I have no idea where these people get their "scientific facts" from. Blond hair evolved in Sweden so that women could advertise their youth under all their heavy winter clothing? Why aren't Inuits (Eskimos) blond then?
At least half the stuff in there seems either like urban legends or dubious speculations to interpret limited data.
I'm pretty sure the mutation in the single gene which determines how much melamine is deposited in skin, eyes and hair is due to vitamin D levels.
Vitamin D is produced in the skin when exposed to UV light. People from the north don't get enough of it, even with today's modern diet and vitamin D fortified foods.
The Inuit get more D from their fatty marine diet.
And blonds are not universality preferred. Try it, if you're darkish go to the Scandinavian nations and see what kind of attention you get from the opposite sex.
Rarity is preferred, blonds just happen to be rare in most of the world except Northern Europe.
I agree. You could just as easily argue that Scandinavian people are fair because it helps camoflage them in snowy environments. Perhaps all the black haired ones got eaten by bears and wolves.
There's a kernel of truth behind most of this, but it's wrapped in tabloid watercooler talk.
Of course it doesn't. But if you are making claims that a particular feature is adaptive in a specific way, you had better be able to provide some evidence for it - and one way of doing this is showing the trait being adaptive in a different population in the same ecological niche, or having an explanation as to why not, or being able to somehow rule out the other dozen perfectly plausible reasons as to why the trait exists.
Not every phsysiological trait has to be adaptive.
While I can't speak to the specific claim, there's no reason to expect that two disconnected populations will necessarily develop the same adaptations in response to similar pressures.
At least half the stuff in there seems either like urban legends or dubious speculations to interpret limited data.