by Americalex » May 28, 2009 12:40 pm
by NJguy » May 28, 2009 8:08 pm
by Sovernty » May 28, 2009 9:30 pm
NJguy wrote:too bad blonds will be just about extinct in 200 years.
by AjaxWoji » May 29, 2009 12:16 pm
by lesterBfearsome » May 29, 2009 7:44 pm
by Clubtender » May 29, 2009 9:15 pm
NJguy wrote:too bad blonds will be just about extinct in 200 years.
by Jonnycoolg » May 30, 2009 2:24 am
by AjaxWoji » May 30, 2009 8:58 am
In another thousand years it will probably be difficult to tell that there was ever more than one race. The people of the world are not really all that separated by the physical distance between places anymore due to modern world travel. I see all the races bred out of existence as we eventually interbreed into one human race with some surviving traits from all of the currently existing races incorporated into everyone. I seriously doubt that blond hair will be one of those surviving traits.
by lesterBfearsome » May 30, 2009 10:22 am
by NJguy » May 30, 2009 11:06 am
AjaxWoji wrote:Riddle me this?
Blue eyes are thought to have appeared 8000 to 10,000 years ago in the Black Sea area. The trait is recessive, but there are now 1/2 billion blue eyed people in the world. Darwin could not figure it out. Some think that it travels with another trait that has survival value.
I would lay odds that a similar thing occurs for blonds.
by lesterBfearsome » May 30, 2009 11:09 am
by AjaxWoji » May 30, 2009 11:48 am
Yeah that was before whites had a failing birthrate, and before Europe was being invaded by immigrants.
Why don't you riddle me this, in 1900 half of all Americans had blue eyes. Today it is 1 in 6 and falling exponentially. Trying to deny it is pretty pathetic.
by AjaxWoji » May 30, 2009 12:12 pm
are you blond?
why do non-blonds care so much? its not like blonds are being rounded up and exterminated. they're just not breeding, its really up to them as individuals. and aren't there rarer "breeds" out there? inuit maybe? cree? aboriginal australians?
by lesterBfearsome » May 30, 2009 1:07 pm
by lesterBfearsome » May 30, 2009 1:38 pm
AjaxWoji wrote:For now, I will restate that 8000-10000 years ago there was one person with blue eyes. Somehow, there are 1/2 billion (I believe I read that) now. If I am not mistaken, blue eyes are recessive. So, that is a very big mystery to me. Obviously there is something I do not understand. I would have enjoyed the possibility that you might have been able to put some light on it if you could. Instead, you simply tried to discredit me by saying that what I said was pathetic. Then you did not respond to what I said, but segwayed into some partially true side show about the current situation in the USA which is primarily due to temporary fluctuations in events and a misguided attempt to right history, that will in the end do a wrong which will in turn be punished by history.
For example, in humans, if a person inherits the allele for free earlobes from one parent and the one for attached earlobes from the other, that person will have free earlobes. Thus the free lobe allele is said to be dominant over the attached lobe allele (and the attached lobe allele is said to be recessive to the free lobe allele). In order to have attached earlobes, a person must inherit the allele for attached earlobes from both parents. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that either parent must have attached earlobes - since both parents could be carrying the allele for attached lobes while outwardly having free lobes.
by AjaxWoji » May 30, 2009 1:46 pm
i was more referring to nj...
everyone (white) really are jealous of blonds?
by lesterBfearsome » May 30, 2009 1:49 pm
by AjaxWoji » May 30, 2009 2:28 pm
by Clubtender » May 30, 2009 2:42 pm
by lesterBfearsome » May 30, 2009 3:15 pm
i think trying to find logical "survival" reasons for blue eyes might not be relevant. our ancestors were far less liberal minded than we are today and probably had no issues with actively shaping their tribes traits. even as only little more than 2000 years ago spartans would discard babies that were considered defective. i could imagine a case where further back tribal elites encouraged blue eyed - blond haired babies only, just because. maybe for religious, mystical reasons.AjaxWoji wrote:I read an article at one point that asserted that brown eyed people are quicker thinking, but that blue eyed people were calculating in their thinking. (So this is hear-say from me about a supposed article that asserted that). Either method has it's strengths, but perhaps in the long run a balance occurs in populations where the blue eyed "Infection" occurs.
I do not think that the blue of the eye would cause you to be calculating, rather, that perhaps the genes that cause blue eyes also cause a difference in thinking process. The difference in thinking process would be the important issue in this case, but of course I have already stated that I think that having a greater number of variations in facial appearance could be important to creatures that network with each other as humans do.
Thanks for the interesting conversation. Thanks for the illumination as well.