Different people have different hairs, what could be the possible reason, is it a heriditary trait. If it is then how can we apply darwins theory to it. Though we might have a predominant hair type in different regions of the world but it is not hard to find anomalies why.
217554
While the echoes of Darwin's book The Origin of Species reverberated, an Austrian botanist by the name of Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance in 1865. Not much heard of until the end of the century, Mendel's discovery gained great importance in the early 1900s. This was the birth of the science of genetics. Somewhat later, the structure of the genes and the chromosomes was discovered. The discovery, in the 1950s, of the structure of the DNA molecule that incorporates genetic information threw the theory of evolution into a great crisis. The reason was the incredible complexity of life and the invalidity of the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by Darwin. \nThese developments ought to have resulted in Darwin's theory being banished to the dustbin of history. However, it was not, because certain circles insisted on revising, renewing, and elevating the theory to a scientific platform. These efforts gain meaning only if we realise that behind the theory lay ideological intentions rather than scientific concerns. \nThe Desperate Efforts of Neo-Darwinism\nDarwin's theory entered into a deep crisis because of the laws of genetics discovered in the first quarter of the 20th century. Nevertheless, a group of scientists who were determined to remain loyal to Darwin endeavoured to come up with solutions. They came together in a meeting organised by the Geological Society of America in 1941. Geneticists such as G. Ledyard Stebbins and Theodosius Dobzhansky, zoologists such as Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley, paleontologists such as George Gaylord Simpson and Glenn L. Jepsen, and mathematical geneticists such as Ronald Fisher and Sewall Right, after long discussions, finally agreed on ways to "patch up" Darwinism. \nThis cadre focused on the question of the origin of the advantageous variations that supposedly caused living organisms to evolve-an issue that Darwin himself was unable to explain but simply tried to side-step by depending on Lamarck. The idea was now "random mutations". They named this new theory "The Modern Synthetic Evolution Theory", which was formulated by adding the concept of mutation to Darwin's natural selection thesis. In a short time, this theory came to be known as "neo-Darwinism" and those who put forward the theory were called "neo-Darwinists".\nThe following decades were to become an era of desperate attempts to prove neo-Darwinism. It was already known that mutations-or "accidents" -that took place in the genes of living organisms were always harmful. Neo-Darwinists tried to establish a case for "advantageous mutation" by carrying out thousands of mutation experiments. All their attempts ended in complete failure.\nWhy Cannot Natural Selection Explain Complexity?\nThere is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of a species. Neither can it transform one species into another: a starfish into a fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile, or a crocodile into a bird. The biggest defender of punctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould, refers to this impasse of natural selection as follows; \nThe essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.16\nAnother of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as conscious. However, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living things. As a result, one cannot explain biological systems and organs that possess the feature of "irreducible complexity" by natural selection. These systems and organs are comp
129931
First, race does not exist.  It is a made-up term, originating as pseudo-science in the early 1900's as an excuse to keep the European/American upper class white people in control of most governments.  Studied far closer after WWII, race has been found to be non-existent - the only biological differences between 'colors' are the levels of melanin present in the skin.  Otherwise, there are no biological differences at all.  Our ethnicities and religious beliefs are really what seperates us, the "us" and "them".  Now, there are certain genes that frequent different geographical areas:  for example, sickle-cell anemia gene is far more prevalent within Africans, but as a heterozygote (that is, one parent gives the gene FOR and one 'not FOR') these Africans are protected from malaria!  Amazing what the human body will do, what it will adapt to!
373293
Did you ever take into consideration that both theories are correct, God created some people and others evolved from apes, look around you and you will be able to see the results of these two phenomenons. People are always wanting to prove or disprove one theory or the other, that accounts for the confusion and hopefully this will clear it up for you and a lot of other people.
94182
Hi. First off, its "deScent with modification".\nThat was Darwin's term for what is now known as genetic variability in a population, and a stage of his proposed evolutionary mechanism, natural selection.\nHe did not have the genetic background to explain the variations that he saw generation after generation (Mendel's works had been ignored at the time), but he noticed that in every new generation, the individuals showed varied characteristics: some traits where similar to their parents, but others were novel or maybe similar to those of older ancestors. \nThese variations occur because of 1) spontaneous mutations in the parental gametes; 2) recombination between homologous chromosomes during gamete formation (crossing over); 3) the combination of the parents' genotypes to form the genotype of the offspring (this is not strictly new material, only a new combination of preexisting ones).\n\nOnce there is a new generation of individuals that are growing and living together, some of those characteristics may result in better adjustment to the environment. The individuals with those "adaptively advantageous" traits will have higher probabilities of growing, maturing and reproducing more, with respect to other individuals. \nIf those advantageous characteristics are heritable, that is, if they are determined by the individual's combination of alleles (=the two versions of the same gene in each of us), when the individual is able to "pass them on" to more descendants those alleles will spread in the population, and eventually be present in most individuals. This, in a nutshell, is natural selection. NS leads to gradual adjustment of the population with respect to its environment.\nFrom a population genetics perspective, evolution is defined as _the change in allele frequencies_; thus, "descent with modification", coupled with evolutionary factors, leads to evolution of the population. \nIn addition to mutation and natural selection, this change in allele frequencies may be occasioned by migration (genetic flux among different populations), genetic drift (a random process) and selective mating (which strictly speaking only alters the proportion of combinations, but does not produce new material).\n\nSorry for the lengthy answer, but evolutionary processes need a little context to be understood. Good luck with your explanation!
134292
I have no idea....My cousin is like that- hairy as a beast over his whole body, but totally bald on top.
196655
I'd say no. Location has nothing to do w/ genes UNLESS you isolate the people in each city so the people inside them cannot reproduce with other people from different cities. Over time you MIGHT be able to see little distinctions because the dominant traits will have been passed around to everyone and then they will express it.
155357
The darker your pigmentation, the thicker and darker your hair is going to be. It`s a genetic trait. Most people have the same amount of hair.\nA very light colored blond will have just at much hair, but it is much much thinner and lighter so not nearly as obvious.
90193
Because genes influenced by millions of evolutionary years, environmental conditions and selective preference made us that way!\n\nP.S. I think your picture pose is way cute, will you blow it up so we can see you better?  :-)
562397
Technicallly, everybody is a mutant! We all carry some alterations unique to us in our genomes, this is part of what makes us different. And yes, over time we will evolve as a society to carry genes that are more advantageous to us due to the process of natural selection. It's a case of survival of the fittest!
138371
Two people with straight hair cannot have a child with curly hair, assuming there are no other genetic factors.\n\nSince straight hair is recessive, both parents are homozygous recessive.  Neither one can pass the dominant curly gene to their children.\n\nss X ss = ss\n\nHmm... some totally clueless folks on here.  The guy above me is right -- they can have a curly haired child only if they have a curly haired mailman  :D
256683
It could be any colour from ebony black to snow white.See the link below for an extreme example.\n\nSkin colour genetics is not simple recessive/dominant. It is a very complex trait based on at least 8 genes on 5 different chromosomes. As a result it is perfectly possible for children to be considerably darker or lighter than either parent. \n\n\nBeing "mixed heritage" makes no difference whatsoever. All humans are of mixed heritage and always have been. There isn't some hypothetical pure human heritage that has only one skin colour present.
134291
The primary function of hair is (or used to be) to protect against the cold. Africans and Asians (the latter are descendants of the mongols, who lived in the Mongolian desert) were naturally exposed to much higher temperatures, so having hair would be a disadvantage. Europeans, being exposed to lower temperatures, could use the extra "fur".
207865
i think it's a freak of nature. in any case, i have a friend who has a grey strand of hair groing just below her left eye. and a colleague who has a long strand of hair, grey too, on her right elbow. both of them consider these their lucky strands!
211060
I would say the odds are low, but not zero. I have twin brothers, and they have the same hair color, but they aren't identical in everything. Throughout the years (they will be 21) they have changed. They still look like each other, but one is taller then the other, and/or one is skinnier then the other. They are still identical, but factors in their life have molded them to what they are today.\n\nHair color is tricky. And usually the hair color you are born with isn't what you end up with. Hormones are to thank, and that would be the only reason why the hair would be different...a slight characteristic flaw in the hormones.\n\nThey SAY twins are twins, but coming from personal experience...no one can be EXACTLY the same. We are all unique, even if someone looks like us.
157641
There is no proven connection at this time, hence it being a "theory." There are definite similarities, like we share 93% of the same genetic similarities with orangutans.
7024
Some people have claimed this, but to my knowledge no research has found any corelation between hair color and intelligence.\n\nAlthough some research has found that hair color can influence social relations, so people might treat a blond as being ditzy, but the blond would still have the same average intelligence as anyone else
368583
A lot of people here are so hell-bent on making sure people don't think they have kinky hair that they have not answered your question.  I hear what you're saying, and some non-black people have kinky hair-- a lot of jewish people, some latinos, and even a few so-called "white" people.  There are also Africans (from Africa) who DON'T have kinky hair.  However, tightly coiled hair is largely unique to Africans and people of African descent.    'Kinky hair genes' (for lack of a better way to put it) tend to combine with hair genes of other types and produce a looser curl.\n\nHope that helps!