New study claims that Irishmen descended from Turkish farmers

[mihaitzateo]

New study claims that Irishmen descended from Turkish farmers (Anatolian not Turkish)
http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/n...-from-turkish-farmers-83217437-237788351.html

A new study has revealed that many Irish men may be able to trace their roots back to Turkey.
Focusing on the role of the Y chromosome, which is passed from father to son, the research indicates Turkish farmers arrived in Ireland about 6,000 years ago, bringing agriculture with them.
And they may have been more attractive than the hunter-gatherers whom they replaced.

The genetic patterns for Irish females differ from those of men.
“Most maternal genetic lineages seem to descend from hunter-gatherers,” an author of the study, Patricia Balaresque, told the London Times.
“To us, this suggests a reproductive advantage for farming males over indigenous hunter-gatherer males during the switch to farming.
“Maybe, it was just sexier to be a farmer,” she added.
Eighty-five per cent of Irish men are descended from farming people from the Middle East and especially Turkey, according to the research that was conducted by scientists at the University of Leicester.
The switch from hunting and gathering to farming was a crucial one in human development. Increased food production meant that populations were able to grow.
In Britain, 60-65 per cent of the population has the Turkish genetic pattern, while in parts of the Iberian Peninsula it’s almost as the same as in Ireland.
The research contradicts what was previously thought about Irish genealogy – that hunter-gatherers from Spain and Portugal who survived the Ice Age were our main genetic ancestors.
“This particular kind of Y chromosome follows a gradient, gradually increasing in frequency from Turkey and the southeast of Europe to Ireland, where it reaches its highest frequency,
” Mark Jobling from the University of Leicester told the Times.
We are saying that most of that original hunter-gatherer male population in Ireland was probably replaced by incoming agricultural populations,” he added.

Lol.
I think there is a trend in Norway and Great Britain,Ireland included to say they are descending from Turkish or Huns.
But I doubt.After the very blue eyes,is clear that Celts came from around same areas as Norse people came.As for Celts practicing agriculture,that is another lol,Celts were known for making a living from fighting,they were paid fighters/warriors not farmers.

 

[Aberdeen]

Lol.
I think there is a trend in Norway and Great Britain,Ireland included to say they are descending from Turkish or Huns.
But I doubt.After the very blue eyes,is clear that Celts came from around same areas as Norse people came.As for Celts practicing agriculture,that is another lol,Celts were known for making a living from fighting,they were paid fighters/warriors not farmers.

Celts were farmers or pastoralists (depending on terrain) who calculated honour price based on how many cows a person was worth. They were strong and courageous warriors, although not well organized. The Celtic upper class seem to have preferred having subordinates to do basic work for them, but they honoured artisans and creative people, such as poets.

 

[Melancon]

The Celts may have been descended from "Turks"; but people here don't recognize that Turkish may be metaphorical for Anatolian or Near Eastern farmer. If we used Turkish in a literal sense; then Celts definitely did not descend from the Modern population of the Turkic ethnic group. (Surely there are Turkish people that may have some Celtic in them, though.)

 

[LeBrok]

I didn't say that. You suggested it.

I never did. I said that black people couldn't live up north, because they were vitamin D deficient. But somehow you understood this:

Originally Posted by Melancon
You are suggesting, with this theory, that thousands of people died because they could not resist Skin Cancer because they did not develop fair-skin like their relatives;

Do you see your mistake now?

The obsolete, silly and ridiculous "Neolithic fair-skin" theory also suggests it.

This "ridiculous theory", as you called it, can explain my question, that you conveniently omitted.
Explain why people are "segregated", dark brown around equator and light brown in higher latitudes?

 

[arvistro]

@LeBrok,
I ask not to argue, but because I dont know - does equatorial = brown(er) also hold in pre-Columbus America?

 

[Melancon]

Lol.
I think there is a trend in Norway and Great Britain,Ireland included to say they are descending from Turkish or Huns.
But I doubt.After the very blue eyes,is clear that Celts came from around same areas as Norse people came.As for Celts practicing agriculture,that is another lol,Celts were known for making a living from fighting,they were paid fighters/warriors not farmers.

All tribes in Europe were surely agrarian at a time. And all surely lived a life of hunting and gathering as well. The Celts were mostly nomadic and barbarian until the Romans attempted to civilize them. They saw the Germanic people as their allies; mainly against the Romans. They did not appreciate the Greco-Roman "civilized" lifestyle.

 

[mihaitzateo]

I have to agree that blue eyes do not show that someone is living somewhere very North latitude.
Almost all Siberian people and Sami people,who did not mixed with Slavs or Germanic Scandinavians have brown eyes.
While I can show you plenty of Indians,Pakistani and Iranians with blue eyes.
And this image shows the presence of light skin alele SLC24A5:
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article...ournal.pgen.1003912.g002&representation=PNG_L

 

[Melancon]

I never did. I said that black people couldn't live up north, because they were vitamin D deficient. But somehow you understood this:

Do you see your mistake now?

This "ridiculous theory", as you called it, can explain my question, that you conveniently omitted.
Explain why people are "segregated", dark brown around equator and light brown in higher latitudes?

Does not matter if it's fair white skin or dark black skin; the argument is still legitimate, and you still have contradicted yourself. You are claiming that skin color changed because of environment; when that isn't true.

I made a mistake I admit; but you get the point, surely now.

And, wasn't it hypothesized, the first Native Americans did not develop on the American continent at all? SO how did they acquire darker skin to their Siberian Asian brothers? Was Russia and North America close to the equator at the time the Native Americans crossed the Bering strait? No, no. That was during the Ice Age.

Their migration down into Central and South America and equator was only recent. Have we found American indians on the North America continent with fair skin yet?

 

[Aberdeen]

All tribes in Europe were surely agrarian at a time. And all surely lived a life of hunting and gathering as well. The Celts were mostly nomadic and barbarian until the Romans attempted to civilize them. They saw the Germanic people as their allies; mainly against the Romans. They did not appreciate the Greco-Roman "civilized" lifestyle.

That is nonsense. If you want to learn about the great achievements of the Celts, read something by a modern Celtic scholar, such as Miranda Green. And no, the Germans weren't, generally, allies of the Celts. The Germans were the barbarians who were pushing the Celts westward.

 

[mihaitzateo]

So sorry for you Germanic and Celtic guys,you are clearly denying what science says,that you are high-caste Gypsies,that is from where your language and education came.See that Gedrosia admixture which is present at all Westerners and Northen people,Finns not included,where do you think is that from?
Not from Pakistan?
I did not want to post this till now,to not anger you,but where do you see such strong racism,if not at High Caste Indians and I guess Pakistani also have the same caste system?
No idea from where Romance speakers came,but Slavic speakers is clear they came from Iran,not India/Pakistani because of different admixture.
I think Romance speakers also came from Iran.
EDIT:
If you still doubt Germanic speakers came from Pakistan,go search the picture of Imran Kahn,a native Pakistani guy. He looks typical German,but he does not have any recent German ancestry.
http://cache.pakistantoday.com.pk/483243-ImranKhan-1356205911-150-640x4801.jpg

No worries,average IQ at high caste Indians is about 120 or so.So those were only the leaders who brought language and so on,the mass of population from Western and North Europe is not of India/Pakistani genetics.
Only light eyes and light hair were taken from there.
You are not smart enough,to be of mostly High Caste Indians genetics .

 

[motzart]

Celts were farmers or pastoralists (depending on terrain) who calculated honour price based on how many cows a person was worth. They were strong and courageous warriors, although not well organized. The Celtic upper class seem to have preferred having subordinates to do basic work for them, but they honoured artisans and creative people, such as poets.

They were also really into dudes:

According to Aristotle, most "belligerent nations" were strongly influenced by their women, but the Celts were unusual because their men openly preferred male lovers (Politics II 1269b).^[84] H. D. Rankin in Celts and the Classical World notes that "Athenaeus echoes this comment (603a) and so does Ammianus (30.9). It seems to be the general opinion of antiquity."^[85] In book XIII of his Deipnosophists, the Roman Greek rhetorician and grammarian Athenaeus, repeating assertions made by Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC (Bibliotheca historica 5:32), wrote that Celtic women were beautiful but that the men preferred to sleep together. Diodorus went further, stating that "the young men will offer themselves to strangers and are insulted if the offer is refused".

 

[Aberdeen]

@LeBrok,
I ask not to argue, but because I dont know - does equatorial = brown(er) also hold in pre-Columbus America?

If you visit the Americas, you will find that all Native people are brownish in skin colour but those nearer the tropics are much darker than those who live in Canada or Chile. It's complicated by the fact that many natives have mixed with whites, but you can still see the difference quite clearly. However, even those Amerindians furthest from the equator didn't depigment as much as Europeans, and I suspect that it's partly because of farming, including dairy, and partly a question of what mutations occurred at the right time.

 

[Melancon]

That is nonsense. If you want to learn about the great achievements of the Celts, read something by a modern Celtic scholar, such as Miranda Green. And no, the Germans weren't, generally, allies of the Celts. The Germans were the barbarians who were pushing the Celts westward.

The Celts were not pushed back ... they migrated. The Germans and Celts were united in their nomadic conquests of Europe. And looked at each other as allies. Their ultimate goal was to sack Roman influence and oppression in Europe; and eventually the East German Visigoths managed to do that. The Celts and Germans have always feared assimilation by the Romans in history. The Slavs are the nomadic tribe that pushed Germans and Celts Westward. They did not enter Europe until much, much later. In example, Bohemia is actually a Roman word for a tribe of Hallstatt Celts who settled around what is now Czech Republic. (the "Boii") There was no Bohemian Slavic tribe; as the nation of Bohemia is a misnomer.

The word German has history in the Celtic language, and from what I know, it meant to the Celts "friend-tribe":

"German (n.) "Teuton, member of the Germanic tribes," 1520s (plural Germayns attested from late 14c.), from Latin Germanus, first attested in writings of Julius Caesar, who used Germani to designate a group of tribes in northeastern Gaul, origin unknown, probably the name of an individual tribe. It is perhaps of Gaulish (Celtic) origin, perhaps originally meaning "noisy" (compare Old Irish garim "to shout") or "neighbor" (compare Old Irish gair "neighbor").

 

[MOESAN]

How how ! Surprising thoughts ofsomeones here !
Mutations seems occurring by hazard buttheir development is less hazardous and very often shows aninteraction with environmental pressure – so we can expect somemutations, not identical but producing the same type of modification,can develop in similar environments – OK – that said, life isvigorous and imaginative so the solutions in front of naturalpressure (problems!) are not always the same ones, sometimes verydifferent (without speak of the human hability to conturn physicalproblems by cultural solutions –
lighter pigmentation seems at firstlook a disadvantage, but blondism or light skin are not exactly thesame things as albinism, I think, or at least a less handicapingthing – erythrism seems medically closer to albinism, at firstsight, concerning medical implication for the little I know -
but pigmentation is not the whole thing– other good or bad mutations occur concerning all sorts of traitsand even here the results on human survival is not always simple :some letal alleles in homozygotic conditions can be postitive forsurvival (plagues, by instance) in an heterozygotic condition –some are letal but after the mating-reproductive age – in Africa byinstance, pigmentation doesn't protect completely against sunactivity, we can expect some esthetical aspect has been at play (darkskin masks easily sun irritation of the skin, a red haired Irishmanin the same environment, even if still alive at 30 years, is maybeless attractive with his roasted crayfish colour).




concerning maps, the map upon predictedpigmentation in certain climatic conditions are jus predictive (orsupposed to be) ; but Inuits and other northern latitude naturalancient populations are A BIT more pigmented than the northernEuropeans as a whole (even the protected parts of skin, it appearswith reflectance surveys) – its true that the lighter mongoloidpeople are not darker than the typical mediterranean concerning skin– Amerindians seem more pigmented – true Arabs have almost thesame skin as genuine Mediterraneans with the same ASC24S mutationproportion ar almost (the « caucasoid mutation »)– allthat doesn't disprove a basic correlation roughly verified where moreyou have sun more you have pigmentation, but it's only the basis –other factors interfer, like sexual attractivity and diet andculture (choice of settlements, clothes (later) ...); climaticcorrelation is not explanation : even the vitamin D paradygm isnow contested : in Europe, it's the less pigmented populationwhich have the more lactose tolerance ! -


I'm a bit affraid after I redsome post : we, « white » humans, are in a veryunhealthy condition and condemned to disappear before long time (Iswallowed five hard drinks before recovering some confidence)– someof the diseases evocated are the result of the « occidental »evolved culture, with longer life exposing us to more great agediseases, and some chimical inopportun additive products in our food,and a lack of body exercice...


I'll add nothing concerning the« black » people bringing agriculture to Europe, thealbinos of Asia or the Germans associated to the Celts -


IN SHORT : THIS THREAD IS ROTED ?Too long about pigmentation / THE, QUESTION WAS : are the irishpeople descended from Turcs agricultores : the Jobling title isa commercial one, I think – (Anatolia is not Turkey)
I wait : a proof that Irleand hasbeen populated by peasants from Anatolia 6000 BC + a proof that Y-R1bwas yet in ireland and western Europe at this time – a proof thatthe all autosomals of Ireland are the same as the Anatolians ones(even at that time) – Ireland has been poorly occupied at Neolithicfor i know, and by North-East, not by South (but what is sure, newdiscoveries can be made) – Finding some ressemblance between twopopulations genes doesn't tell us HOW AND WHEN they arrived from oneuntil another, or from ELSWHERE until BOTH -

 

[mihaitzateo]

A question:
If Celts are descending from those farmers,than how come British population have lowest lactose intolerance from whole world?
Check a little this:
http://milk.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000661
Look at lactose intolerance in Anatolian people and compare it to British people.
(very likely,lactose intolerance of Turkish people is between 55% which is found in Balkans and 80%,which we found at Central Asians,higher that in Balkans,but lower than in Central Asia).
As a strange thing,North Indians,as a whole,have lower lactose intolerance than Italians as a whole.
Anotjher thing,the theory with skin whitening,because of lack of sun is non-sense,is actually a white - skin gene that makes you skin white.
I put a map with the presence of this gene,earlier.

 

[Aberdeen]

They were also really into dudes:

According to Aristotle, most "belligerent nations" were strongly influenced by their women, but the Celts were unusual because their men openly preferred male lovers (Politics II 1269b).^[84] H. D. Rankin in Celts and the Classical World notes that "Athenaeus echoes this comment (603a) and so does Ammianus (30.9). It seems to be the general opinion of antiquity."^[85] In book XIII of his Deipnosophists, the Roman Greek rhetorician and grammarian Athenaeus, repeating assertions made by Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC (Bibliotheca historica 5:32), wrote that Celtic women were beautiful but that the men preferred to sleep together. Diodorus went further, stating that "the young men will offer themselves to strangers and are insulted if the offer is refused".

One fool says something stupid and countless fools repeat it, but that doesn't make the statement true. I think it's very unlikely that Aristotle, the source of that notion, ever met a Celt.

 

[Melancon]

A question:
If Celts are descending from those farmers,than how come British population have lowest lactose intolerance from whole world?
Check a little this:
http://milk.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000661
Look at lactose intolerance in Anatolian people and compare it to British people.
(very likely,lactose intolerance of Turkish people is between 55% which is found in Balkans and 80%,which we found at Central Asians,higher that in Balkans,but lower than in Central Asia).
As a strange thing,North Indians,as a whole,have lower lactose intolerance than Italians as a whole.
Anotjher thing,the theory with skin whitening,because of lack of sun is non-sense,is actually a white - skin gene that makes you skin white.
I put a map with the presence of this gene,earlier.

I have French and English ancestry and I am not lactose intolerant; I've drunk milk almost everyday ever since I was a tot. And from my knowledge, no one in my family that I know of; has lactose intolerance either. I have heard rumors that many Native Americans are especially lactose intolerant. And are also at a high risk for Type 2 Diabetes; But I have never investigated these claim(s). A few of my relatives have an allergic reaction to seafood and crustaceans on the other hand; but I don't. This is mainly my English side though. The symptoms are usually fever and red skin flush.

 

[LeBrok]

Does not matter if it's fair white skin or dark black skin; the argument is still legitimate, and you still have contradicted yourself. You are claiming that skin color changed because of environment; when that isn't true.

I'm not sure if you know what logical argument is and its contradiction. To contradict myself, I would need to say (myself) two arguments contradict each other. Can you quote these two contradicting arguments I voiced?

And, wasn't it hypothesized, the first Native Americans did not develop on the American continent at all? SO how did they acquire darker skin to their Siberian Asian brothers? Was Russia and North America close to the equator at the time the Native Americans crossed the Bering strait? No, no. That was during the Ice Age.

Their migration down into Central and South America and equator was only recent.

What do you mean recent? Oldest skeleton found in central America is 13,000 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

Have we found American indians on the North America continent with fair skin yet?

It doesn't need to be fair. Light brown or olive skin is enough to survive in the far North, especially as hunter gatherers. But this is far away from dark brown of south India or Africa.
Are you totally blind to skin colours? Are these people equally brown to you?

Guess which one lives in higher UV index zone.

Global uv radiation at equinox.

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2001/03/Global_clear-sky_UV_index_26_March_20012


Now zones of skin colours

http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/7F.html

They corelate. Highest UV radiation equals black and dark brown skin, regardless of continent. Less radiation equals lighter skin, also regardless of continent. We also know the science behind vitamin D production and behind skin cancer. This all fall into one place. It is simple, it is logical, it is beautiful. Skin colour is the adaptation to UV intensity, vitamin D production and cancer protection.

 

[mihaitzateo]

I have French and English ancestry and I am not lactose intolerant; I've drunk milk almost everyday ever since I was a tot. And from my knowledge, no one in my family that I know of; has lactose intolerance either. I have heard rumors that many Native Americans are especially lactose intolerant. And are also at a high risk for Type 2 Diabetes; But I have never investigated these claim(s). A few of my relatives have an allergic reaction to seafood and crustaceans on the other hand; but I don't. This is mainly my English side though. The symptoms are usually fever and red skin flush.

Well maybe you have South French ancestry.
Anyway,what I wanted to show is that Brits are most lactose tolerant people,from whole world. Now,since most of ancestry in Great Britain is Celtic,what is the logic in telling that a large percentage of Irish people are from Anatolian farmers,when such a high percentage are lactose tolerant?
This shows that Celts main food was milk,so this means they were herders,mainly not farmers,as any mentally sane person will understand.
And is well known Celts were great herders of cows,also understood that in Wales there is a strong tradition in herding sheep.
And I doubt that if you drink milk you still need sun to get vitamin D,I know fresh milk is a very good source of vitamin D.

 

[Melancon]

Global uv radiation at equinox.

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2001/03/Global_clear-sky_UV_index_26_March_20012


Now zones of skin colours

http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/7F.html

They corelate. Highest UV radiation equals black and dark brown skin, regardless of continent. Less radiation equals lighter skin, also regardless of continent. We also know the science behind vitamin D production and behind skin cancer. This all fall into one place. It is simple, it is logical, it is beautiful. Skin colour is the adaptation to UV intensity, vitamin D production and cancer protection.

Take a look at East Asia; Southeast Asia in particular. It has about the same frequency as Sub-Saharan Africa or Central America. This theory of skin pigmentation and environment still doesn't hold any merit.

I believe that Mongoloids, or East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Laos, Thai's etc.) have a lighter white skin color than white Europeans do.