@Baronese This is true but it is not why there are so few people with blue eyes. There are few people with blue eyes because the version of the gene responsible (well it's called an allele actually) for it is not very spread in the global human gene pool. If the blue allele represented 90% of the gene pool, most people would still have blue eyes regardless of the fact that it's a recessive gene (because most people would have 2 versions of the blue allele).
As to why it's not that spread, the complete story is rather complicated (and I don't know the full details), but mostly it's because it's a recent evolution (the original human species had dark skin, hair and eyes) that doesn't grant a particular natural advantage to its wielder so the gene didn't spread much.
33
@Baronese This is true but it is not why there are so few people with blue eyes. There are few people with blue eyes because the version of the gene responsible (well it's called an allele actually) for it is not very spread in the global human gene pool. If the blue allele represented 90% of the gene pool, most people would still have blue eyes regardless of the fact that it's a recessive gene (because most people would have 2 versions of the blue allele).
As to why it's not that spread, the complete story is rather complicated (and I don't know the full details), but mostly it's because it's a recent evolution (the original human species had dark skin, hair and eyes) that doesn't grant a particular natural advantage to its wielder so the gene didn't spread much.