View Full Version : Supposedly Euro pale skin genes, almost as popular in Mid east and North Africa

Fire Haired
29-08-13, 00:02
Europeans on top, western Mid easterns on bottom. Even though there is a obvious skin color and sometimes hair and eye color difference between Europeans and mid easterns. The genes that are suppose to be the source for European pale skin are just about as popular in western mid eastern people around Palestine and Iraq.http://m.ruvr.ru/204/544/1234/saam.jpghttp://static2.stuff.co.nz/1346411168/777/7591777.jpghttp://www.state.gov/cms_images/030408_happy.jpghttp://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01477/shoe_1477512c.jpgClick here (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710.long) It is a study that was trying to prove pale skin in Europeans and east Asians is unrelated and evolved seperatly which they did. When they tested native people from around the world. For the genes that are suppose to be very important for creating pale skin in Europeans. They found out those genes are almost as popular in Middle easterns and north Africans as Europeans which makes me think it does not effect skin color that much. I did not understand why Wikpedia and SNPedia kept stubbornly saying those genes are only European and are very young that they spread acroos Europe only 6,000-12,000ybp. But now Wikpedia has finally updated and says they are major in created pale skin in west Eurasia(meaning middle east and Europe) i dont think they included north Africa even though it is just as popular there.Here is a map Wikipedia has of SLC24A5 rs1426654 with alles A,A. All Humans have SLC4A5 rs1426654 but the major difference is if they have G,G, A,A, or A,G. The reason it is popular in North and south America is not because of Native Americans. They tested Puerto Ricans, African Americans, Hispanic Americans. U can see that the gene is kind of half half or 25% in Hispanic and Mexicans because they have pretty big amounts of Iberian blood and then also Native American it is hard to sy which they have more of i would guess native american. For African Americans it defintley has a presence it does not exactly tell how much British blood they have only that they have some. I really have no idea how to explain why the san in deep south Africa have about 25% when all types of DNA tests show they are about 100% the same thing with no European or other Caucasian blood. It is also in east Africans like Ethopians who do have alot of Caucasian blood from around Arabia. Then it pops up in west Africans and some east asians, and Oceania. I guess African Americans could have brought some from Africa. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Ala111Thr_allele_frequency_distribution0.png/550px-Ala111Thr_allele_frequency_distribution0.pngHere is a map of TYR A192C from the study i mentioned before which has also been associated with pale skin in Europeans. U can see it exists in almost only Caucasins it is about as popular in western mid easterns as it is in Europeans. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710/F3/graphic-5.medium.gifi think you guys can get what i am saying by now. The genes that have been belived to cause pale skin in Europeans is just about as popular in all Caucasins around the mid east and north africa and even non Caucasins in south India(Phenotype and globe13 aust dna shows they are close relatives to Caucasin family), some sub sharen Africans, and Oceania have these genes. This shows these supposbly white skinned genes dont always cause pale skin and they probably go pretty far back to the first humans. They obviously are pretty popular in Caucasians i am now skeptical if they really cause skin to be that pale. I bet they help at least a little bit. If they do help cause pale skin what it shows is that Pale skin in Europeans did not devlope in Europe. They already had the genes at almost the same rate they do today when their ancestors arrived in Europe. I guess it would take time for those genes to become completly dominte in EUropeans ancestors then they would have spread acroos Europe which probably was not habited or who ever lived there bloodline does not exist anymore. Pale skin did not just randomley spread acroos europe if u think about that it is a little crazy. How a entire contient could randomley go from being brown skin to white skinned 6,000-12,000ybp when it was already densly populated. There would be signs in genetics of a group of people spreading acroos europe and eventulley all the other bloodlines died off.There is no doubt that Europeans ancestors orignalley like 50,000-70,000ybp had the same skin color as other Caucasians in the mid east aand north Africa. The switch to completely pale skin could have happened before they migrated to Europe. Because ethnic groups around the Caucus like Geograins all kinds of DNA like aust dna have shown they have extremely little to no European blood less than Iranians or Indians but they literally are about as pale as Europeans. And it is not rare to for them to have light eyes or light hair. There is evidence that blue eys also orignated in the mid east not Europe. Since the percentages of the ancestral allele and the derived alle of blue eyes is diff in Europeans and mid easterns showing that mid easterns did not get their blue eye genes from European inter marriage. There is no doubt that the high amounts of light hair and eyes in Europeans happened when they were in Europe so i think they did have to adapt to Europe by becoming paler at least alittle bit. The age estimates for pale skin spreading to Europe as being 6,000-12,000ybp is way to recent. The best i have heard is 11,000-19,000ybp which makes some sense since there were tons of migrations out of southern Refuges in Europe at that time after the last ice age ended 19,000ybp. The prediction for blonde hair i heard was 11,00ybp that is still to recent in my opinon but kind of connects to when they think pale skin spread and the end of the last ice age. since the mid east has been on the news so much since like the 1990's. Now westerners can see what those people look like. I have always been surprised by how European they look when they have western cloths. Their leaders obviously try to be modern and wear all European stuff and honestly they look really white. I know that they are brown skinned but there is no doubt some do have pale skin like Europeans and it comes from the same source.Just look at some of these photos of Mid eastern people wearing totally western cloths.http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bMs2EoiYnmo/T9sREq00j0I/AAAAAAAAAAs/tHsMCWSYiss/s320/Syrian+government.jpghttp://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/maliki.jpghttp://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/bm~pix/ahmadi-14~s600x600.jpg

29-08-13, 00:12
Not only that but until recently, they barely existed in africa at all.


Of course these same genes do exist in others like the austronesians and andamese. So it doesn't take certified math genius to figure out this is where black africans came from and probably main area of human evolution that most people think is africa.

Of course it should be impossible for humans to have their most recent common ancestor be with chimps instead of upright walkers anyway, but you really don't expect to see anything remotely close to human in the areas humans originally evolved because there's overlap. Gorillas just can't compete with humans. There WERE gorillas in china, just like there were lions and megapredators in europe, but they are extinct now. There's a huge variety of primates in south and east asia but they have been dwindling fast.


So looks like the Dmanisi homo erectus is redated to be 300k years earlier than turkana boy.

Which at first supports my theory but I don't think a 600 ml brain size says much, I don't think it's even bigger than turkana boy necessarily.

So they might both be nothing but I think they are probably both human ancestors to at least some degree. The georgian one doesn't look more advanced but it is a lot earlier. I don't think we have any tools that are beyond what chimps can do until fairly recently like a million years.