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.
- 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
- ZanyLv 45 months ago
So they would be hard to see at the ocean's edge.
- OttoLv 75 months ago
There was no Evolution. God created Adam and Eve.
- 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.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- jon pikeLv 75 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.
- 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.
- Josh AlfredLv 55 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.
- PyriformLv 75 months ago
I suppose it just happened to be a different mutation to the genes responsible for pigmentation.
- CaesarLv 75 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
- Simon TLv 75 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.
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.