 |
search this site: search the web: |
The only reason blondes would disappear is if having the gene was a disadvantage and I do not think that is the case. The frequency of blondes may drop but they won't disappear. Besides that many children have blonde hair as a child but as they grow older, there hair darkens. Their may be drop in blondes because in order to have it, but the mother and father must carry the gene for blonde hair. But to say it will disappear is absured.
by DerZweiteWeltKrieg on Fri Sep 01, 06 7:58pm
[+]
Careful, there are certain posters on B&W who start frothing at the mouth when they hear things like that. Seriosly I think that they are right to be concerned. One thing genetecists and zoologists agree about is that it only takes a small disadvantage for a gene to disappear from the gene pool over a period of time and all these fake blondes taking the real blondes opportunities to reproduce is definetly a problem. We are definetly going to see less blondes around in 100 years, of course I will be dead by then but "wont somebody think of the children!?"
by Searchlight on Sat Sep 02, 06 2:21am
[+]
First of all, Hardy-Weinberg predicts that in any population at equilibrium, some recessive phenotypes will be expressed. p^2 +2pq +q^2 =1 Second, dumb blonde jokes probably go back to when Germanic peoples were barbarians or when Roman upper classes bleached their hair. Most of what thc said. Even though the phenotype for dark hair would be dominant, there would still be a 25% chance for blondes when two heterozygous parents procreated. Also, this assumes a perfect mixing. With globalization, pockets of homozygous recessive individuals are less common, but still exits. Besides, what are you trying to do ... give Prussion Blue a coronary?!?
|