>>13922518>>13923967nice try retard. "oooh i'm so TIRED of explaining it"--what you mean is that you can't explain it even if your life depended on it. Lemme tear you a new one so that you stop posting pseudo-science from 2005.
>Geneticists compared mitochondrial DNA from blue eyed individuals No they didn't, because this didn't happen. Mitochondrial DNA doesn't affect your eye color. Autosomal genes affect your eye color.
In fact, eye color is such a trivial trait that almost all of it is controlled by 3 SNPs (for your double digit walnut, this means 3 actual ACTG nucleotides)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1785344/>the blue eyed ancestor lived by the Black Sea No they didn't. The very first blue eyed human fossils we have are from far western europe.
>8000 years ago No, we have french fossils that are over 9000 years old with blue eyes.
>spreading out with agriculture Again no, agriculture originated in the Middle East. It also originated independently in Northwest India.
The spread of the blue eyed mutation outside of europe was the result of one particular offshoot of Indoeuropean steppe pastoralists.
They had a minority of light eyes, and their grandchildren invaded places like northwest India and Iran.
99.99% of those people have dark eyes, and pictures like the one you posted are akin to cherrypicking a few Ethiopian billionaires and claiming that they control the world.
Someone with the rare light eye remnant is genetically just as related to the average Iranian or Punjabi or whatever else, because light eyes are caused by only 2 or 3 SNPs.
The corollary to this is that dark eyes are a Non-European feature.
Dark eyes were brought into Europe by the Aryans (a mixed type who was originally darker), Anatolian farmers, and Ancient North Eurasians, 100% of European hunter gatherers had light eyes.
