First off let me say I have no intention of offending anyone by posting this, and I know it sounds awfully like Nazi propaganda (which it probably was at one point) but I know nothing about biology or genes so would like to hear an educated opinion.
My point is this; if we all evolved from dark-haired apes in to dark-skinned people living on what is now the continent of Africa, and then spread out across the globe, surely the white blond/ blue eyed people were the last to develop as their colouring would have taken the longest time to develop. So does this mean anything genetically?
As I have previously I am not racist, a facist, a Nazi or anything else of the sort but I am uneducated when it comes to matters of biology and the above argument does sort of make sense to someone with no knowledge of the subject, so I'd just like it cleared up by someone in the know.
I know nothing of science but have phrased this as PC as I could so please no comments about me being a Nazi.
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? It really depends on what environment you reside in.
These days, with brick %26amp; mortar housing, air conditioning %26amp; sunblock, it doesnt make much of difference.
But the people who have lighter skin, blue eyes... etc adapted to the environments in which they migrated to, for their body to function the best it could in those conditions.
Most africans remained dark skinned, much like many of the equatorian societies, as this was more ideal for surviving the elements.
Sickel Cell Anemia, for instance only occurs in those of more rescent african descent, because certain people developed blood cells which functioned in a manner to discourage infection from malaria... but it can also have a very negative effect on the function of the human body, especially when living in an environment which does not have a malaria issue.
It's called evolution, and just because the scandinavians ended up with paler skin (from long winters, and the need to absorb as much vitamin D from the sun's rays when possible*pigment blocks some of these rays*) %26amp; blonde hair (same reason) %26amp; bigger boobs (no clue) does not mean they are superior than dark skinned Africans.
They may be better suited for Norway than Zimbabwe, but also true the other way round.
Human beings are animals... and just like different animal of the same species adapt to different environments, we do the same.
When you start putting superior on this question, you have to take into account a specific environment %26amp; survivability or even optimum bodily function.
The human race, on a whole, does not have one particular genetic design which I am aware of, that can survive most favorably in all habitable environments.
****
So, we just got to wait till the XMen come around. Cant wait
:)
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? i hope so.... :-)
i have dirty blonde hair, and blue eyes :-)
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? You may have a point there...
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? no, it makes you more likely to get cancer
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? it depends on your parents genes because certain genes are recessive and others are dominate. each gene has its own identity.
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? Judging from the NCAA record books, blonde-haired, blue-eyed people are genetically inferior to the rest of us.
Your premise is that those who developed blonde hair and blue eyes took longer to evolve. That's not the case. We all developed from a single common ancestor, which means we've all got the same amount of history behind us, genetically.
People of European ancestry are more resistant to AIDS, which seems to have a biological mechanism similar to the Black Plague. That's because Europeans lived in squalor with animals, and many of them were killed off in the Black Plague, with only the resistant ones remaining. Those in Africa lived in more healthful surroundings, so they didn't die off that way. Native Americans, who also lived in rather healthful surroundings, were largely wiped out by venereal diseases, smallpox and other "gifts" from the disease-ridden Europeans.
You sound like you'd enjoy reading "The Seven Daughters of Eve", link below. It's available in most libraries.
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? Brown eyed/haired people are less prone to sun damage to their skin and can see better in bright conditions than blue eyed people... so no.
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? No and yes ...
First, I would be very reluctant to say which skin/hair/eye colouring appeared last in the general population since I have no idea about that - and I wonder if anyone has even investigated that one yet.
My main point - variations in population like skin colour etc appear as adaptations to local conditions. So blond hair %26amp; blue eyes are very likely superior for the conditions prevelant in the geographical area in which they first appeared.
*BUT* these same variations could not be 'superior' in other locations ... otherwise the same variation (or very similar) would have appeared in a number of locations around the globe.
Since populations have only recently started to be connected in the sense of mobility and social interaction we are a long way from seeing what adaptations (if any) emerge in the global population as a result of the new environment of the 21st centurary and beyond.
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? Genetic differences occur as a result of random mutation. Those random mutations which offer some kind of advantage will in general tend to spread through a population over generations through the process known as natural selection (for example genetically slow wildebeests will tend to get eaten by the big cats, whereas genetically fast wildebeests will survive to have baby wildebeests).
In Africa, the climate offers an advantage to those with pigmented skin/eyes, as it offers a protection against tissue damage from the sun. In colder Europe, there is no such advantage, and therefore pigmented skin is dominant in Africa but not in Europe. Unpigmented skin is dominant in Europe because it allows better absorption of Vitamin D, which is useful when you go through long winters with little sunshine.
It is therefore misleading to think that one set of genes is "superior" - it merely contains a different set of mutations.
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? Hardly, otherwise whence all the jokes about blondes?
The following were all dark haired:
Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Sigmund Freud, Henry Ford, Beethoven, Mozart, Martin Luther King and Gandhi to name but a few.
I don't think colouring of hair, eyes or skin comes into it at all.
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? the change in hair and skin colour is an example of adaptation which caused a change in the genetic pool.In areas where heat radiation is nit that strong there the melanin secretion is less which causes lightning of hair and skin colour.There is nothing about the genetical dominancy.
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? Frankly, no. all colours have their advantages really. we simply adopted to our environment as we had been doing prior.
we all have genes and one strand can carry thousands of traits. we have a man and a woman. one with blonde hair, and one with brown hair. lets say the woman has blonde hair. blonde hair is recessive. which meens that only another blonde gene can complete it to become blonde.
when you get blonde hair it would be written 'bb' this is homozygous. so this meens that the bonde haired woman is bb. the man has brown hair, this is not recessive, rather it is dominant. his parents could be any colour and brown. brown is 'B' and can be written 'BB' when combined with another 'B' brown gene. but when it is combined with say a bonde gene it wuld be written 'Bb' but brown would still show because it is dominat. the only posible way for these two's kid to have blonde hair is for both parents to have a blonde gene, (which meens the woman is bb and the man would have to Bb for this to work). only then is there a chance for there to be a blonde kid. you make your judgement now whether you think this is the genetically superior trait. yes? u may want to reconsider, because, because blonde is very rare, it may as well die out in as little as 200 years! so as it may be rare,... you make your own mind up (personally i think no gene is really "superior" maybe with the exception of normal genes over so called 'mutilated genes'.) geniologist use punnet squares to work out the possibilities of a child getting a particular trait.
it is kind of drawn like this:
B b
b
b
then we fill out the middle like:
B...-...b
b Bb bb
b Bb bb
this all meens that this chiild has a 50% chance of getting brown or blonde. (the top (Bb) being the brown, and the side (bb) being the bonde!)
hope i helped ~_^
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? your answer is "no". No one is superior.
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? your hair and eye colour are passed on through your mums xx chromosomes and your dads xy chromosomes. depending on the blue eyed chromosome being recessive or dominant depends on whether your other other parent is recessive or dominant. for example,
dads xy mums xx makes xx xx xy xy there is a half chance.
i just did biology at gcse
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? No, evolution doesn't work like that. We all came from a common ancestor, and are all equally evolved.
In evolution, there's no "superior" or "better" in an objective sense. There's only "more suited to a particular environment". For Africans, dark skin is more suitable because it protects them from sunlight. For Europeans, light skin is better because it increases the amount of vitamin D that can be produced.
So you can see that what's better for an organism, including a human, is dependent on the environment they find themself in. Natural selection has the effect of preserving those mutations that are advantageous in a particular environment, and weeding out those that are disadvantageous. But if an organism migrates to a different area, or the environment itself changes, then what is advantageous and disadvantageous may also change.
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? No my father had blue eyes and my mother I don't and yes they are my natural parents. They're is good and bad in everybody no matter what colour.
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? blondes rule!
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? According to genetics that is like comparing a red apple to a green apple to a yellow apple.
The answer is "no". 50,000 years ago our ancestors left Africa. That is approximately 2,000 generations of evolution for each person currently living on this planet. Evolving in completely different environments.
100,000 years ago, several species of hominids populated the Earth, including H. sapiens in Africa, H. erectus in Southeast Asia and China, and Neandertals in Europe.
By around 30,000 years ago, the only surviving hominid species was H. sapiens. Our ancestors.
A second wave of hominids left Africa around 45,000 years ago, reproduced rapidly, and settled in the Middle East; smaller groups went off to India and China.
Isolated by mountains and the sea for many generations, and exposed to a colder climate and less sunlight than in Africa, the Asian populations became paler over time.
Around 40,000 years ago, as the grip of the Ice Age loosened and temperatures briefly became warmer, humans moved into Central Asia. Amid the bountiful grassy steppes, they multiplied quickly.
Around 35,000 years ago, small groups left Central Asia for Europe. Cold temperatures kept them there. Cut off from other groups, these migrants became paler and shorter than their African ancestors.
From there, around 20,000 years ago, another small group of Central Asians moved farther north, into Siberia and the Arctic Circle. To minimize physical exposure to the extreme cold they developed, over many generations, stout trunks, stubby fingers, and short arms and legs.
Finally, around 15,000 years ago, as another Ice Age began to wane, one small clan of Arctic dwellers followed the reindeer herd over the Bering Strait land bridge into North America.
We are all part of the same family. We share the same ancestors. We look different but we are apples with different skin. Some have adapted to grow better in different climates.
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? Absoluteley not, which can be borne out by the rise in ethnic variations to higher positions in society. I think blonde/blue is just an attraction to some people.
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? No.
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? First of all I believe the answer to your question must be "No". The period of time for a mutation to appear has no correlation to the degree of "superiority" of the mutation. Secondly, reading some of the answers a number of people use the term "developed" as if the organism involved made a conscious decision to do something about their characteristics in order to adapt better to their environment. This is not correct but it may simple be the way that people have phrased their answer. In any population mutations will appear on a fairly regular basis. In man for example we probably throw up mutations about 1:50,000 cell divisions. Many of these are fatal and the cell simply degenerates and is never manifested. In others the mutation is expressed in the organism's phenotype (Physical makeup). In the case of those individuals who were born shorter and squatter in appearance this was an advantage when living in cold climates since their surface area/volume ratio was smaller. This meant that they lost less heat and were better able to withstand cold. Within a mixed population more of those shorter individuals would survive and therefore their percentage within the population would increase. Over many years they may become the dominant type within the population. The "Celtic" races, Scots, Irish etc. were descended from the Vikings who were of the same build and came from cold environments. If we look at warmer regions, e.g. Africa we see tall, angular individuals who are better equipped to deal with warm temperature. In addition their skin pigmentation protects them fro the Sun's rays. Skin and hair colour within populations are merely the results of natural selection over many thousands of years.
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? Where most people go wrong is that they assume that modern Africans are the same as the original/first homo sapeans . This is not the case . We don't even know what skin colour the first people had .
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? as the first humans originated from Africa
in Kenya i think I assume genetically superior humans originate from there
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? No, though a teacher did a research project telling blondes/blue eyed children that they were superior and then the children acted superior. When the teacher told the class a week later that she had made a mistake; that brown eye/ brown hair children were actually superior then those children acted as if they were superior.
Though there are genetic differences, the differences are not in intellengence.
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? In genetic terms it simply tells us that the genes that code for skin pigmentation are not simply recessive or dominant but are in fact many genes whose combined expression will give a range of skin colours, depending upon need. As homosapiens migrated to cooler climes, children that were born with paler pigmentation would perhaps be less susceptible to Vitamin D deficiencies. Who knows. Many pale skined humans live well in the equatorial regions and many darker skined humans survive without rickets or other ill effects far North. It is a conundrum, but just like skin, a bit superficial for me!
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? No. The hair and eye colors or racial characteristics are just examples of endemicism (adaptation to local conditions).
Natural selection might have favored the development of hair and eye color in the cloudy environments they became most common in. Though I suspect sexual (mate) selection had more to do with it than anything.
Evolution is not a progressive linear transition from inferior to superior forms. If it was there would be no other life forms except the purported superior one. It is a continual reshaping of forms in response to selective factors of environment.
There is no such thing as a genetically superior organism. A form that is highly successful in one environment will fail miserably in another if the conditions that favor that form are replaced with unfavorable conditions.
I'll give a clearer example. If the ability to reproduce were determined by the ability to lift large weights people with weightlifter physiques would be more numerous than people with other builds. In an environment where sprinting determined reproductive success people with runner's builds would be more commonplace. In both instances apparent superiority would be dependent on external circumstance which, in the real world, is more complex and changeable.
Hair and eye color are the result of a very small number of genes which require only minor changes to produce. All of which could be re mutated out of existance if need be. Not some clever re-engineering that makes the organisms 'better'.
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? Superior as a whole - no. Superior (advantaged) in the cold Northern European environment that they evolved to adapt in - yes. You're correct that these were the some of the last features to have devoloped, since the environment that they developed for was one of the last settled. Though they are the latest, they may not be the greatest since they are not really superior as it only proffers an advantage in the environment it was developed in. The Caucasian race that sports these features was the most recent branch in our family tree, as they followed the retreating glaciers (global warming - oh my) and occupied Northern Europe. While the other races, which had been in place for tens of thousands of years, were already adapted to their own environments and had no need for these features. As a matter of fact these features, evolved to deal with colder environments, are actually a disadvantage/maladaption in other hotter (our original) environments. A good example is that a Caucasian in sub-Saharan Africa would be easily suceptible to sunburn, and other heat related casualties. Oddly in biological terms, these are actually specializations which , which in the long run may be a disadvantage in the hotter post-glacial world.
Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? not if you put them in the sun for too long
