Very advanced Indoeuropeans - cows reveal their history! :-)

[Rethel]

The average Yamna is 35% WHG.

The point is, that IF preindoeuropean scandinavians and avarage WHG were blueeyed, and
WHG in Yamna included this blue-eye'ism, then yamnas invasion wasn't only brown eyed, so,
the whole defence tactic builded upon very small blue eyed minority in Scandinavia who was
totaly dominated by brown eyed yamnas people and domination them later by this not only
small minority, but also recessive-gens local population, are at whole nonsensical, because
at least minimum 35% yamnas people had WHG, plus some (not so small) lighter admixture
from R1a-kind people, plus mythical nearly 100% blue-eyeed scandinavian locals, are giving
together the chance to existing this blue genes in the new mixing population. But I say this,
under the condition, if we will even agree about this IF. So, what the problem is?

 

[LeBrok]

Of course I have already known this kind of pictures, but that don't change the fact that unhealthy.



Well...no:

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/ocular-albinism

"Ocular albinism is characterized by severely impaired sharpness of vision (visual acuity) and problems with combining vision from both eyes to perceive depth (stereoscopic vision). Although the vision loss is permanent, it does not worsen over time. Other eye abnormalities associated with this condition include rapid, involuntary eye movements (nystagmus); eyes that do not look in the same direction (strabismus); and increased sensitivity to light (photophobia). Many affected individuals also have abnormalities involving the optic nerves, which carry visual information from the eye to the brain.

Unlike some other forms of albinism, ocular albinism does not significantly affect the color of the skin and hair. People with this condition may have a somewhat lighter complexion than other members of their family, but these differences are usually minor."

Yes, but only in this form of abinism. As I said I know black people with blue eyes, they are completely healthy and don't use glasses for their vision. Have blue eye Europeans form of albinism? Well, so we know that blue eyes can exist without effects of Ocular albinism.

No it's different, your friends have necessary whites ancestors, see this article:

http://www.livescience.com/9578-common-ancestor-blue-eyes.html

That nothing to do the ocular albinism of the little girl.

Possibly yes, I didn't research this enough to find their independent blue eye mutation. However, would you care explaining, how is it possible if this trait is, as you put it, extremely recessive.
Again my point was to show you possibility when you said this:

dark skin and blue eyes don't work together

do you remember?

I have never say the opposite, I have posted myself more or less the same article, for the consequence of this albinism of hair, we don't know well if that physically it's a problem of not...or if this have a consequence for their health.

By prevalence of blond hair in their population, we can assume, that there is no negative effect on health of population. Right?

See my example of the dark skin Inuit for to know that it's far more complicated than that...and again we talk about blue eyes, not hair or skin.

Post the example, I couldn't find it.

No, see the Inuit or Siberian examples, and apparently not every migration have the same impact, for Indo-Europeans invaders, lot of studies talk about at best a population substitution, at worst a genocide of the pre-europeans, naturally, they have a biggest numbers, their blond hairs/blue eyes (see the test of the Globular Culture I have posted) have survived better, not because of adaptation, but simply because of their bronze weapons...That a complete different situation than WHG dark skin/blue eyes.

I can't understand your explanation. The point is that their were not isolated, the way you described blond hair situation in Papua. Scandinavians are mixture of EEF, WHG, and ANE the 3 distinct ancestral populations. And yet the are the blondest on this planet with their recessive genes.

We can agree about that.

I'm sure we can find more agreements once you learn few more things about genetics and population genetics.

No that different Papua have been isolated,

Is it my imagination or you just contradicted yourself?

Europeans example differents, because apparently they have mixed multiples times (3 different ancestors, but now, maybe they seem close to each others...);

I'm not against your example, but there are lot of problem with this theory...the Inuits, Siberians etc...they live all in the colder climate than the Europeans; they still have dark skins

Yes they do, and so European hunter gatherers did. It is explained by diet. Inuits consume fresh animal liver, a storage of Vitamin D3, and other organs and lots of fish and meat rich in D3 too. They don't need to be very white to get their daily dose of Vitamin D through their skin. Ones Europeans turned farmers, and same with Koreans and Northern Japanese, they needed whiter skin, otherwise they were getting sick from D3 deficiency. It especially affects pregnant women and kids. Google D3 deficiency for more info.
Pay attantion that both Europeans and Northern Asian Farmers are the whitest of all. The hunter-gatherers are darker, but not by a lot.

There are still the Inuits problem, so no white skin seem more complicated too.

They are not really darker than some South Euroepans or Near Easterners, and they suntan a lot too by long polar days and snow effect.
This is Inuit who works in the office.

And this is Inuit who hunts all day:

 

[LeBrok]

The point is, that IF preindoeuropean scandinavians and avarage WHG were blueeyed, and
WHG in Yamna included this blue-eye'ism, then yamnas invasion wasn't only brown eyed, so,
the whole defence tactic builded upon very small blue eyed minority in Scandinavia who was
totaly dominated by brown eyed yamnas people and domination them later by this not only
small minority, but also recessive-gens local population, are at whole nonsensical, because
at least minimum 35% yamnas people had WHG, plus some (not so small) lighter admixture
from R1a-kind people, plus mythical nearly 100% blue-eyeed scandinavian locals, are giving
together the chance to existing this blue genes in the new mixing population. But I say this,
under the condition, if we will even agree about this IF. So, what the problem is?

This is precious. Didn't you forget how recessive blue eyes are? Conviviality forgotten, lol. According to you and Drax, as soon as you start mixing blue and brown eyes, brown is going to win and blue disappear. Especially after thousands of years of mixing, which happened since Scandinavian hunter gatherers times. Something must be wrong with your hypothesis, don't you think?
Yes, keep digging the whole.

 

[Rethel]

As I said I know black people with blue eyes, they are completely healthy and don't use glasses for their vision. Have blue eye Europeans form of albinism? Well, so we know that blue eyes can exist without effects of Ocular albinism.

So, he has blue-eyed white ancestry, and this recesive gen was always existing through several generations.
This is not anything unusual or this is nothing new information or mutation, and especially this is not the sign
of adaptation, not an example of natural selection, and for sure it is not an example how the small population
with blue eyes can dominate the brown eyed, much more numerious population. This is your next own goal.

And this is Inuit who hunts all day:

So you yourself showed us, that
you are talking about illusion

 

[Rethel]

According to you and Drax, as soon as you start mixing blue and brown eyes, brown is going to win and blue disappear.

We never claimed such a thing.
Especially I.

Especially after thousands of years of mixing,

You really love this spells... amazing...

Something must be wrong with your hypothesis, don't you think?

Yes, yes, there is really something very wrong with that hypothesis.
Probably the biggest problem is that, that she was create in your mind.

 

[LeBrok]

We never claimed such a thing.
Especially I.



You really love this spells... amazing...



Yes, yes, there is really something very wrong with that hypothesis.
Probably the biggest problem is that, that she was create in your mind.

I just had enough of your constant ridiculing everybody for everything and your disrespectful and impertinent attitude. If you want to be a member of Eupedia and discuss your ideas here you need to behave like in face to face discussion, civil and respectful.

 

[LeBrok]

Originally Posted by LeBrok
According to you and Drax, as soon as you start mixing blue and brown eyes, brown is going to win and blue disappear.

We never claimed such a thing.
Especially I

This is form your post:

It wouldn't be possible for survival and dominate some areas by
recessive genes if they wouldn't be in an isolate group of people.
This is sine qua non

And some more:

And how
it is possible, that in Scandinavia, recessive gen of
pale skin and tall height dominate the population,
but dominate gen on brown eyes does not? If the
locals were a minority - they had to be, because in
the other way, present day scandinavians would be
still small and dark, as it happend in Asia - how they
dominate whole population whith recessive blue gen,
if they couldn't dominate with two dominate-gens?

So, either you don't understand meaning of words and sentences in English, or you are a straight faced liar.

From Drax:

Rethel I'm 100% agree with you; there are something completly wrong with these analysis; we talk about a minority (WHG) with a huge recessive trait (blue eyes) and dark skin (?) mixed with two different larger populations with brown eyes, and everybody end with light eyes ?

 

[Rethel]

I just had enough of your constant ridiculing everybody for everything and your disrespectful and impertinent attitude. If you want to be a member of Eupedia and discuss your ideas here you need to behave like in face to face discussion, civil and respectful.

Don't be so pouter
I am only showing you, some conclusions, which you're doing yourself.
This is like whith this glass, which is in half filled...
Btw, smile is healthy

This is form your post:
And some more:
So, either you don't understand meaning of words and sentences in English, or you are a straight faced liar.
From Drax:

Le Brok, your last statement was:

According to you and Drax, as soon as you start mixing blue and brown eyes, brown is going to win and blue disappear.

It is not true, what you can see even in this fragments which you quoted.
There is explicite written, not only in context, that we are talking about
situation, when small recessive minority is mixing with larger group with
dominant allelas. So, I don't know who don't understand. I can, but you?

p.s. can you create this new combined thread?

 

[Rethel]

Le Brok, thank you very much for your punishment.
That only testifyed not so good about you.
You are very easy let go of nerves when something is not going by your way.

Do you know this latin sentece: nemo iudex in causa sua?
I don't think so, because in Free World latin culture is not liked very much...
So we can see this on your example...

Thank you for discussion with you.
I don't want talk with someone, who overworked his position in disscusion.

Create a new thead you couldn't, but kick me, you could.
Thank you very much.

 

[Alan]

They are not really darker than some South Euroepans or Near Easterners, and they suntan a lot too by long polar days and snow effect.
This is Inuit who works in the office.

And this is Inuit who hunts all day:

Look at this Taliban/Mujahideen from the early times.

He is Toshiro Tanaka, a Japanese Karate master who fought among the Afghans

The strong Sun of Afghanistan has tanned him almost to looking indistinguishable from a regulare Afghan (of Hazara descend).

Thats what I was saying in the past. The sun is very heavy and should be taken into consideration when making pigmentation comparison. But DNA rarely lies.

 

[Angela]

There's room for disagreement and debate on these matters, as, for example, about where certain alleles appeared, or on the relative roles of migration, and whose migration, versus selection depending on the place and time, but there shouldn't be room for ignorance. If people don't have some rudimentary familiarity with evolutionary theory and the place of natural selection within that, apparently never hear of even elementary Mendelian inheritance rules, don't know a Punnett Square from a checkers's board, and never read a research paper on human pigmentation, their contributions are of limited value, unfortunately, and I for one am not going to spend time engaging.

At the very least, they should take a look at Fire Haired's excellent compilation of pigmentation alleles. He has even helpfully bolded the derived alleles, and then run them all through Hirisplex. The predicted results for blue eyes, light skin, and hair color can be accessed by clicking on the appropriate icon.

 

[Rethel]

There's room for disagreement and debate on these matters, as, for example, about where certain alleles appeared, or on the relative roles of migration, and whose migration, versus selection depending on the place and time, but there shouldn't be room for ignorance. If people don't have some rudimentary familiarity with evolutionary theory and the place of natural selection within that, apparently never hear of even elementary Mendelian inheritance rules, don't know a Punnett Square from a checkers's board, and never read a research paper on human pigmentation, their contributions are of limited value, unfortunately, and I for one am not going to spend time engaging.

Seemingly Angela, you are right, but you overvalue scientists authority.

No one can proof that this what some studies and interpretations of this studies are saying is correct.
Especialy, when we have the case about very very obscure period of time without written records.
All what is saying, this is only proposals, theories, hypothesis, suppositions and so on.

Btw, in almost every subject and matter of reaseching, are existing a
couple theories and concepts which often are excluding each other.

We have this situation for example with protolanguages, datation of cultures, migrations,
etc., where almost every scientist has his own theory totally differet from anothers.

In genetic studies, which I observe almost from more than ten years, I saw so many
miracles or revolutions, (as for examples when whole genetic branches were replaced
or were changing their places and levels, when scientists were changing datations of
mutations through whole millenia, tens of thousands of years and even more, when
places of haplotypes origins were wandering from one side of the continent to another
outskirts) what substancially tells clearly, that they simply were guessing or were taking
their revelations from nothing.

So please don't use this inteligent card, because this is a little silly. I don't have the
obligation to take every word of some writer as a fact, because another researcher
can write somthing exactly different... and whose right should I claim to be right, if
there can be many different opinions? Who will be the jugde? You or maybe Lebrok?

Lebrok showed us that he didn't even knew what we (I and Drax) were talking about,
(not the first time btw) and because of that he throed a hissy fit, and punished me, so
what it is? Kindergarten? When something is going not by his way he became a policemen?

I accept the excavations, sciencetical reaserchers, even datation, but I will not taking
everything as a fact, especially, if this is not seem to be a logcal or is contradicting
with observable facts, in particular, when, it is showed by historical/present simples
as immpossible, in many cases. But if some one is so deeply blinded by his faith in
his favorite world explanation, that he cannot even see, that in the area of his own
rules in his worldview exists another possibility not impossible in his field, then I
really don't know how we can talk, especially, if someone is discussing whith his
own imagination about someone elses statements.

 

[Johannes]

Changed the map a bit. This is rather correct.

http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/iiesf9zatpd5.jpg

OK it still fits the Aryan homeland as Russian archealogists have discovered. Not much difference.

 

[Angela]

Seemingly Angela, you are right, but you overvalue scientists authority.

No one can proof that this what some studies and interpretations of this studies are saying is correct.
Especialy, when we have the case about very very obscure period of time without written records.
All what is saying, this is only proposals, theories, hypothesis, suppositions and so on.

Btw, in almost every subject and matter of reaseching, are existing a
couple theories and concepts which often are excluding each other.

We have this situation for example with protolanguages, datation of cultures, migrations,
etc., where almost every scientist has his own theory totally differet from anothers.

In genetic studies, which I observe almost from more than ten years, I saw so many
miracles or revolutions, (as for examples when whole genetic branches were replaced
or were changing their places and levels, when scientists were changing datations of
mutations through whole millenia, tens of thousands of years and even more, when
places of haplotypes origins were wandering from one side of the continent to another
outskirts) what substancially tells clearly, that they simply were guessing or were taking
their revelations from nothing.

So please don't use this inteligent card, because this is a little silly. I don't have the
obligation to take every word of some writer as a fact, because another researcher
can write somthing exactly different... and whose right should I claim to be right, if
there can be many different opinions? Who will be the jugde? You or maybe Lebrok?

Lebrok showed us that he didn't even knew what we (I and Drax) were talking about,
(not the first time btw) and because of that he throed a hissy fit, and punished me, so
what it is? Kindergarten? When something is going not by his way he became a policemen?

I accept the excavations, sciencetical reaserchers, even datation, but I will not taking
everything as a fact, especially, if this is not seem to be a logcal or is contradicting
with observable facts, in particular, when, it is showed by historical/present simples
as immpossible, in many cases. But if some one is so deeply blinded by his faith in
his favorite world explanation, that he cannot even see, that in the area of his own
rules in his worldview exists another possibility not impossible in his field, then I
really don't know how we can talk, especially, if someone is discussing whith his
own imagination about someone elses statements.

We shouldn't rely on scientific studies? We should rely on wild, baseless and uninformed speculations?

Of course there are differences and controversies and debates in science. That goes without saying, but each side presents evidence to support their ideas.

If you want to disagree with the viewpoint of a whole array of scientists, you first have to read the papers, then you have to present contrary evidence, either from other scientists' papers, or from mathematics, genetics, archaeology, something, other than I believe my ancestors were created by God or dropped from an alien spaceship tens of thousands of years ago looking exactly the way I do now.

I would also advise you that resisting moderation is also grounds for the granting of infractions. Keep your disagreements civil.

Anyone can, of course, post nonsense, like the fact that cows were brought to Europe by the Indo-Europeans, but don't expect it to go unchallenged, and if you don't at some point present valid scientific proof for the things you say most people will eventually just ignore the posts.

 

[Rethel]

We shouldn't rely on scientific studies? We should rely on wild, baseless and uninformed speculations?

Of course there are differences and controversies and debates in science. That goes without saying, but each side presents evidence to support their ideas.

So, everyone can speak a nonsense if has some evidences... yeah...

If you want to disagree with the viewpoint of a whole array of scientists, you first have to read the papers, then you have to present contrary evidence, either from other scientists' papers, or from mathematics, genetics, archaeology, something, other than I believe my ancestors were created by God or dropped from an alien spaceship tens of thousands of years ago looking exactly the way I do now.

I only dicagree whith argument, that there, where are not existing observable
evidences and examples, happend something, what in hundreds of examples
in observable simples and historical records didn't happend. Is this wrong?

Anyone can, of course, post nonsense, like the fact that cows were brought to Europe by the Indo-Europeans, but don't expect it to go unchallenged, and if you don't at some point present valid scientific proof for the things you say most people will eventually just ignore the posts.

And where I wrote this nonsens?
Where I was claiming, that Indoeuropeans were
the only ones who brought the cows into Europe?
And where are this arguments aginst this statement?

 

[Angela]

OK it still fits the Aryan homeland as Russian archealogists have discovered. Not much difference.

It is Alan's HYPOTHESIS for INDO-IRANIANS.

See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranians

I would also suggest reading Allentoft et al for the context.

Some of the recent modeling seems to suggest a combination of Sintashta, Georgians, and South Asians.

 

[Rethel]

Angela,
in short:
you demand from me, to proof, that something, what never happed in observable reality during dozens of centuries,
couldn't also happend in unobservable obscure times - aspecially, when mine interlocutor was over again prooving
against himself, and against the theory which he claimed to be correct. Can you explain me that nonsens?

In other words, you apriciate a scientist who having one swines tooth
(as a proof) are creating such a reality, with totaly new human spieces

And you want me, who is claiming that such a thing is impossible (to
create new spieces from one teeth plus female, camels, tools a.s.o.)
to proof that this is impossible, but your pupil has a proof - one teeth,
and it does not bother you, that it is a nonsensical theory. Amazing...

So I must belive for everything what you, Lebrok, or some scientist tells.

No way.

 

[Angela]

Angela,
in short:
you demand from me, to proof, that something, what never happed in observable reality during dozens of centuries,
couldn't also happend in unobservable obscure times - aspecially, when mine interlocutor was over again prooving
against himself, and against the theory which he claimed to be correct. Can you explain me that nonsens?

In other words, you apriciate a scientist who having one swines tooth
(as a proof) are creating such a reality, with totaly new human spieces

And you want me, who is claiming that such a thing is impossible (to
create new spieces from one teeth plus female, camels, tools a.s.o.)
to proof that this is impossible, but your pupil has a proof - one teeth,
and it does not bother you, that it is a nonsensical theory. Amazing...

So I must belive for everything what you, Lebrok, or some scientist tells.

No way.

We have ancient samples from thousands of years ago. They have been analyzed. The results are available in Fire-Haired's google sheets paper. Have you looked at it? There are lots of papers presenting lots of FACTS about how pigmentation snps affect pigmentation and how those frequencies vary by place and time. Have you read them? They may not be totally correct, they may be overturned in the future, but until you have read them you can't point out possible problems.

In both your prior posts you don't present a single verifiable fact which invalidates these things and so could be the basis for discussion. Until you have informed yourself, there is nothing to discuss.

All we have is science. When there is a dispute between scientists, eventually new facts will become available to prove who was correct. That's how it works.

 

[Drax]

Some doesn't really matter, Some also had as low as 30% And as said in the thread itself, the title was misleading. The average Yamna is 35% WHG.

Yes like I say between 1/3 and half, and apparently for Eurogenes it seem more around 40-45% in average, and like Rethel have said that don't change the main problem.

 

[Regio X]

They're still missing some facts, however. If I'm remembering correctly (and if I'm not please correct the record) there were a few stray de-pigmentation genes in some of the WHG, and the "light genes" were not uniform among hunter gatherers in the far north.

Good point. On light genes, the articles mentioned specifically Motala, and not all HG from north.

I coincidentally just saw this posted on anthrogenica by "Sein". It's really apropos, so I hope he doesn't mind my posting it here.

"According to Allencroft et al., the derived mutation at rs16891982 (SLC45A2) was found at only around 25% in the Bronze Age steppe (!), and the derived mutation at rs12913832 (OCA2-HERC2) was found at 0%. To put that in perspective, that means these people were darker than living Pakistanis, who have higher percentages of the derived mutation at rs16891982, and who do display the derived mutation at rs12913832 (but at very low levels for this mutation). Same with Yamnaya in Haak et al., these people were much darker than any living population in Europe, and approached lighter South Asian populations in terms of pigmentation genetics."

If that's correct, and all of the steppe people looked like this they certainly didn't bring pale pigmentation to Europe.

There is something going on other than migration of peoples carrying these traits. As others have been pointing out, these are indeed recessive traits. It has to be down to selection, and recent selection, and that's indeed what the researchers are saying. I don't see how it can be denied.

What about the SL24A5 taken by the farmers? Was it in the steppes?
Regarding to the Bronze Age steppe traits, I read an Abstract that states something different: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-009-0683-0 It's old, from 2009. Perhaps it's not in accordance with latest findings.
There are others, of course, that argue the opposite, like Razib K.: http://www.unz.com/gnxp/allowing-the-dead-to-speak/ (read from "Northern European archetypical physical characteristics are younger than the pyramids")

What we don't totally understand is the mechanism. It's a little clearer for lactase persistence, because we can see the benefit in terms of nutrition in regions of Europe where you can't grow things all year long. With skin color it also makes some sense in terms of adaptation to UV light, but why the sudden acceleration? Did blue eyes serve a function we don't yet understand? Or, perhaps, it was a chance mutation that persisted in isolated hunter gatherer bands, but was selected for later on?

If I were a researcher in this field I would look at the areas around the locations for these depigmentation snps. They're all close together. What other snps are near them? What function do they serve? What other purposes could the depigmentation snps serve? Are they tied into other mechanisms, and something in the changed environment affected these other mechanisms? I think that in addition to latitude a change in diet away from seafood and more heavily cereal based may be part of the answer and should certainly be investigated, but I also think it may have something to do with lactase and that the two are somehow connected.

There's still a lot of research to be done, but what I think can't be denied is that changes were happening in these two areas, and happening quickly, and furthermore that our views of the past were wrong on so many levels. Ancient dna surprises, and surprises, and surprises.

Your rhetorical questions also are mine. In fact, I'm just a neophyte interested in the subject, and I still have many, many more queries than answers.