In 100 years I believe everyone on earth will have brown hair and brown eyes due to mixed marriages.
Maybe this belongs in the “What I believe is true but can’t prove” thread.
But people don’t naturally have purple eyes and blue hair. All the hair colors if you mix them up you will get some shade of brown.
I stand by what I said. 
Anyway y’all carry on. I was just being silly.
Homo sapiens originally hailed from Africa and in the distant past we all looked the same - most likely our ancestors were all black people. Asians and whites are genetic mutations.
Blue eyes and blond hair are on the recessive gene so with more intermixing you can expect to see less of both. Kinda sad actually.
Brown+red+black+blond=some shade of brown
Brown+blue+grey+green=some shade of brown
As for facial features and body shape and size, well, I don’t know. But I am almost certain we’ll all have brown hair color and possibly brown eyes and darker skin.
That could also be due to the stronger sun rays.
Mod Lang, May I offer this.
Your dog example:[quote=“mod lang”]Take dogs, for example - a few thousand years ago, all dogs more or less looked alike. Through selective breeding of dogs of different “races” (breeds), there is now an infinite variety of dog types. [/quote] If we reversed this scenario and interbred all breeds of dogs wouldn’t they eventually go back to looking more or less alike?
I agree with you on a certain level. you said
Which is true in one sense because it creates many new subgroups (halfbreeds, quarterbreeds etc.) but the physical (quantitative) differences between the subgroups is less, therefore they look more similar. But on an individual level, yes, you are right, cross-breeding leads to a more diverse genetic makeup and an overall more varied genepool, that is until we are left with neopolital icecream which has been all mixed together in the bowl into a pink-brown mess, then what?
Bob, this is a common urban myth stemming from a misunderstanding of what the terms “dominant” and “recessive” genes actually mean. Here is a column that corrects that misconception in simple language without too much heavy science:
[quote]Odd as it sounds, it
One more thing:
Blond man A and Taiwanese woman A make brown-haired brown-eyed Baby A.
Brunette man B and Taiwanese woman B make brown-haired brown-eyed Baby B.
Et cetera.
My original post on the brown-haired brown-eyed thing was I believe in 100 years if we were all intermarried then there would be a bunch of brown haired brown eyed people.
I don’t know about ten or twenty generations down.
I am so off topic… :help:
The recessive gene will still be there and still find it’s partner occassionaly but this will happen less and less often. Think of it this way - You have one breeding colony filled with Scandanavians and Frenchmen and another filled with Scandanavians and Africans. Which group will produce the most blonds? Extend this basic scenario and you have a future with very few blonds in it I suspect.
Eyes, hair, and skin pigmentation are not examples of species evolution in the way you’re thinking. They are genetic adaptations.
If Scandinavians had “evolved” away from Africans, then the offspring of a Scandinavian-African coupling would be sterile (because their parents would be of differing species). This is rarely the case.
All humans are homo sapiens (genus specie). The genes we’re talking of exist in both races. We’ve adapted, that’s all.
I love reading Richard Dawkins - not just his evolutionary biology stuff (My mommy was soooo kind and bought her little boy “The Ancestor’s Tale” for Christmas. I get lost in that for hours at a time - lots of nice pictures, too!)…
Off topic - “The Devil’s Chaplain”, a collection of Dawkin’s essays, book forewards etc. is one of the most satisfying reads I’ve ever had.
[quote=“flike”]Eyes, hair, and skin pigmentation are not examples of species evolution in the way you’re thinking. They are genetic adaptations.
If Scandinavians had “evolved” away from Africans, then the offspring of a Scandinavian-African coupling would be sterile (because their parents would be of differing species). This is rarely the case.
All humans are homo sapiens (genus specie). The genes we’re talking of exist in both races. We’ve adapted, that’s all.[/quote]
It’s just a matter of classification. Evolution is a result of adaptation. Take the famous case of the moths in industrial Britain who adapted to the polluted air by changing their color from white to grey, thus providing one example of how evolution works. So pigmentation is one small example of species evolution. A lot of these small adaptations put together can eventually produce a new species.
The lines dividing species are not always clear, either. Horses and donkeys are different species but they can produce mules. It seems improbable that St. Bernards and Chihuahuas are members of the same species, but they are capable of interbreeding - humans have just bred them to evolve in different directions. Dogs can mate with animals that are classified as separate species - wolves, foxes, dingoes, coyotes. So can cats. This is a liger:
sierrasafarizoo.com/animals/liger.htm
So obviously, a tiger and a lion can produce offspring.
The point is that even though members of the original species adapt - which leads to evolution - to different environments in different ways, their couplings are not necessarily sterile (up to a certain point).
medicine made evolution impossible for mankind
Right, even a fat drunken idiot can reproduce himself nowadays. At least if he comes to Taiwan [I just lost 10 kg and gave up drinking at nightime].
hey bob
you aged a lot since your wedding picture
maybe you should start drinking again
Bzzz Mmm no, mathematics right, of course, but nothing to do with the question/statement.
Comparing the probability of two unrelated outcomes out of the entire range of outcomes says nothing about the probably outcome of the range, which is all ‘colors’ of the human species. Yes two blue-eyed ppl are almost always going to produce blue-eyed children (both parents have 2 ‘blue’ genes), but unless they’re the only ones breeding, or a huge percentage of the rest of the world is carrying the recessive gene and a mammoth portion of luck…
The greatest chance that two brown eyed ppl (ie. both have recessive ‘blue’) will produce a blue-eyed child is 25%. Now add on all the other possibilities, both parents have 2 ‘browns’, and other eyecolours, blue&brown, green & what have you, and take into account theres a crap load of people in China and super low birthrates in Germany, Norway…
Anyways, thats enough. Most people will look like mud but no diversity will disappear. There will always be blue-eyed ppl and albinos, just not very many. Unless of course everyone goes on a blue/black fad and uses gene manipulation…
I am definitally looking foward to the day when humankind has interbred so heavily that individual races all but disappear.
There will be much less blonde people though, because the rare blond-hair gene will be spread over a much larger population, so its concentration (blond-genes per group of breedable people) will go down. It will just be less likely for two people to meet and each carry a blonde gene than it is nowadays in Norway or sweden.
The same will be true for blue eyes, red hair and really white skin. So, those people will be quite special under those circumstances. But maybe by then science will enable any couple to have a blond-hair, blue-eye, white skin child. There might be fads and the like.
Anyway, I find darker skin and hair more attractive anyway and much more useful in terms of skin cancer protection.
So the Philippine is the future phenotype of mankind.