centuries in Elona?

They are not totally resistant to cold. There is a quest to kill beasts in order to make a blanket for a cold norn. That tells us that they are more resistant to it but not totally resistant.

I also think you misunderstand what Zaxeres also said. he said that cold environments are not antithesis to dark skin. What I said is that they could have either developed that dark skin while in the cold environment as RL animals have or they could have got it before isolating themselves to the freezing mountaintops when they might have been spread throughout Tyria. Either one is a valid possibility.

Any trait that isn’t a hinderance doesn’t just “phase out”. You misunderstand how evolution works. It has no end goal. It isn’t a thinking concept with a plan. All mutations that don’t casue the death of the creature before it can mate will be passed on in some degree or another. the only way that nayure has of phasing out a mutation is through the death of the ‘mutant’ before it can pass on those genes. So the fact that there are both dark and light norn indicates that dark skin isn’t a detrimental gene. This is proven by RL arctic peoples as well as RL arctic animals.

Dustfinger.9510:

They are not totally resistant to cold. There is a quest to kill beasts in order to make a blanket for a cold norn. That tells us that they are more resistant to it but not totally resistant.

But that’s irrelevant, the point still stands that they have a genetic high resistance to cold.

I also think you misunderstand what Zaxeres also said. he said that cold environments are not antithesis to dark skin. What I said is that they could have either developed that dark skin while in the cold environment as RL animals have or they could have got it before isolating themselves to the freezing mountaintops when they might have been spread throughout Tyria. Either one is a valid possibility.

Well first of all let’s just acknowledge the fact that animals are exceptions because they have fur. Norn do not have fur, so the skin colour of polar bears beneath their fur is not at all relevant to norn.

Any trait that isn’t a hinderance doesn’t just “phase out”. You misunderstand how evolution works. It has no end goal. It isn’t a thinking concept with a plan. All mutations that don’t casue the death of the creature before it can mate will be passed on in some degree or another. the only way that nayure has of phasing out a mutation is through the death of the ‘mutant’ before it can pass on those genes. So the fact that there are both dark and light norn indicates that dark skin isn’t a detrimental gene. This is proven by RL arctic peoples as well as RL arctic animals.

Um, I don’t misunderstand anything. If a mutation is not beneficial then that creature does not have a survival advantage and does not become a select mate, so the mutation does not become dominant. If a person is born with 11 fingers his descendants are not going to have 11 fingers, unless he were to mate with another 11-fingered person.

Where is this proven by RL arctic peoples? In RL, dark-skinned people have all kinds of survivability problems in arctic climates (there was a story a few years ago about an African runner whose foot had to be amputated after spending a few hours at a running event in Alaska). Eskimos, which you mentioned, don’t have dark skin; they have a brown / yellow tone because of the genetic fact that they have more subcutaneous fat, not a skin colour. This subcutaneous fat helps them survive in arctic climates, and I would accept easily that this could also be one way norn survive. So what RL example of dark skin (without fur) being effective for survival in arctic climates are you alluding to?

Elricht Kaltwind.8796:

But that’s irrelevant, the point still stands that they have a genetic high resistance to cold.

it’s not irrelevant at all. Your reasoning hinges that because they are immune then they won’t have any other defenses. They aren’t immune. So they can have any number of adaptations to help with the issue.

Well first of all let’s just acknowledge the fact that animals are exceptions because they have fur. Norn do not have fur, so the skin colour of polar bears beneath their fur is not at all relevant to norn.

Walrus can also be black. But since any black outer covering on arctic animals proves that black skin isn’t antithesis to arctic environments, it is still relevant because it proves a precedence that you are arguing against. Also, dark norn can where white fur clothing and get both advantages. Now you have no leg to stand on.

Um, I don’t misunderstand anything. If a mutation is not beneficial then that creature does not have a survival advantage and does not become a select mate, so the mutation does not become dominant. If a person is born with 11 fingers his descendants are not going to have 11 fingers, unless he were to mate with another 11-fingered person.

Wrong. neutral mutations that don’t provide an advantage or a disadvantage also get passed along. But we see in the animal world that dark coloration is a benefit in arctic climates.

Where is this proven by RL arctic peoples? In RL, dark-skinned people have all kinds of survivability problems in arctic climates (there was a story a few years ago about an African runner whose foot had to be amputated after spending a few hours at a running event in Alaska). Eskimos, which you mentioned, don’t have dark skin; they have a brown / yellow tone because of the genetic fact that they have more subcutaneous fat, not a skin colour. This subcutaneous fat helps them survive in arctic climates, and I would accept easily that this could also be one way norn survive. So what RL example of dark skin (without fur) being effective for survival in arctic climates are you alluding to?

well the term “dark skin” is a relative term dependant on any skin that is not as dark. So the fact that eskimos are darker than ancient Germanic peoples proves that light skin isn’t the “norm” for arctic climates.

Your entire argument hinges on the idea that light skin is the standard setting for cold environments. it isn’t.

There was a white couple a decade ago that got caught in a blizzard. when they were rescued they both had pieces amputated. What’s you point here?

edit: Light walrus. Dark walrus. Notice how both colorations exist. Because a cold environment is not antithesis to dark coloring.

Dustfinger.9510:

it’s not irrelevant at all. Your reasoning hinges that because they are immune then they won’t have any other defenses. They aren’t immune. So they can have any number of adaptations to help with the issue.

lol, no, it is irrelevant. Unless black-skinned norn are more or less resistant to cold than the rest, it is irrelevant. And we can say almost certainly that they are not.

Walrus can also be black. But since any black outer covering on arctic animals proves that black skin isn’t antithesis to arctic environments, it is still relevant because it proves a precedence that you are arguing against. Also, dark norn can where white fur clothing and get both advantages. Now you have no leg to stand on.

But walruses can’t be white (except for mutants), so that’s also not a good example. I am not arguing that a species can not develop dark skin in an arctic environment, I am arguing that you can’t have both in the same population. Some very, very basic anthropology. What needs to be explained here is how a species all living and developing in the same conditions can develop with both paper-white skin, and charcoal-black skin. Clearly that’s impossible, so ultimately either a massive number of norn have been living in Elona for a long period of time and recently flooded back to continental Tyria, or I see no way that this makes sense.

Wrong. neutral mutations that don’t provide an advantage or a disadvantage also get passed along. But we see in the animal world that dark coloration is a benefit in arctic climates.

We can easily observe that that isn’t true just by looking at someone who is mixed-race. If an allele is singled out then it is extremely recessive and will not be passed down, it will simply be drowned out by the more basic traits.

well the term “dark skin” is a relative term dependant on any skin that is not as dark. So the fact that eskimos are darker than ancient Germanic peoples proves that light skin isn’t the “norm” for arctic climates.

Sure, but once again you have to look at two genetically different peoples that have been geographically isolated from each other since the beginning of human history to find an example.

Your entire argument hinges on the idea that light skin is the standard setting for cold environments. it isn’t.

No it doesn’t, my argument hinges on the idea that it is anthropologically impossible to find black-skinned and white-skinned people developing in the same geographical population. You yourself have confirmed this with your Germanics versus Eskimos comparison.

There was a white couple a decade ago that got caught in a blizzard. when they were rescued they both had pieces amputated. What’s you point here?

That has nothing to do with anything. No matter how resistant to cold someone is they can still be damaged by frostbite, that is irrelevant to my example, which illustrates the fact that in humans black skin is not beneficial to survival in arctic conditions.

edit: Light walrus. Dark walrus. Notice how both colorations exist. Because a cold environment is not antithesis to dark coloring.

lol, but there is no “light walrus,” walruses are simply born with light skin and it grows brown from exposure as they age. Not genetic differences in skin colour within the same populations. I am not arguing that dark skin is always necessarily a negative trait in arctic survival but there is no comparable example that exists for norn (or humans) benefiting from charcoal-black skin in an arctic environment. All examples of arctic people (or walruses, if you insist) surviving just fine in arctic environments are not doing so because they have dark skin, they have dark skin because of exposure to the sun. And at any rate, none of them are born with charcoal-black skin, they’re just tanned and weathered. So I don’t see what any of it has to do with the core of the matter.

Elricht Kaltwind.8796:

lol, no, it is irrelevant. Unless black-skinned norn are more or less resistant to cold than the rest, it is irrelevant. And we can say almost certainly that they are not.

They don’t need to be more or less resistant to it. Do you remember your points anymore? But the animal kindom shows us that dark color is a benefit in arctic environments. Penguins. Polar bears, seal lions, seals, walrus. At the very least it is not a major hinderance and that is all that is required for it to continue to be passed on.

But walruses can’t be white (except for mutants), so that’s also not a good example. I am not arguing that a species can not develop dark skin in an arctic environment, I am arguing that you can’t have both in the same population. Some very, very basic anthropology. What needs to be explained here is how a species all living and developing in the same conditions can develop with both paper-white skin, and charcoal-black skin. Clearly that’s impossible, so ultimately either a massive number of norn have been living in Elona for a long period of time and recently flooded back to continental Tyria, or I see no way that this makes sense.

You actually DID argue that. But let’s go with your new argument. As I already stated. the mutation for different skin color can develop and propogate while in that arctic environment or it could have happened before all norn went into the mountains.

We can easily observe that that isn’t true just by looking at someone who is mixed-race. If an allele is singled out then it is extremely recessive and will not be passed down, it will simply be drowned out by the more basic traits.

the fact that you are referring to the term “recessive” proves the possibility. RL proves that light parents can have darker children as long as they carry the gene for darker skin. recessive genes get passed on. that’s the entire point of the term ‘recessive’.

Sure, but once again you have to look at two genetically different peoples that have been geographically isolated from each other since the beginning of human history to find an example.

So the point is still proven that darker skin is not antithesis to an arctic environment. At least you aren’t continuing that ridiculous argument.

No it doesn’t, my argument hinges on the idea that it is anthropologically impossible to find black-skinned and white-skinned people developing in the same geographical population. You yourself have confirmed this with your Germanics versus Eskimos comparison.

Oh, that’s right. This is a NEW argument. 3 posts up. You keep ignoring the possibility that dark skin in norn developed independently. But I’ll show an example of dark and light in the animal kingdom.

That has nothing to do with anything. No matter how resistant to cold someone is they can still be damaged by frostbite, that is irrelevant to my example, which illustrates the fact that in humans black skin is not beneficial to survival in arctic conditions.

You seem to lean on illogical extremes. Having a benefit doesn’t mean you have complete immunity. benefits can vary from large benefit to small benefit.

lol, but there is no “light walrus,” walruses are simply born with light skin and it grows brown from exposure as they age. Not genetic differences in skin colour within the same populations. I am not arguing that dark skin is always necessarily a negative trait in arctic survival but there is no comparable example that exists for norn (or humans) benefiting from charcoal-black skin in an arctic environment. All examples of arctic people (or walruses, if you insist) surviving just fine in arctic environments are not doing so because they have dark skin, they have dark skin because of exposure to the sun. And at any rate, none of them are born with charcoal-black skin, they’re just tanned and weathered. So I don’t see what any of it has to do with the core of the matter.

This proves you wrong. But it’s still beside the point because it was speaking directly to the flawed assertion that you kept arguing against dark skin in arctic environments.

Dustfinger.9510:

They don’t need to be more or less resistant to it. Do you remember your points anymore?

What are you even talking about? You’re the one arguing that black skin can be beneficial to survival in an arctic climate. If that is the explanation for black-skinned norn then prove that black-skinned norn are better able to survive. If not then that is not a valid explanation and it is not relevant.

You actually DID argue that. But let’s go with your new argument. As I already stated. the mutation for different skin color can develop and propogate while in that arctic environment or it could have happened before all norn went into the mountains.

It is impossible for some specimens of the species to adapt charcoal-black skin alongside specimens that still retain paper-white skin. One mutation could be explained, thousands could not.

the fact that you are referring to the term “recessive” proves the possibility. RL proves that light parents can have darker children as long as they carry the gene for darker skin. recessive genes get passed on. that’s the entire point of the term ‘recessive’.

lol, no. “Recessive” means that the allele recedes against “dominant” alleles, ie, it is overpowered by the allele that is more basic to the species or the breed.

Yes, light parents can have darker children as long as they carry the gene somewhere; but not charcoal-black children, that’s preposterous.

So the point is still proven that darker skin is not antithesis to an arctic environment. At least you aren’t continuing that ridiculous argument.

I’m not sure why you’re even arguing that it is. Quote me anywhere saying that black skin (stop using the term “darker,” never was the argument about the validity of “darker” norn existing, everyone can accept that “darker” norn can logically exist) is “antithesis” to survival in an arctic environment. In humans having charcoal-black skin is a negative trait in arctic environments; that’s why I said it’s irrelevant to bring polar bears into the discussion, because we’re talking about a species that does not have fur.

Oh, that’s right. This is a NEW argument. 3 posts up. You keep ignoring the possibility that dark skin in norn developed independently. But I’ll show an example of dark and light in the animal kingdom.

lmao, my argument from the very beginning has been that the only way it’s anthropologically possible for black-skinned norn to exist if they developed independently, which would require geographical isolation, ie in Elona. You’re the one bringing all these other factors into play to distract from the obvious reason in my assertion.

I’m still waiting on that example as all I see is a photo of two black-ish walruses.

You seem to lean on illogical extremes. Having a benefit doesn’t mean you have complete immunity. benefits can vary from large benefit to small benefit.

Right, having a benefit doesn’t mean you have complete immunity. But it does mean you have a benefit, ie better capability to survive in your environment. You’ve just rephrased exactly what I said.

This proves you wrong. But it’s still beside the point because it was speaking directly to the flawed assertion that you kept arguing against dark skin in arctic environments.

You’re actually correct here, I was mistaken in my assertion that walruses are born light and turn dark with age. It’s actually the exact opposite, it’s seals that are the other way around. So this is actually a photograph of two young walruses. However you didn’t catch my error so I see you’re no more familiar with the subject of Walruses than I am.

The whole question of “why would norns need dark skin to survive in the arctic” is flawed from an evolutionary viewpoint.

In Darwinian evolution, mutations cause individuals to display new traits and if they are favorable they get passed on. If there is a population of dark skinned norns, it is easily and realistically attributed to a genetic mutation which has been passed on in a certain bloodline or area.

Not to mentions to the so called “founder effect”. If a few dark skinned norns began a settlement in remote region where gene flow wasn’t occuring, most of their descendants are going to carry their features, thus producing a dark skinned population, even when the phenotypes are recessive.

In short, dark skinned norns make perfect sense if we’re talking about Darwinism.

Elricht Kaltwind.8796:

What are you even talking about? You’re the one arguing that black skin can be beneficial to survival in an arctic climate. If that is the explanation for black-skinned norn then prove that black-skinned norn are better able to survive. If not then that is not a valid explanation and it is not relevant.

It can definitely be one of them. The black skin of the polar bear is what started your ridiculousness when you said it was an ‘exception’. You then said they didn’t need it because they were totally immune. That was wrong. they are not. So it can be a benefit without being the only thing they have.

It is impossible for some specimens of the species to adapt charcoal-black skin alongside specimens that still retain paper-white skin. One mutation could be explained, thousands could not.

What makes it impossible?

lol, no. “Recessive” means that the allele recedes against “dominant” alleles, ie, it is overpowered by the allele that is more basic to the species or the breed.

And recessive traits still get passed on. Over multiple generations.

Yes, light parents can have darker children as long as they carry the gene somewhere; but not charcoal-black children, that’s preposterous.

Unless charcoal black parents had those charcoal black children. Go figure.

I’m not sure why you’re even arguing that it is. Quote me anywhere saying that black skin (stop using the term “darker,” never was the argument about the validity of “darker” norn existing, everyone can accept that “darker” norn can logically exist) is “antithesis” to survival in an arctic environment. In humans having charcoal-black skin is a negative trait in arctic environments; that’s why I said it’s irrelevant to bring polar bears into the discussion, because we’re talking about a species that does not have fur.

oh, that’s why? You said their dark coloration was an exception.

lmao, my argument from the very beginning has been that the only way it’s anthropologically possible for black-skinned norn to exist if they developed independently, which would require geographical isolation, ie in Elona.

You said hotter environments. that was your whole point.

I’m still waiting on that example as all I see is a photo of two black-ish walruses.

black baby walrus not good enough?

Right, having a benefit doesn’t mean you have complete immunity. But it does mean you have a benefit, ie better capability to survive in your environment. You’ve just rephrased exactly what I said.

Okay….. so we are agreed. dark skin can be a benefit without needing to be the end all be all of cold weather fighting. Glad we had to go through all of that to get here.

You’re actually correct here, I was mistaken in my assertion that walruses are born light and turn dark with age. It’s actually the exact opposite, it’s seals that are the other way around. So this is actually a photograph of two young walruses. However you didn’t catch my error so I see you’re no more familiar with the subject of Walruses than I am.

I don’t need to be a walrus expert to know when you are lying to prove a flawed point. the picture spoke for itself. Clearly you’ll say what ever you need to in order to …. not be wrong about something? (not really sure what your goal is here.) Your argument keeps changing with the new information.

panzer.6034:

In Darwinian evolution, mutations cause individuals to display new traits and if they are favorable they get passed on. If there is a population of dark skinned norns, it is easily and realistically attributed to a genetic mutation which has been passed on in a certain bloodline or area.

Right, in a certain bloodline or area, which is exactly the same conclusion that I reached in the first place. That’s what’s at the core of the matter: where did these norn come from, literally?

Dustfinger.9510:

It can definitely be one of them. The black skin of the polar bear is what started your ridiculousness when you said it was an ‘exception’. You then said they didn’t need it because they were totally immune. That was wrong. they are not. So it can be a benefit without being the only thing they have.

That is an exception to the matter because they have fur — and that fur is white. It is not even comparable. It can also not be a benefit without being the only thing they have, because if it was, black-skinned norn would be better able to survive. You can’t argue that black skin is a survival benefit but norn without that benefit are equally able to survive, that’s a direct contradiction. Given that they are the same species it is obviously impossible that two or more completely different biologies could be observed within the norn population.

What makes it impossible?

The very basic nature of adaptation. As Panzer agrees, the only way it’s possible to have two dramatic, stark differences in breeds within a species is geographical or physical isolation. Otherwise the entire concept of adaptation falls apart, and it’s been pretty much universally recognised for the past thousand plus years so I don’t think the fault lies there.

And recessive traits still get passed on. Over multiple generations.

They can, or they can’t, it depends how recessive they are. Something like blue eyes for instance is a trait that might resurface if the allele becomes dominant enough again in future generations, but it has pretty much zero percent chance of manifesting if paired with full dominant alleles, ie African. To what end are you arguing here?

Unless charcoal black parents had those charcoal black children. Go figure.

Go figure.

oh, that’s why? You said their dark coloration was an exception.

It is an exception to this case, yes.

You said hotter environments. that was your whole point.

It was never my “whole point,” it was evidence for my point. It still is — there is no example of charcoal-black skin being an arctic survival trait. In humans it only exists as a survival trait in hot environments. Walruses do not rely on black skin to survive, as illustrated by the fact that they lose it as they grow older.

Okay….. so we are agreed. dark skin can be a benefit without needing to be the end all be all of cold weather fighting. Glad we had to go through all of that to get here.

We didn’t actually get anywhere. My question still goes unanswered, all that we’ve agreed on is something that doesn’t even directly impact the core of the matter.

I don’t need to be a walrus expert to know when you are lying to prove a flawed point. the picture spoke for itself. Clearly you’ll say what ever you need to in order to …. not be wrong about something? (not really sure what your goal is here.) Your argument keeps changing with the new information.

Uh, lying? I was mistaken, and for that matter so were you, so don’t be a kitten about it. And there is absolutely no reason I would lie about Walruses gaining dark skin as they grew older because that does nothing to help my argument in any way. The opposite does help my argument, and the opposite is what’s actually accurate, as you can verify for yourself by looking it up on the internet (Wikipedia, etc).

The picture speaks for itself but it proves nothing. All it portrays is two young walruses, and young walruses have black skin, there is nothing consequential about that in the slightest. My argument has not changed with new information, in fact it has not changed at all ever — all that happened is that new information supported my position, which tends to happen when a position is correct.

Elricht Kaltwind.8796:

panzer.6034:

In Darwinian evolution, mutations cause individuals to display new traits and if they are favorable they get passed on. If there is a population of dark skinned norns, it is easily and realistically attributed to a genetic mutation which has been passed on in a certain bloodline or area.

Right, in a certain bloodline or area, which is exactly the same conclusion that I reached in the first place. That’s what’s at the core of the matter: where did these norn come from, literally?

A mutation + galapagos effect.

If a small village without gene flow has some people with dark skin, the trait gets passed on and we a population (somewhere in the far shiverpeaks) of dark skinned people. This is hardly any more of a stretch than blue skinned sons of svanir or black skinned polar bears.

In real life, we have people with recessive traits like blonde hair existing in the very same populations with people who had the dominant traits. A slight genetic twist or “founder effect” situation with a race of people who are not even human to begin with and it’s not even a stretch of the imagination to envision dark skinned norns. All it would take is a situation like the Galapagos in the northern areas for this to occur reasonably.