Why Do Whites Have More Diverse Hair and Eye Colour

[Weaver]

I’m not entirely sure but I suspect that it may have something to do with the fact that the vast majority of humans alive today aren’t actually pure Homo Sapiens and that various populations have different genetic ‘cocktails’, along with different environmental pressures which favoured some genes over others. There’s also the possibility of genetic ‘piggybacking’ where genes for a useful trait (eg, lighter skin which helps with vitamin D production) are linked up with the genes for neutral traits (eg, blond or red hair, light coloured eyes, etc). Of course, that’s only a theory but you can see something similar happening with tame Artic foxes in that by selecting for tameness they inadvertantly also selected for patchy coats and floppy ears and I suppose that something similar could happen with different traits.

[John_Mace]

@Weaver

I’m not entirely sure but I suspect that it may have something to do with the fact that the vast majority of humans alive today aren’t actually pure Homo Sapiens…

Highly unlikely. The admixture of non-sapiens genes affects all non-African populations, and actually has been shown recently to affect African populations, too (to a less extent, but still there).

[grude]

@Pleonast

Can we sidestep the “race” issue? Let’s reformulate the question:

Why do some human populations have a greater diversity of eye and hair colors than others?

I don’t know the answer, but I do know that hair-color genetics is complicated. Using mine own family as an example, both me (mixed European and Native American ancestry) and my spouse (pure Korean) have black hair. Our kids have medium-brown hair. Although my parents had black hair, I have a blonde sister and a red-headed uncle. So I have light-hair genes, they’re not expressed in me, but are expressed by my children. It’s obviously not a simple dominant-recessive allele pair.

Its funny you mention that because I have noticed quite a few children(my own son included) with one black* parent and one white* or asian* parent will have lighter hair color than either parent(and even grandparents as well). My son has the lightest color hair in either side of our family.

My wife said they have a informal term for it like gingery hair or something.

*Using nationality wouldn’t make sense

[Weaver]

@John_Mace

Highly unlikely. The admixture of non-sapiens genes affects all non-African populations, and actually has been shown recently to affect African populations, too (to a less extent, but still there).

Did you read the rest of my post? What I meant was that when you combine two sets of genes you widen the genetic possibilities of a population and evolution is going to favour whatever gives that population an advantage, regardless of whichever set of genes it comes from. In the case of Europeans, it may have been the case that Neanderthal traits were selected for more heavily then they were in populations living in sunnier climates and became more pronouced, along with ‘neutral’ traits (such as colouring) that ‘piggybacked’ on the useful ones. And given that there’s evidence to suggest that the Neanderthals were fair haired and light skinned…

[Surreal]

@Pleonast

Why do some human populations have a greater diversity of eye and hair colors than others?

http://137.140.1.71/jsec/articles/volume2/issue4/NEEPSfrost.pdf

Abstract
Among early modern humans, a woman would face stronger competition for a mate the further away she was from the equator. Men were less available because they 1) hunted over longer distances that increased male mortality proportionately and 2) were less able to offset the resulting man shortage through polygyny. The longer the winter, the costlier it became to provision a second wife and her children, since women could not gather food in winter. Women competed the most for mates in the ‘continental Arctic,’ where wandering herds were the main food source. Conversely, men competed the most for mates in the Tropics, particularly after year-round agriculture emerged. This means of subsistence allowed women to become primary food producers, thereby freeing men to take more wives. **Because mate competition has varied in intensity among human populations, sexual selection has correspondingly varied in intensity for certain traits, often highly visible and colorful ones. Intense female-female competition may explain an unusual convergence of color traits in northern and eastern Europeans. **Intense male-male competition may explain increased masculinization of body build in highly polygynous agricultural populations of sub-Saharan Africa.

[John_Mace]

@Sailboat

Well, the question referred to “whites,” which isn’t necessarily the same thing as “Caucasian.”

Yes, and “Caucasians” is about as broad a term as possible. Point being that even the broadest definition still encompasses the broadest range of eye color.

@Weaver

Did you read the rest of my post? What I meant was that when you combine two sets of genes you widen the genetic possibilities of a population and evolution is going to favour whatever gives that population an advantage, regardless of whichever set of genes it comes from. In the case of Europeans, it may have been the case that Neanderthal traits were selected for more heavily then they were in populations living in sunnier climates and became more pronouced, along with ‘neutral’ traits (such as colouring) that ‘piggybacked’ on the useful ones. And given that there’s evidence to suggest that the Neanderthals were fair haired and light skinned…

There is no evidence that Neanderthals were fair haired and light skinned, except in fiction. There is speculation that they may have been, but no evidence.

Plus, the interbreeding appears to have happened in the Middle East, not some remote, norther clime where light skin might be expected.

[BrotherCadfael]

@kenobi_65

It’s Qin. ISTR that he’s used that sort of affectation before.

“Forget it, Jack, it’s Qin”