All it could mean is that a certain type of recessive characteristic became more prevalent as a result of certain organisms surviving over others. From the looks of it, lighter skinner people are more likely to have blue eyes. Does it not make sense that lighter skinned people survived better in colder climates, thus, the reason that blue eyes are seen more in those regions. More individuals carried the recessive trait, so more people ended physically displaying the trait through a long series of generations.

Its not that different climates created new alleles, it is that certain individuals survived holding recessive alleles, and thus, they became physically observable in future generations.

All it could mean is that a certain type of recessive characteristic became more prevalent as a result of certain organisms surviving over others. From the looks of it, lighter skinner people are more likely to have blue eyes. Does it not make sense that lighter skinned people survived better in colder climates, thus, the reason that blue eyes are seen more in those regions. More individuals carried the recessive trait, so more people ended physically displaying the trait through a long series of generations.

You are repeating yourself using more complex terminology but it does not answer my questions.Who where these recessive individuals and why did they only occur in northern europe , nature has a habit of repeating itself given the oppertunity.The first Blues eye was not enough, you had to have a pool of blue eyes for them to become observable.If you tried experimentally with an equal amount of blue and brown eyes, within several generations the blue eyes would be a rarity if non existent.By logic it would need a large proportion if not the majority of any population for a recessive gene to survive.

By the proposed mechanism for evolution, recessive traits can only become prevalent when they are selected for. This is a catch-22, since a recessive phenotypic trait could never be selected. It's an impossible scenario, analogous to the requirement that any "evolutionary" step requires not one, but two freaks of nature to find each other by chance, and mate.

Here is the deal. Eye color is not a big deal. In fact, no trait variances are that big of a deal because all humans belong to the same species. But anyway here is the argument for why thinking of blue eyes as caused by one recessive trait is plain wrong. Blue eyes are taught as a Mendalian trait, which is a discrete trait or a trait of simple inheritance. The problem it is not true that blue eyes are recessive to brown eyes. Eye color is influenced by a number of alleles, not just a single one. Thus, the more individuals that carry the alleles that cause blue eyes that survive, the more the trait appears in the population. Dominant and recessive traits are not an all or none affair.

Have you considered the effects of vitamin D can have on which individuals survive? That probably explains why blonde hair and blue eyes are more prevalent in Northern Europe, and the Inuits were not forced to adapt genetically and rather may have compensated through vitamin D rich fish diets to live in "sunstarved" regions.

Light skinned people have less melanin in their skin so they do not need as much sunlight to produce vitamin D. Dark eyes are also caused by melanin. Thus, the reason why light skinned people are more likely to have blue or green eyes.

Isn't it funny how quickly these threads run the gammit.

I think we went from the possible intentions any possible aliens might have coming to earth, to how they would be affected by Darwin's opinions.

I still find it a little odd that we are talking about aliens from out there in the starngeness of space as though they must be humanlike in thought and intention, and now even genetics.

We always have to be able to put a face to a mystery and want it to be familiar so we can comprehend it. If it turns out to be incomprehensible we declare it an impossibility.

What if these aliens simply flee any sign of danger without ever having to defend theirselves? Maybe their technology is such that they do not need weapons because their flight skills are so highly advanced. Maybe that is why they are so elusive. They are simply able to come and go in the blink of en eye and no race has ever been able to harm them. And because of that they also have never harmed another living creature because of that.

My point is that we are definitely trying to paint any possible ET with a human face and to me that is certainly deceitful. We can make all sorts of assumptions based upon our own familiarity with how we would act and what our own physical selves might bring upon us, but why apply that to something that is NOT human?

This is simply that same old movie line where the alien comes to earth only to be nuked by paranoids before it can even get out of its car to say hello.

Who the hell is discussing the affects of Darwin's opinions?

Here is a discovery out of Copenhagen University that may explain why the Chinese do not typically have blue eyes and light skin.

University of Copenhagen - News

and yet after having pointed out all of this complexity and intimate detail you still just think that it happened by accident?

Lets add to that if the sun was two feet closer we would all be charbroiled in the 90 percent water that we are.

Or that one tiny little cancer cell can end the whole thing.

or one little atom for that matter, an atom for christs sake wiped out two entire cities.

yup, must have been an accident.

im not denying a creator i just cant find him or her.Im agnostic i dont think humans are able of conceiving of this creative force.If you find it, you have to describe it or its an illusion.Its not benevolent as its been described but just like the sea is neither our friend or our enemy.I know what it is not but i dont know what it is.

What if these aliens simply flee any sign of danger without ever having to defend theirselves? Maybe their technology is such that they do not need weapons because their flight skills are so highly advanced. Maybe that is why they are so elusive. They are simply able to come and go in the blink of en eye and no race has ever been able to harm them. And because of that they also have never harmed another living creature because of that.

That would be a great explanation if there were not also hundreds of reports of abductions and ruthless encounters.

My point is that we are definitely trying to paint any possible ET with a human face and to me that is certainly deceitful. We can make all sorts of assumptions based upon our own familiarity with how we would act and what our own physical selves might bring upon us, but why apply that to something that is NOT human?

Well, when you suggest that they may have an amazing ability to flee or use stealth from predators or aggressors , aren't you doing the same thing? Aren't you comparing aliens to some sort of gazelle or mosquito?

Just because you are limited to intrepretting what you see through your own experiences, it doesn't mean you are mistaken. Assuming you could not comprehend it or identify it accurately is simply a fallacy.

This is simply that same old movie line where the alien comes to earth only to be nuked by paranoids before it can even get out of its car to say hello.