I don't know that much about the spread of genes, sorry. But isn't it that Y-DNA shows only one gene in the human pool of many? What speaks against the theory that people entered Eurasia, mixed with Neanderthals, but the Y-DNA that still exists today in Eurasia entered the continent later and replaced previous Y-DNA, similiar like IE Y-DNA replaced a lot non-IE Y-DNA later. So of course we descend from sapiens and neanderthalensis that lived here some 70.000 years ago, but this specific Y-DNA that we carry entered Eurasia at a later stage.
I am no expert either...
but yes, you are right...
Y-DNA replacement is possible, as it only reflects direct male line of gene inheritance...
however, direct female line is even younger than direct male line....
now, you can replace direct male line of previous population by newly settled tribe killing all males and taking over their wives...
with Amazones like tribes, you can do the opposite as well, replace completely direct female line by killing all females and taking over their males
but this neanderthal marker not being related to either direct male lines or direct female lines means that both of above scenarios happened... now I find it hard to imagine regarding estimated fairly high percentage of its participation in total gene's pool....
I also think that Maciamo is right and some of the Neanderthal material was diluted by some later African migrations that entered Eurasia.
true, but I saw some works talking about haplogroup E reentering Africa after the initial split on basic branches.... so, the part of haplogroup E carriers that reentered Africa might have had the marker.... and if they again went out of Africa they would still have the marker... so Euroasia could have been entered by both E haplogroup carriers with marker and the ones without, also as marker is not part of YDNA....
but E haplogroup in Serbs and Greeks is the same subbranch and taken together with geographical proximity very likely of same origin... so it cannot be that ones have it from people with marker and others from people without marker...
north Africa, Levant and Greece are areas where haplogroup E is much more dominant than in e.g. Serbs, and in same time those areas have much more of the marker we talk about...so there is no correlation expected by Maciamo....
Asia minor and Sogdiana/northwest China are also areas that lack marker...
and while Asia minor has decent frequencies of haplogroup E, Sogdiana and northwest China have much less... again no correlation between presence of haplogroup E and absence of marker...
Nevertheless, many people here insist that we carry a lot of Neanderthal phenotypical characteristics in ourselves, like that of pale skin, some bone structure, even mental features [btw that is what i meant with 'Caucasian', because according to some people here in this forum 'Caucasian' features of looks and behaviour resemble closest that of Neanderthal]. These differ in Eurasiamerica from place to place and don't necessarily correlate with the actual amount of Neanderthal gene percentages.
lol, mental features....
from what we know, Neanderthals were wild creatures.... not some intellectually highly developed beings....stop seeing them as some Cambridge, Oxford, Sorbona, Yale graduates... from what we know, they were just bunch of wild beast without superior characteristics compared to humans...
But if it was true, that shouldn't matter anyway. My theory then would be the following: Africans entered the Near East where they picked up a large amount of Neanderthal genes first. These first people were just a very few and their lifestyle didn't differ much from Neanderthal, so probably they didn't view themselves as very different.
they did look quite different.... which is enough to see Neanderthals as enemies.... more likely scenario is that early humans did interbreed with some Neanderthal woman while conquering new areas....
Later on the humans spread all over Eurasiamerica and carried Neanderthal genes in themselves. Perhaps most of Neanderthal genes were not that important for survival and just resemble some kind of 'spam'. In some regions it even got mostly lost after some while. In other regions where Neanderthal genes were of advantage, or at least not of disadvantage like pale skin in northern regions, they still can be seen phenotypically.
I would not really relate white skin to Neanderthals...
after all highest percentage of marker that is attributed to Neanderthals is in Indians of north America...
In some regions they can phenotypically seen even though they don't make up much of the gene pool [some parts of Europe], while in others they can't be seen but still exist in a fair amount [western America].
this is a bit as Maciamo's attempt to explain lack of marker in some areas with haplogroup E... introducing in explanation a special case that is difficult to support....
What do you think about that?
I think that your theory, same as the one of Maciamo, does have in its core some sort of hidden racism that needs to show Caucasian or "white" skin people being some superior race compared to black skin people of Africa.... but such claims do not hold, as black people are not inferior to white people in any way... it is only the case that their environment and history was such that their cultures didnot achieve milestones set by people living in much better natural and social conditions.... do you think Europe would be what it is, if its inhabitants had to deal all the time with environment factors, such as various tropical diseases, jungle beasts and survival issues, and socially with being slaves of another population... I am sure it would not....
for civilization to develop there should be enough free time... e.g. in ancient Greece this was possible due to slaves doing all the work... modern civilization is built by adding more achievements in small steps... but those achievements are only possible when environment is such that it allows them...