Do dominant human genes have a greater capacity for variations than recessive human genes?

I was wondering if the people out there who are educated in genetics could help me out with this and give me a solid and firm answer. Is it true that human genes which are considered dominant have a greater chance of having a wider array of possible variations than human genes which are considered recessive?

In other words, will a human who's DNA consists of an extremely high amount of dominant genes characteristic to the human species in general have offspring with a greater chance of having more variations that differ from the parent than a human with mostly recessive genes?

This can apply to anything from the melanin pigment in the skin, the darkness or lightness of hair color, the various possible shades of eye color, and the coarseness or fineness of hair.

Do dominant human genes have a greater capacity for variations than recessive human genes?

I've never seen any evidence that dominant genes are more likely to mutate than recessives. On the other hand, if you are wondering whether there is likely to be more variation present in dominants or recessives, the general answer is in recessives. Dominant genes, being expressed more frequently, are subjected to greater selection pressure. Recessive genes on the other hand are more rarely expressed and so are freer to mutate without harmful consequences. This becomes a problem when inbreeding is practiced. The expression of harmful recessives is more common (and it is then guaranteed being passed to next generation by the unlucky individual who still manages to reproduce -- only gene at that allele).