Log in

View Full Version : Recessive gene evo, RE: blondes are superior.



Nameless Son
06-07-2012, 08:21 AM
No one replied to me and it was a little off topic anyway so I'm making my own d*** thread!

If you wonder why so many recessive traits seem to be in high demand (especially on females), there is probably a biological explanation for this. It seems to be most obvious, using law of natural selection:

It is male interest to care for inseminated woman, fetus, and baby ONLY when he knows it's his (or is caring his genes from a relative of his). He can only do this when it's born - remember, they didn't have x-rays/baby-scanners for most of human evo history. The more different the baby looks, the less he will like it and/or "think" that it's his baby.

Woman's interest is biologically more complicated, as she must "weigh" (remember, the agency implied is only a metaphor...) the full/actual of her male benefactor(s)'(s) help in raising the child plus his genes vs. the genetic benefits of his genes alone. If genetic benefits are not perceived high enough, but actual benefit is, the woman has an interest in taking better genes instead (quick way to do this is to look at size) without losing old benefactor(s).

Since this kind of biology is metaphorical in the first place (something many have problems with), one might as well mention the "classic case": Striking woman hooks up with lesser man. She is the best he can get in a long shot, benefiting the woman with the reliability of his help in raising baby. But, she "sneaks off" in order to evade being inseminated with his most-often-to-fail (he got lucky, after all) genes and get some from a physically strong man, who at least has that going for him, and can be identified upon first glance.

NOW HERE'S WHERE RECESSIVE GENES LIKE BLOND HAIR COME IN

A trend in male-female mates to recessive genes splits off precisely at the point where the man gets actual genetic benefit for raising baby: The man in the pair can be more sure that his relatively darker male relatives did not inseminate his wife/mate who has equally recessive genes as he.

This should never be misunderstood as racist biology because it does not describe any process that can be fit into one human life-span. What is actually described is: a biological force pushing populations apart over many thousands of years. The abstract force is manifest in human lifespan, however.

1810-2010
06-07-2012, 09:03 AM
How recessive ther blond gene is it? There have been researchers that blodns will dissapear in a century more or less... really? let's see: given that the prime condition of the Homo sapiens was brunet, if Blond gene was so recessive, blonds would have dissapeared as soon as they'd appeared. There would have been just once a blond individual born and his condition would have dissapeared with his death because, due to the supposeed Irreversible recessiveness that people apparently ascribe to this condition plus the lack of blond partner of opposite sex, the Gen would no more appear on sucessive generations.
On the contrary the gen of blondism has during certain time progressed and increased in numbers at leat in northernmost latitudes.
So this recessivness does not mean irreversible

Nameless Son
06-09-2012, 10:51 PM
How recessive ther blond gene is it? There have been researchers that blodns will dissapear in a century more or less... really? let's see: given that the prime condition of the Homo sapiens was brunet, if Blond gene was so recessive, blonds would have dissapeared as soon as they'd appeared. There would have been just once a blond individual born and his condition would have dissapeared with his death because, due to the supposeed Irreversible recessiveness that people apparently ascribe to this condition plus the lack of blond partner of opposite sex, the Gen would no more appear on sucessive generations.
On the contrary the gen of blondism has during certain time progressed and increased in numbers at leat in northernmost latitudes.
So this recessivness does not mean irreversible



You apparently think "recessive" means less likely to be passed to your children. This is wrong. Here is a quick lesson in mendelian genetics:

The main genetic factor in the blondness of an individual is a single gene, giving blondness ratios roughly mendelian factors: just a dominant allele U and a u. Only rules you need to know for the genetics: 1. Each parent contributes one of their two alleles (U or u) to the babe's baby genetic code, how cute! (everyone, babies and parents, each have two alleles - the gene proper 2. U is for dark hair - u is for light hair, and 3. UU = dark hear, Uu= equals dark hair, and ONLY uu = light (blond) hair.

So I think to answer your question that you didn't ask: the u blond allele is passed with the same frequency into the next generation as any allele. Be it u or U each allele has the same chance going into the next population.

What CAN be decreased is the EXPRESSION of the u gene, since it is nullified when paired with a U allele. Say you have a population with four individuals with these alleles:

1. UU

2. UU

3. uu

4. uu

Let's say the fuck each other a lot and have lots of kids, then those kids fuck each other a lot and have lots more kids, and so on...

There will now only be 1 blond and 3 dark on average... I could explain the math but if your a smart chap you should be able to figure that part out.