There was no mirracle. Genetic research is telling us that few thousand years ago there was no one looking exactly like modern Europeans.
I dont argue with that statement. It is not only correct by science standards, but
also expected according to archeological evidences, historic records and anthropology.
At the same time we can see many whiter mutations in different communities.
Ok, it could be, but it hasn't to be undependent events.
Source of that could be exchange of women between populations in not observed past.
We see some of them in Swedish HG, other mutations in Samara Russia region, other mutations in Neolithic Farmers. After few thousand years of natural selection, these mutations finally conglomerated in region of Baltic and North Sea.
And this is hocus-pocus, that people from different parts of the world, have similar
independent mutation and all of them came into one place after thousends of years...
I don't have so big faith
Simply put, people who had more of these mutations were healthier (didn't lack vitamin D), and had more healthier offspring, busting their survival. The whiter skin folks out-breaded the darker skin ones.
Ok, with that statement i'm perfectly agree.
That's because they live farther south, in stronger UV index zone, and very white mutations of skin are not needed. It is even destructive for population there to be very white and will causes many more cases of cancer, than darker skin.
So... why white even nordic-looking people are still living in the hot
south regions still not dying and not becoming darker by themselves,
and on the other hand dark people are especilly occupied all north and
coldest parts of the world, where sun is the most rare subject on the sky
by half of the year. Don't you see, that this theory doesnt work!?
Colour of skin is a balance between getting enough vitamin D and protection from skin cancer, melanin. That's why colour of skin correlates with climatic zones, UV index, plus diet containing D3.
So... why eskimos and yakuts are still alive?
etrified:
And why blond-heired beduins are still alive
in Sahara... Why? They all should be dead!
Recessive function kicks in when genes are equal. However if a gene is very important and beneficial for certain populations, this gene becomes dominant by law of natural selection.
But first he must exist and don't die with his first owner.
Again, thinking only in terms of recessive genes, fogs understanding how genes are selected. Just think that if a genetic function is very popular in a group of people, it means that it had to be selected for important reason. Like colour of skin, or lactose persistence in some populations, but not in others.
Hocus-pocus.
It doesn't have to be like that. If you have blond and red alleles
in family, it is simply a coincidense which of them will be inherited.
There is not such a thing like dying because of having red hair, or
dying because of not having red hair. This is simple and reasonable.