Light skin allele of SLC24A5 gene was spread by the Indo-Europeans (R1a + R1b)

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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:wary2: .............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.

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

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/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Passing_of_the_Great_Race_-_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:wary2: .............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.

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

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

Sardinians = sardi, iberian and levant people

Corsica = gallic-ligurians

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.

 

[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. :indifferent:

"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.