many, many things don't have any evolutionary significance.
remember nature is ultimately a crapshoot.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-20 23:29
darker eye colors shield your eyes more from bright lights, which is probably why that was the base color for most animals (including humans), however, as Europeans lived in environments with lighter colors due to snow etc lighter eye colors allowed them better cover in their environment than many darker eye colored humans. Like most everything else that can be correlated to particular interbreeding groups of humans in unique geographic regions, there is no out and out superior set of genes, each set is best for a particular environment.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-21 15:38
>>5
wow someone has no fucking idea how evolution works.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-21 18:50
>>6
don't be a stupid bitch, it's not really evolution so much as lighter eye colors are just single mutation propagated by natural selection under certain environmental conditions.
That could be the case. But I bet blue eyes have no evolutionary advantage, they're just a neutral mutation that propagated easily with no selection against it. I say this in speculation, however, as I am not familiar with how darker pigments give the advantage they supposedly do. I could easily see eye color as being merely vesitigal.
>>they're just a neutral mutation that propagated easily with no selection against it.
This >>5
You're an idiot, read a book on evolution. And not dumbed down popular science books either..
Not evolution; genetics. Why don't you point me to a specific book.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-05 3:10
>>12
Just to keep you up to speed, we're talking about evolution. Now, blue eyes are not harmful or beneficial and don't take up any energy. You saying that they are a product of natural selection because conditions in northern Europe allow for it, tells us you don't actually know anything about natural selection. Its not an important mutation, Blue eyes are a recent phenomenon in evolutionary time and its survival is just trivial.