This is old news from 2008 but I somehow missed it. Before I saw this article, I had the impression that the blue-eyes mutation very rarely arose but came about once in a great while in various populations. This tells me otherwise:
The paper is far more modest than the ScienceDaily article. I don’t think that sampling 163 people from 3 ethnic groups allow one to conclude that all blue-eyed humans carry that allele.
I didn’t read the article myself but isn’t it possible for a mutation to cause you to have blue (or any other color) eyes despite no one in your (at least, closer) family having them?
It is entirely possible for the same mutation to happen at the same base, and with billions of people in the modern population it is almost assured to happen in every generation. However, there may also be other neutral mutations that are linked to the original blue eye allele that would not be found in a brown eye allele with a fresh mutation.
Reasons why this is unreasonable.
First humans only, post flood, have been around europe for 4500 years at very most.
Then the babel story teaches us that we were one tribe with one bodyplan. The languages , upon family groups , brought segregation.
THEN several of these groups moved into the northern cloudy areas of europe. they did not mingle their genes anymore then their language.
Yet they all would have blue eyed members. tHerefore as with all loss of pigmentation/becoming white skined it was from each segregated population that it happened in.
THE detail of like genes for blue eyes is just what would happen from innate triggers in the human body.
It was just another manifestation of these people groups losing pigmentation.
I’m vague but I seem to have a memory blue eyes are different from all other eyes in some practical way. can’t remember. .
Anyways its once again the use of genes in a straight line as opposed to genes as a result of the body’s ability to survive.
Its once again denying a common design/blueprint that reacts in like ways to like triggers.
Saying blue eyed folks come
from one dude or family is just clearly wrong.
Hey I think siberian tigers have blue eyes. are thery from the same mutation origin as people?? Well thats makes two mutation events eh!
The only unreasonable position is that we should throw out scientific findings because they contradict your interpretation of religious text.
As in the Watson iQ case its about correction of scientific claims.
Its not religion but analysis of existing data and a better hypothesis.
I have blue eyes but deny being related to all blue eyed folks. Naw. Its like saying being white makes me related to white peoples. Yet I’m no more/or less related to white groups then any group in the indo european language group.
Or rather as a German/celtic(by way of the british isles) I am not related to slavic peoples(though white as snow) any more then to Northern India peoples or Iranians etc etc.
We were first segregated from babel and then zapped in the areas we went to. Following a gene trail is a false trail. The genes followed the zapping. A envirormental influence that triggered our bodies to a response.
What data and what hypotheses, and how are they better?