Replies

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.

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.