Scientist: All Blue-Eyed People Are Related

[Alchemica]

We keep it movin' to the broad day light... Blue Guys and Girls of the world unite, alright!

 

 

 

Scientist: All Blue-Eyed People Are Related

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327070,00.html

New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.

If you've got blue eyes, shake the hand of the nearest person who shares your azure irises: He or she may be a distant cousin.

Danish researchers have concluded that all blue-eyed people share a common ancestor, presumably someone who lived 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

"Originally, we all had brown eyes," Professor Hans Eiberg of the University of Copenhagen said in a press release. "But a genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes."

That "switch" a simple change from "A," or adenine, to "G," or guanine, in the DNA actually sits next to the OCA2 gene, which regulates the pigmentation of our eyes, hair and skin, and hence has only a limiting effect on it.

If the mutation had completely deactivated OCA2, all blue-eyed people would be albinos.

Eiberg and his team analyzed 155 individuals in a large Danish family, plus several blue-eyed people born in Turkey and Jordan.

All blue-eyed subjects had the mutation, and there was very little variation on the genes neighboring it on the chromosome, indicating that the mutation first arose relatively recently.

In contrast, most mammals share the "normal" form of the gene. The six-letter sequence is exactly the same among mice, horses, cows, rats, dogs, cats, monkeys, chimpanzees and humans with brown eyes. (No word on what gives Siberian huskies and Siamese cats blue eyes.)

 

Above: "My grandma's second great, great cousin... "

 

 

Eiberg figures the mutation took place on the northern of the Black Sea, but that's an educated guess, assuming the first blue-eyed humans were among the proto-Indo-Europeans who subsequently spread agriculture into western Europe and later rode horses into Iran and India.

Ironically, neither the first person to have the mutation, nor his or her children, would have had blue eyes themselves.

Blue eyes are a recessive trait, and the gene must be inherited from both parents. (Green eyes involve a related but different gene, one that is recessive to brown but dominant to blue.)

It wasn't until the original mutant's grandchildren or great-grandchildren hooked up cousin marriage is the norm through most of human history that the first blue-eyed person appeared. He or she must have looked pretty odd for the Neolithic era.

Eiberg stresses that the genetic variation, as the press release puts it, is "neither a positive nor a negative mutation."

That's a bit disingenuous, as the mutation also produces greater instance of blond hair (sexually selected for even today) and fair skin, which confers a survival advantage by stimulating greater production of vitamin D in sun-starved northern European countries exactly where blue eyes are still most prevalent.

 

"Nothing like a few Blue m&m's to celebrate our heritage..."

 

 

and in other breaking news...

Blue MM's Better than Green for Sex Drive?

Taken directly, without modification from http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i43615

In an unscientific but documented study of colored MM candies on human sex drive, British Pharmacist Dr. Benjamin Licken discovered what was described as a definite connection between the ingestion of blue MM's and positive effects on the male libido.

Testing the widespread belief that the green colored MM's were a natural aphrodisiac, Licken found quite the opposite was true for males tested in his six month study. "None of the other colors including green had any noticeable effect on the male sex drive, but the blue candies had an immediate impact" Licken said. "The results varied of course but for the most part, you could use my wiener as a coat rack, and I mean full length, heavy wool winter coats. Three to four of them, actually".

The pharmacist's wife and assistant in the study, Anita Licken says, "We plan to do a similar study on women and green MM's, but any chocolate seems to work for me. As for the male study, we hope to secure additional funding for years and years of further research". Mrs. Licken was seen smiling at her own comment.

Sensing more to the story, reporters asked Dr. Licken if the MM samples were tested for consistency of ingredients between tests, to which he replied, "My wife was responsible for setting out the samples and come to think of it, some of the blue MM's were crunchier and had a bitter aftertaste. Shortly after that, I found reason to give Mrs. Licken a good rogering."

Licken's hypothesis was later debunked by Oxford University Chemistry experts, when one test sample was found to contain blue MM's of the diamond-shaped, "Pfizer" stamped pill variety. "Apparently Mrs. Licken had been tampering with the samples in order to achieve the results she found to be in her best interest", one professor said. "I think she preferred test results that did NOT melt in her mouth or her hand".

Edited December 22, 2008 by The Alchemist

[FancyPants]

I'm calling BS. Why should the mutation only occur in ONE individual within 6-10,000 years? Especially if the mutation was a result of living in colder, darker climates. That should mean the mutation occurred in a fair few people living above certain latitudes.

Also, how many of you have noticed that despite the bb gene being recessive, most "white" anglos actually have blue eyes? I find it interesting anyway. There was one girl in my 12th grade Vis Art class who was so obnoxious about her blue eyes (and blonde hair) that she really considered herself the bees-knees. Until I pointed out to her one day that in our entire class, only 2 of the "non-whites" (bad word but you get my drift) didn't have blue eyes. Uh-huh, so very speshul I'm sure. Thanks to that one chick (she was insanely obnoxious, not just a little bit so), I can't help but find arrogance in some people who worship their blue eyes/blonde hair as the penultimate in beautiful - particularly when their shade is nothing spectacular lol. I shouldn't feel this way, but I'm working on it

[Alchemica]

I just want an excuse to give to my psychiatrist to say I'm not psychotic after I tried to convince them I was an alien/ blue m&m. I've lost all faith in pure science and chemistry basically too (hence the switch to Alchemistry), so I think the safest option is to take any findings with a grain of pure crystal acid...

Edited December 22, 2008 by The Alchemist

[ballzac]

I'm calling BS. Why should the mutation only occur in ONE individual within 6-10,000 years? Especially if the mutation was a result of living in colder, darker climates. That should mean the mutation occurred in a fair few people living above certain latitudes.

Does it actually say that the mutation is a result of living in colder conditions? I would've assumed it was a random genetic mutation. If I'm right, then they would've probably been able to calculate the probability of the mutation occurring, and it must have fitted with their hypothesis. Also, it's not only the probability of the mutation occurring in the first place, but that must be multiplied by the probability of it being passed on. This would be 0.25 for being passed to both children, then each child would have to pass it on to at least one child...0.25 again. If the original mutation only had two grandchildren, the probability would be 1/16...if I have calculated correctly. This means the the mutation could have occurred quite a few times without ever being realised into actual blue eyes. Also, the blue eyed person (or their blue eye gene offspring) would need another person with the gene to produce more children, so the probability will be even smaller of it being passed on further, until a certain point where there is a kind of 'critical number' of blue eyed genes in circulation.

Also, how many of you have noticed that despite the bb gene being recessive, most "white" anglos actually have blue eyes? I find it interesting anyway.

Imagine you have nine blue eyed people and one brown eyed person. The brown eyed person will have no choice but to mate with a blue eyed person or produce no offspring. Their offspring will have brown eyes, but will carry a blue eyed gene and will have a 50/50 chance of having a blue eyed child if they mate with a blue eyed person. If they mate with a brown eyed person who also has a blue gene, they will have a one in four chance of their children having blue eyes, but a one in two chance of passing on the blue gene. I'm probably getting too deep here as I won't be able to quickly calculate all the probabilities, but think of it like this: Two blue eyed people can only have blue eyed children, but two brown eyed people can have either blue or brown eyed children, so just because blue is recessive doesn't mean it is less likely to occur.

[MORG]

Interesting stuff!

Also, how many of you have noticed that despite the bb gene being recessive, most "white" anglos actually have blue eyes?

"Recessive" says nothing at all about the frequency of that gene in the population. You could have a population 100% for a recessive gene.

Why should the mutation only occur in ONE individual within 6-10,000 years? Especially if the mutation was a result of living in colder, darker climates.

A human genome is roughly 3 billion base pairs (nucleotide pairs). Are you saying that its more likely that the SAME EXACT MUTATION occurred at the same place than only happening once and gradually propagating through the population through reproduction? This is a beautiful illustration of the limited pool of genetic lineages that we have arisen from. And over time this only becomes smaller and smaller as more and more branches are pruned from the tree.

Yeah I agree the science isn't sound...

Mind if I ask where the flaws are? Did you read the paper?

Hard to judge the science from a science journalist's 200 word piece focusing just on the conclusions.

[Chiral]

If you've got blue eyes, shake the hand of the nearest person who shares your azure irises: He or she may be a distant cousin.

anyone wanna shake on it...?

H.

[Alchemica]

Morg, I just added "the science isn't sound" so I could stay neutral in the debate... Being a blue eyed individual, I don't want to seem like I'm starting up any trouble... I have a passionate hate for any genetics (couldn't stay awake in the lectures); so I've retracted the statement and I'll leave it in the hands of a qualified person to give a verdict.

EDIT: I'll agree that some (definitely not all) of the most over-the-top and annoying females I've known (from a distance, never been up close and personal to any) have been blonde and blue eyed. Then again, I've also noticed that most of the blue eyed guys I know are introverted and rather shy... I can certainly confirm that for myself (although I'm working on it). I had the blonde hair until I was about three, then I went dark brown... Probably fluoridosis, or growing old.

Edited December 22, 2008 by The Alchemist

[Teljkon]

sdfsd

Edited December 19, 2021 by Teljkon

[ballzac]

Im also prone to stick with the idea that its a cold weather mutation that took place in a population of people at the same time.

Still not sure what you guys mean by 'cold weather mutation'. Is there evidence that cold weather can cause this - or any other - mutation?

[C_T]

Still not sure what you guys mean by 'cold weather mutation'. Is there evidence that cold weather can cause this - or any other - mutation?

not that i know of. But solar radiation will happily mutate forms of life.