Peter Frost and "European hair and eye color: A case of freq

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
samsloan

Peter Frost and "European hair and eye color: A case of freq

Legg inn av samsloan » 06 jun 2007 03:05:26

Peter Frost and "European hair and eye color: A case of frequency-
dependent sexual selection?"

A research report that made a great sensation last year was: "European
hair and eye colour: A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection?"
from Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages 85-103
(March 2006)

This article is online many places including

http://www.ceacb.ucl.ac.uk/cultureclub/ ... _Frost.pdf

Unfortunately, many discussions of this article have degenerated into
racist diatribes, which should be avoided.

This article concludes that blond hair developed as a result of sexual
selection. In areas with few crops where the human population has
survived by catching migrating wild game such as caribou, only men
could run fast enough to catch them, so women, to survive and to avoid
starvation, had to attract a man. Women with blond hair and blue eyes
and therefore able to attract a man had enough to eat and to
reproduce. Women with black hair and brown eyes had difficulty
attracting a man and therefore starved to death. A cruel world, was it
not?

An important part of this theory is that while out hunting many young
men died. Therefore, there were more women than men. In some areas the
female population was twice the male population. However, men rarely
took more than one wife. This was because to feed several women and
all of their children, the man had to catch and bring home a lot of
caribou. Few men could do that and as a result in the northern areas
the rule developed that a man could have only one wife. That rule
developed even when the northern peoples were pagan and before
Christianity had arrived. That disgusting policy persists to this day,
which is the reason why I have never been allowed to have more than
one Icelandic girlfriend at a time.

In short, there was fierce competition among the women to attract a
man. The beautiful women, especially those with blond hair and blue
eyes, got a man and reproduced, passing their genes on to the next
generation. Those with black hair died out. This explains why the
ideal feminine beauty is almost universally recognized as having blond
hair, blue eyes, thin waist and wide hips.

The article by Peter Frost has a map on page 2 showing that in Central
Sweden, Central Norway and Southern Finland, more than 80% of the
population has blond hair. However, in areas further to the north, the
Laplanders have black hair and darker skin. That is because they eat
seals and fish, which even women can catch. Also, infanticide is
practiced. They kill some of their baby girls, so the male and female
populations remain equal and everybody has enough to eat and every
woman has a man to help her reproduce.

Another question is why only Scandinavians are more than 80% blond.
Why not the peoples of Northern Siberia and Northern North America?

The explanation for this is the weather. Central Sweden, Central
Norway and Southern Finland have cloud cover. In Siberia and Northern
North America the skies are generally clear and the altitudes higher.
In addition, there is a geographical barrier that separates
Scandinavia from Siberia. This reduces the genetic drift of blonds
from Scandinavia to Siberia.

What may interest readers of this group is that it is not the Swedes
but rather the Irish who have the lightest skin. The greatest
proportion of pale-skinned whites are found in Northwestern Europe
(e.g., the Irish).

Since I am Irish on my fathers side, this fits me perfectly because my
skin is very fair, my eyes are green, but my hair is black. I have
never met anyone with normal skin pigmentation who is fairer than I
am.

So, I do not have to look at a mirror, mirror on the wall to be sure
that I really am the fairest of them all, although on my mothers side
I am Swedish.

Sam Sloan

WJhonson

Re: Peter Frost and "European hair and eye color: A case of

Legg inn av WJhonson » 06 jun 2007 03:27:12

<<In a message dated 06/05/07 19:05:52 Pacific Standard Time, samhsloan@gmail.com writes:
Women with blond hair and blue eyes
and therefore able to attract a man had enough to eat and to
reproduce. Women with black hair and brown eyes had difficulty
attracting a man and therefore starved to death. A cruel world, was it
not? >>


That explains why there are so many blonde Eskimos !

WJhonson

Re: Peter Frost and "European hair and eye color: A case of

Legg inn av WJhonson » 06 jun 2007 03:32:52

The number one problem with this *theory* is that sexual selection has never been about economics. Which is why it's called *sexual* selection.

I would also point out that the sexual selection practiced by say, a hundred random groups of people all over the world, varies over the entire spectrum of possibilities. There is a tribe in Africa where the women like men with really large eyes.

I've been to Sweden (Malmo), I didn't notice "80% blondes" at all, must to my dismay. The highest percentage of blondes I saw was in Copenhagen, but even then it didn't exceed perhaps 30 percent.

Gjest

Re: Peter Frost and "European hair and eye color: A case of

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 jun 2007 05:39:36

On Jun 5, 7:05 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
This article concludes that blond hair developed as a result of sexual
selection. In areas with few crops where the human population has
survived by catching migrating wild game such as caribou, only men
could run fast enough to catch them, so women, to survive and to avoid
starvation, had to attract a man.

The women, however, were not in such dire straits anywhere. Nor was
the game killed by men the only or even primary food source. The
"daily bread", so to speak, was supplied by women and children -
berries, nuts, tubers, etc. Where agriculture was possible at all,
women were the primary farmers. Women were also trappers of small
game, could hurl a mean stick, and were the primary maintainers of
fishing camps.

Women with blond hair and blue eyes
and therefore able to attract a man had enough to eat and to
reproduce. Women with black hair and brown eyes had difficulty
attracting a man and therefore starved to death. A cruel world, was it
not?

It was also a world that did not exist. Simple and obvious disproof:
first, a preference for blond hair and blue eyes is NOT universally
regarded as preferable. Where you find modern people in places such as
Japan bleaching their hair, the cause is more that it is different and
exotic, not that it is more beautiful. Secondly, if blond women were
selected for and survived in greater numbers, one would think that
blonds would dominate today. In fact, several studies have shown that
blond hair is a disappearing trait.

An important part of this theory is that while out hunting many young
men died. Therefore, there were more women than men. In some areas the
female population was twice the male population.

And this belief comes from what data...? Remember that women died in
childbirth. Also multiple partners were not unknown.

However, men rarely
took more than one wife.

Where and when? You spout "facts" without anything to back them up -
because they cannot be backed up. They are wrong.



In short, there was fierce competition among the women to attract a
man. The beautiful women, especially those with blond hair and blue
eyes, got a man and reproduced, passing their genes on to the next
generation. Those with black hair died out. This explains why the
ideal feminine beauty is almost universally recognized as having blond
hair, blue eyes, thin waist and wide hips.

The evolution you are discussing is actually that of the Barbie doll.
Women in the far north with black hair have NOT died out, not even in
Europe. A thin waist is not always preferable to men. In a society
living "on the edge", such as in a harsh climate, a thin woman may be
sickly. A woman with some bulk is healthy and will bear healthy
children.


, more than 80% of the
population has blond hair. However, in areas further to the north, the
Laplanders have black hair and darker skin.

There are a lot of shades between blond and black. The majority of
Scandinavians have various shades of brown hair. The Sami (Laplanders)
have all shades of hair from blond to black . The language of the Sami
people is more Asian than European and they are probably related to
Siberian tribal peoples.

That is because they eat
seals and fish, which even women can catch.

Good grief! You mean if I ate fish (which I hate), I would not have
black hair! My Japanese husband eats a great deal of fish and his hair
hasn't changed yet. You know, a few years ago we both felt that we
were getting out of shape, so we bought an exercise machine called a
"Nordic Track" which simulates overland skiing. It failed. Both of us
are still short and dark. Maybe the Sami just didn't get enough
exercise.

Also, infanticide is
practiced. They kill some of their baby girls, so the male and female
populations remain equal and everybody has enough to eat and every
woman has a man to help her reproduce.

I hope that a knowledgeable person from Samiland or familiar with same
will answer that one. Based on my studies as an anthropology graduate
student, female infanticide is not practiced by the Sami. What HAS
happened with all Arctic tribal groups when starvation was upon them
was to practice general infanticide. Such a step, however, was
considered tragic and remarkable so that it was remembered in the oral
history for generations to come. In much the same way, elders
sometimes sacrificed themselves, "went out on the ice", in order to
lessen the burden of the group. This has been widely misinterpreted as
forcing the elders out or as killing them outright.


Another question is why only Scandinavians are more than 80% blond.
Why not the peoples of Northern Siberia and Northern North America?

Because your beginning premise is wrong. The only real question is
where do you get these whacky ideas?

The explanation for this is the weather. Central Sweden, Central
Norway and Southern Finland have cloud cover. In Siberia and Northern
North America the skies are generally clear and the altitudes higher.

Obviously you have not spent much time in northern North America.
Otherwise you would know that the skies are not "generally clear".
Altitude is not an issue for most of northern North America to a
greater degree than for Europe.


In addition, there is a geographical barrier that separates
Scandinavia from Siberia. This reduces the genetic drift of blonds
from Scandinavia to Siberia.

What is that barrier? What geographical barrier prevents migration, in
either or both directions, between Siberia and Scandinavia? The
ancestors of the Sami came from Asia. There is also some evidence that
northern Europeans went to or traveled through parts of northern Asia.
In fact, modern Hmong people have the belief, expressed in their oral
history, that they descend from blond Europeans who were forced to mix
with Mongolians because of political persecution. They point to
occasional blond Hmong people as evidence. I don't know if they are
correct or even if that matters when dealing with a tradition, but
certainly the Silk Road was not impassable. The only barriers would be
human-made - political boundaries, etc.

What may interest readers of this group is that it is not the Swedes
but rather the Irish who have the lightest skin. The greatest
proportion of pale-skinned whites are found in Northwestern Europe
(e.g., the Irish).

You mean the Celts? The descendants of Viking "tourists"? The Anglo-
Irish? Or maybe the Welsh, as in Tudors with that famous red hair? In
terms of the physical trait, red-haired people are generally the
lightest, whether Irish, German or Swedish. They cannot tan their
skin, but only burn. A study came out awhile ago suggesting that the
red-haired trait may be a genetic holdover from Neanderthals. But, of
course, the whole question of modern humans mixing with Neanderthals
remains unsolved.


Since I am Irish on my fathers side, this fits me perfectly because my
skin is very fair, my eyes are green, but my hair is black. I have
never met anyone with normal skin pigmentation who is fairer than I
am.

So that means that you are one of those strange survivors of unions
between hunting men and "ugly" women. Where did your black hair come
from?


So, I do not have to look at a mirror, mirror on the wall to be sure
that I really am the fairest of them all, although on my mothers side
I am Swedish.

That really does make it complicated, doesn't it? Both Irish and
Swedish with extremely light skin....why you are a living example of
why your whole presentation here is wrong!


Sam Sloan

Gjest

Re: Peter Frost and "European hair and eye color: A case of

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 jun 2007 05:54:59

I'm back again - I re-read the post and realized that I misunderstood
the thing about eating seals and fish,and black hair. So obviously my
Japanese husband has black hair because he eats fish (I don't recall
seeing any seals in the fridge). But what about me and my people (Hopi
Indians) - we have black hair and most of us never eat fish. Most of
us don't like fish. Maybe my mother snuck me some fish sticks on some
Friday in our Catholic household and I just forgot. That must be where
my black hair came from. - Bronwen Edwards

samsloan

Re: Peter Frost and "European hair and eye color: A case of

Legg inn av samsloan » 06 jun 2007 10:10:02

On Jun 6, 12:39 am, lostcoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 5, 7:05 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:

This article concludes that blond hair developed as a result of sexual
selection. In areas with few crops where the human population has
survived by catching migrating wild game such as caribou, only men
could run fast enough to catch them, so women, to survive and to avoid
starvation, had to attract a man.

The women, however, were not in such dire straits anywhere. Nor was
the game killed by men the only or even primary food source. The
"daily bread", so to speak, was supplied by women and children -
berries, nuts, tubers, etc. Where agriculture was possible at all,
women were the primary farmers. Women were also trappers of small
game, could hurl a mean stick, and were the primary maintainers of
fishing camps.

Your beginning premise is wrong. The only real question is
where do you get these whacky ideas?

You have apparently not read the original article. I feel that you
should read the article before commenting on it. Then you would know
where I get these "wacky" ideas from.

The article is a very dense 19 pages, filled with footnotes and
references. It took me hours to get through it. You can find a summary
at:
http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_fro ... -color.htm

What I found most striking is that if you look at the first map which
is of the areas predominated by blond hair and compare that with the
map showing the area covered with glaciers during the last ice age you
will find that they are the same.

I always thought that during the last ice age which ended 11,000 years
ago nobody could live in the area covered with glaciers.

However, it seems that people did live there. There were no berries,
fruits or nuts and no farming, but there was moss which the animals
could eat and then the people could eat the animals.

What I have difficulty with it the idea that black haired women were
so undesired that no man could be found for them to copulate with. I
have this image of a black-haired beauty going from man to man saying
"please kind sir sleep with me just once so that I can reproduce and
pass my genes on to the next generation".

Sam Sloan

Gjest

Re: Peter Frost and "European hair and eye color: A case of

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 jun 2007 16:45:28

On Jun 6, 2:10 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 6, 12:39 am, lostcoo...@yahoo.com wrote:





On Jun 5, 7:05 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:

This article concludes that blond hair developed as a result of sexual
selection. In areas with few crops where the human population has
survived by catching migrating wild game such as caribou, only men
could run fast enough to catch them, so women, to survive and to avoid
starvation, had to attract a man.

The women, however, were not in such dire straits anywhere. Nor was
the game killed by men the only or even primary food source. The
"daily bread", so to speak, was supplied by women and children -
berries, nuts, tubers, etc. Where agriculture was possible at all,
women were the primary farmers. Women were also trappers of small
game, could hurl a mean stick, and were the primary maintainers of
fishing camps.

Your beginning premise is wrong. The only real question is
where do you get these whacky ideas?

You have apparently not read the original article. I feel that you
should read the article before commenting on it. Then you would know
where I get these "wacky" ideas from.

The article is a very dense 19 pages, filled with footnotes and
references. It took me hours to get through it. You can find a summary
at:http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_frost61z/European-hair-and-eye-co...

What I found most striking is that if you look at the first map which
is of the areas predominated by blond hair and compare that with the
map showing the area covered with glaciers during the last ice age you
will find that they are the same.

I always thought that during the last ice age which ended 11,000 years
ago nobody could live in the area covered with glaciers.

However, it seems that people did live there. There were no berries,
fruits or nuts and no farming, but there was moss which the animals
could eat and then the people could eat the animals.

What I have difficulty with it the idea that black haired women were
so undesired that no man could be found for them to copulate with. I
have this image of a black-haired beauty going from man to man saying
"please kind sir sleep with me just once so that I can reproduce and
pass my genes on to the next generation".

Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually I did read the article and agree with the author that more
study is needed. Frost presents the case scientifically. You took hold
of one aspect of it, confused "rarity" with "beauty", and went in an
entirely sensationalistic direction that does not correspond to
Frost's questions at all. So, the question remains: where do you get
your wacky ideas? Bronwen

Gjest

Re: Peter Frost and "European hair and eye color: A case of

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 jun 2007 16:51:12

On Jun 6, 2:10 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 6, 12:39 am, lostcoo...@yahoo.com wrote:





On Jun 5, 7:05 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
What I found most striking is that if you look at the first map which
is of the areas predominated by blond hair and compare that with the
map showing the area covered with glaciers during the last ice age you
will find that they are the same.

Glaciation was not a matter of one huge glacier covering every inch of
land. Coastal areas, for example, were not necessarily covered with
glaciers and ice-free corridors existed. Also glaciers did not appear
instantly; the process was gradual, allowing considerable human
migration.

I always thought that during the last ice age which ended 11,000 years
ago nobody could live in the area covered with glaciers.

However, it seems that people did live there. There were no berries,
fruits or nuts and no farming, but there was moss which the animals
could eat and then the people could eat the animals.

True, there are no berries or nuts on top of glaciers. Nor did people
live on top of glaciers. Berries, nuts, fish, shellfish, small game,
etc. could all be found in relatively ice-free places. People lived on
tundra and taiga; a difficult living but one with more than large game
as its sole food source. As an analogue look at the populations living
in the Arctic and Subarctic areas today regarding their traditional
diet and lifestyle. There was a circumpolar culture in terms of
technology and settlement pattern.

As for black haired women acting out your comic scene (which I
understand is not intended seriously) - if black haired women are not
as desirable to men as blond women, why is there such a huge demand
for Asian and Philippino women by white men (referring to people who
have not previously met and fallen in love)? You confused beauty with
rarity. See my earlier post. Bronwen

norenxaq

Re: Peter Frost and "European hair and eye color: A case of

Legg inn av norenxaq » 06 jun 2007 17:03:23

As for black haired women acting out your comic scene (which I
understand is not intended seriously) - if black haired women are not
as desirable to men as blond women, why is there such a huge demand
for Asian and Philippino women by white men (referring to people who
have not previously met and fallen in love)? You confused beauty with
rarity. See my earlier post. Bronwen






it is my understanding that these women are desirable because they are
viewed as subserviant. it has very little to do with beauty

Scaly Lizard

Re: Peter Frost and "European hair and eye color: A case of

Legg inn av Scaly Lizard » 09 jun 2007 12:11:11

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 02:05:26 -0000, samsloan <samhsloan@gmail.com>
wrote:

Peter Frost and "European hair and eye color: A case of frequency-
dependent sexual selection?"

A research report that made a great sensation last year was: "European
hair and eye colour: A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection?"
from Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages 85-103
(March 2006)

This article is online many places including

http://www.ceacb.ucl.ac.uk/cultureclub/ ... _Frost.pdf

Unfortunately, many discussions of this article have degenerated into
racist diatribes, which should be avoided.

This article concludes that blond hair developed as a result of sexual
selection. In areas with few crops where the human population has
survived by catching migrating wild game such as caribou, only men
could run fast enough to catch them, so women, to survive and to avoid
starvation, had to attract a man. Women with blond hair and blue eyes
and therefore able to attract a man had enough to eat and to
reproduce. Women with black hair and brown eyes had difficulty
attracting a man and therefore starved to death. A cruel world, was it
not?

An important part of this theory is that while out hunting many young
men died. Therefore, there were more women than men. In some areas the
female population was twice the male population. However, men rarely
took more than one wife. This was because to feed several women and
all of their children, the man had to catch and bring home a lot of
caribou. Few men could do that and as a result in the northern areas
the rule developed that a man could have only one wife. That rule
developed even when the northern peoples were pagan and before
Christianity had arrived. That disgusting policy persists to this day,
which is the reason why I have never been allowed to have more than
one Icelandic girlfriend at a time.

In short, there was fierce competition among the women to attract a
man. The beautiful women, especially those with blond hair and blue
eyes, got a man and reproduced, passing their genes on to the next
generation. Those with black hair died out. This explains why the
ideal feminine beauty is almost universally recognized as having blond
hair, blue eyes, thin waist and wide hips.

The article by Peter Frost has a map on page 2 showing that in Central
Sweden, Central Norway and Southern Finland, more than 80% of the
population has blond hair. However, in areas further to the north, the
Laplanders have black hair and darker skin. That is because they eat
seals and fish, which even women can catch. Also, infanticide is
practiced. They kill some of their baby girls, so the male and female
populations remain equal and everybody has enough to eat and every
woman has a man to help her reproduce.

Another question is why only Scandinavians are more than 80% blond.
Why not the peoples of Northern Siberia and Northern North America?

The explanation for this is the weather. Central Sweden, Central
Norway and Southern Finland have cloud cover. In Siberia and Northern
North America the skies are generally clear and the altitudes higher.
In addition, there is a geographical barrier that separates
Scandinavia from Siberia. This reduces the genetic drift of blonds
from Scandinavia to Siberia.

What may interest readers of this group is that it is not the Swedes
but rather the Irish who have the lightest skin. The greatest
proportion of pale-skinned whites are found in Northwestern Europe
(e.g., the Irish).

Since I am Irish on my fathers side, this fits me perfectly because my
skin is very fair, my eyes are green, but my hair is black. I have
never met anyone with normal skin pigmentation who is fairer than I
am.

So, I do not have to look at a mirror, mirror on the wall to be sure
that I really am the fairest of them all, although on my mothers side
I am Swedish.

Sam Sloan

I am not sure that Mr. Frost's conclusions have answered the
majority of questions about the topic.

For example, crediting the ability of males to hunt more effectively
discounts the central mode of living in the European tundra of
12,000 BC. There were no permanent settlements, so people
were primarily migratory, following the herds of herbivores just
like the rest of the predators.

Although males were capable of greater bursts of speed and
brief periods of superior endurance, their entire community
(including the women and children) were subjected to harsh
conditions day in and day out, as they broke camp and moved
on after the herds weekly, and sometimes daily.

The risk of death for a hunting male was only slightly higher
than the overall effects of privation which the entire community
coped with. In times of lean hunting, a familiar tactic was to
stalk an arctic fox, and discover its hidden caches of meat
buried in the snow. A single arctic fox can maintain up to three
dozen such caches in its 20-mile-square territory. With the men
of the group gone four days on a hunt, the rest of the community
could easily subsist since even the slightest woman can hold a fox
at bay with a pointed stick.

I don't accept that men were in scarce supply due to the dangers
of hunting, so the theory of sexual selection among competing
females is questionable at best. It is well known that pheromones
affect the sex of human young. In an environment with a high
proportion of women, more sons will be born, and vice-versa for
daughters proliferating in a community with more males.

If men were dying on hunting trips at such an alarming rate,
then our pheromone/hormone system would certainly have
balanced out the birth rates within a couple of generations.

Mr. Frost seems to think that a shortage of males was chronic
in the Ice Age tundra. Instead, a human population recovers
towards a 50-50 mix of males and females fairly quickly, reducing
the competitive aspect of sexual selection. Additionally, there
were certainly "gatherer" sources of food on the tundra outside
of the traditional idea about "nuts, berries and tubers."

The topic that Mr. Frost investigated has a much more
plausible explantion.

Melanin level dictates how a person reacts to sunlight. More
melanin protects the underlying tissues from UV rays. In
equatorial regions, the UV protection of melanin is more
beneficial than higher levels of vitamin D. Thus, dark skin
in subsaharan Africa.

We know that the human race reached a bottleneck about
80,000 years ago, and everyone alive today descends from
one small group of modern humans the calamity du jour. The
survivors quickly colonized Eurasia from Africa, and the fact
that they were dark-skinned is proved by 'indigenous' people
in Australia and Indonesia which survive today, remnants of
the first exodus from Africa.

Somewhere along the way, a population of fairer-skinned
people evolved and survived. The fact that they could
survive at all with their light skin is due to the lessened effect
of the sun's UV radiation at higher latitudes. Please recall
that mutations involving lighter skin had occurred many times
over the history of modern humans, but most died without issue
due to the ravages of the equatorial sun on their unprotected
skin. Only in the north could the disadvantages of lighter skin
be mitigated.

Conveniently, lighter skin also helped people with natural
camouflage in a temperate environment's winter, so
lighter-skinned people had no trouble exploiting the
previously unbearable environments of northern latitudes.

Then came the last Ice Age, about 23,000 BC. As everyone
knows, an ice age is triggered by high temperatures which
increase the evaporation of water into the air, making strong
snowfall in the polar regions. Fresh white snowfall reflects
more sunlight back into space than any other land surface,
cooling the wet air which then precipitates more rain in the
tropics and more snow at the poles. Voila, you get advancing
glaciers and a cooler world. An ice age.

The human response to this change was to adapt lighter skin
to exploit the new conditions. This is why the Inuit, Siberian
and Greenland people are all lighter-skinned. They were the
first people who physically *could* colonize the place, so they
did. Through the depths of the last ice age from 23,000 years
ago to 10,000 years ago, the trait of lighter skin became
prevalent in Asia and Europe. When the world entered it's
current warm phase, the lighter-skinned people were simply
in the right pace at the right time to exploit the lush forests
which continually advanced north year by year.

Now, as for eye and hair color variation in Scandinavia, there
is another important fact about the ice age cycle which does
directly influence human populations over long periods. An
ice age removes water from the air at higher latitudes, and
slows the production of ozone worldwide, with fewer plants
making oxygen O-2 which is the source of ozone ( O-3 ).

The outcome is an increase in higher energy particles from
the sun striking surfaces on the earth, with less ozone and
water vapor to absorb them. As we all know, high-energy
particles which make it through our atmosphere are the
primary cause of the mutation of DNA, so they are the real
driving force behind the evolution of species.

What we are left with is a population of lighter-skinned
people inhabiting a high-latitude area with a higher-than-
normal mutation rate. And their prospects for flourishing
increased every single year as the glaciers gave ground
to forests.

Indeed, what is surprising about the topic is why hair color
and eye color were the /only/ traits to see significant variation
in that population. If there arose a community with a
prevalance of people with three nostrils in Scandinavia at
the end of the last ice age, i would not be astonished.

Since such simple mutations as those specific to hair and
eye color have survived, we can only conclude one thing
for certain: these genetic expressions do not place the
carrier at a disadvantage in mating. To assert that such
mutations give the carrier any discernible advantage in
reproduction is speculative at best. Such an idea does
not account for the human male's predilection for females
who match the physical traits of his community.

Mr. Frost uses charts which are not indicative of a massive
die-off of males in ice age communities. Instead, his maps
suggest a proclivity for genetic mutation in an area where
we would exactly expect it: Northern Europe.

As the ice age ended, lighter-skinned people moved south
into China, the Americas and Europe, displacing most of
the folks from the 'original' human colonization. In Asia and
America, the new whiteys were non-activated in the genes
MC1R and OCA2, but in Europe those mutations were
running wild through the population.

Why should this be so?

Because of the Gulf Stream. The retreat of the ice age's
glaciers was much quicker in Northern Europe than in Asia
or North America. This leads to a greater population in
northern latitudes than any other place on the earth. While
the ozone layer was rebuilt (as plant activity increased) a
large population was flourishing in the previously harsh
Scandinavia. This situation could only have one effect
on evolution: it stoked the engines by frequent mutations.

Just as always, 99% of mutants died, but the rapid conversion
from tundra to temperate forest allowed more blue-eyes to
survive since a mutation at OCA2 does not seem to carry
any other undesirable side-mutations, unlike 99% of mutations.

And there you have it, an explanation of why there are more
variations of hair and eye color in Northern Europe. The Gulf
Stream made the area habitable faster than environmental
protections could keep up, leading to a faster mutation rate
in Northern Europe.

The rapid change from tundra to taiga to forest allowed more
humans to survive, and abetted the survival of new mutants.
One does not have to concoct theories about the scarcity of
males and sexual competition among females to explain light
hair and non-brown eyes.

The fact that these mutations did *not* spread beyond Northern
Europe in prehistoric times tells us quite clearly that the sexual
appeal of blue eyes and blond hair was not universal.

This fact is the most potent refutation of Mr. Frost's assertions.

If sexual selection were the most important reason for mutations
in hair and eye color, then variations of any kind would have
spread like wildfire immediately after their appearance. Instead,
what we find is that the MC1R and OCA2 variations are localized
to Northern Europe, and only break out after the age of naval
exploration and colonization of the 1500's.

Of course, there are the historical oddities, like blondes and
redheads buried in Western China in the 800's, as high-status
people. Add the seemingly spontaneous mutations for red hair
in Africa, for blondes in Australia, and the tales of red-haired
people in pre-Columbian Florida.

It seems that evolution is wild and wooly, just like it is predicted
to be. The variation in Northern Europe's eyes and hair was
made possible by a previous mutation that allowed humans to
live in higher latitudes: lighter skin.

The failure of this common mutation to spawn variations in hair
or eye color in any place other than in Northern Europe tells us
that blonde hair and blue eyes are a localized preference, rather
than a primal sexual preference among human males.

For example, the preponderance of blonde Germanic slaves
brought back to Rome wound up as prostitutes. As a mark
of diminished social status, all prostitutes in Rome were forced
to dye their hair blonde when Germanic prostitutes outnumbered
Italic prostitutes.

OT, but goes to show you that blonde hair was not always
an object of admiration.

SL

Gjest

Re: Peter Frost and "European hair and eye color: A case of

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 jun 2007 04:22:26

On Jun 9, 4:11 am, Scaly Lizard <scalyliz...@nospampleaseyho.com>
wrote:
the competitive aspect of sexual selection. Additionally, there
were certainly "gatherer" sources of food on the tundra outside
of the traditional idea about "nuts, berries and tubers."

I was the one who mentioned "nuts, berries and tubers" - and was just
drawing an analogue to contemporary Arctic people and to the people
living in the extreme south of South America. I agree with your
statement completely that the women, elders and children had many
gathering opportunities (in good times) and undoubtedly fished, if not
from the sea, certainly from rivers, etc.


Indeed, what is surprising about the topic is why hair color
and eye color were the /only/ traits to see significant variation
in that population. If there arose a community with a
prevalance of people with three nostrils in Scandinavia at
the end of the last ice age, i would not be astonished.


There are other physical traits such as bone density, overall body
type, amount & texture of body hair, nostril size, etc. Not all of
these are necessarily adaptive in the same way as skin pigmentation,
although the distribution of such traits seems to superficially
coincide with it. Our fantasy Scandinavians would be likelier, I
think, to have a single nostril rather than three :) Best, Bronwen


Since ...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Scaly Lizard

Re: Peter Frost and "European hair and eye color: A case of

Legg inn av Scaly Lizard » 10 jun 2007 05:54:51

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:22:26 -0700, lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 9, 4:11 am, Scaly Lizard <scalyliz...@nospampleaseyho.com
wrote:
the competitive aspect of sexual selection. Additionally, there
were certainly "gatherer" sources of food on the tundra outside
of the traditional idea about "nuts, berries and tubers."

I was the one who mentioned "nuts, berries and tubers" - and was just
drawing an analogue to contemporary Arctic people and to the people
living in the extreme south of South America. I agree with your
statement completely that the women, elders and children had many
gathering opportunities (in good times) and undoubtedly fished, if not
from the sea, certainly from rivers, etc.


Indeed, what is surprising about the topic is why hair color
and eye color were the /only/ traits to see significant variation
in that population. If there arose a community with a
prevalance of people with three nostrils in Scandinavia at
the end of the last ice age, i would not be astonished.


There are other physical traits such as bone density, overall body
type, amount & texture of body hair, nostril size, etc. Not all of
these are necessarily adaptive in the same way as skin pigmentation,
although the distribution of such traits seems to superficially
coincide with it. Our fantasy Scandinavians would be likelier, I
think, to have a single nostril rather than three :) Best, Bronwen

Heh heh. I just tried to pick a mutation which would not
be a disadvantage to individual survival. The trend of
height is an oddity, as it is accepted that the success of
Neanderthals in Europe through ice ages was aided by a
squat body type, which reduced the ratio of skin surface
area to body volume... reducing heat loss.

SL

Gjest

Re: Peter Frost and "European hair and eye color: A case of

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 jun 2007 18:18:25

On Jun 9, 9:54 pm, Scaly Lizard <scalyliz...@nospampleaseyho.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:22:26 -0700, lostcoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 4:11 am, Scaly Lizard <scalyliz...@nospampleaseyho.com
wrote:
the competitive aspect of sexual selection. Additionally, there
were certainly "gatherer" sources of food on the tundra outside
of the traditional idea about "nuts, berries and tubers."

I was the one who mentioned "nuts, berries and tubers" - and was just
drawing an analogue to contemporary Arctic people and to the people
living in the extreme south of South America. I agree with your
statement completely that the women, elders and children had many
gathering opportunities (in good times) and undoubtedly fished, if not
from the sea, certainly from rivers, etc.

Indeed, what is surprising about the topic is why hair color
and eye color were the /only/ traits to see significant variation
in that population. If there arose a community with a
prevalance of people with three nostrils in Scandinavia at
the end of the last ice age, i would not be astonished.

There are other physical traits such as bone density, overall body
type, amount & texture of body hair, nostril size, etc. Not all of
these are necessarily adaptive in the same way as skin pigmentation,
although the distribution of such traits seems to superficially
coincide with it. Our fantasy Scandinavians would be likelier, I
think, to have a single nostril rather than three :) Best, Bronwen

Heh heh. I just tried to pick a mutation which would not
be a disadvantage to individual survival. The trend of
height is an oddity, as it is accepted that the success of
Neanderthals in Europe through ice ages was aided by a
squat body type, which reduced the ratio of skin surface
area to body volume... reducing heat loss.

SL- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The only problem with the skin surface ratio idea is that there are
"squat" body types (both endomorphs and well-proportioned small
people) in tropical areas as well - the forest people "Pygmies" in
Africa as well as the "Negritos" of the Philippines and similar island
areas. It would be interesting to match body type with haplotype in
these kinds of instances. We are very far off-topic, I'm afraid, but
oh well.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»