Blue Eyes Originated 10,000 Years Ago in the Black Sea Region

Blue Eyes Originated 10,000 Years Ago in the Black Sea Region

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
April 15, 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

A team of researchers from Copenhagen Universityhave located a single mutation that causes the mysterious phenomenon of blue eyes. And all blue eyed people are genetically related to a person who lived in the Black Sea region sometime between 6 – 10,000 years ago.

The research was published in the Journal of Human Genetics. A mutation in a gene called OCA2 came into being nearly 8,000 years ago. It can be definitively traced back to an ancestor from the Black Sea.

Dr. Hans Eiberg claims that before this time, every human being had brown eyes. “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,” Eiberg said.

When blue-eyed peoples from Jordan, Denmark and Turkey were examined, their genetic difference was traced back to the maternal lineage according to Eiberg’s team.

The brown melanin pigment is still dominant. However, following the last Ice Age, Europeans developed this rare mutation that differentiated them from the rest of the human race.

Ninety-five percent of Europeans in Scandinavian countries have blue eyes. They are also found to have a greater range of hair and skin color.

Comparatively, Europe has a wider variety of hair color and skin pigment than is found in any other continent in the world. These mutations are recent as Europe was colonized only a few thousand years ago, say mainstream scientists.

Through interbreeding, the brunette with blue eyes was evidenced about 25,000 years ago. Researchers attribute this to ancient interbreeding with Neanderthals.

Although no Neanderthal DNA has been found in modern Homo Sapien-Sapien, mainstream science clings to this theory as fact because they haven’t come up with anything better.

“The question really is, ‘Why did we go from having nobody on Earth with blue eyes 10,000 years ago to having 20 or 40 percent of Europeans having blue eyes now?” John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin-Madison said. “This gene does something good for people. It makes them have more kids.”


Tags assigned to this article:
eugenics

43 comments

Write a comment
  1. Mark Battey
    Mark Battey 30 September, 2013, 03:23

    Yeah, what Amie says. It's not that you aren't making sense Keteri, but I haven't heard of it and apparently neither had Amie from Portland (which is perhaps the best city for dining out in America)

  2. Terri Herget
    Terri Herget 29 September, 2013, 23:47

    I have blue/green eyes and Scandinavian decent and have lots of children… Lol

  3. Susan Maree Jeavons
    Susan Maree Jeavons 17 September, 2013, 22:21

    Thank you Deborah Leticia Dibler. Copyright infringement is not a petty matter. Using large parts of someone else's article without permission, even if you do post where the original came from, is unprofessional and illegal.

  4. Claire Lavoie Hammond
    Claire Lavoie Hammond 15 September, 2013, 03:45

    No it Does Not I have Blue Eyes …That I got From My Father …My Mom's Were Hazel and NO I COULD NOT EVER GET PREGEANT !

  5. David Anthony Smith
    David Anthony Smith 14 September, 2013, 01:17

    Can someone explain the fly in the ointment that is the Australian aborigine who has been here for possibly up to 62 thousand years even longer as they got here on land bridges during the ice ages when the sea floor was 300 metres lower than now and they had so e members in the Northern Territory with blue eyes ? Please explain your hypothesis of only being 10'000 years from the Fertile Crescent in Turkey or the Black Sea ? Hmmmm please explain the blue eyed from the basically recessive gene of Australians original inhabitants which most like.y came from India and were an ayrian race not negroid ?

  6. Franklin Garcia
    Franklin Garcia 11 September, 2013, 12:18

    You have just went full retard my friend.

  7. Mia Winchester
    Mia Winchester 5 September, 2013, 16:00

    you can be related to someone and still not inherit some of their genes

    If you look up basic genetics you'll find that for each gene (example : eye colour) there are 2 alleles (information that dictates which colour, in this instance). One allele comes from the father, the other from the mother. Each individual has 2 alleles for each gene.
    So a person can have a brown eye allele and a blue eye allele.
    Only one allele is transmitted to the offspring, and which one out of the 2 is completely random.
    Your brother received 2 blue eye alleles : one from your father and one from your mother.
    You have brown eyes so you received at least 1 brown eye allele. The brown allele is dominant over the blue allele. It means the dominant allele will show whereas the recessive allele will be partially or completely hidden. If your eyes are light brown (hazel) it is likely you carry a blue eye allele, so if you have kids with someone who has at least one blue eye allele, you could have kids with blue eyes.

    So anyway, I repeat my initial sentence, you can be related to someone without having inherited all of their genes.

    This is oversimplified I know, for other genetics enthusiasts out there I am aware there are 2 genes necessary for eye colour, not just 1, but to explain that would take up too much time and be very confusing.

  8. Jake Rivers
    Jake Rivers 5 September, 2013, 01:56

    my (full, not half) brother has blue eyes and I have brown. how can he be related to someone I'm not?

  9. Chris Davie
    Chris Davie 1 September, 2013, 03:31

    So that trilobite I found along the cliff faces at the beach, that was placed by the government in some international conspiracy to undermine the legitimacy of fundamental Christianity? Knew it!

  10. Caitlin O'Gorman
    Caitlin O'Gorman 27 August, 2013, 16:15

    brown eyes are dominant, but if they had blue eyed relatives and blued eyed children, that means that they were carriers – each had one brown gene and one blue gene from their parents. The brown is dominant, so your sister and her husband had brown eyes. When they had children, two of the four children ended up inheriting both their mother and their father's blue gene, and that's why they have blue eyes.

  11. Margie Gib
    Margie Gib 19 August, 2013, 22:08

    The article says brown eyes are dominant. Yet my sister and her husband had brown eyes. They had 4 children. 2 had brown eyes and 2 had really blue eyes. But there were blue-eyed relatives on BOTH sides of the parents.

  12. David Gregory Lee
    David Gregory Lee 18 August, 2013, 02:11

    The Scriptures make it plain that this earth and it's solar system was created about 6000 years ago, give or take. The universe, though, is billions of years old (The Genesis account is about the creation of these environs, NOT the larger universe, which God also did create, but way long ago). The angels and the beings on the un-fallen worlds in the far-flung reaches of that universe watched and cheered as God created this solar system. He is using it to work out the demise of evil, introduced by Lucifer at his fall. Yes, I do believe in the Biblical record. And believe it or not, it DOES agree with scientific fact, but not the "spin" (interpretation) put on those facts by the majority of the scientific community. There are problems with dating methods like Carbon 14, etc. I invite you to lay your beliefs aside long enough to actually look closely at the Biblical data, and compare it with what man has discovered through scientific inquiry. You will be pleasantly surprised, if you are honest.

  13. Lou McHugh
    Lou McHugh 17 August, 2013, 09:45

    HOW EXACTLY WAS THERE NO EARTH 10,000 years ago?? When the oldest dated human remains found are 63,000 years old and the oldest dated rocks of the planet are 2.5 to 3.8 million years old??????

  14. David Gregory Lee
    David Gregory Lee 15 August, 2013, 00:59

    What do you know about the website, Rick? I just stumbled upon this article… Don't know anything else about it.

  15. Rick Hickman
    Rick Hickman 15 August, 2013, 00:17

    I don't even want to make a comment. This article and the website itself is trash.

  16. David P. Ward
    David P. Ward 15 August, 2013, 00:07

    One word – "bull hockey" – okay, it's two words!

  17. David Gregory Lee
    David Gregory Lee 14 August, 2013, 23:39

    I have blue eyes—but oh how OFF this article is, besides the age of the earth! So many things wrong in it!

  18. David Gregory Lee
    David Gregory Lee 14 August, 2013, 23:37

    Note: there was no EARTH 10,000 years ago—yet!

  19. Crystal M Donovan
    Crystal M Donovan 10 August, 2013, 15:44

    Now that is how this article should have been written.

  20. Nairb Nitram
    Nairb Nitram 6 August, 2013, 17:16

    I guess that's why there are so many drunks too! Booze does something good for people, it makes them have more kids. Scientist, sheesh!

  21. Otheus Shelling
    Otheus Shelling 6 August, 2013, 07:32

    Poorly written, but I agree with Cognitive Dissonance — it's describing the existing hypothesis.

  22. Marilyn Woodell Evans
    Marilyn Woodell Evans 6 August, 2013, 02:00

    Amber Bricker let me get this straight, you think it is okay for someone to take a person's work and claim it as their own? Would you like for someone to take your original ideas and use them as their own? A thief is a thief and stealing words and copyrighted articles is theft.

  23. Marilyn Woodell Evans
    Marilyn Woodell Evans 6 August, 2013, 01:56

    Russann Tomlinson let me get this straight, you think it is okay for someone to take a person's work and claim it as their own? As a Web Developer would you like for someone to take your original ideas and use them on their web pages and other folks and claim it as their own? Theft is theft and a thief is a thief

  24. Russann Tomlinson
    Russann Tomlinson 6 August, 2013, 00:30

    Amber Bricker: Wrong on so many levels I won't waste my time…

  25. Sándor Juhász
    Sándor Juhász 22 July, 2013, 02:37

    The blue eyed blood relationship less the melotronin. Take pain end stress toleransci.Giv in civilizacoin inteligent end fine.

  26. Muari d'Luxorion
    Muari d'Luxorion 12 July, 2013, 07:02

    All in all, the blue eyes trait is still a Mutation, such trait being a deviation from the naturally occurring traits.

    Mutation: an unusual (in context of nature, the term usual equates to unnatural) change in a gene occurring spontaneously or by induction. (Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.)

  27. Cognitive Dissonance
    Cognitive Dissonance 3 July, 2013, 19:06

    It is not a typo. The paragraph after that one explains that there is no evidence to support that theory but mainstream scientists continue to support it because they have no other explanation.

  28. Amie Good
    Amie Good 2 July, 2013, 07:34

    Hi Kateri, Do you have any links to the research that you have read about? I would love to see 🙂 Thank you!

  29. Günter Stellmaszek
    Günter Stellmaszek 8 June, 2013, 22:21

    This explains me lot, you got my thanks.I am always wondered how a single person with blue eye mutation which is not dominat could spread, you would need at least one mate with the same mutations,which seems quite impossible, spreading would be absurd….

  30. Neil Armstrong
    Neil Armstrong 10 May, 2013, 03:27

    So then they were from Noah and his surviving family members just like every other genetic characteristic in humans today.

  31. Carmen Jesús Isla Herrero
    Carmen Jesús Isla Herrero 17 March, 2013, 23:27

    Not always: My family mother is all blue eyed but, when thy´ve mixtured themselves with brown eyed, the mixture was kids with brown eyes. But at the opposite, my cousin and his husband were brown eyed but the granpas were. one blueeyed, and the grangrand mother and the second line before bluyeyed too but not the last one and my cousins today are both blue eyed. Amazing!

    • David Posel
      David Posel 29 April, 2013, 21:55

      With many people, there is a very thin outer circle of blue behind the brown, even some central American cultures have had this. It really is very fascinating to study, not to mention being a fun discovery.

Only registered users can comment.