# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  Light skin allele of SLC24A5 gene was spread by the Indo-Europeans (R1a + R1b)

## Maciamo

A new paper published by V. Canfield and his colleagues looked into the allele distribution of the SLC24A5 gene, whose A111T (rs1426654) mutation is linked with light skin pigmentation in European, Middle Eastern and Central/South Asian populations. The paper comes just two months after a similar study by Mallick et al., which already suggested an Indo-European diffusion of the A111T allele. 

A quick glance at the distribution maps of the A111T allele from both studies immediately shows the very strong association with the spread Indo-European languages and paternal lineages (R1a and R1b). The map by Canfield et al. (in brown) displays a particularly strong correlation with Y-haplogroup R1b, showing peaks in the A111T frequencies in Northwest and Central Europe, the Danube basin, the Caucasus, Anatolia, Iran and Turkmenistan.







*Where did the light skin allele first appear ?*

Mallick et al. estimated the coalescence time of the rs1426654 mutation at 28,100 years, although with a very wide confidence interval (95% CI - 4,900 to 58,400 years), which doesn't help at all determining its place or population of origin.

Canfield et al. narrow this down to 12.4 years ago, with a 95% confidence interval for the range 7.6−19.2 kya. This would correspond to the terminal Upper Paleolithic to the Middle Neolithic period, in other words exactly the period during which I have estimated R1b people to have settled down around modern Kurdistan, domesticated cattle, then migrated to the Pontic Steppe.

It is not certain that the SLC24A5 mutation conferring fair skin arose within haplogroup R. The Mal'ta boy (Y-DNA R*) didn't have it 24,000 years ago. Considering the very dark skin of R2 populations in Southeast India and Southeast Asia, it surely wasn't present among the original R2* lineages either. Based on its equally strong association with modern R1a and R1b populations, it is far more likely to have arisen among R1 carriers. Nonetheless it could just as well have been picked up in another population and been transmitted to R1a and R1b men through the maternal side. 

The question is where and when exactly did this mutation occur ? It could have been in Anatolia, Kurdistan or around the Caucasus, but then how comes it doesn't peak in the Middle East today, and is even more common in places like eastern Spain and northern Pakistan at equal latitude ? It could have first appeared among some European tribes during the Late Palaeolithic. However even Mesolithic European samples from Western and Northern Europe had apparently darker skin than Neolithic farmers. Yet it surely wasn't spread by Neolithic farmers, otherwise the Sardinians would be a hotspot of fair skin in Europe, which isn't the case. Greece and western Anatolia also have lower frequencies. 

What seems undeniable is that there is a connection to R1a and R1b. My guess is that the A111T mutation arose shortly before the end of the last glaciation (perhaps 18 to 12 kya) among mtDNA U5 lineages of R1 people in Eastern Europe (southern Russia ?).

*UPDATE*

It's also interesting that the Sahel region of sub-Saharan Africa, where R1b-V88 is found at relatively high frequency in numerous ethnic groups (Fulani, Kirdi, Hausa), falls in the range 15 to 30% for the A111T mutation. This clearly confirms that R1b people already had this mutation before the split between V88 and P297 (M269+M73), which I estimate to have taken place just after the domestication of cattle in northern Mesopotamia 10,500 years ago. The A111T allele frequency also happens to match pretty well the percentage of Eurasian autosomal DNA found in northern Africa (much better than the frequency of R1b, which is more liable to drift).

The very high frequency of A111T alleles along the Mediterranean coast of Africa confirms that the mutation was spread by a variety of historical people from the Middle East (Phoenicians, Arabs) who contributed to the gene pool in the region. 

In both maps the gradient over the Sahara is unreliable though, as there are no sampled population between northern Algeria and the southern Sahel (Canfield) or even farther south in Central Africa (Mallick).

----------


## Nobody1

Maybe its a combo of Neolithic and Indo-European (at least in Euroland);

Neolithic Ötzi already had the rs1426654 mutation (light skin) at ~3300 BC + earlier;

_''A111T set by the finding that the Alpine “iceman” dated to 5.3 kya was homozygous for this variant''_
_Keller et al 2012 -_ p.4
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal...ncomms1701.pdf

But since a frequency is attached to it (the higher the lighter) maybe the Neolithic amount was lower than the Indo-Europeans;
Because the distribution of A111T (rs1426654) *clearly* mirrors the Indo-European range; No doubt about that;

And Loschbour (hunter-gatherer) was darker (skin pig) than Stuttgart (farmers-chick) i.e. Neolithic farmers and than the Indo-Europeans;

----------


## Maciamo

> Maybe its a combo of Neolithic and Indo-European (at least in Euroland);
> 
> Neolithic Ötzi already had the rs1426654 mutation (light skin) at ~3300 BC + earlier;
> 
> _''A111T set by the finding that the Alpine “iceman” dated to 5.3 kya was homozygous for this variant''_
> _Keller et al 2012 -_ p.4
> http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal...ncomms1701.pdf
> 
> But since a frequency is attached to it (the higher the lighter) maybe the Neolithic amount was lower than the Indo-Europeans;
> ...


Neolithic farmers obviously caried the A111T allele as you pointed out with Ötzi and the LBK sample from Stuttgart, although not at a nearly 100% frequency like the Indo-Europeans. The way I see it is that the A111T mutation did not originate with Neolithic farmers, but they were somehow blended with a population that had it. If R1b did indeed come from eastern Anatolia/Caucasus during the Neolithic (as cattle herders) before moving to the steppes, as I have suggested, then R1b populations could easily have contributed to the A111T among their Near Eastern neighbours (E1b1b, G2a) on their way from the Levant to the Balkans. Actually, if R1b-V88 arrived in the Levant around 8000-7500 BCE as I have estimated, then R1b-V88 herders could have intermarried with G2a and E1b1b farmers before they even reached Anatolia.

Since over 95% of people in core European R1a and R1b populations today have the A111T mutation, chances are that the Indo-European R1a and R1b had a frequency close to 100%, since they managed to keep high frequencies even after mixing with other populations. Of course natural selection due to environmental factors (UV rays) might have played a role too, but not that much considering that other mutations can also influence skin pigmentation. It is obvious that Iraqi or Pakistani are darker skinned than the Finns or Northeast Asians, but someone with no knowledge of modern phenotypes could not guess from the map of A111T.

----------


## Alan

The epicenter looks more like to be between West Asia (minus Arabia) and Western part of South_Central Asia (minus India).

It reminds very well to the distribution of Caucasus-Gesdrosia even in Europe.

----------


## bicicleur

> *UPDATE*
> 
> It's also interesting that the Sahel region of sub-Saharan Africa, where R1b-V88 is found at relatively high frequency in numerous ethnic groups (Fulani, Kirdi, Hausa), falls in the range 15 to 30% for the A111T mutation.


It would be interesting to know whether R1b-V88 have more A111T than others in this region.

----------


## bicicleur

> 


It seems to me Frenchmen and Brits have more light skin allele than Scandinavians, alltough Scandinavians seem to have lighter skin.
Is this due to more exposure to sunshine in France and on the British Isles?

----------


## Alan

> It seems to me Frenchmen and Brits have more light skin allele than Scandinavians, alltough Scandinavians seem to have lighter skin.
> Is this due to more exposure to sunshine in France and on the British Isles?



I always had this impression that Scandinavians and East Europeans do not have pale skin per se but a yellowish tone into it. While real rosy-pale skin is more common in NW Europe. Scandinavians on average have lighter hair and eye color.

Also this map just shows the regional frequency of this mutation. And between Scandinavia (95%) and West Europe (100%) isn't much difference at all.

And as you said UV rays probably play a role too.

----------


## Maciamo

> It seems to me Frenchmen and Brits have more light skin allele than Scandinavians, alltough Scandinavians seem to have lighter skin.
> Is this due to more exposure to sunshine in France and on the British Isles?


SLC24A5 is not the only allele involved in skin pigmentation. For instance there is also MC1R, which is associated with extremely white skin, freckles and red hair (several mutations). East and North Asians, as well as some Russians, Finns and Scandinavians also have mutations on the OCA2 gene.

----------


## Maciamo

> The epicenter looks more like to be between West Asia (minus Arabia) and Western part of South_Central Asia (minus India).
> 
> It reminds very well to the distribution of Caucasus-Gesdrosia even in Europe.


One problem is that neither map has any sample for Syria or Iraq, nor for eastern Anatolia or the Caucasus. The Canfield map also lacks samples for Iran. That leaves a big question mark over most of West Asia. Looks like there isn't any for Scandinavia, Central Europe and the Benelux either. I wonder why they bothered getting so many samples for East Asia and Native Americans and so few in Europe and West Asia. Only the Levant, Ethiopia, Central Africa and South Asia are well sampled.

----------


## Maciamo

> It would be interesting to know whether R1b-V88 have more A111T than others in this region.


According to the ALlele FREquency Database, the Hausa have 10.5% of A111T mutations, which is the highest for Central Africa. The Fulani and Kirdi are not tested. The Mandenka of West Africa (around Gambia and Senegal) have 15% and have about 5% of E-M81.

They even have a map too.




This data also shows that the Kuwaiti and Levantine Bedouins possess respectively 96% and 93% of this light skin allele.

----------


## Alan

> One problem is that neither map has any sample for Syria or Iraq, nor for eastern Anatolia or the Caucasus. The Canfield map also lacks samples for Iran. That leaves a big question mark over most of West Asia. Looks like there isn't any for Scandinavia, Central Europe and the Benelux either. I wonder why they bothered getting so many samples for East Asia and Native Americans and so few in Europe and West Asia. Only the Levant, Ethiopia, Central Africa and South Asia are well sampled.


Since they have tested Turkey and Balochistan if I am not mistaken, I assume they thought it would be logical that Caucasus, Kurdistan and Iran can't be very different. But indeed it would have been interesting to have data from this region.

Also the two major parts of Indo European dna must have been Caucasus-Iranian-Gedrosia and North European (+some additional EEF). Since we know that North European like H&G had dark skin, and EEF like populations of Europe and the Middle East do not fit the distribution this Allels, it looks like Caucasus-Iranian-Gedrosia is the best fit.

----------


## Maciamo

> Since they have tested Turkey and Balochistan if I am not mistaken, I assume they thought it would be logical that Caucasus, Kurdistan and Iran can't be very different. But indeed it would have been interesting to have data from this region.


It's a dangerous assumption since the Turks have considerable levels of European admixture (up to 25%) and the Pakistani and Balochi have more European admixture than the Iranians. The Iraqi and Syrians have close to no European admixture. Syrian and Iraqi data on A111T could have helped us determine if that mutation arose among R1 people or among other Middle Eastern people.

----------


## Aberdeen

If most British have the allele for light skin, how do we explain the fact that some of them seem to be quite dark when compared to other Europeans, such as Germans? Some Brits are very light skinned but others are not - just look at some British celebrities, such as John Lennon, Lilly Allen and Russel Brand, and you'll see what I mean. Of course, those three examples, although considered English, are actually recently descended from folks from Ireland and Wales, which are the areas with the highest levels of R1b, and where there are a fair number of white folks who aren't that pale, alone with many who are. So I'm not sure about R1b being associated with the light skin allele. R1a and I1 seem like better candidates for that, IMO. Maybe the R1b folk were more mixed between white and beige.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> If most British have the allele for light skin, how do we explain the fact that some of them seem to be quite dark when compared to other Europeans, such as Germans? Some Brits are very light skinned but others are not - just look at some British celebrities, such as John Lennon, Lilly Allen and Russel Brand, and you'll see what I mean. Of course, those three examples, although considered English, are actually recently descended from folks from Ireland and Wales, which are the areas with the highest levels of R1b, and where there are a fair number of white folks who aren't that pale, alone with many who are. So I'm not sure about R1b being associated with the light skin allele. R1a and I1 seem like better candidates for that, IMO. Maybe the R1b folk were more mixed between white and beige.


Aberdeen, we must not look at modern distributions and their obvious phenotypes to understand the genetic history of Europe. Like Maciamo says... R1b and the great Indo-Europeans brought light skin to the European theater. Of course they also brought blue eyes, blond hair, pixie dust, fluffed pillows, the martini glass, and flushing toilets.

Please don't question these facts by looking at current populations. This will only confuse you.

P.S. Before settling on the Russian Steppes, the R1b/R1a/R* clans first travelled through all of Europe, sailed around the British Isles, and mounted every peak of Norway planting bright red flags the entire way... so as you can see these lands have been initially discovered if not settled by the R family as well.

----------


## Alan

> It's a dangerous assumption since the Turks have considerable levels of European admixture (up to 25%) and the Pakistani and Balochi have more European admixture than the Iranians. The Iraqi and Syrians have close to no European admixture. Syrian and Iraqi data on A111T could have helped us determine if that mutation arose among R1 people or among other Middle Eastern people.


Turks and Balochis have on average 2-3% more North European this is far to noisy to have any significant effect. And The Balochi have also ASI admixture which causes in India darker skin color, similar case with Turks and their East Asian. The other "European" among Turks is connected to their East Mediterranean admixture but since we know that this allele has no connection with farmer isolate population, it mus be Caucasus_Perso_Gedrosia.


But I agree with you that this component must have been brought to Europe, together with North Euro, by Indo Europeans.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Aberdeen, we must not look at modern distributions and their obvious phenotypes to understand the genetic history of Europe. Like Maciamo says... R1b and the great Indo-Europeans brought light skin to the European theater. Of course they also brought blue eyes, blond hair, pixie dust, fluffed pillows, the martini glass, and flushing toliets.
> 
> Please don't question these facts by looking at current populations. This will only confuse you.
> 
> P.S. Before settling on the Russian Steppes, the R1b/R1a/R* clans first travelled through all of Europe, sailed around the British Isles, and mounted the peaks of Norway planting white flags the entire way... so of course these lands have been initially settled by the R family as well.


I don't think Maciamo's comments deserve that kind of comment - he is, after all, providing a map based on solid research. But I do see what looks to me to be a bit of an anomaly and I wanted to discuss it, not snark about what someone else said. I do think there's a bit of a problem with equating R1b with the light skinned allele. And Norway does fit into that question, since it's higher in R1b than Sweden and Denmark and there are those dark skinned Norse who look so different from other Norse folk. It would probably be quite impossible at this point to equate R1b and autosomal DNA for individuals, in order to find out if R1b folk originally had darker complexions. At this point, such a relationship wouldn't necessarily exist anymore, because of intermarriage in recent centuries. But I personally wouldn't necessarily equate R1b with the pale skin that you see on some British and Norwegian folk.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> I don't think Maciamo's comments deserve that kind of comment - he is, after all, providing a map based on solid research. But I do see what looks to me to be a bit of an anomaly and I wanted to discuss it, not snark about what someone else said. I do think there's a bit of a problem with equating R1b with the light skinned allele. And Norway does fit into that question, since it's higher in R1b than Sweden and Denmark and there are those dark skinned Norse who look so different from other Norse folk. It would probably be quite impossible at this point to equate R1b and autosomal DNA for individuals, in order to find out if R1b folk originally had darker complexions. At this point, such a relationship wouldn't necessarily exist anymore, because of intermarriage in recent centuries. But I personally wouldn't necessarily equate R1b with the pale skin that you see on some British and Norwegian folk.


Fair enough. When taken singularly this thread seems harmless enough. 

However, stick around awhile and see if you don't pick up on a bias.

----------


## Maciamo

> If most British have the allele for light skin, how do we explain the fact that some of them seem to be quite dark when compared to other Europeans, such as Germans? Some Brits are very light skinned but others are not - just look at some British celebrities, such as John Lennon, Lilly Allen and Russel Brand, and you'll see what I mean. Of course, those three examples, although considered English, are actually recently descended from folks from Ireland and Wales, which are the areas with the highest levels of R1b, and where there are a fair number of white folks who aren't that pale, alone with many who are. So I'm not sure about R1b being associated with the light skin allele. R1a and I1 seem like better candidates for that, IMO. Maybe the R1b folk were more mixed between white and beige.


See my reply to bicicleur above.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> SLC24A5 is not the only allele involved in skin pigmentation. For instance there is also MC1R, which is associated with extremely white skin, freckles and red hair (several mutations). East and North Asians, as well as some Russians, Finns and Scandinavians also have mutations on the OCA2 gene.


I feel a tad guilty for using such heavy-handed sarcasm. In a hurry, I skipped over this explanation the first time reading through the comments.

However that being said, I do detect an ongoing Indo-European/R1b favoritism on Eupedia, so I'm not going to retract fully. 

It's understandable though, if this was my site I'm sure my own spin would show through-- even if I was trying to be completely neutral. Human nature.

----------


## MOESAN

> It seems to me Frenchmen and Brits have more light skin allele than Scandinavians, alltough Scandinavians seem to have lighter skin.
> Is this due to more exposure to sunshine in France and on the British Isles?


more than a locus plays a role in skin pigmentation - so even if the mutation in discussion seems having an heavy role, we cannot conclude that a population having a bit less % of this mutation would be by force darker skinned as a mean - Scandinavians HAVE LIGHT SKINS - but do not confuse basic skin colour with capacity to tan - yes Scandinavians tan easily enough spite they do not reach the dark complexion of dark skinned europeans (who become as Indids under sun) -
the fact that more than a locus is concerned (or that more than a mutation is?) stays in the gradual scale of skin colours, even among Europeans even living in the same region the same way of life ... surely not a biallelic system only (look at the crossings balck-white) - by yhe way, Frenchies have more often "dark" skins than Scandinavians - and as a whole Scandinavian pigmentation differs from the Finns and Estonians and Balts one - more pinky skins among germanic Scandinavians, more greyish yellowish white among the others, roughly -

----------


## Angela

> According to the ALlele FREquency Database, the Hausa have 10.5% of A111T mutations, which is the highest for Central Africa. The Fulani and Kirdi are not tested. The Mandenka of West Africa (around Gambia and Senegal) have 15% and have about 5% of E-M81.
> 
> They even have a map too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This data also shows that the Kuwaiti and Levantine Bedouins possess respectively 96% and 93% of this light skin allele.



I suppose everything is in the eye of the beholder. Looking at this map, the most striking thing to me is that while the epicenter seems to be the Middle East, the spread is to the southeast, down into India, west along the coast of north Africa, and then north and north east 

Usually, I think you're supposed to look for the most parsimonious explanation, and that seems to me to be the fact that this is tracking the movement of agriculture, or perhaps specifically animal husbandry? I would think multiple yDNA and mtDNA lineages would have been involved in its spread. I doubt that scientists would be able to track the actual occurrence to one specific group with one specific y lineage, but it's possible I suppose. Subsequent migrations would affect the results as well. For example, it's interesting that Orcadians show a bit of yellow...perhaps that's a Siberian segment from the east? There's one in southern Spain as well...perhaps the Moorish invasions? You would think in that case the Sicilians would show a slice of yellow, but perhaps they weren't tested. 

The allele, once present in an expanding population such as one that has adapted agriculture could spread very quickly. We only have to look at G2a Oetzi in 3300 BC who was already homozygous for it, as Nobody 1 mentioned up thread.

One thing that I don't think it means, however, is that even being homozygous for it means that people would have been fair in the way that people in this thread seem to be imagining. I believe that Razib Khan mentioned in one of his posts on this subject that he is homozygous for it as well. 

Then, the mere presence of these alleles doesn't mean that they were always expressed in the same way. Gene expression is a very complicated and not very well understood phenomenon. So, just as selection or deselection for the alleles could occur based on a combination of climate and perhaps diet, these things could also affect the expression of the alleles in certain conditions. Someone living in cloudy Britain could express the alleles differently than someone baking by the sea in Crete.

Then, there's the other more European specific allele for skin pigmentation, 374f.

That has also been studied: You can find the list of values for European cities in this Lucotte et al paper. Unlike the prior snp, it has not quite reached fixation in Europe, which to me indicates it may be younger than the prior snp. To me, it looks like a more straight north south cline, with the Scandinavian countries having the highest values, although France presents a more complicated picture.

Does anyone remember if this is the snp for which Oetzi was heterozygous? Anyway, here's the paper:

http://www.academicjournals.org/arti...uasa%20pdf.pdf

----------


## Nobody1

> Does anyone remember if this is the snp for which Oetzi was heterozygous?


Rememberence according to what study?

----------


## epoch

First this: The fact that Chinese, Koreans and Japanese developed lighter skin with _different_ genes involved than Europeans basically points to evolutionary pressure. So what would that be? Most probably vitamin D. Apart from Rachitis a number of diseases seem to be affected by vitamin D deficiency:

http://anthrogenetics.wordpress.com/...athyway-genes/

The list has a number of interesting health issues. Lower fertility, higher mortality, infectious diseases. Now, as far as I understand the part of mankind that departed Africa carried for a large part a number of genes that give lighter skin. This feature is shared with East-asians , Indian and Amerindians. Apparently this is enough "lightening" of the skin for hunter gatherers as American Indians basically carry these. Off course, hunter gatherers eat basically game and fish, which is relatively rich in vitamin D. Especially if you'd eat fish liver. So, we have a number light skinned genes that allow for more sunlight to reach the skin to make vitamin D, but not yet the light skin of European. Remember that the Loschbourg mesolthic hunter-gatherer does not share any of these specifically European light skin genes with us, even if he possibly had blue eyes.

Now the neolithic revolution kicks in. The amount of available food is high but it's mostly cereals. So far less vitamin D enters the body via food. Since farming is considered to be related to the emerging of a number infectious diseases the notion that vitamin D is highly involved in immune system evolutionary pressure for more light skin is quite relevant. It is also noteworthy that in similar environment both Europeans and East-Asians, heavy cereal using agricultural cultural conglomerates, develop genes for lighter skin independently, whereas the mostly hunter-gatherer American Indians do not. That may serve as evidence for neolithic selective pressure. 

So, whatever the scenario that brought in the mentioned mutations, I am beginning to get the idea that evolutionary selective pressure assured the ascendancy to 100% of the current genetic make up.

----------


## LeBrok

> First this: The fact that Chinese, Koreans and Japanese developed lighter skin with _different_ genes involved than Europeans basically point to evolutionary pressure. So what would that be? Most probably vitamin D. Apart from Rachitis a number of diseases seem to be affected by vitamin D deficiency:
> 
> http://anthrogenetics.wordpress.com/...athyway-genes/
> 
> The list has a number of interesting health issues. Lower fertility, higher mortality, infectious diseases. Now, as far as I understand the part of mankind that departed Africa carried for a large part a number of genes that give lighter skin. This feature is shared with East-asians , Indian and Amerindians. Apparently this is enough "lightening" of the skin for hunter gatherers as American Indians basically carry these. Off course, *hunter gatherers eat basically game and fish, which is relatively rich in vitamin D*. Especially if you'd eat *fish liver*. So, we have a number light skinned genes that allow for more sunlight to reach the skin to make vitamin D, but not yet the light skin of European. Remember that the Loschbourg mesolthic hunter-gatherer does not share any of these specifically European light skin genes with us, even if he possibly had blue eyes.
> 
> Now the neolithic revolution kicks in. The amount of available food is high but it's* mostly cereals. So far less vitamin D enters the body via food. Since farming is considered to be related to the emerging of a number infectious diseases the notion that vitamin D* is highly involved in immune system evolutionary pressure for more light skin is quite relevant. It is also noteworthy that in similar environment both Europeans and East-Asians, heavy cereal using* agricultural cultural conglomerates, develop genes for lighter skin independently, whereas the mostly hunter-gatherer American Indians do not.* That may serve as evidence for *neolithic selective pressure.* 
> 
> So, whatever the scenario that brought in the mentioned mutations, I am beginning to get the idea that evolutionary selective pressure assured the ascendancy to 100% of the current genetic make up.


I think this is a brilliant observation and conclusion.:69:
The farmers needed to be whiter than WHG to live up North, because they were more deficient in D3.

----------


## kamani

If the farmers were whiter than WHG, then Southern-Europeans are darker than North-Europeans because of natural selection and adaptation to sunlight, not because of Near-Eastern admixture. I guess I can buy that.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> First this: The fact that Chinese, Koreans and Japanese developed lighter skin with _different_ genes involved than Europeans basically points to evolutionary pressure. So what would that be? Most probably vitamin D. Apart from Rachitis a number of diseases seem to be affected by vitamin D deficiency:
> 
> http://anthrogenetics.wordpress.com/...athyway-genes/
> 
> The list has a number of interesting health issues. Lower fertility, higher mortality, infectious diseases. Now, as far as I understand the part of mankind that departed Africa carried for a large part a number of genes that give lighter skin. This feature is shared with East-asians , Indian and Amerindians. Apparently this is enough "lightening" of the skin for hunter gatherers as American Indians basically carry these. Off course, hunter gatherers eat basically game and fish, which is relatively rich in vitamin D. Especially if you'd eat fish liver. So, we have a number light skinned genes that allow for more sunlight to reach the skin to make vitamin D, but not yet the light skin of European. Remember that the Loschbourg mesolthic hunter-gatherer does not share any of these specifically European light skin genes with us, even if he possibly had blue eyes.
> 
> Now the neolithic revolution kicks in. The amount of available food is high but it's mostly cereals. So far less vitamin D enters the body via food. Since farming is considered to be related to the emerging of a number infectious diseases the notion that vitamin D is highly involved in immune system evolutionary pressure for more light skin is quite relevant. It is also noteworthy that in similar environment both Europeans and East-Asians, heavy cereal using agricultural cultural conglomerates, develop genes for lighter skin independently, whereas the mostly hunter-gatherer American Indians do not. That may serve as evidence for neolithic selective pressure. 
> 
> So, whatever the scenario that brought in the mentioned mutations, I am beginning to get the idea that evolutionary selective pressure assured the ascendancy to 100% of the current genetic make up.


I can live with this too. It explains the "various hues of whiteness" that we see in Northern Europe today. Many Nordics have kept the ability to tan (we see this in Norway, Sweden, parts of Denmark) and then we have the British Islanders (especially Irish and Scottish) who skip the suntan and go right into sunburn. Seperate alleles would account for these differences.

**EDIT** I am speaking in gross generalities here. Certainly not every Swede or Irishman would fit neatly in these boxes, but overall I do see a trend that matches this conclusion.

----------


## Alan

> Originally Posted by Maciamo
> 
> 
> It's a dangerous assumption since the Turks have considerable levels of European admixture (up to 25%) and the Pakistani and Balochi have more European admixture than the Iranians. The Iraqi and Syrians have close to no European admixture. Syrian and Iraqi data on A111T could have helped us determine if that mutation arose among R1 people or among other Middle Eastern people.
> 
> 
> The other "European" among Turks is connected to their East Mediterranean admixture but since we know that this allele has no connection with farmer isolate population


With the current reveals in genetics, I find the "European " and "non European" label, used to describe some components, wrong anyway. Considering the current data I doubt that the Eastern Mediterranean component is more or less European than the other.

----------


## Maciamo

> With the current reveals in genetics, I find the "European " and "non European" label, used to describe some components, wrong anyway. Considering the current data I doubt that the Eastern Mediterranean component is more or less European than the other.


I agree. In this kind of discussions, when I say European admixture it only means Mesolithic European (before the big migrations of the Neolithic and Bronze Age).

----------


## Maciamo

> First this: The fact that Chinese, Koreans and Japanese developed lighter skin with _different_ genes involved than Europeans basically points to evolutionary pressure. So what would that be? Most probably vitamin D. Apart from Rachitis a number of diseases seem to be affected by vitamin D deficiency:
> 
> http://anthrogenetics.wordpress.com/...athyway-genes/
> 
> The list has a number of interesting health issues. Lower fertility, higher mortality, infectious diseases. Now, as far as I understand the part of mankind that departed Africa carried for a large part a number of genes that give lighter skin. This feature is shared with East-asians , Indian and Amerindians. Apparently this is enough "lightening" of the skin for hunter gatherers as American Indians basically carry these. Off course, hunter gatherers eat basically game and fish, which is relatively rich in vitamin D. Especially if you'd eat fish liver. So, we have a number light skinned genes that allow for more sunlight to reach the skin to make vitamin D, but not yet the light skin of European. Remember that the Loschbourg mesolthic hunter-gatherer does not share any of these specifically European light skin genes with us, even if he possibly had blue eyes.
> 
> Now the neolithic revolution kicks in. The amount of available food is high but it's mostly cereals. So far less vitamin D enters the body via food. Since farming is considered to be related to the emerging of a number infectious diseases the notion that vitamin D is highly involved in immune system evolutionary pressure for more light skin is quite relevant. It is also noteworthy that in similar environment both Europeans and East-Asians, heavy cereal using agricultural cultural conglomerates, develop genes for lighter skin independently, whereas the mostly hunter-gatherer American Indians do not. That may serve as evidence for neolithic selective pressure. 
> 
> So, whatever the scenario that brought in the mentioned mutations, I am beginning to get the idea that evolutionary selective pressure assured the ascendancy to 100% of the current genetic make up.


I never thought about this, but that's a great explanation of how and why genes for white skin were selected among early farming populations in Eurasia. 

As diet became more complex and varied over time (mix of cereals, vegetables, fruits, meat and dairy products), this original advantage would have lost its significance and skin colour might have reverted to darker tones in particularly hot and sunny regions like North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, especially among lower class farmers who were often exposed to the sun. That would explain why in East Asia and South Asia people have traditionally regarded lighter skin as more desirable as it slowly turned into a sign of higher social class.

White skin would nevertheless have continued to be positively selected in northern latitudes where sunlight was scarce, especially in very cloudy regions like the British Isles, the Low Countries and Norway, where other mutations for even fairer skin (MC1R gene) could significantly increase UV absorption to create vitamin D. Ironically, fairer skin in northern Europe may have originally increased first among the lower classes who most needed extra vitamin D due to poorer diets (less meat and dairy products) than among the upper classes. However in relatively egalitarian societies like Scandinavia or Ireland that wouldn't have made a lot of difference.

----------


## Drac II

> Usually, I think you're supposed to look for the most parsimonious explanation, and that seems to me to be the fact that this is tracking the movement of agriculture, or perhaps specifically animal husbandry? I would think multiple yDNA and mtDNA lineages would have been involved in its spread. I doubt that scientists would be able to track the actual occurrence to one specific group with one specific y lineage, but it's possible I suppose. Subsequent migrations would affect the results as well. For example, it's interesting that Orcadians show a bit of yellow...perhaps that's a Siberian segment from the east?


Quite implausible since the same or more "yellow" would also show up among people like Finns.





> There's one in southern Spain as well...perhaps the Moorish invasions? You would think in that case the Sicilians would show a slice of yellow, but perhaps they weren't tested.


Again, quite implausible since then Italians would also show it, or perhaps even more from the actually larger and more permanent population of North African and Near Eastern immigrants and slaves that made Rome their home during Roman imperial times. Plus the Moroccans themselves are shown as having as much "yellow" as Italians and non-Andalusian Spaniards.

----------


## Maciamo

> I can live with this too. It explains the "various hues of whiteness" that we see in Northern Europe today. Many Nordics have kept the ability to tan (we see this in Norway, Sweden, parts of Denmark) and then we have the British Islanders (especially Irish and Scottish) who skip the suntan and go right into sunburn. Seperate alleles would account for these differences.


That's because people in the British Isles have a higher percentage of mutations for red hair in the MC1R gene. These mutations also prevent skin from tanning.

----------


## Maciamo

> I suppose everything is in the eye of the beholder. Looking at this map, the most striking thing to me is that while the epicenter seems to be the Middle East, the spread is to the southeast, down into India, west along the coast of north Africa, and then north and north east


You shouldn't give too much credit to this map from the ALlele FREquency Database as it is based on only 183 samples, while the Mallick study tested 1573 individuals in the Indian subcontinent alone and Canfield has over 3000 samples from various sources. I only posted the link for the extra populations tested, like the Hausa and Kuwaiti.

----------


## Nobody1

> Again, quite implausible since then Italians would also show it, or perhaps even more from the actually larger and more permanent population of North African and Near Eastern immigrants and slaves that made Rome their home during Roman imperial times. Plus the Moroccans themselves are shown as having as much "yellow" as Italians and non-Andalusian Spaniards.


Maybe the impact of all the slaves and immigrants from North Africa and Near East (to the city of Rome) were not that great on Italy; The impact of the 800 years Moorish occupation of Spain was obviously greater;

Based on the 374f allele results (Angela post#21)
http://www.academicjournals.org/arti...uasa%20pdf.pdf

Italy:
Genoa 0.85
Rome 0.89
Naples 0.85
bergamo 0.96
Tuscany 0.94

Spain:
Barcelona 0.85
Sevilla 0.72

Portugal North 0.72
Portugal South 0.78

Algeria 0.70
Morocco 0.69

The Moors were described as being pretty dark and 800 years in Spain is a long time;

----------


## Drac II

> Maybe the impact of all the slaves and immigrants from North Africa and Near East (to the city of Rome) were not that great on Italy; The impact of the 800 years Moorish occupation of Spain was obviously greater;
> 
> Based on the 374f allele results (Angela post#21)
> http://www.academicjournals.org/arti...uasa%20pdf.pdf
> 
> Italy:
> Genoa 0.85
> Rome 0.89
> Naples 0.85
> ...



We've been over these kinds of pseudo-arguments before. They did not work then, they won't work now. These alleles prove absolutely nothing regarding actual skin tones. According to such faulty "logic" based on such allele frequencies northern Portuguese should be darker on average than Italians from around Rome, yet when skin tones were actually measured in these populations the opposite was found: 

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/11...n-in-four.html

And they prove even less about history. Historians specializing in the history of Spain all point out the "Moors" were only a small elite, a foreign minority, as befits a military intervention, not a mass migration of people. Most historians of Rome, on the other hand, keep pointing out that the foreign population in Roman Italy was quite large, many even became convinced that it actually outnumbered the local Italian populations. And these foreigners were not mostly from Germany or Gaul, as some people would like to argue, but clearly from the Eastern Mediterranean (Greece, Anatolia, Palestine, Syria, Egypt.)




> The Moors were described as being pretty dark and 800 years in Spain is a long time;


Yes, starting with the Romans, who were very well acquainted with them, since they even had Roman rulers who were actually "Moors" (see who Macrinus or Aemilianus were, for example.)

And brush up on some math and geography while you are at it, because the only place in Spain where Islamic (a religion) rule prevailed for 781 years (not 800) was in Granada (not "Spain".) Plus unlike Roman Italy, there was actually an institution called "The Inquisition" throwing people out based on religious beliefs in medieval Spain.

----------


## Angela

> Rememberence according to what study?


Sorry, Nobody 1, that it took so long for me to get back to you. I saw from the Kelley paper that you linked that Oetzi was homozygous for the derived state at SLC24A5, but I remember reading somewhere that he was heterozygous for another one of the pigmentation snps. I was wondering if that was correct and if the snp for which he was heterozygous was the SLC45A2 (374f) one and if anyone could point me to a paper where that result could be found. 

Thanks for responding.

----------


## Nobody1

> We've been over these kinds of pseudo-arguments before. They did not work then, they won't work now. These alleles prove absolutely nothing regarding actual skin tones. According to such faulty "logic" based on such allele frequencies northern Portuguese should be darker on average than Italians from around Rome, yet when skin tones were actually measured in these populations the opposite was found: 
> 
> http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/11...n-in-four.html
> 
> And they prove even less about history. Historians specializing in the history of Spain all point out the "Moors" were only a small elite, a foreign minority, as befits a military intervention, not a mass migration of people. Most historians of Rome, on the other hand, keep pointing out that the foreign population in Roman Italy was quite large, many even became convinced that it actually outnumbered the local Italian populations. And these foreigners were not mostly from Germany or Gaul, as some people would like to argue, but clearly from the Eastern Mediterranean (Greece, Anatolia, Palestine, Syria, Egypt.)
> The Moors were described as being pretty dark and 800 years in Spain is a long time; 
> Yes, starting with the Romans, who were very well acquainted with them, since they even had Roman rulers who were actually "Moors" (see who Macrinus or Aemilianus were, for example.)
> 
> And brush up on some math and geography while you are at it, because the only place in Spain where Islamic (a religion) rule prevailed for 781 years (not 800) was in Granada (not "Spain".) Plus unlike Roman Italy, there was actually an institution called "The Inquisition" throwing people out based on religious beliefs in medieval Spain.


Ah yes the *Candille et al* study; 
Great study maybe you should read it;
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0048294

The figures you are referring to are the Tanning levels (i.e. Skin tone based on UV radiation);

_For skin color, global-level variation is likely driven primarily by natural (ecological) selection in response to UV radiation levels.
The inner upper arm was chosen as a site of sampling to avoid as much as possible confounding by variable sun exposure and variability in tanning ability._

And the Polish and Italian students tanned the most; A very valuable information; Makes you wonder why the Portuguese are so afraid of the Sun; 

Given that (acc. to _Candille et al_) the North Portuguese are indeed the darkest (basal-skintone/not tanning)

_The frequency of the rs183671 derived allele increases from Southern to Northern Europe: it is 88%, 89%, 98%, and 97% in the Portuguese, Italian, Polish, and Irish cohorts, respectively. We found that this SNP shows some evidence of association with skin pigmentation (p = 6×10−4, n = 289), and that each copy of the derived allele lightens the skin by 1.2 M index units,_

rs183671 allele
88% Portuguese (from the North)
89% Italians (from Rome)
97% Irish
98% Polish

As for the alleles '_not working_' and '_prove absolutely nothing_' - im not convinced by that;
Given that the alleles truly reflect the Genetic reality and your arguments are just your personal assumptions; Im not sure if you noticed all the studies, maps and links posted on page 1; might want to look at them;

*PS:* Have you noticed the K=20 admixture analysys in Lazardidis et al 2013 or the IBD sharing results of Botigué et al. 2013???
http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2013...and-north.html
By these scientific data its obvious that the (by your estimates) "small" Moorish elite must have been just as busy as all the Millions of Syrians (Hellenized/Seleucid nonetheless) immigrants in Rome if not even busier;

----------


## Angela

> Maybe the impact of all the slaves and immigrants from North Africa and Near East (to the city of Rome) were not that great on Italy; The impact of the 800 years Moorish occupation of Spain was obviously greater;
> 
> Based on the 374f allele results (Angela post#21)
> http://www.academicjournals.org/arti...uasa%20pdf.pdf
> 
> Italy:
> Genoa 0.85
> Rome 0.89
> Naples 0.85
> ...


I wouldn't bet money on the numbers being totally precise; for example, it's a little counter-intuitive in terms of the numbers for Genova vs. Rome. Rome being the large university city that it is, you might have students from the north as well as the south.

However, the big picture seems correct. I think the numbers correlate very well to some maps for solar radiation in Europe.

Look, for instance, at this map:
http://www.greenrhinoenergy.com/sola...-Europe-en.jpg

Then look at this map for the incidence of 374f in Europe from the Lucotte et al paper. I think there's a remarkable correspondence. 
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gn...3/slc45a21.png

After the initial spread, it looks like selection has taken place based on environmental factors, and perhaps later more minor population flows from people further south.

----------


## Drac II

> Ah yes the *Candille et al* study; 
> Great study maybe you should read it;
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0048294
> 
> The figures you are referring to are the Tanning levels (i.e. Skin tone based on UV radiation);
> 
> _For skin color, global-level variation is likely driven primarily by natural (ecological) selection in response to UV radiation levels.
> The inner upper arm was chosen as a site of sampling to avoid as much as possible confounding by variable sun exposure and variability in tanning ability._
> 
> ...


You should follow your own "advice" and read it yourself, as they are not any "tanning levels". I already informed you before in another thread that such measurements are taken from areas of the body not exposed to the sun precisely to avoid tanning from possibly interfering with the values. Even your very own quotation says so:

_For skin color, global-level variation is likely driven primarily by natural (ecological) selection in response to UV radiation levels.
The inner upper arm was chosen as a site of sampling to avoid as much as possible confounding by variable sun exposure and variability in tanning ability._

Thanks for disarming your own "argument". So, no, Italians were indeed found darkest skinned in that study, not based on conjectures about any allele frequencies but on actual measurements of non-exposed skin tones.

PS: we also already went through the tactic of trying to use IBDs, which are not admixture results, do not indicate gene flow (even the blogger whom you posted a link for clearly notes so), plus even the authors themselves acknowledged that the IBDs they made the subject of their study can be as recent as only a hundred to a couple hundred years old (long after the much ballyhooed "Moors" from the 8th century AD.) The Lazaridis et al. 2013 study used larger Spanish samples (they even used samples from the Canary Islands) than other Europeans, the authors make a note of that and considered it as a possible explanation as to why it seems to be larger. Plus they dated the DNA that you have in mind in Spain to 2000+ years (approx. 65 to 73 generations), long before even Islam itself existed.

----------


## Wilhelm

> The impact of the 800 years Moorish occupation of Spain was obviously greater;
> The Moors were described as being pretty dark and 800 years in Spain is a long time;


Why are you so ignorant, the "moors" never stayed 800 years in "Spain". First of all, it was only Granada that lasted the full 780 under muslim rule, most of Spain lasted from a few years to about 300-400 years, the process of reconquista was gradual. Second, it was not a "moorish occupation" but a religious rule (Islamic rule), the population was natives that converted to Islam, so the population remained the same. There was not genetic impact nor admixture. Any north-african input in Iberia (which is low ) is pre-historic (it has already been discussed many times).

----------


## Nobody1

> You should follow your own "advice" and read it yourself, as they are not any "tanning levels". I already informed you before in another thread that such measurements are taken from areas of the body not exposed to the sun precisely to avoid tanning from possibly interfering with the values. Even your very own quotation says so:
> 
> _For skin color, global-level variation is likely driven primarily by natural (ecological) selection in response to UV radiation levels.
> The inner upper arm was chosen as a site of sampling to avoid as much as possible confounding by variable sun exposure and variability in tanning ability._
> 
> Thanks for disarming your own "argument". So, no, Italians were indeed found darkest skinned in that study, not based on conjectures about any allele frequencies but on actual measurements of non-exposed skin tones.


Exactly;
Those figures are UV radiation exposure (i.e. tanning levels) and they tested it (to avoid it as much) on the inner-upper arm - that says it all; 
PS: do you really think _alleles_ are sun exposed as opposed to the upper arm?
Since you are such a fan of UV radiation here are a few other studies based on the same method;

_Jablonski -_ 2000 study - skin tone map on p.76 
http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/che...color_2000.pdf

_Rindermann et al 2012 -_ Chemnitz Uni. p.11
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.w...haprinderm.pdf

p.11 - Skin bright:
Norway - 1.57
Sweden - 1.57
Iceland - 1.57
Slovenia - 1.57
Netherlands - 1.49
Germany - 1.48
Czech Rep. - 1.42
---
Albania - 1.27
Italy - 1.27
Bulgaria - 1.27
Ukraine - 1.27
---
Cyprus - 1.12
Spain - 1.19
Greece - 1.12
Portugal 1.12


As for the Genetic reality (alleles) of skin-pigmentation you will surely find a host of infomation of page 1; So knock yourself out;




> PS: we also already went through the tactic of trying to use IBDs, which are not admixture results, do not indicate gene flow (even the blogger whom you posted a link for clearly notes so), plus even the authors themselves acknowledged that the IBDs they made the subject of their study can be as recent as only a hundred to a couple hundred years old (long after the much ballyhooed "Moors" from the 8th century AD.) The Lazaridis et al. 2013 study used larger Spanish samples (they even used samples from the Canary Islands) than other Europeans, the authors make a note of that and considered it as a possible explanation as to why it seems to be larger. Plus they dated the DNA that you have in mind in Spain to 2000+ years (approx. 65 to 73 generations), long before even Islam itself existed.


Ah the excuses and relativations again i.e. complete fiction;
This is what Botigue et al had to say herself:

_North African samples that have highest IBD sharing with Iberian populations also tend to have the lowest proportion of the European cluster in ADMIXTURE(Fig.1), e.g. Saharawi, Tunisian, Berbers and South Moroccans. This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around._

And the most massive gene flow from Africa to Iberia (_Spain_) was the Moorish invasion and occupation for hundreds of years; As for Lazaridis et al - the chart says it all; Certain elements are virtually absent in the rest of South Europe but an integral (every single sample tested positive for it) in Spain; Obviously the Moorish legacy; You might want to look at K=20 again Canary islands are separate - and you do know that each stripe indicates a sample and its individual admixture?;

----------


## Nobody1

> I wouldn't bet money on the numbers being totally precise; for example, it's a little counter-intuitive in terms of the numbers for Genova vs. Rome. Rome being the large university city that it is, you might have students from the north as well as the south.
> 
> However, the big picture seems correct. I think the numbers correlate very well to some maps for solar radiation in Europe.
> 
> Look, for instance, at this map:
> http://www.greenrhinoenergy.com/sola...-Europe-en.jpg
> 
> Then look at this map for the incidence of 374f in Europe from the Lucotte et al paper. I think there's a remarkable correspondence. 
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gn...3/slc45a21.png
> ...


I agree with that - see it the same; There is a clear cline between North Europe and South Europe and that might infact be a crucial aspect to it;

----------


## Wilhelm

> Exactly;
> Those figures are UV radiation exposure (i.e. tanning levels) and they tested it (to avoid it as much) on the inner-upper arm - that says it all; 
> PS: do you really think _alleles_ are sun exposed as opposed to the upper arm?
> Since you are such a fan of UV radiation here are a few other studies based on the same method;
> 
> _Jablonski -_ 2000 study - skin tone map on p.76 
> http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/che...color_2000.pdf


Precisely the study of Jablonski gives spanairds a lighter skin than many other Western Europeans :

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...ted-world.html

----------


## Nobody1

Looks like LeBrok was spot on;
Mention the Moors and the Celt-Iberians come charging out; LOL

----------


## Wilhelm

> Looks like LeBrok was spot on;
> Mention the Moors and the Celt-Iberians come charging out;


It's not our fault if you are bloody ignorants. The map at page 76 is based on *PREDICTION*, how strange you didn't mention the actual *OBSERVED* statistics on the tables at page 75, givin spanairds a lighter shade than some Western Europeans...

----------


## ElHorsto

> First this: The fact that Chinese, Koreans and Japanese developed lighter skin with _different_ genes involved than Europeans basically points to evolutionary pressure. So what would that be? Most probably vitamin D. Apart from Rachitis a number of diseases seem to be affected by vitamin D deficiency:
> 
> http://anthrogenetics.wordpress.com/...athyway-genes/
> 
> The list has a number of interesting health issues. Lower fertility, higher mortality, infectious diseases. Now, as far as I understand the part of mankind that departed Africa carried for a large part a number of genes that give lighter skin. This feature is shared with East-asians , Indian and Amerindians. Apparently this is enough "lightening" of the skin for hunter gatherers as American Indians basically carry these. Off course, hunter gatherers eat basically game and fish, which is relatively rich in vitamin D. Especially if you'd eat fish liver. So, we have a number light skinned genes that allow for more sunlight to reach the skin to make vitamin D, but not yet the light skin of European. Remember that the Loschbourg mesolthic hunter-gatherer does not share any of these specifically European light skin genes with us, even if he possibly had blue eyes.
> 
> Now the neolithic revolution kicks in. The amount of available food is high but it's mostly cereals. So far less vitamin D enters the body via food. Since farming is considered to be related to the emerging of a number infectious diseases the notion that vitamin D is highly involved in immune system evolutionary pressure for more light skin is quite relevant. It is also noteworthy that in similar environment both Europeans and East-Asians, heavy cereal using agricultural cultural conglomerates, develop genes for lighter skin independently, whereas the mostly hunter-gatherer American Indians do not. That may serve as evidence for neolithic selective pressure. 
> 
> So, whatever the scenario that brought in the mentioned mutations, I am beginning to get the idea that evolutionary selective pressure assured the ascendancy to 100% of the current genetic make up.


Things can be so simple. I remember once reading an article in popular science few years ago claiming that whites are just deficit mutants and thus should not feel superior (political correctness alert!). Perhaps the unnecessary PC undertone of this hypothesis prevented it from being more widely accepted.
Seriously, I (and others) once issued suspicion that european whiteness necessarly was modal in mesolithic europeans because the glaciers stretched farther south in europe than in asia and because the Saami are much darker in average than south Scandinavians, despite the latter show considerable EEF admixture. There you go, the Saami are the last hunter-gatherers of europe. But honestly I was surprised that the one hunter-gatherer turned out to be even darker than neolithic farmers. I rather expected light skin mutation to have come from central asia to europe. But we'll see, additional samples will come and prove or disprove.
Otherwise, dark skin has an additional less known advantage which is to protect from bacterial inflammations.

----------


## Nobody1

> It's not our fault if you are bloody ignorants. The map at page 76 is based on *PREDICTION*, how strange you didn't mention the actual *OBSERVED* statistics on the tables at page 75, givin spanairds a lighter shade than some Western Europeans...


Those *PREDICTIONs* (as clearly stated) are based on the *RESULTs* of a linear-regression model in which Skin-reflectance UVMED was used; I might be ignorant but not stupid or blind to read a study; unlike some other people;

So take a good look at the map at p.76 and the charted results of it; Mr. Celt Iberian;

----------


## Wilhelm

> Those *PREDICTIONs* (as clearly stated) are based on the *RESULTs* of a linear-regression model in which Skin-reflectance UVMED was used; I might be ignorant but not stupid or blind to read a study; unlike some other people;
> 
> So take a good look at the map at p.76 and the charted results of it; Mr. Celt Iberian;


All right...You didn't understand anything about the study or you don't want to understand. The map says it clear : based on "predicted results". Now look at the table in the previous page, where they compare this very same predicted results versus the actual observed results, now why are you not looking at that table ?

----------


## Nobody1

> All right...You didn't understand anything about the study or you don't want to understand. The map says it clear : based on "predicted results". Now look at the table in the previous page, where they compare this very same predicted results versus the actual observed results, now why are you not looking at that table ?

----------


## Drac II

> Looks like LeBrok was spot on;
> Mention the Moors and the Celt-Iberians come charging out; LOL


More like we are right and all a t-r-o-l-l has to do is mention "Moors" and "Spain" for you and your protector (LeBrok) to show up and then start accusing Iberians of "complexes" when in fact it only reflects your own, LOL!

----------


## Nobody1

> More like we are right and all a t-r-o-l-l has to do is mention "Moors" and "Spain" for you and your protector (LeBrok) to show up and then start accusing Iberians of "complexes" when in fact it only reflects your own, LOL!


Put a mirror to it;
Exactly the other way around;
You need to disgrace the Italians with your filth in order to get off on your wet-dream about being *not* South European or just like the British; Bizarre nonsense;

----------


## Aberdeen

Those olive skinned folk certainly are touchy, but I don't know why. I wish I had some Moorish ancestry, so I could walk outside under a hot summer sun without getting a sunburn.

----------


## Drac II

> Exactly;
> Those figures are UV radiation exposure (i.e. tanning levels) and they tested it (to avoid it as much) on the inner-upper arm - that says it all; 
> PS: do you really think _alleles_ are sun exposed as opposed to the upper arm?


Once again, learn to read, because it is clearly telling you why that region of the body was chosen for the measurements: to avoid the "tanning" that you desperately want to use as an excuse. This is a standard practice since at least the 19th century anthropology. Catch up.




> Since you are such a fan of UV radiation here are a few other studies based on the same method;
> 
> _Jablonski -_ 2000 study - skin tone map on p.76 
> http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/che...color_2000.pdf
> 
> _Rindermann et al 2012 -_ Chemnitz Uni. p.11
> https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.w...haprinderm.pdf
> 
> p.11 - Skin bright:
> ...



YAWN!!! You already tried misusing the same "maps" and papers in that thread about skin pigmentation, and all your specious manipulations were exposed already there:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post411751






> Ah the excuses and relativations again i.e. complete fiction;
> This is what Botigue et al had to say herself:
> 
> _North African samples that have highest IBD sharing with Iberian populations also tend to have the lowest proportion of the European cluster in ADMIXTURE(Fig.1), e.g. Saharawi, Tunisian, Berbers and South Moroccans. This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around._
> 
> And the most massive gene flow from Africa to Iberia (_Spain_) was the Moorish invasion and occupation for hundreds of years;


Again, the only one trying to manipulate and come up with excuses is you, since you desperately want the "Moors" to have had a huge impact on Iberians. A "suggestion" is not definitive proof, and to top it off the authors dated the IBDs to possibly as recent as only a couple hundred years. This has already been dealt with before, as usual with your silly t-r-o-l-l-i-n-g:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...171#post415171





> As for Lazaridis et al - the chart says it all; Certain elements are virtually absent in the rest of South Europe but an integral (every single sample tested positive for it) in Spain; Obviously the Moorish legacy; You might want to look at K=20 again Canary islands are separate - and you do know that each stripe indicates a sample and its individual admixture?;


Once again, the "obviously" is only in your desperate imagination since the authors themselves pointed out the larger Spanish sample size as an explanation, say nothing of any "Moorish legacy" and dated the DNA in question to long before even Islam existed. Keep trying.

----------


## Drac II

> Put a mirror to it;
> Exactly the other way around;
> You need to disgrace the Italians with your filth in order to get off on your wet-dream about being *not* South European or just like the British; Bizarre nonsense;


"Disgrace" Italians? Funny, you sound exactly like that "Italian friend" of yours who got banned for his dumb t-r-o-l-l-i-n-g against Iberians in a thread that also "coincidentally" was your "debut" here in these forums soon after he got banned. If there is anything said about Italians around here it is actually because you and a couple of deranged Italians who think that northern Italy is "The Land of Odin Himself" go around spewing "filth" (as you put it) against Iberians any time you can. The "mirror" is all for you, bud.

----------


## Nobody1

> Once again, learn to read, because it is clearly telling you why that region of the body was chosen for the measurements: to avoid the "tanning" that you desperately want to use as an excuse. This is a standard practice since at least the 19th century anthropology. Catch up.


Im catching up; in fact just stumbled over these Anthropological maps;

Coon -
http://imageshack.us/a/img191/8199/coon1.png
Lundman -
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7VYUS39sXa...ildlundman.jpg
Brace - 1973
http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_...Old-World1.jpg

But You know it all Drac II even better than the scientists themselves;

----------


## Nobody1

> "Disgrace" Italians? Funny, you sound exactly like that "Italian friend" of yours who got banned for his dumb t-r-o-l-l-i-n-g against Iberians in a thread that also "coincidentally" was your "debut" here in these forums soon after he got banned. If there is anything said about Italians around here it is actually because you and a couple of deranged Italians who think that northern Italy is "The Land of Odin Himself" go around spewing "filth" (as you put it) against Iberians any time you can. The "mirror" is all for you, bud.


Perfect example of your paranoia; might want to put a mirror to that as well;
Exactly (couldnt be any more) the exact opposite;

Did you notice the diff. between you and your Celt-Iberian friends and Angela, Sile and Adamo?
Clearly shows whose deranged and driving a Celt-Iberian, anti South Europe, we are just like the British agenda; Its you;

----------


## kamani

The funny thing about this whole discussion of EEF bringing white skin to Europe is that EEF were mostly E-V13, E-M123, and J. God has a twisted sense of humor...

Considering "The Moors", I haven't read much about their genetic impact, but to solve the question one can look at E-M81 traces.

----------


## Angela

> The funny thing about this whole discussion of EEF bringing white skin to Europe is that EEF were mostly E-V13, E-M123, and J. God has a twisted sense of humor...
> 
> Considering "The Moors", I haven't read much about their genetic impact, but to solve the question one can look at E-M81 traces.


Well, so far we've had one E-V13, one I2a, (that line might have been absorbed in the Balkans) and the rest have all been G2a3. No "J" has shown up to the party at all yet, in terms of the ancient Neolithic. 

Who knows what the next samples will show, however. It's all been nothing but surprises so far. :Smile:

----------


## Sile

> Perfect example of your paranoia; might want to put a mirror to that as well;
> Exactly (couldnt be any more) the exact opposite;
> 
> Did you notice the diff. between you and your Celt-Iberian friends and Angela, Sile and Adamo?
> Clearly shows whose deranged and driving a Celt-Iberian, anti South Europe, we are just like the British agenda; Its you;


Let "nationalistic" Drac say the nationalistic lies that all nations teach their populace .........his agenda is to be included as a catalan into "northern Europe", but his issue is that he wants to bring the rest of Spain with him ( the Castilian and others lower south). He cannot distinguish that north Spain is different from south Spain same as Italy, Germany, Britain, France and many many more nations. His main problem is his Nationalistic views are to be ignored............you can never have a decent discussion with a nationalistic person.

----------


## Sile

> Perfect example of your paranoia; might want to put a mirror to that as well;
> Exactly (couldnt be any more) the exact opposite;
> 
> Did you notice the diff. between you and your Celt-Iberian friends and Angela, Sile and Adamo?
> Clearly shows whose deranged and driving a Celt-Iberian, anti South Europe, we are just like the British agenda; Its you;


What are you referring too?

----------


## Knovas

> Did you notice the diff. between you and your Celt-Iberian friends and Angela, Sile and Adamo?


The difference is no one seems to worry much about Italy (or Greece for instance). Is it the same for Iberia? Obviously not, even a child can see it. Don't pretend you've never noticed such trend, I don't think you're that silly.

Oh wait, I am Iberian...my opinion has no value lol. Sometimes I understand why some people left the forum.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Let "nationalistic" Drac say the nationalistic lies that all nations teach their populace .........his agenda is to be included as a catalan into "northern Europe", but his issue is that he wants to bring the rest of Spain with him ( the Castilian and others lower south). He cannot distinguish that north Spain is different from south Spain same as Italy, Germany, Britain, France and many many more nations. His main problem is his Nationalistic views are to be ignored............you can never have a decent discussion with a nationalistic person.


You are lying...I follow most of Drac's posts and nowhere it can be proved or deduced he pretends that catalans be "northern european" , ..

----------


## Sile

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/phenotypic-w...hic-admixture/

----------


## Sile

> You are lying...I follow most of Drac's posts and nowhere it can be proved or deduced he pretends that catalans be "northern european" , ..


It not a lie, its my opinion and facts gather over years.........he has nationalistic ideas which *must* be ignored in forums like this. 

is france north or south european ...............either answer proves the stupidity of nationalistic terms used for north or south when regional terms are more appropriate.

IMO, facts are catalans have greater affinity with southern french than castilians over history. How much celtic are catalans...i am unsure, but galicians seem to have more

----------


## Wilhelm

> It not a lie, its my opinion and facts gather over years.........he has nationalistic ideas which *must* be ignored in forums like this. 
> 
> is france north or south european ...............either answer proves the stupidity of nationalistic terms used for north or south when regional terms are more appropriate.
> 
> IMO, facts are catalans have greater affinity with southern french than castilians over history. How much celtic are catalans...i am unsure, but galicians seem to have more


But, when did he said that catalans are "northern Euroepan" ?

----------


## LeBrok

> Seriously, I (and others) once issued suspicion that european whiteness necessarly was modal in mesolithic europeans because the glaciers stretched farther south in europe than in asia and because the Saami are much darker in average than south Scandinavians, despite the latter show considerable EEF admixture. There you go, the Saami are the last hunter-gatherers of europe. But honestly I was surprised that the one hunter-gatherer turned out to be even darker than neolithic farmers. I rather expected light skin mutation to have come from central asia to europe. But we'll see, additional samples will come and prove or disprove.


I must admit that latest findings took me by surprise. I was expecting the whitest skin selections happened right after Ice Age when HGs started to move farther north. Right now we know that EEF were lighter skinned than WHG. Granted the samples are few at the moment, but all confirm same trends. I knew that modern Northern Hunter-Gatherers supplement their D3 from consumption of fresh liver and mainly animal diet and can live far North with not so light skin, but I failed to extrapolate it on WHG and their similar lifestyle. The very light skin wasn't obviously the prerequisite for them to live North. I'm still curious to see if HGs of Balkans and north of Black Sea turn to be darker than farmers too. Perhaps there was an enclave of lighter HGs from whom EEF "borrowed" the lighter gene. Otherwise the whitening of farmers, based on dietary changes with prevalence of starch consumption, therefore losing vitamin D3 source, was the underlying forcing to push them to be more white, on their journey farther North. It makes sense.

----------


## Angela

> I must admit that latest findings took me by surprise. I was expecting the whitest skin selections happened right after Ice Age when HGs started to move farther north. Right now we know that EEF were lighter skinned than WHG. Granted the samples are few at the moment, but all confirm same trends. I knew that modern Northern Hunter-Gatherers supplement their D3 from consumption of fresh liver and mainly animal diet and can live far North with not so light skin, but I failed to extrapolate it on WHG and their similar lifestyle. The very light skin wasn't obviously the prerequisite for them to live North. I'm still curious to see if HGs of Balkans and north of Black Sea turn to be darker than farmers too. Perhaps there was an enclave of lighter HGs from whom EEF "borrowed" the lighter gene. Otherwise the whitening of farmers, based on dietary changes with prevalence of starch consumption, therefore losing vitamin D3 source, was the underlying forcing to push them to be more white, on their journey farther North. It makes sense.


It might turn out that the south Balkan Mesolithic hunter-gatherers were not all that different from the first farmers in, say, north west Anatolia, who were hunter-gatherers first as well. In this talk, the researcher claims not to have found a single "U" mtDNA in Greek Mesolithic samples.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/12...poulou-on.html

I don't know what's taking so long in terms of the Bean project. Look at the turnaround time between the Mal'ta paper and the Lazaridis et al one. They'd better get a move on!

----------


## LeBrok

> It might turn out that the south Balkan Mesolithic hunter-gatherers were not all that different from the first farmers in, say, north west Anatolia, who were hunter-gatherers first as well. In this talk, the researcher claims not to have found a single "U" mtDNA in Greek Mesolithic samples.


 True, considering the fact that till 8,000 BCE (before Black Sea deluge) Black Sea was smaller with unobscured wide land bridge between it and Mediterranean Sea. An easy access to Balkans and from Anatolia and vice versa for local HGs.

----------


## ElHorsto

> It might turn out that the south Balkan Mesolithic hunter-gatherers were not all that different from the first farmers in, say, north west Anatolia, who were hunter-gatherers first as well. In this talk, the researcher claims not to have found a single "U" mtDNA in Greek Mesolithic samples.
> http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/12...poulou-on.html
> 
> I don't know what's taking so long in terms of the Bean project. Look at the turnaround time between the Mal'ta paper and the Lazaridis et al one. They'd better get a move on!


Thanks. I remember we both were already speculating about Atlantic_Med Hunter-Gatherers in Europe and mtDNA H, Angela.

----------


## ElHorsto

> I must admit that latest findings took me by surprise. I was expecting the whitest skin selections happened right after Ice Age when HGs started to move farther north. Right now we know that EEF were lighter skinned than WHG. Granted the samples are few at the moment, but all confirm same trends. I knew that modern Northern Hunter-Gatherers supplement their D3 from consumption of fresh liver and mainly animal diet and can live far North with not so light skin, but I failed to extrapolate it on WHG and their similar lifestyle. The very light skin wasn't obviously the prerequisite for them to live North. I'm still curious to see if HGs of Balkans and north of Black Sea turn to be darker than farmers too. *Perhaps there was an enclave of lighter HGs from whom EEF "borrowed" the lighter gene.* Otherwise the whitening of farmers, based on dietary changes with prevalence of starch consumption, therefore losing vitamin D3 source, was the underlying forcing to push them to be more white, on their journey farther North. It makes sense.


I'm also very cautious to claim WHG to have been all dark only. The fact that also east asians turned basically white skinned (even if by different genes and rather yellowish) indicates that the ability of a population to whiten is not so rare when necessary. Evolution can catch up much quicker if certain individuals already carry the necessary heritage, so possibly some few WHG could have been white already before EEF arrival. Maybe today many north Euros turned white just by changing their nutrition to grain and crop. If environment changes, then this one individual will be the seed of quick population transformation. The diversity of mesolithic skulls from western europe also suggests a not so uniform phenotype (big cranium of the 8000 years old Combe-Capelle from France vs. the small crania of La Brana and Loschbourg).

----------


## epoch

> I knew that modern Northern Hunter-Gatherers supplement their D3 from consumption of fresh liver and mainly animal diet and can live far North with not so light skin, but I failed to extrapolate it on WHG and their similar lifestyle.


On a lighter note: Where I live cod liver still has its small band of aficionados. Me for instance. Served on toast with a slight pinch of salt its taste is near fois gras. Really lovely. 

http://golocal-media.de/8c19bb169b0f...f40dee563d.JPG

----------


## LeBrok

> On a lighter note: Where I live cod liver still has its small band of aficionados. Me for instance. Served on toast with a slight pinch of salt its taste is near fois gras. Really lovely. 
> 
> http://golocal-media.de/8c19bb169b0f...f40dee563d.JPG


I don't believe I've ever had a fresh one, but I'm a big fan of fried liver of any kind, especially with onion.

----------


## epoch

> I don't believe I've ever had a fresh one, but I'm a big fan of fried liver of any kind, especially with onions.


It comes mostly canned, even if I saw it offered fresh on the local market only once. My children don't like liver - I do like all liver and kidneys - but love cod liver. Apparently it has the highest vitamin D content known. Cod roe has also quite high vitamin D content, and is lovely too. 

http://www.thefishsociety.co.uk/bina...d_cods_roe.jpg

----------


## epoch

> I'm also very cautious to claim WHG to have been all dark only. The fact that also east asians turned basically white skinned (even if by different genes and rather yellowish) indicates that the ability of a population to whiten is not so rare when necessary. Evolution can catch up much quicker if certain individuals already carry the necessary heritage, so possibly some few WHG could have been white already before EEF arrival. Maybe today many north Euros turned white just by changing their nutrition to grain and crop. If environment changes, then this one individual will be the seed of quick population transformation. The diversity of mesolithic skulls from western europe also suggests a not so uniform phenotype (big cranium of the 8000 years old Combe-Capelle from France vs. the small crania of La Brana and Loschbourg).


The comparative list of genes involved is in the supplementary information of the paper:

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/s...1/001552-3.pdf

It basically shows that the mutations involved in the explicit whiteness of Europeans aren't present in Loschbourg. That does not mean they were black or even swarthy, but does indicate that current day mutations that cause "whiteness" weren't present among hunter-gatherers. The document explicitly states that no firm conclusions can be derived from this. Indeed the sample is very small, far to low a number of samples for final conclusions, so let us call all that has been said here preliminary conclusions at best.

----------


## epoch

Razib Khan has a this to say on Vitamin D and skin color:

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2007/07...r-vitamin-d-1/

The interesting part is that UV may aid to the synthesis of vitamin D, it supposedly hinders the synthesis of folic acid. That is very interesting. Everybody that has children knows both vitamins: Health authorities advice taking folic acid before and during pregnancy as it seems to prevent neural problems and I recall reading its deficiency seems related to miscarriages in general. Vitamin D is given to newborns as newborns tend to be vulnerable to its deficiency: Apparently mothers milk is not a very high source of vitamin D. In the article Razib dismisses a sexual selection component in the quick spread of whiteness, but I am not so sure. 

http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_...skin-color.htm

----------


## Jackson

> I can live with this too. It explains the "various hues of whiteness" that we see in Northern Europe today. Many Nordics have kept the ability to tan (we see this in Norway, Sweden, parts of Denmark) and then we have the British Islanders (especially Irish and Scottish) who skip the suntan and go right into sunburn. Seperate alleles would account for these differences.
> 
> **EDIT** I am speaking in gross generalities here. Certainly not every Swede or Irishman would fit neatly in these boxes, but overall I do see a trend that matches this conclusion.


A lot of people here can tan very well to be honest, but we probably have one of the largest percentages of people who can't. A lot of people here tan quite a bit, but then burn if they stay too long, like myself.

----------


## Jackson

> The comparative list of genes involved is in the supplementary information of the paper:
> 
> http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/s...1/001552-3.pdf
> 
> It basically shows that the mutations involved in the explicit whiteness of Europeans aren't present in Loschbourg. That does not mean they were black or even swarthy, but does indicate that current day mutations that cause "whiteness" weren't present among hunter-gatherers. The document explicitly states that no firm conclusions can be derived from this. Indeed the sample is very small, far to low a number of samples for final conclusions, so let us call all that has been said here preliminary conclusions at best.


This is the main point. It looks like they were dark, but even if they were quite light in actual fact, this study shows that modern northern Euros (and Euros in general) didn't inherit their light skin from them.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> This is the main point. It looks like they were dark, but even if they were quite light in actual fact, this study shows that modern northern Euros (and Euros in general) didn't inherit their light skin from them.


One of my great-grandfathers came over from Ireland-- my version of tanning consists of me turning a brilliant shade of deep red, then a few days later my skin falls off. Good times.

Looks like I have other relatives that were also from the British Isles that I'm learning about only now. I guess I inherited my tanning abilities (or lack thereof) from them. 

But concerning the thread topic... this hunter-gatherer skin tone thing seems very sketchy to me. I'm thinking there was an enormous variety of tribal phenotypes wondering around Europe this far back... skull shape alone tells us that much. Some groups probably mixed more with Neanderthal, some less, some not at all. Plus major mutations would remain hyper-specific to each "pod" due to the insular nature of the times. Regarding the continental population... we are talking about a very small number of people--divided into roving bands, probably not all that concerned with trade-- with no formal long-term settlements. Some probably weren't all that friendly. I bet they didn't even have cultural appreciation day in elementary school... 

A modern day model that might offer helpful hints would be the islands in Melanasia... the coastal populations look very different from the interior groups. You can see this even in the Philippines (I will provide the name of their specific interior group in an edit).

In short, I wouldn't hitch my horse to these hunter-gatherer findings. Not at this point anyway. I don't see it as all encompassing.

**EDIT** Name of the native group mentioned above is the Aeta. Found mainly in the mountainous regions of the Philippines.. and yes I know the Philippines aren't in Melanasia. Same situation can be found there though... with their coastal tribes having a higher Asian admixture versus the interior mountainous groups. It's no surprise that these coastal peoples were much more involved in sea-faring trade and this almost certainly gave them a cultural advantage. (Exposure to foreign technology, belief systems, more dispersed sexual selection, etc.)

----------


## kamani

The lack of tanning ability in the British Isles can be attributed to the lack of need for it there. With all the rain and fog there, the sun barely comes out. But Southern Europeans also get sunburn in the beginning of summer, even the dark ones, usually they "bake" after that first one thou. It's a pretty strange phenomenon.

----------


## Aberdeen

IMO, the lack of tanning ability is found among the very frequent British and Irish folk who have the "red hair" gene. They burn to a crisp if they spend any time under a hot sun. But the darker looking Brits and Irish don't seem to burn nearly as easily, not surprisingly. I don't know if they have SLC24A5, but I suspect they do, since they're still quite caucasian. I suspect it's a different allele or allele that is responsible for those Brits and Irish who can't tan. Actually, I think Maciamo already mentioned something about the allele or alleles associated with red hair and very pale skin.

----------


## Goga

I think that environment / cold climate activates SLC24A5 gene . I mean if people from West Asia with pigmented skin tone migrate up to North America or Northern EurAsia, their new born children are almost always lighter than their parents.

----------


## Degredado

> Perfect example of your paranoia; might want to put a mirror to that as well;
> Exactly (couldnt be any more) the exact opposite;
> 
> Did you notice the diff. between you and your Celt-Iberian friends and Angela, Sile and Adamo?
> Clearly shows whose deranged and driving a Celt-Iberian, anti South Europe, we are just like the British agenda; Its you;


I think Italians are just overall more confident. From what I've observed, they don't seem to give a f*** about people wondering whether they are more or less pale than X or Y, or whether they have traces of Arabic blood or not. As a matter of fact, they might even have a tendency to overemphasize their "mediterraneanness". That's why people don't really pick on them; if they don't feel offended, trying to abuse them with a particular "insult" is a waste of time.

----------


## Drac II

> I think Italians are just overall more confident. From what I've observed, they don't seem to give a f*** about people wondering whether they are more or less pale than X or Y, or whether they have traces of Arabic blood or not. As a matter of fact, they might even have a tendency to overemphasize their "mediterraneanness". That's why people don't really pick on them; if they don't feel offended, trying to abuse them with a particular "insult" is a waste of time.


Sure, that must be why sites like this exist for Italians, specially the Northern Italian separatists and their well-known "we are just like Central Europeans and not like those swarthy southern Europeans/Mediterraneans" strange obsession, while no such thing exists for Iberians:

http://racialreality.110mb.com/padania/

http://racialreality.110mb.com/leganord.html

And ironically you are in fact responding to one who does exactly what you think Iberians do. 

The real reason why it seems easier to try to pick on Iberians is because most people really don't know much about the history of the place. They hear popular silly lies and myths, strongly propagated by Afrocentrists, Nordicists, Muslim radicals and other charlatans with agendas, like the one spewed around here earlier about a supposed "800 years of Moorish domination of Spain", and more often than not start jumping to (incorrect) conclusions. One only needs to bother to dig a bit deeper into what actual historians specializing in the history of Islamic Iberia say to plainly see something quite different from these myths and lies. For starters, most Muslims in Iberia were in fact just natives who had converted to Islam, the Arabs and "Moors" were only a small foreign elite. Nothing "odd" here, really, at least not to anyone familiar with history. This is the same pattern of most military invasions throughout history. They are not large migrations of people. On the other hand, most people are not acquainted with Italian history as well as they think they are. A lot of people completely ignore the quite large communities of free and enslaved foreigners, particularly from the Eastern Mediterranean lands, in Roman Italy, something that is pointed out by a slew of experts on Roman history.

And you can easily put to the test your very own theory that Italians are more "confident" and that not responding to people trying to pick on a nationality will just make them go away and stop: make accounts for specifically targeting Italians and go around internet forums pounding them all day long with things like this:

http://www.giveshare.org/babylon/racechange.html

And calling them "Syrians", "Anatolians", "Semites", "Jews", "Egyptians", "descendants of slaves", "fake Latins/Romans", etc. I guarantee you that the "complex" that you think Iberians have will be in full display by Italians as well. That's because that supposed "complex" is really called "defending yourself from lies, exaggerations and distortions by people who obviously don't have very good intentions in mind, that's why they are lying, exaggerating and distorting things to begin with". Curiously enough, it seems that some people think it's only a "complex" when the much dreaded "Iberians" do it, but when others do it it's just fine and dandy.

----------


## martiko

> The difference is no one seems to worry much about Italy (or Greece for instance). Is it the same for Iberia? Obviously not, even a child can see it. Don't pretend you've never noticed such trend, I don't think you're that silly.
> 
> Oh wait, I am Iberian...my opinion has no value lol. Sometimes I understand why some people left the forum.


I understand you!

----------


## Greying Wanderer

I think the red hair / very pale skin gene was an early European adaptation that has been gradually replaced across Europe by the later versions because the later versions allow tanning. I think the later versions were spread by both the farmers and the IE. If this theory is correct people in Ireland and Scotland have the most red hair because they have most of the original euro forager red and at the same time are at the furthest fringe from both later sources: the southeast -> northwest farmer source and the east -> west IE source and people around the Baltic have the most white/blond/blue because they have the most from all three sources: original euro forager red + farmer white + IE blond/blue.

----------


## Degredado

> Sure, that must be why sites like this exist for Italians, specially the Northern Italian separatists and their well-known "we are just like Central Europeans and not like those swarthy southern Europeans/Mediterraneans" strange obsession, while no such thing exists for Iberians:
> 
> http://racialreality.110mb.com/padania/
> 
> http://racialreality.110mb.com/leganord.html
> 
> And ironically you are in fact responding to one who does exactly what you think Iberians do. 
> 
> The real reason why it seems easier to try to pick on Iberians is because most people really don't know much about the history of the place. They hear popular silly lies and myths, strongly propagated by Afrocentrists, Nordicists, Muslim radicals and other charlatans with agendas, like the one spewed around here earlier about a supposed "800 years of Moorish domination of Spain", and more often than not start jumping to (incorrect) conclusions. One only needs to bother to dig a bit deeper into what actual historians specializing in the history of Islamic Iberia say to plainly see something quite different from these myths and lies. For starters, most Muslims in Iberia were in fact just natives who had converted to Islam, the Arabs and "Moors" were only a small foreign elite. Nothing "odd" here, really, at least not to anyone familiar with history. This is the same pattern of most military invasions throughout history. They are not large migrations of people. On the other hand, most people are not acquainted with Italian history as well as they think they are. A lot of people completely ignore the quite large communities of free and enslaved foreigners, particularly from the Eastern Mediterranean lands, in Roman Italy, something that is pointed out by a slew of experts on Roman history.
> ...



It is true that there is an array of misconceptions about Spain (coming from Americans more than anyone else), but on the other hand, Spaniards often give the impression of being staunchly devoted to minimizing/flat out denying Moorish cultural and especially genetic legacy in the country. At this point, it's hard to tell who started this game, but it's a self-feeding cycle, where no side is ever quite convinced by the other (in these situations, the closest thing to the truth is typically somewhere in between). 

About Italian nordicists, I am quite sure that they are generally regarded as buffoons by most of their fellow citizens, while they are also likely to be viewed as 100% Southern European/Mediterranean by the Central and Northern Europeans they aspire to be. The point is that the average Italian - from what I've noticed - doesn't share these ideas of being "Northern", or "para-Northern", as in opposed to being Mediterranean, in terms of culture and genetics.

----------


## Sile

> Sure, that must be why sites like this exist for Italians, specially the Northern Italian separatists and their well-known "we are just like Central Europeans and not like those swarthy southern Europeans/Mediterraneans" strange obsession, while no such thing exists for Iberians:
> 
> http://racialreality.110mb.com/padania/
> 
> http://racialreality.110mb.com/leganord.html
> 
> And ironically you are in fact responding to one who does exactly what you think Iberians do. 
> 
> The real reason why it seems easier to try to pick on Iberians is because most people really don't know much about the history of the place. They hear popular silly lies and myths, strongly propagated by Afrocentrists, Nordicists, Muslim radicals and other charlatans with agendas, like the one spewed around here earlier about a supposed "800 years of Moorish domination of Spain", and more often than not start jumping to (incorrect) conclusions. One only needs to bother to dig a bit deeper into what actual historians specializing in the history of Islamic Iberia say to plainly see something quite different from these myths and lies. For starters, most Muslims in Iberia were in fact just natives who had converted to Islam, the Arabs and "Moors" were only a small foreign elite. Nothing "odd" here, really, at least not to anyone familiar with history. This is the same pattern of most military invasions throughout history. They are not large migrations of people. On the other hand, most people are not acquainted with Italian history as well as they think they are. A lot of people completely ignore the quite large communities of free and enslaved foreigners, particularly from the Eastern Mediterranean lands, in Roman Italy, something that is pointed out by a slew of experts on Roman history.
> ...


I completely understand your kind  :Rolleyes: 

Your nationalistic agenda does not work with genetics. I cannot recall the iberian splits in genetics, but in Italy there is Bergamo, Tuscan and south Italy, in Iberia, there is Basque, portuguese and Spanish........correct me if I missed one.
This split for genetics seems to me why you are raving :Wary:  .............I don't know your agenda, maybe because I ignore your nationalistic themes.

Far best is for you to concern yourself with your own makeup and where your ancestors came from.

kind regards

----------


## kamani

I dont get why having Moor ancestry is a bad thing that someone needs to defend himself from being known?

----------


## Angela

There you go again. 

Yes, I said that Iberia was under Moorish domination for 800 years...inexact perhaps, as only the southern part of it was ruled for the full 700 plus years, but it's indisputable that it was conquered in 711 and the last outpost fell in 1492. That is a fact. You cannot excise all this history because you are afraid it opens the door to discussions about whether there may have been any admixture between the Muslim invaders and the native Iberians. Surely you see that?

Yes, the question of how many invaders came, how many Moors were settled, how much admixture took place before they were exiled is all very complicated, as it is in Sicily and southern Italy. It will remain complicated until objective research is done. All you are doing by taking this attitude is proving that you don't want it to be researched thoroughly because you are afraid the answers might prove unpalatable, and they would be unpalatable because you apparently think that having even a slice of this kind of ancestry would diminish you in some way. 

Well, no, it shows something else. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of human history and population genetics. Have you read any of the papers on population genetics put out in the last couple of years? There aren't any "pure" races or ethnic groups. Human beings have been migrating and mixing since the dawn of time. Most of them just haven't been aware of it until now. Whatever group accumulated power and control in a certain era could create myths about their glorious past and the "purity" of their ancestry, and, not coincidentally, how their innate superiority gave them the right to control other groups of people. Then the wheel of history turns, and another group does the same thing. It's an old, tired, and depressing pattern. These old racist ideas belong in the rubbish bin of history. 

I'm not going to get into a discussion about Padania and the reactions to it, or the labyrinthine complexities of modern Italian politics, as that is even more off topic than the rest of this discussion, and it's also just an attempt to distract from the issue. I don't want to be judged by the racist rantings of a minority group of northern Italians, just as I don't judge Spaniards and Portuguese by what I see in these kinds of sites, which I sincerely hope is also a minority view. 

There...now I really am done with discussing this.

----------


## Sile

> There you go again. 
> 
> Yes, I said that Iberia was under Moorish domination for 800 years...inexact perhaps, as only the southern part of it was ruled for the full 700 plus years, but it's indisputable that it was conquered in 711 and the last outpost fell in 1492. That is a fact. You cannot excise all this history because you are afraid it opens the door to discussions about whether there may have been any admixture between the Muslim invaders and the native Iberians. Surely you see that?
> 
> Yes, the question of how many invaders came, how many Moors were settled, how much admixture took place before they were exiled is all very complicated, as it is in Sicily and southern Italy. It will remain complicated until objective research is done. All you are doing by taking this attitude is proving that you don't want it to be researched thoroughly because you are afraid the answers might prove unpalatable, and they would be unpalatable because you apparently think that having even a slice of this kind of ancestry would diminish you in some way. 
> 
> Well, no, it shows something else. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of human history and population genetics. Have you read any of the papers on population genetics put out in the last couple of years? There aren't any "pure" races or ethnic groups. Human beings have been migrating and mixing since the dawn of time. Most of them just haven't been aware of it until now. Whatever group accumulated power and control in a certain era could create myths about their glorious past and the "purity" of their ancestry, and, not coincidentally, how their innate superiority gave them the right to control other groups of people. Then the wheel of history turns, and another group does the same thing. It's an old, tired, and depressing pattern. These old racist ideas belong in the rubbish bin of history. 
> 
> I'm not going to get into a discussion about Padania and the reactions to it, or the labyrinthine complexities of modern Italian politics, as that is even more off topic than the rest of this discussion, and it's also just an attempt to distract from the issue. I don't want to be judged by the racist rantings of a minority group of northern Italians, just as I don't judge Spaniards and Portuguese by what I see in these kinds of sites, which I sincerely hope is also a minority view. 
> ...


Italy in ungovernable , I will state that it will ONLY work IF a system of a *Confederation of Italian states* represented a nation called Italy. Every region runs their own affairs and each region sits in government under a president............150 years of a centralised system has failed miserably and will continue to fail.

In regards to your other topic........some spanish have said they "cleaned" spain in and around 1482 of the undesirables ( moors and jews) in the "Moriscos" issues................they must have had an early form of genetic testing in 1482 to do this cleanising.

----------


## Drac II

> It is true that there is an array of misconceptions about Spain (coming from Americans more than anyone else), but on the other hand, Spaniards often give the impression of being staunchly devoted to minimizing/flat out denying Moorish cultural and especially genetic legacy in the country. At this point, it's hard to tell who started this game, but it's a self-feeding cycle, where no side is ever quite convinced by the other (in these situations, the closest thing to the truth is typically somewhere in between). 
> 
> About Italian nordicists, I am quite sure that they are generally regarded as buffoons by most of their fellow citizens, while they are also likely to be viewed as 100% Southern European/Mediterranean by the Central and Northern Europeans they aspire to be. The point is that the average Italian - from what I've noticed - doesn't share these ideas of being "Northern", or "para-Northern", as in opposed to being Mediterranean, in terms of culture and genetics.


Spaniards are just reacting to the strange claims of those who want to make a big deal about those "Moors" to fulfill their respective agendas (Afrocentrists do it because they actually think the "Moors" were "black" and want to go around bragging about how great they were by conquering even European peoples, Nordicists do it so they can have a pretext to supposedly "explain" why modern Iberians are "darker" on average than Northern Europeans, and so forth.) 

The reason why that guy made those pages about the strange claims of Northern Italian separatists was because they are more common than one would at first think. That guy has several sites and forums, and is very familiar with how fanatical and persistent this type of Northern Italians are. Their myth is mostly based on the mistaken assumption that just because Northern Italians are more brachycephalic it makes them "like Central Europeans" and totally different in looks and pigmentation to southern Italians and other southern Europeans. They see things like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ce_-_Map_4.jpg

And think that it proves their strange beliefs. Unfortunately, they apparently don't notice (or don't want to notice) that these old broad racial classifications are based mostly on cepahlic indices and some other craniofacial traits, little else, and that the brachycephalic "Alpines" that they so desperately want to cling to for their claims are also common all the way down to Syria. I suppose Syrians, Lebanese, Turks, Armenians, etc. should now also start a movement claiming that they are "like Germans" and nothing like other peoples in their areas. Phenotypes and pigmentation are much more complicated things than cephalic indices, though, so it is very easy to see the fallacy in such claims.

----------


## Drac II

> I completely understand your kind 
> 
> Your nationalistic agenda does not work with genetics. I cannot recall the iberian splits in genetics, but in Italy there is Bergamo, Tuscan and south Italy, in Iberia, there is Basque, portuguese and Spanish........correct me if I missed one.
> This split for genetics seems to me why you are raving .............I don't know your agenda, maybe because I ignore your nationalistic themes.
> 
> Far best is for you to concern yourself with your own makeup and where your ancestors came from.
> 
> kind regards


I think you have already seen several genetic studies that do not show such huge differences between north and south Italy either, at least not like many of these northern Italian separatists wish there were.

There is no "nationalistic themes" on my part. I don't know where you keep getting this idea from. When I defend Spain from the lies and exaggerations of some people with agendas, I defend it all, not just some parts of it. I have no problem with Andalusians or any other ethnic/regional groups in Spain, whatever differences (cultural, phenotypical or genetic) there might be among them.

----------


## Sile

> I think you have already seen several genetic studies that do not show such huge differences between north and south Italy either, at least not like many of these northern Italian separatists wish there were.
> 
> There is no "nationalistic themes" on my part. I don't know where you keep getting this idea from. When I defend Spain from the lies and exaggerations of some people with agendas, I defend it all, not just some parts of it. I have no problem with Andalusians or any other ethnic/regional groups in Spain, whatever differences (cultural, phenotypical or genetic) there might be among them.


You should embrace the EU philosophy and destroy all nations under the EU, without this the EU will not function........remaining as one Spain is the reason the EU system does not work in Spain. One must accept the 4 regions for Italy, the 5 regions for france, the 5 regions for Spain etc as per the voting representives in Brussels (EU)
nationalism which has been around for only 250 years has run its course , its best to see its demise................or else the other way is to destroy the EU............you cannot have both.

*genetics, language, religion and nationalism do not go together, do not tell us anything in any form 
*

----------


## Drac II

> There you go again. 
> 
> Yes, I said that Iberia was under Moorish domination for 800 years...inexact perhaps, as only the southern part of it was ruled for the full 700 plus years, but it's indisputable that it was conquered in 711 and the last outpost fell in 1492. That is a fact. You cannot excise all this history because you are afraid it opens the door to discussions about whether there may have been any admixture between the Muslim invaders and the native Iberians. Surely you see that?
> 
> Yes, the question of how many invaders came, how many Moors were settled, how much admixture took place before they were exiled is all very complicated, as it is in Sicily and southern Italy. It will remain complicated until objective research is done. All you are doing by taking this attitude is proving that you don't want it to be researched thoroughly because you are afraid the answers might prove unpalatable, and they would be unpalatable because you apparently think that having even a slice of this kind of ancestry would diminish you in some way. 
> 
> Well, no, it shows something else. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of human history and population genetics. Have you read any of the papers on population genetics put out in the last couple of years? There aren't any "pure" races or ethnic groups. Human beings have been migrating and mixing since the dawn of time. Most of them just haven't been aware of it until now. Whatever group accumulated power and control in a certain era could create myths about their glorious past and the "purity" of their ancestry, and, not coincidentally, how their innate superiority gave them the right to control other groups of people. Then the wheel of history turns, and another group does the same thing. It's an old, tired, and depressing pattern. These old racist ideas belong in the rubbish bin of history. 
> 
> I'm not going to get into a discussion about Padania and the reactions to it, or the labyrinthine complexities of modern Italian politics, as that is even more off topic than the rest of this discussion, and it's also just an attempt to distract from the issue. I don't want to be judged by the racist rantings of a minority group of northern Italians, just as I don't judge Spaniards and Portuguese by what I see in these kinds of sites, which I sincerely hope is also a minority view. 
> ...


It is also indisputable that Roman Italy had communities of slaves and free foreigners, specially from the Eastern Mediterranean territories of the empire, and that most of these people were never thrown out of Italy, ever, but actually eventually became "Roman citizens", some of them even became emperors and governors ("Roman" Britain even had several North African and Near Eastern governors, appointed there by the people calling the shots in Rome, whom at that time of the "Roman" conquest of Britain were in fact often North Africans and Near Easterners themselves, like the Severan emperors), yet I don't see you very willing to talk about it or even mention it. Could it be that this bothers you and somehow makes you feel "diminished in some way"? (I am just replying with your same brand of logic and argumentation.)

I don't have anything against research, when properly done. Having said that, let's leave history to the historians and genetics to the geneticists. When geneticists try to be "historians", making bold arbitrary claims based on things like haplogroups that are THOUSANDS of years old and could really have been introduced into any given region pretty much at any time starting that far back, they often end up talking nonsense about things they only have a very general knowledge about.

----------


## Drac II

> Italy in ungovernable , I will state that it will ONLY work IF a system of a *Confederation of Italian states* represented a nation called Italy. Every region runs their own affairs and each region sits in government under a president............150 years of a centralised system has failed miserably and will continue to fail.
> 
> In regards to your other topic........some spanish have said they "cleaned" spain in and around 1482 of the undesirables ( moors and jews) in the "Moriscos" issues................they must have had an early form of genetic testing in 1482 to do this cleanising.


No, they did not have genetic tests, and in fact most of the "Moriscos" were just descendants of Iberians converted to Islam who had then re-converted to Christianity:

"The 1492 expulsion of Jews involved more than 90000 people, and that of the moriscos - the descendants of INDIGENOUS converts to Islam who were ETHNICALLY (but not culturally) INDISTINGUISHABLE from the Spanish population - involved roughly 310000 people in 1609 and 1610."

*Massimo Livi Bacci, "The population of Europe: a history", page 19. Wiley-Blackwell (2000)* 

So they were in fact just mostly throwing out Spanish people whose ancestors once upon a time just happened to have professed the "wrong" religion. What this also shows, however, is how fanatical was the Inquisition regarding such issues. Any connection to Islam and Judaism was seen as a very serious matter, punishable even by eviction from the country. It did not matter to them that you looked exactly like the Christian Spaniards, if you were suspected of insincerity in your conversion and to be secretly keeping Jewish or Muslim beliefs, you were out the door.

----------


## Sile

> It is also indisputable that Roman Italy had communities of slaves and free foreigners, specially from the Eastern Mediterranean territories of the empire, and that most of these people were never thrown out of Italy, ever, but actually eventually became "Roman citizens", some of them even became emperors and governors ("Roman" Britain even had several North African and Near Eastern governors, appointed there by the people calling the shots in Rome, whom at that time of the "Roman" conquest of Britain were in fact often North Africans and Near Easterners themselves, like the Severan emperors), yet I don't see you very willing to talk about it or even mention it. Could it be that this bothers you and somehow makes you feel "diminished in some way"? (I am just replying with your same brand of logic and argumentation.)
> 
> I don't have anything against research, when properly done. Having said that, let's leave history to the historians and genetics to the geneticists. When geneticists try to be "historians", making bold arbitrary claims based on things like haplogroups that are THOUSANDS of years old and could really have been introduced into any given region pretty much at any time starting that far back, they often end up talking nonsense about things they only have a very general knowledge about.


I see you do not know what Italians are comprised of In ancient times........that's why you are confused............here below is a simple summary
old bronze and ironage ( pre-roman)
north italy = gallics, celtics, raetics and illyrians

central italy = tuscan ( recent paper states from northern alps) 

*rest of central Italy plus southern Italy minus the greeks = Italians*

Sicily = sicel, elymians from anatolia, levant and elsewhere

Sardinians = sardi, iberian and levant people

Corsica = gallic-ligurians

----------


## Sile

> No, they did not have genetic tests, and in fact most of the "Moriscos" were just descendants of Iberians converted to Islam who had then re-converted to Christianity:
> 
> "The 1492 expulsion of Jews involved more than 90000 people, and that of the moriscos - the descendants of INDIGENOUS converts to Islam who were ETHNICALLY (but not culturally) INDISTINGUISHABLE from the Spanish population - involved roughly 310000 people in 1609 and 1610."
> 
> *Massimo Livi Bacci, "The population of Europe: a history", page 19. Wiley-Blackwell (2000)* 
> 
> So they were in fact just mostly throwing out Spanish people who just happened to once upon a time have professed the "wrong" religion. What this also shows, however, is how fanatical was the Inquisition regarding such issues. Any connection to Islam and Judaism was seen as a very serious matter, punishable even by eviction from the country.


from Fernand Braundel there where 4.2 million "spanish" in 1450..........8% where removed in the matter above............it was not a one off thing, it went on until the 1640

----------


## Drac II

> I see you do not know what Italians are comprised of In ancient times........that's why you are confused............here below is a simple summary
> old bronze and ironage ( pre-roman)
> north italy = gallics, celtics, raetics and illyrians
> 
> central italy = tuscan ( recent paper states from northern alps) 
> 
> *rest of central Italy plus southern Italy minus the greeks = Italians*
> 
> Sicily = sicel, elymians from anatolia, levant and elsewhere
> ...


I was referring to things that happened later, during the late Roman period.

----------


## martiko

> You are lying...I follow most of Drac's posts and nowhere it can be proved or deduced he pretends that catalans be "northern european" , ..



I remember that it did not name every Spanish but basques with near 70 % of North atlantic, why to divert quotations from its sense, it is the proof of intellectual poverty.
And for me it is not far from 60/70 % what corresponds nearly.West-European-admixture.jpg

----------


## Tone

> Perhaps there was an enclave of lighter HGs from whom EEF "borrowed" the lighter gene. Otherwise the whitening of farmers, based on dietary changes with prevalence of starch consumption, therefore losing vitamin D3 source, was the underlying forcing to push them to be more white, on their journey farther North. It makes sense.


I just can't wrap my head around it. If the light skin allele comes from EEF, then how did the WHG populations of the Baltic acquire it?

I can understand if the EEF farmers got lighter as they moved north and eventually supplanted the WHG peoples. Yet the white Lithuanians of today who track closely as a proxy for WHG, are still obviously still mostly WHG and not EEF. Was there a few individuals of mixed heritage who founded a population of white WHG who then supplanted most of the original dark skinned WHGs? It's possible I guess. Afterall, there were no "wild hunter-gatherers" in Europe since about 4000 bc. They were completely replaced, at least their lifestyle was. Even so called "barbarians" came from farming communities. 

So under that scenario, the original dark-skinned WHG were wiped-out, via founder effect, by a light-skinned farming population that was also largely WHG in heritage but with some alleles from EEF -- mainly the light skin allele. That's the best I could come up with.  :Indifferent:

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> I just can't wrap my head around it. If the light skin allele comes from EEF, then how did the WHG populations of the Baltic acquire it?
> 
> I can understand if the EEF farmers got lighter as they moved north and eventually supplanted the WHG peoples. Yet the white Lithuanians of today who track closely as a proxy for WHG, are still obviously still mostly WHG and not EEF. Was there a few individuals of mixed heritage who founded a population of white WHG who then supplanted most of the original dark skinned WHGs? It's possible I guess. Afterall, there were no "wild hunter-gatherers" in Europe since about 4000 bc. They were completely replaced, at least their lifestyle was. Even so called "barbarians" came from farming communities. 
> 
> So under that scenario, the original dark-skinned WHG were wiped-out, via founder effect, by a light-skinned farming population that was also largely WHG in heritage but with some alleles from EEF -- mainly the light skin allele. That's the best I could come up with.


"I just can't wrap my head around it."

That's cos it doesn't make sense.

What makes sense is there being two de-pigmentation events (three if you include Neanderthals or back to two again if WHG got their light skin alleles from Neanderthals).

1) Early loss of function allele: IRF4 or MC1R giving dark or red hair, light eyes and pale skin with lots of freckles (no tanning)
2) Later farming allele, SLC24A5 -> pale skin with tanning.

WHG had the first, farmers the second. However the second is now nearly fixed in Europe so it effectively paints over the freckles. In the past there would have been loads like that especially in the northwest. I think someone would have noticed if they were brown. No-one would have noticed if they were 1/2 brown i.e. had a mass of freckles - not in Britain or Ireland anyway.

It will be rare but there will be people in Northwest Europe who have IRF4 and don't have SLC24A5 so it should be provable.

----------


## gyms

"Neanderthal DNA sequences are found in regions of the genome that have been linked to the regulation of skin pigmentation. The acquisition of these variants by mating with the Neanderthals may have proven to be a rapid way for humans to adapt to local conditions."

http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/...human-genomes/

----------


## LeBrok

> "Neanderthal DNA sequences are found in regions of the genome that have been linked to the regulation of skin pigmentation. The acquisition of these variants by mating with the Neanderthals may have proven to be a rapid way for humans to adapt to local conditions."
> 
> http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/...human-genomes/


That's a great news, thanks gyms for posting.




> _
> Nevertheless, the Neanderthals were also a probable source for at least a few genetic variations that were adaptive for their human descendants. Neanderthal DNA sequences are found in regions of the genome that have been linked to the regulation of skin pigmentation. The acquisition of these variants by mating with the Neanderthals may have proven to be a rapid way for humans to adapt to local conditions.
> “We found evidence that Neanderthal skin genes made Europeans and East Asians more evolutionarily fit,” Vernot said, “and that other Neanderthal genes were apparently incompatible with the rest of the modern human genome, and thus did not survive to present day human populations.”
> _


NIce to be vindicated. That's what I was saying from way back, (and generally about interbreeding from a first glance at visually reconstructed Neanderthal). That mingling between these two species was the easiest and fastest way to pick up right skin colour for Sapiens coming from Africa. And that waiting for right mutation to kick in would be much more time consuming process, therefore less likely. Occam's razor wins again.

----------


## Angela

I'm not sure it's all that clear cut. These two papers are dense and difficult to absorb, so upon more readings, I may find that I'm incorrect, but I didn't see anything in the paper indicating that we have inherited any of our specific skin lightening genes from Neanderthals. 

The only gene mentioned was the BCN2 gene which researchers think is somehow involved in the skin pigmentation pathways. However, they have not yet found its precise function. The best guess seems to be that it may be a precursor gene for the functioning of the color draining alleles.

Human Pigmentation Genes Under Environmental Selection:
http://genomebiology.com/2012/13/9/248#B38

The above paper also addresses many of the issues we've been discussing, including what might have triggered selection for blue eyes, advancing one theory I hadn't hear before, which is that since blue eyes absorb more light, they might have proved helpful in locations where it was continuously dark for long stretches at a time, i.e. at very northern latitudes. Also, they propose that by absorbing more light, blue eyes might have been selected for as a means of protection against things like seasonal affective disorder.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> That's a great news, thanks gyms for posting.
> 
> 
> 
> NIce to be vindicated. That's what I was saying from way back, (and generally about interbreeding from a first glance at visually reconstructed Neanderthal). That mingling between these two species was the easiest and fastest way to pick up right skin colour for Sapiens coming from Africa. And that waiting for right mutation to kick in would be much more time consuming process, therefore less likely. Occam's razor wins again.


Early days but logically - if Neanderthals were a long way from Sapiens - then you might think only those genes which had a dramatic advantage would be passed on - at least until an improved version was developed.

----------


## Maciamo

> "Neanderthal DNA sequences are found in regions of the genome that have been linked to the regulation of skin pigmentation. The acquisition of these variants by mating with the Neanderthals may have proven to be a rapid way for humans to adapt to local conditions."
> 
> http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/...human-genomes/


This article doesn't mention it, but it is the *BNC2* and *POU2F3* genes influencing skin that were inherited from Neanderthals, not the SLC24A5 mentioned in this thread. BNC2 influences saturation of skin colour and is responsible for freckling, and is found in two thirds of Europeans. POU2F3 is involved in keratin production and is found in 70% of East Asians.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> This article doesn't mention it, but it is the *BNC2* and *POU2F3* genes influencing skin that were inherited from Neanderthals, not the SLC24A5 mentioned in this thread. BNC2 influences saturation of skin colour and is responsible for freckling, and is found in two thirds of Europeans. POU2F3 is involved in keratin production and is found in 70% of East Asians.


That's the critical point though. SLC24A5 is a skin lightening gene spread from the near east. I don't think there's any debate about. The question is whether the WHG like La Brana and Louschbour had already de-pigmented **before** SLC24A5 started to spread. Personally i think they had with the spread of a partial albinism based around the red hair, light eyes and freckles phentotype (MC1R) or the dark hair, light eyes and freckles phenotype (IRF4). I think the only way to explain the spread of red hair that ancient writers mention so often is if it de-pigmented the skin as well - with freckling as protection. This would also explain the decline of red hair once the improved protection of tanning came along with SLC24A5.

----------


## MOESAN

if correct the mutated SLC24A5 could have been an amazingly good thing: a lighter skin for poor sunny seasons and a possibility to tan during sunny seasons (very striking adaptability) -
by the way, the red haired light skinned freckled people can tan a bit, if irregularly, after a dangerous period of hypersensibility and burning - I think we shall discover in future other mutations upon genes which, without change radically the skin colour, can slightly modify this colour -
concerning the very black skins of subsaharian populations I 'm not sure they did not suffer other skin colour genes mutations, on the other side...

----------


## kamani

I think some people are missing that even the non-tanable pale with freckles euro types are white because of SLC24A5. Unless you're East Russian, then you just don't know whether you have SLC24A5 or the East Asian gene for paleness.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> I think some people are missing that even the non-tanable pale with freckles euro types are white because of SLC24A5. Unless you're East Russian, then you just don't know whether you have SLC24A5 or the East Asian gene for paleness.


That's just an assumption. There's no proof of that precisely because SLC24A5 is close to fixation. If Europeans already had de-pigmentation genes and then you added SLC24A5 then how would you know? You couldn't.

Europeans would have been brown once and so it would be a reasonable assumption if it wasn't for the blue eyes. What is the frequency of blue eyes and dark skin in modern populations? 0.001%? What is the supposed frequency of blue eyes among the WHG who have been tested so far - 100%.

It makes no sense unless these WHG were already de-pigmented.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> if correct the mutated SLC24A5 could have been an amazingly good thing: a lighter skin for poor sunny seasons and a possibility to tan during sunny seasons (very striking adaptability)


I agree hence fixation or close to it now but do you remember the various studies saying farmers and HGs didn't mix for a long time? When you take that as one end-point and the written records as the other that doesn't leave a lot of time for *complete* fixation and you need *complete* fixation by that time or according to the theory there would still have lots of brown euros running around during the historical period.

Alternatively euros were already de-pigmented when the farmers arrived and SLC24A5 spread because it was a better version.

----------


## Maciamo

> That's just an assumption. There's no proof of that precisely because SLC24A5 is close to fixation. If Europeans already had de-pigmentation genes and then you added SLC24A5 then how would you know? You couldn't.
> 
> Europeans would have been brown once and so it would be a reasonable assumption if it wasn't for the blue eyes. What is the frequency of blue eyes and dark skin in modern populations? 0.001%? What is the supposed frequency of blue eyes among the WHG who have been tested so far - 100%.
> 
> It makes no sense unless these WHG were already de-pigmented.


Dark skinned people with blue eyes are almost inexistent in Europe, but it is still possible to find them in Pakistan, Afghanistan or India. It would be worth investigating what mutations such people carry.

----------


## Maciamo

> I agree hence fixation or close to it now but do you remember the various studies saying farmers and HGs didn't mix for a long time? When you take that as one end-point and the written records as the other that doesn't leave a lot of time for *complete* fixation and you need *complete* fixation by that time or according to the theory there would still have lots of brown euros running around during the historical period.
> 
> Alternatively euros were already de-pigmented when the farmers arrived and SLC24A5 spread because it was a better version.


I disagree with those studies claiming that farmers and HGs didn't mix for a long time. Although it seems true that some hunter-gatherers survived in isolation without Near Eastern admixture, that is not the case for farmers, who did absorb some I2a1 populations. This is obvious from the high frequency of I2a1 in SE Europe and Sardinia, but we have incontrovertible proof that Neolithic farmers were already a blend of G2a and I2a in Early Neolithic France (Treilles site). If that is not enough, there are over 100 LBK mtDNA samples tested to date, and about a third of them of Mesolithic haplogroups like H1, H3, H10, H11, U4, U5 and V. The LBK sample from Stuttgart tested together with the Loschbour HG also confirm that even Early Neolithic farmers (5500 BCE is as early as it gets in Western Europe) already had a little bit of Mesolithic admixture.

Ironically, it may be the populations of Scandinavia and Finland who kept dark skin the longest in Europe, since Neolithic farmers reached them last and they have the lowest percentage of Neolithic haplogroups today. Actually it is likely that Scandinavians got white skin only from the IE invasions of the Corded Ware period.

----------


## MOESAN

> Dark skinned people with blue eyes are almost inexistent in Europe, but it is still possible to find them in Pakistan, Afghanistan or India. It would be worth investigating what mutations such people carry.


I agree with several posts here: it would be very amazing, when considering the today occidental and northern populations of Europe, that a sort of depigmentation was not already occurred among Mesolithic people - but who knows?
concerning light coloured eyes in Pakistan Afghanistan or India: they are very SELDOM - and true Afghanistan population are "europoidly" skin coloured, unless tanning even if Pakistan an India are darker: - the sensible surveys about skin reflectance seems showing lighter skins among Pendjabi, Sikhs and Pathans than among "Dravidians" people of more southern places, and they are not so far from 'euopoids' - the more common skin colour mutation of Europeans is numerically dominent among them in North - so these I-E speaking populations are a mix where dominates the 'europoid' element whatever its remote origin - 
crossing makes the debate more confused because, for I suppose -and it seems it would be confirmed- the number of loci implied for eye colours are less numerous than the loci for skin pigmentation ; eye colour and hair colour, even if less simple we supposed, have less intermediary positions than skin colour which is more gradual and "less absolute" - so in these regions we have a very dark skinned dark eyed dark haired population + (a) light skin dark eyes dark haired population(s) + a very light skinned light eyed light haired population from the western Steppes - the slightly lighter eyed tribes have also slightly lighter hairs (for the most in the Hindue Kush - so I am not sure we can link too quickly some light haired dark skinned people of these contacts areas of India or Pakistan to an ancient stage of evolution similar to the supposed mesolithical one in western Europe - we could have only 'metissed' individuals among whom some rare ones retained light eyes - a NEW genetic situtation NOT AN OLD one

----------


## Wilhelm

> Ironically, it may be the populations of Scandinavia and Finland who kept dark skin the longest in Europe, since Neolithic farmers reached them last and they have the lowest percentage of Neolithic haplogroups today. Actually it is likely that Scandinavians got white skin only from the IE invasions of the Corded Ware period.


Doesn't make much sense, Finns have low R1a+R1b, and plus they are non-IE speakers.

----------


## martiko

> Doesn't make much sense, Finns have low R1a+R1b, and plus they are non-IE speakers.


Exactly! and I saw at the Afghan or people of southern Russia eyes, hair and dark skins (except Russian european).

----------


## ElHorsto

> Doesn't make much sense, Finns have low R1a+R1b, and plus they are non-IE speakers.


The ones who really lack it are the Saami, and there you are they are significantly darker in average than Finns and Scandinavians. The Saami are the most paleolithic europeans autosomally. 
Finns show much autosomal IE heritage and they are very bottlenecked, don't be mislead by PCA plots who often show the mere isolation and bottleneck history.

----------


## Sile

> I'm not sure it's all that clear cut. These two papers are dense and difficult to absorb, so upon more readings, I may find that I'm incorrect, but I didn't see anything in the paper indicating that we have inherited any of our specific skin lightening genes from Neanderthals. 
> 
> The only gene mentioned was the BCN2 gene which researchers think is somehow involved in the skin pigmentation pathways. However, they have not yet found its precise function. The best guess seems to be that it may be a precursor gene for the functioning of the color draining alleles.
> 
> Human Pigmentation Genes Under Environmental Selection:
> http://genomebiology.com/2012/13/9/248#B38
> 
> The above paper also addresses many of the issues we've been discussing, including what might have triggered selection for blue eyes, advancing one theory I hadn't hear before, which is that since blue eyes absorb more light, they might have proved helpful in locations where it was continuously dark for long stretches at a time, i.e. at very northern latitudes. Also, they propose that by absorbing more light, blue eyes might have been selected for as a means of protection against things like seasonal affective disorder.


maybe this is better

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...72497312001810

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> Dark skinned people with blue eyes are almost inexistent in Europe, but it is still possible to find them in Pakistan, Afghanistan or India. It would be worth investigating what mutations such people carry.


Yes, good point.

----------


## Drax

Hello, I'm new here, I really like the Eupedia website and all the Maciamo works; I'm not fluent in english, so sorry if in my messages I do mistakes.

About the subject, for Indians peoples with light eyes, that have already proven and explained of the IE invaders/migration, so I don't think it's a valid comparaison with the curious cro-magon with brown skin and blue eyes...or maybe not.


If I trust this article from Eupedia during the Corded war (3000 BC), the IE has already exactly the same maternal lineages that the Scandinavian I1, so mtDNA haplogroups U4 and U5 (see the article about haplougroup I1, I can't posted the link).


I'm not a specialist, so sorry if I do a big mistake, but if they have similar maternal lineage already in 3000 BC, that made them technically more or less "cousin" genetically ? if during this time they has already the same mtdna haplogroups, I suppose we can say that they were already mixed way before this date ? We know blue eyes are from one single woman ancestor...so how we can be sure that not among the IE the blue eyes have appeared first (among peoples with light skins and light hairs like...today), and have passed of others cro-magnons with their wives ? The majority of cro-magnons were described, until this CM with blue eyes, like tanned, brown eyes and hairs, imho, it's not judicious to transform all of them with blue eyes just because of an indvidual case.

My second hypothesis is very simple, maybe that from CM, but it's not because you have genetically "blue eyes" genes inside you, that you are blue eyed yourself, for example today most african-american have whites ancestors, but they have rarely blue eyes, remember La Brana has just 50% to have blue eyes genetically, maybe the IE were the good "peoples", to give the possibility the blue eyes to "take place" because the IE light skins and hairs...I ask the question for the specialists...that a possibility ? To give a "dormant" gene to someone else who have a better potential for this gene ? that would be a wonderful coincidence, the light hairs and skin meet the genetically blue eyes, and they have light skins, light hairs and eyes...specially when we know that that white skin, hairs and eyes are extremely recessives.

My third hypthosis, is maybe the simple ones, because of their mtdna, both of them has blue eyes, the IE invaders improves the presences of blue eyes appearances in all the Europe but in others places in the world, that explains how a recessive traits are so present among europeans and why it's seem exclusively, at least physically, to the Europeans peoples.

Sorry if my message is confused, I'm not used to talk in forums, so I'm very sorry if I'm not clear.

Thank you Maciamo for Eupedia and all your works.

----------


## LeBrok

Welcome to Eupedia Drax. Your english is very good and your hypotheses interesting.

----------


## Maciamo

> Hello, I'm new here, I really like the Eupedia website and all the Maciamo works; I'm not fluent in english, so sorry if in my messages I do mistakes.


Welcome to the forum, Drax and thank you for the kind words.




> About the subject, for Indians peoples with light eyes, that have already proven and explained of the IE invaders/migration, so I don't think it's a valid comparaison with the curious cro-magon with brown skin and blue eyes...or maybe not.


What we want to ascertain by looking into the genomes of blue-eyed South Asians is what genes have an influence on eye pigmentation without affecting skin pigmentation (or vice versa). There are two main genes for blue eyes (HERC2, OCA2), but one of them (OCA2) is also known to influence skin colour and hair colour. Many South Asians also carry the light skin allele of SLC24A5 gene, but have nevertheless darker skin than Europeans. Some South Asians have very dark skin and blue eyes. Since all Europeans have light skin, it is hard to determine just how much influence the various genes for light skin and light eyes have on each others. The only way to be sure that Mesolithic Europeans could have had dark skin and blue eyes is to try to find individuals with the same mutations for dark skin and blue eyes, and such people can probably only be found in South Asia nowadays.




> I'm not a specialist, so sorry if I do a big mistake, but if they have similar maternal lineage already in 3000 BC, that made them technically more or less "cousin" genetically ? if during this time they has already the same mtdna haplogroups, I suppose we can say that they were already mixed way before this date ? We know blue eyes are from one single woman ancestor...so how we can be sure that not among the IE the blue eyes have appeared first (among peoples with light skins and light hairs like...today), and have passed of others cro-magnons with their wives ? The majority of cro-magnons were described, until this CM with blue eyes, like tanned, brown eyes and hairs, imho, it's not judicious to transform all of them with blue eyes just because of an indvidual case.
> ...
> My third hypthosis, is maybe the simple ones, because of their mtdna, both of them has blue eyes, the IE invaders improves the presences of blue eyes appearances in all the Europe but in others places in the world, that explains how a recessive traits are so present among europeans and why it's seem exclusively, at least physically, to the Europeans peoples.


Yes and no. U4 and U5 are extremely old lineages, especially U which could be over 50,000 years old, i.e. older than the presence of Homo Sapiens in Europe. So saying that people are close cousins because they both possess U5 lineages devoid of sense. Nevertheless, R1a tribes surely absorbed a lot of European maternal lineages when they arrived in Eastern Europe from Central Asia or Siberia. Skeletons from Mesolithic or Neolithic Russia and Ukraine show that a lot of individuals were of proto-Europoid type, in other words anatomically intermediary between Mesolithic Europeans and Siberians.

As for the genes for blue eyes, there is a high likelihood that they were inherited from Neanderthal, rather than having appeared independently in Europeans fairly recently. It hasn't been proven yet that Neanderthals had blue eyes. Actually Neanderthals evolved for 300,000 years in Europe and were probably more genetically diverse than modern humans, who all share a more recent ancestry. If blue eyes indeed originated in Neanderthal, different Neanderthal populations could have passed blue eyes genes many times to Homo sapiens in Europe, the Middle East or Central Asia. It's not even granted that the two main genes, OCA2 and HERC2 were passed at the same time or to the same people. They might only have converged later in Europeans. Another alternative is that only one of these genes came from Neanderthal while the other arose in Homo sapiens.

In my opinion, both Mesolithic Europeans and Proto-Indo-Europeans possessed blue eyes. It is clear that PIE people had blue eyes because blue eyes spread to North, Central and South Asia. But the La Brana sample also confirms that blue eyes were already present in Mesolithic Europe.

----------


## Drax

Thank you very much Lebrock and Maciamo for your welcomes.




> Welcome to the forum, Drax and thank you for the kind words.
> 
> 
> 
> What we want to ascertain by looking into the genomes of blue-eyed South Asians is what genes have an influence on eye pigmentation without affecting skin pigmentation (or vice versa). There are two main genes for blue eyes (HERC2, OCA2), but one of them (OCA2) is also known to influence skin colour and hair colour. Many South Asians also carry the light skin allele of SLC24A5 gene, but have nevertheless darker skin than Europeans. Some South Asians have very dark skin and blue eyes. Since all Europeans have light skin, it is hard to determine just how much influence the various genes for light skin and light eyes have on each others. The only way to be sure that Mesolithic Europeans could have had dark skin and blue eyes is to try to find individuals with the same mutations for dark skin and blue eyes, and such people can probably only be found in South Asia nowadays


Thank you very much for the explanation, I'm extremely novice about everything around the genetics, I was more concentrated about the historical aspect about the presence of the light eyes, but it's very interesting; I was not really aware about various degree of influence between the light skin and light eyes, it's really fascinating.

There are also the nubians peoples in the south of Egypt, they are mixed with caucasians peoples, but some of them have kept a very dark skin but with light eyes; but I'm sure that would work better with south asians peoples.






> Yes and no. U4 and U5 are extremely old lineages, especially U which could be over 50,000 years old, i.e. older than the presence of Homo Sapiens in Europe. So saying that people are close cousins because they both possess U5 lineages devoid of sense. Nevertheless, R1a tribes surely absorbed a lot of European maternal lineages when they arrived in Eastern Europe from Central Asia or Siberia. Skeletons from Mesolithic or Neolithic Russia and Ukraine show that a lot of individuals were of proto-Europoid type, in other words anatomically intermediary between Mesolithic Europeans and Siberians.


Okay, you confirm my suspicious about the mtdna, I was aware that some of them are extremely olds, but I was not sure about U4 and U5, I have already read an interesting thread in Eupedia from you about the aspect of the first IE.




> As for the genes for blue eyes, there is a high likelihood that they were inherited from Neanderthal, rather than having appeared independently in Europeans fairly recently. It hasn't been proven yet that Neanderthals had blue eyes. Actually Neanderthals evolved for 300,000 years in Europe and were probably more genetically diverse than modern humans, who all share a more recent ancestry. If blue eyes indeed originated in Neanderthal, different Neanderthal populations could have passed blue eyes genes many times to Homo sapiens in Europe, the Middle East or Central Asia. It's not even granted that the two main genes, OCA2 and HERC2 were passed at the same time or to the same people. They might only have converged later in Europeans. Another alternative is that only one of these genes came from Neanderthal while the other arose in Homo sapiens.


I'm really novice in genetics, but how, I can interpret the recent studies who try to demonstrate that blues eyes are from a single woman in -10.000BC ? It's just a easy explanation for the general audience ? Your theory about neanderthal have lot sense, and seem far more "complex" in the good sense of the term, so OCA2 and HERC2 have not been proven to "appear" on the same woman in the same time...so why make this study like an official fact ? I'm really confused




> In my opinion, both Mesolithic Europeans and Proto-Indo-Europeans possessed blue eyes. It is clear that PIE people had blue eyes because blue eyes spread to North, Central and South Asia. But the La Brana sample also confirms that blue eyes were already present in Mesolithic Europe.


I'm 100% agree with you, I think it's the most logical explanation (lol, at my level of course); but I think for La Brana, he is from Mesolithic Europe, but more in the end of the Mesolithic, and the beginning of the neolithic, so 5000BC, The IE was already present in Europe, in the East part of course, but La brana, with some of his scandinavian genes shouldn't not technically present in Spain...I think we can't separate definitely La Brana with the IE about the blue eyes, like something official, I think it's still a possibility, if we trust the single ancestor blue eyes woman, that these woman was present among IE tribes and later (in a very short time), to the cro-magnon peoples, specially in the context, that blue eyes, seem exclusively linked to whites skins peoples and most of times with light hairs.

----------


## joeyc

> We've been over these kinds of pseudo-arguments before. They did not work then, they won't work now. These alleles prove absolutely nothing regarding actual skin tones.


That's your opinion, not a scientific fact. 

Indeed Iberians have a much lower percentage of the most important light skin alleles found among West Eurasians.

_SLC45A2 (MATP Leu374Phe), SLC24A5 (NCKX5 Ala111Thr) and OCA2 (r12913832 T/C)
_
For the last one I've got the percentages from the large Alfre Alleles database.

_The higher value = the lighter skintone/eye color._

_542 Italians from Verona 0.526_

_114 Italians from Tuscany 0.446_ 

_547 Greeks from Thessaloniki 0.344_ 

_511 Spaniards from Madrid 0.369_ 

_547 Norwegians from Bergen 0.864_ 

_385 Poles from Southern Poland 0.780_

_498 Irish from Belfast 0.807_

_579 Estonian 0.904_ 

6420_ Dutch 0.820_




> According to such faulty "logic" based on such allele frequencies northern Portuguese should be darker on average than Italians from around Rome, yet when skin tones were actually measured in these populations the opposite was found:


One of the author of Candille et al. is a Portuguese from Porto, Sandra Beleza. Of course she only picked the lightest individuals from her birthplace. So much about this crappy study.

----------


## joeyc

> Precisely the study of Jablonski gives spanairds a lighter skin than many other Western Europeans :


ROFL Jablonski et al. also claims that South East Asians like Cambodians, Vietnamese and Philipponos are lighter skinned than the Japanese. Really ludicrous.

Moreover they give zero information about the samples. Good stuff for laughs.

----------


## Nobody1

> Indeed Iberians have a much lower percentage of the most important light skin alleles found among West Eurasians.
> 
> _SLC45A2 (MATP Leu374Phe), SLC24A5 (NCKX5 Ala111Thr) and OCA2 (r12913832 T/C)
> _
> For the last one I've got the percentages from the large Alfre Alleles database.
> 
> _The higher value = the lighter skintone/eye color._
> 
> _542 Italians from Verona 0.526_
> ...


Nothing new; Was already well documented in Anthropology;

Carleton Coon - Ch.XI(15) & Ch.XII(7)

*South Spain* (Andalusia) -
The skin color of the Andalusians is light brown, corresponding to #15 to #18 on the von Luschan chart, in 80 per cent of cases, while only one man in six has a pinkish-white skin of the type so frequent among Ruffians. Sixty per cent have dark brown hair, 30 per cent black hair. The remaining 10 per cent show some evidence of blondism or of rufosity. Only one man out of 420 was truly blond. The hair is straight in half the series, wavy in a third, and curly in a sixth. Six men in the entire group have negroid, frizzly hair; a minor absorption of negro blood, dating from Moorish times, is evident. As a whole, however, Andalusians are free from negroid traits. As among most Mediterraneans, beard and body hair are not abundant. Sixty per cent of Andalusians have pure brown eyes, of which the majority are dark brown, although light brown and mixed-brown irises occur. Mixed-light eyes comprise 30 per cent of the series, with a prev-alence of greenish-brown shades, while 10 per cent of the whole sample possesses bluish-gray eyes, on the gray rather than blue side. A ratio of 40 per cent of light or incipiently light eyes is higher than one expects to find among racially pure Mediterraneans, and indicates the infusion of Nordic blood, from both North European and Berber sources. Probably if the rest of Spain were studied for eye color in the same way, higher ratios of eye blondism would appear elsewhere, since most of the green-brown eyes in this sample are predominantly dark. 

*Portugal -*
As in southern Spain, the skin color is evenly divided between a light brown, 45 per cent, and brunet-white, 45 per cent, while pinkish-white skins are found in only one-tenth of the population.122 Again as in Spain, the prevailing hair color is dark brown, which amounts to 68 per cent of the total; blond and red hair is limited to 2 per cent. Eye color, with 7 per cent of "blue," 15 per cent of "medium," 78 per cent of "dark," shows some correlation with latitude, which is not as clear in the cases of skin color and hair color. Blue eyes run to 13 per cent in the north, and as low as 1 and 2 per cent in the south. Dark eyes seem to range inversely from 71 per cent to 87 per cent. Portugal contains no more than the traditional 25 per cent of incipient blondism common to many groups of Mediterraneans. Non-Mediterranean elements in the Portuguese population are rare and of little importance. A few Nordics are scattered throughout but are particularly concentrated in the north. Traces of Dinaric blood, as we have already seen, may likewise be found on the northern coast. Negroid blood, introduced into Portugal through the medium of freed slaves, has largely been absorbed. The liberated negroes settled mostly in the cities, where negroes from the Portuguese colonies are still to be seen in some numbers. The liberality of the Portuguese social attitude toward persons of different race has prevented the retention, as in Arabia and the United States, of a stigmatized negroid class. On the whole, the absorption of negroes by the Portuguese has had no appreciable effect on the racial position of the country.

*South Italy* (in comparison)* -*
The skin color is as a rule dark; over 50 per cent of unexposed shades are definitely light brown or olive-colored, while the exposed skin often tans to a distinctive reddish-brown. Ten per cent are freckled. About 20 per cent have black hair, and 48 per cent dark brown; reddish brown shades, or dark to medium brown with a reddish glint, account for some 16 per cent, while the remaining 6 per cent have light brown or blondish colors. Pure dark eyes are found among 44 per cent of those studied; mixed eyes among 50 per cent, and pure light eyes among 6 per cent. The high ratio of reddish shades in the hair and of mixed eyes reflects the strong Alpine strain in this population, as does the large minority of non-brunet skin colors and the presence of freckling. Of the mixed eyes, the majority are dark-mixed, and green-brown combinations are three times as common as blue-brown and gray-brown put together.

----------


## joeyc

^^ those datas from the racist Hooton and friends referr to Italian Americans, not real Italians from Italy. So the are not reliable.

----------


## Drac II

> That's your opinion, not a scientific fact. 
> 
> Indeed Iberians have a much lower percentage of the most important light skin alleles found among West Eurasians.
> 
> _SLC45A2 (MATP Leu374Phe), SLC24A5 (NCKX5 Ala111Thr) and OCA2 (r12913832 T/C)
> _
> For the last one I've got the percentages from the large Alfre Alleles database.
> 
> _The higher value = the lighter skintone/eye color._
> ...


Apparently you must think that we are clueless and can't easily tell that you are carefully picking the results you want to hear and leaving out those you don't like. By carefully picking the results any given person wants to hear according to his/her agenda, we can easily present the following results that show that Italians have in fact lower values of that allele:

_The higher value = the lighter skintone/eye color._

_Italians from Tuscany: 0.415_

_Spaniards from Madrid (the sample that you chose for your manipulated example is actually from Alicante, not Madrid): 0.461_ 

_Spaniards from Galicia: 0.469_

Plus in order to show how unreliable such single SNPs are when attempted to be interpreted in the sense that you want to interpret them, the database also gives, for example, the following as one of the values of that allele for Italians, French and Orcadians: 

_Italians (unspecified region) : 0.690
_
_Orcadians (unspecified region): 0.607_

_French from Paris: 0.522_

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to easily perceive how deceiving would be to jump to conclusions from such results, the way you obviously wish to do just because you want to hear that Italians are lighter than Iberians. If that's so, then we should also believe that French and even Orcadians are also darker than Italians. As pointed out before, these "predictions" fly in the face of all actual pigmentation surveys of all these populations. "Predictions" are for prophets, not science.




> One of the author of Candille et al. is a Portuguese from Porto, Sandra Beleza. Of course she only picked the lightest individuals from her birthplace. So much about this crappy study.


So when a study does not agree with your agenda then you immediately and without any grounds accuse the author/s of fraud. Except of course when Italians are involved and the results agree with your agenda, then we should of course not suspect foul play. Interesting "logic" there.

----------


## Drac II

> Nothing new; Was already well documented in Anthropology;
> 
> Carleton Coon - Ch.XI(15) & Ch.XII(7)
> 
> *South Spain* (Andalusia) -
> The skin color of the Andalusians is light brown, corresponding to #15 to #18 on the von Luschan chart, in 80 per cent of cases, while only one man in six has a pinkish-white skin of the type so frequent among Ruffians. Sixty per cent have dark brown hair, 30 per cent black hair. The remaining 10 per cent show some evidence of blondism or of rufosity. Only one man out of 420 was truly blond. The hair is straight in half the series, wavy in a third, and curly in a sixth. Six men in the entire group have negroid, frizzly hair; a minor absorption of negro blood, dating from Moorish times, is evident. As a whole, however, Andalusians are free from negroid traits. As among most Mediterraneans, beard and body hair are not abundant. Sixty per cent of Andalusians have pure brown eyes, of which the majority are dark brown, although light brown and mixed-brown irises occur. Mixed-light eyes comprise 30 per cent of the series, with a prev-alence of greenish-brown shades, while 10 per cent of the whole sample possesses bluish-gray eyes, on the gray rather than blue side. A ratio of 40 per cent of light or incipiently light eyes is higher than one expects to find among racially pure Mediterraneans, and indicates the infusion of Nordic blood, from both North European and Berber sources. Probably if the rest of Spain were studied for eye color in the same way, higher ratios of eye blondism would appear elsewhere, since most of the green-brown eyes in this sample are predominantly dark. 
> 
> *Portugal -*
> As in southern Spain, the skin color is evenly divided between a light brown, 45 per cent, and brunet-white, 45 per cent, while pinkish-white skins are found in only one-tenth of the population.122 Again as in Spain, the prevailing hair color is dark brown, which amounts to 68 per cent of the total; blond and red hair is limited to 2 per cent. Eye color, with 7 per cent of "blue," 15 per cent of "medium," 78 per cent of "dark," shows some correlation with latitude, which is not as clear in the cases of skin color and hair color. Blue eyes run to 13 per cent in the north, and as low as 1 and 2 per cent in the south. Dark eyes seem to range inversely from 71 per cent to 87 per cent. Portugal contains no more than the traditional 25 per cent of incipient blondism common to many groups of Mediterraneans. Non-Mediterranean elements in the Portuguese population are rare and of little importance. A few Nordics are scattered throughout but are particularly concentrated in the north. Traces of Dinaric blood, as we have already seen, may likewise be found on the northern coast. Negroid blood, introduced into Portugal through the medium of freed slaves, has largely been absorbed. The liberated negroes settled mostly in the cities, where negroes from the Portuguese colonies are still to be seen in some numbers. The liberality of the Portuguese social attitude toward persons of different race has prevented the retention, as in Arabia and the United States, of a stigmatized negroid class. On the whole, the absorption of negroes by the Portuguese has had no appreciable effect on the racial position of the country.
> ...



Actually, it is "new" since such "predictions" actually contradict the actual empirical data gathered by those anthropologists, which by the way you again manipulated at your convenience. Coon also says that such "olive/light brown" skin tones in Spain (all of it, not just Andalusia isolated from the rest of the country) are less than 46%, while he cites a study that suggests (at least to his criterion) that even as far up north in Italy as Bologna these skin stones make up about 50%.

----------


## Drac II

> ROFL Jablonski et al. also claims that South East Asians like Cambodians, Vietnamese and Philipponos are lighter skinned than the Japanese. Really ludicrous.
> 
> Moreover they give zero information about the samples. Good stuff for laughs.


The provenance of their samples is clearly identified. In the case of their Spanish samples, they came from Basque and Leon regions. The techniques they used are accepted as the most accurate ones so far to measure skin tones (skin reflectance, more accurate than the older "tiles" of Von Luschan and the like anthropologists.) It seems that whenever the results of a study don't fit into your agenda you just keep on pretending to find faults in it. I suppose that next you are going to tell us that Jablonski and Chaplin are really just evil Iberians manipulating data.

----------


## Sile

> Apparently you must think that we are clueless and can't easily tell that you are carefully picking the results you want to hear and leaving out those you don't like. By carefully picking the results any given person wants to hear according to his/her agenda, we can easily present the following results that show that Italians have in fact lower values of that allele:
> 
> _The higher value = the lighter skintone/eye color._
> 
> _Italians from Tuscany: 0.415_
> 
> _Spaniards from Madrid (the sample that you chose for your manipulated example is actually from Alicante, not Madrid): 0.461_ 
> 
> _Spaniards from Galicia: 0.469_
> ...


The person split the results into areas/regions indicating more precision to the results, you are trying to lump all Spaniards together, all italians together, all french together..........be serious, you clearly do not have the data to justify your way out predictions. 
Stop lumping nations together , because clearly you are distorting regional results :Angry:

----------


## Sile

> Actually, it is "new" since such "predictions" actually contradict the actual empirical data gathered by those anthropologists, which by the way you again manipulated at your convenience. Coon also says that such "olive/light brown" skin tones in Spain (all of it, not just Andalusia isolated from the rest of the country) are less than 46%, while he cites a study that suggests (at least to his criterion) that even as far up north in Italy as Bologna these skin stones make up about 50%.


What day was it when you fabricated these percentages?

----------


## Nobody1

> Actually, it is "new" since such "predictions" actually contradict the actual empirical data gathered by those anthropologists, which by the way you again manipulated at your convenience. Coon also says that such "olive/light brown" skin tones in Spain (all of it, not just Andalusia isolated from the rest of the country) are less than 46%, while he cites a study that suggests (at least to his criterion) that even as far up north in Italy as Bologna these skin stones make up about 50%.


But with not one word does Coon state that the other 54% are 'pinkish-white' he only writes that 46% are '_definitely dark skin_' and in Andalusia '_only one man in six has a pinkish-white skin_' - whereas with North Italy he clearly writes that the other 50% are 'pinkish-white'; And also that light-eyes are more common in North Italy than in Spain; But all that you know already - so truly nothing new; Which all is thus also clearly reflected in the light of the Genetic results of SLC45A2_ rs16891982_ and SLC24A5 _rs1426654_ as illustrated by *joeyc* in post#123 and in all studies posted in this thread (starting with p.1 SLC24A5 and post#33 SLC45A2);

----------


## Drac II

> The person split the results into areas/regions indicating more precision to the results, you are trying to lump all Spaniards together, all italians together, all french together..........be serious, you clearly do not have the data to justify your way out predictions. 
> Stop lumping nations together , because clearly you are distorting regional results


I did exactly what he did, namely: arbitrarily choose whatever values suit an agenda. The difference is that he did it so that Spaniards appeared on the "darker" end, I turned it around so that Italians appeared so.

Bottom line: such "predictions" are not reliable and are often at odds with actual pigmentation levels observed for average people of those populations. It's pretty much the same thing that happened to Jablonski and Chaplin when they calculated "predicted" values for skin reflectance based purely on environmental factors and then got real empirical values by actually gathering samples from all these places and testing them. In the case of Spain, which is the one pertinent to this thread, their "predicted" values fell short of the actual measured values. According to their "predicted" values their Spanish samples should have been darker than the ones coming from more northern locations, yet in some instances (Belgium, Wales, Ireland and southern England) they actually came up pretty much the same or even lighter.

----------


## Drac II

> What day was it when you fabricated these percentages?


The day that you obviously did not bother to check the actual source they came from and that I most certainly did not "invent": Carleton Coon's _The Races of Europe_. And Coon himself did not "invent" the percentages either. He got them from studies of those populations made by Italian and Spanish anthropologists.

----------


## Drac II

> But with not one word does Coon state that the other 54% are 'pinkish-white' he only writes that 46% are '_definitely dark skin_' and in Andalusia '_only one man in six has a pinkish-white skin_' - whereas with North Italy he clearly writes that the other 50% are 'pinkish-white'; And also that light-eyes are more common in North Italy than in Spain; But all that you know already - so truly nothing new;


Coon says that the 46% in Spain is for both "light brown/olive" and "dark brunet-white" skin tones. He does not go into detail about how much of each makes up that 46%, but obviously since both skin tones are included in the 46% then logically "light brown/olive" skin tones have to be less than 46%. So, what is left of lighter skin tones on the von Luschan scale that he uses to describe skin pigmentation? Only "light brunet-white" and "pink", so obviously the remaining 56% of Spain's skin tones belong to these two categories (again, as in the previous case of the darker tones, he does not specify how much of this 56% is "light brunet-white" and how much is "pink", so it's anyone's guess.) The point here was not whether Spain has a higher frequency of "pink" skin tones than Italy, but that Spain has a lower frequency of "light brown/olive" skin tones than Italy. This is what the skin pigmentation data used by Coon shows.

Regarding light eyes: Agreed. Pigmentation data of both countries shows that Italy is lighter eyed on average than Spain. No disputes here.




> Which all is thus also clearly reflected in the light of the Genetic results of SLC45A2_ rs16891982_ and SLC24A5 _rs1426654_ as illustrated by *joeyc* in post#123 and in all studies posted in this thread (starting with p.1 SLC24A5 and post#33 SLC45A2);


No, I have to disagree here. These "predictions" based on single SNPs are often quite off-the-mark when contrasted to actual observed pigmentation data. And it is not just in the cases for Italy and Spain, by the way. If you go to the database in question where joeyc got those values from and you look at these "predicted" results for Greeks, for example, and then contrast them to their actual pigmentation data (consult Coon on the pigmentation of Greeks) you will also notice that these "predicted" values would appear to present them as "darker" than Italians as well, yet the actual observed values show that Greeks are of similar pigmentation as northern Italians, at least when it comes to skin tones (roughly 50-50 "light brown/olive" & "pink")

----------


## Aberdeen

You can win this argument, Drac. Just post a picture of yourself so we can see your blond hair, blue eyes and pale white skin.

Or you could stop with all the internalized self-hatred and just be proud of your olive skin. I think that's a much healthier approach. Why should it matter whether the darker Mediterranean look is an adaptation to local conditions or a result of some minor mixing with "Moors". We're all pretty closely related, when it comes down to it. The scientists tell us that there's often more genetic diversity in one band of chimpanzees than you'll find in the whole of Europe's human population.

----------


## joeyc

> The day that you obviously did not bother to check the actual source they came from and that I most certainly did not "invent": Carleton Coon's _The Races of Europe_. And Coon himself did not "invent" the percentages either. He got them from studies of those populations made by Italian and Spanish anthropologists.


*The* *Von Luschan's chromatic sc**ale** i**s not* *a valid method of classifying skin colour,* as in many instances, different investigators would give different readings of the same person. Moreover Coon cites clearly racist and ludicrous scientists like Earnest Hooton, who has never set his foot in Italy.

----------


## joeyc

> The provenance of their samples is clearly identified. In the case of their Spanish samples, they came from Basque and Leon regions. The techniques they used are accepted as the most accurate ones so far to measure skin tones (skin reflectance, more accurate than the older "tiles" of Von Luschan and the like anthropologists.) It seems that whenever the results of a study don't fit into your agenda you just keep on pretending to find faults in it. I suppose that next you are going to tell us that Jablonski and Chaplin are really just evil Iberians manipulating data.


It's not very accurate if it claims that South East Asians are lighter skinned than Japanese people. 

Actually I've read the whole book, and the authors give no information about the sample size or how the samples were collected. They also have not checked the ancestry of tested samples. Very unreliable.

----------


## joeyc

> So when a study does not agree with your agenda then you immediately and without any grounds accuse the author/s of fraud. Except of course when Italians are involved and the results agree with your agenda, then we should of course not suspect foul play. Interesting "logic" there.


One of the main author of Candille et al. is the Portuguese researcher Sandra Beleza from Porto. 

The same Sandra Beleza also picked the participants from the university and a research institute of Porto. Guess what? The Portuguese came out as super nordic.

Do you really believe that it is just a coincidence?

----------


## joeyc

@Drac 

1) The connection between the frequencies of these 3 light skin alleles and the fairness of the skin among West Eurasians, has been proved by several peer reviewed studies, and I doubt you can prove them wrong.

2) I've only picked the largest clusters from the Alfred Alleles database. Generally speaking the bigger the cluster the more reliable it is. Smaller clusters as the ones from Madrid or France should be ignored. I did not notice the Galician cluster.

3) You should consider the frequencies of the 3 light skin alleles, not just one. Galicians and Iberians as whole have much lower percentages of the 3 light skin alleles than any mainland Italian. That of course means that Iberians are much darker skinned.

4) These results are in line with the ones from the IrisPlex System (rate of prediction accuracy of over 90%) which shows the lightest Italians as being about 2 times lighter than the lightest Iberians.

----------


## Drac II

> You can win this argument, Drac. Just post a picture of yourself so we can see your blond hair, blue eyes and pale white skin.
> 
> Or you could stop with all the internalized self-hatred and just be proud of your olive skin. I think that's a much healthier approach. Why should it matter whether the darker Mediterranean look is an adaptation to local conditions or a result of some minor mixing with "Moors". We're all pretty closely related, when it comes down to it. The scientists tell us that there's often more genetic diversity in one band of chimpanzees than you'll find in the whole of Europe's human population.


Strange that you should be addressing this nonsensical angry post at me and not the actual instigators here. I am merely responding and exposing their manipulations to try to paint rosy pictures of themselves by trying to present mistaken claims about other groups.

----------


## Drac II

> *The* *Von Luschan's chromatic sc**ale** i**s not* *a valid method of classifying skin colour,* as in many instances, different investigators would give different readings of the same person. Moreover Coon cites clearly racist and ludicrous scientists like Earnest Hooton, who has never set his foot in Italy.


Says who? You, right? Fact is that until skin reflectance techniques were developed (which you also don't like since they don't agree with your agenda either), such methods were the standard to measure pigmentation. It might be outdated today thanks to skin reflectance, but it always was a valid method.

----------


## Drac II

> It's not very accurate if it claims that South East Asians are lighter skinned than Japanese people.


The only southeast Asians they used in the study seem to be Cambodians and Filipinos (many of whom are really descendants of very old Chinese arrivals there, not the native Tagalogs), and they scored lower than some Japanese regions. Nothing "weird" here. Perfectly possible.




> Actually I've read the whole book, and the authors give no information about the sample size or how the samples were collected. They also have not checked the ancestry of tested samples. Very unreliable.


The article was published in the Journal of Human Evolution, a peer reviewed anthropological publication, and so far I have seen none of their fellow professionals question either their methods, samples or results.

----------


## Drac II

> One of the main author of Candille et al. is the Portuguese researcher Sandra Beleza from Porto. 
> 
> The same Sandra Beleza also picked the participants from the university and a research institute of Porto. Guess what? The Portuguese came out as super nordic.
> 
> Do you really believe that it is just a coincidence?


Where does it say they came up "super Nordic"? I think this is just your assumption because you did not like the results. They in fact were found to be darker overall (considering eyes and hair into the equation too) than the Poles and Irish, so obviously it's not like the Portuguese in the samples were like stereotypical Scandinavians. I have yet to see evidence that Sandra Beleza purposefully chose the lightest people she could find, and that also somehow her colleagues did not notice such a manipulation.

----------


## Drac II

> @Drac 
> 
> 1) The connection between the frequencies of these 3 light skin alleles and the fairness of the skin among West Eurasians, has been proved by several peer reviewed studies, and I doubt you can prove them wrong.


I see, so when a study seems to say what you want to hear then its "peer-reviewedness" is evident and must be accepted as the "Law", but when other peer-reviewed studies don't say what you want to hear then it must be a deceitful manipulation, apparently by evil Iberian researchers. I have only seen a few of your posts so far but somehow I already knew you were going to try such "arguments". 

Plus how unreliable these "predictions" based on single SNPs really are can be seen by using a similar argument as the one you tried to use against Jablonski & Chaplin's study: the frequencies of some of them are actually higher in people like Iraqis, Iranians, Turks, etc. than in some Iberian, some Greek and even some Scottish groups. According to your way of trying to interpret these frequencies, we should conclude that even people like Orcadians are "darker" than Middle Easterners. 




> 2) I've only picked the largest clusters from the Alfred Alleles database. Generally speaking the bigger the cluster the more reliable it is. Smaller clusters as the ones from Madrid or France should be ignored. I did not notice the Galician cluster.


There's lots of problems with your arbitrary approach, since besides the issue that many samples come from different locations (thus making the issue of sample size not as important in the case of regions where no more studied samples are available) some of these studies also seem to deal only with "predictions" for eye color, or only with skin pigmentation, so some of these results might actually be in accordance with the actual observed data (in the case of light eye color, for example, we should expect Italians to have more than Spaniards since this agrees with the actual pigmentation surveys of those countries) while others don't match the observed results (Italy, for example, has a higher frequency of darker skin tones not only than Spain, but also than Greece.)

Another thing that you carefully avoid saying: from the data gathered in that database it seems that there's much more Italian samples from all sorts of locations within Italy that have been studied than you want to call attention to (since many of them score lower than some of the Spanish ones, obviously.) Since you like to use the "bigger sample size, the more accuracy" card, we can easily use it against you by gathering together all these "predictions" for Italians and contrasting them to the higher Spanish ones. In the case of the allele that you used, the majority of the Italian samples scored in the lower 400s, below both the Galicia and Madrid samples. Only the Italian samples from Verona that you used and 3 or 4 other samples from unspecified Italian regions came up above those two.

By the way, the whole unreliability of these "predictions" based on single SNPs can again be plainly seen by using your very own argument of sample size too: the French sample from Paris was even bigger than the Italian sample from Verona, yet it came up below it. Are we to conclude that the French are actually somewhat darker than Italians? Somehow I think that a most definite "NO!" is the only answer here, as it plainly contradicts every study with actual observed pigmentation for populations of both countries.





> 3) You should consider the frequencies of the 3 light skin alleles, not just one. Galicians and Iberians as whole have much lower percentages of the 3 light skin alleles than any mainland Italian. That of course means that Iberians are much darker skinned.


Nope, see above reply to your point 2, for why your attempts at interpreting these "predictions" are quite problematic, to say the least. 




> 4) These results are in line with the ones from the IrisPlex System (rate of prediction accuracy of over 90%) which shows the lightest Italians as being about 2 times lighter than the lightest Iberians.


That Italy should score lighter in the eye department does not surprise me at all, since it actually agrees with the empirical data for pigmentation for both nations. But it is hardly as you want to paint it too, since the "lightest eyed Iberians" have not been tested in any of these studies. The difference would obviously not be as big as you want to believe it is if that had been the case.

----------


## joeyc

Just yesterday I saw the great match between Real Madrid and Barcellona. I saw so many Celtic pinkish faces among the players and the audience, that I am now 100% sure that Iberians are as light as the Brits and the Poles and lighter than the Italians. So are hundreds of millions of people who have seen that match.  :Laughing: 




> Says who? You, right? Fact is that until skin reflectance techniques were developed (which you also don't like since they don't agree with your agenda either), such methods were the standard to measure pigmentation. It might be outdated today thanks to skin reflectance, but it always was a valid method.


I was talking about the pseudo-scientific *Von Luschan's chromatic scale.* Or are you going to defend it too, because it makes Iberians looks whiter than the Italians?




> The only southeast Asians they used in the study seem to be Cambodians and Filipinos (many of whom are really descendants of very old Chinese arrivals there, not the native Tagalogs), and they scored lower than some Japanese regions. Nothing "weird" here. Perfectly possible.


What the jeez are you talking about? Chinese immigrants in South East Asia? According to that crappy study Cambodians, Vietnames, Filipinos and Southern Chinese are lighter skinned than the Japanese. Actually the Japanese are as dark skinned as Arabs from Jordan and the Indians.

http://anthrospain.blogspot.it/2011/...ted-world.html




> The article was published in the Journal of Human Evolution, a peer reviewed anthropological publication, and so far I have seen none of their fellow professionals question either their methods, samples or results.


_Actually I've read the whole book, and the authors give no information about the sample size or how the samples were collected. They also have not checked the ancestry of tested samples. 
_
I don't need a peer reviewed anthropological publication to see that.




> Where does it say they came up "super Nordic"? I think this is just your assumption because you did not like the results. They in fact were found to be darker overall (considering eyes and hair into the equation too) than the Poles and Irish, so obviously it's not like the Portuguese in the samples were like stereotypical Scandinavians. I have yet to see evidence that Sandra Beleza purposefully chose the lightest people she could find, and that also somehow her colleagues did not notice such a manipulation.


The Portuguese males are lighter skinned than the Polish females according to Candille et al. But that's not the main point here. 

One of the main author of Candille et al. is the Portuguese researcher Sandra Beleza from Porto. 

The same Sandra Beleza also personally selected the participants from the university and a research institute of Porto. Guess what? The Portuguese came out as super nordic.

Do you really believe that it is just a coincidence?

----------


## joeyc

> I see, so when a study seems to say what you want to hear then its "peer-reviewedness" is evident and must be accepted as the "Law", but when other peer-reviewed studies don't say what you want to hear then it must be a deceitful manipulation, apparently by evil Iberian researchers. I have only seen a few of your posts so far but somehow I already knew you were going to try such "arguments". 
> 
> Plus how unreliable these "predictions" based on single SNPs really are can be seen by using a similar argument as the one you tried to use against Jablonski & Chaplin's study: the frequencies of some of them are actually higher in people like Iraqis, Iranians, Turks, etc. than in some Iberian, some Greek and even some Scottish groups. According to your way of trying to interpret these frequencies, we should conclude that even people like Orcadians are "darker" than Middle Easterners. 
> 
> 
> 
> There's lots of problems with your arbitrary approach, since besides the issue that many samples come from different locations (thus making the issue of sample size not as important in the case of regions where no more studied samples are available) some of these studies also seem to deal only with "predictions" for eye color, or only with skin pigmentation, so some of these results might actually be in accordance with the actual observed data (in the case of light eye color, for example, we should expect Italians to have more than Spaniards since this agrees with the actual pigmentation surveys of those countries) while others don't match the observed results (Italy, for example, has a higher frequency of darker skin tones not only than Spain, but also than Greece.)
> 
> Another thing that you carefully avoid saying: from the data gathered in that database it seems that there's much more Italian samples from all sorts of locations within Italy that have been studied than you want to call attention to (since many of them score lower than some of the Spanish ones, obviously.) Since you like to use the "bigger sample size, the more accuracy" card, we can easily use it against you by gathering together all these "predictions" for Italians and contrasting them to the higher Spanish ones. In the case of the allele that you used, the majority of the Italian samples scored in the lower 400s, below both the Galicia and Madrid samples. Only the Italian samples from Verona that you used and 3 or 4 other samples from unspecified Italian regions came up above those two.
> ...


1) The French cluster from Paris is from the the European Eye *Study*(*EUREYE*), and includes many North Africans. Other clusters from the same project are 100% native to their region.

2) The Orcadian cluster has about 20 samples, while the cluster from Madrid has only 48 samples, so you can ignore them.

3) Stop making this nonsense reductio ad absurdum. I've already told you that you have to consider the frequencies for all the 3 light skin alleles, not just one. Certain Spaniards (like the Galicians) and MENAs may have a high percentegace of a certain single light skin allele (like the A111T allele) and be almost on par with the Italians, but they score very little of other 2 light skin alleles.

For example the Turks have a very small percentage of the 374f allele. Much much much lower than any European population.

While the Galicians have barely any 374L and probably also the _Ala111Thr alleles, by looking at the results for the IBS cluster from 1000 Genomes with includes also the Galicians.
_*
*On the other hand, ignoring the very small clusters, mainland Italians have a much higher percentage of all the 3 light skin alleles (_SLC45A2 (MATP Leu374Phe), SLC24A5 (NCKX5 Ala111Thr) and OCA2 (r12913832 T/C))_ than any Iberian. And so the Iberians are much darker skinned as whole than the Italians.

4) There is a clear correlation between light eyes and light skin in Europe. A recent peer reviewed study found out that the Spaniards from the Alicante-Valencia area have the highest amount of light eyes in Spain. On the other hand they are about 2 times darker eyed than the Italians from Verona. All this by using the IRISplex system with a rate of prediction accuracy of over 90%.

----------


## Nobody1

@ joeyc

There is no point in conversing with DracII; He has an agenda (promote Celt-Iberian fantasy and use Italians as scape-goats) and nothing will change his mind (no matter how many studies and how many facts); So in the words of Paul McCartny - Let it be; I was even once told by the Celt-Iberians that *mtDNA* "_doesnt count_" and now app. the academic/genetic results for pigmentation (_SLC45A2_ & _SLC24A5_) also "_do not count_"; the reason is simple: because Celt-Iberia has less than the European even South European norm (especially SLC45A2 Lucotte 2011 et al / post#33); But that is the Genetic/Biological reality given in academic studies and determined by scientific methods; 

As for Anthropology (post#125/Carleton Coon):
*Coon* -
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img191/8199/coon1.png
*Lundman* -
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7VYUS39sXa...ildlundman.jpg
*Brace* - 1973
http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_...Old-World1.jpg
*Jablonksi* - 2000 (p.76)
http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/che...color_2000.pdf

----------


## joeyc

Iberians have also a ridiculously low amount of the light skin allele on _OCA2 gene, excluding for the somewhat isolate Galicians (who make 4% of total Iberian population).

The serious problem is that this dude really believes that Iberians are as light as the British and Polish people. ROFL!_

----------


## Knovas

WOW I missed this post. So Galicians are an Isolated population, very interesting news.

Now I remember another famous T****. This guy also liked to focus atention on Iberians. Of course he loved Italy and, curiously enough, he was quite friendly with Galicians, who according to him were so incredibly different from the rest of Iberia (lighter and more European). Nothing surprising, since he was part Galician (mostly Italian descent though, but that was pretty obvious ¿right? xD).

¿Coincidence or Ferreiro? Make an educated guess.

By the way, seems like Mesolithic Europeans were dark pigmented regarding skin. I wonder how does this point fits into some people's rhetoric.




> Iberians have also a ridiculously low amount of the light skin allele on OCA2 gene


The AA mutation in SLC24A5 (Chromosome 15) associated with light skin, accounts for more than 95% everywhere in Europe. Hard to find someone of European descent carrying the G allele today, unlike Mesolithic Europeans. In short: ridiculous statement.

----------


## Drac II

> Just yesterday I saw the great match between Real Madrid and Barcellona. I saw so many Celtic pinkish faces among the players and the audience, that I am now 100% sure that Iberians are as light as the Brits and the Poles and lighter than the Italians. So are hundreds of millions of people who have seen that match.


Same happens to me every time I see a match between Milan and Napoli. I saw so many tall Germanic pinkish faces and blonde hair and blue eyes among the players and the fans, that I am now 100% sure that Italians are really just a lost Germanic tribe and therefore lighter than not just Iberians but even than French and Orcadians. So are the millions of people who have seen those games.  :Laughing: 




> I was talking about the pseudo-scientific *Von Luschan's chromatic scale.* Or are you going to defend it too, because it makes Iberians looks whiter than the Italians?


How is it "pseudo-scientific"? It's just a set of tiles with a range of increasingly darker/lighter tones. Until the advent of skin reflectance such tables were in fact the only good method to measure such things.




> What the jeez are you talking about? Chinese immigrants in South East Asia?


You mean you don't know that the Chinese have been in the Phillipines for centuries?

http://asia.isp.msu.edu/wbwoa/southe...es/history.htm




> According to that crappy study Cambodians, Vietnames, Filipinos and Southern Chinese are lighter skinned than the Japanese. Actually the Japanese are as dark skinned as Arabs from Jordan and the Indians.
> 
> http://anthrospain.blogspot.it/2011/...ted-world.html


You should bother to actually consult the article in question before talking about it, since they had more samples from Japan (and other places) than shown in that blog:

http://faculty.washington.edu/charle...ski%202000.pdf
_





Actually I've read the whole book, and the authors give no information about the sample size or how the samples were collected. They also have not checked the ancestry of tested samples.


_
I doubt it since it is not a "book" and also you did not know that they used samples from several areas of Japan, not just one. Once again, show me one of their fellow professionals who has questioned their sampling and testing methods.




> I don't need a peer reviewed anthropological publication to see that.


Apparently their peers from that Journal had no problem with the study and its samples. I am sure that if you are so curious to get more details you can actually write the authors and request further data.




> The Portuguese males are lighter skinned than the Polish females according to Candille et al. But that's not the main point here. 
> 
> One of the main author of Candille et al. is the Portuguese researcher Sandra Beleza from Porto. 
> 
> The same Sandra Beleza also personally selected the participants from the university and a research institute of Porto. Guess what? The Portuguese came out as super nordic.
> 
> Do you really believe that it is just a coincidence?


Once again, where is the evidence that they came out "super nordic"? Had they really fit such a stereotype the Portuguese samples obviously would have been lighter overall than every other population sampled in that study. That was not the case.

----------


## Drac II

> @ joeyc
> 
> There is no point in conversing with DracII; He has an agenda (promote Celt-Iberian fantasy and use Italians as scape-goats) and nothing will change his mind (no matter how many studies and how many facts); So in the words of Paul McCartny - Let it be; I was even once told by the Celt-Iberians that *mtDNA* "_doesnt count_" and now app. the academic/genetic results for pigmentation (_SLC45A2_ & _SLC24A5_) also "_do not count_"; the reason is simple: because Celt-Iberia has less than the European even South European norm (especially SLC45A2 Lucotte 2011 et al / post#33); But that is the Genetic/Biological reality given in academic studies and determined by scientific methods; 
> 
> As for Anthropology (post#125/Carleton Coon):
> *Coon* -
> http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img191/8199/coon1.png
> *Lundman* -
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7VYUS39sXa...ildlundman.jpg
> ...


Funny, look who is talking, Mr. Spin Doctor since day #1 with his blatant anti-Iberian and pro-Italian agenda who pretends to not really be an Italian and supposedly has an "objective" outlook. Too bad that you keep getting exposed and debunked. Evidence? Well, just look at all your usual manipulations, like those hilariously deficient "maps" that have already been discussed to death (none of them are exclusively based on the results of actual surveys) in other threads (see threads about pigmentation in Europe), but yet you keep on desperately trying to use them anyway, or your manipulation of the data used by Coon (exposed right here on post #135, among other places), and so forth. Nothing new, really. Same old.

Oh, and here in this study:

http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/che...color_2000.pdf

it should be look at pp. 74-75, you know the pages that you try to avoid like the plague, which are the ones that show the results of actual testing of samples, not "predictions" like on page 76.

----------


## joeyc

Considering that you are an Americunt, I doubt that you have ever seen a soccer match in your whole life.

I also doubt that you are really Iberian. You are surely one of those self hating triracial latinos who wants the brown cookie from his Iberian masters. I've met countless of types like you in these kinds of forums. 

1) Stop with this bullshit about Chinese immigrants in South East Asia. That_ crappy study clearly states that Cambodians, Vietnames, Filipinos and Southern Chinese are lighter skinned than the Japanese. Actually the Japanese are as dark skinned as Arabs from Jordan and North Indians.

2) The_ *Von Luschan's chromatic scale* is a pseudo scientific unreliable method. That's why none has been using it in last 70 years.

3) You were the first and only one who claimed that Iberians are as light skinned or even ligther than Poles and Brits. So avoid calling Italians "nordicist", because it only makes you look really ludicrous.

4) Candille et al. claims that Portuguese males are lighter skinned than Polish females. That's quite an evidence. 

Moreover I've already told ya that the whole study is highly questionable. The main Portuguese researcher personally selected the Portuguese partecipants for the pigmentation measurements in her native city.

If an Italian researcher had done the same, you would have considered the study unreliable.

----------


## Drac II

> 1) The French cluster from Paris is from the the European Eye *Study*(*EUREYE*), and includes many North Africans. Other clusters from the same project are 100% native to their region.



And you know this because...? That's the same study where the samples from Verona and Alicante come from. So we might take the same liberties that you keep taking and just claim that the Alicante sample had even more North Africans than the French sample, and the Verona sample was full of Germans.




> 2) The Orcadian cluster has about 20 samples, while the cluster from Madrid has only 48 samples, so you can ignore them.



And this is because...? Oh, that's right, because it doesn't suit your agenda, that's why. There are no more samples from Madrid and only two Orcadian samples. This is hardly something that can be just "ignored". There are no more samples from these places in the database for this allele. Period.




> 3) Stop making this nonsense reductio ad absurdum. I've already told you that you have to consider the frequencies for all the 3 light skin alleles, not just one. Certain Spaniards (like the Galicians) and MENAs may have a high percentegace of a certain single light skin allele (like the A111T allele) and be almost on par with the Italians, but they score very little of other 2 light skin alleles.




Absurd arguments based on single SNPs deserve suitable replies, and that's exactly what you get. I am simply using the data on that allele that you first mentioned and that you arbitrarily pulled some results for from that database to push your agenda around here. You want to argue numbers, well there are actually a total of 13 Italian entries and only 4 Spanish ones for that allele. 8 (more than half) of the Italian entries came up lower than 2 (half) of the Spanish ones. Strange results, to say the least, if Italians are so much "lighter" like you want to make everyone think based on these flimsy "predictions". One would have expected the majority of the Italian entries to come up higher than the Spanish ones. Now you want to move on to other selected alleles, so we would need to take a look at all the samples available in the database for a particular allele, because it's obvious from the rs12913832 example that your word is hardly to be taken without actually checking first. The actual data on the database and your version of it after careful selection are two pretty different things. Then there's also other hilarious results that also fly on the face of all common sense and observed pigmentation data if interpreted in the manner that you want to interpret these "predictions", like, for example, French Basques being darker than Jews & Turks, Sardinians being darker than Cambodians & Brazilian Amerindians, and such like nonsense. 




> For example the Turks have a very small percentage of the 374f allele. Much much much lower than any European population.
> 
> While the Galicians have barely any 374L and probably also the _Ala111Thr alleles, by looking at the results for the IBS cluster from 1000 Genomes with includes also the Galicians.
> _*
> *On the other hand, ignoring the very small clusters, mainland Italians have a much higher percentage of all the 3 light skin alleles (_SLC45A2 (MATP Leu374Phe), SLC24A5 (NCKX5 Ala111Thr) and OCA2 (r12913832 T/C))_ than any Iberian. And so the Iberians are much darker skinned as whole than the Italians.




I don't have time now to go through all these "predictions" that so much fascinate you, but just for curiosity's sake I decided to check your claims for one of them. The MATP Leu374Phe:

http://alfred.med.yale.edu/alfred/Si...euid=SI003963V

I take it that here "G" is the value for the light skin allele (as sub-Saharan Africans have virtually nothing of it, while Europeans and other groups have more of it.) If that's so, the "predictions" for many groups are as dubious as the other allele that you tried to use before. Example: here even the Swedes score lower than many other Europeans, including Italians and Spaniards.




> 4) There is a clear correlation between light eyes and light skin in Europe. A recent peer reviewed study found out that the Spaniards from the Alicante-Valencia area have the highest amount of light eyes in Spain. On the other hand they are about 2 times darker eyed than the Italians from Verona. All this by using the IRISplex system with a rate of prediction accuracy of over 90%.


Where is the actual survey for this? I don't mean these silly "predictions" that you like so much just because you want to interpret them in a way that tells you what you want to hear, I mean actual measurements of eye color from a given sample, because it's obvious it contradicts actual surveys of eye pigmentation in Spain. Alicante has never been considered by any anthropologist as the lightest eyed area of Spain.

----------


## Drac II

> Considering that you are an Americunt, I doubt that you have ever seen a soccer match in your whole life.


Nowadays there's a thing called TV that allows people to watch soccer matches from anywhere in the world.




> I also doubt that you are really Iberian. You are surely one of those self hating triracial latinos who wants the brown cookie from his Iberian masters. I've met countless of types like you in these kinds of forums. 
> 
> 1) Stop with this bullshit about Chinese immigrants in South East Asia. That crappy study clearly states that Cambodians, Vietnames, Filipinos and Southern Chinese are lighter skinned than the Japanese. Actually the Japanese are as dark skinned as Arabs from Jordan and North Indians.




After reading more and more of your posts, it doesn't surprise me that you seem to have a hard time interpreting data. The study clearly shows that the samples from some parts of Japan are lighter than the Filipino, Vietnamese and Cambodian samples. Japanese people are not homogeneously pigmented. Plus it is a fact that the Philippines has had Chinese presence since long ago.




> 2) The





> *Von Luschan's chromatic scale* is a pseudo scientific unreliable method. That's why none has been using it in last 70 years.


It hasn't been used because skin reflectance displaced it. In fact, even as late as the 1970s similar tables (like the Fitzpatrick one) were still being developed. 




> 3) You were the first and only one who claimed that Iberians are as light skinned or even ligther than Poles and Brits. So avoid calling Italians "nordicist", because it only makes you look really ludicrous.


I never said that all Iberians are as light as Poles and Brits. Learn to read.




> 4) Candille et al. claims that Portuguese males are lighter skinned than Polish females. That's quite an evidence.


Yes, and it is the only "unexpected" result. The Portuguese also came out darker in other departments.




> Moreover I've already told ya that the whole study is highly questionable. The main Portuguese researcher personally selected the Portuguese partecipants for the pigmentation measurements in her native city.
> 
> If an Italian researcher had done the same, you would have considered the study unreliable.


Which part of the study said that the Portuguese researcher chose the samples personally? Also, who chose the Italian samples? And the Polish?

----------


## joeyc

1) 17% of Paris samples in the EUREYE project were born in North Africa. Other clusters are made of native whites. Unfortunately they have not checked the ancestry of grandparents. But then again not even Jablonky et al did it.

2) Sandra Beleza is from Porto and has worked for many years in the local university. So it's very likely that she personally picked the partecipants for the test, or at least had a great role in it.

3) You have claimed that Portguese are as light skinned as the Poles and some Spaniards are lighter skinned than Brits. Everyone has seen that, but I am too lazy to find the exact quote.

4) You must be joking. I've already told you many times that only very large clusters (with at least 80-90 samples) should be taken in account. Also you keep focusing on a sinlge SNP, whereas you should consider the frequencies for all 3 SNPs.

5) Jablonski et al is a crappy study. Just like the *Von Luschan's chromatic scale.* You are trying to defend the impossible. 

6) Spaniards from Alicante/Valencia area came out as the lightest Spaniards, at least in this study.



_Gender is a major factor explaining discrepancies in eye colour prediction based on HERC2/OCA2 genotype and the IrisPlex model_ (2013).

----------


## Drac II

> 1) 17% of Paris samples in the EUREYE project were born in North Africa. Other clusters are made of native whites. Unfortunately they have not checked the ancestry of grandparents. But then again not even Jablonky et al did it.


Being born in North Africa does not necessarily mean being ethnically North African. It could just be French people born there. France had colonies in North Africa. And if it is true that these samples are not "screened" for people who should be ethnically from these countries, as you claim for the French sample, then the more reason yet to not take such "prediction" studies seriously at all.




> 2) Sandra Beleza is from Porto and has worked for many years in the local university. So it's very likely that she personally picked the partecipants for the test, or at least had a great role in it.


Speculation, not facts.




> 3) You have claimed that Portguese are as light skinned as the Poles and some Spaniards are lighter skinned than Brits. Everyone has seen that, but I am too lazy to find the exact quote.


I only said what those studies found, and it is that their northern Spanish samples scored lighter skin reflection than their Belgian, southeastern English samples, and similar as their Welsh and Irish samples. At the same time they were darker than their northern English, Dutch, German samples. The other study found its northern Portuguese samples lighter than the central Italian ones. That's what the empirical results say. The thing with the Poles was just something unexpected, but then again not "impossible". Could be a fluke.




> 4) You must be joking. I've already told you many times that only very large clusters (with at least 80-90 samples) should be taken in account. Also you keep focusing on a sinlge SNP, whereas you should consider the frequencies for all 3 SNPs.


There are NO OTHER SAMPLES STUDIED FOR MANY POPULATIONS, it's not like you have plenty of choices here. You can't simply conveniently be discarding them just because they don't suit your agenda. The fact is that many of these "predicted" values contradict empirical data on pigmentation. 




> 5) Jablonski et al is a crappy study. Just like the *Von Luschan's chromatic scale.* You are trying to defend the impossible.


Jablonski & Chaplin's paper is a perfectly legitimate study that used actual empirical testing, not just speculations, way better than all these "predictions" on single SNPs that you fancy so much (because you think they are telling you what you want to hear.)




> 6) Spaniards from Alicante/Valencia area came out as the lightest Spaniards, at least in this study.
> 
> 
> 
> _Gender is a major factor explaining discrepancies in eye colour prediction based on HERC2/OCA2 genotype and the IrisPlex model_ (2013).


These figures were arrived at how? With more "predictions" or by actually gathering samples and measuring them? If the first, then don't bother. It's like trying to establish unproven speculation by using more unproven speculation. Until someone establishes without any shadow of a doubt and without any contradictions that the frequencies of these few alleles do correspond with people manifesting lighter pigmentation (I mean by actually measuring them for pigmentation and thus verifying it, not just by "predicting"), it is all unproven speculation.

----------


## joeyc

1) The IrisPlex system has a rate of prediction accuracy of over 90%. That has been proved by several peer reviewed studies.

2) Jablonski claims that Japanese people are as dark as North Indians and Arabs and are darker than South East Asians. If you really believes that it is legitimate, then you have some serious mental problems.

3) As I've said before the Portuguese samples from _Candille et al. come from the City of Porto. Sandra Beleza is from Porto and has worked for years in that University. You are saying that she had zero responsibily in selecting the samples from the University of Porto, aren't you?

4) If you have some problems with the Eureye clusters, then you should have some problems with Jablonski et al. too, which has not even checked the birth place of the partecipants.

5) The correlation between the frequencies of those light skin alleles and the fairness of light skin has been proved by many peer reviewed studies. Your non sense reductio ad absurdum by focusing on a single SNP of very small clusters is becoming ludicrous._

----------


## Drac II

> 1) The IrisPlex system has a rate of prediction accuracy of over 90%. That has been proved by several peer reviewed study.


How is the "accuracy" established? By actually observing the subjects and correlating their pigmentation with these alleles?




> 2) Jablonski claims that Japanese people are as dark as North Indians and Arabs and are darker than South East Asians. If you really believes that it is legitimate, then you have some serious mental problems.


Apparently you still haven't bothered to compare all the data presented for those populations in pp. 74-75 of that study. What North Indians scored 55.42 or 59.10??? You must be hallucinating. 




> 3) As I've said before the Portuguese samples from Candille et al. come from the City of Porto. Sandra Beleza has worked for years in that University. You are denying that she has zero responsibily in the picking of the samples from the University of her city, aren't you?




I am not denying anything, but you are a priori affirming that she somehow manipulated the samples. Where is the proof? The burden of proof is on the claimant. It's pure speculation on your part. 




> 4) If you have some problems with the Eureye clusters, then you should have some problems with Jablonski et al. too, who has not even checked the birth place of the partecipants.


How do you know this? As you pointed out before, they only gave information of the geographical origin of their samples. It goes without saying that in an study written purposefully about the pigmentation of NATIVE PEOPLES OF DIFFERENT AREAS the researchers will obviously TRY TO DO THEIR BEST TO USE LOCAL SAMPLES, not foreigners or tourists, otherwise what would be the point. At least that is the prevailing common sense. But you seem to think that Jablonski & Chaplin lack this common sense and then just went ahead and tested people from all over the place except where they were supposed to be from.

----------


## joeyc

> How is the "accuracy" established? By actually observing the subjects and correlating their pigmentation with these alleles?


Yes, perhaps you should get more info about the IrisPlex system.




> Apparently you still haven't bothered to compare all the data presented for those populations in pp. 74-75 of that study. What North Indians scored 55.42 or 59.10??? You must be hallucinating.


Some of the results.

Japan (Northern) 54·90
Japan (Southwest) 53·55
Japan (Central) 55·42
Jordan (NH) 53·00
Libya (Cyrenaica) (NH) 53·50
Morocco (NH) 54·85
Libya (Tripoli) (NH) 54·40
Afghanistan/Iran (NH) 55·70
Algeria (Aures) (NH) 58·05
Cambodia (NH) 54·00
India (Northern) (NH) 53·26
India (Rajasthan) (NH) 52·00
India (Punjab) (NH) 54·24
Pakistan (NH) 52·30
Russia (Chechen) (NH) 53·45
Philippines (Manila) (NH) 54·10
Saudi Arabia (NH) 52·50
Tunisia (NH) 56·30
Vietnam (NH) 55·90

Yes perfectly legitimate study, ROFL.




> I am not denying anything, but you are a priori affirming that she somehow manipulated the samples. Where is the proof? The burden of proof is on the claimant. It's pure speculation on your part.


The fact that she had a role in picking the samples from her city (something tha you can't deny) is already a proof of non reliability of the study. The rest is semantics.




> How do you know this? As you pointed out before, they only gave information of the geographical origin of their samples. It goes without saying that in an study written purposefully about the pigmentation of NATIVE PEOPLES OF DIFFERENT AREAS the researchers will obviously TRY TO DO THEIR BEST TO USE LOCAL SAMPLES, not foreigners or tourists, otherwise what would be the point. At least that is the prevailing common sense. But you seem to think that Jablonski & Chaplin lack this common sense and then just went ahead and tested people from all over the place except where they were supposed to be from.


Then you should also not question the clusters from the EUREYE project. The researchers only picked white natives, the only exception being the cluster from Paris. Deal with it.

----------


## Drac II

> Yes, perhaps you should get more info about the IrisPlex system.


Perhaps you should actually show how they measured the eye pigmentation of all the samples and correlated it with frequencies of those SNPs. Where is the study where this was done? Until then, these "predictions" sound like speculation, nothing else.




> Some of the results.
> 
> Japan (Northern) 54·90
> Japan (Southwest) 53·55
> Japan (Central) 55·42
> Jordan (NH) 53·00
> Libya (Cyrenaica) (NH) 53·50
> Morocco (NH) 54·85
> Libya (Tripoli) (NH) 54·40
> ...




And the problem is...? I see, that you can't accept actual empirical results, just because you imagine they should be very different. Plus you also left out the higher value found among the Japanese, or the lowest values among Indians, and so. Did you expect that all these peoples should be of one uniform pigmentation through and through? 




> The fact that she had a role in picking the samples from her city (something tha you can't deny) is already a proof of non reliability of the study. The rest is semantics.


More like such "arguments" are flimsy and speculative at best. Once again, where is the proof of any of this?




> Then you should also not question the clusters from the EUREYE project. The researchers only picked white natives, the only exception being the cluster from Paris. Deal with it.


If they did not bother to screen out non-natives in one sample, it is obviously not impossible at all that they might have done the same with other samples. Hardly trustworthy. Deal with it.

----------


## Nobody1

> By the way, seems like Mesolithic Europeans were dark pigmented regarding skin. I wonder how does this point fits into some people's rhetoric.


As do the Mozabites (only 40% are SLC45A2/rs16891982 *G*/*G* _- Norton et al 2007_) to whom the Spanish have a closer genetic relation than to any Mesolithic European; Not surprisng that SLC45A2/rs16891982 *G*/*G* is thus in Europe also the lowest in Spain and Portugal -_ Lucotte et al 2010_;

----------


## Knovas

Now match it with the fact that both Louschbour (WHG) and Stuttgart (EEF) were *C/C* at rs16891982. Similar to most of your beloved Mozabites and other "Moors".

Page 88; Table S8.1: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf

Thanks for exposing even more your "honest" intentions. Smile for the camera ;)

----------


## Nobody1

> Now match it with the fact that both Louschbour (WHG) and Stuttgart (EEF) were *C/C* at rs16891982. Similar to most of your beloved Mozabites and other "Moors".
> 
> Page 88; Table S8.1: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf
> 
> Thanks for exposing even more your "honest" intentions. Smile for the camera ;)


Well known fact;
But what does any of that have to do with the Spanish and their fellow Mozabites; If anything that is a direct connection between the Sardinians (68-85% SLC45A2/rs16891982 *G*/*G*) and Neolithic Stuttgart (you do know that Sradinians and Nelithic Europeans are closest to each other? unlike the Spanish); And i am just pointing out whats in the studies no need to get too emotional chico; That you rather like the distorted versions from DracII (that are always the most "helpful" for you) is not my problem;

PS: Mind your language;

----------


## Knovas

It doesn't surprise me at all that a person who thinks that Iberians are so incredibly African, isn't able to see the connection when it comes to some genes proven to be very old in Europe. Because in your logic, of course, Iberians are descended from "everything" except WHG and/or EEF (makes a lot of sense, sure xD).

You're just pointing out your own agenda, so definitely not my problem if there is one, don't worry. By the way, well exposed again ;)

----------


## Nobody1

> It doesn't surprise me at all that a person who thinks that Iberians are so incredibly African, isn't able to see the connection when it comes to some genes proven to be very old in Europe. Because in your logic, of course, Iberians are descended from "everything" except WHG and/or EEF (makes a lot of sense, sure xD).


I dont;




> You're just pointing out your own agenda, so definitely not my problem if there is one, don't worry. By the way, well exposed again ;)


If we have no problems than why were you insulting me?
But no probs. there either i forgive you;

----------


## Knovas

My argument was pretty clear and I never insulted you. If you are refering to the picture, most people knows that it doesn't literally mean what it says. True insults have been wrote today by your other pal, but that is not of my business.

Game over. Enjoy the weekend.

----------


## Nobody1

> My argument was pretty clear and I never insulted you. If you are refering to the picture, most people knows that it doesn't literally mean what it says. True insults have been wrote today by your other pal, but that is not of my business.
> 
> Game over. Enjoy the weekend.


My other pal?
Well that says it all; You and DracII can enjoy the rest of your twisted and paranoid accusations and make sure you expose as much nonsense that suits your agendas; Truly Game Over;

----------


## Aristocephalic

How much effect does this whitening allele actually have?

----------


## Drac II

> Now match it with the fact that both Louschbour (WHG) and Stuttgart (EEF) were *C/C* at rs16891982. Similar to most of your beloved Mozabites and other "Moors".
> 
> Page 88; Table S8.1: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf
> 
> Thanks for exposing even more your "honest" intentions. Smile for the camera ;)


This "nobody1" fellow apparently still thinks that he is fooling someone with all his ridiculous manipulations.

----------


## Aristocephalic

> Now match it with the fact that both Louschbour (WHG) and Stuttgart (EEF) were *C/C* at rs16891982. Similar to most of your beloved Mozabites and other "Moors".
> 
> Page 88; Table S8.1:
> 
> Thanks for exposing even more your "honest" intentions. Smile for the camera ;)


But would you need a whitening allele to become white, if you don't have any specific darkening genes?

----------


## Drac II

> How much effect does this whitening allele actually have?


You can pretty much tell how unreliable such single SNPs are at "predicting" actual observable pigmentation by looking at what happened in the Candille et al. 2012 study, where the Portuguese scored lower on one of these SNPs allegedly affecting skin pigmentation than Italians yet when the pigmentation was actually measured by skin reflectance they actually were lighter. See post #38 of this thread, a reply to one of the resident anti-Iberians here who was trying to use it taken straight from that study without realizing that it actually conflicted with the observed results.

----------


## Nobody1

> How much effect does this whitening allele actually have?


Judging by the studies alot;
The 2 major lightening alleles are SLC45A2/rs16891982 *G*/*G* and SLC24A5/Rs1426654* A/A*; Both (in combo as G/G & A/A) are the standard in Europe (apart from Spain and Portugal) - and i wouldnt listen too much to DracII because (as displayed in this thread) he doesnt seem to know much about any of it that is why he thinks the studies are all 'predictions' and 'hocus-pocus' they are not they are results from samples tested for it (with an academic method); DracII still believes that Tanning levels of UV radiation (tested on the inner upper arm) as with Candille 2012 are the bench mark where as Candille 2012 also showed that the basal-skin tone (not corrupted by any tanning) is reflected in Genetics;

Candille et al 2012-
_The frequency of the rs183671 derived allele increases from Southern to Northern Europe: it is 88%, 89%, 98%, and 97% in the Portuguese, Italian, Polish, and Irish cohorts, respectively. We found that this SNP shows some evidence of association with skin pigmentation (p = 6×10−4, n = 289), and that each copy of the derived allele lightens the skin by 1.2 M index units,_

rs183671 allele
88% Portuguese (from the North)
89% Italians (from Rome)
97% Irish
98% Polish

----------


## Drac II

> Judging by the studies alot;
> The 2 major lightening alleles are SLC45A2/rs16891982 *G*/*G* and SLC24A5/Rs1426654* A/A*; Both are the standard (G/G - A/A) in Europe (apart from Spain and Portugal) - and i wouldnt listen too much to DracII because (as displayed in this thread) he doesnt seem to know much about any of it that is why he thinks the studies are all 'predictions' and 'hocus-pocus' they are not they are resul;ts from samples tested (with an academic method); DracII still believes that Tanning levels of UV radiation (tested on the inner upper arm) as with Candille 2012 are the bench mark where as Candille 2012 also showed that the basal-skin (not corrupted by tanning) is reflected in Genetics;
> 
> Candille et al 2012-
> _The frequency of the rs183671 derived allele increases from Southern to Northern Europe: it is 88%, 89%, 98%, and 97% in the Portuguese, Italian, Polish, and Irish cohorts, respectively. We found that this SNP shows some evidence of association with skin pigmentation (p = 6×10−4, n = 289), and that each copy of the derived allele lightens the skin by 1.2 M index units,_
> 
> rs183671 allele
> 88% Portuguese (from the North)
> 89% Italians (from Rome)
> ...


This hilarious blunder of yours was already pointed out in post #38 of this thread, so by all means keep on repeating it and shooting yourself in the foot. When the samples were actually measured for skin reflectance the Portuguese were lighter skinned than the Italians. Now let's see you desperately try to use the "tanning" excuse by misquoting the text again, only so that I can shoot it down again by pointing out what that quote really is plainly saying. I am waiting.

----------


## Aristocephalic

> You can pretty much tell how unreliable such single SNPs are at "predicting" actual observable pigmentation by looking at what happened in the Candille et al. 2012 study, where the Portuguese scored lower on one of these SNPs allegedly affecting skin pigmentation than Italians yet when the pigmentation was actually measured by skin reflectance they actually were lighter. See post #38 of this thread, a reply to one of the resident anti-Iberians here who was trying to use it taken straight from that study without realizing that it actually conflicted with the observed results.


I see. That is what I suspected.

So this is not even fixed in european populations? I guess it is not much to get excited about, then.

----------


## Nobody1

> This hilarious blunder of yours was already pointed out in post #38 of this thread, so by all means keep on repeating it and shooting yourself in the foot. When the samples were actually measured for skin reflectance the Portuguese were lighter skinned than the Italians. Now let's see you desperately try to use the "tanning" excuse by misquoting the text again, only so that I can shoot it down again by pointing out what that quote really is plainly saying. I am waiting.


Pointed out by *you* i.e. a person that has no clue and manipulates and distorts scientific data as 'predictions' and 'prophesies'; It does not get any more ridiculous than the nonsense you presented in this thread; And Candille clearly states that the values you repeat are based on UV radiation and tested on the inner-upper arm i.e. tanning levels; 

And Rindermann (post#40) used the same UV radiation method and the Portuguese and Spaniards were the darkest; Tanning levels are not as stable as the Genetic results;

----------


## Aristocephalic

> Judging by the studies alot;
> The 2 major lightening alleles are SLC45A2/rs16891982 *G*/*G* and SLC24A5/Rs1426654* A/A*; Both (in combo as G/G & A/A) are the standard in Europe (apart from Spain and Portugal) - and i wouldnt listen too much to DracII because (as displayed in this thread) he doesnt seem to know much about any of it that is why he thinks the studies are all 'predictions' and 'hocus-pocus' they are not they are results from samples tested for it (with an academic method); DracII still believes that Tanning levels of UV radiation (tested on the inner upper arm) as with Candille 2012 are the bench mark where as Candille 2012 also showed that the basal-skin tone (not corrupted by any tanning) is reflected in Genetics;
> 
> Candille et al 2012-
> _The frequency of the rs183671 derived allele increases from Southern to Northern Europe: it is 88%, 89%, 98%, and 97% in the Portuguese, Italian, Polish, and Irish cohorts, respectively. We found that this SNP shows some evidence of association with skin pigmentation (p = 6×10−4, n = 289), and that each copy of the derived allele lightens the skin by 1.2 M index units,_
> 
> rs183671 allele
> 88% Portuguese (from the North)
> 89% Italians (from Rome)
> ...


But is there any study looking at how much it actually changes it? Are Irish people without it much darker? I mean there's really not any dark irish people, though maybe that 2% are not really irish.

----------


## Nobody1

> But is there any study looking at how much it actually changes it? Are Irish people without it much darker? I mean there's really not any dark irish people, though maybe that 2% are not really irish.


Which Irish people are you referring to; 
I guess one would have to compare and Irish that is OCA2/Rs12913832 *G*/*G*, SLC45A2/rs16891982 *G*/*G* and SLC24A5/Rs1426654* A/A* with an Irish that lacks those genotypes in order to see the diffs.; Or with an average Spaniard (that usually lacks those already) and the result is thus already clear;

Norton et al 2006 is good study in which Indo-Asian pops. (India/Pakistan/Afghanistan) are all overwhelmingly SLC24A5/Rs1426654* A/A* but majority wise lack SLC45A2/rs16891982 *G*/*G* which is why a darker skin-tone compared to West Eurasia which majority wise also has SLC45A2/rs16891982 *G*/*G*;

----------


## Drac II

> Pointed out by *you* i.e. a person that has no clue and manipulates and distorts scientific data as 'predictions' and 'prophesies'; It does not get any more ridiculous than the nonsense you presented in this thread; And Candille clearly states that the values you repeat are based on UV radiation and tested on the inner-upper arm i.e. tanning levels;



Says the funny guy who can't even understand a plain English quote that implies that measurements were taken from unexposed parts of the body precisely to avoid the effects of tanning. Priceless. Keep on repeating the same blunder over and over. It seems you never learn from your mistakes.




> And Rindermann (post#40) used the same UV radiation method and the Portuguese and Spaniards were the darkest; Tanning levels are not as stable as the Genetic results;


Darkest? According to that table Romanians, Russians, Croatians & Yugoslavians are darker than both Spaniards and Italians.

----------


## Drac II

> I see. That is what I suspected.
> 
> So this is not even fixed in european populations? I guess it is not much to get excited about, then.


No, not really, unless you are one of these weird Italians with a strange complex who are obsessed about trying to prove that "Iberians" are much darker than them. Then get ready to conveniently overlook all contradictions between such "predictions" and actual observed facts.

----------


## Nobody1

> No, not really, unless you are one of these weird Italians with a strange complex who are obsessed about trying to prove that "Iberians" are much darker than them. Then get ready to conveniently overlook all contradictions between such "predictions" and actual observed facts.


These are *not* predictions; 
Where do you even get such an idea from? Samples from populations are tested for these genotypes (in the manner as Y-DNA gets tested in pops.) and than a *result* (_not prediction_) is known; And there are no contradictions either for there is a clear North/South cline (Europe) for SLC45A2/rs16891982 *G*/*G* and OCA2/rs12913832 *G*/*G* in all the* results*; As also for worldwide results;

----------


## Drac II

> These are *not* predictions; 
> Where do you even get such an idea from? Samples from populations are tested for these genotypes (in the manner as Y-DNA gets tested in pops.) and than a *result* (_not prediction_) is known; And there are no contradictions either for there is a clear North/South cline (Europe) for SLC45A2/rs16891982 *G*/*G* and OCA2/rs12913832 *G*/*G* in all the* results*; As also for worldwide results;


The frequencies of these SNPs are the results, yes, but the "prediction" part is how they supposedly will show on the phenotype of the populations who carry them (lighter or darker pigmentation.) And there are plenty of contradictions and discrepancies if you interpret these percentages in such a simple manner. Just look at all the results on these SNPs gathered by that database that has been mentioned several times here. In the data set for one of these skin pigmentation SNPs, for example, the Swedish sample scored lower than many other Europeans, including from the south. With Swedes being one of the lightest people on the planet I think that it's pretty safe to conclude that such a lower score does not go quite well with observable facts.

By the way, the results available on this eye pigmentation SNP in that database has been tabulated by this blogger:

http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/...e-frequencies/

There are some very dubious results here as well (ex: Swiss lighter eyed than Norwegians, Estonians, Finns, Dutch, Germans etc.???), but overall it is a bit more believable than some of the other "predictions". Notice that more than half of the Italian samples scored lower than half of the Spanish samples (already brought up earlier in the thread, and now better observed in the table made by this blogger.) And keep in mind that I have no problem acknowledging that Italy should be lighter eyed than Spain (as shown by the old anthropological surveys of both nations.)

----------


## joeyc

ROFL 90% of those clusters have less than 15 samples. You never get tired of your insignificant reductio ad absurdum, don't you???

Jablonsky et al. did not check neither the birthplace nor the ancestry of the samples they used, but it's still a reliable study to you

EUREYE project only used white natives born in their native countries (excluding for the cluster from Paris), but it's not a reliable source to you.

Yes you make a lot of sense. ROFL.

You even tried to debunk the Irisplex system, which has a rate of prediction accuracy of over 90% (confirmed by many peer reviewed studies with thousands of fully native samples). 

Stick to your crappy Candille et al., with the Portuguese Sandra Beleza selecting the lightest Portuguese from her University/Research centre. That's true science. ROFL.

In that crappy studies the Poles and the Italians were the darkest skinned. Guess what? None of the authors is Polish/Italian. All the authors are either British or Portuguese. Good stuff for laughs.

----------


## Aristocephalic

> The frequencies of these SNPs are the results, yes, but the "prediction" part is how they supposedly will show on the phenotype of the populations who carry them (lighter or darker pigmentation.) And there are plenty of contradictions and discrepancies if you interpret these percentages in such a simple manner. Just look at all the results on these SNPs gathered by that database that has been mentioned several times here. In the data set for one of these skin pigmentation SNPs, for example, the Swedish sample scored lower than many other Europeans, including from the south. With Swedes being one of the lightest people on the planet I think that it's pretty safe to conclude that such a lower score does not go quite well with observable facts.


Seems reasonable to me. The question here is not some comparison or who is whitest like these guys seem to think.

The question is, does having these particular alleles exclude coloring that's similar to europeans today. Since scandinavian people and Irish people don't always have them, that would make it an obvious and resounding NO.

----------


## Knovas

@ Aristocephalic

To make it short, this SNPs work to some extent. They are helpful, but for instance the gene for blue eyes does not work as expected 30% of the times aprox., and it's way more reliable than those associated with light skin in terms of effects. The other point is that some individuals use the light pigmentation SNPs as clear signal of "Europeaness", telling for example that if one population gets lower figures on those, it must be because of Mozabite or some kind of other "Mooorish" ancestry. Too bad I already proved (see post 163 debunking such a statement), that dark skin genes were present in both European Hunter Gatherers and Farmers thousands of years ago, groups that definitely made the major genetic impact in Iberia over thousands of years.

Being that said, take your own conclusions ;)

----------


## joeyc

Indeed even Enolithic Ukrainians were much darker than modern day Ukrainians. Depigmentation in Europe is recent thing, and mostly happened in last 3000-4000 years, in line with the latitude.

Tell that to cholo Drac who thinks that Iberians are lighter skinned than people who live 2000 miles North of them.

----------


## Knovas

> Indeed even Enolithic Ukrainians were much darker than modern day Ukrainians. Depigmentation in Europe is recent thing, and mostly happened in last 3000-4000 years, in line with the latitude.
> 
> Tell that to cholo Drac who thinks that Iberians are lighter skinned than people who live 2000 miles North of them.


I told that yesterday to your pal, since he wrote the following to reply that Mesolithic Europeans carried the dark alleles:



> As do the Mozabites (only 40% are SLC45A2/rs16891982 G/G - Norton et al 2007) to whom the Spanish have a closer genetic relation than to any Mesolithic European; Not surprisng that SLC45A2/rs16891982 G/G is thus in Europe also the lowest in Spain and Portugal - Lucotte et al 2010;


If you have something to tell to Drac, just quote him. Enough of manipulations, the text speaks by itself.

----------


## Drac II

> Indeed even Enolithic Ukrainians were much darker than modern day Ukrainians. Depigmentation in Europe is recent thing, and mostly happened in last 3000-4000 years, in line with the latitude.
> 
> Tell that to cholo Drac who thinks that Iberians are lighter skinned than people who live 2000 miles North of them.


Says the guy who wants to believe in "predictions" where Italians are lighter than even the most depigmented Scots thousands of miles north of them.

----------


## Drac II

> ROFL 90% of those clusters have less than 15 samples. You never get tired of your insignificant reductio ad absurdum, don't you???
> 
> Jablonsky et al. did not check neither the birthplace nor the ancestry of the samples they used, but it's still a reliable study to you
> 
> EUREYE project only used white natives born in their native countries (excluding for the cluster from Paris), but it's not a reliable source to you.
> 
> Yes you make a lot of sense. ROFL.
> 
> You even tried to debunk the Irisplex system, which has a rate of prediction accuracy of over 90% (confirmed by many peer reviewed studies with thousands of fully native samples). 
> ...


A lot of these are unique samples from a particular region, nothing else available, nothing else to go by, plus even studies using such SNPs are using smaller samples to make such "predictions". So much for your imaginary "reductio ad absurdum".

We don't know for sure if Jablonski & Chaplin did or didn't check (it is to be presumed that as professional anthropologists trying to study skin pigmentation of NATIVE POPULATIONS they did their best to use only local samples), but we do know for sure that the IrisPlex study you like did not bother to check. They even openly recognized that they had no idea whether the French samples born in North Africa were ethnically French people born in French colonies there or local "Arabs", but still went ahead and used the sample anyway. Very "serious" study, indeed.

Way more than you and your funny cherry-pickings & manipulations.

The IrisPlex system has been put to the test, and the accuracy is not exactly as you want to picture it, at least when it comes to certain eye pigmentations:

http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S...250-0/abstract

Plus a lot of the very dubious "predictions" (according to them we should expect that Sardinians are darker eyed than Palestinians and Druze, and that French and even Italians from Bergamo are apparently lighter eyed than even Orkney Islanders, who ironically are in fact one of the most depigmented Scottish populations... simply ridiculous) speak for themselves about how "reliable" it is.

Candille et al. at least did something that most of these "predictions" you like so much apparently have never actually bothered to do: actually test the samples for their observed pigmentation. Too bad that the empirical results did not always match the "predicted" values based on a few SNPs. "Predictions" belong more in books like those of Nostradamus. Pigmentation belongs in the studies of physical anthropologists.

----------


## joeyc

> A lot of these are unique samples from a particular region, nothing else available, nothing else to go by, plus even studies using such SNPs are using smaller samples to make such "predictions". So much for your imaginary "reductio ad absurdum".


The author of that blog has simply copied and pasted the results from the Alfred Alleles Database. 90% of the clusters in that database have less than 25 samples. Plus quite a lot of the clusters includes non native samples.




> We don't know for sure if Jablonski & Chaplin did or didn't check (it is to be presumed that as professional anthropologists trying to study skin pigmentation of NATIVE POPULATIONS they did their best to use only local samples), but we do know for sure that the IrisPlex study you like did not bother to check. They even openly recognized that they had no idea whether the French samples born in North Africa were ethnically French people born in French colonies there or local "Arabs", but still went ahead and used the sample anyway. Very "serious" study, indeed.
> 
> Way more than you and your funny cherry-pickings & manipulations.
> 
> The IrisPlex system has been put to the test, and the accuracy is not exactly as you want to picture it, at least when it comes to certain eye pigmentations:
> 
> http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S...250-0/abstract
> 
> Plus a lot of the very dubious "predictions" (according to them we should expect that Sardinians are darker eyed than Palestinians and Druze, and that French and even Italians from Bergamo are apparently lighter eyed than even Orkney Islanders, who ironically are in fact one of the most depigmented Scottish populations... simply ridiculous) speak for themselves about how "reliable" it is.
> ...


Your empirical results have been discredited several pages ago, muchacho. The Iris plex system has a rate of prediction accuracy of 90-95% for blue and brown eyes and 80% for mixed eyes for Europeans. But since mixed eyes are quite rare (~ 20% of the total), the overall rate of prediction accuracy is ~90% for Europeans

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23986280

I can't download the full text of that study. But I see that it was done in the US, so it's sure that the authors have used non European samples.

The EUREYE project has only used white natives born in their countries, excluding for the cluster from Paris. But you like to focus on that to discredit the whole study. OK!

----------


## Drac II

> The author of that blog has simply copied and pasted the results from the Alfred Alleles Database. 90% of the clusters in that database have less than 25 samples. Plus quite a lot of the clusters includes non native samples.


I know this is not your fault or anything, but why in blazes are they including non-native samples then??? This only will lead to more misleading results and less reliability. It's self-defeating.





> Your empirical results have been discredited several pages ago, muchacho.


In your imagination they have, bambino. In real life anthropologists are still using them to assess pigmentation, and so far it is the only really reliable method: direct observation & measurement. You saw what happened in Candille et al. when the SNP "predictions" were put to the test by actually observing and measuring pigmentation of the samples. Things did not go as neatly as the SNP "predictions" suggested.




> The Iris plex system has a rate of prediction accuracy of 90-95% for blue and brown eyes and 80% for mixed eyes for Europeans. But since mixed eyes are quite rare (~ 20% of the total), the overall rate of prediction accuracy is ~90% for Europeans
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23986280
> 
> I can't download the full text of that study. But I see that it was done in the US, so it's sure that the authors have used non European samples.


In that test the alleged accuracy of the system was hardly impressive. Why would non-European samples matter anyway? Aren't these SNPs supposed to be present among non-Europeans too? Obviously the authors would have been aware of this if it was the case and would not have included non-European samples.




> The EUREYE project has only used white natives born in their countries, excluding for the cluster from Paris. But you like to focus on that to discredit the whole study. OK!


Well, what can you say about a study where the authors are fully cognizant of the fact that a sample might not be fully made up of natives yet go ahead and use it anyway? I am sure that if this had been done in a skin reflectance study of native populations like that one of Jablonski & Chaplin you would be denouncing this irresponsible decision too. Plus how lazy were these researchers anyway? Couldn't they just have excluded the 17% that they had no idea if they were ethnically French or not? Silly.

----------


## epoch

> Indeed even Enolithic Ukrainians were much darker than modern day Ukrainians. Depigmentation in Europe is recent thing, and mostly happened in last 3000-4000 years, in line with the latitude.
> 
> Tell that to cholo Drac who thinks that Iberians are lighter skinned than people who live 2000 miles North of them.


The funny thing is that Motola 12 WHG actually had light skin allels, the same as Stuttgart EEF. So the gradually declining darkness when you get to higher latitudes actually already was visible in mesolithic Europe, only the gradients went further south later on. Mind you, we only have 3 examples, so this might be a bit premature conclusion.

----------


## Nobody1

> The funny thing is that Motola 12 WHG actually had light skin allels, the same as Stuttgart EEF. So the gradually declining darkness when you get to higher latitudes actually already was visible in mesolithic Europe, only the gradients went further south later on. Mind you, we only have 3 examples, so this might be a bit premature conclusion.


Motola12 is *SHG* (p.73 '_The SHG appear intermediate between WHG and ANE_') *not* WHG (Loschbour/LaBrana) and Motola12 and the the other SHG were (and that is a great and logical revelation) much lighter than the WHG (both Loschbour/LaBrana dark-skin rs16891982 C/C & rs1426654 G/G) and also lighter eyed (_lightered eye_) than the EEF; And there is also a fifth corpse (after Stuttgart/Motola12/Loschbour/LaBrana) and that is Ötzi ~3300BC who was both (Keller et al 2012) rs16891982 *G*/*G* [light-skin] and rs1426654 *A*/*A* [light-skin] other than Stuttgart (~1500 years earlier only rs1426654 A/A in respects like the modern Hindu-Kush people - _Norton et al 2006_); rs16891982 could not get tested by/on Motola12;

Is anything known on ANE corpses?

----------


## joeyc

Reading Drac can give you a headache. ROFL

The IrisPlex system was designed only for Europeans. You can see that in the original study. There is no point in arguing against that.

The rest of your arguments have already been debunked many times in last pages.

For the rest Italians as whole have a much higher percentage of the 3 most important light skin alleles found among West Eurasians, than the Iberians. They are also much lighter eyed, as proved by the Iris Plex system.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Maciamo "The question is where and when exactly did this mutation occur ? It could have been in Anatolia, Kurdistan or around the Caucasus, but then how comes it doesn't peak in the Middle East today, and is even more common in places like eastern Spain and northern Pakistan at equal latitude ? It could have first appeared among some European tribes during the Late Palaeolithic. However even Mesolithic European samples from Western and Northern Europe had apparently darker skin than Neolithic farmers. Yet it surely wasn't spread by Neolithic farmers, otherwise the Sardinians would be a hotspot of fair skin in Europe, which isn't the case. Greece and western Anatolia also have lower frequencies. "

----------


## Fire Haired14

Maciamo 


> "The question is where and when exactly did this mutation occur ? It could have been in Anatolia, Kurdistan or around the Caucasus, but then how comes it doesn't peak in the Middle East today, and is even more common in places like eastern Spain and northern Pakistan at equal latitude ? It could have first appeared among some European tribes during the Late Palaeolithic. However even Mesolithic European samples from Western and Northern Europe had apparently darker skin than Neolithic farmers. Yet it surely wasn't spread by Neolithic farmers, otherwise the Sardinians would be a hotspot of fair skin in Europe, which isn't the case. Greece and western Anatolia also have lower frequencies. "


I don't see the correlation. why is this mutation dominate in non Indo European Estonians(possibly most Mesolithic) and Sardinians(most Neolithic)? Laz suggests that Mesolithic Europeans(and MA1) were pure west Eurasians, while Neolithic near easterns were mainly descended from their close relatives in the near east and had a significant mount of basal Eurasian ancestry. The fact that this mutation existed in both populations that had been separated for more than 20,000 years, proves it is very old. Neolithic near easterns did not have any ANE ancestry or Y DNA R, and their long lost step brothers(Mesolithic Europeans) primarily had Y DNA I, and i guess possibly some had R because of ANE ancestry or just because they had their own R lineages. I think this mutation is very ancient in west Eurasians and that in Europe when hunters(possibly had ~33%) and farmers(possibly had ~100%) mixed this mutation may have been selected, which is why it's ~100% in modern Europeans.Maciamo, 


> It's also interesting that the Sahel region of sub-Saharan Africa, where R1b-V88 is found at relatively high frequency in numerous ethnic groups (Fulani, Kirdi, Hausa), falls in the range 15 to 30% for the A111T mutation.


I am sure other west Eurasian admixed east Africans have similar frequencies. Couldn't plain west Eurasian ancestry be the answer.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Maciamo, "It's also interesting that the Sahel region of sub-Saharan Africa, where R1b-V88 is found at relatively high frequency in numerous ethnic groups (Fulani, Kirdi, Hausa), falls in the range 15 to 30% for the A111T mutation."

----------


## Fire Haired14

Response to above quote.I am sure other west Eurasian admixed east Africans have similar frequencies. Couldn't plain west Eurasian ancestry be the answer.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Motola12 is *SHG* (p.73 '_The SHG appear intermediate between WHG and ANE_') *not* WHG (Loschbour/LaBrana) and Motola12 and the the other SHG were (and that is a great and logical revelation) much lighter than the WHG (both Loschbour/LaBrana dark-skin rs16891982 C/C & rs1426654 G/G) and also lighter eyed (_lightered eye_) than the EEF; And there is also a fifth corpse (after Stuttgart/Motola12/Loschbour/LaBrana) and that is Ötzi ~3300BC who was both (Keller et al 2012) rs16891982 *G*/*G* [light-skin] and rs1426654 *A*/*A* [light-skin] other than Stuttgart (~1500 years earlier only rs1426654 A/A in respects like the modern Hindu-Kush people - _Norton et al 2006_); rs16891982 could not get tested by/on Motola12;Is anything known on ANE corpses?


Hold your horses. Swedish hunter gatherers had some ANE ancestry but vast majority WHG(I use to refer to Mesolithic Europeans) ancestry that's why Laz calls them SHG. I pointed out in my thread that Motala12 and Loschbour probably largely descended from the same central European hunter gatherers. Motala12 got his blue eyes from his WHG ancestry like La Brana-1 and Loschbour did, i bet that's also where he got rs1426654 A/A from.

----------


## Fire Haired14

If rs1426654 A/A is just as popular in west asians as in Europeans, why do people assume it significantly lightens skin? There are no answers in DNA(that i have read of) that can explain lighter skin in northern Europe than in southern Europe, and lighter skin in Europe than in west asia. No one at this forum is considering that there are unknown variations in DNA that effect skin color.

----------


## joeyc

North Europeans have a much higher percentage of 374f light skin allele than South Europeans. They also carry a much higher amount of light skin allele on the _OCA2_  gene. 

Certain alleles on the MC1R gene also play a role in skin fairness. They are especially common among NW Europeans and perhaps Ashkenazi Jews (but I am not sure).

----------


## Nobody1

> Hold your horses. Swedish hunter gatherers had some ANE ancestry but vast majority WHG(I use to refer to Mesolithic Europeans) ancestry that's why Laz calls them SHG. I pointed out in my thread that Motala12 and Loschbour probably largely descended from the same central European hunter gatherers. Motala12 got his blue eyes from his WHG ancestry like La Brana-1 and Loschbour did, i bet that's also where he got rs1426654 A/A from.


Thats correct and you can give the precise numbers but i rember if correct that Motola12 was ?19% ANE and remainder WHG? ?; But how could Motola12 have gotten rs1426654 A/A from the WHG if none of the two WHG had it and all are roughly form the same times/era (as is Stuttgart / LBK rs1426654 A/A); So what about those ANE corpses from Afontova Gora/Mal'ta in souzern-Siberia if they are (_like they are also_ _rs1426654 A/A but than from way-way before_) than that explains Motola12 and the SHG who Lazaridis describes as in 'intermediate' between WHG and ANE; The Skoglund_HG and Skoglund_framer are of a much later date but still show their respective affiliations;

Concerning the mtDNA there is more diversity amongst the farmers: *LBK* Stuttgart (mtDNA T2) and samples of *TRB* Gök4 (mtDNA H) and Ste7 (mtDNA T2) and Alps Ötzi (mtDNA K1) et. al;

----------


## Nobody1

> If rs1426654 A/A is just as popular in west asians as in Europeans, why do people assume it significantly lightens skin? There are no answers in DNA(that i have read of) that can explain lighter skin in northern Europe than in southern Europe, and lighter skin in Europe than in west asia. No one at this forum is considering that there are unknown variations in DNA that effect skin color.


Because its not just rs1426654 *A*/*A* other genotypes are factors as well most notably also rs16891982 *G*/*G* or the _rs1129038_ A/A and _rs1291382_ G/G which are factors for the eye but also skin as also the TYR _rs1042602_ A/A;

PS: when did you move to Texas? werent you from California a just few months ago?

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Because its not just rs1426654 *A*/*A* other genotypes are factors as well most notably also rs16891982 *G*/*G* or the _rs1129038_ A/A and _rs12913832_ G/G which are factors for the eye but also skin as also the TYR _rs1042602_ A/A;PS: when did you move to Texas? werent you from California a just few months ago?


Good memory, actually I am from neither.

----------


## Angela

I believe the remains analyzed by Lazardis et al from Motala, Sweden are part of the set discussed in prior archaeological papers such as the one to which I allude further on in this post. (If that isn't the case, then the following comments would not be apropos.) 

This group of remains dates to 6.000 B.C. which is very "recent" as far as human history in Europe is concerned, and while it tested positive for SLC24A5, which has reached virtual fixation in Europe with a few minor exceptions (unlike Loschbour and La Brana, which Nobody 1 pointed out) it did not test positive for SLC45A2, which has a north/south cline in Europe, and which in some areas only reaches around 80% levels. The effect of SLC45A2 in explaining differences in pigmentation between African Americans and European Americans has been shown in numerous studies. In Europe, the presence of one ancestral allele on this snp has been tied to the "olive toned" skin phenotype.

Specifically with regard to the Motala samples, I'm not sure that the scientists are sure if the remains are those of people native to that specific area.

See the following media report on one of the latest papers on the remains, http://www.history.com/news/human-sk...e-burial-site:

"The stakes could have been used for secondary burial rites, in which individuals’ bones were removed from their graves and reinterred after their bodies decomposed, Hallgren said. At least one other Mesolithic site in Sweden bears traces of this tradition."

"Another hypothesis about this macabre practice holds that the skulls belonged to enemies killed in combat, not departed loved ones whose mourners gave them two funerals. Perhaps, Hallgren said, victorious Stone Age warriors mounted the heads of their foes on stakes and carried them home from battle as war trophies. The researchers believe laboratory analysis of the remains might support or rule out this scenario. “Sulphur and strontium isotopes in the bones will give information on whether the skulls represent locals or come from a distant place, and DNA analysis will hopefully elucidate if the interred individuals are related or unrelated strangers,” said Hallgren. “These data will give clues to if the depositions represent secondary burial rituals or trophies of defeated enemies.”

This is the actual academic study. The authors mention that further analysis would be done to see if the samples belonged to people raised in the area, but I haven't been able to find any subsequent studies by the authors. Perhaps if someone has access to Swedish Archaeology Journals they might be able to find something. 
http://www.academia.edu/3122672/Meso..._Motala_Sweden

Personally, it has always seemed to me that mtDNA U2e, for example, was perhaps a more recent addition to the genetic landscape in northeastern Europe and northern Eurasia in general that might have come by way of the Caucasus in the very late Mesolithic. If these people in Motala, for example, originally came from a tribe that traded with groups in the Caucasus, the light skin allele might have entered the areas north of the Caucasus through intermarriage or the taking of captives etc. by tribes that had such contact with the greater Caucasus area. This is pure speculation, of course.

Just as a reminder, numerous studies of pigmentation genes done by looking at the actual runs of alleles finds that SLC24A5 at any rate is relatively recent (from 9-12,000 years ago to 25,000 years ago depending on the mutation rate used) and can be traced to an area somewhere between the Middle East and India.

See Canfield et al...http://www.g3journal.org/content/3/11/2059.full
The distributions of C11 and its parental haplotypes make it most likely that these two last steps [leading to SLC24A5] occurred between the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent, with the _A111T_ mutation occurring after the split between the ancestors of Europeans and East Asians. 

Of course, the factors affecting the much more recent selective sweep in Europe are an entirely separate issue. I haven't yet seen anything better in terms of a hypothesis than the one which posits a correlation between the new Neolithic diet and levels of UV radiation, but time will tell. 

For those who are fascinated by this topic, I think any more clarity is going to depend on getting more ancient DNA samples.

What _I_ find fascinating is the continued resistance to the idea that ancient Europeans, specifically ancient western Europeans, a la Loschbour and La Brana, might not have had fair skin. All I can tell you, with absolute 100% certainty, is that if a sample was analyzed by the NYPD or the FBI and produced pigmentation alleles like those of Loschbour and La Brana, the authorities would be looking for an African American with blue eyes.

----------


## Fire Haired14

I don't have editing tools, so i will post my links in mu next post.Modern Sardinians are likely pigmented the same way as early Neolithic Europeans farmers were. Their skin seems to be as light as other south Europeans(i.e. Basque), kind of olive and much lighter than west asians. Sardinians are the darkest haired(98.1%) and darkest eyed(86.9%) people in Europe. They are even darker haired and eyed than south Italians and Sicilians who have more overall near eastern ancestry and a big chunk of it comes from modern-like south west asians. This may be because light hair and eyes became more popular in north European's ancestors(Sicilians have modern north-euro ancestry via proto-Italic speakers, and various Germanic people).

----------


## Fire Haired14

Many images of Sardinian people. Notice the correlation between light hair, eyes, and skin. Why is it also true for Sardinians?http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3976600

----------


## Nobody1

> I don't have editing tools, so i will post my links in mu next post.Modern Sardinians are likely pigmented the same way as early Neolithic Europeans farmers were. Their skin seems to be as light as other south Europeans(i.e. Basque), kind of olive and much lighter than west asians. Sardinians are the darkest haired(98.1%) and darkest eyed(86.9%) people in Europe. They are even darker haired and eyed than south Italians and Sicilians who have more overall near eastern ancestry and a big chunk of it comes from modern-like south west asians. This may be because light hair and eyes became more popular in north European's ancestors(Sicilians have modern north-euro ancestry via proto-Italic speakers, and various Germanic people).


Both Ötzi and Stuttgart had _dark-hair_ and _dark-eyes_ and both along with (Gök4) cluster closest to modern-day Sardinians and in terms of light-skin Stuttgart was rs1426654 *A*/*A* [light-skin] but lacked the rs16891982 *G*/*G* mutation and was* C*/*C* (_like Loschbour and LaBrana who however lacked both major light-skin alleles_); 

These (_Lucotte et al 2011_) are results for SLC45A2/rs16891982 *G*/*G* (light-skin) in modern day European populations: http://www.academicjournals.org/arti...uasa%20pdf.pdf

Ötzi is so far the only ancient corpse that had also the rs16891982 *G*/*G* (light-skin) mutation; Sardinians frequency (of having rs16891982 *G*/*G*) ranges from 68%-80% i.e. a good part being like Stuttgart; SLC24A5/rs1426654 A/A is a/the standard in west Eurasia, Near east and Indo-Asia where as rs16891982 G/G has a clear cline in Europe and Global;_ Norton et al 2006 -_ http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710.long

The Sardinians with light eyes and lighter hair are of course not been there since the Neolithic but most prob. came over from Italy especially Tuscany and Lombardy during the middle-ages; The interior (settlements) remained archaic/isolated and most I2-M26 presence;

----------


## Angela

> Both Ötzi and Stuttgart had _dark-hair_ and _dark-eyes_ and both along with (Gök4) cluster closest to modern-day Sardinians and in terms of light-skin Stuttgart was rs1426654 *A*/*A* [light-skin] but lacked the rs16891982 *G*/*G* mutation and was* C*/*C* (_like Loschbour and LaBrana who both lacked both major light-skin alleles_); 
> 
> These (_Lucotte et al 2011_) are results for SLC45A2/rs16891982 *G*/*G* (light-skin) in modern day European populations: http://www.academicjournals.org/arti...uasa%20pdf.pdf
> 
> Ötzi is so far the only ancient corpse that had the rs16891982 *G*/*G* (light-skin) mutation; Sardinians frequency (of having rs16891982 *G*/*G*) ranges from 68%-80% i.e. a good part being like Stuttgart; SLC24A5/rs1426654 A/A is a/the standard in west Eurasia, Near east and Indo-Asia where as rs16891982 G/G has a clear cline in Europe and Global;_ Norton et al 2006 -_ http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710.long
> 
> The Sardinians with light eyes and lighter hair are of course not been there since the Neolithic but most prob. came over from Italy especially Tuscany and Lombardy during the middle-ages; The interior (settlements) remained archaic/isolated and most I2-M26 presence;


Excellent. I agree with absolutely everything you said except for part of the last paragraph. Don't Sardinians have some WHG ancestry? I'm not as convinced as Jean Manco is that the mesolithic archaeological traces on Sardinia are only from hunting parties and that no Mesolithic inhabitants stayed around long enough to feed the local genetic pool. So, some of the lighter eyes might stem from that, or from later Bronze Age movements, although most of them were probably indeed imported by way of Tuscans emigrating to the island.

As for blonde hair, it seems to be more recent.

----------


## Wilhelm

> The Sardinians with light eyes and lighter hair are of course not been there since the Neolithic but most prob. came over from Italy especially Tuscany and Lombardy during the middle-ages; The interior (settlements) remained archaic/isolated and most I2-M26 presence;


Sardinia have decent amount of northern-like ancestry, for example on Eurogenes K13 they're 22% North-Atlantic, on Dodecad globe13 they are 16% northern-euro, and on the study of Lazaridis they have some amount of the blue(northern) component , so don't believe this people who say Sardinians = pure neolithics, because they do also have Mesolithic ancestry.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Sardinian people are dominated by rs1426654 A/A(98%) like Europeans and near easterns. Sardinians have the same amount of TYR A192C as Europeans and near easterns. Sardinians though have a much lower amount of MATP C374G(~60-80%) than most Europeans(close to 100%), and more than near easterns who have around 50%. This could be why they have a much higher percentage of black hair than Italians, since C/C alleles in Europeans is supposed to mean that individual is 7x more likely to have black hair.Early Neolithic European farmers were probably white-olive skinned, over 85% dark eyed and over 90% dark haired. I am confused though about the pigmentation of Mesolithic European hunter gatherers. There is no doubt that Loschbour, Motala12, and La Brana-1 had blue eyes and dark hair(no mutations associated with red or blonde hair). 1/3 have rs1426654 A/A, 0/2 have MATP C374G, and 0/3 have TYR A192C. When ever i find a new mutation that is dominate in Europeans and suppose to cause light skin, none of the hunter gatherers(that were tested) have it, that can't just be random. I don't know if they are exclusive to Europe though, which is important. I think the hunter gatherers probably had dark skin, but who knows.

----------


## Fire Haired14

rs1426654 A/A, rs16891982 G/G, and rs1042602 A/A can not explain skin color variation in west Eurasians. There are probably many mutations that can explain the lighter skin in early European farmers than in and modern near easterns, and many other mutations that can explain slightly lighter skin in northern Europeans than in southern Europeans. Why are light hair-eyes-skin-Mesolithic European ancestry connected and why do light haired people have a higher percentage of light eyes(everywhere in west Eurasia)? I can't find an explanation and it's driving me crazy!!!! Possibly light hair helps make north European skin lighter(but most have mainly dark hair), but how did it become so attached to light eyes and why does it exist outside of Europe(even in populations who have little to no European ancestry)? *Maybe there are two types of light pigmentation in Europe: 1.Neolithic/south European: Descended of early European farmers from the Levant: White-olive skinned, very small amount of non dark hair and eyes. 2.North European/Metal age: White skin(mixture of EEF, and later mutations in WHG/ANE/EEF descendants), high amounts of light hair and eyes(WHG, and was selected to become popular again in WHG/ANE/EEF descendants), and light hair-eyes-skin are connected.*

----------


## Fire Haired14

More on my idea of two types of European light pigmentation. In my opinion after the Neolithic there was a migration of north European-like pigmented people into western Europe from the east(in Europe though) who were closely related to Bronze and Iron age Indo Europeans from south Siberia and western China who had light skin, and primarily light hair(some red) and eyes. The eastern immigrants had very high amounts of WHG and ANE, spread Y DNA R1b L11, and probably spoke the ancestral version of Germanic, Celtic, and Italic languages. I know i have said that before in this forum but it still makes alot of sense. Nothing else can explain how widespread north European-like pigmentation is despite it's young age and why western Europeans seem to be an admixture between a Sardinian/Otzi like population and a population with much higher amounts of WHG and ANE.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Sardinia have decent amount of northern-like ancestry, for example on Eurogenes K13 they're 22% North-Atlantic, on Dodecad globe13 they are 16% northern-euro, and on the study of Lazaridis they have some amount of the blue(northern) component , so don't believe this people who say Sardinians = pure neolithics, because they do also have Mesolithic ancestry.


Eurogenes K13's component North Atlantic is a mixture of Mesolithic central-west European(that's why it's most popular in western Europe) and Neolithic farmer alleles. La brana-1 scored 37% North Atlantic, and Estonians scored 30% even though they have much more near eastern and much less Mesolithic European ancestry than La Brana-1 did. Sardinians probably score 22% North Atlantic because most of their Mesolithic ancestry is from central-west Europe(Loschbour and La Brana-1 like). I do agree though that Sardinians have some Italian(possibly others i don't know) ancestry. It might be able to explain why 1.7% have blonde hair.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Both Ötzi and Stuttgart had _dark-hair_ and _dark-eyes_ and both along with (Gök4) cluster closest to modern-day Sardinians and in terms of light-skin Stuttgart was rs1426654 *A*/*A* [light-skin] but lacked the rs16891982 *G*/*G* mutation and was* C*/*C* (_like Loschbour and LaBrana who however lacked both major light-skin alleles_); These (_Lucotte et al 2011_) are results for SLC45A2/rs16891982 *G*/*G* (light-skin) in modern day European populations: http://www.academicjournals.org/arti...uasa%20pdf.pdfÖtzi is so far the only ancient corpse that had also the rs16891982 *G*/*G* (light-skin) mutation; Sardinians frequency (of having rs16891982 *G*/*G*) ranges from 68%-80% i.e. a good part being like Stuttgart; SLC24A5/rs1426654 A/A is a/the standard in west Eurasia, Near east and Indo-Asia where as rs16891982 G/G has a clear cline in Europe and Global;_ Norton et al 2006 -_ http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710.long


Actually Keyser 2009 found plenty of Bronze and Iron age Indo Iranians with that combo. 


> The Sardinians with light eyes and lighter hair are of course not been there since the Neolithic but most prob. came over from Italy especially Tuscany and Lombardy during the middle-ages; The interior (settlements) remained archaic/isolated and most I2-M26 presence;


Have you forgotten 3/3 Mesolithic Europeans tested for SNPs associated with pigmentation have light eyes? Light hair is not exclusive to Europeans, it has a weak presence in west Asia, north Africa, and central asia. It is not all from European admixture. Sardinians are evidence that Mesolithic central-west Europeans were very dark haired(but not dark eyed, doesn't make sense) and that post neolithic immigrants from east Europe are the main source of light hair in western Europe.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Excellent. I agree with absolutely everything you said except for part of the last paragraph. Don't Sardinians have some WHG ancestry? I'm not as convinced as Jean Manco is that the mesolithic archaeological traces on Sardinia are only from hunting parties and that no Mesolithic inhabitants stayed around long enough to feed the local genetic pool. So, some of the lighter eyes might stem from that, or from later Bronze Age movements, although most of them were probably indeed imported by way of Tuscans emigrating to the island.As for blonde hair, it seems to be more recent.


Of course Sardinians have some WHG. Overall they probably have around 33%.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...65058239,d.aWc

----------


## Nobody1

> Actually Keyser 2009 found plenty of Bronze and Iron age Indo Iranians with that combo


That goes without saying;
I was referring to the corpses so-far tested and found in/from Europe (*pre*-Indo-European - Mesolithic/Neolithic); Keyser tested Indo-European corpses from the Bronze-age/Iron-age of the eastern steppes (~1800BC onwards); In that respect i would like to see those results of the Corded-ware corpses from Eulau or the Bell-beaker corpses from Kromsdorf or the Urnfield Lichtenstien corpses and the other Chalcolithic/Bronze-age corpses of Europe sites;

Also Wilde et al 2014 had corpses from Yamna/Catacomb but did not test (or not showing the results) of rs1426654 just rs16891982 (i think all are combos);

Sardinians are closer to the Neolithic farmers EEF [Stuttgart/Gök4/Ötzi] than to the WHG [Loschbour/LaBrana] but all of them had _dark-hair_ tested; 




> Good memory, actually I am from neither

----------


## Nobody1

> Sardinia have decent amount of northern-like ancestry, for example on Eurogenes K13 they're 22% North-Atlantic, on Dodecad globe13 they are 16% northern-euro, and on the study of Lazaridis they have some amount of the blue(northern) component , so don't believe this people who say Sardinians = pure neolithics, because they do also have Mesolithic ancestry.


Yes that is true;
The Sardinians had an amount of the 'northern comp.' in Lazaridis K=20 however also Stuttgart [EEF] had an amount of this comp. that was exclusive (Lazaridis K=20) to SHG and WHG; So also the EEF themselves already had such an admix; I am not sure what happened on that island but it seems completely isolated/archaic especially in comparison to close neighbour Corsica;

----------


## Fire Haired14

You guys are confusing modern north European and Mesolithic European. North European specific components have mainly Mesolithic European alleles, so just because south Europeans score in them does not mean they have modern north European-like ancestry. Higher amounts of Mesolithic ancestry is what differentiates north Europeans and south Europeans.

----------


## Fire Haired14

I think this study is suggesting that *rs1426654*, rs10831496, rs4424881, and rs35395 can't be the only explanation of skin color difference between African and Europeans. BTW, La Brana-1 had ancestral alleles for all of them, except he had rs4424881 T/C. 


> Quantitative assessment of the skin color loci can be considered from two perspectives: effect size in an individual, and contribution to total phenotypic variance in a population. The former depends only on genotype, and measures the strength of allelic substitution, whereas the latter is influenced by the distributions and potential correlations of allele frequencies in the specific population being studied. From the first perspective, alleles of the four major loci shift the MM index 0.16–0.33 units (in Cape Verde, skin color ranges from ~5.5–10.5 units), and the sum of effect sizes for homozygous substitution at all four loci would shift, in an individual, an amount about the same as ~1/3 of the total range of skin color we observed (Figure 6a).From the second perspective, the proportions of phenotypic variance attributed solely to genotype at each of the four major skin color loci are quite small, about 2% each for _GRM5-TYR_, _APBA2_ (_OCA2_), and _SLC45A2_, and about 7% for _SLC24A5_. However, these estimates, based on conventional regression analyses in which individual genomic ancestry is considered as a covariate, fail to consider admixture stratification, wherein admixture proportions vary widely due to recent admixing, and genotypes at unlinked loci remain correlated. For example, even though _SLC24A5_ and _SLC45A2_ lie on different chromosomes, their genotypes in the Cape Verde population are correlated with genomic ancestry and, therefore, with each other. Thus, in any particular individual, genomic ancestry has predictive value for genotype at each of the four major skin color loci, and vice versa.To capture this predictive value, we applied the epidemiological concept of population-attributable risk—the extent that an environmental risk factor contributes to phenotypic variance in a population—to determine the quantitative impact of allelic substitution at each of the four major loci. This quantity, to which we refer as “population-attributable variance”, is calculated by determining the fractional reduction in phenotypic variance that would occur if genotypes at a locus of interest were set to a common baseline in all individuals. For skin color, population-attributable variances of _SLC24A5_, _GRM5-TYR_, _APBA2_ (_OCA2_), and _SLC45A2_ are 18%, 7%, 9% and 7%, respectively, considerably less than the proportion of variance attributed to individual genomic ancestry, 44% (Figure 7b, also Figure 1c).


These quantitative genetic relationships and their contributions to skin color variation in Cape Verde are depicted in Figure 6 as overlapping regions; the four major loci contribute a total of 35% to skin color variation, but only 13% above that which could also be accounted for by individual ancestry. Conversely, even though individual ancestry contributes 44% to skin color variation, about half of that contribution (22% of the total) could also be accounted for by genotype at the four major loci.The aforementioned discussion considers the different components as a proportion of total variation, not all of which is heritable. Previous studies of skin color estimate narrow sense heritability at 70%–90% of total variation [40], and genotype of the four major loci together with individual ancestry accounts for 57% of total variation. If skin color in Cape Verde is 80% heritable, the four major loci and individual ancestry explain most of that variation, with only a small amount of “missing heritability” (the hashed portion of Figure 7b).[/QUOTE]La Brana-1 did not have many mutations associated with European light skin, but most are not well known and i don't know how popular they are outside of Europe and within Europe. The best guess is that La Brana-1, Loschbour, and Motala12(probably) had dark skin, but it is still possible they were light skinned.Quote from Olalde, 2014.


> The combination of seven SNPs has also been shown to be useful in the prediction of “not-dark” and “not white” skin color in a global human sample70 . However, some of these SNPs are not variable between Asians and Europeans and thus, its usefulness for skin color prediction in an ancient, European-specific genetic background is debatable


Nobody1 


> North Europeans have a much higher percentage of 374f light skin allele than South Europeans. They also carry a much higher amount of light skin allele on the OCA2 gene. Certain alleles on the MC1R gene also play a role in skin fairness. They are especially common among NW Europeans and perhaps Ashkenazi Jews (but I am not sure).


North Europeans probably have a higher percentage of 374f because they have lighter hair. According to a study SNPedia references if a European individual does not have 374f they are 7x more likely to have black hair. Loschbour, Motala12, and La Brana-1 did not have it which suggests Mesolithic Europeans were very dark haired.

----------


## joeyc

Sardinians and South Italians are equally neolitich.

The only difference is that South Italians are not a WHG/EEF mix, but rather an EEF/ANE mix which peaks in the Caucasus, hence the higher west asian component. However it did not originate there.

Regarding pigmentation Sardinians are on par with Sicilians and far Southern Calabrians who are much darker than other South Italians, probably because they have less light skin alleles and a significant amount of African Admixture from the Moors.

----------


## Drac II

> Reading Drac can give you a headache. ROFL
> 
> The IrisPlex system was designed only for Europeans. You can see that in the original study. There is no point in arguing against that.
> 
> The rest of your arguments have already been debunked many times in last pages.
> 
> For the rest Italians as whole have a much higher percentage of the 3 most important light skin alleles found among West Eurasians, than the Iberians. They are also much lighter eyed, as proved by the Iris Plex system.


And reading your posts is no picnic either.

That did not seem to stop the authors who try to make eye pigmentation "predictions" from employing it with non-Europeans, didn't it.

You must still be under the amusing delusion that your unproven accusations against authors of other studies that don't fit your agenda (Candille et al. Jablonski & Chaplin, basically all pigmentation surveys conducted by physical anthropologists) as well as the diatribes directed at anyone who is not buying your seemingly never-ending assortment of excuses and not very convincing "explanations" constitute a "debunking". Keep on trying, though, by all means. The more you keep trying to defend these "predictions" based on a few SNPs the more dubious and unreliable the whole thing is shown to be. So far thanks to your imaginary "debunkings" (actually more like self-debunkings) we have learnt that these "prediction" papers that you like so much are even more dubious since: 

1- Their authors apparently don't shy away from using samples that they are even fully aware are not wholly native 

2- They also liberally employ such methods with populations they were not designed for

3- Some other researchers have put such methods to the test and they have not performed as neatly as advertised

You are a very amusing guy, Joey. Let's see what other inconvenient facts about these already dubious "prediction" papers will come to the surface if you continue trying to defend them.

You mean like one of those important light skin alleles that Swedes scored lower than a bunch of other Europeans, including Italians and Spaniards? And so did the Swiss, and the Germans too, BTW. Yes, I am really impressed about how much this correlates with observable facts. Keep on blindly believing in such "predictions". This whole "prediction" based on SNPs thingy is recent, hardly infallible, and still in need of further research & development (as implied by Candille et al.) to reach the point of reliability that you wish it had. Maybe at some time in the future it will, but right now, forget it. This stuff is still in its infancy.

----------


## joeyc

Dude you are fighting a lost a battle.

I've debunked all your arguments.

At least use fantasy and create new ones.

----------


## Drac II

> Dude you are fighting a lost a battle.
> 
> I've debunked all your arguments.
> 
> At least use fantasy and create new ones.


The only thing you are succeeding in is in defeating yourself, Nostradamus. 

Here, more of these silly "predictions" for everyone's entertainment, this time for hair color, and just about as "believable" as any of the other ones that you keep desperately trying to defend:

http://unsafeharbour.files.wordpress...air-colour.jpg

So French and even Italians from Bergamo are blonder than Orcadians, one of the most depigmented populations in Scotland, ironically, and Tuscans are just as blonde. Sardinians are about as blond as Palestinians and Druze. Yes, one should be speechless at the truly amazing high probability of such "predictions".

You keep on telling tall tales to yourself. It's pretty obvious since your very first posts here that you will try to defend such silly "predictions" as long as they keep telling you what you want to hear. Too bad that you keep miserably failing.

----------


## joeyc

LOL this is ludicrous. First of all those clusters are from the HGDP panel, which means they all have less than 25 samples. The Tuscan cluster has 8 samples and the Lombard one has only 13 in it.

Second that's the HIRIS plex system which has a much lower rate of prediction accuracy than the Iris plex system.

Now hurry up and bring a new argument, so I can debunk it too.

----------


## Drac II

> LOL this is ludicrous. First of all those clusters are from the HGDP panel, which means they all have less than 25 samples. The Tuscan cluster has 8 samples and the Lombard one has only 13 in it.
> 
> Second that's the HIRIS plex system which has a much lower rate of prediction accuracy than the Iris plex system.
> 
> Now hurry up and bring a new argument, so I can debunk it too.



No need to, since you haven't even started debunking this one (or any other one, for that matter). Your excuses don't wash. The authors of the study did not see sample size as an impediment to conduct and publish the "predictions" and claim accuracy (yes, not as high as that claimed for IrisPlex, but still fairly accurate.) Plus they used 24 SNPs with this one. The fact that you keep trying to cling to sample size as an excuse only keeps re-emphasizing the dubious nature of both your claims as well as those of papers like this one. The authors apparently have no problem publishing papers using sample sizes to which you yourself object and yet at the same time you try to defend them and their methodology. In English this is called "have your cake... and eat it too!": 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/have_o...and_eat_it_too

You can't have it both ways, Nostradamus. So do you condemn this paper or are you going to try to defend it too?

----------


## joeyc

I cannot insult you because I would be banned. But after reading your last post it's obvious to anyone with an IQ above 100, that you are an hopeless case. I rest my case.

----------


## Drac II

> I cannot insult you because I would be banned. But after reading your last post it's obvious to anyone with an IQ above 100, that you are an hopeless case. I rest my case.


What was that? No arguments? I thought so. 

By the way, for those of you who want to further see how little seriously this JoeyC fellow and his obvious agenda must be taken, just check out the rather different tales he spins about this type of papers in this other site, and that he seeks to "explain" with a repertoire of (unconvincing) excuses around here when their dubious claims/results are pointed out:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...a-recent-study

----------


## joeyc

> What was that? No arguments? I thought so.


I've debunked all your arguments, muchacho. But you keep playing with "words" to win, and I don't have the time to talk with hopleless cases like you.




> By the way, for those of you who want to further see how little seriously this JoeyC fellow and his obvious agenda must be taken, just check out the rather different tales he spins about this type of papers in this other site, and that he seeks to "explain" with a repertoire of (unconvincing) excuses around here when their dubious claims/results are pointed out:
> 
> http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...a-recent-study


Yes and in the same thread I also say that the sample size is very small, and we need more samples to get a reliable study. Read the whole thread.

Here

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...=1#post1108954




> BTW the samples size is quite small, so chill out


So it seems that you are the one twisting facts here.

----------


## joeyc

ROFL you have completely failed at proving that pigmentation prediction studies based on DNA are unreliable. All you can do, is posting the results for very small clusters with non native samples in them.

On the other hand Candille et al. is clearly biased since the main author is a Portuguese woman who had a great role in selecting the Portuguese samples from her native city.

Jablonky et al is such a retard study, that none takes it seriously, beside Iberians and their Hispanic slaves.

Do you need anything else?

----------


## joeyc

Regarding the thread over Forumbiodiversity, I opened it about 4 mounths ago. Back then I did not really know much about genetics. 

Now I know quite a lot more. So do you really need to quote a 4 mounths old post of me from another forum, to win an argument? How does that disprove anything I've said so far?

----------


## joeyc

Ehi Drac here are some undeniable facts for you panchito. Since you have failed to prove that pigmentation prediction studies based on DNA are unreliable, these facts are right.

​http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post430076

I am sure that you will not sleep tonight. ROFL.

----------


## Nobody1

> What was that? No arguments? I thought so. 
> 
> By the way, for those of you who want to further see how little seriously this JoeyC fellow and his obvious agenda must be taken, just check out the rather different tales he spins about this type of papers in this other site, and that he seeks to "explain" with a repertoire of (unconvincing) excuses around here when their dubious claims/results are pointed out:
> 
> http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...a-recent-study


But a Morrocan from Genk asking where the samples come from does not exactly 'debunk' the results or the study; And the _eye_ results come from a study of a Dutch University (Walsh et al 2010) that explains the Genetic method used; http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/P...00323/abstract

'_We used the six currently most eye colour-informative single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that previously revealed prevalence-adjusted prediction accuracies of over 90% for blue and brown eye colour in 6168 Dutch Europeans_'

As a user on there pointed out the 'undefined category' = mixed-eyes; The studies clearly show that the prediction of eye-color (based on SNPs) is much more stable and credible [91-99%] than that of the hair-color; And both post#8 and post#11 explain what the hair categories (_Black/Brown/Red/Blonde_) in that study even means;

----------


## Drac II

> ROFL you have completely failed at proving that pigmentation prediction studies based on DNA are unreliable. All you can do, is posting the results for very small clusters with non native samples in them.
> 
> On the other hand Candille et al. is clearly biased since the main author is a Portuguese woman who had a great role in selecting the Portuguese samples from her native city.
> 
> Jablonky et al is such a retard study, that none takes it seriously, beside Iberians and their Hispanic slaves.
> 
> Do you need anything else?


Unfortunately for your delusions, both of those papers that you dislike are way better carried out and more believable than the shoddy papers that you so desperately want to defend. Even your own convenient excuses (using samples that are not fully native, using smaller samples, applying methods that were designed only for certain populations, etc.) keep incriminating them as hardly very reliable. The worst enemy these papers seem to have is you, ironically. You keep providing arguments against them in your desperate efforts to defend them.

----------


## Drac II

> But a Morrocan from Genk asking where the samples come from does not exactly 'debunk' the results or the study; And the _eye_ results come from a study of a Dutch University (Walsh et al 2010) that explains the Genetic method used; http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/P...00323/abstract
> 
> '_We used the six currently most eye colour-informative single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that previously revealed prevalence-adjusted prediction accuracies of over 90% for blue and brown eye colour in 6168 Dutch Europeans_'
> 
> As a user on there pointed out the 'undefined category' = mixed-eyes; The studies clearly show that the prediction of eye-color (based on SNPs) is much more stable and credible [91-99%] than that of the hair-color; And both post#8 and post#11 explain what the hair categories (_Black/Brown/Red/Blonde_) in that study even means;


The Moroccan user asking questions doesn't do that, but the equally dubious "predictions" (French and Italians from Bergamo more blue-eyed than Orcadians, Tuscans practically as blue-eyed as Orcadians, Sardinians darker-eyed than Palestinians and Druze) of the eye pigmentation study mentioned there pretty much casts heavy doubts on these methods again. These attempts at "predicting" pigmentation by means of some SNPs are recent and do need more development for them to really be reliable, as some other papers have pointed out.

----------


## Angela

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting tired of stereotypical thinking and agenda driven polemics masquerading as science. You don't even need science actually, you just need to have spent time in these places...

There are whole villages in Toscana and neighboring Liguria and Emilia where virtually everyone is light-eyed. As for the people of Orkney, just google them for goodness sakes...they're extremely fair skinned, but by no means all blonde and blue-eyed.

These are some of the people of Toscana...local children of the Lunigiana



The people in the picture above are from one of those towns where upwards of three quarters of the people are light eyed.

Or, you can look at politicians...these are two of the three Tuscan women in the Italian cabinet.

----------


## Angela

There's no need to spam the thread with photos of Sardinians. The beauty of Sardinian women is well known. That doesn't mean that there's this large percentage of light eyed people there, although as on the mainland, things can vary from village to village. There's a lot of variety in most parts of Italy, something that people who come from more homogenous looking countries don't understand. 

Also, please don't allow yourself to become infected by the nordicist disease that afflicts so many people on anthrofora. Pointing out how agenda driven comments conflict with properly understood genetic analysis doesn't mean that one has to subscribe to that type of thinking or those types of values. 

As for the studies to which you refer, they have been superseded. The distinctiveness of the Sardinian genome is clear, and its connection to the Neolithic advance in Europe; both are things of which to be proud.

----------


## Aristocephalic

> If rs1426654 A/A is just as popular in west asians as in Europeans, why do people assume it significantly lightens skin? There are no answers in DNA(that i have read of) that can explain lighter skin in northern Europe than in southern Europe, and lighter skin in Europe than in west asia. No one at this forum is considering that there are unknown variations in DNA that effect skin color.


There's way more darkening genes than lightening. I am not sure there is any need for whitening genes if you don't have the dark ones. I assume they came about because of darker people coming to an area where light skin fares better, and being strongly selected on. That is speculation but only way to judge is to find people with and without all the skin gene combos and see what they look like.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> There's way more darkening genes than lightening. I am not sure there is any need for whitening genes if you don't have the dark ones. I assume they came about because of darker people coming to an area where light skin fares better, and being strongly selected on. That is speculation but only way to judge is to find people with and without all the skin gene combos and see what they look like.


I am not a scientist so i don't know how to respond. Figuring out where certain pigmentation comes from isn't very useful if you are researching the genetic history of populations. So becoming an expert on how the genes work isn't so important and a waste of time. I just try to get a very basic understanding and use what i know about genetics and history of a population to make conclusions on where certain pigmentation comes from.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Sardinians are Germanic! You swarty West Asian mongrels belong to the slave kin!


This is a joke right? Sardinians are Germanic???!!!!!!

----------


## Nobody1

> Sardinians are Germanic!


That is incorrect;
Sardinians are *not* Germanic (complete nonsense);




> Is that humor?
> may be it's funny in your country where only the 1,7% of population has european descent,


I dont think he is from Antigua & Barbuda;

----------


## LeBrok

> Is that humor?
> may be it's funny in your country where only the 1,7% of population has european descent, sincerely i don't take care anything about the so called germanics, term without any sense unless you are speaking about linguistics!


Dani benitez IP address shows Napoli in Italy, same location as Joeyc. I'm suspicious that this might be the same person.

----------


## ebAmerican

The idea comes from a possible I2-M26 early bronze age migration from Germany through Iberia and finally Sardinia. Otzi was probably fairly typical of most central and southern Europeans at the time. I don't think you can call these early Central Europeans Germanic. It's more of an Iron-Age description of Central Europe.

----------


## Nobody1

> The idea comes from a possible I2-M26 early bronze age migration from Germany through Iberia and finally Sardinia. Otzi was probably fairly typical of most central and southern Europeans at the time. I don't think you can call these early Central Europeans Germanic. It's more of an Iron-Age description of Central Europe.


I dont think that is what he meant (i.e. something productive) whoever he was;
But i also remember that *Sparkey* once mentioned such a migration and def. the I2-M26 had to come from somewhere into Sardinia; But that is (as you said) has nothing to do with the Germanic peoples as such - the emerging of a Germanic peoples as such begins within the Indo-European context plus the pre-existing pops present in these areas; And only Vandals in that context stepped a foot into Sardinia (brief and scanty numbers);

----------


## Knovas

> Dani benitez IP address shows Napoli in Italy, same location as Joeyc. I'm suspicious that this might be the same person.


Seems pretty evident since the very first posts that something was wrong with this individual. Moreover, he insulted many times...enough to get banned. I recommend to read this whole thread to notice other things though.

Explanation for the Sardinian I2-M26:



> The days of supposing an I2-M26 origin in Sardinia are over; it's clearly a founder effect there. Iberia has significant diversity, considering that the most common subclade (L160+) has high diversity there, and an outlier (L277+ L247+) is found there. See Cullen. That could indicate that most modern I2-M26 passed through Iberia, at least northeastern Iberia near the Pyrenees. However, it's worth noting that the greatest I2-M26 outlier is in fact German, as is a cousin of the Iberian outlier, indicating that before arriving in Iberia, it was indeed in or around Germany, or at least expanded that direction as well between the end of the Ice Age and the beginning of the Neolithic. See Cullen again.


So when the expansion took place germanic languajes did not exist. If a (north) central European connection could be inferred, it happened so long ago and was rather indirect. The similarities between ethnic Sardinians and the Neolithic samples we have so far, suggest that the former aren't shifted towards Northern Europe in regards of the later.

----------


## gyms

Scandinavian I2a1b-Motala12 (HG),for 8000 years ago...

rs12913832:GG (light eyes)
rs1426654:AA (lighter skin)

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Scandinavian I2a1b-Motala12 (HG),for 8000 years ago...
> 
> rs12913832:GG (light eyes)
> rs1426654:AA (lighter skin)


Motala12 did not have the blue eye h1 haplotype like fellow Mesolithic Europeans La Brana-1 and Loschbour, but he defintley had light eyes. He also had derived A/A alleles in SNP rs28777(light skinned version), which means he probably had derived G/G alleles in SNP rs16891982(light skinned version), but was not able to be tested at that SNP. Sf11 another Mesolithic Swede(from a Baltic island very close to Gotland) but around 500 years younger than Motala12, had derived G/G alleles in SNP rs16891882 which means this mutations did exist in Mesolithic Europeans, and it is very possible Motala12 also had it. 

Ajv58 though a Gotland hunter gatherer from 4,900-4,600 years ago was ancestral for both SNPs rs1426654 and rs16891982, like much older hunter gatherers La Brana-1 and Loschbour. I think it's safe to say most Mesolithic Europeans had the ancestral alleles in SNPs rs1426654, rs16891982, and rs28777 but close to 50% did not. 

People like Angela, assume this means some Mesolithic Europeans were very light skinned and most were very dark skinned, but it is hard to believe skin color varied in extreme ways between family members and in small tribes. Obviously there are unknown SNPs or whatever contributing to the skin color of Mesolithic Europeans and modern Europeans and west Eurasians. 

Early Neolithic European farmers who had some hunter gatherer ancestry(~20%) without a doubt(in my opinion) had the same light skin modern Europeans do, because their close and genetically isolated relatives Sardinians do. The question is where did they get this light skin from, their hunter gatherer or farmer ancestors? 

There are many other questions about the origin of European pigmentation. Why did light skin-alleles which were maybe around 50% in European hunter gatherers and nearly fixated in near eastern farmers, become fixated in modern Europeans, and for northern European's why did rs16891982 G/G(also associated with hair color, ancestral alleles almost always means dark hair) rose to nearly 100%? Why did Eneolithic and copper age(proto-Indo Europeans) Pontaic steppe people have only have 4.3% C/A or A/A in rs1042602 and 43.2% C/G or G/G in rs16891982.

----------


## Sommo Angiolieri

Scientists have not found any evidence for unknown SNPs contributing to the skin color of Mesolithic Europeans and modern Europeans and west Eurasians. People denying the importance of eye/skin colour predictions based on DNA, are just butthurt because the results don't fit their agenda.

----------


## Angela

> Motala12 did not have the blue eye h1 haplotype like fellow Mesolithic Europeans La Brana-1 and Loschbour, but he defintley had light eyes. He also had derived A/A alleles in SNP rs28777(light skinned version), which means he probably had derived G/G alleles in SNP rs16891982(light skinned version), but was not able to be tested at that SNP.


You can deduce absolutely *nothing* from the fact that a sample can't be tested for a certain snp. The fact that a sample is positive for a certain snp means it is positive for a certain snp, it tells us nothing about whether the sample is positive for another snp, *probably* or otherwise.




> I think it's safe to say most Mesolithic Europeans had the ancestral alleles in SNPs rs1426654, rs16891982, and rs28777 but close to 50% did not.


No, it's not safe to say anything remotely like that. We have no data that would lead to that kind of conclusion.




> People like Angela, assume this means some Mesolithic Europeans were very light skinned and most were very dark skinned, but it is hard to believe skin color varied in extreme ways between family members and in small tribes.


Do not presume to speak for me, and stop attaching my name to simplistic, ridiculous statements. I never said anything remotely like that. 

1) What we know is that the WHG samples tested so far had *none* of the major effect snps which cause light skin pigmentation in modern Europeans.

2) What we know is that of the SHG samples, one (Motala 12) had an SLC24A5 allele, and one (Sora Forvar 11), had an SLC45A2 allele. However, the Hunter Gatherer Ajv58 from Scandinavia thousands of years later who was contemporary with Loschbour and LaBrana was missing all of them. 

3) What we also know is that Stuttgart had two copies of SLC 24A5.

4) Furthermore, we know that the European farmers Oetzi and Gok 4 carried two copies each of both SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. 

5) What we know is that the effect of these snps is cumulative, and some have a bigger effect than others. That's all we *know.* 

6) Well, we also know from forensics science the following: 

Non-dark skin color (i.e. light or medium) is predicted by any two of the following
alleles, GG at rs12913832'Herc2, GG at rs16891982'SLC45A2, AA at rs1426654'SLC24A5, TT at rs1545397'OCA2, or AA at MCIR rs885479. You will notice they must be homozygous for those snps.

Light skin color is predicted by more stringent conditions, GG at rs1291382, which is the Herc2 gene, plus GG at rs16891982 which is SLC45A2, and AA at rs1426654, which is SLC24A5. All three must be present and homozygous.
https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/242774.pdf

(Non light skin color, i.e. medium or dark is predicted by GG at rs6119471 on the ASIP gene.)

 So, I think what we can reasonably *deduce* is that although some of the depigmentation mutations which cause light skin in modern Europeans had appeared in Europe sporadically and toward the east before the Neolithic, they swept Europe and became fixed after it. 

All of this, which is duplicated in East Asia with regard to their own set of de-pigmentation genes, supports a connection with the Neolithic.

There are also, of course, all the papers which trace one of the major snps to the area between the Middle East and Central Asia, and the studies which posit a recent spread for these genes. The papers are cited upthread.

I think we can also reasonably deduce that when looking at European Mesolithic and European Neolithic Farmers, the farmers were *probably* lighter skinned on *average.*




> Obviously there are unknown SNPs or whatever contributing to the skin color of Mesolithic Europeans and modern Europeans and west Eurasians.


While it is *possible* that there are major de-pigmentation mutations which affected Mesolithic Europeans which do not impact us (the depigmentation genes already found account for modern European pigmentation in great measure already) there is nothing *obvious* about it whatsoever. 




> There are many other questions about the origin of European pigmentation. Why did light skin-alleles which were maybe around 50% in European hunter gatherers and nearly fixated in near eastern farmers, become fixated in modern Europeans, and for northern European's why did rs16891982 G/G(also associated with hair color, ancestral alleles almost always means dark hair) rose to nearly 100%? Why did Eneolithic and copper age(proto-Indo Europeans) Pontaic steppe people have only have 4.3% C/A or A/A in rs1042602 and 43.2% C/G or G/G in rs16891982.


Again, the results so far do *not* support a 50% occurrence of light skin alleles among European hunter gatherers. 

Stop falsifying data.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Scientists have not found any evidence for unknown SNPs contributing to the skin color of Mesolithic Europeans and modern Europeans and west Eurasians. People denying the importance of eye/skin colour predictions based on DNA, are just butthurt because the results don't fit their agenda.


 I am sick and tired of people accusing me of having a white-raciest agenda, just because I question that Mesolithic Europeans were uniformly dark skinned. West Asians have the same percentage of known major light skin mutations as do Europeans, except for 374f which is about 50% in west Asia and 80-100% in Europe. That mutation is also associated with hair color, so it helps explain darker hair in west Asians. What about that do you not understand? If the average Swede and the average Iraqi have the same light skin mutations, yet radically differnt skin tones there have to be other SNPs involved. 

You and Angela should read over what Olalde 2014 said about La Brana-1, in its supplementary article. They were very hesitant to claim La Brana-1 had a certain skin color. 

You and Angela should see what Maju has to say about this. He uses similar arguments as i do.

If known light skin mutations make Europeans white like you guys claim, then Motala12 should have been white skinned.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> You can deduce absolutely *nothing* from the fact that a sample can't be tested for a certain snp. The fact that a sample is positive for a certain snp means it is positive for a certain snp, it tells us nothing about whether the sample is positive for another snp, *probably* or otherwise.


I can because rs28777 and rs16891982 are directly connected to each other. I looked at about 500 random individuals at GEDmatch and nearly every person with A/C alleles at rs28777 had G/C alleles at rs16891982, nearly everyone who had A/A alleles at SNP rs28777 had G/G alleles at SNP rs16891982. So, that means it is very likely Motala12 had G/G alleles at SNP rs16891982. 






> No, it's not safe to say anything remotely like that. We have no data that would lead to that kind of conclusion.


Yes we do: La Brana-1, Loschbour, Motala12, Sf11, and Ajv58.



[QUOTE=Angela;432175]Do not presume to speak for me, and stop attaching my name to simplistic, ridiculous statements. I never said anything remotely like that. 




> 1) What we know is that the WHG samples tested so far had *none* of the major effect snps which cause light skin pigmentation in modern Europeans.


Motala12 had two(probably three) and Sf11 had one and was only tested for one.




> 2) What we know is that of the SHG samples, one (Motala 12) had an SLC24A5 allele, and one (Sora Forvar 11), had an SLC45A2 allele. However, the Hunter Gatherer Ajv58 from Scandinavia thousands of years later who was contemporary with Loschbour and LaBrana was missing all of them.


Motala12 and Sf11(not Ajv58) are contemporary with La Brana-1 and Loschbour. 




> 3) What we also know is that Stuttgart had two copies of SLC 24A5.


Stuttgart had C/C alleles in SNPs rs28777 and rs16891982, while Motala12 had derived A/A alleles in SNP rs28777 and probably derived G/G alleles in SNP rs16891982, like Sf11. By your rules Motala12 probably had lighter skin than Stuttgart.




> 4) Furthermore, we know that the European farmers Oetzi and Gok 4 carried two copies each of both SLC24A5 and SLC45A2.


Yep, like most modern Europeans and middle easterns. 

5) What we know is that the effect of these snps is cumulative, and some have a bigger effect than others. That's all we *know.* 




> 6) Well, we also know from forensics science the following: 
> 
> Non-dark skin color (i.e. light or medium) is predicted by any two of the following
> alleles, GG at rs12913832'Herc2, GG at rs16891982'SLC45A2, AA at rs1426654'SLC24A5, TT at rs1545397'OCA2, or AA at MCIR rs885479. You will notice they must be homozygous for those snps.
> 
> Light skin color is predicted by more stringent conditions, GG at rs1291382, which is the Herc2 gene, plus GG at rs16891982 which is SLC45A2, and AA at rs1426654, which is SLC24A5. All three must be present and homozygous.
> https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/242774.pdf



According to those predictions Motala12 was at least light to medium skinned, and if rs16891982 was tested he would probably pass as light skinned, while fellow hunter gatherers Loschbour, La Brana-1, and Ajv58 would be classified as non light to medium skinned. According to your believes in Mesolithic Europe skin varied from very dark to very light, and most middle easterns are as light as Europeans.

(Non light skin color, i.e. medium or dark is predicted by GG at rs6119471 on the ASIP gene.)




> ​So, I think what we can reasonably *deduce* is that although some of the depigmentation mutations which cause light skin in modern Europeans had appeared in Europe sporadically and toward the east before the Neolithic, they swept Europe and became fixed after it. 
> 
> All of this, which is duplicated in East Asia with regard to their own set of de-pigmentation genes, supports a connection with the Neolithic.
> 
> There are also, of course, all the papers which trace one of the major snps to the area between the Middle East and Central Asia, and the studies which posit a recent spread for these genes. The papers are cited upthread.
> 
> I think we can also reasonably deduce that when looking at European Mesolithic and European Neolithic Farmers, the farmers were *probably* lighter skinned on *average.*


There are plenty of light skinned hunter gatherers in Siberia, so for east Asians it probably has nothing to do with farming. I agree that known light skin mutations became fixated after the hunter gatherers and farmers mixed for some reason. I also believe that the 374f mutations became more popular in Neolithic Europeans than middle easterns because their hair got lighter, and it went to another extreme in northern European's ancestors. There are unknown mutations though, and they could be from the farmers or hunter gatherers. 

There are alot of possibilities for the skin color of Mesolithic Europeans. If their skin was not light, who knows what dark shade it was, and how their skin color varied. I honestly don't care much i have already wasted time doing research on this. I didn't prepare myself well for this post, but my argument is still unbeatable. No one can give an answer why an Iraqi and Swede with the same light skin mutations have such differnt skin colors. People are to Euro-centric when it comes to these mutations and ignore their presence in the rest of west Eurasia.





> While it is *possible* that there are major de-pigmentation mutations which affected Mesolithic Europeans which do not impact us (the depigmentation genes already found account for modern European pigmentation in great measure already) there is nothing *obvious* about it whatsoever. 
> 
> Again, the results so far do *not* support a 50% occurrence of light skin alleles among European hunter gatherers. 
> 
> Stop falsifying data.


You are totally incorrect. There is something unknown giving Europeans lighter skin than middle easterns, and why couldn't Mesolithic Europeans be the source? I am not falsifying data. The truth is that some Mesolithic Europeans had known light skin mutations, as of far it looks like around 25-50% did. 

Why are you so obsessed with saying Mesolithic Europeans had dark skin. Last time you said north European instead of just European, even though two from Sweden have known light skin mutations. Do you have something against northern Europeans? If anyone questions the assumption Mesolithic Europeans had dark skin, you go berserk, and claim they are raciest.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Angele have you forgotten i found Europeans at GEDmatch missing major light skin mutations(like Loschbour, La Brana-1, and Ajv58) but they were still light skinned? That is great evidence there are unknown mutations giving Europeans light skin. Just because i argued for the possibility Mesolithic Europeans had light skin does not make me raciest. I am questioning bad assumption others are making.

----------


## Nobody1

> 2) What we know is that of the SHG samples, one (Motala 12) had an SLC24A5 allele, and one (Sora Forvar 11), had an SLC45A2 allele. However, the Hunter Gatherer Ajv58 from Scandinavia thousands of years later who was contemporary with Loschbour and LaBrana was missing all of them.


Ajv58 was not contemporary to Loschbour and LaBrana; Motola12/StoraFörvar11 (*SHG*) were contemporary to Loschbour/LaBrana (*WHG*); 
However Ajv58 also an SHG (Lazaridis Apr. 2014) living thousands years later did not possess the light mutations as the Farmers and earlier SHG but was as dark-skinned as the WHG (Loschbour/LaBrana) before him i.e. rs1426654 *G*/G and rs16891982 *C*/*C* - Skoglund 2014; Something obviously changed in the SHG for the darker;

Where as Ötzi and the Gökhem farmers (_who were all contemporary with the dark-skinned Ajvide Gotland Hunter-gatherers_) were already light-skinned *[*rs1426654 A/A and rs16891982 G/G*]* as in the common modern European mode;




> 4) Furthermore, we know that the European farmers Oetzi and Gok 4 carried two copies each of both SLC24A5 and SLC45A2


Ötzi and Gök*2* (Gök*4* was no longer the prime desire of the Uppsala team);

----------


## Angela

> Ajv58 was not contemporary to Loschbour and LaBrana; Motola12/StoraFörvar11 (*SHG*) were contemporary to Loschbour/LaBrana (*WHG*); 
> However Ajv58 also an SHG (Lazaridis Apr. 2014) living thousands years later did not possess the light mutations as the Farmers and earlier SHG but was as dark-skinned as the WHG (Loschbour/LaBrana) before him i.e. rs1426654 *G*/G and rs16891982 *C*/*C* - Skoglund 2014; Something obviously changed in the SHG for the darker;
> 
> Where as Ötzi and the Gökhem farmers (_who were all contemporary with the dark-skinned Ajvide Gotland Hunter-gatherers_) were already light-skinned *[*rs1426654 A/A and rs16891982 G/G*]* as in the common modern European mode;


Thanks for correcting the record, Nobody 1. It is Loschbour and La Brana in the west, and Motala 12 and Stora Forvar 11 in the northeast who are roughly contemporary, while it is the Ajvide hunter-gatherer who is contemporary with Oetzi and Gok2. 

Grouped correctly like that, it makes it clearer why I said, to quote myself, that, "I think what we can reasonably *deduce* is that although some of the depigmentation mutations which cause light skin in modern Europeans had appeared in Europe sporadically and toward the east before the Neolithic, they swept Europe and became fixed after it."

Actually, I should have said "probably became fixed after it", just as I used the word probably when I said that I think we can also reasonably deduce when looking at European Mesolithic and European Neolithic Farmers, that the farmers were *probably* lighter skinned on *average.*

Did we have a larger group of samples, and was the coverage in individual cases better (it is terrible in the case of Motala 12, for example), and so we could actually run the forensics tests and have some degree of certainty about the results, then we could be more definitive.

----------


## Drac II

> I am sick and tired of people accusing me of having a white-raciest agenda, just because I question that Mesolithic Europeans were uniformly dark skinned. West Asians have the same percentage of known major light skin mutations as do Europeans, except for 374f which is about 50% in west Asia and 80-100% in Europe. That mutation is also associated with hair color, so it helps explain darker hair in west Asians. What about that do you not understand? If the average Swede and the average Iraqi have the same light skin mutations, yet radically differnt skin tones there have to be other SNPs involved. 
> 
> You and Angela should read over what Olalde 2014 said about La Brana-1, in its supplementary article. They were very hesitant to claim La Brana-1 had a certain skin color. 
> 
> You and Angela should see what Maju has to say about this. He uses similar arguments as i do.
> 
> If known light skin mutations make Europeans white like you guys claim, then Motala12 should have been white skinned.


Don't mind him. That's just "Joey" with yet another account, who is the one who is really "butthurt" (as he likes to say) because these "predictions" based on a few SNPs are dubious at best, as plainly seen when they are checked against pigmentation data gathered from actual observation.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Ajv58 was not contemporary to Loschbour and LaBrana; Motola12/StoraFörvar11 (*SHG*) were contemporary to Loschbour/LaBrana (*WHG*);


SHG and WHG are used to loosely. Loschbour and SHG both largely descend from the same central European hunter gatherers, La Brana-1 had no ancestry from. Also, it is not established that all the Swedish hunter gatherers were closely related or just admixed in a similar way.




> However Ajv58 also an SHG (Lazaridis Apr. 2014) living thousands years later did not possess the light mutations as the Farmers and earlier SHG but was as dark-skinned as the WHG (Loschbour/LaBrana) before him i.e. rs1426654 *G*/G and rs16891982 *C*/*C* - Skoglund 2014; Something obviously changed in the SHG for the darker;
> 
> Where as Ötzi and the Gökhem farmers (_who were all contemporary with the dark-skinned Ajvide Gotland Hunter-gatherers_) were already light-skinned *[*rs1426654 A/A and rs16891982 G/G*]* as in the common modern European mode;


When will people learn!!!! I have proven millions of times online that there are unknown causes to European light skin. If the source of European light skin was known, then middle easterns and many south Asians should have the same light skin as Europeans. I have found Europeans at GEDmatch missing so called European light skin mutations, and they are still light skinned. Scandinavian hunter gatherers did not get darker, Sf11 and Motala12 are just not representative of the alleles most had in the Mesolithic age.

----------


## Fire Haired14

I don't have time to argue about this anymore. The last thing i will say is, Angela and others who think like her really piss me off. They claim I have an agenda, but whenever anyone claims it is possible Mesolithic Europeans had light skin they go crazy. She refuses to face the facts that there are unknown causes for European light skin. How crazy is it to believe that the science behind skin color is fully understood, when the average Iraqi and Swede have the same light skin mutations, and radically differnt skin tones? 

When I found multiple modern northwest Europeans at GEDmatch missing major light skin mutations but still have light skin, she says the pictures and descriptions they gave me of their pigmentation and family member's pigmentation are not reliable!!! What Angela are they some type of conspiracy trying to trick me to think Mesolithic Europeans had light skin? Ancient European DNA has created many many many many possibilities for the origin of uniform light skin in Europe. My best guess is that Mesolithic Europeans were some type of brown tone(even Motala12 and Sf11), and that known and unknown European light skin mutations mainly came from their near eastern farmer ancestors.

I think the testing of stone age European hunter gatherers and farmers made clear breakthroughs for figuring out the origin of modern European hair and eye color, though. Since most European hunter gatherer samples are missing the 374f mutations they were probably very very dark haired, and this means light hair probably first became popular and spread after the Neolithic. 

Also, so far 3/3 European hunter gatherers tested are light eyed, while 2/2 farmers tested so far are dark eyed. Today in Europe light eyes correlate with hunter gatherer ancestry while dark eyes correlate with farmer(or just middle eastern) ancestry. Most northern Europeans have light eyes but most have 45-50% European hunter gatherer(WHG) ancestry, so i don't think they directly inherited their light eyes from stone age European hunter gatherers, but that light eyes were positively selected and became dominate once again. The same positive selection that made light eyes dominate probably a also made light hair very popular, and can explain why today light haired people have a much higher percentage of light eyes.

----------


## Sile

another paper inside this link ....................also about light skin colour

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/plows-of-the-gods/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=plows-of-the-gods

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/su...koglund.SM.pdf

http://genetiker.wordpress.com/

----------


## Nobody1

> another paper inside this link ....................also about light skin colour
> 
> http://www.unz.com/gnxp/plows-of-the-gods/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=plows-of-the-gods
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/su...koglund.SM.pdf
> 
> http://genetiker.wordpress.com/


Good finds Sile;
They all confirm what the study (Skoglund 2014) itself confirms i.e. the major diffs. between the Ajvide hunter-gatherers and the Gökhem farmers; It is amazing that even by the dawn of the Indo-Europeans these two groups were still greatly diff. to each other in terms of genetic distance and pigmentation as Razib Khan (first link) points out;

----------


## Fire Haired14

> another paper inside this link ....................also about light skin colour
> 
> http://www.unz.com/gnxp/plows-of-the-gods/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=plows-of-the-gods
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/su...koglund.SM.pdf
> 
> http://genetiker.wordpress.com/


You are the first to show it to me, just i could not find the time to read it till now.

----------


## Sile

> You are the first to show it to me, just i could not find the time to read it till now.


so eurogenes is wrong!

----------


## Fire Haired14

Pigmentation SNPs of MA1 and AG2.

http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/pigmentation-snp-genotypes-for-malta-1-and-afontova-gora-2/

The results confirm that MA1 had dark eyes unlike Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gatherers. The results are constant with MA1 and AG2 having dark hair, but there are not enough SNPs to be for sure. 

AG2 had skin lighting mutation rs1426654 A/A, like Motala12, Stuttgart, Otzi, Gok2, and bronze-iron age Siberian Indo Iranians, proving this mutation is very ancient in west Eurasians. AG2 having this mutation is constant study which estimated this mutation to be 22,000-28,000 years old. I think it is older though because it existed in WHG, ANE, and middle easterns(brother to WHG+basal Eurasian), who are the three main ancestral groups of modern west Eurasians.

MA1 had rs1426654 G/G, like most European hunter gatherer samples, and is evidence the majority of WHG-ANE hunter gatherers did.

Y SNP calls for AG2.

http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/y-snp-calls-for-afontova-gora-2/

The results confirm that he had hg F, and probably P. He has the only P mutation he was tested for, P-L781/PF5875/YSC0000255. He is Q1a1-F1215+, but was not tested for anything in between P and Q1a1. AG2 is R1-P245/PF6117+ and R1a1a1-Page7+, but he was R-P224/PF6050-, R1-P286/PF6136-, and R1a1-L122/M448/PF6237-. 

Now i understand why others besides Geneticker who did the same tests said he belonged to either R1a1 or Q1a. 

AG2 confirms that hg P was popular and probably largely spread with ANE populations. 

P was all over Eurasia before the Neolithic. R1b and probably R1a were in west Asia and or central Asia-eastern Europe, R2 was in south Asia, Q was in south Asia-central Asia-Siberia-and the Americas, and P* lineages were in south Asia.

----------

