Please settle this debate

@DeWayfarer
Incorrect

@newjaninev2 no it isn't. You're thinking about the recessives and there some exceptions because of the recessives.

But that's rare.

BB+BB = BB
BB+Bb=Bb or BB
Bb+Bb=Bb

GG+GG=GG
GG+Gg=Gg or GG
Gg+Gg=Gg

GG+BG=GG
GG+Bb=Gg
Gb+Bb=Gb or Bb

I give nine combinations here. Only one gives a different color.

@DeWayfarer Brown mother with a recessive blue

Brown father with a recessive blue

Both recessive blues express = blue-eyed baby

For each parent the chance of either gene expressing is 50/50

.5 x .5 = .25

One chance in four they'll have a blue-eyed baby, even though neither parent has blue eyes.

What determines rarity is the base rate of recessive blue-eye genes within the gene pool.

European, american, and Australasian pools have the highest rate, with around 25% carrying recessive blue.

That's a simplification, of course, as multiple genes are involved - predominantly OCA2 and HERC2 on chromosome 15

@newjaninev2 think of the real life odds of that ever happened with a world full of brown eyed people.

The human race will be predominantly brown eyed within three or four generations.

The vast majority of Africa, India and China are brown eyed people that's ¾ of the world population. I'm not counting south America.

Get use to it!

Here I'm fact checking my statements through AI...

@DeWayfarer which has absolutely nothing to do with my comments correcting your initial incorrect statement.

@newjaninev2 no it isn't and the only reason why you gave USA, Europe and Australia is very dubious because that minority is mostly white.

@DeWayfarer
Perhaps you didn't follow what I pointed out - take a million brown-eyed people and let them breed and blue-eyed offspring will appear. Let them carry on breeding for 50,000 years and blue-eyed offspring will still appear.

@newjaninev2 you're wrong. Even the AI is saying you're wrong.

Get use to it!

@DeWayfarer It's because those populations are largely of European descent and the mutation leading to blue eyes first arose in Europe (base rate, remember?) around 10,000 years ago.

Humans tend to select mates from those living near them (especially in earlier times), so base rates increase quickly

@newjaninev2 not in a global civilization!

And that's exactly what we are! You can't out breed 70 to 80% as it is!

@DeWayfarer Yes, in any population, global or not.

You would need to identify every single human with blue-eye receptive genes and prevent them from ever mating.

Good luck with that! 😀

@newjaninev2 quite the opposite.

Your not stopping 50% of non blue eyed people from breeding ten kids. The more dominant types.

Even the USA is having fewer and fewer kids. Many don't have any at all! I'm one of them.

You're suggesting blue eyed women becoming broodmares to blue eyed males.

That's not going to happen!

@DeWayfarer I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.

Have you read anything I written here?

You seem to be clinging to your original claim that only two blue-eyed parents can have a blue-eyed child - but I've shown you that clam is incorrect.

Would it help if I take you back through the underlying genetic facts?

@newjaninev2 you don't want to see the problem.

The rest of the world will out populate any blue eyed people. That will greatly increase the odds drastically of brown eyes being a greater majority than blue eyes. Even at a quarter percent within the next generation. And I still dispute that quarter percent. It's more like 11% 1/9th.

The world population never decreases. India (1.43 billion) and Africa (1.5 billion) is having those ten kids. Not to mention South America (439 million).

Your Australia's population of 24 million is negligible under the insurmountable population of South America alone. So they'll be brown eyed quicker.

That 20% to 30% won't make up the difference of blue eyes no matter how many kids they have in one generation only. You can't isolate the more dominant brown eyes either. Even at the three quarter percent. Green eyes is negligible population wise.

In a hundred years there won't be any blue eyes left.

@DeWayfarer no matter how many brown-eyed people there are, the percentage of recessive blue-eye genes remains constant in the entire population. It will be expressed less often as a proportion of the entire population, but will resume or exceed the previous levels at some time in the future, depending on demographic and environmental changes - it will never disappear.

...and why the fixation on blue eyes?

I have a mutation of the MC1R gene - I'm a redhead - and that seems to be a fixation with quite a few males 😂

At the end of the day what does it matter?

@newjaninev2 blue eyes is currently more in population than green eyes.

I'm referring to population per eye color. Green eyes is rare throughout the world. 2% BTW. And getting more rare.

It's either blue or brown population wise.

@DeWayfarer I have just explained to you that the underlying gene is not becoming rarer. You seem to be confounding the gene's existence and its expression.

At the end of the day, what difference does it make? Eye colour is inconsequential

@newjaninev2 and I just explained that you're not accounting for population increases.

Eventually everyone is going to be so mixed that there will be very little differences.

Now that would take your 5,000 years. But not eye color that will come far sooner.

The percentages dictate it.

2% of the world green eyes is nothing in comparison to 98% of the rest of the world brown and blue eyes. And it's getting smaller. Not more equal.

Soon enough that 70 to 80% brown eyes will be 80 to 90% then 90 to 100% just because of population increases in brown eyes.

The green eyed people are not populating themselves in comparison to the brown eyes. Even your 25% won't make up for it. It would have to be closer 50% just to stay even at the 2% of the population.

And I still say it's 11% or 1/9th

@DeWayfarer the gene mutation ratio stays stable within the population, and why on Earth does any of this matter?

@newjaninev2
False!

Because your thinking is racial. Populations never stay the same. Never in all of history do they stay the same.

My family history is pretty much the proof of that.

I have got a bit everything in my family history.

It's all over Europe and even as far south as Saudi Arabia. And I still have no idea before the 1800s on my mother's side. Her family was gypsies from Ukraine. I could have a bit of Chinese in there. Through Genghis Khan invasion's.

Populations mix! They never remain the same.

@DeWayfarer I wasn't in any way saying that populations remain stable.
Gene ratios remain stable - whether or not they're expressed.

Again - why is this of significance? We've already seen that your original claim is invalid and I cannot see why we need to drift off to population genetics.

@newjaninev2 your whole point in replying is wrong.

I don't troll others that I believe are wrong.

So just ignore my comment! IF YOU CAN!

You are not going to change my original comment!

@DeWayfarer I don't wish to change it.
It's incorrect, and i have shown that to be so.

Brown mother with a recessive blue

Brown father with a recessive blue

Both recessive blues express = blue-eyed baby

For each parent the chance of either gene expressing is 50/50

.5 x .5 = .25

One chance in four they'll have a blue-eyed baby, even though neither parent has blue eyes.

quod erat demonstrandum

@newjaninev2 stop replying!

Your very own persistence is discrediting you!

Your very Data is incomplete!

I gave at least two colors and all the combinations of those two colors with nine different combinations. And I fully admit that's not all of the combinations. I most certainly am not going to give 2^⁶ (64) different combinations.

@DeWayfarer you have a rather simplistic view of the genetic basis of eye colour - and genetics in general, I suspect.