PDA

View Full Version : Brown-skinned, blue-eyed, Y-haplogroup C-bearing European hunter-gatherer from Spain



Alan
29-01-14, 12:33
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Om6uNP8WqVI/UuW0UaLeKGI/AAAAAAAAJec/8mZ_0eqk9T0/s1600/1389897619717-rekonstruktion.jpg
There is nothing like a little ancient DNA weirdness to start off 2014, which promises to be as exciting as 2013 was.

The new study La Brana 1 identifies it as ancestral in the SLC24A5 (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/01/slc24a5-light-skin-pigmentation-allele.html) locus in which virtually all Europeans are derived. This comes in the heels of the Loschbour preprint (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12/europeans-neolithic-farmers-mesolithic.html) which identified that sample from Luxembourg as also being ancestral. Taken together, it's now clear that hunter-gatherers from Mesolithic Western Europe were brown.

Curiously, it now seems that both Europe and India were (in part) inhabited by brown people and became lighter by a process of admixture + selection. The process went "all the way" in Europe, but a cline of pigmentation was sustained in India.

The other finding (not mentioned in the abstract) is that La Brana 1 belonged to Y-haplogroup C6! This is a low-frequency European clade of haplogroup C. So now, we have evidence that haplogroup C is not eastern Eurasian (as the presence of its subclades in Australia, India, East Asia, and the Americas might suggest), but a pan-Eurasian entity. It remains to be seen whether this C-in-Europe can be pushed further back in time, but finding it in Mesolithic Iberia reduces the chance that it's some random eastern Eurasian who made it to the outskirts of Europe recently.

Finally, La Brana 1 has derived alleles at loci associated with pathogen resistance. This might be important, because a common hypothesis is that Europeans developed this type of resistance during the Neolithic as they started interacting with the pathogens of domesticated species and started living in less-hygienic higher-density settlements.


Nature (2014) doi:10.1038/nature12960

Derived immune and ancestral pigmentation alleles in a 7,000-year-old Mesolithic European

Iñigo Olalde et al.

Ancient genomic sequences have started to reveal the origin and the demographic impact of farmers from the Neolithic period spreading into Europe1, 2, 3. The adoption of farming, stock breeding and sedentary societies during the Neolithic may have resulted in adaptive changes in genes associated with immunity and diet4. However, the limited data available from earlier hunter-gatherers preclude an understanding of the selective processes associated with this crucial transition to agriculture in recent human evolution. Here we sequence an approximately 7,000-year-old Mesolithic skeleton discovered at the La Braña-Arintero site in León, Spain, to retrieve a complete pre-agricultural European human genome. Analysis of this genome in the context of other ancient samples suggests the existence of a common ancient genomic signature across western and central Eurasia from the Upper Paleolithic to the Mesolithic. The La Braña individual carries ancestral alleles in several skin pigmentation genes, suggesting that the light skin of modern Europeans was not yet ubiquitous in Mesolithic times. Moreover, we provide evidence that a significant number of derived, putatively adaptive variants associated with pathogen resistance in modern Europeans were already present in this hunter-gatherer.
http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2014/01/brown-skinned-blue-eyed-y-haplogroup-c.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12960.html

If a Y-Haplogroup which is today most common in Asia/East Asia and which was generally associated with East Asian like physical features, shows up in an ancient European H&G, what does this say about the look of the original y haplogroup C carriers. Most scientists place the origin of C in the Middle East, to be more specific in Southeast Iran. Isn't this another indication for a "Gedrosia" origin of Hunters and Gatherers?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/C%3DM130-Migration.jpg
Considering the Caucasian facial features of this mesolithic H&G it makes more sense now.

Also what does this say about Scythian samples from Central Asia which showed some individual cases of C and was associated with East Asian admixture? What if the Scythian brought this Haplogroup to East Asia?

ElHorsto
29-01-14, 14:15
Isn't this another indication for a "Gedrosia" origin of Hunters and Gatherers?


But there was no elevated "Gedrosia" detected in any mesolithic and neolithic samples (Pitted Ware Sweden, Ötzi, Motala, Loschbourg,...) so far in contrast to contemporary West Europe. I think "Gedrosia" applies only to paleolithic central or west asian hunter-gatherers whose descendant came later to europe.

Alan
29-01-14, 16:40
But there was no elevated "Gedrosia" detected in any mesolithic and neolithic samples (Pitted Ware Sweden, Ötzi, Motala, Loschbourg,...) so far in contrast to contemporary West Europe. I think "Gedrosia" applies only to paleolithic central or west asian hunter-gatherers whose descendant came later to europe.

THis is because "Gedrosia" or North European doesn't exist as ancient component but are part of a much older component known as ANE and WHG. And Gedrosia, like North European originated from this populations. I think Gedrosia (Balochistan) and Kalash is where this component ultimately started and expanded to the rest of the world.

ElHorsto
29-01-14, 16:50
THis is because "Gedrosia" or North European doesn't exist as ancient component but are part of a much older component known as ANE and WHG. And Gedrosia, like North European originated from this populations. I think Gedrosia (Balochistan) and Kalash is where this component ultimately started and expanded to the rest of the world.

I agree, just wanted to prevent confusion with the exceeding "Gedrosia" admixture in the post-neolithic population of europe, which must have come later in addition.

Alan
29-01-14, 17:20
Nordicpourer which thread would that be? I couldn't find any. Could you please provide a link to this thread.

sparkey
29-01-14, 18:18
Nordicpourer which thread would that be? I couldn't find any. Could you please provide a link to this thread.

Guess the Y-haplogroup(s) of Mesolithic Iberians (Braña 1 & 2) (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29344-Guess-the-Y-haplogroup%28s%29-of-Mesolithic-Iberians-%28Bra%C3%B1a-1-amp-2%29). We actually had one of the researchers leak Braña 1's C-V20 haplogroup on that thread about a week before it was officially released.

That said, C is such an old haplogroup, that it's not very useful to just talk of it as "C." It's better to talk about "C-V20" which probably branched from its most recent C relative, Japanese C-M8, over 40k years ago (going by Zhong 2010's divergence estimate of C-M8). And so far, C-V20 is exclusively European, so it's hard to say much about how it got into Europe. But even on that topic, bicicleur started another thread here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29478-How-and-when-did-C-V20-enter-Europe).

Aberdeen
29-01-14, 22:43
.............
Isn't this another indication for a "Gedrosia" origin of Hunters and Gatherers?
...........



When you say "Hunters and Gatherers", I assume you're thinking of folks like the Dene of northern Canada? Because Mesolithic La Brana Man was related to Paleolithic Mal'ta Boy.

Greying Wanderer
29-01-14, 23:06
There's an existing thread on Eupedia that covers most of this material already, it may be worth checking through that one.

As I mentioned on it, we now know of at least seven alleles that contribute to less pigmented skin color. La Brana had three of the seven, and two of these alleles were copied on both sides (from each parent). For a modern reference point, I would place his tone somewhere in the Native American range.

The problem with that argument is SLC24A5 is almost fixed in Europeans so to know what a gene combination of ASIP/TYRP1/IRF4 looked like on their own you'd need someone who had that combination. There would have been a lot of people like that in Britain or Ireland once and if they were brown with blue eyes i think someone would have mentioned it. I think the La Brana combination creates pale skin with a lot of freckles something like this.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/57/b2/70/57b2708d0d40295de096599768578969.jpg

LeBrok
29-01-14, 23:25
The problem with that argument is SLC24A5 is almost fixed in Europeans so to know what a gene combination of ASIP/TYRP1/IRF4 looked like on their own you'd need someone who had that combination. There would have been a lot of people like that in Britain or Ireland once and if they were brown with blue eyes i think someone would have mentioned it. I think the La Brana combination creates pale skin with a lot of freckles something like this.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/57/b2/70/57b2708d0d40295de096599768578969.jpg
Very scary guy, lol. I wonder what sexual selection was doing at that time?

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/57/b2/70/57b2708d0d40295de096599768578969.jpg

Alan
30-01-14, 01:33
Very scary guy, lol. I wonder what sexual selection was doing at that time?

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/57/b2/70/57b2708d0d40295de096599768578969.jpg

Should I be honest. Le Brock I never was a huge fan of that "sexual selection" argument. When I look at poorer countries and people, I never see a sexual selection for certain traits but money and wealth in general.

Greying Wanderer
30-01-14, 04:50
Very scary guy, lol. I wonder what sexual selection was doing at that time?

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/57/b2/70/57b2708d0d40295de096599768578969.jpg

I don't know about sexual selection but if you had brown-skinned people coming out of the sub-tropics into higher latitudes and needed a quick way to get more UV (but not too much) then something like this, literally half-white and half-brown, would do the trick - and IRF4 (which La Brana has) is associated with dark hair, light eyes and freckles.

And that dark hair, light eyes, pale skin with freckles look (like the red haired version) is most prevalent in the places that got SLC24A5 last.

LeBrok
30-01-14, 07:28
I don't know about sexual selection but if you had brown-skinned people coming out of the sub-tropics into higher latitudes and needed a quick way to get more UV (but not too much) then something like this, literally half-white and half-brown, would do the trick - and IRF4 (which La Brana has) is associated with dark hair, light eyes and freckles.

And that dark hair, light eyes, pale skin with freckles look (like the red haired version) is most prevalent in the places that got SLC24A5 last.
Well, there is a logic in this, we'll see with more research.

kamani
30-01-14, 09:59
Now that we know that Europeans were brown at 5000 BC, it becomes more and more likely that white skin spread in Western Europe from the Balkans with the parent clade R1b-L23 and farming technology, sometime after 4000 BC. Once the farmers hit the lowlands of Western Europe, there was a population boom (all the R1b subclades of L23 were born between 4000 BC and 1000 BC) and the mutation spread. Evolution based on weather and sunlight did the rest to create all the skin shades in Europe.

Greying Wanderer
30-01-14, 10:17
Now that we know that Europeans were brown at 5000 BC, it becomes more and more likely that white skin spread in Western Europe from the Balkans with the parent clade R1b-L23 and farming technology, sometime after 4000 BC. Once the farmers hit the lowlands of Western Europe, there was a population boom (all the R1b subclades of L23 were born between 4000 BC and 1000 BC) and the mutation spread. Evolution based on weather and sunlight did the rest to create all the skin shades in Europe.

IRF4

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Researchers_identify_genomic_variant_associated_wi th_sun_sensitivity_freckles_999.html

LeBrok
30-01-14, 17:41
IRF4

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Researchers_identify_genomic_variant_associated_wi th_sun_sensitivity_freckles_999.html

The finding places IRF4 among more than 30 genes now associated with pigmentation, Wow, quite a few I might say.

kamani
30-01-14, 18:00
IRF4

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Researchers_identify_genomic_variant_associated_wi th_sun_sensitivity_freckles_999.html

That's fine. This explains that people with pale skin have freckles so that they can have Melanin pigment to protect from UV radiation in sunlight. But it does not explain how they got the pale skin in the first place (which is my explanation on previous post).

LeBrok
30-01-14, 18:25
**EDIT**
A more likely scenerio on both SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 is that initially these mutations would have brought numerous health complications to carriers. The colder climate allowed for them to survive, but if we look at current individuals that exhibit full albanism they have difficulties throughout life.
...
That's because you see only a problem and not full statistical reality. If we only have find handful individuals with these mutations, like hg C6 today, you could say they are surviving. When we have few millions of these individuals with skin mutation, then it looks more like a beneficial trait, and not a genetic surviving mistake.

LeBrok
30-01-14, 18:52
Oh I think it was amazingly beneficial. It was useful for sexual selective purposes, not surviving in the wild.

**EDIT**
Let's go back in time.

This might make more sense if we look at from the ancients point of view. You are a member of a SLC positive clan... you've been ousted from your homeland because your tribe simply looks "different". Forced to head westward, you bring your cultural mores and technology (and maybe most importantly trinkets).

You encounter new populations that view your tribe's skin color in a new light (probably because of the advanced technologies and trinkets that you had in tow).

Is any of this sounding familiar? Like Cortez in South America familiar?
Yes, it explains how one individual survived and had a chance to make kids.
But how does this explain the success of this trait 100 generations later?

LeBrok
30-01-14, 21:04
The answer may be staring you in the face... take a spare fifteen minutes and read through a few of the Iberian vs. Italian skin color debates. Or the Gheg debates that take place a few degrees of longitude over. Sexual selection with regards to pigmental phenotype is real, whether entrenched on the male side or generated from the female side. Is it foolish? Maybe, probably, but it is there.
Should I remind you that your original comment started with this picture.
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/57/b2/70/57b2708d0d40295de096599768578969.jpg
Find us women who are attracted to this look and I can agree that sexual selection was in place here.

Greying Wanderer
30-01-14, 21:37
That's fine. This explains that people with pale skin have freckles so that they can have Melanin pigment to protect from UV radiation in sunlight. But it does not explain how they got the pale skin in the first place (which is my explanation on previous post).

It doesn't? Has anyone checked or is it an assumption? I think there will be people alive in the north/northwest of Europe who have MC1R or IRF4 **without** the SLC genes and I bet they're half white and half brown, i.e. freckled.

Angela
30-01-14, 21:50
I didn't want to say anything, for fear of offending some reader who is similarly afflicted, but I have to say that I think the unfortunate young man would be chosen last. :petrified:

Even if someone were partial to freckles, I think this might be too much...

MOESAN
01-02-14, 00:53
There's an existing thread on Eupedia that covers most of this material already, it may be worth checking through that one.

As I mentioned on it, we now know of at least seven alleles that contribute to less pigmented skin color. La Brana had three of the seven, and two of these alleles were copied on both sides (from each parent). For a modern reference point, I would place his tone somewhere in the Native American range.

Have you some references for this affirmation (less pigmented skin genes several mutations)? Because it confirms some intuition of mine
thanks

MOESAN
01-02-14, 00:58
There's an existing thread on Eupedia that covers most of this material already, it may be worth checking through that one.

As I mentioned on it, we now know of at least seven alleles that contribute to less pigmented skin color. La Brana had three of the seven, and two of these alleles were copied on both sides (from each parent). For a modern reference point, I would place his tone somewhere in the Native American range.

have you some references about these 7 mutations? because it confirms some bets of mine - thanks for giving the link -

Greying Wanderer
01-02-14, 11:05
I'm confused. My initial comment on this thread addressed the fact that it was basically a duplicate topic.

Nevertheless, here's a few additional quips....

1. I've never seen an actual person look like this poor fellow (other than this photo). Strangely enough, the individual with the heaviest amount of freckling I've ever encountered in real life (and he had but a small fraction of freckles compared to our afflicated subject) was 100% Irish. Go figure.

2. We may not be defining sexual selection in the same way... let's use a hypothetical case. It's 1,100 years ago and we're sitting on the banks of the Volga. A Swedish Viking party drifts by and we watch as they are busy dividing their recently captured female slaves from a raiding party into "keepers" (ie. breeding partners) and ones that will be taken to market in Constantinople. We notice an obvious trend in their decision making...

What if these Vikings keep all the blonde haired, blue-eyed buxom women for themselves and trade the darker, brunette females for silver... is this sexual selection? I would think so. Before you dismiss this scenerio as farcical... please review the Norse tales of Rig.

Of course this Viking raiding party would have taken place a few thousand years AFTER my proposed SLC positive group first arrived in what we now call Europe. The selective actions of this hypothetical Viking construct would only further accent the pigmentation differences we see in Northern climes (or rather lack of pigmentation we see in the North).

"I've never seen an actual person look like this poor fellow (other than this photo)."

I have - a dozen or so over the years, all in remote parts of Britain and Ireland.

"Strangely enough, the individual with the heaviest amount of freckling I've ever encountered in real life (and he had but a small fraction of freckles compared to our afflicated subject) was 100% Irish. Go figure."

Not strange at all. Northwest Europe: Ireland, Scotland, Norway - furthest away from the farmers and SLC24A5. Exactly where you'd expect to see the last survivors of the original Euro phenotype.

ElHorsto
01-02-14, 17:22
Not strange at all. Northwest Europe: Ireland, Scotland, Norway - furthest away from the farmers and SLC24A5. Exactly where you'd expect to see the last survivors of the original Euro phenotype.

Unlikely, because genetic evidence tells us otherwise. Northwest Europe was too poor for both hunter-gatherers and farmers. Only bronze-age metal workers knew what to do there. The last paleolithic survivors dwelled in the northern forests and most of them speak finno-ugric today.

Greying Wanderer
01-02-14, 22:44
Unlikely, because genetic evidence tells us otherwise. Northwest Europe was too poor for both hunter-gatherers and farmers. Only bronze-age metal workers knew what to do there. The last paleolithic survivors dwelled in the northern forests and most of them speak finno-ugric today.

So no farmers in the Isles to bring SLC24A5 until much later then. And the northwest corner having the most surviving red hair. And all the ancient writers mentioning red hair from Libya to the border with China. Sounds to me like the red haired, pale skinned euro phenotype was different to the current euro phenotype and has been retreating to the northwest for a long time in sequence with the increase in frequency of an improved de-pigmenting allele from the southeast.

If people look they're going to find the red hair phenotype is a kind of partial form of albinism with fewer side-effects: red hair, light eyes, pale skin, brown freckles.

.

Separately

"The last paleolithic survivors dwelled in the northern forests"

I1 bottleneck i.e. dramatic population increase, matches Funnelbeaker.

Beavrrit
04-02-14, 21:59
I have seen people like that extremely freckled fellow, and of all the odd places , in Afghanistan and Korea. Dark skinned with very pale blue eyes, not far, in India.

JS Bach
05-02-14, 06:06
According to Encyclopedia Britannia where it talks about the inhabitants of the Canary Islands off the coast of Morocco, it says: “... Both aboriginal groups had brown complexion, blue or gray eyes, and blondish hair, and these characteristics still persist in a large number of present inhabitants of the islands, but otherwise they are scarcely distinguishable in appearance or culture from the people of Spain.”: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...he-and-Canario (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/247762/Guanche-and-Canario) Wonder if it’s our La Brana guys, or a related people.

In this table: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQ FjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plosgenetics.org%2Fartic le%2FfetchSingleRepresentation.action%3Furi%3Dinfo %3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003296.s004&ei=q1 zwUruIKKiIyAHlwIGgBA&usg=AFQjCNH4DOx_NCUiWp0LFrX2i cc8eToTYg&bvm=bv.60444564,d.aWc (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plosgenetics.org%2Farticle%2F fetchSingleRepresentation.action%3Furi%3Dinfo%3Ado i%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003296.s004&ei=q1zwUruIKKiIyAHlwIGgBA&usg=AFQjCNH4DOx_NCUiWp0LFrX2icc8eToTYg&bvm=bv.60444564,d.aWc) they have a listing of samples displaying HVR-I sequences possibly belonging to mtdna C1. There's one possible C1 there listed as being from the Canary Islands that has no exact matches on the list. There are some Mesolithic C1’s dated to 7,500 ybp found in northwest Russia listed here: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/mesolithicdna.shtml (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/mesolithicdna.shtml) They have some of the same mutations, but seem to have a mutation that the Canary Islander doesn’t have. The Canary Islander doesn’t seem to have all the mutations that the Icelandic C1e’s in the table have either. (Although one “German” sample in the table does match those “Icelander” samples)

Edit: These samples in the second link I provided just display the HVR-I sequences, so are not full displays of the haplogroup membership criteria. And it is possible that the Canary Islander and the German sample don't meet the full criteria for belonging to mtdna haplogroup C1.
I also don’t mean to confuse mtdna C with ydna C here -- just looking for patterns in the available data.

Beavrrit
05-02-14, 22:46
If one has been to the Canary islands, one would see many modern Germans or British living there with what could be called that Britannica "brown complexion" or perhaps darker than what this may meant. And I think their blonde or light eyes found among Gwanchies, can be found among Moroccans of today and before, and these could have come from the Mtdna haplogroups still present in there (or/and from their "mate Y-haplogroups") carried by the original Paleolithic Maurusians that moved to North Africa from Iberia earlier, or those that came from the East of Egypt along the Mediterranean coastline. Ancient Libyans as Phoenicians were known to be light-eyed, however understood today as just swarthy Mediterraneans

Chad Rohlfsen
06-02-14, 04:29
Sorry, but you're all confused here. La Brana had the ancestral allele on SLC24A5, not the derived one that is in almost 100% of Europeans. The derived one causes the lightening of skin by 25-40%, not the one that La Brana had. La Brana had the allele that is in 93-100% of Sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians and Native Americans. In fact, he apparently has the same ones we find in current Sri Lankans, Papuans and Aborigines. The freckle alleles can appear in all races, they don't show on darker people of course. Skin color is not important for the freckle allele. La Brana was quite dark skinned.

Angela
06-02-14, 22:01
I found a study in my saved files that looked at the global distribution of commonly tested snps for skin de-pigmentation.

The full Norton et al paper can be found here: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710.full

This handy table lists the snps, the gene in which they appear, and the global distribution. The MATP gene is the one in which SLC42A5 can be found. SLC24A5, SLC42A5, and TYR together account for the vast majority of the variation between SSAs and Eruopeans.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710/T1.expansion.html

This table provides the exact percentages in list form for five snps by Hap Map population.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/suppl/2006/12/21/msl203.DC1/mbe-06-0529-File010_msl203.

I checked for all of them in the supplement of the Olade paper, and other than ASIP rs6058017, which I couldnt find, the others were tested, and La Brana was ancestral for all of them.

I also found it helpful to read the following forensics paper, where they make it clear that in order for the probabilities to be reliable for lighter skin pigmentation, the sample must be homozygous for three certain high value snps. Even for medium skin, the sample must be homozygous for at least two of a set of snps. When all criteria are met, the false prediction rate is 1%. The forensics test uses some of the snps used by Norton et al, namely SLC45A2 and 24A5, but not all of them, and includes other snps associated with pigmentation.
https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/242774.pdf

From the forensics paper... Non-dark skin color (i.e. light or medium) is predicted by any two of the following
alleles, GG at rs12913832'Herc2, GG at rs16891982'SLC45A2, AA at rs1426654'SLC24A5, TT at rs1545397'OCA2, or AA at MCIR rs885479.


Light skin color is predicted by more stringent conditions, GG at rs1291382, which is the Herc2 gene, plus GG at rs16891982 which is SLC45A2, and AA at rs1426654, which is SLC24A5. All three must be present and homozygous.

Non light skin color, i.e. medium or dark is predicted by GG at rs6119471 on the ASIP gene.

As for La Brana, he is derived homozygous C on rs6119471 on the ASIP gene, which is considered a weak effect gene. He is also homozygous for the derived GG on the Herc2 rs12913832 snp, and heterozygous T on IRF4, rs2203592, which is considered a medium effect gene. So, he has a total of 5 out of 14 possible snps on the test, although as used, there is a qualitative criteria instead of a merely additive one.

As the authors mentioned in the text of the paper itself, La Brana is also heterozygous derived C for TYRP1, rs1408799, which is also implicated in relation to eye color.

Applying the standard forensics criteria, he would be predicted as having dark skin.

LeBrok
07-02-14, 02:06
I found a study in my saved files that looked at the global distribution of commonly tested snps for skin de-pigmentation.

The full Norton et al paper can be found here: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710.full

This handy table lists the snps, the gene in which they appear, and the global distribution. The MATP gene is the one in which SLC42A5 can be found. SLC24A5, SLC42A5, and TYR together account for the vast majority of the variation between SSAs and Eruopeans.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710/T1.expansion.html

This table provides the exact percentages in list form for five snps by Hap Map population.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/suppl/2006/12/21/msl203.DC1/mbe-06-0529-File010_msl203.

I checked for all of them in the supplement of the Olade paper, and other than ASIP rs6058017, which I couldnt find, the others were tested, and La Brana was ancestral for all of them.

I also found it helpful to read the following forensics paper, where they make it clear that in order for the probabilities to be reliable for lighter skin pigmentation, the sample must be homozygous for three certain high value snps. Even for medium skin, the sample must be homozygous for at least two of a set of snps. When all criteria are met, the false prediction rate is 1%. The forensics test uses some of the snps used by Norton et al, namely SLC45A2 and 24A5, but not all of them, and includes other snps associated with pigmentation.
https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/242774.pdf

From the forensics paper... Non-dark skin color (i.e. light or medium) is predicted by any two of the following
alleles, GG at rs12913832'Herc2, GG at rs16891982'SLC45A2, AA at rs1426654'SLC24A5, TT at rs1545397'OCA2, or AA at MCIR rs885479.


Light skin color is predicted by more stringent conditions, GG at rs1291382, which is the Herc2 gene, plus GG at rs16891982 which is SLC45A2, and AA at rs1426654, which is SLC24A5. All three must be present and homozygous.

Non light skin color, i.e. medium or dark is predicted by GG at rs6119471 on the ASIP gene.

As for La Brana, he is derived homozygous C on rs6119471 on the ASIP gene, which is considered a weak effect gene. He is also homozygous for the derived GG on the Herc2 rs12913832 snp, and heterozygous T on IRF4, rs2203592, which is considered a medium effect gene. So, he has a total of 5 out of 14 possible snps on the test, although as used, there is a qualitative criteria instead of a merely additive one.

As the authors mentioned in the text of the paper itself, La Brana is also heterozygous derived C for TYRP1, rs1408799, which is also implicated in relation to eye color.

Applying the standard forensics criteria, he would be predicted as having dark skin.
Great info Angela. Would you mind picking a picture and posting it at this thread, the way you think La Brana looked?
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29511-How-dark-the-Neolithic-Europeans-were?p=425880

MOESAN
07-02-14, 17:10
Moesan:

Recent paper on C6 La Brana is source.

Here on Eupedia check out thread titled "What Y-DNA haplogroup(s) will be found in the Mesolithic Iberian samples?" Specifically see post #111 offered by Aberdeen (Sile linked the entire paper)-- start where light and dark skin alleles are addressed.

Cannot copy and paste for some reason.

Also anyone else notice it's getting tougher to research thread topics on Eupedia?


thanks Nordicpourer
in the meanwhile I had found some stuff - but I'll go to others if I can - all the way it confirms the complex skin colour control in human beings -
some of the mutations concern a strong eye-hair imput associated to a weak skin imput when others seemignly concerning only skin, have a far stronger imput...
all the way the SLC24A5 seems the more level among "white people" but I'm not sure it is linked only to supposed I-Ean Y-R1b and Y-R1a people even if the thought is tempting - the problem is the mutation date of apparition opposed to the mutation date of overwhelming gain in %s...
concerning La Brana 1 I red some funny posts in other blogs where it was spoken of 'african traits' and 'black skin'... the sense of proportion, always!

MOESAN
07-02-14, 18:44
It doesn't? Has anyone checked or is it an assumption? I think there will be people alive in the north/northwest of Europe who have MC1R or IRF4 **without** the SLC genes and I bet they're half white and half brown, i.e. freckled.

I bet they're half white and half brown, i.e. freckled.[/QUOTE]

??? ??? amazing affirmation:
I noticed that very often, pale skinned freckled people of Birttany had roughly no big differences in freckles frequency however they were dark, middle or light haired, but very often the lighter haired had lighter freckles and darker haired darker freckles -
Since long ago I think the freckles system is less a deficit in pigment (even if this deficit exists in some way) than a defect in distribution of this pigment, when people are supposed to tan under sun action - all the way, I saw a lot of red haired and others pale skinned Bretons and Britain people or Commonwealth people who were covered by a dense net of freckles during Summer with a reddish hue of the non freckled skin zones (brick colour) but the majority of these freckles disappeared during winter -
so I consider a freckles all covered man during summer NOT AS A HALF BROWN HALF WHITE MAN, but as a TANNED WHITE MAN: who would tell a tanned blond boer of South-Africa or Swede or even Italian is an hereditary brown skinned man???

Nanda gikendaan
07-02-14, 23:09
Since long ago I think the freckles system is less a deficit in pigment (even if this deficit exists in some way) than a defect in distribution of this pigment, when people are supposed to tan under sun action

Freckles are likely to be a protective response of skin to the sun’s harmful rays.



In fact, tanning may be the same response, since it has been shown that repeated/excessive tanning results in skin damage. Skin damage caused by excessive tanning likely is the result of exceeding the skins ability to provide protection.

Greying Wanderer
08-02-14, 00:47
"I bet they're half white and half brown, i.e. freckled."
??? ??? amazing affirmation:
I noticed that very often, pale skinned freckled people of Birttany had roughly no big differences in freckles frequency however they were dark, middle or light haired, but very often the lighter haired had lighter freckles and darker haired darker freckles -
Since long ago I think the freckles system is less a deficit in pigment (even if this deficit exists in some way) than a defect in distribution of this pigment, when people are supposed to tan under sun action - all the way, I saw a lot of red haired and others pale skinned Bretons and Britain people or Commonwealth people who were covered by a dense net of freckles during Summer with a reddish hue of the non freckled skin zones (brick colour) but the majority of these freckles disappeared during winter -
so I consider a freckles all covered man during summer NOT AS A HALF BROWN HALF WHITE MAN, but as a TANNED WHITE MAN: who would tell a tanned blond boer of South-Africa or Swede or even Italian is an hereditary brown skinned man???

Yes that's my view, freckles over light skin was the early version of protection from the sun after an early depigmentation similar to the way Neanderthals were partially depigmented (and possibly related to Neanderthal admixture in some way) which was then gradually replaced by the full tanning version provided by the SLC genes that came with the farmers later - and Brittany, like Scotland / Ireland / Norway is the sort of place to see it.

Angela
08-02-14, 01:51
Yes that's my view, freckles over light skin was the early version of protection from the sun after an early depigmentation similar to the way Neanderthals were partially depigmented (and possibly related to Neanderthal admixture in some way) which was then gradually replaced by the full tanning version provided by the SLC genes that came with the farmers later - and Brittany, like Scotland / Ireland / Norway is the sort of place to see it.

Northwest Europeans have been tested in many pigmentation studies, and they are 100% SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. In fact, virtually all Europeans are SLC24A5, and about 97% are SLC42A5. The Europeans who are negative for SLC42A5 are in far southern Europe. In fact, a lot of them are in Sardinia, and I don't think you're going to find that the ones without that snp but with MCIR are pale skinned and freckled.

If somebody in Northwest Europe with pale skin turns up who doesn't have those snps, and only has the minor MCIR one, the drink is on me. :smile:

Greying Wanderer
08-02-14, 02:08
Northwest Europeans have been tested in many pigmentation studies, and they are 100% SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. In fact, virtually all Europeans are SLC24A5, and about 97% are SLC42A5. The Europeans who are negative for SLC42A5 are in far southern Europe. In fact, a lot of them are in Sardinia, and I don't think you're going to find that the ones without that snp but with MCIR are pale skinned and freckled.

If somebody in Northwest Europe with pale skin turns up who doesn't have those snps, and only has the minor MCIR one, the drink is on me. :smile:

Well I think we will one way or another. Assuming the data isn't already available sitting in a medical study somewhere. a study into rare skin problems among Irish descent people in Australia for example, then via the Neanderthal introgression. For example, if they were dark-skinned why select for Neanderthal freckling genes? But yes, there's no point going round in circles over it.

Fire Haired14
20-04-14, 04:30
La Brana-1 has a rare subclade of Y DNA C(C1a2-V20) which has only been found in Europe and has been hypothesized to be very descended of pre farming people of Europe. It is not known what skin color he had. He is missing mutations that are supposed to cause light skin in Europe, but are widespread and popular outside of Europe in west asia, north africa, and south asia. Determining hair and eye color is much more accurate, and he probably had dark hair and light eyes, like two other Mesolithic Europeans tested for many of the same pigmentation associated SNPs. It's a good guess that Mesolithic Europeans had dark skin.

Greying Wanderer
10-05-14, 22:51
Northwest Europeans have been tested in many pigmentation studies, and they are 100% SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. In fact, virtually all Europeans are SLC24A5, and about 97% are SLC42A5. The Europeans who are negative for SLC42A5 are in far southern Europe. In fact, a lot of them are in Sardinia, and I don't think you're going to find that the ones without that snp but with MCIR are pale skinned and freckled.

If somebody in Northwest Europe with pale skin turns up who doesn't have those snps, and only has the minor MCIR one, the drink is on me. :smile:

Another tack on the same MC1R question which is possibly easier to prove (if the idea is correct), mixed race couples

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1103391/Mixed-race-couple-birth-black-white-twins--second-time.html

Red-haired female implying 2 x MC1R, with a non-white father and twins, including light-skinned and red-haired implying the father also carries recessive MC1R also.

edit: Also, if it is shown that MC1R does depigment the skin also then IRF4 may follow the same pattern.

Power77
12-05-14, 05:47
Damm, it seems Mesolithic Europe was filled with exotic haplogroups. I hope they'lle release more information about Ancient DNA in the future. I've red somewhere that Swedish Mesolithic hunter-gatherers not only had the alleles for light skin and light eyes like this La Brana guy they had quite a lot of Sub-Saharan admixture(around 20% if I recall right). Wonder what these folks' Y-chromosome or mtDNA haplogroups might be. Perhaps this could explain all the mtDNA L lineages found in Europe( from Spain to Finland) as well as the SSA-like Y-DNA(A3b2,A1a*,E1a1,E1b1a*) popping up in places such as eastern England,Cantabria and Scotland. Ironically, thes could predate the more stereotypical European markers by millenia. If so, gotta love how Stormfront members will react!

bicicleur
12-05-14, 06:58
La Brana-1 has a rare subclade of Y DNA C(C1a2-V20) which has only been found in Europe and has been hypothesized to be very descended of pre farming people of Europe. It is not known what skin color he had. He is missing mutations that are supposed to cause light skin in Europe, but are widespread and popular outside of Europe in west asia, north africa, and south asia. Determining hair and eye color is much more accurate, and he probably had dark hair and light eyes, like two other Mesolithic Europeans tested for many of the same pigmentation associated SNPs. It's a good guess that Mesolithic Europeans had dark skin.

The La Brana has been seperated for tens of thousands of years from his brothers, the other C-clades.
By 8000 years ago he must have looked much more like the other mesolithic people in Europe - mainly I-clade - than his brother C-clades in Asia or America.

Angela
12-05-14, 16:25
Another tack on the same MC1R question which is possibly easier to prove (if the idea is correct), mixed race couples

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1103391/Mixed-race-couple-birth-black-white-twins--second-time.html

Red-haired female implying 2 x MC1R, with a non-white father and twins, including light-skinned and red-haired implying the father also carries recessive MC1R also.

edit: Also, if it is shown that MC1R does depigment the skin also then IRF4 may follow the same pattern.

Obviously, the reporters at the Daily Mail don't know very many mixed race couples. (The woman also looks mixed to me, btw.)It isn't at all extraordinary in such cases that the children can look very different from one another. I know one couple very well where the wife is a dark skinned African American and the man, although with some African ancestry, looks "white". They have three children. One daughter looks like a relatively dark African American, one looks virtually white, so much so that people don't think she's the child of her mother, and one who looks like what we in the states would call "Hispanic" looking. That's what can happen when you have random combination of all those genes.

What is known from scientific studies is that when African Americans with lighter skin are compared to actual Africans, the difference is that the African Americans carry one copy of SLC24A5 and/or one copy of SLC42A5. If both or one parent in addition carried a copy of the MCIR gene then a "reddish" hue may appear in the children. Malcolm X is a famous example...his nickname as a young man was "Red".

The people who are the subject of this Daily Mail article will have copies of both SLC24A5 and SLC42A5, and probably MCIR. In combination.

This is not rocket science. There are numerous studies about this issue. I've posted them numerous times. If you don't wish to read them or believe them, that's your prerogative.

Greying Wanderer
12-05-14, 19:05
Obviously, the reporters at the Daily Mail don't know very many mixed race couples. (The woman also looks mixed to me, btw.)It isn't at all extraordinary in such cases that the children can look very different from one another. I know one couple very well where the wife is a dark skinned African American and the man, although with some African ancestry, looks "white". They have three children. One daughter looks like a relatively dark African American, one looks virtually white, so much so that people don't think she's the child of her mother, and one who looks like what we in the states would call "Hispanic" looking. That's what can happen when you have random combination of all those genes.

What is known from scientific studies is that when African Americans with lighter skin are compared to actual Africans, the difference is that the African Americans carry one copy of SLC24A5 and/or one copy of SLC42A5. If both or one parent in addition carried a copy of the MCIR gene then a "reddish" hue may appear in the children. Malcolm X is a famous example...his nickname as a young man was "Red".

The people who are the subject of this Daily Mail article will have copies of both SLC24A5 and SLC42A5, and probably MCIR. In combination.

This is not rocket science. There are numerous studies about this issue. I've posted them numerous times. If you don't wish to read them or believe them, that's your prerogative.

You're right it's not rocket science. There is a clearly described phenotype - red hair - with a known cause - imbalance between eumelanin and pheomelanin - and genes that are known to create that imbalance - MC1R - and some people who don't want to admit it might effect skin color as well as hair and eye color.

My post illustrates another way of potentially proving it i.e. mixed race couples where one parent had red hair (2 x MC1R) and the other was a recessive carrier of MC1R and then by checking which of the various genes got passed to which kids it could be discovered if MC1R had a skin depigmentation effect which is mostly masked in white people by the other skin lightening genes.

Then we'd know if Europeans - or some of them at least - got lighter much earlier for vitamin D reasons.

Plus of course as this is related to the Plex system it would be important there also.

Angela
12-05-14, 19:54
You're right it's not rocket science. There is a clearly described phenotype - red hair - with a known cause - imbalance between eumelanin and pheomelanin - and genes that are known to create that imbalance - MC1R - and some people who don't want to admit it might effect skin color as well as hair and eye color.

My post illustrates another way of potentially proving it i.e. mixed race couples where one parent had red hair (2 x MC1R) and the other was a recessive carrier of MC1R and then by checking which of the various genes got passed to which kids it could be discovered if MC1R had a skin depigmentation effect which is mostly masked in white people by the other skin lightening genes.

Then we'd know if Europeans - or some of them at least - got lighter much earlier for vitamin D reasons.

Plus of course as this is related to the Plex system it would be important there also.


The most reasonable assumption is that these people, like all other light skinned SSA admixed people, have light skin because they have inherited copies of SLC24A5 and SLC42A5. That's what all the studies show which have actually looked at the genetics of light skinned SSA admixed people. Did you think no studies had been done of them? That's where most of this research started. NONE of the SSA admixed "light" people studied to date have only had the minor alleles. Scientists have concluded that MCIR has an effect on pigmentation which is minor and works in conjunction with the major affect alleles. You are presenting absolutely no data that contradicts any of this.

Please read the scientific papers if you wish to argue the point.

As to the precise mechanism for the spread of these alleles, I don't think we yet have enough information, although it seems that SLC24A5 spread from an area somewhere between the Middle East and Central Asia. The data is less clear for SLC42A5. It also seems that although they appeared sporadically in Europe before the Neolithic, widespread distribution seems to come much later in European history. For example, one Mesolithic HG in the far northeast had one copy of SLC42A5, but all of the hunter-gatherers from the same location more than a thousand years later lacked any of these major affect alleles. There was also one SLC24A5 result. Loschbour and La Brana certainly lacked them. Stuttgart had SLC24A5, and Oetzi had the modern European signature, as he carried copies of both SLC24A5 and SLC42A5. (That's the simplified version.) That's about all we know for now.

Fire Haired14
12-05-14, 20:35
Angela, there are other causes to European light skin. I have posted this maybe 1,000,000 times, yet people still stubbornly believe these mutations are only European and explain their light skin. I found many Europeans at GEDmatch missing these mutations, but their skin is light. People forget that one of the mutation sin gene SLC45A2 is also associated with hair color, if you have the ancestral alleles you are more likely to have dark hair. Middle easterns have the exact same frequencies of known "European" light skin mutations as do Europeans, except they have a little less of one in gene SLC45A2, because of hair color difference.

The skin color of these Mesolithic Europeans is unknown. There is just as good a chance they had light skin as there is they had dark skin. If you believe these mutations really cause European light skin, then middle easterns and Mesolithic European Motala12 should be/have been light skin/light skinned.

Angela
12-05-14, 21:16
[QUOTE=Fire Haired14;431651]Angela, there are other causes to European light skin. I have posted this maybe 1,000,000 times, yet people still stubbornly believe these mutations are only European and explain their light skin. I found many Europeans at GEDmatch missing these mutations, but their skin is light. People forget that one of the mutation sin gene SLC45A2 is also associated with hair color, if you have the ancestral alleles you are more likely to have dark hair. Middle easterns have the exact same frequencies of known "European" light skin mutations as do Europeans, except they have a little less of one in gene SLC45A2, because of hair color difference.

The skin color of these Mesolithic Europeans is unknown. There is just as good a chance they had light skin as there is they had dark skin. If you believe these mutations really cause European light skin, then middle easterns and Mesolithic European Motala12 should be/have been light skin/light skinned.

Silly me, I trust scientific studies more than your analysis of the alleles present in some anonymous people on Gedmatch in comparison to their subjective reports of their skin color or to photos sent of who knows whom over the internet. This is not how one reaches reasonable conclusions.

One also has to remove from one's mind all of the stereotypes and prejudices which one might have unfortunately absorbed and try to look at the data objectively. Has it ever occurred to either of you to examine the idea of just why the idea that Mesolithic hunter gatherers from northern Europe were dark skinned is so upsetting to you?

I am going to say this one more time. The effect of these alleles is CUMULATIVE! That is what the scientific analysis shows. When you have a scientific study that says otherwise, let me know, as I would be very interested in discussing it. Likewise, when you have a scientific study which shows that a person with "light" European reflectance values does not have either SLC24A5 or SLC42A5 in addition to the minor alleles, let me know. Until then, you can post your anecdote ten million times, and it still has no probative value.

Also, please stop setting up straw man arguments. I never said that Middle Eastern people are as fair skinned, on average, as the average European. How could that be the case if these alleles have a cumulative effect, given that Middle Easterners (that is the correct term by the way) have much less SLC42A5, and further, given the different levels of UV radiation in most of the Middle East from those present in Europe, especially central and northern Europe? Try to follow the logic.

Based on the data we have so far, the only way that Mesolithic hunter gatherers in northern Europe could have predominantly had light skin is if that trait resulted from a so far unknown set of alleles, which apparently have no effect on modern Europeans, whose variation in terms of pigmentation can be very well explained by the presence and/or absence of the alleles we have been discussing. If that makes you feel better, by all means believe it. Humans have a great capacity to believe things for which they have no proof when it suits their emotional needs.

As for me, I have no personal stake in the matter. If the data changes, my opinions will change.

Engel
12-05-14, 21:34
ja, the woman in the daily mail article is also mixed from middle east

Fire Haired14
12-05-14, 22:10
One also has to remove from one's mind all of the stereotypes and prejudices which one might have unfortunately absorbed and try to look at the data objectively. Has it ever occurred to either of you to examine the idea of just why the idea that Mesolithic hunter gatherers from northern Europe were dark skinned is so upsetting to you?

I don't let prejudices effect how I make my conclusions. I am perfectly fine with my Mesolithic ancestors having dark skin. I have dark skinned people within my own family (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29811-23andme-reveals-I-have-relatives-with-Mesolithic-European-decended-dark-skin)(there are multiple), who i love and have seen everyday of my life. If I am raciest towards dark skinned people then I am raciest towards my family. The fact that I am 12.5% Puerto Rican(3.5% Native American, 1% African, 8% Spanish), doesn't allow me to be some type of Nordicist.


Silly me, I trust scientific studies more than your analysis of the alleles present in some anonymous people on Gedmatch in comparison to their subjective reports of their skin color or to photos sent of who knows whom over the internet. This is not how one reaches reasonable conclusions.

I found real northwest European people(could test their ancestry with admixtures at GEDmatch) who are missing 'European" light skin mutations, as did Mesolithic Europeans La Brana-1, Motala12, and Ajv58. All of them had light skin. They sent pictures to confirm. All of them were very interested about how unique they were, and described themselves as dark skinned, but their pictures showed the truth. I trust those pictures were their's, because they looked like family pictures.

I also compared an Arab and northwest European who had the same alleles in SNPs associated with skin color, and both were missing the hair and skin color associated SNP in SLC45A5. I did not get any pictures, but the Arab described himself as a light-skinned middle eastern not European type, whatever that means. The northwest European described himself as ivory skinned with great tanning ability, and described siblings as Mexican dark. Like others he was very excited about the news, and wanted to be a dark skinned Mesolithic European. One of the others said the same thing but turned out to be very light.


I never said that Middle Eastern people are as fair skinned, on average, as the average European. How could that be the case if these alleles have a cumulative effect, given that Middle Easterners (that is the correct term by the way) have much less SLC42A5, and further, given the different levels of UV radiation in most of the Middle East from those present in Europe, especially central and northern Europe? Try to follow the logic.

I have looked at the numbers, there is no differences between Europeans and middle easterns. The only difference is the mutation in gene SLC45A2(in SNP rs16891982), which is about 50% in the middle east and 80-100% in Europe, and that difference is because of hair color. That mutation is also less popular in southern Europe than in northern Europe, because of hair color difference. These mutations can't explain the skin color difference between northern and southern Europeans, and between Europeans and middle easterns.


Based on the data we have so far, the only way that Mesolithic hunter gatherers in northern Europe could have predominantly had light skin is if that trait resulted from a so far unknown set of alleles, which apparently have no effect on modern Europeans, whose variation in terms of pigmentation can be very well explained by the presence and/or absence of the alleles we have been discussing. If that makes you feel better, by all means believe it. Humans have a great capacity to believe things for which they have no proof when it suits their emotional needs.

That is not true. Middle eastern and Europeans lacking light skin mutations, are great evidence that there are unknown European light skin mutations. Mesolithic Europeans may be the source, and therefore had similar light skin as do modern Europeans. Also, Mesolithic Swede Motala12 is constant with having light skin. Do you really think skin color varied in small Mesolithic European tribes from white to brown?

You need to understand that the skin color of these Mesolithic Europeans is unknown, and there are unknown European light skin mutations.

Do these 15,000 year old west Europeans look dark skinned (https://www.google.com/search?q=Magdalenian+human+carvings&safe=active&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=VSlxU6KdNNe1yATMkoK4Bg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=667#imgdii=_)? I doubt the carvings are authentically 15,000 years old, because of the modern-like clothing.

Fire Haired14
12-05-14, 22:16
Angela, the reason i seem to only argue for the light skinned-side is because everyone else is blindly on the dark skinned-side, and i am tired of how people who are raciest towards Europeans reacted. People assume the science behind skin color is known, when I have actually read scientific papers that say the opposite. Olalde 2014 was very hesitant to say La Brana-1 had dark skin, and admitted it is just the best guess. My opinon is that the skin color of Mesolithic Europeans is a mystery, and may never be known until time machines.

Fire Haired14
12-05-14, 22:18
Angela, I am not going to take your crap. You should be more polite when arguing. Every post shouldn't be filled with high and mighty insults.

Greying Wanderer
12-05-14, 22:21
ja, the woman in the daily mail article is also mixed from middle east

Which adds weight to the argument that 2 x MC1R depigments skin.

Greying Wanderer
12-05-14, 22:34
[QUOTE]

Silly me, I trust scientific studies more than your analysis of the alleles present in some anonymous people on Gedmatch in comparison to their subjective reports of their skin color or to photos sent of who knows whom over the internet. This is not how one reaches reasonable conclusions.

One also has to remove from one's mind all of the stereotypes and prejudices which one might have unfortunately absorbed and try to look at the data objectively. Has it ever occurred to either of you to examine the idea of just why the idea that Mesolithic hunter gatherers from northern Europe were dark skinned is so upsetting to you?

I am going to say this one more time. The effect of these alleles is CUMULATIVE! That is what the scientific analysis shows. When you have a scientific study that says otherwise, let me know, as I would be very interested in discussing it. Likewise, when you have a scientific study which shows that a person with "light" European reflectance values does not have either SLC24A5 or SLC42A5 in addition to the minor alleles, let me know. Until then, you can post your anecdote ten million times, and it still has no probative value.

Also, please stop setting up straw man arguments. I never said that Middle Eastern people are as fair skinned, on average, as the average European. How could that be the case if these alleles have a cumulative effect, given that Middle Easterners (that is the correct term by the way) have much less SLC42A5, and further, given the different levels of UV radiation in most of the Middle East from those present in Europe, especially central and northern Europe? Try to follow the logic.

Based on the data we have so far, the only way that Mesolithic hunter gatherers in northern Europe could have predominantly had light skin is if that trait resulted from a so far unknown set of alleles, which apparently have no effect on modern Europeans, whose variation in terms of pigmentation can be very well explained by the presence and/or absence of the alleles we have been discussing. If that makes you feel better, by all means believe it. Humans have a great capacity to believe things for which they have no proof when it suits their emotional needs.

As for me, I have no personal stake in the matter. If the data changes, my opinions will change.

"try to look at the data objectively."

What data? Where is the testing to see if MC1R (or 2 x MC1R) has an independent skin lightening effect? You're treating the absence of data as proof. I'm saying *if* MC1R (or 2 x MC1R) does have that effect then it might be easier to spot in mixed race parents where one has 2 x MC1R and the other carries it as a recessive because in the European population any effect of MC1R is likely to be masked by all the other skin lightening genes.

#

"Has it ever occurred to either of you to examine the idea of just why the idea that Mesolithic hunter gatherers from northern Europe were dark skinned is so upsetting to you?"

Yes.

1) (major reason) Multiple written records of a widespread phenotype - pale skin, green eyes, red hair - which has a known cause - imbalance in eumelanin and pheomelanin - which itself has a known cause - MC1R - combined with a load of people saying MC1R (or 2 x MC1R) absolutely doesn't have a skin lightening effect without anyone actually testing to see.

2) (minor reason) I find it hard to believe the combination of particularly robust skeletons and low levels of vitamin D.

3) Also, the implied ad hom doesn't apply because if MC1R is recessive and *if* the effect only applies when the person carries 2 x MC1R (unknown but plausible imo) then they won't all be white will they - by Punnet square 3/4 will be brown and 1/4 white. (edit: and that's only if 100% of them had the gene. for the phenotype to have stood out enough to be noticed what percentage would be needed 10%?)

Greying Wanderer
12-05-14, 22:55
Just to stress the critical point which I don't think people have taken in.

The relevant MC1R gene is **recessive** Therefore the loss of function re eumelanin and pheomelanin that leads to red hair only displays if a person has **two** copies of the gene so the skin lightening effect may work the same way i.e. one copy of the gene may not have much effect.

Nobody1
12-05-14, 22:58
In the Lazaridis (April edition) all of the MC1R SNP's (tested) were identical for both Loschbour, Motola12 and Stuttgart alike;

Only two Hunter-gathers had light-skin alleles i.e. rs1426654 A/A (Motola12) and rs16891982 G/G (StoraFörvar11); Both Hunter-gathers (SHG) from Scandinavia/Baltic area and contemporary to (WHG) Hunter-gathers Loschbour and LaBrana who were missing both of the light-skin alleles (i.e. dark-skinned); Also Hunter-gather Ajv58 (Scandinavia) thousands of years later was dark-skinned equally missing the two major light-skin alleles (thus completely diff. than earlier SHG);

The Neolithic Farmers collectively possessed the light-skin alleles: Stuttgart was rs1426654 A/A (but missing rs16891982 G/G) and Ötzi and Gök2 were both rs1426654 A/A and rs16891982 G/G (i.e. modern Europe light-skin combo);

All tested so far (Farmers/Hunter-gatherers alike) were dark-haired; But all Hunter-gatherers were light-eyed; IRF4 rs12203592 T/T is for freckling but if the major light-skin alleles (rs1426654 A/A and rs16891982 G/G) are missing than that look would closely approach that of academy award winning actor Morgan Freeman;

Angela
12-05-14, 23:44
[QUOTE=Angela;431656]

"try to look at the data objectively."

What data? Where is the testing to see if MC1R (or 2 x MC1R) has an independent skin lightening effect? You're treating the absence of data as proof. I'm saying *if* MC1R (or 2 x MC1R) does have that effect then it might be easier to spot in mixed race parents where one has 2 x MC1R and the other carries it as a recessive because in the European population any effect of MC1R is likely to be masked by all the other skin lightening genes.

#

"Has it ever occurred to either of you to examine the idea of just why the idea that Mesolithic hunter gatherers from northern Europe were dark skinned is so upsetting to you?"

Yes.

1) (major reason) Multiple written records of a widespread phenotype - pale skin, green eyes, red hair - which has a known cause - imbalance in eumelanin and pheomelanin - which itself has a known cause - MC1R - combined with a load of people saying MC1R (or 2 x MC1R) absolutely doesn't have a skin lightening effect without anyone actually testing to see.

2) (minor reason) I find it hard to believe the combination of particularly robust skeletons and low levels of vitamin D.

3) Also, the implied ad hom doesn't apply because if MC1R is recessive and *if* the effect only applies when the person carries 2 x MC1R (unknown but plausible imo) then they won't all be white will they - by Punnet square 3/4 will be brown and 1/4 white. (edit: and that's only if 100% of them had the gene. for the phenotype to have stood out enough to be noticed what percentage would be needed 10%?)

No, I am looking at data that says that NO admixed (SSA and European) person with light skin "European" reflectance values has ever been found who doesn't possess one or more of the SLC24A5, and SLC42A5 genes. Nor have any Europeans been found who have light skin reflectance but carry only the minor alleles. In fact, the studies show that as the number of such alleles increases in people, their skin is lighter.

Your counter argument is that you believe that somewhere out there there has to be someone with light skin, red hair and light eyes who doesn't carry the major effect alleles. What is this based on other than your desire that this be the case? The answer seems to be...nothing.

And who said that MCIR doesn't have a lightening effect? The point is that all the evidence so far indicates that it is a minor effect allele and by itself wouldn't have this effect.

When you have a scientific study which contradicts the ones so far published, let me know. I'm always willing to adjust my opinions based on new data.

Aberdeen
12-05-14, 23:58
..............

What data? Where is the testing to see if MC1R (or 2 x MC1R) has an independent skin lightening effect? You're treating the absence of data as proof. I'm saying *if* MC1R (or 2 x MC1R) does have that effect then it might be easier to spot in mixed race parents where one has 2 x MC1R and the other carries it as a recessive because in the European population any effect of MC1R is likely to be masked by all the other skin lightening genes.

.............


There does in fact seem to be a great deal of data to support the idea that mutations in SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 are mainly responsible for light skin in Europeans. I realize that one can't trust everything that Wikipedia says, but the entry entitled "Human skin colour' does reference several scientific papers to support the following statements:

"A number of genes have been positively associated with the skin pigmentation difference between European and non-European populations. Mutations in SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 are believed to account for the bulk of this variation and show very strong signs of selection. A variation in TYR has also been identified as a contributor.
Research indicates the selection for the light-skin alleles of these genes in Europeans is comparatively recent, having occurred later than 20,000 years ago and perhaps as recently as 12,000 to 6,000 years ago.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-Belezal2012-16)[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-pmid17446367-35) In the 1970s, Luca Cavalli-Sforza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Cavalli-Sforza) suggested that the selective sweep that rendered light skin ubiquitous in Europe might be correlated with the advent of farming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution) and thus have taken place only around 6,000 years ago;[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-36) This scenario found support in a 2014 analysis of mesolithic (7,000 years old) hunter-gatherer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer) DNA from La Braña (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Bra%C3%B1a), Spain, which showed the version of these genes corresponding to dark skin color."

Look at the footnotes and you'll see several that address the issue of the impact of those two crucial mutations on skin colour in Europe. Not all of the papers are publicly available, but some are.

Greying Wanderer
13-05-14, 02:27
There does in fact seem to be a great deal of data to support the idea that mutations in SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 are mainly responsible for light skin in Europeans. I realize that one can't trust everything that Wikipedia says, but the entry entitled "Human skin colour' does reference several scientific papers to support the following statements:

"A number of genes have been positively associated with the skin pigmentation difference between European and non-European populations. Mutations in SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 are believed to account for the bulk of this variation and show very strong signs of selection. A variation in TYR has also been identified as a contributor.
Research indicates the selection for the light-skin alleles of these genes in Europeans is comparatively recent, having occurred later than 20,000 years ago and perhaps as recently as 12,000 to 6,000 years ago.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-Belezal2012-16)[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-pmid17446367-35) In the 1970s, Luca Cavalli-Sforza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Cavalli-Sforza) suggested that the selective sweep that rendered light skin ubiquitous in Europe might be correlated with the advent of farming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution) and thus have taken place only around 6,000 years ago;[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-36) This scenario found support in a 2014 analysis of mesolithic (7,000 years old) hunter-gatherer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer) DNA from La Braña (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Bra%C3%B1a), Spain, which showed the version of these genes corresponding to dark skin color."

Look at the footnotes and you'll see several that address the issue of the impact of those two crucial mutations on skin colour in Europe. Not all of the papers are publicly available, but some are.

The argument isn't over whether the SLC genes are skin-lightening alleles. The argument is whether the red hair version of MC1R, and perhaps only when a person has two copies of it, depigments skin as well as creating red hair. As far as I can see no-one has tested for that and given that there are multiple written records of that phenotype ranging from Libya to Thrace to Western China it seems worth testing.

Greying Wanderer
13-05-14, 02:39
[QUOTE=Greying Wanderer;431673]

No, I am looking at data that says that NO admixed (SSA and European) person with light skin "European" reflectance values has ever been found who doesn't possess one or more of the SLC24A5, and SLC42A5 genes. Nor have any Europeans been found who have light skin reflectance but carry only the minor alleles. In fact, the studies show that as the number of such alleles increases in people, their skin is lighter.

Your counter argument is that you believe that somewhere out there there has to be someone with light skin, red hair and light eyes who doesn't carry the major effect alleles. What is this based on other than your desire that this be the case? The answer seems to be...nothing.

And who said that MCIR doesn't have a lightening effect? The point is that all the evidence so far indicates that it is a minor effect allele and by itself wouldn't have this effect.

When you have a scientific study which contradicts the ones so far published, let me know. I'm always willing to adjust my opinions based on new data.

What I said was, quoting myself

"Another tack on the same MC1R question which is possibly easier to prove (if the idea is correct), mixed race couples..."

- given the level of fixation of the SLC genes in Europeans - that mixed race couples where one parent had *red* hair i.e. 2 copies of the relevant MC1R gene and the other parent was a carrier of the same gene would be a good place to look.

And it would.

Why is the idea that some Europeans may have been light skinned earlier such a big deal. A similar phenotype exists today

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Common/India/Indian_Albinos/The_Bhatti.jpg

so why couldn't a modified version have developed and been selected for in the distant past - especially inland away from the coast?

Fire Haired14
13-05-14, 03:05
Nor have any Europeans been found who have light skin reflectance but carry only the minor alleles.

I have found multiple and all are light skinned. You make alot of claims and never give sources.

Aberdeen
13-05-14, 04:31
The argument isn't over whether the SLC genes are skin-lightening alleles. The argument is whether the red hair version of MC1R, and perhaps only when a person has two copies of it, depigments skin as well as creating red hair. As far as I can see no-one has tested for that and given that there are multiple written records of that phenotype ranging from Libya to Thrace to Western China it seems worth testing.

My point was that we already have a perfectly good explanation for European depigmentation. And, IMO, the fact that we have red haired, white skinned mummies in China and blue eyed blonds living in modern Kazakhstan is simply a function of the fact that ancient people wandered off to some fairly strange places. These people probably have the same mutations that explain depigmentation in European populations. If there's no body of evidence suggesting that the red hair gene can cause depigmentation without SLC24A5 and SLC45A2, maybe it's because you're chasing a phantom.

Angela
13-05-14, 05:09
I have found multiple and all are light skinned.

Good for you. Now, raise some funds, and, after getting their permission, get and publish the skin reflectance results for these people, and their total genome results showing they have NONE of the major effect depigmentation genes. Until then, let's say that I'm skeptical. Just think of it as the first step on your way to an academic career.



You make alot of claims and never give sources.[/QUOTE]

If you think that I'm going to repeat the links to all these studies every time I answer a post you are going to be sadly disappointed.

It isn't my responsibility to do everyone's homework as well as my own. I've done my bit by posting the links in the first place. I expect people to READ the papers in the relevant links provided BEFORE they continue to attack the findings of the papers. I'm totally open to any reasonable critique of said papers. It would be even nicer if people provided links to studies themselves, particularly if they present a point of view that contradicts the ones I found. Even if one can't arrive at an answer, at least the questions become clearer.

That's how intellectual analysis works.

Angela
13-05-14, 05:39
[QUOTE=Angela;431681]

What I said was, quoting myself

"Another tack on the same MC1R question which is possibly easier to prove (if the idea is correct), mixed race couples..."

- given the level of fixation of the SLC genes in Europeans - that mixed race couples where one parent had *red* hair i.e. 2 copies of the relevant MC1R gene and the other parent was a carrier of the same gene would be a good place to look.

And it would.

Why is the idea that some Europeans may have been light skinned earlier such a big deal. A similar phenotype exists today

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Common/India/Indian_Albinos/The_Bhatti.jpg

so why couldn't a modified version have developed and been selected for in the distant past - especially inland away from the coast?

For the record, I don't care if they were purple polka-dotted. I think this obsession with the whole topic is stupid. I thought we were finally done with it.

However, I am allergic to people making claims that are based on formulations like...well, isn't it possible that X could have happened. I suppose it's POSSIBLE that aliens came to earth periodically to give us tips on technology, but I don't know of any evidence to that effect. Is it therefore anything that I would ever give any head room to? The answer is no.

Everything I have seen so far indicates that pigmentation is a polygenic trait involving the interplay of numerous alleles. Nowhere have I seen any indication that only two mutated copies of MCIR could turn a black skinned and black haired individual into a red haired, fair skinned and blue-eyed person absent the presence of other depigmentation genes. If that's true or was true, it's fine with me. Just don't make claims that you can't substantiate. Also, a study could come out tomorrow showing that these people possessed de-pigmentation genes of which we were previously unaware. If so, mazel tov to those for whom this is so important. So far, however, there is no indication of that.

You know what...have it your way...they were all albinos. Whatever floats your boat.

LeBrok
13-05-14, 07:14
I don't let prejudices effect how I make my conclusions.
http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/9900000/Laughing-craig-ferguson-9991882-350-263.gif

Greying Wanderer
13-05-14, 16:10
My point was that we already have a perfectly good explanation for European depigmentation. And, IMO, the fact that we have red haired, white skinned mummies in China and blue eyed blonds living in modern Kazakhstan is simply a function of the fact that ancient people wandered off to some fairly strange places. These people probably have the same mutations that explain depigmentation in European populations. If there's no body of evidence suggesting that the red hair gene can cause depigmentation without SLC24A5 and SLC45A2, maybe it's because you're chasing a phantom.

A phantom that can be photographed.

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Common/India/Indian_Albinos/The_Bhatti.jpg

Greying Wanderer
13-05-14, 16:28
[QUOTE=Greying Wanderer;431688]

For the record, I don't care if they were purple polka-dotted. I think this obsession with the whole topic is stupid. I thought we were finally done with it.

However, I am allergic to people making claims that are based on formulations like...well, isn't it possible that X could have happened. I suppose it's POSSIBLE that aliens came to earth periodically to give us tips on technology, but I don't know of any evidence to that effect. Is it therefore anything that I would ever give any head room to? The answer is no.

Everything I have seen so far indicates that pigmentation is a polygenic trait involving the interplay of numerous alleles. Nowhere have I seen any indication that only two mutated copies of MCIR could turn a black skinned and black haired individual into a red haired, fair skinned and blue-eyed person absent the presence of other depigmentation genes. If that's true or was true, it's fine with me. Just don't make claims that you can't substantiate. Also, a study could come out tomorrow showing that these people possessed de-pigmentation genes of which we were previously unaware. If so, mazel tov to those for whom this is so important. So far, however, there is no indication of that.

You know what...have it your way...they were all albinos. Whatever floats your boat.

"However, I am allergic to people making claims that are based on formulations like...well, isn't it possible that X could have happened."


I'm not making any claims.


I'm saying this


http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Common/India/Indian_Albinos/The_Bhatti.jpg


and this


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xirong#Ethnicity


"The 7th century commentary to the Hanshu by Yan Shigu says: "Among the various Rong tribes in the Western Regions, the Wusun's shape was the strangest; and the present barbarians who have green eyes and red hair, and are like a macaque, belonged to the same race as the Wusun."


may be related.

Other people are saying they *can't* be related because of the SLC genes - which makes no sense.


Maybe they're not related. Maybe the Wusun, Libyans, Thracians, Hyperboreans got the skin color from the SLC genes and the red hair, green eyes from MC1R although that begs the question why should the MC1R gene have been more widespread in the past than now?


Either way there's a piece of the puzzle missing.

Angela
13-05-14, 19:00
[QUOTE=Angela;431699]

"However, I am allergic to people making claims that are based on formulations like...well, isn't it possible that X could have happened."


I'm not making any claims.


I'm saying this


http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Common/India/Indian_Albinos/The_Bhatti.jpg


and this


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xirong#Ethnicity


"The 7th century commentary to the Hanshu by Yan Shigu says: "Among the various Rong tribes in the Western Regions, the Wusun's shape was the strangest; and the present barbarians who have green eyes and red hair, and are like a macaque, belonged to the same race as the Wusun."


may be related.

Other people are saying they *can't* be related because of the SLC genes - which makes no sense.


Maybe they're not related. Maybe the Wusun, Libyans, Thracians, Hyperboreans got the skin color from the SLC genes and the red hair, green eyes from MC1R although that begs the question why should the MC1R gene have been more widespread in the past than now?


Either way there's a piece of the puzzle missing.

I haven't recently looked at the genes which cause albinism, but it's my recollection that the MCIR gene is not one of them. You might want to look that up.

The fact that there are so many descriptions of red haired people in ancient literature and a relative paucity of this phenotype in modern Europeans is something that I do consider interesting. I wonder if part of it is caused by less than subtle translations of ancient languages. For example, the Ligures, from whom I am at least partly descended, were described as red-haired. However, I'm not sure whether that is the way that the Latin should be translated. I'm basing that on the fact that in Italian, brown haired people are often described as having chestnut colored hair. An actual chestnut is a reddish brown, and brown hair which has been exposed to intense sun has a definite reddish hue. Mine certainly does. Perhaps the ancient authors meant that the people they encountered had reddish brown hair. By October, a great many people in Liguria could be so described. (If anyone has a link to the actual Latin I would appreciate it, so I can see for myself which exact word was used. I haven't been able to find it.)

Assuming for the moment, however, that the ancient authors, at least in the case of the Ligures, meant actual red or red gold hair, it is certainly not common in Liguria today. You do find it, however, in the Apennines of Emilia, which were also Ligure territory. I happen to know because my father's family comes from there, and half of them have red hair, ranging from red-gold, to awful carrot orange, to auburn. They also are heavily freckled, particularly in childhood. My tentative speculation is that it's the result of a founder effect and then drift in very isolated populations where phenotypes based on recessive alleles can survive.
I don't think the fact that this phenotype is most common today in the areas of Europe most isolated from population flows is an accident (also the cloudiest, of course). There's also the case of the Ashkenazim, a 'very' bottlenecked population, where this phenotype has persisted in rather surprising numbers.

I think other factors 'might' also be involved with the diminution in numbers. The kind of skin which is frequently although not always found in red-haired people is extremely prone to sunburn, and the resulting dangers, in primitive societies, from infection. (Anyone with this kind of skin can attest to the absolute mess you can get in if you blister badly and then the blisters break.) In a climate with a strong sun, that's hardly an optimal adaptation, and I wonder if it might have impacted survival. People who carry it are also very prone to melanoma, although that appears later in life and so people would presumably already have had a chance to reproduce. Then there's the fact that at least in Italy, and I think more widely in Europe, red-haired women, in particular, were considered head strong, temperamental, and altogether not very good marriage material. In some places, it was even considered an indication of an association with the "dark" arts and they were actively persecuted. Perhaps all of these factors have caused the decrease in numbers.

As for albinos, it is absolutely 'not' an adaptive trait. They often have other physical ailments in addition to terrible vision problems. I can't think of a more maladaptive trait in a hunger-gatherer society than bad vision.

Also, I don't want to leave the impression that I think everything is crystal clear in terms of the occurrence and spread of the mutations causing de-pigmentation, because I don't. While the scientists have made a good start, there's a long way to go in understanding this and many other aspects of our genomes.

Aberdeen
13-05-14, 19:36
A phantom that can be photographed.

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Common/India/Indian_Albinos/The_Bhatti.jpg

They look like albinos, which would probably indicate a mutation in SLC24A5.

Greying Wanderer
13-05-14, 19:48
They look like albinos, which would probably indicate a mutation in SLC24A5.

Could be. I don't mind what the cause is. I'm curious because of all the literary references.

Greying Wanderer
13-05-14, 20:00
[QUOTE=Greying Wanderer;431725]

I haven't recently looked at the genes which cause albinism, but it's my recollection that the MCIR gene is not one of them. You might want to look that up.

The fact that there are so many descriptions of red haired people in ancient literature and a relative paucity of this phenotype in modern Europeans is something that I do consider interesting. I wonder if part of it is caused by less than subtle translations of ancient languages. For example, the Ligures, from whom I am at least partly descended, were described as red-haired. However, I'm not sure whether that is the way that the Latin should be translated. I'm basing that on the fact that in Italian, brown haired people are often described as having chestnut colored hair. An actual chestnut is a reddish brown, and brown hair which has been exposed to intense sun has a definite reddish hue. Mine certainly does. Perhaps the ancient authors meant that the people they encountered had reddish brown hair. By October, a great many people in Liguria could be so described. (If anyone has a link to the actual Latin I would appreciate it, so I can see for myself which exact word was used. I haven't been able to find it.)

Assuming for the moment, however, that the ancient authors, at least in the case of the Ligures, meant actual red or red gold hair, it is certainly not common in Liguria today. You do find it, however, in the Apennines of Emilia, which were also Ligure territory. I happen to know because my father's family comes from there, and half of them have red hair, ranging from red-gold, to awful carrot orange, to auburn. They also are heavily freckled, particularly in childhood. My tentative speculation is that it's the result of a founder effect and then drift in very isolated populations where phenotypes based on recessive alleles can survive.
I don't think the fact that this phenotype is most common today in the areas of Europe most isolated from population flows is an accident (also the cloudiest, of course). There's also the case of the Ashkenazim, a 'very' bottlenecked population, where this phenotype has persisted in rather surprising numbers.

I think other factors 'might' also be involved with the diminution in numbers. The kind of skin which is frequently although not always found in red-haired people is extremely prone to sunburn, and the resulting dangers, in primitive societies, from infection. (Anyone with this kind of skin can attest to the absolute mess you can get in if you blister badly and then the blisters break.) In a climate with a strong sun, that's hardly an optimal adaptation, and I wonder if it might have impacted survival. People who carry it are also very prone to melanoma, although that appears later in life and so people would presumably already have had a chance to reproduce. Then there's the fact that at least in Italy, and I think more widely in Europe, red-haired women, in particular, were considered head strong, temperamental, and altogether not very good marriage material. In some places, it was even considered an indication of an association with the "dark" arts and they were actively persecuted. Perhaps all of these factors have caused the decrease in numbers.

As for albinos, it is absolutely 'not' an adaptive trait. They often have other physical ailments in addition to terrible vision problems. I can't think of a more maladaptive trait in a hunger-gatherer society than bad vision.

Also, I don't want to leave the impression that I think everything is crystal clear in terms of the occurrence and spread of the mutations causing de-pigmentation, because I don't. While the scientists have made a good start, there's a long way to go in understanding this and many other aspects of our genomes.

"The fact that there are so many descriptions of red haired people in ancient literature and a relative paucity of this phenotype in modern Europeans is something that I do consider interesting."

Yes, it seems to me there's a missing piece. It may turn out to not be a very important piece but I'm curious anyway. (Plus even if it turns out to be a minor but very specific marker then that may turn out to be useful in tracing movements.)

epoch
13-05-14, 20:38
Quite a heated thread.

@Angela, I am not such a frequent visitor and since I will readily admit being slightly lazy, would you find it terribly bothersome to repost links to some information that is known about skin color and genetics you refer to?

Furthermore I found this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3694299/#!po=46.4286

The article is about improvements to predictions of eye and skincolor based on DNA. It uses the same genes to try and predict skin color as Lazardis used. It has quite an interesting table, table 3, which states that these predictions are often fairly accurate. Inconclusives seems largest at the skin color that is considered typical for the group. However that result changes with a population this article calls "mixed", the number of inconclusives from mixed populations is large with all skin types. Overal a quarter seems inconclusive.

That does give the impression that the clear warning given in a number of papers about drawing conclusions from these genes probably is not due to being overly careful.

It remains interesting, though, that at the very least the mutations that cause the light skin color in caucasians *nowadays* have spread only fairly recently, but can be found almost universally in that population.

Nobody1
13-05-14, 21:43
Furthermore I found this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3694299/#!po=46.4286

The article is about improvements to predictions of eye and skincolor based on DNA. It uses the same genes to try and predict skin color as Lazardis used. It has quite an interesting table, table 3, which states that these predictions are often fairly accurate. Inconclusives seems largest at the skin color that is considered typical for the group. However that result changes with a population this article calls "mixed", the number of inconclusives from mixed populations is large with all skin types. Overal a quarter seems inconclusive.

That does give the impression that the clear warning given in a number of papers about drawing conclusions from these genes probably is not due to being overly careful.

It remains interesting, though, that at the very least the mutations that cause the light skin color in caucasians *nowadays* have spread only fairly recently, but can be found almost universally in that population.

The Error value of the 8-plex system is only 1% for skin and 5% for eye; The Inconclusive value comes from heterozygous SNPs (i.e. rs16891982 C/G or rs1426654 A/G etc.); Conclusive and >90% (~99% for Skin) accurate predictions are based on homozygous SNPs (i.e. rs16891982 G/G or rs1426654 A/A etc.) ''Skin-color prediction depends on homozygous genotypes'' and that for example is the case (all homo) for the ancient corpses;

Interesting from that study is that "Non-light skin color (ie, medium or dark) is predicted by G/G at rs6119471" and Loschbour, Stuttgart and Motola12 were all C/C; So obviously none was dark-skinned in the traditional Congo sense;

epoch
13-05-14, 22:23
The Error value of the 8-plex system is only 1% for skin and 5% for eye; The Inconclusive value comes from heterozygous SNPs (i.e. rs16891982 C/G or rs1426654 A/G etc.); Conclusive and >90% (~99% for Skin) accurate predictions are based on homozygous SNPs (i.e. rs16891982 G/G or rs1426654 A/A etc.) ''Skin-color prediction depends on homozygous genotypes'' and that for example is the case (all homo) for the ancient corpses;

Interesting from that study is that "Non-light skin color (ie, medium or dark) is predicted by G/G at rs6119471" and Loschbour, Stuttgart and Motola12 were all C/C; So obviously none was dark-skinned in the traditional Congo sense;

You are absolutely right.

epoch
13-05-14, 22:32
The Error value of the 8-plex system is only 1% for skin and 5% for eye; The Inconclusive value comes from heterozygous SNPs (i.e. rs16891982 C/G or rs1426654 A/G etc.); Conclusive and >90% (~99% for Skin) accurate predictions are based on homozygous SNPs (i.e. rs16891982 G/G or rs1426654 A/A etc.) ''Skin-color prediction depends on homozygous genotypes'' and that for example is the case (all homo) for the ancient corpses;

Interesting from that study is that "Non-light skin color (ie, medium or dark) is predicted by G/G at rs6119471" and Loschbour, Stuttgart and Motola12 were all C/C; So obviously none was dark-skinned in the traditional Congo sense;

Mind you, even without knowing ancient DNA you could come to the same conclusion. Chinese, Koreans and Japanese and such are almost as light skinned as whites. However, the mutations that cause this are different from the mutations that cause lighter skin in whites. Both populations live are roughly the same altitudes. That strongly suggests that light skin is caused by environmental pressure from living at these altitudes. An other population living at similar altitudes are American Indians. These however are darker than both East-Asians and whites, even if they are not black. So, what exactly do East-Asians and whites have in common that they don't have in common with indians? A completely agricultural society.

Aberdeen
13-05-14, 22:34
I'm astonished to think anyone would consider red hair to be rare among modern Europeans. Rare in places like Italy, for sure, rare pretty much anywhere south of the 45th parallel, except for it being common in northern Spain, but red hair is extremely common in some northern European countries, such as Ireland and Scotland. And yes, red headed people in northern Europe usually have very pale skin, even more so than other people in northern Europe, so the mutation associated with red hair could have some minor affect on skin colour. However, I don't know of any evidence that any of the redheads who are so common in northern Europe lack the defining mutations for depigmentation in SLC24A5 and SLC45A2.

epoch
13-05-14, 22:47
And lastly. Do realise that parrots, lizards and tropical fish laugh at our concept of skin "color". Mammals are BORING.

Fire Haired14
13-05-14, 22:52
I'm astonished to think anyone would consider red hair to be rare among modern Europeans. Rare in places like Italy, for sure, rare pretty much anywhere south of the 45th parallel, except for it being common in northern Spain, but red hair is extremely common in some northern European countries, such as Ireland and Scotland. And yes, red headed people in northern Europe usually have very pale skin, even more so than other people in northern Europe, so the mutation associated with red hair could have some minor affect on skin colour. However, I don't know of any evidence that any of the redheads who are so common in northern Europe lack the defining mutations for depigmentation in SLC24A5 and SLC45A2.

Red hair is very rare no matter where you go. In Canada most people are northwest European, right? Do you commonly see redheads? I doubt it. I have been to areas of the United States where pretty much everyone is northwest European, and redheads are hard to find. If your in a big city though where most of the people are northwest European it will seem many people have red hair because in big crowds you see alot of people and the redheads stick out. In northern Italy more than 1% of the people have red hair, unlike most of Europe. The whole 45th parallel thing is bull shit. Red hair in western Europe is obviously connected with Italo-Celts and Germans, so probably has to do with Indo European migrations from eastern Europe during the bronze age more than anything.

epoch
13-05-14, 23:09
Red hair is very rare no matter where you go. In Canada most people are northwest European, right? Do you commonly see redheads? I doubt it. I have been to areas of the United States where pretty much everyone is northwest European, and redheads are hard to find. If your in a big city though where most of the people are northwest European it will seem many people have red hair because in big crowds you see alot of people and the redheads stick out. In northern Italy more than 1% of the people have red hair, unlike most of Europe. The whole 45th parallel thing is bull shit. Red hair in western Europe is obviously connected with Italo-Celts and Germans, so probably has to do with Indo European migrations from eastern Europe during the bronze age more than anything.

Ramses II was a red head and lived certainly below the 45th parallel. The brother of an Algerian friend of mine as well.

But, then again, just anecdotal evidence.

Nobody1
13-05-14, 23:10
red hair is extremely common in some northern European countries, such as Ireland and Scotland

Depends on what is defined by extremely common in North Europe;
From your home (ancestral) town:

http://s12.postimg.org/hklb0s68t/9292.png

Around ~6% have red-hair in Aberdeen (22361 students); The Frisian women have the same result of 6.7% (Table 1) whereas the Frisian men were 1%-2% (Miszkiewicz 1975 / 2500 Frisians); In all Frisians red-hair is app. higher than average Scandinavia but a similar result to Miesbach (Bavarian Women); The Finns have almost none (majority being Blonde);

http://www.unz.org/Pub/MankindQuarterly-1975oct-00104
http://s2.postimg.org/dm2spzwfd/91919.png

The Udmurts are very red-haired maybe even the most red-haired pop. on the planet; The amount of Red-hairs in Europe is maybe due to it having (Medieval times) a negative image with witchcraft and things of this nature; Whether one considers it overall extremely common or not red-hair is def. more common in females than males;

Nobody1
13-05-14, 23:36
Mind you, even without knowing ancient DNA you could come to the same conclusion. Chinese, Koreans and Japanese and such are almost as light skinned as whites. However, the mutations that cause this are different from the mutations that cause lighter skin in whites. Both populations live are roughly the same altitudes. That strongly suggests that light skin is caused by environmental pressure from living at these altitudes. An other population living at similar altitudes are American Indians. These however are darker than both East-Asians and whites, even if they are not black. So, what exactly do East-Asians and whites have in common that they don't have in common with indians? A completely agricultural society.

That is true; The Mongoloids have diff. mutations than the Caucasoids but have similar social-structures (even in the Steppes with pure pastoralism); What causes the cline between Koreans and Cherokee for example i have no clue; But what causes the cline between North Europe and South Europe is obviously also manifested in the general cline of lighter-eyes i.e. rs12913832 (G/G) which also factors into skin-lightness;
http://browser.1000genomes.org/Homo_sapiens/Variation/Population?db=core;r=15:28365118-28366118;v=rs12913832;vdb=variation;vf=9155714

Angela
13-05-14, 23:47
Quite a heated thread.

@Angela, I am not such a frequent visitor and since I will readily admit being slightly lazy, would you find it terribly bothersome to repost links to some information that is known about skin color and genetics you refer to?

Furthermore I found this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3694299/#!po=46.4286

The article is about improvements to predictions of eye and skincolor based on DNA. It uses the same genes to try and predict skin color as Lazardis used. It has quite an interesting table, table 3, which states that these predictions are often fairly accurate. Inconclusives seems largest at the skin color that is considered typical for the group. However that result changes with a population this article calls "mixed", the number of inconclusives from mixed populations is large with all skin types. Overal a quarter seems inconclusive.

That does give the impression that the clear warning given in a number of papers about drawing conclusions from these genes probably is not due to being overly careful.

It remains interesting, though, that at the very least the mutations that cause the light skin color in caucasians *nowadays* have spread only fairly recently, but can be found almost universally in that population.


This is Norton et al. 2007. Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians
The supplementary table is also interesting. They cite any paper worth reading prior to 2007. In finding a correlation between MATP (SLC42A5) and lighter skin in African-Americans, they used a spectrometer. FWIW, they found no evidence for selection at the MCIR locus globally.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710.full

This is Razib Khan discussing the paper
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/08/pigmentation-phylogeny-history-and-adaptation/#.U3O05SidIcZ

Other people chime in:
http://www.livescience.com/42838-european-hunter-gatherer-genome-sequenced.html

A genome-wide association study identifies novel alleles associated with hair color and skin pigmentation, Jiali Han,
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000074

Lucotte et al on the SLC45A2 gene, 2010:
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000074

Lucotte et al 2011
http://www.saitou-naruya-laboratory.org/assets/files/pdf/Yuasa_AnnHumGenet06.pdf

Genetic Architecture of Skin and Eye Color in an African-European Admixed Population, Sandra Beleza, 2013
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003372

Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, har and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 years, Sandra Wilde,2014
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/03/05/1316513111.abstract

Molecular Phylogeography of a Human Autosomal Skin Color Locus Under Natural Selection, Victor A. Canfield
As discussed by Dienekes
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/01/slc24a5-light-skin-pigmentation-allele.html

For correlation of the snps with phenotypic expression:
Molecular Genetics of Human Pigmentation Diversity, Richard Sturm, http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/R1/R9.full

Angela
14-05-14, 00:03
Red hair is extremely rare world wide, and I would maintain it is also very 'infrequent' Europe wide. It reaches frequencies of 10-13% only in parts of Ireland and Scotland, and in Wales and Udmurt areas in Russia. Just weight the areas for population and I think it's clear. In Liguria the range is from 1-2%, but in certain mountain villages it can be 50%.

http://jamesmcinerney.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/RedHairEurope-670x554.jpg

Aberdeen
14-05-14, 00:56
Red hair is extremely rare world wide, and I would maintain it is also very infrequent Europe wide. It reaches frequencies of 10-13% only in parts of Ireland and Scotland, and in Wales and Udmurt areas in Russia. Just weight the areas for population and I think it's clear.

http://jamesmcinerney.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/RedHairEurope-670x554.jpg

An estimated 4-6% of the European population as a whole have red hair. In Scotland, 13% have red hair and 40% have the recessive redhead gene. For Ireland, the figures are 10% and 46%. So, not extremely rare. It would be quite easy to find enough subjects with red hair to study the issue and determine to what extent the redhead mutation affects skin colour. Probably somewhat but not nearly as much as the two mutations generally considered responsible for depigmentation. One way to study the issue would be to compare pale skinned redheads from Scotland or Ireland with redheaded Berbers, since there are a few redheads among the Berbers but they apparently aren't any lighter skinned than other Berbers.

Anyone who doesn't think that the 45th parallel isn't relevant for frequency of red hair obviously hasn't looked at the facts, and should read what Maciamo has written on the subject.

Angela
14-05-14, 01:15
That is true; The Mongoloids have diff. mutations than the Caucasoids but have similar social-structures (even in the Steppes with pure pastoralism); What causes the cline between Koreans and Cherokee for example i have no clue; But what causes the cline between North Europe and South Europe is obviously also manifested in the general cline of lighter-eyes i.e. rs12913832 (G/G) which also factors into skin-lightness;
http://browser.1000genomes.org/Homo_sapiens/Variation/Population?db=core;r=15:28365118-28366118;v=rs12913832;vdb=variation;vf=9155714

I think the cline for eye color is a little different than the one for skin color. However, in general terms my working hypothesis is that this is connected with UV radiation levels.

This is the table from Lucotte et al which lists the frequency for SLC42A5 for various regions in Europe:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=6320&d=1395423003

This is a map of UV radiation:
http://www.newquayweather.com/solarpv/images/SolarGIS-Solar-map-Europe-en.png

Fire Haired14
14-05-14, 01:56
I think the cline for eye color is a little different than the one for skin color. However, in general terms my working hypothesis is that this is connected with UV radiation levels.

This is the table from Lucotte et al which lists the frequency for SLC42A5 for various regions in Europe:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=6320&d=1395423003

This is a map of UV radiation:
http://www.newquayweather.com/solarpv/images/SolarGIS-Solar-map-Europe-en.png

This is because of hair color difference, not skin color difference. Are over 50% of Middle easterns as light skinned as north Europeans? According to current knowledge they should be. There are unknown SNPs that can explain the variation of skin color in west Eurasia.

Nobody1
14-05-14, 02:08
@Angela

Yes the North/South cline is also manifested by rs16891982 G/G cline but keeping in mind that South Europeans are majority G/G (80-90%) that would not explain the general cline but just for a minority; Whereas rs12913832 (G/G) is a much more drastic cline which effects the masses on either side and thus more (in my opinion) of a decider in North/South than rs16891982; Also rs16891982 G/G levels were found in South Europe as high as 96% in North Italy (Norton 2007 / n=48) and 93-94% in Tuscany/TSI (Norton 2007 / n=16) (1000Genomes / n=98) http://browser.1000genomes.org/Homo_sapiens/Variation/Population?db=core;r=5:33951193-33952193;v=rs16891982;vdb=variation;vf=9666045

I dont see a correlation to UV radiation/sun-exposure; For that only influences the tanning levels and might cause a higher skin cancer risk and blinding effect (light eyes) etc. but wont corrupt ones genetics (i.e. inherited SNPs); What caused these Mutations in the evolutionary process i have no clue; Maybe ancestral Nutrition and inherited henceforth;

Angela
14-05-14, 04:23
This is because of hair color difference, not skin color difference. Are over 50% of Middle easterns as light skinned as north Europeans? According to current knowledge they should be. There are unknown SNPs that can explain the variation of skin color in west Eurasia.

This is why I got so snarky with you you when you said I didn't post sources for my statements.

What's the point of posting sources if you don't read them and continue to blow smoke about these issues.

LOOK at the table. It is about SLC42A5. It is a gene PRIMARILY involved in skin pigmentation.
If you had bothered to READ the papers, you would know that they are talking almost exclusively about SKIN pigmentation. What do you think they are using reflectance tests and spectrometers to measure?

Baseless, made up comments like this make it impossible to take any of your posts seriously, and in the future I won't waste my time reading them.

Angela
14-05-14, 04:56
@Angela

Yes the North/South cline is also manifested by rs16891982 G/G cline but keeping in mind that South Europeans are majority G/G (80-90%) that would not explain the general cline but just for a minority; Whereas rs12913832 (G/G) is a much more drastic cline which effects the masses on either side and thus more (in my opinion) of a decider in North/South than rs16891982; Also rs16891982 G/G levels were found in South Europe as high as 96% in North Italy (Norton 2007 / n=48) and 93-94% in Tuscany/TSI (Norton 2007 / n=16) (1000Genomes / n=98) http://browser.1000genomes.org/Homo_sapiens/Variation/Population?db=core;r=5:33951193-33952193;v=rs16891982;vdb=variation;vf=9666045

I dont see a correlation to UV radiation/sun-exposure; For that only influences the tanning levels and might cause a higher skin cancer risk and blinding effect (light eyes) etc. but wont corrupt ones genetics (i.e. inherited SNPs); What caused these Mutations in the evolutionary process i have no clue; Maybe ancestral Nutrition and inherited henceforth;

I don't see it that way. At least not based on the papers I've read so far. Mutations, from everything I know about evolution, are random. Positive selection works by selecting for those random mutations that are advantageous. From the discussions in the papers, that is what happened with these mutations.

Prior theories had held this happened tens of thousands of years ago, in reaction to low UV levels in northern Eurasia. Since we are finding Northern Eurasians from Mal'ta to La Brana who don't carry the genes which have been show to correlate with pale skin in modern Europeans, many of these scientists are proposing that a high meat and fish diet provided enough Vitamin D (along with the fact that their bodies were covered for most of the year) that the mutations did not spread through natural selection at that time. (The Eskimos and the SAAMI to a lesser extent are a good example of populations living in far northern Eurasia who have retained more darkly pigmented skin despite the UV levels,but they also consume mostly fish and meat.)

The authors of the papers examining this issue are therefore proposing that the spread had something to do with the diet of the first agriculturalists, which was very low in Vitamin D because they ate next to no fish, for example. The depigmentation snps therefore spread as a result of positive selection. This is all gone through in much more detail in some of the papers. Nothing that I read in them indicates that this effect is limited to the tanning genes. On the contrary, they specifically discuss positive selection in terms of SLC 42A5, which, given that 97% of Europeans are homozygous for SLC24A5, seems to be the prime candidate for this selection differentiation in Europe.

If I don't get too sleepy, I'll try to locate the specific passages where this is discussed. :)

Nobody1
14-05-14, 07:06
I don't see it that way. At least not based on the papers I've read so far. Mutations, from everything I know about evolution, are random. Positive selection works by selecting for those random mutations that are advantageous. From the discussions in the papers, that is what happened with these mutations.

Prior theories had held this happened tens of thousands of years ago, in reaction to low UV levels in northern Eurasia. Since we are finding Northern Eurasians from Mal'ta to La Brana who don't carry the genes which have been show to correlate with pale skin in modern Europeans, many of these scientists are proposing that a high meat and fish diet provided enough Vitamin D (along with the fact that their bodies were covered for most of the year) that the mutations did not spread through natural selection at that time. (The Eskimos and the SAAMI to a lesser extent are a good example of populations living in far northern Eurasia who have retained more darkly pigmented skin despite the UV levels,but they also consume mostly fish and meat.)

The authors of the papers examining this issue are therefore proposing that the spread had something to do with the diet of the first agriculturalists, which was very low in Vitamin D because they ate next to no fish, for example. The depigmentation snps therefore spread as a result of positive selection. This is all gone through in much more detail in some of the papers. Nothing that I read in them indicates that this effect is limited to the tanning genes. On the contrary, they specifically discuss positive selection in terms of SLC 42A5, which, given that 97% of Europeans are homozygous for SLC24A5, seems to be the prime candidate for this selection differentiation in Europe.

If I don't get too sleepy, I'll try to locate the specific passages where this is discussed. :)

Those are good points and i actually see it similar (Nutrition/VitD necessity/selection/agricultural spread) but i see it less with UV radiation whether high or low; Good examples of that (you used) were the Inuits (Saqqaq) or the Paleolithic Siberian MA1; But is it known whether they were rs1545397 T/T or things of this nature;

LeBrok
14-05-14, 07:33
Those are good points and i actually see it similar (Nutrition/VitD necessity/selection/agricultural spread) but i see it less with UV radiation whether high or low; Good examples of that (you used) were the Inuits (Saqqaq) or the Paleolithic Siberian MA1;
Their everyday staple was fresh liver. Liver is a storage of vitamin D3, and many other elements, so as such it is one of the best sources of vitamin D. Inuits can't stay healthy without this diet, especially pregnant women and young offspring. If they had changed lifestyle to farming and farmers diet, they would need to get much lighter and get needed D3 from suntanning during summer to survive.
Basically this is what happened in farming societies in Europe and North East Asia.

Grubbe
14-05-14, 12:14
I'm confused. My initial comment on this thread addressed the fact that it was basically a duplicate topic.

Nevertheless, here's a few additional quips....

1. I've never seen an actual person look like this poor fellow (other than this photo). Strangely enough, the individual with the heaviest amount of freckling I've ever encountered in real life (and he had but a small fraction of freckles compared to our afflicated subject) was 100% Irish. Go figure.

2. We may not be defining sexual selection in the same way... let's use a hypothetical case. It's 1,100 years ago and we're sitting on the banks of the Volga. A Swedish Viking party drifts by and we watch as they are busy dividing their recently captured female slaves from a raiding party into "keepers" (ie. breeding partners) and ones that will be taken to market in Constantinople. We notice an obvious trend in their decision making...

What if these Vikings keep all the blonde haired, blue-eyed buxom women for themselves and trade the darker, brunette females for silver... is this sexual selection? I would think so. Before you dismiss this scenerio as farcical... please review the Norse tales of Rig.

Of course this Viking raiding party would have taken place a few thousand years AFTER my proposed SLC positive group first arrived in what we now call Europe. The selective actions of this hypothetical Viking construct would only further accent the pigmentation differences we see in Northern climes (or rather lack of pigmentation we see in the North).

Since there are quite a few dark haired people in the Scandinavian countries today, I presume many of these viking folks liked brunettes too! :-) More than sexual selection for specific traits, I find it more probable that most has boiled down to power and/or money. Just look around and see which men gets the beauties today. Many of these men are very, very far from handsome looking.

Drac II
14-05-14, 14:09
This is a map of UV radiation:
http://www.newquayweather.com/solarpv/images/SolarGIS-Solar-map-Europe-en.png

For the umptieth time already: this is NOT a UV radiation map. UV radiation levels keep changing every day for any given area. These are the levels for today in Europe:

http://www.havaturkiye.com/images/charts/en/contour/20140514/euro/euro/1400051573/uv.gif

While only 3 days ago they were like this:

http://www.havaturkiye.com/images/charts/en/contour/20140511/euro/euro/1399835442/uv.gif

And if you check tomorrow or in a couple of days, they will have shifted again.

Angela
14-05-14, 14:33
For the umptieth time already: this is NOT a UV radiation map. UV radiation levels keep changing every day for any given area. These are the levels for today in Europe:

http://www.havaturkiye.com/images/charts/en/contour/20140514/euro/euro/1400051573/uv.gif

While only 3 days ago they were like this:

http://www.havaturkiye.com/images/charts/en/contour/20140511/euro/euro/1399835442/uv.gif

And if you check tomorrow or in a couple of days, they will have shifted again.

Quite spoiled my morning coffee. And here people were having a relatively rational discussion.

And what the heck happened to my ignore list?:startled:

Drac II
14-05-14, 14:35
This is because of hair color difference, not skin color difference. Are over 50% of Middle easterns as light skinned as north Europeans? According to current knowledge they should be. There are unknown SNPs that can explain the variation of skin color in west Eurasia.

You can tell how unreliable these few SNPs are for determining actual OBSERVED skin pigmentation in any population from studies that have actually bothered to measure the samples with skin reflectance. Candille et al. 2012 did just that and the actual observed results did not go entirely well with the "predictions" based on frequencies of a few SNPs.

Angela
14-05-14, 14:41
For the umptieth time already: this is NOT a UV radiation map. UV radiation levels keep changing every day for any given area. These are the levels for today in Europe:

http://www.havaturkiye.com/images/charts/en/contour/20140514/euro/euro/1400051573/uv.gif

While only 3 days ago they were like this:

http://www.havaturkiye.com/images/charts/en/contour/20140511/euro/euro/1399835442/uv.gif

And if you check tomorrow or in a couple of days, they will have shifted again.

For the UMPTEENTH time, these are ANNUAL levels.

http://www.greenrhinoenergy.com/solar/radiation/empiricalevidence.php

Nobody1
14-05-14, 20:25
The reflectance-method used by Candille, Jablonski and Rindermann are highly corruptible by tanning levels (as noted by Candille); The more tanned the darker and since none of the people tested are from any study groups (i.e. have the same levels/conditions of testing) you get the results that the Portuguese are lighter than the Polish or that the Spanish are lighter than some British when in fact they are just less tanned; On the other hand the SNPs (8-plex etc.) are highly reliable because they are not corruptible by any outside factors and have an accuracy of 99% (skin-color); Best example is Candille and her SNP results for the actual basal skin-tone (no tanning) Polish 98% (lightest) and Portuguese 88% (darkest);

Greying Wanderer
14-05-14, 22:59
An estimated 4-6% of the European population as a whole have red hair. In Scotland, 13% have red hair and 40% have the recessive redhead gene. For Ireland, the figures are 10% and 46%. So, not extremely rare. It would be quite easy to find enough subjects with red hair to study the issue and determine to what extent the redhead mutation affects skin colour. Probably somewhat but not nearly as much as the two mutations generally considered responsible for depigmentation. One way to study the issue would be to compare pale skinned redheads from Scotland or Ireland with redheaded Berbers, since there are a few redheads among the Berbers but they apparently aren't any lighter skinned than other Berbers.

Anyone who doesn't think that the 45th parallel isn't relevant for frequency of red hair obviously hasn't looked at the facts, and should read what Maciamo has written on the subject.

But when?

At the LGM were the levels of low UV much further south?

If the low UV / cloudiness extended further south at the LGM and then gradually retreated north then that would be another possible explanation of the red distribution i.e. it was more widespread in the past and has been retreating northwards.

Greying Wanderer
14-05-14, 23:11
I don't see it that way. At least not based on the papers I've read so far. Mutations, from everything I know about evolution, are random. Positive selection works by selecting for those random mutations that are advantageous. From the discussions in the papers, that is what happened with these mutations.

Prior theories had held this happened tens of thousands of years ago, in reaction to low UV levels in northern Eurasia. Since we are finding Northern Eurasians from Mal'ta to La Brana who don't carry the genes which have been show to correlate with pale skin in modern Europeans, many of these scientists are proposing that a high meat and fish diet provided enough Vitamin D (along with the fact that their bodies were covered for most of the year) that the mutations did not spread through natural selection at that time. (The Eskimos and the SAAMI to a lesser extent are a good example of populations living in far northern Eurasia who have retained more darkly pigmented skin despite the UV levels,but they also consume mostly fish and meat.)

The authors of the papers examining this issue are therefore proposing that the spread had something to do with the diet of the first agriculturalists, which was very low in Vitamin D because they ate next to no fish, for example. The depigmentation snps therefore spread as a result of positive selection. This is all gone through in much more detail in some of the papers. Nothing that I read in them indicates that this effect is limited to the tanning genes. On the contrary, they specifically discuss positive selection in terms of SLC 42A5, which, given that 97% of Europeans are homozygous for SLC24A5, seems to be the prime candidate for this selection differentiation in Europe.

If I don't get too sleepy, I'll try to locate the specific passages where this is discussed. :)

It does seem plausible that coastal populations wouldn't need to develop lighter skin to thrive in the north so the question shifts to how did more inland populations cope?

edit: Just to add to the point about the Saami, there's been an idea for a long time that the Welsh, particularly north Welsh were an older and darker strain so they might turn out to be another data point.

Drac II
15-05-14, 13:08
The reflectance-method used by Candille, Jablonski and Rindermann are highly corruptible by tanning levels (as noted by Candille); The more tanned the darker and since none of the people tested are from any study groups (i.e. have the same levels/conditions of testing) you get the results that the Portuguese are lighter than the Polish or that the Spanish are lighter than some British when in fact they are just less tanned; On the other hand the SNPs (8-plex etc.) are highly reliable because they are not corruptible by any outside factors and have an accuracy of 99% (skin-color); Best example is Candille and her SNP results for the actual basal skin-tone (no tanning) Polish 98% (lightest) and Portuguese 88% (darkest);

We've been over this before. No, the possible interference of tanning is avoided by taking measurements from the usually unexposed parts of the body (armpits or pelvis area.) This preventive measure has been practiced since at least the anthropology of the 19th century, and I have even seen 18th century writers touching upon the subject of human differences clearly notice that unexposed parts of the body are lighter than the exposed ones, so this basic fact was already noticed quite a long time before our current times. Candille et al's results prove in fact that you can't rely on a few SNPs to make accurate "predictions" when it comes to pigmentation. According to them, the Portuguese should have been the darkest skinned on average among their sampled populations, but they were shown not to be so when the skin reflectance from unexposed areas of the body were measured, it was the Italians who scored the lowest, despite having a higher frequency of the few SNPs that this study took into account as having to do with light skin. The "prediction" simply did not match the actual observed results.

Drac II
15-05-14, 13:32
For the UMPTEENTH time, these are ANNUAL levels.

http://www.greenrhinoenergy.com/solar/radiation/empiricalevidence.php

For the MEGA-UMPTIETH time, no, that link and map are not about UV Index but about solar irradiance in general. UV rays are part of sunlight, and it is them that affect the skin, not all solar light:

http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/uva-and-uvb/understanding-uva-and-uvb

The levels of UV rays vary throughout the year, and in fact they have been increasing and decreasing over different areas:

http://wwws1.eea.europa.eu/publications/92-9167-205-X/fig9.3.gif

A lot of Europe has been receiving more UV rays in the past few decades than previously.

Angela
15-05-14, 15:17
For the MEGA-UMPTIETH time, no, that link and map are not about UV Index but about solar irradiance in general. UV rays are part of sunlight, and it is them that affect the skin, not all solar light:

http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/uva-and-uvb/understanding-uva-and-uvb

The levels of UV rays vary throughout the year, and in fact they have been increasing and decreasing over different areas:

http://wwws1.eea.europa.eu/publications/92-9167-205-X/fig9.3.gif

A lot of Europe has been receiving more UV rays in the past few decades than previously.


Some elementary logic, please! First you accused me of posting a map which just captures one day's UV radiation. When I pointed out it is a map of average ANNUAL radiation, you quibble that it is not relevant because somehow UV levels do NOT correlate to solar radiation!!??

Then you bring in the ABSOLUTE levels of radiation. Did I propose anywhere that a specific level of solar radiation was of any importance to the hypothesis? The point is that RELATIVE levels of exposure to the sun result in RELATIVE differences in pigmentation through the operation of positive selection for de-pigmentation mutations. Or at least that's the hypothesis which scientists are proposing, in so far as I understand it. Has it escaped your attention that, in general, pigmentation levels correlate with distance from the equator?

You know, like why polar bears are white? Positive selection of certain mutations in response to environmental differences? Simple enough concept. Unless we're going to go back and debate evolution? Do you also belong to the flat earth society?

And what on earth, pray, is the relevance of the fact that solar radiation is increasing have to do with anything? We are discussing an evolutionary process, that even if it is short as these things go, took place over the LAST 6-8,000 years or so, at least.

I don't pretend to have all the answers. Even the scientists don't have all the answers. All of these things are open to honest debate. However, I'm not going to allow totally illogical, nonsensical arguments to go un-rebutted.

You can attempt to use bullying tactics all you like; I am not intimidated.

You can also repost the same single study of a virtual handful of people chosen who knows how which you don't even interpret properly, and through which you would have us believe that the Portuguese are fairer than the Poles, ad infinitum. Your argument is as unconvincing at this moment as it was the first time you advanced the point.

(You know, when you and your cohorts run on and on about this in your attempt to prove that Iberians are somehow transplanted British Islanders or Swedes, I am so tempted to post pictures from events held at our local Portuguese American Society functions. Almost all of them from Porto, by the way, first and second generation. Very nice people, which is why I don't post the pictures. They don't deserve to be dragged into this nonsense. I don't even tell my friends from that community what kind of nonsense their supposed compatriots post about these things. I don't want to hurt them by telling them their compatriots are ashamed of the appearance of many of them.)

Angela
15-05-14, 15:48
It does seem plausible that coastal populations wouldn't need to develop lighter skin to thrive in the north so the question shifts to how did more inland populations cope?

edit: Just to add to the point about the Saami, there's been an idea for a long time that the Welsh, particularly north Welsh were an older and darker strain so they might turn out to be another data point.

I don't know the answer to that question. As LeBrok speculated, perhaps a high meat diet, which would include organ meats, would have an effect. I'm also assuming these people would at least seasonally have taken advantage of the presence of fresh water fish in rivers and lakes, although I don't know how much Vitamin D that would provide. Then there's the fact that these people would be heavily clothed all year, and so even the limited sun available wouldn't reach most of their skin.

Certainly, Mal'ta, according to current knowledge about de-pigmentation snps, was dark-skinned, and he lived far inland.

Then, as I've said before, a paper could come out tomorrow that unexpectedly finds some novel gene that these people possessed, and we don't, which de-pigmented them.

(This is totally anecdotal, and so of very limited probative value, but because I have to limit my sun exposure pretty severely to avoid burning, and I can no longer tolerate Vitamin D fortified milk, my Vitamin D levels are normally very low, and I'm always being prescribed Vitamin D supplements at pretty high levels. Granted, I'm not a huge meat eater, although I do eat it at least once a day usually, and I do love my sardines and tuna.)

Aberdeen
15-05-14, 16:06
I guess Drac will probably freak out about this latest paper about North African DNA being more prevalent in southern Europe than previously estimated, especially in Iberia.

www.pnas.org/content/110/29/11791

Aberdeen
15-05-14, 16:11
It does seem plausible that coastal populations wouldn't need to develop lighter skin to thrive in the north so the question shifts to how did more inland populations cope?

edit: Just to add to the point about the Saami, there's been an idea for a long time that the Welsh, particularly north Welsh were an older and darker strain so they might turn out to be another data point.

The Welsh are an interesting group, since they're high in redheaded alleles but part of the Welsh population is quite dark skinned, from a northern European perspective. They are very high in R1b. I don't know what one should think of that. Perhaps the darker complexion, which does seem to be more in northern Wales, comes from the mtDNA of the pre-R1b Neolithic inhabitants.

Angela
15-05-14, 16:57
The Welsh are an interesting group, since they're high in redheaded alleles but part of the Welsh population is quite dark skinned, from a northern European perspective. They are very high in R1b. I don't know what one should think of that. Perhaps the darker complexion, which does seem to be more in northern Wales, comes from the mtDNA of the pre-R1b Neolithic inhabitants.

Or perhaps the relatively high levels of yDNA "E" there, (in comparison to the rest of the British Isles) which might have been even higher in the past.

I've seen speculation ranging from retreating Romano-Celts to Bronze Age metal traders.

Angela
15-05-14, 17:40
[QUOTE=Aberdeen;431931]I guess Drac will probably freak out about this latest paper about North African DNA being more prevalent in southern Europe than previously estimated, especially in Iberia.

No doubt he'll claim they looked like this...
http://twitchfilm.com/assets/2013/02/Northmen-Tobias-Beard.jpg


As for me, if the genes came along with this...sign me up...or rather, you 'could' have signed me up...:grin:

http://thatalgerian.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/tumblr_llvj0iwd0s1qch0w2o1_1280.jpg?w=584&h=501

Then there's the more Levantine looking version...:smile:
http://content6.flixster.com/photo/10/65/71/10657116_ori.jpg

Sile
15-05-14, 22:05
Photo ! what a waste of time and space giving zero information.............at least check the study below which is more beneficial

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/north-african-and-west-asian-affinity.html

Aberdeen
15-05-14, 22:35
Photo ! what a waste of time and space giving zero information.............at least check the study below which is more beneficial

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/north-african-and-west-asian-affinity.html

The study that blog links to is the one I posted above.

Angela
15-05-14, 23:00
Photo ! what a waste of time and space giving zero information.............at least check the study below which is more beneficial

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/north-african-and-west-asian-affinity.html

:shocked:You obviously took your rude pill this morning, or maybe two. Try to not take yourself quite so seriously, and try to recognize the use of irony and humor to make a point. Also, really...after the hundreds of links I've provided on this site, which our younger members seem to never bother to read, I have to put up with this? Not appropriate, Sile.

As for that blog, I stopped reading it years ago...one of those people who has been proved to be WEFT. He also doesn't have a clue as to how PCA's or Admixture programs actually work. Oh, and has he finally conceded that maybe Basques aren't the original Paleolithic inhabitants of Europe, and that R1b may not be their marker? :rolleyes2:

Angela
15-05-14, 23:11
Sorry, posted in wrong thread.

Sile
15-05-14, 23:14
rudeness is someone who requests info for a promised "gift" and then does not deliver.............maybe more accurate, one would call it a .....parasite.

Then again, ......some ask for everything and show/give nothing in return..............is that greed or selfishness?

Greying Wanderer
16-05-14, 05:27
@Aberdeen
"The Welsh are an interesting group, since they're high in redheaded alleles but part of the Welsh population is quite dark skinned, from a northern European perspective. They are very high in R1b. I don't know what one should think of that. Perhaps the darker complexion, which does seem to be more in northern Wales, comes from the mtDNA of the pre-R1b Neolithic inhabitants."


@Angela
"Or perhaps the relatively high levels of yDNA "E" there, (in comparison to the rest of the British Isles) which might have been even higher in the past."

Either of those sound possible to me. Based on nothing but spending lots of time in the more remote spots of the UK i think there were at least three layers, the oldest one(?) surviving in north Wales, a "celtic" one (actually more Bell Beaker imo) surviving mostly in the west, and lastly the various celtic/germannic layers.

Drac II
16-05-14, 14:13
Some elementary logic, please! First you accused me of posting a map which just captures one day's UV radiation. When I pointed out it is a map of average ANNUAL radiation, you quibble that it is not relevant because somehow UV levels do NOT correlate to solar radiation!!??

Then you bring in the ABSOLUTE levels of radiation. Did I propose anywhere that a specific level of solar radiation was of any importance to the hypothesis? The point is that RELATIVE levels of exposure to the sun result in RELATIVE differences in pigmentation through the operation of positive selection for de-pigmentation mutations. Or at least that's the hypothesis which scientists are proposing, in so far as I understand it. Has it escaped your attention that, in general, pigmentation levels correlate with distance from the equator?

You know, like why polar bears are white? Positive selection of certain mutations in response to environmental differences? Simple enough concept. Unless we're going to go back and debate evolution? Do you also belong to the flat earth society?

And what on earth, pray, is the relevance of the fact that solar radiation is increasing have to do with anything? We are discussing an evolutionary process, that even if it is short as these things go, took place over the LAST 6-8,000 years or so, at least.

I don't pretend to have all the answers. Even the scientists don't have all the answers. All of these things are open to honest debate. However, I'm not going to allow totally illogical, nonsensical arguments to go un-rebutted.

You can attempt to use bullying tactics all you like; I am not intimidated.

You can also repost the same single study of a virtual handful of people chosen who knows how which you don't even interpret properly, and through which you would have us believe that the Portuguese are fairer than the Poles, ad infinitum. Your argument is as unconvincing at this moment as it was the first time you advanced the point.

(You know, when you and your cohorts run on and on about this in your attempt to prove that Iberians are somehow transplanted British Islanders or Swedes, I am so tempted to post pictures from events held at our local Portuguese American Society functions. Almost all of them from Porto, by the way, first and second generation. Very nice people, which is why I don't post the pictures. They don't deserve to be dragged into this nonsense. I don't even tell my friends from that community what kind of nonsense their supposed compatriots post about these things. I don't want to hurt them by telling them their compatriots are ashamed of the appearance of many of them.)

Some "elementary logic" is apparently what you lack when it comes to this topic. You keep bringing up a map that is NOT about UV radiation but about sunlight in general. When you are corrected about this then you keep either claiming that you already knew it (if that's so, then why do you keep on posting it when it is in fact NOT about the UV Index?) or you just ignore it and keep on posting the same map misleadingly as a "UV radiation map" anyway.

Apparently correcting your misinformation regarding UV rays is a "bullying tactic" to you. I actually think it's the other way around: when someone persistently ignores when he/she is corrected and keeps on pushing the same misinformation it's what's really closer to a "bullying tactic".

The Candille et al. study is one of the very few that has actually bothered to check the pigmentation "predictions" based on a few SNPs with actual observed pigmentation measurements, so instead of criticizing it (because it did not show what you wanted to hear, namely: Italians supposedly being "lighter" than Iberians) you should be praising it (scroll back to your earlier posts in this very thread where you were implying how skin reflectance observations supposedly match "predictions" based on SNPs while you were attacking "Fire Haired", when the fact is that they don't seem to go hand in hand very well.)

And the only ones trying to pretend that someone (i.e. Italians) are really Central/Northern Europeans who have somehow been transplanted in southern Europe it is you and your "cohorts" around here.

Drac II
16-05-14, 14:28
I guess Drac will probably freak out about this latest paper about North African DNA being more prevalent in southern Europe than previously estimated, especially in Iberia.

www.pnas.org/content/110/29/11791 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/29/11791)

Not at all, as it has already been discussed a bunch of times around here. The paper centers around IBDs (which is just shared ancestry, it does not really say much about the origin of this shared ancestry or when did it exactly happen), not really about admixture in the usual sense. And I am not the one who "freaks out" at the results of that study when it comes to their actual admixture analysis, but certain others around here (see threads about that study to find out who "they" really are.)

Drac II
16-05-14, 14:34
Photo ! what a waste of time and space giving zero information.............at least check the study below which is more beneficial

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/north-african-and-west-asian-affinity.html

Also here:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/06/ibd-sharing-between-iberians-and-north.html

The author (who is well-known to be a Greek, not an Iberian) makes good points regarding these IBDs and how imprecise they really are.

Aberdeen
16-05-14, 16:04
Not at all, as it has already been discussed a bunch of times around here. The paper centers around IBDs (which is just shared ancestry, it does not really say much about the origin of this shared ancestry or when did it exactly happen), not really about admixture in the usual sense. And I am not the one who "freaks out" at the results of that study when it comes to their actual admixture analysis, but certain others around here (see threads about that study to find out who "they" really are.)

The focus on IBDs is intended to do precisely that - determine the origin of the shared ancestry. It shows that the apparent high level of North African ancestry in Iberia is indeed that, and not simply a result of shared deep ancestry from the Middle East. The article says this.

"Using genome-wide SNP data from over 2,000 individuals, we characterize broad clinal patterns of recent gene flow between Europe and Africa that have a substantial effect on genetic diversity of European populations. We have shown that recent North African ancestry is highest in southwestern Europe and decreases in northern latitudes, with a sharp difference between the Iberian Peninsula and France, where Basques are less influenced by North Africa (as suggested in ref. 48 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/29/11791.full#ref-48)). Our estimates of shared ancestry are much higher than previously reported (up to 20% of the European individuals’ genomes). This increase in inferred African ancestry in Europe is due to our inclusion of seven North African, rather than Sub-Saharan African populations. Specifically, elevated shared African ancestry in Iberia and the Canary Islands can be traced to populations in the North African Maghreb such as Moroccans, Western Saharans, and the Tunisian Berbers. Our results, based on both allele frequencies and long shared haplotypes, support the hypothesis that recent migrations from North Africa contributed substantially to the higher genetic diversity in southwestern Europe."

Angela
16-05-14, 16:12
[QUOTE]The Candille et al. study is one of the very few that has actually bothered to check the pigmentation "predictions" based on a few SNPs with actual observed pigmentation measurements, so instead of criticizing it (because it did not show what you wanted to hear, namely: Italians supposedly being "lighter" than Iberians) you should be praising it (scroll back to your earlier posts in this very thread where you were implying how skin reflectance observations supposedly match "predictions" based on SNPs while you were attacking "Fire Haired", when the fact is that they don't seem to go hand in hand very well.)

That is totally incorrect. You have obviously not READ the papers at the links which I have provided upthread. Reflectance data was indeed part of the analysis in more than one of those papers, as was actual laboratory analysis.

It isn't worth my time to discuss this any further with someone who won't even read the pertinent papers, just like I don't bother to discuss the age of the earth with Creationists. You can repeat your tired argument based on a single study one thousand times and it still won't wash. You are convincing no one.



And the only ones trying to pretend that someone (i.e. Italians) are really Central/Northern Europeans who have somehow been transplanted in southern Europe it is you and your "cohorts" around here.

However, I can't let that last deluded comment stand. DO NOT associate me with some twenty something year old Lega Nord extremists on the skin head sites you frequent. They don't speak for me, nor for the vast majority of Italians. You know nothing of Italian history or Italian attitudes toward other Europeans. Italians want to claim an affinity with Germans? Only in a parallel universe. My parents and grandparents are turning somersaults in their graves as we speak. We are a people of diverse phenotypes, particularly in the north and Tuscany, which can resemble those of neighboring countries, especially in certain border areas, but, in general, we look only like ourselves, and that is more than fine with me.

Show some proper pride in who you are, for goodness sakes, and stop trying to smear other people with racist filth.

Drac II
17-05-14, 14:57
The focus on IBDs is intended to do precisely that - determine the origin of the shared ancestry. It shows that the apparent high level of North African ancestry in Iberia is indeed that, and not simply a result of shared deep ancestry from the Middle East. The article says this.

"Using genome-wide SNP data from over 2,000 individuals, we characterize broad clinal patterns of recent gene flow between Europe and Africa that have a substantial effect on genetic diversity of European populations. We have shown that recent North African ancestry is highest in southwestern Europe and decreases in northern latitudes, with a sharp difference between the Iberian Peninsula and France, where Basques are less influenced by North Africa (as suggested in ref. 48 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/29/11791.full#ref-48)). Our estimates of shared ancestry are much higher than previously reported (up to 20% of the European individuals’ genomes). This increase in inferred African ancestry in Europe is due to our inclusion of seven North African, rather than Sub-Saharan African populations. Specifically, elevated shared African ancestry in Iberia and the Canary Islands can be traced to populations in the North African Maghreb such as Moroccans, Western Saharans, and the Tunisian Berbers. Our results, based on both allele frequencies and long shared haplotypes, support the hypothesis that recent migrations from North Africa contributed substantially to the higher genetic diversity in southwestern Europe."

IBDs do not tell us definitively when or in what direction such "shared ancestry" went, plus what Botigué herself understands as "recent" (even as little as only 2 or 3 centuries ago) is already suspicious regarding the methods and conclusions:

http://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/108336/tlrb.pdf.txt;jsessionid=3BD0367FEDDFA24193EFFC2EAA F81FF1.tdx2?sequence=5

"Focusing on the North African component at k=6, we found that a migration event from North Africa to Europe would have occurred at least 8-10 generations ago (approximately 240-300ya) in Spain, and at least 6-7 generations ago in France and Italy (Figure 2)."

Historically considered, such a possible relatively recent time frame sounds more like a from-Europe-to-Africa influence due to such things as colonialism/imperialism than the other way around.

Also, their definition of "North Africa" is rather strange, since they seem to exclude Egypt from it: "whereas southeastern European populations share more IBD segments with Egypt and the Near East."

Bottom line: imprecise stuff, as pointed out by others already.

Drac II
17-05-14, 15:35
That is totally incorrect. You have obviously not READ the papers at the links which I have provided upthread. Reflectance data was indeed part of the analysis in more than one of those papers, as was actual laboratory analysis.

It isn't worth my time to discuss this any further with someone who won't even read the pertinent papers, just like I don't bother to discuss the age of the earth with Creationists. You can repeat your tired argument based on a single study one thousand times and it still won't wash. You are convincing no one.

Which other studies besides Candille et al. bothered to actually check if the skin pigmentation "predictions" based on a few SNPs for a selected number of sampled populations matched actual observed values by means of skin reflectance?


However, I can't let that last deluded comment stand. DO NOT associate me with some twenty something year old Lega Nord extremists on the skin head sites you frequent. They don't speak for me, nor for the vast majority of Italians. You know nothing of Italian history or Italian attitudes toward other Europeans. Italians want to claim an affinity with Germans? Only in a parallel universe. My parents and grandparents are turning somersaults in their graves as we speak. We are a people of diverse phenotypes, particularly in the north and Tuscany, which can resemble those of neighboring countries, especially in certain border areas, but, in general, we look only like ourselves, and that is more than fine with me.

Show some proper pride in who you are, for goodness sakes, and stop trying to smear other people with racist filth.

Are the likes of Borghezio or Bossi only "twenty something" years old? "Twenty-something" nutjobs are certainly not the only ones making up the ranks of northern Italian separatists.

EAB
04-09-15, 15:06
I find this thread very interesting. It is curious because I saw a documentary that claimed light eyes originated in Turkey and that was well accepted. Back then I thought, "Why if we were capable of developing light eyes, couldn´t it have happened multiple times before and again because of the same stimulus?". La Brana man comes along and seems to indicate he had no Turkish origin. Instead people have used his genes as proof of a homogeneous reality. I don't understand that there is such a rush to judgement about ONE person's DNA being sequenced as being representative of the whole of Europe 7000 years ago. He is afterall one of the first people of this era to have his Y Chromosome discovered, we may never know about the rest. If our society fell apart, and 7,000 years later someone found a Romani burial and said, "Ah, this is what Europeans once looked like", it wouldn't be untrue but it also wouldn't be representative. The faces of Europe have probably always been diverse. Which one was the most prevalent is no doubt rather hard to prove on such scant evidence. Just think about the burial practices we have today, we burn a huge amount of our dead. We know that funeral pyres, dismemberment of the dead and burial in ways that do not preserve the body have existed for thousands of years. We are stuck examining people who died sometimes in odd ways such as Ötzi and La Brana man. Wouldn´t the contexts in which these bodies have been discovered be like a modern person dying today as a wanderer or on the fringes of the local society being discovered in the future?

People could build in the time of La Brana 1's death. Why was he holed up in a cave up a mountain? Does this imply that he was representative of those who lived in settlements or that he was on the fringe of the local society? Considering fairly complex settlements existed back then such as in Turkey, when you find someone dead in a cave, sure it preserves them better, but does it represent society back then?

My main curiosity about this is that, considering this article leads us to assume that the process of modern whiteness evolved in only a few thousand years, why do they think it couldn't have happened multiple times from whenever a culture entered the environment that allowed whiteness to evolve? If we are expected to believe anatomically modern humans were in Europe for 40,000 years, why does the discovery of one readable DNA trace get used to prove anything about the people who had been there before and after?

There certainly must be a missing stimulus that causes whiteness that we have not discovered. I am just sceptical about the use of one 7000 year old skeleton as proof of anything other than himself. It´s just clutching at straws based upon the small amount of evidence discovered. There was a stupid report in the paper that blondes are dying out which probably seemed true to the researcher. This was based upon blondness not being very resilient. Then I went to Scandinavia and saw that young children who had one African parent and a Swedish one would have darker skin and African faces but golden afro hair on multiple occasions. In the same way when I met Swedish families who had a middle eastern/persian parent and a white parent, the children came out pale with bright red hair and dark brown eyes. It leads me to believe the more we learn the more confusing things get, so trying to make a rule is unwise.

On the subject of gingers, the Romans were in awe of how largely red headed the people of Caledonia were. Oddly, every Italian girl I have met in England has had a thing for freckles and ginger hair. It goes to show that what is rare is often found beautiful and exotic away from it´s origin. With that, a lot of Jewish people are and were historically red haired which may have originated in a similar way to my middle eastern friends red haired children. Middle eastern plus lighter skinned admixture perhaps makes red hair, Shakespeare often portrayed Jewish characters with red wigs. The proudest man I ever met was a Pakistani man with a red moustache, he explained to me it made him incredibly popular back home. What is a disadvantage in some cultures is something to be proud of for others.

LeBrok
04-09-15, 17:45
Since La Brana and Lochbour we have many more ancient folks DNA sequenced. Check these threads here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/forums/219-Genetic-Genealogy-amp-Haplogroups

MOESAN
04-09-15, 19:30
Instead people have used his genes as proof of a homogeneous reality. I don't understand that there is such a rush to judgement about ONE person's DNA being sequenced as being representative of the whole of Europe 7000 years ago. He is afterall one of the first people of this era to have his Y Chromosome discovered, we may never know about the rest.> 1
The faces of Europe have probably always been diverse. Which one was the most prevalent is no doubt rather hard to prove on such scant evidence.
Just think about the burial practices we have today, we burn a huge amount of our Wouldn´t the contexts in which these bodies have been discovered be like a modern person dying today as a wanderer or on the fringes of the local society being discovered in the future? > 2
People could build in the time of La Brana 1's death. Why was he holed up in a cave up a mountain? Does this imply that he was representative of those who lived in settlements or that he was on the fringe of the local society? Considering fairly complex settlements existed back then such as in Turkey, when you find someone dead in a cave, sure it preserves them better, but does it represent society back then? >3
[...] whiteness evolved in only a few thousand years, why do they think it couldn't have happened multiple times from whenever a culture entered the environment that allowed whiteness to evolve? >4
[...] This was based upon blondness not being very resilient. Then I went to Scandinavia and saw that young children who had one African parent and a Swedish one would have darker skin and African faces but golden afro hair on multiple occasions. In the same way when I met Swedish families who had a middle eastern/persian parent and a white parent, the children came out pale with bright red hair and dark brown eyes. It leads me to believe the more we learn the more confusing things get, so trying to make a rule is unwise. [...]. With that, a lot of Jewish people are and were historically red haired which may have originated in a similar way to my middle eastern friends red haired children. Middle eastern plus lighter skinned admixture perhaps makes red hair, Shakespeare often portrayed Jewish characters with red wigs. The proudest man I ever met was a Pakistani man with a red moustache, he explained to me it made him incredibly popular back home. >5
[/QUOTE]

1: Lebrok answered this: La Brana auDNA is not the only Mesolithic one discovered today -
2: OK concerning the worth of this lonesome man 's remnant as standard of the whole population of the time in the surrounding places; concerning faces, NO, the faces of ancient population individuals, if very often there was some variability in ancient populations, very often, some groups had very different means tendancies, and with time new mixings and crossings between different groups became visible what would have not possible if a gradual variability had always existed.
3: a bit synonymous to your 2: OK too: I said that concerning the sepultures of Metals ages, where we can expect an elite segragation.
4: "whiteness": rather light or strong depigmentation of skin: nobody serious ever said there has been only ONE mutation: mutations occurred on different loci and we don't know for sure yet what "penetrance" these mutations have; by the way, the most of Europoids share the same mutation ("caucasians") and a great number of them too share the others mutations having a depigmenting effect; maybe are we yet ignoring other skin lighntening mutations - and maybe, even, some skin DARKENING mutation exists too!
5: here you lack of methodic surveys about crossings; and the somewhat light hairs of young childre born by crossings between Europeans and Sub Saharians (by origin) very often darken; and the Sub-Saharian dominant darkness for hair can conceal an europoid light inherited trait (see N-W Africa); NO a blond North European mixing with a dark haired Near-Eastern would not have big chances to give birth to a red hair children! You can read something serious about transmission and distribution of pigmentation, abour red hairs by instance, knowing that we have still things to learn about that. Jews are a speific case and it's not all the communities which shows this strong tendancy to red hairs (5% in someones, very fewer in others).
just my point

Angela
04-09-15, 19:50
I find this thread very interesting. It is curious because I saw a documentary that claimed light eyes originated in Turkey and that was well accepted. Back then I thought, "Why if we were capable of developing light eyes, couldn´t it have happened multiple times before and again because of the same stimulus?". La Brana man comes along and seems to indicate he had no Turkish origin. Instead people have used his genes as proof of a homogeneous reality. I don't understand that there is such a rush to judgement about ONE person's DNA being sequenced as being representative of the whole of Europe 7000 years ago. He is afterall one of the first people of this era to have his Y Chromosome discovered, we may never know about the rest. If our society fell apart, and 7,000 years later someone found a Romani burial and said, "Ah, this is what Europeans once looked like", it wouldn't be untrue but it also wouldn't be representative. The faces of Europe have probably always been diverse. Which one was the most prevalent is no doubt rather hard to prove on such scant evidence. Just think about the burial practices we have today, we burn a huge amount of our dead. We know that funeral pyres, dismemberment of the dead and burial in ways that do not preserve the body have existed for thousands of years. We are stuck examining people who died sometimes in odd ways such as Ötzi and La Brana man. Wouldn´t the contexts in which these bodies have been discovered be like a modern person dying today as a wanderer or on the fringes of the local society being discovered in the future?

People could build in the time of La Brana 1's death. Why was he holed up in a cave up a mountain? Does this imply that he was representative of those who lived in settlements or that he was on the fringe of the local society? Considering fairly complex settlements existed back then such as in Turkey, when you find someone dead in a cave, sure it preserves them better, but does it represent society back then?

My main curiosity about this is that, considering this article leads us to assume that the process of modern whiteness evolved in only a few thousand years, why do they think it couldn't have happened multiple times from whenever a culture entered the environment that allowed whiteness to evolve? If we are expected to believe anatomically modern humans were in Europe for 40,000 years, why does the discovery of one readable DNA trace get used to prove anything about the people who had been there before and after?

There certainly must be a missing stimulus that causes whiteness that we have not discovered. I am just sceptical about the use of one 7000 year old skeleton as proof of anything other than himself. It´s just clutching at straws based upon the small amount of evidence discovered. There was a stupid report in the paper that blondes are dying out which probably seemed true to the researcher. This was based upon blondness not being very resilient. Then I went to Scandinavia and saw that young children who had one African parent and a Swedish one would have darker skin and African faces but golden afro hair on multiple occasions. In the same way when I met Swedish families who had a middle eastern/persian parent and a white parent, the children came out pale with bright red hair and dark brown eyes. It leads me to believe the more we learn the more confusing things get, so trying to make a rule is unwise.

On the subject of gingers, the Romans were in awe of how largely red headed the people of Caledonia were. Oddly, every Italian girl I have met in England has had a thing for freckles and ginger hair. It goes to show that what is rare is often found beautiful and exotic away from it´s origin. With that, a lot of Jewish people are and were historically red haired which may have originated in a similar way to my middle eastern friends red haired children. Middle eastern plus lighter skinned admixture perhaps makes red hair, Shakespeare often portrayed Jewish characters with red wigs. The proudest man I ever met was a Pakistani man with a red moustache, he explained to me it made him incredibly popular back home. What is a disadvantage in some cultures is something to be proud of for others.


More ancient dna is always better. However, for accuracy's sake, this depiction of WHGs is NOT based solely on the, I believe, two La Brana samples from Iberia. It is also based on the Loschbour sample (which carried the perhaps older in Europe y dna "C"), and the KO1 sample in the area of present day Hungary.

The EHG and some of the SHG appear to have been different.

At any rate, this has been discussed in numerous threads. Just use the search engine to find them.

I would be very wary of drawing broad conclusions from the testimony of a few people. All of my father's sisters (northern Italians) were red-haired (although not orange haired, thank goodness) and freckled, and they loathed their freckles and spent hours putting buttermilk on them to fade them and trying to hide from the sun because sun exposure made them pop out. Their red hair was also said to be a detriment in the "marriage market" as it was said to denote a "bad temper" and willfulness. I don't think the red hair had anything to do with it, but they certainly possessed those traits, as they would have been the first to attest. :)

EAB
04-09-15, 21:15
I would be very wary of drawing broad conclusions from the testimony of a few people. All of my father's sisters (northern Italians) were red-haired (although not orange haired, thank goodness) and freckled, and they loathed their freckles and spent hours putting buttermilk on them to fade them and trying to hide from the sun because sun exposure made them pop out. Their red hair was also said to be a detriment in the "marriage market" as it was said to denote a "bad temper" and willfulness. I don't think the red hair had anything to do with it, but they certainly possessed those traits, as they would have been the first to attest. :)

My friend Stefania told me there was one ginger in Bologna and all the women wanted a piece of him. I am dark blonde but some of my beard is red, where does this leave me on the marriage market in Italy? I had been under the impression that I could use my freckles as a status symbol, and now I'm going to have to get buttermilk before my trip?

I was teaching English in Hungary recently and the students were nearly sick when I told them that people in England, Scotland and Wales had really bright red hair. Then I said it was like Ed Sheeran and they didn't know what to do. The music had made them overlook his hair. It turned out Ed was locked into the friend zone for all but one of the Hungarian ladies. It seems ginger is a love or hate thing. I love ginger girls but the boys... got to shave my beard.

As far as the middle eastern ginger kids go, they were my exes cousins and they are the most ginger people in the world. I'm not going to post their pictures, but if you saw them the last place you'd think their father was from would be Iran.

Sile
04-09-15, 21:47
Which other studies besides Candille et al. bothered to actually check if the skin pigmentation "predictions" based on a few SNPs for a selected number of sampled populations matched actual observed values by means of skin reflectance?



Are the likes of Borghezio or Bossi only "twenty something" years old? "Twenty-something" nutjobs are certainly not the only ones making up the ranks of northern Italian separatists.

You have issues my friend........every time someone says something about Spain, you deflect Spanish problems by saying something about Italians.

The mega "nutjobs" is the castilian government which does not recognise the catalans and basques and does not grant them their freedom from Spain when these people clearly DO NOT WANT TO BE A PART OF SPAIN. .........conclusion, they are racists against these people.

Drac II
05-09-15, 01:30
You have issues my friend........every time someone says something about Spain, you deflect Spanish problems by saying something about Italians.

The mega "nutjobs" is the castilian government which does not recognise the catalans and basques and does not grant them their freedom from Spain when these people clearly DO NOT WANT TO BE A PART OF SPAIN. .........conclusion, they are racists against these people.

No, some of the Italians around here are the ones who have issues and keep bringing up "Iberians" whenever someone says something about Italians that they don't like. Get things straight, friend.

By the same token, what you said about "nutjobs" actually fits the Roman government which does not want to grant northern Italian separatists, WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE PART OF ITALY, their freedom. Conclusion, they are racists against those people.

EAB
05-09-15, 18:08
The last guy to try and make his own country near Italy got his oil rig demolished. There is a general European trend going towards petty states within a federal system, it is rather interesting but we're becoming as equally homogeneous in Europe as we are "bespoke". I wonder what passport La Brana man would have gone for.

LeBrok
05-09-15, 18:37
The last guy to try and make his own country near Italy got his oil rig demolished. There is a general European trend going towards petty states within a federal system, it is rather interesting but we're becoming as equally homogeneous in Europe as we are "bespoke". I wonder what passport La Brana man would have gone for.
He would probably go North to last hunting/herding communities in Finland and Northern Russia, to feel at home.

Pax Augusta
10-09-15, 16:10
The reflectance-method used by Candille, Jablonski and Rindermann are highly corruptible by tanning levels (as noted by Candille); The more tanned the darker and since none of the people tested are from any study groups (i.e. have the same levels/conditions of testing) you get the results that the Portuguese are lighter than the Polish or that the Spanish are lighter than some British when in fact they are just less tanned; On the other hand the SNPs (8-plex etc.) are highly reliable because they are not corruptible by any outside factors and have an accuracy of 99% (skin-color); Best example is Candille and her SNP results for the actual basal skin-tone (no tanning) Polish 98% (lightest) and Portuguese 88% (darkest);

Coud someone post a link to the paper?