Ok here's how I think the trait blonde-hairedness evolved: in the beginning, everybody's hair was black, like the hair of the monkeys/gorrillas/whatever the heck it was that we evolved from. Then, through mutation, someone with blonde-haired was born. Blonde hair was pleasing to the eyes (as for why this is, I will get into it later, when I feel like it, maybe), therefore, the mother tended to spend more time caressing the hair of this blonde child, which encouraged the neurons in the brain to develop. Also, she would also tend to give him/her preferred treatment, maybe through more food, more attention, more playtime with him/her, all of which were conducive to the child's survival in the early harsh environment. You do this for enough generations, pretty soon you will have a population of blonde-haired people. This trait survives among a sea of black despite its being recessive, because it confers upon its carriers survival advantages over its dark-haired counterpart.

it's all opinions anyways. :rolleyes:

I think blond hair is a superior trait because it indicated a Neanderthal which is bigger and stronger than the dark hair cromagnum man. I think natural blondes are just remnants of the neanderthals that cromagnum men bred with to create our mutt of a species.

I think blond hair is a superior trait because it indicated a Neanderthal which is bigger and stronger than the dark hair cromagnum man. I think natural blondes are just remnants of the neanderthals that cromagnum men bred with to create our mutt of a species.

How do you know that the Neanderthals were blond?

then why is blonde hair a recessive gene?

Hmm, this is sort of an interesting question, the mutation I mean. It'd be a like black parents, with 100% lineage of black hair, suddenly birthing a blonde child. Do you think the mutation of blonde hair came in gradual steps or one sudden mutation?

Regardless, I think blonde hair has little to do with survival and more to do with the rate of reproduction. It's very possible that blonde hair was simply found more attractive. Also, many children, as did I, are born with blonde-ish hair and grow into dark-haired people as they age, so it could be looked at as a sign of youth and fertility in women.

Hmm, this is sort of an interesting question, the mutation I mean. It'd be a like black parents, with 100% lineage of black hair, suddenly birthing a blonde child. Do you think the mutation of blonde hair came in gradual steps or one sudden mutation?

Actually we kind of already have a very similar process, which is albinism. Both parents must carry an allele for this trait to manifest. I think what happened was in the ancient times two people who happened to each carry the mutated, blonde-hair-conferring gene/s met and mated.

In other words, the mutation came in suddenly, but the arising of the trait came in gradual steps.

Regardless, I think blonde hair has little to do with survival and more to do with the rate of reproduction. It's very possible that blonde hair was simply found more attractive.

This is assuming that blonde people mated more frequently to produce more offspring. This I find unlikely, especially given the nature of the Caucasian people as observed today. I mean, they tend to form monogamous pairs, which means it is unlikely that blonde hair males mated with many women to produce blonde haired populations. I didn't mention blonde females because their reproductive rates were limited, unlike the males.



Also, many children, as did I, are born with blonde-ish hair and grow into dark-haired people as they age,

lol sucks to be you

so it could be looked at as a sign of youth and fertility in women.

Yes. But being viewed as youthful and fertile does not mean the woman will have more kids/have greater success in raising her kids in adulthood. She would be fucked more often and perhaps more heartily (LAWL) but it would not affect her reproductive success any.

This is assuming that blonde people mated more frequently to produce more offspring. This I find unlikely, especially given the nature of the Caucasian people as observed today. I mean, they tend to form monogamous pairs, which means it is unlikely that blonde hair males mated with many women to produce blonde haired populations. I didn't mention blonde females because their reproductive rates were limited, unlike the males.


I don't really think we can observe people today, with so many social mores and norms and apply this to pre-historic people. Furthermore monogamy is far from 'natural', nor are most Caucasian people or any people mostly monogamous, that is most people have had multiple partners and many opportunities to impregnate/reproduce. Simply put, if blonde men and women are found more attractive, they will be given more opportunities to mate and thus possibly reproduce.





Yes. But being viewed as youthful and fertile does not mean the woman will have more kids/have greater success in raising her kids in adulthood. She would be fucked more often and perhaps more heartily (LAWL) but it would not affect her reproductive success any.

The fact that she will have more sex means she is given more opportunities to reproduce. That is, an ugly girl may have 0 to few opportunities to have sex, while the sexiest woman in a community will be hit on and given sexual opportunities all the time.

Blonde hair is favoured because it is portrayed as desirable. It always has been, and it will continue to be shown that way for the foreseeable future. It's all down to opinion anyways; but people always forget that opinion is constantly swayed by what is happening around you, and what you are told, be it by tv or a peer.

As far as I'm concerned however, Brown/Redhead > Black > Blonde.

It's called the theory of sexual selection and darwin wrote a 900 page book on the subject. Rust is going to post a 100 paragraph essay on why sexual selection is the same thing as natural selection. Regardlessly, that's the concept behind what you seem to have discovered. It's an explanation for a lot of features humans and animals seem to have that are purely aesthetic while not offering any survival advantages, and in some cases even being dangerous. Take a peacock for example. It has a large, cumbersome tail that makes it waddle and a huge target for predators, yet it's necessary for attracting mates.

Look at it: http://billi-jean.com/images/lj/0605/peacock2.jpg

It offers no survival benefits, yet it is way too refined to have piggybacked off of other features. Somewhere along the line it was just an ordinary tail with one or two pretty feathers that got it all the peahen pussy, and it all started from there.

I read an article recently about the evolutoin of blonde hair. it started in northern europe-scandinavia hence so many blondes up there. And it was to signify what we generally find most attractive of women, youth. You see when most (europians) are born they have lighter hair, and when they age this gets darker. So in the north where it is cold you would always have to be wearing clothes and since you couldn't really evaluate her youth through her clothes her hair was the next thing to go by. It signifies youth and fertility so lighter (adn then to blondes) haired people were more saught after and could get better genetic selection than their counter parts. And to the OP isnt being favoured a sign of superiority?

hows that for an explaination

Rust is going to post a 100 paragraph essay on why sexual selection is the same thing as natural selection.

Well... it is... What do you want me to do? Keep it below 100 paragraphs? I think not!

They are the same in that natural selection in the sense that natural selection is defined in terms of the reproductive success of an organism. A peahen favoring peacocks with large beutiful tails offers those peacocks with massive colorful tails more reproductive success. Sexual Selection is a subset of Natural Selection.

Though actually, as an aside, the peacock example isn't that good to begin with. There was a study not so long ago, that suggested the selection of big colorful tails was not due to a sexual component. I'll try to find it later if you want, I'm at work.

And to the OP isnt being favoured a sign of superiority?

hows that for an explaination

Nope. That's a logical fallacy known as appeal to the masses. People favor qwerty over dvorak. People favor religion over scientific reasoning.

It offers no survival benefits, yet it is way too refined to have piggybacked off of other features. Somewhere along the line it was just an ordinary tail with one or two pretty feathers that got it all the peahen pussy, and it all started from there.

The eyespots could scare off predators. Works in butterflies.

Nope. That's a logical fallacy known as appeal to the masses. People favor qwerty over dvorak. People favor religion over scientific reasoning.


I know about mass appeal, but I think more often than not that things that are favoured are more supeior. The reason qwerty is more popular is because It is almost twice is old and still works good enough. Making the switch to dvorak sounds good, but then your friends would find your new keyboard frustrating, and they would have to switch and so on with their friends. QWERTY is just to ingrained. As to realigion being more favoured, well it certainly is supeior to the fact of reproductive success , no? Finally, do find you my previous post about the correlation between blonde hair and youth to be somewhat legit? since that is wha tthe OP was asking

P.s. what about blue eyes being more favoured? it seems relevant to the topic since blue eye and blonde hair seem to be at the top of the physical attraction list

It offers no survival benefits, yet it is way too refined to have piggybacked off of other features. Somewhere along the line it was just an ordinary tail with one or two pretty feathers that got it all the peahen pussy, and it all started from there.


http://www.totse.com/community/images/icons/icon14.gif
I think The Selfish Gene should be required reading for anyone to talk about evolution.

cromagnum

You mean Cro-Magnon? right?

You have to remember that only certain races of people have blonde hair. So, I just think of blonde hair as an adaptation to a certain habitat.

I have always thought of blonde hair as an evolutionary adaption. Most blonde people, if their history is traced back far enough goes to scandanavia (Snow).

The same as with snow fox's and such.

- ♫.i.b.y.v.n.t.h.♫

^ Blonde hair would still be visible in snow and any man living in a snowy place would have to use animal hides for protection - and it's pretty doubtful they'd be all-white animal hide.

It's likely just a result of sexual selection.

But still, there's a logical fallacy in believing that just because something exists or is true right now, it had to have an evolutionary advantage by itself. It could just be a coincidence.

Alaska was settled 11,000 years ago by eskimos. Scandinavians settled sweden and norway less than 6,000 years ago. Why didn't the eskimos develop blonde hair and blue eyes too if it provides such an environmental advantage? It doesn't. WAN is right, somewhere along the line some blondes mutated and got more lovin'. Likewise, despite what the mass media has defined as attractive and desirable, long before euro-centrism dominated people around the world had more localized conceptions of what was beautiful or not. Hence why african women are thicker, pakis have bigger noses, eskimo women are burlier, etc. etc.

^ He's not saying they have to evolve blonde hair. He's saying that it just so happened in did on some people and it was promoted due to survival. The fact that other people didn't evolve blonde hair doesn't refute any possible survival advantages if it did indeed have some.

^ He's not saying they have to evolve blonde hair. He's saying that it just so happened in did on some people and it was promoted due to survival. The fact that other people didn't evolve blonde hair doesn't refute any possible survival advantages if it did indeed have some.

What proof is there that it was promoted on survival? You may be autistic, but that doesn't mean you should dismiss the emotional, superstitious, religious, and aesthetic decisions these early people made that kept these traits alive. The fact that other people didn't evolve blonde hair doesn't refute any possible survival advantages, but it does a lot less to support the idea that t did have some. Camoulflage? No. Heat retention? Nope, black hair absorbs more sun thus it does more for you in those climates. Insulation? No.

The only way I see that you can call preference among the population a survival advantage is if you think humans are completely deterministic, irresistably drawn to blonde hair beyond free will.

Well, what if the first tribe where the first blondie popped up had decided that he was the devil's child for having different hair?

I'm autistic all of the sudden? Haha! I didn't even say anything bad about. You're one touchy Mexican...


If you would read the post I made before your will see I already agree that there probably isn't any benefits in terms of survivability. That wasn't my point. My point was that "Eskimos didn't evolve it, ergo no survivability" is shitty reasoning. Me stating a simple fact isn't a reason to get all butthurt.

I'm autistic all of the sudden? Haha! I didn't even say anything bad about. You're one touchy Mexican...


If you would read the post I made before your will see I already agree that there probably isn't any benefits in terms of survivability. That wasn't my point. My point was that "Eskimos didn't evolve it, ergo no survivability" is shitty reasoning. Me stating a simple fact isn't a reason to get all butthurt.

Weasel words. One group of people developed a feature, and the cause is believed to be long-term exposure to an environment. Why not compare them to another group of people with even longer exposure to a similar environment?

Evolution is convergent. Bats and birds and bees all can fly but are unrelated to each other. When an environment demands a certain feature, one or more animals will develop it. My comparison was not unreasonable.

Maybe there's some underlying link which geneticists haven't discovered yet?

Until then I believe the allelic drift phenomenon is responsible.

Summed up here quite nicely on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#Evolution

"Harding et al (2000) proposed that red hair was not the result of positive selection but rather occurs due to a lack of negative selection. In Africa, for example, red hair is selected against because high levels of sun would be harmful to fair skin. However, in Northern Europe this does not happen, so redheads come about through genetic drift."

More interesting stuff to read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blonde#Origins

This would also indicate that Zay is correct, and:

My point was that "Eskimos didn't evolve it, ergo no survivability" is shitty reasoning.

Isn't shitty reasoning.

Of course it's not perfect. But it's certainly not shitty.

Weasel words. One group of people developed a feature, and the cause is believed to be long-term exposure to an environment. Why not compare them to another group of people with even longer exposure to a similar environment?

"Cause"? No. Not the cause. Man didn't say "I've been exposed to this environment for a long time, let me evolve x thing to help me". Man was living in the environment and through some genetic change received a certain trait. If that trait was beneficial enough it it would stay. If that's what you mean by "cause" (it remained/flourished in the population because of the environment) then you're still ignoring that the trait doesn't have to evolve in every organism in the same/similar environment.


Evolution is convergent. Bats and birds and bees all can fly but are unrelated to each other. When an environment demands a certain feature, one or more animals will develop it. My comparison was not unreasonable.Wrong.

1. Evolution can be convergent. It can be divergent as well.

2. Saying "When an environment demands a certain feature, one or more animals will develop it" is just plain false. They don't have to evolve anything. Evolution isn't conscious to know what an organism has to evolve. They can evolve absolutely nothing (and die if that was absolutely crucial or struggle if it wasn't), or evolve something completely different and strive because of it.

Isn't shitty reasoning.

Of course it's not perfect. But it's certainly not shitty.

No, actually, it's shitty reasoning. Either the conclusion follows, or it doesn't. It doesn't in this case. You cannot establish a lack of benefit in terms of survivability just because Eskimos didn't have the trait.

Maybe you think "shitty" is too harsh. Fine. False reasoning, incorrect reasoning... etc.

"Cause"? No. Not the cause. Man didn't say "I've been exposed to this environment for a long time, let me evolve x thing to help me". Man was living in the environment and through some genetic change received a certain trait. If that trait was beneficial enough it it would stay.

No. Our brains have been about the same size for at least 50,000 years. I'm saying that man could have chosen to preserve a genetic mutation for reasons other than survivability. Again, your autism denotes your lack of understanding of basic human emotions. Hence why you conveniently ignored my example where I provided that just as easily, the first blonde could have been burned at the stake by his fellow man for being superstitiously believed to be a witch.

You're providing a false dichotomy now. One that ignores aesthetic preference in favor of survivability advantages.



1. Evolution can be convergent. It can be divergent as well.

Apples can be red or green. So what? Tell me it's not convergent and stop posting irrelevant shit.


2. Saying "When an environment demands a certain feature, one or more animals will develop it" is just plain false. They don't have to evolve anything. Evolution isn't conscious to know what an organism has to evolve. They can evolve absolutely nothing (and die if that was absolutely crucial or struggle if it wasn't), or evolve something completely different and strive because of it.


Now you're just nitpicking statements to take out of context. Convergent traits can develop when an environmental situation favors it, and the environment can makes it difficult if not impossible to survive without them. Hence why most land creatures can't breathe underwater and vice versa. An example closer to the topic: insulation. Most arctic creatures are well-insulated. Most creatures living in scandinavia and alaska are well-insulated. People in this thread are claiming that blonde hair developed in the cold conditions of northern europe and then some advantage in the environment made it stay. That's bullshit. Scandinavia has been settled for less than 6,000 years, and when it was settled people already had fire, clothes, hunting weapons, and knew how to build shelters. Hence, it is way more likely that blonde hair, if they did't already have it when they moved into scandinavia(another piece of evidence that means it's useless for survivability), just happened to develop there and was favored by the people purely on aesthetic preference. This is pointless though because you know what I meant and are merely twisting thing around to follow the train derailment. So i'll just ignore you for the troll you are.

Back on topic:a few australian aboriginals were discovered in australia and it's documented in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195063619/geneexpressio-20/104-1458141-1243947

Even more evidence that blonde hair is just a mutation favored by aesthetic preference, unless someone can think of some survival advantage....

Even more evidence that blonde hair is just a mutation favored by aesthetic preference, unless someone can think of some survival advantage....

I still advocate the genetic drift theory.

Basically, a child with blond hair didn't die. A few of his children didn't die. So on and so on. Simply a lack of a reason not to have blond hair, rather than a reason to have it.

I'm saying that man could have chosen to preserve a genetic mutation for reasons other than survivability. Again, your autism denotes your lack of understanding of basic human emotions. Hence why you conveniently ignored my example where I provided that just as easily, the first blonde could have been burned at the stake by his fellow man for being superstitiously believed to be a witch.

I ignored it because that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Again, I'll repeat that because their appears to be some confusion on your part: That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I have not denied that blonde hair can be explained through sexual selection in this thread. I am not arguing against sexual selection as an explanation, nor am I suggesting that man couldn’t have chosen to preserve a genetic mutation for reasons other than survabability. I even stated that I thought sexual selection would be the likely answer to why blonde hair was preserved.

You're providing a false dichotomy now. One that ignores aesthetic preference in favor of survivability advantages.

Not even close. At no point in time have I stated that at all. In fact, I stated that I believed that sexual selection was the likely answer and argued against someone else suggesting blonde hair provided survivability.

Apples can be red or green. So what? Tell me it's not convergent and stop posting irrelevant shit.

What I said wasn't irrelevant. You might not know how to apply what I said, but that's another story. You said evolution was convergent. I said it could be convergent or divergent. If you can't see how that's relevant (i.e. how it refutes your erronous claim that it's convergent), and thus how it's completely relevant, then I don't know what to say.

Now you're just nitpicking statements to take out of context.

No I'm not. Your statement was wrong in pretty much any "context". Saying "When an environment demands a certain feature, one or more animals will develop it" is just plain wrong. The context doesn't save it.

Taking out the "context" card is just a quick way for you to save face when confronted with the fact that you just made yet another ridiculous statement. That would explain why you didn't bother providing the context, and simply made the accusation.

Convergent traits can develop when an environmental situation favors it, and the environment can makes it difficult if not impossible to survive without them. Hence why most land creatures can't breathe underwater and vice versa. An example closer to the topic: insulation. Most arctic creatures are well-insulated.

You would have an excellent point right there if anybody in this thread had said that blonde hair was a crucial trait that humans could not survive without. Nobody said that. They said it provided some survival advantages. Me having better vision (e.g. no blind spots in the eyes like some animals do) would arguably provide an advantage in terms of survability. That doesn't mean that I cannot live without such a trait. I can and I do. Similarly, blonde hair could provide survival advantages that other organisms could survive without.

This is pointless though because you know what I meant and are merely twisting thing around to follow the train derailment. So i'll just ignore you for the troll you are.

I'm not twisting anything. I saw you using bad reasoning and I pointed it out. Instead of admitting that it was bad reasoning and moving along, you decided to start a whole argument around this small issue. It's not my problem that you are so afraid of being shown to be incorrect that you can't accept the fact that "Eskimos didn't evolve it, therefore no survability" is not a reasonable argument since it can in fact provide survability even if Eskimos didn't evolve the trait, much like we evolved to have flawed eyes while other animals did not.

I made a mistake in my writing, but you're still a faggot. And you wrote that whole post for nothing. Pwned. See, the main point I wanted to discuss hasn't been refuted and isn't wrong, and some side snippet I posted turned out to be poorly worded and wrong. Oh well.

I don't really give 2 shits about this discussion, but something interesting that researchers recently found: A peacock's feathers apparently don't attract the opposite sex.

By the way, Zay, you're an idiot. Rust made a perfectly reasonable statement, you typed up just as much long shit as him, and you were wrong. Instead of accepting your mistake, you called him a faggot. His initial comment had nothing to do with nitpicking.

Fail.

Not the best source in the world, but just for the hell of it:

Blond hair is unique in that it changes dramatically with age. Typically, young girls with light blond hair become women with brown hair. Thus, men who prefer to mate with blond women are unconsciously attempting to mate with younger (and hence, on average, healthier and more fecund) women. It is no coincidence that blond hair evolved in Scandinavia and northern Europe, probably as an alternative means for women to advertise their youth, as their bodies were concealed under heavy clothing..

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml

I made a mistake in my writing, but you're still a faggot. And you wrote that whole post for nothing. Pwned. See, the main point I wanted to discuss hasn't been refuted and isn't wrong, and some side snippet I posted turned out to be poorly worded and wrong. Oh well.

It wasn't for nothing: We established that the reasoning you gave as shitty. That's all I wanted to establish. I wasn't here to refute "the point you wanted to discuss" because (if it's the one regarding sexual selection) I don't dispute it. I already explained to you that I don't disagree that the most likely explanation is sexual selection.

I don't really give 2 shits about this discussion, but something interesting that researchers recently found: A peacock's feathers apparently don't attract the opposite sex.


Yeah I mentioned that before (I'm not attacking you - now I have to give a disclaimer every time I speak because if not they get all defensive an accuse me of being autistic). However, once I was looking for the study to link to it here I found a lot of discussion regarding flaws in their methodology. So it's isn't that meaningful a study to begin with. As of now, consensus is that sexual selection is the explanation for a peacocks feather too.

Yeah I mentioned that before (I'm not attacking you - now I have to give a disclaimer every time I speak because if not they get all defensive an accuse me of being autistic).

Oh I guess you do have feelings! Sorry for saying that :)

Not the best source in the world, but just for the hell of it:



http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml

Psychodynamics ftl.

I think blond hair is a superior trait because it indicated a Neanderthal which is bigger and stronger than the dark hair cromagnum man. I think natural blondes are just remnants of the neanderthals that cromagnum men bred with to create our mutt of a species.

Weren't Neanderthal's backwards and mentally inferior to Homo Sapiens? o rite tahts y dey dyd owt....

Oh I guess you do have feelings! Sorry for saying that :)

Yes! I really care about a third-rate psychological evaluation from a guy that likes to pretend he's a psychologist.

Yes! I really care about a third-rate psychological evaluation from a guy that likes to pretend he's a psychologist.

You had me believing you for a second there.

Weren't Neanderthal's backwards and mentally inferior to Homo Sapiens? o rite tahts y dey dyd owt....

No man it was the end of the ice age and the recession of the forests!

This is the stupidest shit I've ever read.
You should all feel ashamed.

This is the stupidest shit I've ever read.
You should all feel ashamed.

If that is true, you don't read much.

If that is true, you don't read much.

I may have exaggerate a tiny bit, but it's still pretty fucking stupid.

I may have exaggerate a tiny bit, but it's still pretty fucking stupid.

Why?

It's a discussion about evolution. Where's the stupid?

Weren't Neanderthal's backwards and mentally inferior to Homo Sapiens? o rite tahts y dey dyd owt....

I think it was just that there were more homo sapiens than neanderthals, so they were absorbed. Incidentally we share traits with them. Some more than others. Don't tell me you haven't seen that one guy who walks around with his sloping forehead and large jaw.

And the blonde thing I was just guessing. Aren't northern people more blonde and weren't neanderthals from the north?

Actually we kind of already have a very similar process, which is albinism. Both parents must carry an allele for this trait to manifest. I think what happened was in the ancient times two people who happened to each carry the mutated, blonde-hair-conferring gene/s met and mated.

In other words, the mutation came in suddenly, but the arising of the trait came in gradual steps.
You only have this opinion because you're a black-haired Asian.

I think natural blondes are just remnants of the neanderthals that cromagnum men bred with to create our mutt of a species.

Lol, i hope not. Netherdals were kind of stupid.

You only have this opinion because you're a black-haired Asian.

STFU would you? Exoticism in Asiatic society... :cool:

Lol, i hope not. Netherdals were kind of stupid.

Kinda stupid eh? You been to the DMV lately?

Blond hair is an alien-human hybrid trait.....think of it, none of the animals, past and present had managed to evolve into something that have golden-blond hair. None. So that must be something that the aliens passed onto humans like during the construction of pyramids in egypt...most likely by those horny pyramid engineers...

Blond hair is an alien-human hybrid trait.....think of it, none of the animals, past and present had managed to evolve into something that have golden-blond hair. None. So that must be something that the aliens passed onto humans like during the construction of pyramids in egypt...most likely by those horny pyramid engineers...

Except for dogs.

I hope he was joking.

Except for dogs.

Dogs, what dogs ?? I've never seen ANY native dogs that have blond hair. NONE. None of the native dogs anywhere in the world have actual golden-blond hair like that of a human.

Ar...you mean the golden retriever ? Are you aware there's been absolutely no records of it's existence until after the construction of pyramids ? Yes, actually, the golden retriever is the alien-k9 hybrids, the result of horny alien engineer's dogs and slutty native egyptian bitches. Can't you see that golden retriever behaves so differently compared to native dogs like german shepherds, or rottweiler ?

Okay, he's definitely trolling.

ok, prove to me that blondy exists before the time of pyramid construction !

And prove to me that w/e breed of dogs that made up of golden retriever's ancestor is native earthlings....

ok, prove to me that blondy exists before the time of pyramid construction !

And prove to me that w/e breed of dogs that made up of golden retriever's ancestor is native earthlings....

You're the one that's making the claim, it's up to you to prove it.

You're the one that's making the claim, it's up to you to prove it.

No, you're the one who claimed that I'm a troll, so the burden of proof lies on your shoulder......

now prove that I'm really trolling here.

No, you're the one who claimed that I'm a troll, so the burden of proof lies on your shoulder......

now prove that I'm really trolling here.

By your refusal to prove that aliens created yellow hair you have demonstrated that you are trolling.

Your turn!

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:TROLL IS A CODEWORD FOR TRUTH TELLERS:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

I'm not going to bother reading all 6 pages of this thread, but your theory borders on an actually accepted theory on the evolution of blonde hair. It's supposed to have occurred in Northern Europe during the last ice age. The theory goes that a lot of the men were dying off due to the dangerous hunting of large game, so the females had to compete for males. The females which had the blonde hair mutation were considered favorable because of their beauty, and thus those alleles became more represented in the population, which was going through a genetic bottleneck at the time.

Oh and Neanderthal weren't blonde. There is some evidence that at least some of em had pale skin and red hair though.

I'm not going to bother reading all 6 pages of this thread,

lol nub

lol nub

Maybe it's so full of shit it just feels like 6 pages.

Maybe it's so full of shit it just feels like 6 pages.

Maybe you guys have your thread options set differently but this is the seventh page from my end. There also was a lot of moronic bullshit I skimmed past. My post was simply throwing the basic theory out there in layman's terms to counter a lot of the armchair anthropology going on in here. Didn't feel like actually reading through all of it, so I added that pseudo disclaimer in case someone else already posted what I said.

.....disclaimer : didn't read......

yea, right,..using ignorance as disclaimer,...how smart...




asshole

yea, right,..using ignorance as disclaimer,...how smart...




asshole

...and positing extra-terrestial intervention in human building is.. smart?

Not to mention thinking that golden retrievers are an alien species.

...and positing extra-terrestial intervention in human building is.. smart?

It is relatively smart, unless you can prove to me that pyramid was built by native earth technology.....

Not to mention thinking that golden retrievers are an alien species.

So I assume that you have hard evidence that proved that golden retrievers are 100% native species then....

It is relatively smart, unless you can prove to me that pyramid was built by native earth technology.....



So I assume that you have hard evidence that proved that golden retrievers are 100% native species then....

The fact that there are imperfect pyramids (ones which collapsed, and another which has two different angles) suggests that pyramid construction did not have some alien or divine aid. It simply took them a little while to figure out the right angles and dimensions to create a balanced pyramid, and once they figured it out.. they went with it. The technology used to built them were inclined planes and wooden sleds. Also a large, healthy, well-paid work force (not jewish slaves).

What does 100% native species mean? Golden Retrievers, just like all other breeds, were created due to human controlled breeding of domestic dogs. The proof is in their historical pedigree, as well as their dna, and the fact that they can mate with other canines.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the first pyramids in Egypt were step pyramids, and there is a progression from these to the sloped ones such as the Great Pyramids at Giza.

The fact that...

He's trolling. He's always trolling.

The fact that there are imperfect pyramids (ones which collapsed, and another which has two different angles) suggests that pyramid construction did not have some alien or divine aid. It simply took them a little while to figure out the right angles and dimensions to create a balanced pyramid, and once they figured it out.. they went with it. The technology used to built them were inclined planes and wooden sleds. Also a large, healthy, well-paid work force (not jewish slaves).

Is that a speculation or a FACT (with hard evidence to support it)

What does 100% native species mean? Golden Retrievers, just like all other breeds, were created due to human controlled breeding of domestic dogs. The proof is in their historical pedigree, as well as their dna, and the fact that they can mate with other canines.

100% native earthlings means it was a species that evolved from 100% earth creatures/organisms. And you have no idea of what or where it's lineage came from,...do you ?

Edit: I forgot to mention that the first pyramids in Egypt were step pyramids, and there is a progression from these to the sloped ones such as the Great Pyramids at Giza.

And co-incidentally, the peruvians/mayans which lives some 5000miles away decided to came up with the exact same idea to construct step pyramids at about the same time ? hrmmmm...

He's trolling. He's always trolling.

[a] refer to post #64.

[b] 2000+ years ago, they say the same thing about Jesus too... or [censored] some 600+ years later.....

He's trolling. He's always trolling.

[a] refer to post #64.

[b] 2000+ years ago, they say the same thing about Jesus too... or [censored] some 600+ years later.....

And Jesus ended up getting his ass nailed to a tree.

You might like to bear that in mind.

And Jesus ended up getting his ass nailed to a tree.

You might like to bear that in mind.

But then He was resurrected some 72hours later. Have you forgot that ?

But then He was resurrected some 72hours later. Have you forgot that ?

I don't buy into the supernatural marketing.

I don't buy into the supernatural marketing.

How bout unproven scientific marketing ?

Was Einstien a troll when he suggested that if we travels at the speed of light, time will slow down ? Plausible, but unproven/unprovable...

[a] yes.
[b] no.

And who's the troll here :

[a] mainstream historians
[b] david irving

How bout unproven scientific marketing ?

Was Einstien a troll when he suggested that if we travels at the speed of light, time will slow down ? Plausible, but unproven/unprovable...

It slows down long before the speed of light is attained, at a predictable, observable, rate. Thereby providing at least partial proof that his theory is correct.

Religion, on the other hand, has been proving jack shit since the dawn of recorded history.

It slows down long before the speed of light is attained, at a predictable, observable, rate. Thereby providing at least partial proof that his theory is correct.


It's a yes or no question....so is it YES, or NO ?

Religion, on the other hand, has been proving jack shit since the dawn of recorded history.


Have it ever occurred to you maybe, just maybe the records were corrupt, and not the religion it self, kinda like discrepancies in meter readings taken by an apprentice technician ?

My troll safety indicator badge just turned red, Meth', which means I'm going to withdraw from this thread before your stupidity reaches toxic levels.

Oh, how "british" is that. They did the same thing a few centuries ago when they conceded America to ... err... ex"british"es.

conclusion : britisherry is hereditary ...

http://www.cultural-china.com/chinaWH/images/exbig_images/3b78b23965c8f5cefe6648efcbe3e465.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2403/2045636633_ecf47a544c.jpg

Looks blond to me, but I don't see what this color has to do with the Dutch, these are actually Scandinavians.

I think this discussion is missing two things. One, the fact that blond hair probably reminded people of the currency of the time, Gold. Gold is rare, blonds were rare, therefore sought after. Another trait of blonds, since I am one, our hair is super soft compared to brown and black hair. Asians have bristly hair, and africans have tight curly rough thick hair. Blond hair is super soft, touchable, therefore sexually desirable. Even my pubes are very soft, almost fluffy.

Being rare, most blonds were probably sought after because of this. So who would get these blond women? Kings, nobility, tribe leaders, etc... Almost all of the European nobility were blond, going way the hell back. These rulers and leaders usually had those positions because of smarts. After a few years, the Royal classes of tribes would be blonds, and up until a few centuries ago, the tribe leaders which turned into nobility got to pick the women they wanted to breed with in their community. Now you have blond men planting their seed in every women they felt like, and the genes spread to their entire communities. Those children within the lower classes would then be known to be related to royalty. Lower classes wanted the traits of royalty, or the association with the royals, so the blonds did well. Eventually, there was a massive amount of really smart blond people.

Being a blond myself, I studied the patterns of expansion of the blond genes. Blond genes are recessive, but they are strong and almost impossible to remove from DNA once within a population. Those genes will lie dormant for many generations before pairing. Mine laid dormant for 5 generations on my Dad's side, and then my brother and I were both born blond to our blond mother. I studied the pattern and realized there is an ebb and flow to the blond and blue eye genes. Right now were on the cusp of another huge blond explosion. Look around at most kids these days and you'll notice there are a lot of blond kids being born from brunette parents.

So basically, yeah, blonds actually are for the most part smarter and more attractive than pretty much all races. Blonds were selectively bread for a long ass time, and usually smarts were also intertwined in that selective breading. Blonds basically were sought after by ruling classes, and because of this were privileged in always finding the most genetically stable mates who usually had smarts and strength on their side as well. Lots will argue that there are lots of brunettes with lots of smarts too, but that's surface, and you'll soon find that most brunettes also have a recessive blond gene. The blond gene, which became tied to strength and smarts through royal breading, has taken over almost the entire caucasian race. Within 200 years, white people will almost all be blond. It spread like cancer.

This is so true that China has a policy that white people will be sentenced to death by firing squad for interbreading with chinese women. The only race that seems to come even close in overall intelligence to blond dominant Europeans, is the Japanese. And guess what, if you're a blond guy and you go to Japan, you are like catnip to japanese pussy. Drives them crazy. There isn't a single technologically advanced nation in the world who wasn't enabled by coming into contact with the blond europeans.

So yes, blonds are superior, and that is why Europeans who are either blond, or have blond genes pretty much run the entire world.

Also, another argument is that a golden aura has been considered to be a symbol of divinity for a long long time. Golden hair was likely considered godly too.

I would also like to add from personal experience and observation. Not all people are attracted to blonds, but there are more people attracted to blonds than the amount of blonds available. I don't even know a single blond person who didn't end up having kids.

You seemed to be honest in voicing out your opinion. Unfortunately, they're lots of fallacies in your "thesis" that defied facts and logics....and I'll address them here,....one by one.

I think this discussion is missing two things. One, the fact that blond hair probably reminded people of the currency of the time, Gold. Gold is rare, blonds were rare, therefore sought after. Another trait of blonds, since I am one, our hair is super soft compared to brown and black hair. Asians have bristly hair, and africans have tight curly rough thick hair. Blond hair is super soft, touchable, therefore sexually desirable. Even my pubes are very soft, almost fluffy.

[a] How did you arrived at the conclusion that blond hair are soft ? Especially since you said that your pubic hairs are soft. I would like to know, just how many people's pubic hairs did you "examine", measured their "hardness" before jumping to the conclusion that blond pubic hairs are always soft ? And to be honest, I would like to touch them too, in the name of socio-anthropology....

Being rare, most blonds were probably sought after because of this. So who would get these blond women? Kings, nobility, tribe leaders, etc... Almost all of the European nobility were blond, going way the hell back. These rulers and leaders usually had those positions because of smarts. After a few years, the Royal classes of tribes would be blonds, and up until a few centuries ago, the tribe leaders which turned into nobility got to pick the women they wanted to breed with in their community. Now you have blond men planting their seed in every women they felt like, and the genes spread to their entire communities. Those children within the lower classes would then be known to be related to royalty. Lower classes wanted the traits of royalty, or the association with the royals, so the blonds did well. Eventually, there was a massive amount of really smart blond people.

FACT : We all know that Kings and nobilities aren't the smartest person in their kingdom then and now. FACT. Which is why there's someone working as wizards, and numerous other advisory posts since the time the Roman Empires....and the only difference between kings who are "successful" and "unsuccessful" are the amount of trustable* man he had.

*=(not to be mistaken with thrustable)

[c] FACT : Throughout history, all the smartest person alive were not, and never blond. Peter Nobel, Einstien, Hitler, Himmler, Carl Sagan, Attilia, Genghis....(hawking were excluded cos he cant be described as "superior", sorry...)

[d] If blond were smart, then explain why does our society have "stupid, shallow blond chicks" stereotype ? EXPLAIN....

Being a blond myself, I studied the patterns of expansion of the blond genes. Blond genes are recessive, but they are strong and almost impossible to remove from DNA once within a population. Those genes will lie dormant for many generations before pairing. Mine laid dormant for 5 generations on my Dad's side, and then my brother and I were both born blond to our blond mother. I studied the pattern and realized there is an ebb and flow to the blond and blue eye genes. Right now were on the cusp of another huge blond explosion. Look around at most kids these days and you'll notice there are a lot of blond kids being born from brunette parents.

[e] Lol at your blond ideology.... oh, and some say retardation are recessive too,... you kno....

So basically, yeah, blonds actually are for the most part smarter and more attractive than pretty much all races. Blonds were selectively bread for a long ass time, and usually smarts were also intertwined in that selective breading. Blonds basically were sought after by ruling classes, and because of this were privileged in always finding the most genetically stable mates who usually had smarts and strength on their side as well. Lots will argue that there are lots of brunettes with lots of smarts too, but that's surface, and you'll soon find that most brunettes also have a recessive blond gene. The blond gene, which became tied to strength and smarts through royal breading, has taken over almost the entire caucasian race. Within 200 years, white people will almost all be blond. It spread like cancer.

[f] FACT : Blonds are attractive. True, but if we look at the basic principal of natural selection...then we can see clearly that's not the case. In fact, according to the basic principal of natural selection... blonds are outrightly INFERIOR. Why ?

Due to their inferiority in sustaining / ensuring their survival, they have to develop something special, something that will make them socially acceptable and stand out in the crowd. Something special and superficial. Something that superior people will like and procreate with, therefore, people with stupid gene developed blond genes...to help them win the affection and semen of the superior people, and indirectly, the protection of the superior people. Cos ther than their "blondiness", they have nothing useful/no special skills to contribute to society at that time, and even now in this age....

You kno, just like pretty flowers gets more bees .... cos they relied on the bees more than other flowers...or grasses...and if we grow a pretty flower beside some weeds, who have the better chances of surviving ?

This is so true that China has a policy that white people will be sentenced to death by firing squad for interbreading with chinese women.

:eek: Really ? Where did you heard that ? SF.org ? bwhahahah

The only race that seems to come even close in overall intelligence to blond dominant Europeans, is the Japanese. There isn't a single technologically advanced nation in the world who wasn't enabled by coming into contact with the blond europeans.

Elaborate how ... or maybe it's just something you read in SF ?

And guess what, if you're a blond guy and you go to Japan, you are like catnip to japanese pussy. Drives them crazy.

And what's a yellow fever ?

So yes, blonds are superior, and that is why Europeans who are either blond, or have blond genes pretty much run the entire world.

FACT : None of the greatest european conquistadors were actually blond. FACT. Infact, all those Greatest conquistadors didn't even live in the nations with hi-blond population. FACTS.

FACT : European nation with hi-blond population remained pertty insignificant throughout ancient, and modern european history. All those "advanced" ex-3rd right country have [B]hi-JEW !!! population, since before 2nd WW, and after...

While hi-blond countries such as Norway, Dutchland and Iceland remained not only insignificant, but pretty much unheard of even in the US.

Also, another argument is that a golden aura has been considered to be a symbol of divinity for a long long time. Golden hair was likely considered godly too.

Says who ? A blond ??

p/s : Silver hair also reminded people of valuable currency of that time; the silver, and I don't see how people are attracted to old people then....or now.

pp/s : pix of your soft fluffy pubes or your lying ...:cool: