Blonde hair due to sexual selection?

[Rduke55]

Just saw this. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2058688,00.html)

Also interesting was the speculation on the extinction of natural blondes.

[Gobgogbog]

"According to the WHO study, the last natural blond is likely to be born in Finland during 2202."

I found that rather amusing.

[Trantor]

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. QUOTE from the referenced article.


Typical, scientific evidence of ID over evolution and thescientists starin to fiund some way to weedle a plausible evvolutionary argument from prima facie contradictory data

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
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. QUOTE from the referenced article.


Typical, scientific evidence of ID over evolution and thescientists starin to fiund some way to weedle a plausible evvolutionary argument from prima facie contradictory data

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggestin God prefers blondes?
Seriously though, I think you're taking this out of context. What they are saying is that the shortish time frame suggests that it was due to selection pressures rather than things like genetic drift.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Just saw this. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2058688,00.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

I had this idea like 15 years ago. I have to start writing this [censored] down.

Nifty article dude. Thanks.

[tolbiny]

i love this
[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless Jodie Kidd is also a biologist in addition to being a model, who the hell cares what she thinks of the subject?

Also- could this explaing the lighter skin colour of people in europe? This has long been one of the mysteries of human evolution of how whitie came to be.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Also- could this explaing the lighter skin colour of people in europe? This has long been one of the mysteries of human evolution of how whitie came to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know, the lighter skin is thought to be an adaptation for the lower light exposure in the northern latitudes. The idea is that since sunlight is essential for Vitamin D production that lighter skin allows people to be more efficient at this process.
I had always thought that the blonde/blue traits were a spinoff of the lower melanin production. While that's still the most likely idea to me it is perfectly reasonable that it was attractive and became more prominent due to sexual selection.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just saw this. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2058688,00.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

I had this idea like 15 years ago. I have to start writing this [censored] down.

Nifty article dude. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you think everything is due to sexual selection.
Maybe your oversexed. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just saw this. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2058688,00.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

I had this idea like 15 years ago. I have to start writing this [censored] down.

Nifty article dude. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you think everything is due to sexual selection.
Maybe your oversexed. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

An excellent point.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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. QUOTE from the referenced article.


[/ QUOTE ]


Seriously though, I think you're taking this out of context. What they are saying is that the shortish time frame suggests that it was due to selection pressures rather than things like genetic drift.

[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY! Trantor, you fail to account for selection in your argument. A perfect case in point: How long do you think the modern German Shepherd would have "evolved" from domesticated dogs of only 150 years ago by "usual processes of evolution"? The question is meaningless because they didn't evolve from random mutation or adaptation, they "evolved" from selective breeding. Selective breeding in dogs has produced drastically different breeds with very different physical qualities in a very short period of time. You and folks like Sharkey continue to avoid such issues by talking about random changes and ignoring the driving element of selection.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also- could this explaing the lighter skin colour of people in europe? This has long been one of the mysteries of human evolution of how whitie came to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know, the lighter skin is thought to be an adaptation for the lower light exposure in the northern latitudes. The idea is that since sunlight is essential for Vitamin D production that lighter skin allows people to be more efficient at this process.
I had always thought that the blonde/blue traits were a spinoff of the lower melanin production. While that's still the most likely idea to me it is perfectly reasonable that it was attractive and became more prominent due to sexual selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

This thoery seems tobe on the outs these days in anthro circles. Apparently several studies of ethnic groups and thier backgrounds as far as latitude goes failed to show any sig correlation between seasonal exposure to sunlight and skin tone. There doesn't seem to be any solid evidence for this thoery that i have seen, but since nothing else has been suggested that has any evidence it appears to be holding on to its spot by default.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also- could this explaing the lighter skin colour of people in europe? This has long been one of the mysteries of human evolution of how whitie came to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know, the lighter skin is thought to be an adaptation for the lower light exposure in the northern latitudes. The idea is that since sunlight is essential for Vitamin D production that lighter skin allows people to be more efficient at this process.
I had always thought that the blonde/blue traits were a spinoff of the lower melanin production. While that's still the most likely idea to me it is perfectly reasonable that it was attractive and became more prominent due to sexual selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

This thoery seems tobe on the outs these days in anthro circles. Apparently several studies of ethnic groups and thier backgrounds as far as latitude goes failed to show any sig correlation between seasonal exposure to sunlight and skin tone. There doesn't seem to be any solid evidence for this thoery that i have seen, but since nothing else has been suggested that has any evidence it appears to be holding on to its spot by default.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the problem with this research is that it seems like everything is on the outs in anthro. I'm convinced that soon the field is filled only with people that got their careers by taking on the establishment.

No offense if you're an anthro type.

However, I thought the UV radiation theory was still doing pretty good. Jablonski and Chaplin have several recent papers looking at this.
And as to the theory, I oversimplified and was guilty of the same problem the other theory was: using latitude as a proxy for exposure to sunlight. Of course it varies depending on variations in altitude, climate, etc. and when you measure the ultraviolet radiation at the earth's surface then the theory fits pretty well, according to the recent research I've seen (but I'm not an anthropologist).

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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. QUOTE from the referenced article.


[/ QUOTE ]


Seriously though, I think you're taking this out of context. What they are saying is that the shortish time frame suggests that it was due to selection pressures rather than things like genetic drift.

[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY! Trantor, you fail to account for selection in your argument. A perfect case in point: How long do you think the modern German Shepherd would have "evolved" from domesticated dogs of only 150 years ago by "usual processes of evolution"? The question is meaningless because they didn't evolve from random mutation or adaptation, they "evolved" from selective breeding. Selective breeding in dogs has produced drastically different breeds with very different physical qualities in a very short period of time. You and folks like Sharkey continue to avoid such issues by talking about random changes and ignoring the driving element of selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you are correct. The stupidiest comments get rational replies when they really should be ignored. Thaty is me my last "troll". I am really quite embarrased about it. I think I'll just stick to the science bits from now on and ignore the intellectually stunted inputs from the theist, ID posters.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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. QUOTE from the referenced article.


[/ QUOTE ]


Seriously though, I think you're taking this out of context. What they are saying is that the shortish time frame suggests that it was due to selection pressures rather than things like genetic drift.

[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY! Trantor, you fail to account for selection in your argument. A perfect case in point: How long do you think the modern German Shepherd would have "evolved" from domesticated dogs of only 150 years ago by "usual processes of evolution"? The question is meaningless because they didn't evolve from random mutation or adaptation, they "evolved" from selective breeding. Selective breeding in dogs has produced drastically different breeds with very different physical qualities in a very short period of time. You and folks like Sharkey continue to avoid such issues by talking about random changes and ignoring the driving element of selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you are correct. The stupidiest comments get rational replies when they really should be ignored. Thaty is me my last "troll". I am really quite embarrased about it. I think I'll just stick to the science bits from now on and ignore the intellectually stunted inputs from the theist, ID posters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry if I missed that one Trantor. Some recent threads have made us all trigger happy.

[HLMencken]

Ditto.