My views, obessions, etc. are all my own.
So my teacher told us that two blue eyed people can’t have a brown eyed kid and this kid in my class said “but both my parents have blue eyes and I have brown eyes”. The teacher said “so you’re adopted”. THe next day the kid came in and told us that he confronted his parents about it and that they said he was adopted but wanted to wait for the right time to tell him.
I don’t think this is true at all. It all depends on your parents genes.
If both parents have blue eyes, how could they have a child with brown eyes?
-A curious adult from CaliforniaAugust 4, 2011That’s a great question. As we have discussed before, blue-eyed parents can definitely have a brown-eyed child. And while we don’t yet know exactly how it happens, there are plenty of different ways that it might.I won’t focus on some of the rare ways that any recessive trait can turn into a dominant one. We already covered those possibilities here.What I want to focus on instead is how a gene can affect another gene. Or in our case, how one gene might turn a brown-eye gene blue.
For more information:
‘You, hear me! Give this fire to that old man. Pull the black worm off the bark and give it to the mother. And no spitting in the ashes!’
It’s an odd little speech. But if you went back 15,000 years and spoke these words to hunter-gatherers in Asia in any one of hundreds of modern languages, there is a chance they would understand at least some of what you were saying.
That’s because all of the nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs in the four sentences are words that have descended largely unchanged from a language that died out as the glaciers retreated at the end of the last Ice Age. Those few words mean the same thing, and sound almost the same, as they did then.
The traditional view is that words can’t survive for more than 8,000 to 9,000 years. Evolution, linguistic “weathering” and the adoption of replacements from other languages eventually drive ancient words to extinction, just like the dinosaurs of the Jurassic era.
A new study, however, suggests that’s not always true.
A team of researchers has come up with a list of two dozen “ultraconserved words” that have survived 150 centuries. It includes some predictable entries: “mother,” “not,” “what,” “to hear” and “man.” It also contains surprises: “to flow,” “ashes” and “worm.”
The existence of the long-lived words suggests there was a “proto-Eurasiatic” language that was the common ancestor to about 700 contemporary languages that are the native tongues of more than half the world’s people.
The Washington Post, “Linguists Identify 15,000-Year-Old ‘Ultraconserved’ Words.”