atheists: why did northern Europeans evolve light hair and eyes?

Why did they when Asians and native Americans evolved lighter skin but not lighter hair and eyes, some say lower sunshine in Europe was the reason but sunshine levels in northern/eastern Europe are not significantly different from sunshine levels in eastern Siberia.

26 Answers

Relevance
  • 5 months ago

    population genetics and sex selective traits.

    light eyes and hair in northern europe could be just simply because males in that region bred with women with those traits 

    and those traits are common there because of environmental influences as well

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Zany
    Lv 4
    5 months ago

    So they would be hard to see at the ocean's edge.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Otto
    Lv 7
    5 months ago

    There was no Evolution. God created Adam and Eve.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 5 months ago

    According to the movies, Adam and Eve were CREATED with white folk's skin and eyes.

    So it must be that, AFTER  Adam and Eve chowed down on the Forbidden Snack, humans DEGENERATED into People Of Colour.

    Double-check with the Book of Mormon, if the Bible isn't clear enough.

    • ...Show all comments
    • leslie5 months agoReport

      so you pretty much just implied that over 90 percent of the human population is full of degenerates, considering how only an extreme minority of humans have natural light hair and skin

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 5 months ago

    You're confused. Scandinavia and Northern Europe are closer to Central Europe than the Mediterranean, Africa and the Middle East. As far a Eastern Siberia, The vast majority of the Siberian population (over 95%) is Slavic and other Indo-European ethnicities, mainly Russians, Ukrainians, and Germans. Most non-Slavic groups are Turkic. Smaller linguistic groups are Mongols.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 5 months ago

    People’s appearances are the byproduct of their environment. Africans are dark due to more exposure to sunlight and hotter climates. Europeans are lighter due to the opposite. 

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 5 months ago

    Atheism just means a denial of God(s). It does not by itself include an advanced understanding of how genetic traits evolved over races. If you are looking for a better answer try biology or anthropology cats. 

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 5 months ago

    I suppose it just happened to be a different mutation to the genes responsible for pigmentation.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Caesar
    Lv 7
    5 months ago

    Atheists is just the people that do not believe in the invisible entities some theist call gods.

    If you are honesty interested in genetic or any scientific theory you should not ask that question here in R&S. But we understand why your brain fail to notice that detail .... curiously  some ancient DNA from a 7000-year-old tooth belonging to a hunter gatherer dubbed La Brana 1, unearthed from the north-west of Spain. Had genes that show this man had dark skin and dark hair, he also had blue eyes. Around 74 % of our eye colour can be put down to a gene called OCA2 on chromosome 15. This gene also contributes to hair and skin color, but to a much lesser extent. No gods  religions or spirits involved

    • ...Show all comments
    • Caesar
      Lv 7
      5 months agoReport

      The melanin issue is not the important part ...is the gene called OCA2 on chromosome 15

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 5 months ago

    Light skin came about due evolutionary pressure to produce enough vitamin D though exposure to sunlight against the need to use clothes to stay warm.

    Light hair and blue eyes, as far as I am aware, have no advantage.  So unless they are some by-product of something else that was an advantage it may well just be random mutations.

    https://www.livescience.com/9578-common-ancestor-b...

    Edit:

    Reading your question again I think this shows one of the real misunderstandings of evolution.

    The implication in your question is if fair skin and blue eyes occurs in one group of people, then another group of people who live in a similar environment should have the same fair skin and blue eyes.

    Evolution does not work this way.

    Let me give you another example that I am guessing you were not aware of:

    Why is it that only people of African descent get sickle cell anemia?   And why do that get it?

    The change in the genes that cause sickle cell have evolved.  It is actually an evolutionary advantage.

    If you have a single copy of the sickle cell gene from your parents, then you have an increased resistance to malaria.    If you live in a tropical area where malaria is prevalent then this is a big advantage.

    But if you get a copy of the sickle cell gene from both parents then your blood cells deform and you get sickle cell anemia, and you will probably die early without treatment.  That is a huge disadvantage.

    So, point 1 about evolution - it does not care if it has the best solution, just if something is better than before.

    In the tropical parts of Africa malaria is a serious problem.   The advantage of most people having increased resistance to malaria, but some people dying from getting a double-dose of the gene  is greater than not having the resistance, but nobody dying from sickle cell.

    Sure, there probably is a mutation that gives better resistance to malaria, and has no downside to it - but that is not the mutation that happened to occur.   The sickle cell mutation did, it was a net advantage, so it became dominant.

    Point 2 about evolution.  Just because something is good for one group does not mean that it will happen to other groups.

    Malaria is not just in Africa.  It is all around the tropical zones of the planet.   In the Americas, Asia and India people suffer and die from Malaria.  So, why did they not get the sickle cell mutation?

    The answer is that the mutation occurred in the African population after humanity spread out of Africa.  So the people who's descendants settled in al the other tropical zones did not carry this mutation.

    But there was movement in and out of Africa, so why did it not spread?   As I said above, in an area with malaria, sickle cell provides a net advantage.   But as you move into areas where there is no malaria, then there is no advantage to sickle cell, just the disadvantage of getting a double dose of the gene.     Once you move out of central Africa the sickle cell mutation becomes a disadvantage, and so it will tend not to be spread.

    If you can get a grasp of this, then I think you will have a much better understanding of evolution.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Simon T
      Lv 7
      5 months agoReport

      Truth - Einstein was talking about societal changes.  Not physical ones.   Try throwing a stone in the air - and then keeping it there using your mind.  

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.