[Peacock]

I had asked Ace about the link in PM and figured it would be fun to discuss in the open. so lets rock and roll... No idiot comments please. Have some information, or a good idea, or dont post.



When I say "completely random" I was indeed refuring to the "new" genetic mutations. But even then.... Its not "new" is it? Because essentially what mutations occure are already "programed" into the genes... correct? so there is a limited number of "random mutations" that could spring about?

now... Do you know of any testing that has been done to clairify whether or not light eyes are more "efficient" in colder/less sunlighted regions? Your Vitamin Idea could work because idealy a lighter haired/skinned person would indeed receive more V-D in the harsher climate then a darker person... Which would make for a "healthier" specimen... making them more ideal for breeding... but also... couldnt it be ornimental? Human kind has always been dazeled by beauty and things that are "rare".... And because the hunting and gathering jobs of the males durring these days was very difficult and dangerous, the females were addapting to "catch their eye" by selective breeding (by the males)... The hotter the females, the more children they would have, because they would be first inline.

But in order to really understand this, we need to know about the society they had.... Did males sleep with mutliple woman? or have a single wife? This I honestly dont know.

hmmm.... I will be back later with more questions and ideas.

Quote

Cool subject. Feel free to put it up in non-p scientific if you want.

A couple things bother me about it. First off is something called "adaptive story telling" which is rampant here. They are making up a bunch of stories (which may or may not be true) to explain something that has very little direct evidence.

Also, dating genes is not always clearcut. There is much debate about mutation rates and 'molecular clocks' as they call them. There are obviously no good fossils that can show blue eyes! It would even be hard to examine blonde hair from that long ago.

It's cool story telling but only marginally science. Saying something evolves by 'choice' is a poor way to look at things but if the mutation was there and was adaptive, it could have been selected for. How it was selected for is the topic they are using scant evidence for and I've seen lots of this with folks that study anthropology or human behavior.

I'd be careful saying "evolution is completely random". To some degree, mutation is. Getting new genes in general is relatively random. But the harsh selection forces of the environment are very non-random.

Possible other reasons for light hair, light skin, light eyes can be the allowance of sunlight into the skin to help produce vitamin D. This is harder to do when you are far from the equator with less light of less intensity (and if you're far enough north there's months without light). I dont know, maybe vision is better in the dark with lighter eyes, I've never seen that demonstrated though.

It is definitely disadvantageous to have these traits in tropical or even warm temperate areas, so explaining why those areas have less light eyes or skin isn't a problem.

Quote

http://www.timesonli...2058688,00.html


whats your opinion on this?



the artical says "evolved blonde hair and blue eyes" as if it occured by choice... clearly that is incorrect.


I am curious how the blonde hair blue eye's genes started in the first place... same applys huskys and other "northern" dogs.

Obviously the melanin isnt needed in the far north due to the lack of powerfull sunlight. but im curious as to how this happened?

Obviously Evolution is completely random... so this gene must have been appearing since the dawn of human existence, it just only took roots in the north because in the south, or warmer areas, the sun would have a more negative effect on the skin, hair, and eyes, if born with less melanin.

Can you give me any clairity on this? or your opinion?


there are blue eyed people to be found all over lower asia... even into japan there have been reports of blue/light eyed people. especially in afganistan and outlying countries.... could it be that because this gene is not really suitable for the harsh sunny climate, it never took root?


I have to go out to dinner, so I dont have much time to spell check.. haha, so excuse me if there are some error.

thanks alot man.

[Advertisements]

[Gumby]

Hmmm... That's a tough one. Especially taking into account people like the Inuit/Eskimos. They have lived in cold climates (Alaska, Siberia) for thousands upon thousands of years. They have dark hair and dark eyes.

Scandinavian people tend to have the light hair/light eyes. It seems almost counter productive in my opion. As you know, light colors REFLECT light and therefore heat, where dark colors absorb it. You would think that in a frigid climate such as the Artic, one would want to absorb as much heat as possible from the sun.

One possible suggestion I could offer is that the light hair/light skin/light eyes may act as some sort of quasi camoflauge. Given that it's cold there most of the year, you can assume that the land is going to be covered in snow and/or ice. Light colored features would blend in better... It would be great for avoiding predation from polar bears and the like.
Other than that the only possible suggestion I could offer is that this particular genetic make up was so isolated over time that there was not much chance for genetic variation/migration/drift (I'm rusty on my terms). If you take a look at the geography of the Scandinavian area, there are a lot of islands and peninsula. The water is freezing cold (so they can't swim or float to other areas) and there are limitied resourced to build watercraft (not many trees past a certain point), perhaps they were just so isolated that this particular genetic make up became dominate and there was no variation of genes to change it.


We definately know that blonde hair/blue eyes is not a norm in the majority of the world nowadays. Especially given that a good majority of the world's population resides in Asia. How many people of Asian background do you know who have blonde hair OR blue eyes? Much less BOTH. Brown eyes are dominate.

I don't have a lot of time to research it, but I wonder what would happen if you did a cross between a classic Scandinavian person(white blonde hair/blue eyes/slim build) with some one like my self (brown hair/brown eyes/very broad shoulders/tall). Would the end result end up looking like me or the other person? In other words: are the light colored traits dominate or recessive? If they are recessive, it's hard to imagine an entire ethnic group being double recessive for those traits... but not impossible I suppose.


When I have more time and I'm not studying for finals that I have tomorrow, I'll pull out my notes from my Anthropology class I had at Emory. Hopefuly I'll be able to contriubte some actual research/studies to support my ideas. Very interesting topic

This post has been edited by Gumby: 01 March 2006 - 03:43 AM

[Peacock]

INcorrect. Inuits have NOT been living in the north for "thousands upond thousands of years"... Do some research, they have only been there for around 1500 years. They are mongloids.

Also, there are no polar bears in germany, or lets say ireland. Humans had no preditors to need camo... also, HUmans would wear animal skin, so their natural skin, hair and eye color wouldnt effect anything because they would be bundled up in the harsh climate.


Light genes are recessive. Dark are dominate.


also, you are getting your body "build" mixed up. Scandinavians had larger bodies and were usually the tallest next to certain people from certain parts of africa, which were/are extremely tall, but very thin.

Research is knowledge... knowledge is power. Do a search on the Rus.

[Gumby]

Sorry mang, like I said, that was an off the top of my head response... Didn't/still don't have time to do research.

Better than nothing, eh? I'll get back to you with a real response sometime later in the day

[Excommunicated Guru]

Peacock, on Mar 1 2006, 06:20 AM, said:

Light genes are recessive. Dark are dominate.

Keep in mind however that the traits you are talking about are all polygenic. More than one set of alleles codes for each trait. That is why skin, hair, and even eyes are all different shades.

Peacock, on Feb 27 2006, 01:40 PM, said:

When I say "completely random" I was indeed refuring to the "new" genetic mutations. But even then.... Its not "new" is it? Because essentially what mutations occure are already "programed" into the genes... correct? so there is a limited number of "random mutations" that could spring about?

Mutations are not programmed into the genes. Mutations are damaged alleles. At some point, a mutation had to "spring about". Mutations can become prevalent enough however to establish a new phenotype in a population and species, at this point they would seem "programmed in". Remember that mutations happen at the individual level, evolution occurs at the population level. For a mutation to be "programmed in" to a population or species, it must be successful first at the individual level so that the individual can survive to pass that on.

[jiggy]

beauty is in the eye of the beholder.. in the past, it was 'hot' for women to be fat and it was more appealing to men because they were 'healthier'.. so this has nothing to do with it at all.. the job of males were to spread their seed, doesnt matter with what woman, just as long as they continued their bloodline.. the people that were able to survive to breed were the ones that adapted to their environment..

dark and light skin was caused by evolution millions of years ago, but recently (hundreds of thousands of years), skin color has nothing to do where u r from.. there are alot of places in the north where there are dark people.. ie. parts of russia, siberia/northern china, alaska.. and there are also places close to the equator with light people.. ie. italy, greece, carribean..

eye color is just a desireable mutation.. northern europeans are more prone to blue and green eyes, and the farther south you go, the less of that you see.. but there are also exceptions.. alot of people in india have green eyes, and alot of people from africa have hazel eyes.. the same goes for south americans..

the thing that most people overlook when it comes to genetics is build.. your body type is genetic.. being fat/chubby/husky is in your genes, and so is being lean/muscular.. athletisism is also in the genes.. there r people that r fat that can play any sport for days, and there r lean/muscular people that cant do sh*t..

i really dont know where im going with this post.. lol.. just felt like sharing

[acestro]

BioTeach, on Mar 1 2006, 09:34 AM, said:

Peacock, on Mar 1 2006, 06:20 AM, said:

Light genes are recessive. Dark are dominate.

Keep in mind however that the traits you are talking about are all polygenic. More than one set of alleles codes for each trait. That is why skin, hair, and even eyes are all different shades.

Peacock, on Feb 27 2006, 01:40 PM, said:

When I say "completely random" I was indeed refuring to the "new" genetic mutations. But even then.... Its not "new" is it? Because essentially what mutations occure are already "programed" into the genes... correct? so there is a limited number of "random mutations" that could spring about?

Mutations are not programmed into the genes. Mutations are damaged alleles. At some point, a mutation had to "spring about". Mutations can become prevalent enough however to establish a new phenotype in a population and species, at this point they would seem "programmed in". Remember that mutations happen at the individual level, evolution occurs at the population level. For a mutation to be "programmed in" to a population or species, it must be successful first at the individual level so that the individual can survive to pass that on.

Excellent post, glad you are weighing in on this. Dominant and recessive do not rule all traits, Mendel just got lucky with his peas! As mentioned, many traits are polygenic and there is much 'blending' of traits.

Mutations are definitely not programmed, I think many folks get confused into thinking any of evolution is planned by genetics. It's so random. This leads back to the example of other northern races which would even include Mongolians. Why hasn't blue eyes evolved in more places than Northern Europe. It's more likely chance than anything else. Convergent evolution could have happened, look at the dark skinned people of Africa and Australia, they actually arent that closely related.

[acestro]

Let's try to play nice and, I agree, no need to start posts with 'Incorrect'.

[Gumby]

Actually, the Inuits descended from people who lived in Siberia (which is why I included Sibera in my response). They definately lived there for thousands, if not millions of years. The came across the Bering Land Bridge during the ice age. Given that Sibera is just as cold, if not COLDER than Alaska, my point with the Inuit and their ancestors still stands. Point being they are from a cold climate and have dark hair, dark(er) skin, and dark eyes.
http://collections.i...uit/pre-his.htm

BioTeach/acestro: I was aware that the traits are polygenic, which makes this issue more complex.

Peacock: When I spoke of Scandinavian people, I did not have the vikings in mind. I was thinking of your sterotypical danish/swedish person... blonde hair, blue eyes, pale skin, narrow frame but not necessarily short.

I'll also admit that my comment about polar bears was stupid and absent minded. You made a good point about how they've have to bundle up anyways. I guess thats what no sleep in 24 hours does to your brain So predation is out of the question.

Looking back on my suggestion that there might not have been enough genetic variation to changed these traits (how ever they first appeared) was wrong as well. There have been tons of different people who invaded the Scandinavian region throughout history.

I'm out of ideas.

I'd like to do some research on this but I don't know the specific phenotypic term for someone who has blonde hair/blue eyes. I was thinking Scandinavian, but thats not right. Anyone have any idea?

[Peacock]

[quote name='BioTeach' post='1384255' date='Mar 1 2006, 03:34 PM']
[quote name='Peacock' post='1384158' date='Mar 1 2006, 06:20 AM']

Light genes are recessive. Dark are dominate.

[/quote]


Keep in mind however that the traits you are talking about are all polygenic. More than one set of alleles codes for each trait. That is why skin, hair, and even eyes are all different shades.

[quote name='Peacock' post='1381523' date='Feb 27 2006, 01:40 PM']
When I say "completely random" I was indeed refuring to the "new" genetic mutations. But even then.... Its not "new" is it? Because essentially what mutations occure are already "programed" into the genes... correct? so there is a limited number of "random mutations" that could spring about?
[/quote]

Mutations are not programmed into the genes. Mutations are damaged alleles. At some point, a mutation had to "spring about". Mutations can become prevalent enough however to establish a new phenotype in a population and species, at this point they would seem "programmed in". Remember that mutations happen at the individual level, evolution occurs at the population level. For a mutation to be "programmed in" to a population or species, it must be successful first at the individual level so that the individual can survive to pass that on.
[/quote]



Kool, I over looked this. thanks for the correction. Can you elaborate more on these "damaged alleles" ? How do they become damaged?


[quote name='jiggy' post='1384283' date='Mar 1 2006, 03:57 PM']
beauty is in the eye of the beholder.. in the past, it was 'hot' for women to be fat and it was more appealing to men because they were 'healthier'.. so this has nothing to do with it at all.. the job of males were to spread their seed, doesnt matter with what woman, just as long as they continued their bloodline.. the people that were able to survive to breed were the ones that adapted to their environment..

dark and light skin was caused by evolution millions of years ago, but recently (hundreds of thousands of years), skin color has nothing to do where u r from.. there are alot of places in the north where there are dark people.. ie. parts of russia, siberia/northern china, alaska.. and there are also places close to the equator with light people.. ie. italy, greece, carribean..

eye color is just a desireable mutation.. northern europeans are more prone to blue and green eyes, and the farther south you go, the less of that you see.. but there are also exceptions.. alot of people in india have green eyes, and alot of people from africa have hazel eyes.. the same goes for south americans..

the thing that most people overlook when it comes to genetics is build.. your body type is genetic.. being fat/chubby/husky is in your genes, and so is being lean/muscular.. athletisism is also in the genes.. there r people that r fat that can play any sport for days, and there r lean/muscular people that cant do sh*t..

i really dont know where im going with this post.. lol.. just felt like sharing
[/quote]


Who ever disputed the fact beauty was in the eye of the beholder? This is obviously the case with the norther population.. Obviously it was more Idealistic to breed with lighter people then dark... I am trying to find out the exact reason. I would lean more towards the theory of the eyes/hair/skin color being used as an attractive mechanism to help stand out from the rest. You see this alot in pretty much every species of animal, especially fish. A brighter, more "healthier" looking colored cichla, will be able to attract an equal-better mate.

also, your build, is NOT genetic. You have a genetic frame, but your lifestyle will "mold" your body into looking the way it does. do a search, Most fat people are like that because of their unhealthy lifestyle. Well built body builders are like this because they consume 300-400 grams of protein a day + 1000 grams of carbs... and lift heavy weights every week. Skinny computer nerds are like this because they dont eat much protein, just Mountain dew and chips... Your diet and daily routine make your body figure. How your MOTABOLISM works, is genetic. Not your fat/muscle content.


Of course light colored eyes are desireable, But I want to know WHY.

Also, your incorrect about "alot" of people in india having blue-green eyes. its a VERY small fraction of 1% that contain the light eyed geen. There are also a few light eyed genes floating around SE asia.


Yes, Our enviornment really has no effect on our bodies anymore, because our society is beyond the point where the harsh extremes of the ecosystems effect us.

[quote name='acestro' post='1384337' date='Mar 1 2006, 05:10 PM']
[quote name='BioTeach' post='1384255' date='Mar 1 2006, 09:34 AM']
[quote name='Peacock' post='1384158' date='Mar 1 2006, 06:20 AM']

Light genes are recessive. Dark are dominate.

[/quote]


Keep in mind however that the traits you are talking about are all polygenic. More than one set of alleles codes for each trait. That is why skin, hair, and even eyes are all different shades.

[quote name='Peacock' post='1381523' date='Feb 27 2006, 01:40 PM']
When I say "completely random" I was indeed refuring to the "new" genetic mutations. But even then.... Its not "new" is it? Because essentially what mutations occure are already "programed" into the genes... correct? so there is a limited number of "random mutations" that could spring about?
[/quote]

Mutations are not programmed into the genes. Mutations are damaged alleles. At some point, a mutation had to "spring about". Mutations can become prevalent enough however to establish a new phenotype in a population and species, at this point they would seem "programmed in". Remember that mutations happen at the individual level, evolution occurs at the population level. For a mutation to be "programmed in" to a population or species, it must be successful first at the individual level so that the individual can survive to pass that on.
[/quote]


Excellent post, glad you are weighing in on this. Dominant and recessive do not rule all traits, Mendel just got lucky with his peas! As mentioned, many traits are polygenic and there is much 'blending' of traits.

Mutations are definitely not programmed, I think many folks get confused into thinking any of evolution is planned by genetics. It's so random. This leads back to the example of other northern races which would even include Mongolians. Why hasn't blue eyes evolved in more places than Northern Europe. It's more likely chance than anything else. Convergent evolution could have happened, look at the dark skinned people of Africa and Australia, they actually arent that closely related.
[/quote]

I want to understand HOW evolution is random. Any clairity?


[quote name='Gumby' post='1384731' date='Mar 1 2006, 10:31 PM']
Actually, the Inuits descended from people who lived in Siberia (which is why I included Sibera in my response). They definately lived there for thousands, if not millions of years. The came across the Bering Land Bridge during the ice age. Given that Sibera is just as cold, if not COLDER than Alaska, my point with the Inuit and their ancestors still stands. Point being they are from a cold climate and have dark hair, dark(er) skin, and dark eyes.
[url="http://collections.ic.gc.ca/arctic/inuit/pre-his.htm"]http://collections.ic.gc.ca/arctic/inuit/pre-his.htm[/url]

BioTeach/acestro: I was aware that the traits are polygenic, which makes this issue more complex.

Peacock: When I spoke of Scandinavian people, I did not have the vikings in mind. I was thinking of your sterotypical danish/swedish person... blonde hair, blue eyes, pale skin, narrow frame but not necessarily short.

I'll also admit that my comment about polar bears was stupid and absent minded. You made a good point about how they've have to bundle up anyways. I guess thats what no sleep in 24 hours does to your brain So predation is out of the question.

Looking back on my suggestion that there might not have been enough genetic variation to changed these traits (how ever they first appeared) was wrong as well. There have been tons of different people who invaded the Scandinavian region throughout history.

I'm out of ideas.

I'd like to do some research on this but I don't know the specific phenotypic term for someone who has blonde hair/blue eyes. I was thinking Scandinavian, but thats not right. Anyone have any idea?
[/quote]


Inuits are "mongloids" that traveled north into Russia/siberia and then crossed over into alaska/canada.

"The Inuit are the descendents of what anthropologists call the Thule culture, a nomadic people who emerged from western Alaska around 1000 and spread eastwards across the Arctic, displacing the related Dorset culture (in Inuktitut, the Tuniit). Inuit legends speak of the Tuniit as "giants", people who were taller and stronger than the Inuit, but who were easily scared off and retreated from the advancing Inuit. Researchers believe that the Dorset culture lacked dogs, boats and other technologies that gave the expanding Inuit society a large advantage over them. By 1300, the Inuit had settled west Greenland, and finally moved into east Greenland over the following century." - wikipedia


"The Thule were the ancestors of all modern Canadian Inuit. They arrived at Alaska in around the year 500 and Nunavut, Canada in 1000. A subgroup then moved east to Greenland by the 13th century." - wikipedia

"The Dorset culture preceded the Inuit culture in Arctic North America. Inuit legends mention the Tuniit (singular Tuniq) or Sivullirmiut ("First Inhabitants"), who were driven away by the Inuit. According to legend, they were "giants", people who were taller and stronger than the Inuit, but who were easily scared off and retreated from the advancing Inuit. They were credited with a faultless understanding of their local environment (which they may have shared with the newly-arrived Inuit) but with inferior technologies. The Dorset did lack dogsleds, sophisticated boats and toggled harpoons and therefore may have adapted poorly to the newly harsh weather of the late first- and early second millennium.

Surprisingly, there appears to have been no genetic connection between the Dorset and the Thule, which indicates the complete replacement and extinction of the former. Nonetheless, the Dorset were kin to the modern Inuit, an earlier incursion into the Arctic region from a common population, and as such were closely related to their successors." - wikipedia


The REAL natives of the northern part of North america, were/are no longer in existance. It seems that they were the first/original people who traveled over and settled some 7-9,000 years ago.

Humans have not been living in North america for "millions of years".... Homo sapiens have only been around for 400,000-250,000 years... the exact date when the first real sapiens was born is unknown. But certainly no group of sapiens was around for millions of years.


1 other thing. The thule culture did not travel over durring the BLB. They came WAY later. Modern archaeology is now supporting this theory over the later.

this is a great little map... each number set = THOUSANDS of years.






also, the link you posted suggest inuits as PRE dorset. when infact, they were post dorset.

[acestro]

The map is very cool, but still a 'theory'. I think there is some debate on the movement of people on Earth, including other theories that are not 'out of Africa'. Great information either way.

Evolution is random because mutations are random. Selective forces are somewhat random as well but sometimes these forces are similar in different places (and this is where you see convergent evolution).

[Excommunicated Guru]

Peacock, on Mar 1 2006, 10:30 PM, said:

Kool, I over looked this. thanks for the correction. Can you elaborate more on these "damaged alleles" ? How do they become damaged?

I'll try to keep it short It all comes down to the base sequence in DNA that codes for all of the traits expressed, proteins made, etc.. Usually mutations that lead to new traits arise during the formation of egg and sperm. During the formation of egg and sperm cells (Meiosis), there are all sorts of mutations that could develop due to events such as inversions, translocations, deletions, and insertions that cause a change in the base sequence. Even before Meiosis officially begins, DNA has to replicate itself, and if there is a mistake made there that isn't caught, it will be passed on to the egg or sperm that result. When fertilization occurs, the sperm brings along one set of alleles, and the egg brings the matching set. Sometimes only one of each pair has to be a mutant to cause problems, sometimes both. The bottom line is that when the DNA code gets changed enough, traits can be altered or not expressed at all.

As far as evolution being random, it is to a point. As you can see from above, mutations are random, but sexual selection can cause a particular trait to become more prevalent (which is what I think you've been getting at). Remember though that while looking good may get you the opportunity to reproduce, your other traits that get passed on must also enable your offspring to survive until they reproduce. If that isn't the case, what looks good today will be gone tommorrow! So even sexual selection ends up being a crap shoot long term. Hmmm...so much for keeping it short. I still don't know if I even thoroughly answered anything!!!

[acestro]

I think you answered it very well!