Sunday Times – Britain – February 26, 2006:
The modern gentleman may prefer blondes. But new research has found that it was cavemen who were the first to be lured by flaxen locks.
According to the study, north European women evolved blonde hair and blue eyes at the end of the Ice Age to make them stand out from their rivals at a time of fierce competition for scarce males.
The study argues that blond hair originated in the region because of food shortages 10,000-11,000 years ago. Until then, humans had the dark brown hair and dark eyes that still dominate in the rest of the world. Almost the only sustenance in northern Europe came from roaming herds of mammoths, reindeer, bison and horses. Finding them required long, arduous hunting trips in which numerous males died, leading to a high ratio of surviving women to men.
Lighter hair colours, which started as rare mutations, became popular for breeding and numbers increased dramatically, according to the research, published under the aegis of the University of St Andrews.
But now for some bad news:
The future of the blonde is uncertain. A study by the World Health Organisation found that natural blonds are likely to be extinct within 200 years because there are too few people carrying the blond gene. According to the WHO study, the last natural blond is likely to be born in Finland during 2202.
Update from the Museum of Hoaxes: Blondes are not going to be extinct wihin 200 years. That part was a hoax.
The picture to go with the story was a toss up between Rod Steward and Stacy Keibler…
Who should have won?!
Okay, I’ll ask it:
So does this mutation also affect intelligence?
Blondes becoming extinct? Not around here. In fact, about half the women at work are blonde. The part I don’t get is why so many went and dyed their roots darker.
Now that’s funny, Mr. Fusion!
Being an “evolutionay psychologist” (or whatever they’re called) has to be one of the best gigs around.
There really is no way to prove or disprove what they say. So, they can be an “expert” without the rigors of real science. Good work if you can get it!
I’ve imagined a modern painting on a large canvas of a scalped head of bloody blond hair with bits of skin dangling and human eyes resting (popped out of its sockets with its wiry neurons still wriggling) atop of an otherwise clean business desk staring you directly in the face with the expression of the horror it had freshly seen. The title of the art work would be “Blond Hair and Blue Eyes”- 2006.
Natural blondes becoming extinct? Bah…no problem.
Now natural redheads becoming extinct…THAT would be a problem!
Also david….seek help….as soon as possible.
Scott, its all a product of my environment particularly growing up and living in New York, the many violent movies I’ve seen (remember “The Eyes of Laura Mars”?), and abstract thinking that is observable in the New York art scene.
I’ve seen three therapists, btw. They all needed more help than me.
All untestable speculation. Why does there necessarily have to be an evolutionary explaination for every single genetic anomoly? I suppose some scientist will try to explain why Africans developed the sickle-cell gene.
“According to the study, north European women evolved blonde hair and blue eyes at the end of the Ice Age to make them stand out from their rivals at a time of fierce competition for scarce males.”
How did they decide that Blond and blue worked? Was there purple and green or Yellow and red? This is the main problem I have with evolution theory. What can work for simple organisms doesn’t work for complex ones. Mutations in humans usually die out do to lack of numbers. There the odds of living long enough to pass on the gene plus the odd of passing on the gene in the first place. This includes creating the gene in the first place to match other genes. Maybe the just got luck and rolled a lot of blondes on the genetic dice.
#9 [the larch?], jetfire — you’re not getting how natural selection works. Organisms don’t sit around the clubhouse having serious discussions involving value judgements about hair color or bosoms. It happens.
Choices are made for simple, often unconscious reasons. The critters with the best survival rate begin to grow larger and larger numbers. “Decide” has little or nothing to do with it.
#8, Mike — read up on contemporary work in DNA. btw — sickle cell is NOT an exclusively African mutation.
Moss,
Thanks for the correction about sickle cell, I really couldn’t care less. I only used it as a quick example of a common mutation that has no evolutionary benefit. I’m sure we could go around the horn and list a hundred common anomalies that have no reason for being other than they just happened and were passed on. But I’m sure if we get desperate enough, we could all come up with some crazy theories about how and why they are evolved traits… and probably more than one person would believe them.
On my way home, I’ll go ahead and pick up the Cliff’s Notes on “contemporary work in DNA.” Seems like a pretty general topic, but I’ll try to be an expert before my next posting tomorrow. Thanks again.
Sorry, Mike, that’s what you get for being tidy and brief. Chuckle. I keep thinking that most of the folks who show up here really do read everything.
Some of the sociology types I deal with — the wizards who make up polls for people to answer — probably do have it right when they always ask: [1] do you think we suffer from information overload or [2] do you enjoy the quantity and quality of information available nowadays?
Old farts like me remember when people asked your queston and it was about the appendix not genetics.
Ok, getting serious here.
The article states that men were the hunters while women stayed home to build shelters. There was no evidence that this was the case presented in the article. My own belief is that the genetic mutation happened as northern Europeans were adapting lighter skin in order to absorb more vitamin D.
I thought that such delineation of work was more the mark of a civilized, mature society. In primitive societies when survival was difficult, then everyone capable was involved in procuring food. Whether this was gathering roots or fruit or hunting buffalo, the more hands available the more successful the tribe was. If you didn’t contribute to the hunt, then you were a burden to the rest of the tribe. This could only be tolerated for short periods, such as during pregnancy, sickness, and early childhood. Due to the scarcity and difficulty hunting game, I imagine most tribes were relatively small by necessity.
The Ice Age must have been extremely difficult to survive so any natural genetic mutation had a better chance of surviving in a single tribe then it would in a larger population. Besides, you never know what a diet of Woolly Rhino and Mastodons will do to you.
Blondes have _not_ evolved.
Lewis–you’re just not choosing the right blondes.
I’m a brown haired guy (well, with some gray now), and wife is blonde with some gray.
Our daughter is naturally ash blonde, and she’s a smart lady. My wife has a son that’s also blonde haired, and he’s smart as well.
I’ll guess that blonde jokes apply more to women that are brunettes, but bleach their hair now.