Eye colour genetics

It is completely unique, like a fingerprint but there are genetic markers that sway it broadly.

Dominance is the real theory, recession is just an absence of dominance. Recessive genes are more evolutionally novel, that’s why they’re quite easy to steamroll.

This is a simplified graph but instructive.

You could associate probabilities based on the parent’s DNA, their genotype, not phenotype outcome.

Basic primary colour perception varies by sex.

http://www.livescience.com/22894-men-and-women-see-things-differently.html

Basic. Red. Yellow. Blue. Rainbow colours. Not terracotta versus rust. [former is red-orange, latter more brown]
Primary colours too. So this would really throw the cat among the pigeons for any upper level function since a man and a woman can look at literally the same object, same section of the nm spectrum and still disagree/misperceive.

Not that it supports the “nothing is objective” philosophy. These things are quantifiable with optics. The difference is labelling and perception between sexes based on what their senses are capable of perceiving. Cat, pigeons.

Click on this to mix colours online and do a random sample of m/f friends: http://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/view.jsp?id=82d2083bea117b6f3e03d6426ba2d29f Women give more florid descriptions, men tend to be blunt. That might not be male simplicity or stupidity, as is often claimed, but a difference in colour processing in the brain. Women, being gatherers in tribal societies, required higher colour discrimination than men, who often only needed to catch what they were chasing. Lo and behold;

Guys’ eyes are more sensitive to small details and moving objects, while women are more perceptive to color changes, according to a new vision study that suggests men and women actually do see things differently.

Abramov explained in a statement these elements of vision are linked to specific sets of thalamic neurons in the brain’s primary visual cortex. The development of these neurons is controlled by male sex hormones called androgens when the embryo is developing into a fetus. [and according to pro-choice feminists, not really a person]

“We suggest that, since these neurons are guided by the cortex during embryogenesis, that testosterone plays a major role, somehow leading to different connectivity between males and females,” Abramov said. “The evolutionary driving force between these differences is less clear.” [he says tongue firmly in cheek]

Vive la Evolution!

Attraction to red is primal, not cultural

read study here

Now, new research shows that female monkeys also respond to the color red, suggesting that biology, rather than our culture, may play the fundamental role in our “red” reactions.

“Previous research shows that the color red in a mating context makes people more attractive, and in the fighting context makes people seem more threatening and angry,” explained Benjamin Y. Hayden, a coauthor of the study and professor in brain and cognitive sciences at the University of Rochester.

Hayden, whose research often involves primates, and Andrew J. Elliot, a professor of psychology at Rochester who has published several articles on humans and the red effect and coauthor of the study, sought to uncover what causes humans’ response to the color. Is triggered simply by repeated cultural exposures, or if there is a biological basis that may help explain why the color tends to amplify human emotions?

As Hayden put it, “is this just because every year on Valentine’s Day we see these red things everywhere and it creates a link for us between the color red and romance, or is it really a fundamental thing rooted in our biology?”

One way to test for biological influence would be to assess reactions in individuals who have not been conditioned to associate the color red with romance, Hayden said. “What if we could test this in someone who is not even human, but was exposed to a lot of the same evolutionary pressures? Well, that would be a monkey,” he said. “So, we conducted experiments to see if monkeys would have similar biases as humans, and in a nutshell the answer is, yes, it seems like they do.” …

The researchers found a significant female bias toward the images of male hindquarters, but only when a red frame surrounded the image. “To our knowledge,” the researchers said, “this is the first demonstration of an extraneous color effect in non-human primates.”…

Culturally, it seems to be present at key interactions: war (death) and childbirth. My theory of how it came to be innate, anyway.

But, surprising to the researchers, male monkeys did not show a preference for the female hindquarters, either, even when surrounded by the color red.

The researchers say additional work is needed to understand why males did not respond to the extraneous colors. One possibility is that the reproductive state of females is reflected in facial color changes rather than changes in the hindquarters. Images of females, which were restricted to the hindquarter region, may have been too limited to elicit male responses. …

He should try babboons.

Why did skin colour evolve? Water retention.

evolution study here

“In their new study, the researchers identified a strikingly higher prevalence of inborn mutations in the filaggrin gene among Northern European populations. Up to 10 percent of normal individuals carried mutations in the filaggrin gene in these northern nations, in contrast to much lower mutation rates in southern European, Asian and African populations.

Moreover, higher filaggrin mutation rates, which result in a loss of urocanic acid, correlated with higher vitamin D levels in the blood. Latitude-dependent variations in melanin genes are not similarly associated with vitamin D levels, according to Elias. This evidence suggests that changes in the skin barrier played a role in Northern European’s evolutionary adaptation to Northern latitudes, the study concluded.

Yet, there was an evolutionary tradeoff for these barrier-weakening filaggrin mutations, Elias said. Mutation bearers have a tendency for very dry skin, and are vulnerable to atopic dermatitis, asthma and food allergies. But these diseases have appeared only recently, and did not become a problem until humans began to live in densely populated urban environments, Elias said.”

They still back OOA though, against all reason, because they want to keep their jobs. Multi-regional explains this, OOA cannot. Science should befit the evidence.
They don’t look into brain evolution, do they? Cranial capacity? Hardiness aside from the face? How diet informs…? No. Don’t bother.

Next they should look to skin layer thickness, white skin is thinner.