I was watching an old TV shows from the 70s and I realized that the majority, (five of eight) of the leading actors had blue eyes. It seemed a bit unusual and a quick look at some stats confirmed that it was.
If you have ever wondered how many people in the world have blue eyes, you have come to the right place.
According to a break-down by the World Atlas, only about 10% have blue eyes:
- Brown eyes: 70% to 79% of the population
- Blue eyes: 8% to 10%
- Hazel eyes: 5%
- Amber eyes: 5%
- Gray eyes: 2%
- Green eyes: 2%
- Red/violet: less than 1%
- Heterochimia (eyes of two different colours): less than 1%
Recently, researchers from King’s College London and Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam discovered that over 50 genes play a role in determining what colour your eyes are. It was originally thought only one or two genes determined colour. READ: Study identifies 50 new genes that play a role in eye coloration
And this also exposes one of the big problems facing evolutionists — pleiotropy (lit. more change). Essentially this means a single gene affects dozens of other areas of your body, and we see it at work as over 50 genes impacting eye colour.
This is proving to be major problem for evolutionists, who believe man evolved through a series of positive mutations.
In his Globe and Mail article, Single genes have multiple effects, author Stephen Strauss quoted Sally Otto, a mathematical biologist at the University of British Columbia, who stated that a single gene “affects the expression of something in the order of hundreds of other genes.”
So while a mutation may have a positive impact in one area, the chances of it having a positive impact in the dozens of other areas that the particular gene controls is statistically impossible.
During high school, students are often taught the fruit fly experiments in a controlled environment where fruit flies mutate like crazy ten legs, two heads. It’s fascinating.
Yet in the wild, fruit flies remain fruit flies because they discovered that while a mutation made a fruit fly better able to handle the cold, the same mutation made it more susceptible to starvation.
Strauss pointed to a book written by Alan Orr, a geneticist from the University of Rochester, where he noted that while a particular mutation may increase your ability to think, it would have so many negative spin-offs in other areas that the change wouldn’t be integrated in the species.
It is almost like God designed nature with a fail-safe button to prevent mutations.