Nope.
Posted on 02/26/2006 11:56:29 AM PST by wagglebee
THE modern gentleman may prefer blondes. But new research has found that it was cavemen who were the first to be lured by flaxen locks.
According to the study, north European women evolved blonde hair and blue eyes at the end of the Ice Age to make them stand out from their rivals at a time of fierce competition for scarce males.
The study argues that blond hair originated in the region because of food shortages 10,000-11,000 years ago. Until then, humans had the dark brown hair and dark eyes that still dominate in the rest of the world. Almost the only sustenance in northern Europe came from roaming herds of mammoths, reindeer, bison and horses. Finding them required long, arduous hunting trips in which numerous males died, leading to a high ratio of surviving women to men.
Lighter hair colours, which started as rare mutations, became popular for breeding and numbers increased dramatically, according to the research, published under the aegis of the University of St Andrews.
“Human hair and eye colour are unusually diverse in northern and eastern Europe (and their) origin over a short span of evolutionary time indicates some kind of selection,” says the study by Peter Frost, a Canadian anthropologist. Frost adds that the high death rate among male hunters “increased the pressures of sexual selection on early European women, one possible outcome being an unusual complex of colour traits.”
Frost’s theory, to be published this week in Evolution and Human Behavior, the academic journal, was supported by Professor John Manning, a specialist in evolutionary psychology at the University of Central Lancashire. “Hair and eye colour tend to be uniform in many parts of the world, but in Europe there is a welter of variants,” he said. “The mate choice explanation now being put forward is, in my mind, close to being correct.”
Frost’s theory is also backed up by a separate scientific analysis of north European genes carried out at three Japanese universities, which has isolated the date of the genetic mutation that resulted in blond hair to about 11,000 years ago.
The hair colour gene MC1R has at least seven variants in Europe and the continent has an unusually wide range of hair and eye shades. In the rest of the world, dark hair and eyes are overwhelmingly dominant.
Just how such variety emerged over such a short period of time in one part of the world has long been a mystery. According to the new research, if the changes had occurred by the usual processes of evolution, they would have taken about 850,000 years. But modern humans, emigrating from Africa, reached Europe only 35,000-40,000 years ago.
Instead, Frost attributes the rapid evolution to how they gathered food. In Africa there was less dependence on animals and women were able to collect fruit for themselves. In Europe, by contrast, food gathering was almost exclusively a male hunter’s preserve. The retreating ice sheets left behind a landscape of fertile soil with plenty of grass and moss for herbivorous animals to eat, but few plants edible for humans. Women therefore took on jobs such as building shelters and making clothes while the men went on hunting trips, where the death rate was high.
The increase in competition for males led to rapid change as women struggled to evolve the most alluring qualities. Frost believes his theory is supported by studies which show blonde hair is an indicator for high oestrogen levels in women.
Jilly Cooper, 69, the author, described how in her blonde youth she had “certainly got more glances. I remember when I went to Majorca when I was 20, my bum was sore from getting pinched”.
However, Jodie Kidd, 27, the blonde model, disagrees with the theory: “I don’t think being blonde makes you more ripe for sexual activity. It’s much more to do with personality than what you look like. Beauty is much deeper than the colour of your hair.”
Film star blondes such as Marilyn Monroe, Brigitte Bardot, Sharon Stone and Scarlett Johansson are held up as ideals of feminine allure. However, the future of the blonde is uncertain.
A study by the World Health Organisation found that natural blonds are likely to be extinct within 200 years because there are too few people carrying the blond gene. According to the WHO study, the last natural blond is likely to be born in Finland during 2202.
Farm eggs are not standardized, however. You can't crack them into batter, you must crack them into a seperate bowl first. Sometimes you get a "bad egg." Farm eggs are very expensive compared to what you pay in grocery stores--even for the farmer.
Nope.
Darwin had this interest in sex ..... got him in trouble with the public ..... fewer long sea voyages, more visits to his wife
Still, we didn't even know the aborigine children could be blond until AFTER Europeans found the place and started messing around.
What you pointed to is that in Northern latitudes blondes would have a higher level of lifetime reproduction than the others.
Their men would end up with more kids whether they wanted them or not.
We already answered that earlier. It's the skin, not just the hair. You can be extremely light-skinned and still tan, and still have dark hair and brown, green or gray eyes, or any combination thereof, or, have gray eyes and dark skin.
ping
Whatcha think?
How is this any different than today? Just look at the number of blonde porn stars versus brunettes.
"Light skin is a uniform identifying characteristic of all Polar peoples."
Esquimaux?
Go back up the thread.
Do not mistake a good tan for a permanent shade.
BTW, a population can mitigate the effect of reduced sunlight levels (for Vitamin D production) by becoming smaller. Dwarfism is common among the Polar peoples whatever their origin.
That's two Inuit women.
I thought that too but then why did Mongolians who also moved into colder climates not develop as such.
There are flaws in the climate and topography rationales....though they do seem ...rational.
not meaning to argue...i do not know the answers but neither do I think science does and in this arena it is so politicized that it's hard to wonder
I am not convinced all humans evolved at the same time from the precise source except Biblically.
Now that we know other near HomoSapiens actually overlapped.
Lol! Maybe those dumb blonde chicks were just easier to boss and drag around by the hair! Lord knows us brunettes wouldn't put up with that crap! :P
Another thing to consider is that, in addition to the shortage of men due to hunting fatalities, women who had blond or red hair and blue or green eyes were the most desired of mates. Also, male offspring with such features were given less dangerous tasks than their darker-featured bretheren, as they were more valued. And, over generations, fair-featured men and women chose each other. Combine that with the fact that, as economic and class distinction developed in Europe, darker-featured people tended to be poorer and have higher rates of infant mortality and death during childbirth rates.
It makes sense that darker features tend to be dominant is that fair features are, when you think about it, a form of genetic mutation (ableit one found to be beautiful). And now that advances in travel have ended local orientation and intermarriage is more acceptable, it's reasonable to presume that fair-featured people could go out of existance in a few hundred years.
Sounds like BS to me. Lighter hair colors are synonymous with regions where cold climates favored lighter skin colors that absorb more vitamin D with limited sun exposure. Add that to the fact that the writer doesn't know the difference between a natural blond and a bleached brunette Hollywood bimbo and you have to believe the whole article is BS.
The person doing that study obviously hasn't looked over the children in my church! Many, many flaxen and ginger locks are evident, and they are all too young to be using peroxide.
Another thing to consider is that, in addition to the shortage of men due to hunting fatalities,
Do you seriously think hunting fatalities are more likely to happen to males than females in prehistoric times? Hunting accidents are not getting in the way of the other tribe members spear or rock as much as becoming the prey. I would suspect that women had pretty much the same chance of that happenning as men and I suspect that hunting accidents cause just a fraction of the mortality that childbirth caused.
women who had blond or red hair and blue or green eyes were the most desired of mates. Also, male offspring with such features were given less dangerous tasks than their darker-featured bretheren, as they were more valued. And, over generations, fair-featured men and women chose each other.
Do you mean in historical times? Above I conjectured that prehistoric people on the edge of subsistance probably were not picky in what they ate nor in where they spread their seed. That sounds like a modern, ie historical period, characteristic to me. I would think that you must have a secure food source and some concept of picking ONE mate, before you start getting picky about that mate.
Combine that with the fact that, as economic and class distinction developed in Europe, darker-featured people tended to be poorer and have higher rates of infant mortality and death during childbirth rates.
Possibly this devloped later than the article starting this thread suggests. However, among the beauties of Europe are the dark Italian and French women. I am less sure than you of any bias toward fair in Europe. It there evidence that the elites in Spain all sought a fair skinned northwest Spain spouse? Was the Royalty of England or Scotland or France or Germany or Spain fair skinned and blond?
It makes sense that darker features tend to be dominant is that fair features are, when you think about it, a form of genetic mutation (ableit one found to be beautiful).
Is there a time in the fossil record that there were only dark featured people? For all I know the opposite is true. Maybe Adam and Eve were fair skinned. Maybe at some point one or a few of their heirs had dark skin and it was a dominate trait. [I am not a biologist, is their evidence that mutations are generally recessive?] Maybe that mutation has taken over rather than fair complection being a recessive mutation that has struggled to remain in the gene pool?
And now that advances in travel have ended local orientation and intermarriage is more acceptable, it's reasonable to presume that fair-featured people could go out of existance in a few hundred years.
Actually more mixing could assure the fair complextion survive. If everyone out there ends up carrying the Df, ie Domminate Dark recessive fair gene, then in the next generation about 25% would be ff. So only if everyone refused to intermarry with the fair skined including other fair skinned people would the fair trait have the possibility of being bread out of the human gene pool over a long period of time.
You're not serious? Just what evidence is there to back this statement up? Of all the wild speculation I ever heard....
I prefer Global warming myself.
Oceans will rise 20 feet, means I don't have to drive as far to get to the beach.
My heating bills will go down do to shorter winters.
With the hotter weather woman will wear shorter shorts, tighter tops.
With the hotter weather woman will wear shorter shorts, tighter tops.
I know I repeated that one, but it is my favorite. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.