Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours?

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.

30 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    It really depends on what environment you reside in.

    These days, with brick & mortar housing, air conditioning & 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*) & blonde hair (same reason) & 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 & 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

    :)

    • Kevan3 years agoReport

      Evolution is not true, yeah look at the fossil records.

  • 1 decade ago

    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'.

  • 1 decade ago

    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.

    Source(s): BS (Biology)
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    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.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    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 & 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.

    Source(s): I'm not an expert but have a good general understanding of evolutionary principles.
  • 1 decade ago

    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.

  • 1 decade ago

    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!

  • 1 decade ago

    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.

  • 1 decade ago

    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.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    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 ~_^

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.