PDA

View Full Version : Very advanced Indoeuropeans - cows reveal their history! :-)



Rethel
15-06-15, 11:44
Here ==>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/our-european-ancestors-brought-farming-languages-and-a-love-of-dairy-study-shows-10311317.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article10311593.ece/alternates/w1024/pg-10-bronze-age-graphic.jpg


Our European ancestors brought farming,
languages and a love of dairy, study shows.

Thousands of Bronze Age migrants from the Caucuses came to northern
Europe in a major movement of prehistoric people in the 3 millennium BC.

The making of modern Europe began in earnest about 5,000 years ago when a mass migration of people from what is now southern Russia and Georgia introduced new technology, languages and dairy farming to the continent, a study has found. Thousands of Bronze Age migrants from the Caucuses came to northern Europe in a major movement of prehistoric people in the third millennium BC, according to the largest research project of its kind that analysed the genetic makeup of more than 100 ancient skeletons from the period. The migrants brought new metal skills, spoke what became the basis of almost every other European language – from Greek and Latin to German and English – and carried a genetic mutation that allowed adults to drink cow’s milk.

This lactose-tolerance gene, which enables adults to digest the sugar in milk, is still more prevalent in north Europeans today than in most other regions of the world. This illustrates the historic importance of dairy food in the North European diet, the scientists said. The mass migration was one of the most significant in European history, equivalent to the colonisation of the Americas, and was a transformative period in terms of the change in languages and culture that it brought about, the researchers believe. “The single most important finding from our study is that the Bronze Age, which is relatively recent, is when the major genetic landscape affecting modern-day Europeans was formed. It’s a surprise as it happened so recently,” said Eske Willerslev, professor of evolutionary genetics at the University of Copenhagen. “Our study is the first, real large-scale population genomic study ever undertaken on ancient individuals. We analysed genome sequence data from 101 past individuals. This is more than a doubling of the number of genomic sequenced individuals of prehistoric man generated to date,” Professor Willerslev said. “The results show that the genetic composition and distribution of peoples in Europe and Asia today is a surprisingly late phenomenon, only a few thousand years old,” he said. The genomic analysis, published in the journal Nature, indicates that the Yamnaya people who lived in the Caucuses about 5,000 years ago were responsible for spreading not just their innovative cultural ideas and languages, but their DNA across a vast area extending from the Urals to Scandinavia. They effectively replaced the older Neolithic farmers and hunter-gatherers who had occupied the northern Europe for thousands of years previously, presumably aided by the Yamnaya’s ability to smelt bronze and copper and herd cattle, Professor Willerslev said. “They brought with them new technology, new family structures, new religion and new ways of burying their dead. They also brought the start of cities. They were a high-tech culture,” he said.

The Yamnaya also probably introduced genes for brown eyes, pale skin and tall stature to northern Europeans in the third millennium BC, which at that time was inhabited by dark skinned, blue-eyed, short people, he said. Crucially, they also brought the lactose-tolerance mutation that would allow adults to drink cow’s milk, a useful genetic attribute for healthy nutrition. “Previously, the common belief was that lactose tolerance developed in the Balkans or in the Middle East in connection with the introduction of farming during the Stone Age,” said Martin Sikora of the Natural History Museum in Copenhagen, a co-author of the study. “But now we can see that even late in the Bronze Age the mutation that gives rise to the tolerance is rare in Europe. We think that it may have been introduced into Europe with the Yamnaya herders from the Caucasus but that the selection that has made most Europeans lactose tolerant has happened at a much later time,” Dr Sikora said. Professor Kristian Kristiansen, an archaeologist at the University of Gothenburg, said the study resolves some of the questions about whether this period in prehistory was dominated by the movement of ideas or the migration and settlement of people en masse. “The old Neolithic farming cultures were replaced by a completely new perception of family, property and personhood. I and other archaeologists share the opinion that these changes came about as a result of massive migrations,” Professor Kristiansen said. The study, led by Morten Allentoft of the Natural History Museum in Copenhagen, also found that the Yamnaya people migrated east to occupy parts of Central Asia. They were eventually replaced by eastern Asians about 2,000 years ago.

I see here minimum one problem in that. If yamna-people brought into Northern
Europe brown eyes, where originally were only blue, then, how it happend, that
another Indoeuropeans - as was for example said in the end of the article - who
migrated in totally diffrenet parts of Eurasia, had blue eyes, for exaple in Central
Asia, India, Mesopotamia and even in present day China and Mongolia??? It does
not make any sens, especially that usually blue eyes are combined with pale skin
and dark skin is combined with brown eyes, with exeptions of course.

Modern day example from Iran, Muhammad Ali Ramin, Irans minister:

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/content/uploads/general/Mohammad-Ali_Ramin.png

(http://www.defenddemocracy.org/content/uploads/general/Mohammad-Ali_Ramin.png)
So, when did the pre-indoeuropean blue-eyed "scandinavians"
invade iranian plateau, ancient Egypt or lands as far as Gansu? :rolleyes2:

Second, they wrote:

They brought with them new technology, new family
structures, new religion and new ways of burying
their dead. They also brought the start of cities. They
were a hightech culture” he said. (...) The old Neolithic
farming cultures were replaced by a completly new
perception of family, property and personhood.

But they didn't mention any specifics. So, my question is: what were this new customs,
ideas, perceptions and belives and what was the old ones? Somebody maybe knows?

:rolleyes2:

Johannes
15-06-15, 13:20
There were few "blue-eyed" Proto-Indo Europeans. The Aryans are the ones who settled in the Iranian Plateau around 2,200 BCE. They arrived there from Turkmenistan. Probably due to famine or a long drought. From "Iran" they moved into what is now Afghanistan and then into NW India. They were mostly males (or had too many males who could not marry) and they married the native women. That's why there are so few individuals who retained their original features.
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/content/uploads/general/Mohammad-Ali_Ramin.png
This guy looks very Nordic! Amazing! I wonder how many are still there?

Rethel
15-06-15, 13:28
There were no "blue-eyed" Proto-Indo Europeans

If there were no blue-eyed, then explain, how the
blue-ones arrived into the China, India and Egypt?
How this guy on the photo get his eyes? And how
it is possible, that in Scandinavia, recessive gen of
pale skin and tall height dominate the population,
but dominate gen on brown eyes does not? If the
locals were a minority - they had to be, because in
the other way, present day scandinavians would be
still small and dark, as it happend in Asia - how they
dominate whole population whith recessive blue gen,
if they couldn't dominate with two dominate-gens?

bicicleur
15-06-15, 14:32
it's not worth quarreling about, the data are still to ambiguous
just a little patience
Nature predicts 10s of 1000s new anciant genomes within the next 5 years

anyway this is present DNA in Iran :

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041252#pone-0041252-g002

R1a1a 13.9 %
R1b1a2 : 9.3 %
Q1a2-M25 (Karasuk?) : 3.2 %

IMO could explain the minister's blue eyes

also 22.5 % J2 in Iran ; neolithic and/or iron age steppe origin?

Johannes
15-06-15, 14:54
If there were no blue-eyed, then explain, how the
blue-ones arrived into the China, India and Egypt?
How this guy on the photo get his eyes? And how
it is possible, that in Scandinavia, recessive gen of
pale skin and tall height dominate the population,
but dominate gen on brown eyes does not? If the
locals were a minority - they had to be, because in
the other way, present day scandinavians would be
still small and dark, as it happend in Asia - how they
dominate whole population whith recessive blue gen,
if they couldn't dominate with two dominate-gens?

OK my bad: I meant to say the blue-eyed Proto-Indo-Europeans were a minority. Most of the people had dark eyes and dark hair but with pale to olive skin tone. The reason why some Indo-Europeans, such as the Germanics, have a high incidence of blue eyes is that they became an isolated tribe. There were many tribes with different colors of hair and eyes. Some had more red-haired and blue eyes and others simply had more dark hair and brown eyes. They were all mixed. But if a tribe who had a majority of the population who possessed red and blonde hair and blue eyes and become isolated from others for a long time, then the red-blonde-blue-eyed will dominate as it happened with the Germanics and the original Celts.

The guy in the post got his Nordic looks from the remnants of the Aryans. Aryans must have looked very similar to Germans. There were a very small minority, however. The vast majority of the population were of Semitic/Dravidian origin. How this guy survived is a miracle!

Where do you get this blue eyes in China, India, and Egypt??? Tocharians were an example of what I was talking about but they were mostly brown eyed. I know because I went to the Urumqi museum and saw the mummies. And I told you already that the Aryans and Skythians who wondered all over Central Asia mixed with Dravidians and Mongol people because they did not have enough women to go around. Egypt? Berbers had some people with blue eyes or green eyes and light hair. So what?

NOTE: among Indo-Europeans or Aryans blue eyes and blonde hair -- even red hair and blue eyes -- were considered very beautiful. So was pale skin or white skin. Thus any one who possessed these traits was highly sought for mating. Most of the nobles had these traits while the mass of commoners had dark hair and eyes. Blonde hair and blue eyes were a sign of power.

Fire Haired14
15-06-15, 15:04
The author is a little confused, but that's okay. Yamnaya had ancestry from the ancient Caucasus, but their relatives did not go to Europe straight from the Caucasus. It isn't confirmed Yamnaya is THE source of lactose tolerance,. I doubt Yamnaya made people taller, but who knows.

@Rethel,

I see here minimum one problem in that. If yamna-people brought into Northern
Europe brown eyes, where originally were only blue, then, how it happend, that
another Indoeuropeans - as was for example said in the end of the article - who
migrated in totally diffrenet parts of Eurasia, had blue eyes

Pre-Historic Hirisplex results.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K7SKM42rHBUsM-ncLtL314NVWGMVfBniWU8fZIAV0uo/edit

Unlike with lactose tolerance and tall height, I'm convinced Yamanya-types are a source for brown eyes.

The reason IEs in Central Asia(Sintashta, Andronvo) had a lot of blue eyes is they were immigrants from Europe. This has been confirmed. They probably had more non-Yamnaya blood than Yamnaya blood. This is also probably why they had R1a and Yamnaya had R1b.

It sounds mythical, but Mesolithic West Europeans appear to have been a blue eyed people(Like 100%) and the source of that trait today. The source for brown eyes in Europe today come from Neolithic Middle Eastern immigrants and Bronze age Steppe immigrants. I'd also say it's likely Neolithic Europeans are the source for diverse array of hair color, while Yamnaya was probably uniformly black. Markers associated with every hair color have been found in Neolithic and Mesolithic Europeans.

Rethel
15-06-15, 15:29
IMO

What is it?:rolleyes2:

Johannes
15-06-15, 15:40
I doubt Yamnaya made people taller, but who knows.
Unlike with lactose tolerance and tall height, I'm convinced Yamanya-types are a source for brown eyes.

The reason IEs in Central Asia(Sintashta, Andronvo) had a lot of blue eyes is they were immigrants from Europe. This has been confirmed. They probably had more non-Yamnaya blood than Yamnaya blood. This is also probably why they had R1a and Yamnaya had R1b.

It sounds mythical, but Mesolithic West Europeans appear to have been a blue eyed people(Like 100%) and the source of that trait today. The source for brown eyes in Europe today come from Neolithic Middle Eastern immigrants and Bronze age Steppe immigrants. I'd also say it's likely Neolithic Europeans are the source for diverse array of hair color, while Yamnaya was probably uniformly black. Markers associated with every hair color have been found in Neolithic and Mesolithic Europeans.

Its impossible for any population to have 100% blue eyes. That goes against the laws of genetics. Again: it all about genetics. It does not matter what race or what your phenotype is, dominant traits always dominate the genes. And dominant genes are black/brown eyes and dark hair. There was never all blue eyed people who dominated. It was always brown eyed and hair. Simple. The anomaly is that populations get isolated and that's why there are such peoples who look so different from others. For example: in Los Altos de Jalisco, Mexico, there are found many people with strong Nordic traits. How did these genes get there? Simple: Castilians have a strong infusion of Celtic and Gothic DNA. So many migrated to Mexico 500 years ago and lived in isolated in towns and cities and only mixed among themselves. Over time their phenotype will dominate in the region. Same for Germanics and Celts.

What made the Yamnaya and Corded Ware people taller and bigger? the high protein diet. Meat, milk, eggs, and cheese, make for bigger muscles and bigger brains!

Fire Haired14
15-06-15, 15:55
Its impossible for any population to have 100% blue eyes.

True, but WHG was close to 100%. They're the source of that trait today. In the case of Central Asian IEs(Sintashta/Andronovo), like I said before they looked differnt from Yamnaya because they had a bunch of WHG, because they were immigrants from probably around Ukraine. It wasn't because of isolation.

Rethel
15-06-15, 16:28
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K7SKM42rHBUsM-ncLtL314NVWGMVfBniWU8fZIAV0uo/edit

It is not available.


The reason IEs in Central Asia(Sintashta, Andronvo) had a lot of blue eyes is they were immigrants from Europe. This has been confirmed. They probably had more non-Yamnaya blood than Yamnaya blood. This is also probably why they had R1a and Yamnaya had R1b.

Ok, momento, that means that I missed something!

Usually the Corded Ware Culture was cosiderd as formed by invaders from the steppe, with bears R1a.
Did something change in that matter? If yes, then when and how R1a get into Scandinavia?


It sounds mythical, but Mesolithic West Europeans appear to have been a blue eyed people(Like 100%) and the source of that trait today.

It is not mythical, existing of such population is suspected, but I still dout that it was in the west. One
hybrid man excavate in Spain dosen't seems for me to be convincing. Especially, when everywhere in
the west and south of Europe where this blueeyed people should live dominate dark types with dark
eyes. The same was excavated 100 years ago by anthropologist, and the same seems proof present
genetic resaerches about ancient peoples. This blue eyes - it shouldn't be there! :rolleyes2:
Maybe it was some very early migration from the east, or they captured the eastern women? :innocent: :smile:


The source for brown eyes in Europe today come from Neolithic Middle Eastern immigrants

Ok, no problem.


and Bronze age Steppe immigrants.

This is problematic in the case of corded ware people,
but if I am backward with the latest excavations, then
I'm ready to hearing the newest news :)


I'd also say it's likely Neolithic Europeans are the source for diverse array of hair color, while Yamnaya was probably uniformly black. Markers associated with every hair color have been found in Neolithic and Mesolithic Europeans.

Hmm...
But there were yet another R1a (and probably some b) in the eastern forest whom spred this genes into Asia.
So, it dosent seem to be the (only) mesolitic pre-indoeuropean people, because it dosn't seem quite logic. Btw,
everywhere in history where was pale, red/blond, and lighteyed people, there always where some IE, and
even if the archeological or cultural materials didn't seem to fit, sooner or later, come in, that in that places
were some IE, by culture, language, religion or hg. But it was never a principle whith another groups of people.
So, I'm ready to gamble, that origin of lightiness was mostly conected to some stage of Indoeuropeans origin.
How old and which stage - I don't know, but it was this ethnos, and this tribe, where we should looking for. http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/037.gif

Rethel
15-06-15, 16:34
because they were immigrants from probably around Ukraine.

:)

And where was Yamna? http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/2student.gif



It wasn't because of isolation.

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

Drax
15-06-15, 17:21
Rethel I'm 100% agree with you; there are something completly wrong with these analysis; we talk about a minority (WHG) with a huge recessive trait (blue eyes) and dark skin (?) mixed with two different larger populations with brown eyes, and everybody end with light eyes ?:laughing:

There are something wrong with the analysis of light eyes etc...; for example a modern group of amerindians (non mixed) have the gene of light eyes (Herc2) but have dark brown eyes;

there are also the problem of Yamna, like you have said every others groups of proto-indo-europeans have a majority light eyes and hairs, but not Yamna; for example see this post of Eurogenes:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.fr/2015/03/population-genetics-of-copper-and.html

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQbVVHNjA2Um1FLXM/view?pli=1

You can see this population of proto-indo-Europeans in this link, older than Yamna:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_Amphora_culture

According the link posted by Eurogenes, 70-80% of them (Globular, ancestors of Corded War) have light eyes and light hairs (Tyr and Herc2); and Yamna around 20% of light eyes; so imho; there are something wrong; there are also the fact that Samara (ancestor of Yamna) was blond and blue eyed (according Genetiker), and bell beaker R1b have an important part of light hairs and eyes...it's for that, I don't believe the theory quoted by Fire Haired 14; that Andronovo have taken the genes in west, and go in Asia etc...for me that have absolutely no sense.

First there are no R1a in Yamna , so I doubt Yamna are the original proto-indo-europeans; we have found haplogroup R1b but also I2 among them; and their female lineages are for a good part Armenians, that sound like they (Yamna) are invaders and they have taken Caucasus wives (like they have done in various places, Iran, India etc...); in theory that could have changed theirs physical appearances; but that my point of view...; but this theory don't change something weird about this analysis; we know now, thanks Reich, that Yamna were near half WHG; yeah the same WHG with so-called 100% blue eyes...my question is very simple, how we don't have found more blue eyes; among a population half WHG ? there are also the fact that we don't have the haplogroup Y of the Yamna folks tested for light hairs/eyes, so there are a problem to know their identity (I2 ? R1b ? etc...); Yamna were also close to modern North and east Europeans genetically (more than 50%) a population well known for to have light hairs and eyes.

For the proto-Europeans, I think Genetiker have an interesting point of view (that they have always been in the western part of Europe), but there are also the great post in this forum by Tomenables; about the origins of proto-Indo-Europeans closer to Finland:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30956-Genetics-Archaeology-amp-Linguistics-support-PIE-homeland-near-Proto-Uralic-homeland

Johannes, I'm agree with you, that don't exist a population with 100% of blue eyes, and according a previous study, this genes is very young (around 8000 BC); so among WHG, there were brown eyes; in the other hand for the Tocharians; there are plenty of light hairs according Mair, for example Cherchen man (red hairs), there are also a blonds mummies, there are also the historical description of the Yuzehi or the Scythians , that show clearly that they were very light hairs and eyes.

Fire Haired14
15-06-15, 17:22
@Rethel,

Ok, momento, that means that I missed something!

Usually the Corded Ware Culture was cosiderd as formed by invaders from the steppe, with bears R1a.
Did something change in that matter? If yes, then when and how R1a get into Scandinavia?
7297

The DNA files from the 101 Ancient Eurasians in Allentoft is online. People online have analysed their DNA. Sintashta/Andronovo were Eastern Europeans, with some Siberian ancestry. Allentoft also said it appears they were immigrants from Europe(with Yamnaya ancestry), not straight from Yamnaya. Yes, a lot of their ancestry was Yamnaya-like, but just as much or more wasn't. They had a high amount of WHG, which is certainly the source of their blue eyes.

R1a1-M417 probably originally comes from the "Steppe". It was brought west and then east again. Sintashta and Corded Ware got their R1a1 from the same Western source(Ukraine maybe). R1a1-M417 was spread mostly by Corded Ware and Sintashta, and their descendants.


This is problematic in the case of corded ware people,
but if I am backward with the latest excavations, then
I'm ready to hearing the newest news :)

My Hirisplex thing should be accessible now.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K7SKM42rHBUsM-ncLtL314NVWGMVfBniWU8fZIAV0uo/edit

Yamnaya was 90%+ Brown eyed, while Neolithic Central-North Europeans were only 50%. Ones with more WHG would have been majority blue eyed.

It's very simple. Brown eyed Yamnaya-types went into Europe and mixed with mostly blue eyed WHG-rich people. The result was Late Neolithic/Bronze age Europeans(inclu. Corded Ware) who were mostly brown eyed, but had much less than Yamnaya. Later blue eyes were selected for and became a slight majority.


Btw,
everywhere in history where was pale, red/blond, and lighteyed people, there always where some IE

It's hard to say where these traits come from, but we do know they had formed basically as they are today circa 2500BC in Central-East-North Europe after Yamnaya types mixed with EEF/WHG natives. Like I've said it's clear the blue eyes are from EEF/WHG, although I don't know about the other traits. Sintashta/Andronovo were North Europeans, with varying amounts of Siberian admixture. They had these traits because of that, not because of Yamnaya ancestry. Yamnaya themselves as far as we can tell did not have these traits at a high frequency.

LeBrok
15-06-15, 17:26
:)

And where was Yamna? http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/2student.gif




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

Recessive gene doesn't mean that a gene will vanish into a thin air. It means that it takes two sets, from Mother and Father, to make it work, like blue eyes. If mother has two genes, one for Blue and one for Brown eyes, and the same with father. In most combinations of parents' genes you will get brown eye kids. There is only one chance out of 4, that a kid inherits two blue copies, one from each parent, and will have blue eyes. This can continue till the end of the world. Unless natural selection kicks in and weeds out the gene.

Of course if few blue eye people mix with huge population of brown eye folks, the blue genes will get deluded and a chance of combination of two of them (to make blue eyes) will drop dramatically. But it will happen from time to time that two carriers of blue eye genes will mate and have blue eye kid. Like in case of blue eye Iranian minister. If you know something about mathematics and statistics, you should figure it out.

Drax
15-06-15, 17:38
Fire haired 14, see these links:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.fr/2015/03...opper-and.html (http://eurogenes.blogspot.fr/2015/03/population-genetics-of-copper-and.html)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o...LXM/view?pli=1 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQbVVHNjA2Um1FLXM/view?pli=1)

You can see the ancestors of Corded Ware, clearly indo-europeans have a majority of light hairs and eyes, so no Corded were not brown eyes; in fact their ancestors Globular Amphora Culture is older than Yamna, so why continue to consider Yamna to be the first indo-Europeans ? according Genetiker Samara have been tested with blond and blue eyes, (supposed to be the ancestors of Yamna)...also according the recent test, Yamna is something around half WHG ? so why they don't have the famous blue eyes genes.

Lebrok, okay, but the problem the WHG is supposed to be a tiny minority who have been mixed with 2 far largest groups of brown eyes; and according various test, blue eyes are extremely recessive, for example in USA the blue eyes will be extremely rare:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/world/americas/18iht-web.1018eyes.3199975.html?_r=0

Alan
15-06-15, 17:46
As Johannes said PIE (If we go by Yamna theory) were predominantly dark haired and eyed. A part of them moved to Northeast and Central Europe mixing with the EEF people there and becoming Corded Ware. Those were still rather Dark haired and eyed though in middle of the process of becoming lighter.

Than we have the Sintashta/Andronovo who were either migrants from CW OR just a geneticwise very similar group.

Those Andronvo people however were now by majority (60%) light haired and eyed (includes green eyes and brown hair).

Those Andronovo merged with BMAC and gave birth to the Indo_Iranians around what is modern day Turkmenistan, Uzebkistan/Northeast Iran and Southeastern portion of Kazakhstan.

And Aryan is the ethnic designation of just one branch, namely the Indo_Iranians.

Drax
15-06-15, 17:47
Fire haired, see my post and the link from Eurogenes with Globular Amphora Culture, they are older than Yamna and ancestors of Corded folks, they have plenty of light hairs and eyes, also according Genetiker, Samara is supposed to be blond and blue eyes...and ancestor of Yamna, there are also the fact that Yamna is supposed to be around half WHG (according Reich); so I guess it's not a minority with WHG...they should have this gene.

Lebrok

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/world/americas/18iht-web.1018eyes.3199975.html?_r=0

blue eyes are supposed extremely recessive, in USA that will be near an invisible minority very soon because of the mixing, so how a minority WHG with blue eyes and dark skin, after mixed with by far two largest groups than them; give a majority of blue eyed peoples ? That have no sense.

Rethel
15-06-15, 17:52
Recessive gene doesn't mean that a gene will vanish into a thin air. It means that it takes two sets, from Mother and Father, to make it work, like blue eyes. If mother has two genes, one for Blue and one for Brown eyes, and the same with father. In most combinations of parents' genes you will get brown eye kids. There is only one chance out of 4, that a kid inherits two blue copies, one from each parent, and will have blue eyes. This can continue till the end of the world. Unless natural selection kicks in and weeds out the gene.

Of course if few blue eye people mix with huge population of brown eye folks, the blue genes will get deluded and a chance of combination of two of them (to make blue eyes) will drop dramatically. But it will happen from time to time that two carriers of blue eye genes will mate and have blue eye kid. Like in case of blue eye Iranian minister. If you know something about mathematics and statistics, you should figure it out.

Le Brok,
and this is the reason, why in Asia light types almost vanished.
They could mostly be preserved in some closed communities,
like Pamirs valleys or couple of villages in Media or Cappadokia...
The same would be in Europe, if Yamnaya invasion would carry
majority of dark eyes, because they had to be overwhelmingly
more numerious than short and dark skinned locals - as it was
mentioned in the basic article...

So, they couldn't be in 90% dark-eyed :)

Johannes
15-06-15, 17:56
True, but WHG was close to 100%. They're the source of that trait today. In the case of Central Asian IEs(Sintashta/Andronovo), like I said before they looked differnt from Yamnaya because they had a bunch of WHG, because they were immigrants from probably around Ukraine. It wasn't because of isolation.

How do you know the Western Hunter Gatherers were blue eyed??? is there some magical study that actually saw all samples as blue eyed? We dont know what the Yamnaya or Sintashta-Andrononvo people looked like (I mean as far as eye colored). We can only guess or infer. You are assuming the WHG were this and the IE were that. You are simply guessing.

Rethel
15-06-15, 18:02
That have no sense.

It not only have no sense, but it is totaly science-fiction :)

And totaly cotradictionary with eyed-obsevable world, were
we have plenty of examples how recessive populations were
absorbed by dominate-gen populations.

It simply doesn't work, or maybe in
Scandinavia had place some miracle :)

LeBrok
15-06-15, 18:13
Fire haired 14, see these links:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.fr/2015/03...opper-and.html (http://eurogenes.blogspot.fr/2015/03/population-genetics-of-copper-and.html)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o...LXM/view?pli=1 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQbVVHNjA2Um1FLXM/view?pli=1)

You can see the ancestors of Corded Ware, clearly indo-europeans have a majority of light hairs and eyes, so no Corded were not brown eyes; in fact their ancestors Globular Amphora Culture is older than Yamna, so why continue to consider Yamna to be the first indo-Europeans ? according Genetiker Samara have been tested with blond and blue eyes, (supposed to be the ancestors of Yamna)...also according the recent test, Yamna is something around half WHG ? so why they don't have the famous blue eyes genes. From 101 Bronze Age Genomes paper we learn that Andronovo culture (Indo-Iranian?) was more like Corded Ware than like Yamna guys. This means that they could have come from farther north and west than Yamna, and could carry more blond mutations. Also, it happens a thousand years later than Yamna, and it gives more time to develop blond mutations in North Farmer communities of Corded Ware.


Lebrok, okay, but the problem the WHG is supposed to be a tiny minority who have been mixed with 2 far largest groups of brown eyes; To understand how it works in real life, we need to step away from only statistical recombination of genes. In nature there are forces which help develop new mutations, and "reward" good mutations to spread through population. The blond genes, especially light skin, is very beneficial up North. The most beneficial place for white skin is around Baltic and North Sea where Sun radiation level is very low due to high latitude and cloudy skys. The lighter the skin, the bigger production of Vitamin D3. This is exactly where we see the most concentration of all forms of blondism, the skin, the hair and eyes.
There is also a reason why norther farmers were lighter skin than northern hunter gatherers. Hunter Gatherers had extra source of Vitamin D from animal liver and amount of other organs and meat they consumed. Farmers on other hand changed their diet to mostly starches, and for that reason the only source of Vitamin D for them was the sunlight and white skin. Usually the white skin goes together with lighter eyes and hair, due to accumulation of blond mutations. However the jury is still in on benefit of blue eyes and blond hair? A better eyesight during cloudy days? A better camouflage hunting in winter?
http://www.temis.nl/uvradiation/UVI/uvief0_w.gif

Alan
15-06-15, 18:27
possible place of origin for Indo_Iranians


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

LeBrok
15-06-15, 18:38
It simply doesn't work, or maybe in
Scandinavia had place some miracle :) It is called natural selection. People who don't understand how it works call it miracle.

Silesian
15-06-15, 18:38
Here ==>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/our-european-ancestors-brought-farming-languages-and-a-love-of-dairy-study-shows-10311317.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article10311593.ece/alternates/w1024/pg-10-bronze-age-graphic.jpg




Blue eyes and red hair genes have been around for a long time.
http://donsmaps.com/images31/img_3545kostenkivlad.jpg

http://anthropology.net/2014/11/07/kostenki-14-a-36000-year-old-european/
http://dna-explained.com/2014/11/12/kostenki14-a-new-ancient-siberian-dna-sample/

Others say that light skin and blue eyes and L/P are from the middle/near east farmer types. We need more genomes. However one thing is clear; the Haak et al 2015 &
Allentoft et al 2015 have basically come to the same conclusion using different data sets, clearly pointing to the ancient region in the pictures below, and coinciding with your diagram.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/full/nature14507.html
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433


7298
7299

Rethel
15-06-15, 18:41
I wish to remind the second most interesting thing in this article.

They brought with them new technology, new family structures, new religion and new ways of burying
their dead. They also brought the start of cities. They were a hightech culture” he said. (...) The old Neolithic
farming cultures were replaced by a completly new perception of family, property and personhood.

But they didn't mention any specifics. So, my question is: what were this new customs,
ideas, perceptions and belives and what was the old ones? Somebody maybe knows?

Any ideas?:thinking:

Rethel
15-06-15, 18:54
It is called natural selection. People who don't understand how it works call it miracle.

Lebrok, andI have sometimes impression, that these, who claim that understand, in some cases dont uderstand at all,
or in these cases which dont fit to the theory they are trying to explain some things by not quite logical ways aspecially
mostly denying their own theory by truing to defance her... because belive in untouchable natural selection is pretty
religious belive, which always must be true, because without that, this kind of people are loosing sens of life :grin:

(I know, I know, terrible sentence... :) )


Blue eyes and red hair genes have been around for a long time.

Ok, but in which population and when?

Silesian
15-06-15, 19:01
Ok, but in which population and when?
I don't know but yourself/myself and LeBrok are from this region or connected with it.
Here is a good video to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d864bwyCAoA
The 19:26 Kurgan could be related[distant 5000+/- relative] to myself and LeBrock[I'm pretty sure all of us fall under Z-2105+]
7301

Angela
15-06-15, 19:03
Here ==>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/our-european-ancestors-brought-farming-languages-and-a-love-of-dairy-study-shows-10311317.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article10311593.ece/alternates/w1024/pg-10-bronze-age-graphic.jpg


Our European ancestors brought farming,
languages and a love of dairy, study shows.

Thousands of Bronze Age migrants from the Caucuses came to northern
Europe in a major movement of prehistoric people in the 3 millennium BC.

The making of modern Europe began in earnest about 5,000 years ago when a mass migration of people from what is now southern Russia and Georgia introduced new technology, languages and dairy farming to the continent, a study has found. Thousands of Bronze Age migrants from the Caucuses came to northern Europe in a major movement of prehistoric people in the third millennium BC, according to the largest research project of its kind that analysed the genetic makeup of more than 100 ancient skeletons from the period. The migrants brought new metal skills, spoke what became the basis of almost every other European language – from Greek and Latin to German and English – and carried a genetic mutation that allowed adults to drink cow’s milk.

This lactose-tolerance gene, which enables adults to digest the sugar in milk, is still more prevalent in north Europeans today than in most other regions of the world. This illustrates the historic importance of dairy food in the North European diet, the scientists said. The mass migration was one of the most significant in European history, equivalent to the colonisation of the Americas, and was a transformative period in terms of the change in languages and culture that it brought about, the researchers believe. “The single most important finding from our study is that the Bronze Age, which is relatively recent, is when the major genetic landscape affecting modern-day Europeans was formed. It’s a surprise as it happened so recently,” said Eske Willerslev, professor of evolutionary genetics at the University of Copenhagen. “Our study is the first, real large-scale population genomic study ever undertaken on ancient individuals. We analysed genome sequence data from 101 past individuals. This is more than a doubling of the number of genomic sequenced individuals of prehistoric man generated to date,” Professor Willerslev said. “The results show that the genetic composition and distribution of peoples in Europe and Asia today is a surprisingly late phenomenon, only a few thousand years old,” he said. The genomic analysis, published in the journal Nature, indicates that the Yamnaya people who lived in the Caucuses about 5,000 years ago were responsible for spreading not just their innovative cultural ideas and languages, but their DNA across a vast area extending from the Urals to Scandinavia. They effectively replaced the older Neolithic farmers and hunter-gatherers who had occupied the northern Europe for thousands of years previously, presumably aided by the Yamnaya’s ability to smelt bronze and copper and herd cattle, Professor Willerslev said. “They brought with them new technology, new family structures, new religion and new ways of burying their dead. They also brought the start of cities. They were a high-tech culture,” he said.

The Yamnaya also probably introduced genes for brown eyes, pale skin and tall stature to northern Europeans in the third millennium BC, which at that time was inhabited by dark skinned, blue-eyed, short people, he said. Crucially, they also brought the lactose-tolerance mutation that would allow adults to drink cow’s milk, a useful genetic attribute for healthy nutrition. “Previously, the common belief was that lactose tolerance developed in the Balkans or in the Middle East in connection with the introduction of farming during the Stone Age,” said Martin Sikora of the Natural History Museum in Copenhagen, a co-author of the study. “But now we can see that even late in the Bronze Age the mutation that gives rise to the tolerance is rare in Europe. We think that it may have been introduced into Europe with the Yamnaya herders from the Caucasus but that the selection that has made most Europeans lactose tolerant has happened at a much later time,” Dr Sikora said. Professor Kristian Kristiansen, an archaeologist at the University of Gothenburg, said the study resolves some of the questions about whether this period in prehistory was dominated by the movement of ideas or the migration and settlement of people en masse. “The old Neolithic farming cultures were replaced by a completely new perception of family, property and personhood. I and other archaeologists share the opinion that these changes came about as a result of massive migrations,” Professor Kristiansen said. The study, led by Morten Allentoft of the Natural History Museum in Copenhagen, also found that the Yamnaya people migrated east to occupy parts of Central Asia. They were eventually replaced by eastern Asians about 2,000 years ago.

I see here minimum one problem in that. If yamna-people brought into Northern
Europe brown eyes, where originally were only blue, then, how it happend, that
another Indoeuropeans - as was for example said in the end of the article - who
migrated in totally diffrenet parts of Eurasia, had blue eyes, for exaple in Central
Asia, India, Mesopotamia and even in present day China and Mongolia??? It does
not make any sens, especially that usually blue eyes are combined with pale skin
and dark skin is combined with brown eyes, with exeptions of course.

Modern day example from Iran, Muhammad Ali Ramin, Irans minister:

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/content/uploads/general/Mohammad-Ali_Ramin.png

(http://www.defenddemocracy.org/content/uploads/general/Mohammad-Ali_Ramin.png)
So, when did the pre-indoeuropean blue-eyed "scandinavians"
invade iranian plateau, ancient Egypt or lands as far as Gansu? http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif

Second, they wrote:

They brought with them new technology, new family
structures, new religion and new ways of burying
their dead. They also brought the start of cities. They
were a hightech culture” he said. (...) The old Neolithic
farming cultures were replaced by a completly new
perception of family, property and personhood.

But they didn't mention any specifics. So, my question is: what were this new customs,
ideas, perceptions and belives and what was the old ones? Somebody maybe knows?

http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif

For a summary of the flow of culture and technology from south of the Caucasus north onto the steppe and thus an explanation of part of the genesis of the Yamnaya "Indo-European" complex please see the Supplementary Info section of Allentoft et al 2015, page 2.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/extref/nature14507-s1.pdf

Cattle were domesticated in the Near East and first went to Europe with the Neolithic farmers.
Please see David Anthony's "The Horse, The Wheel and Language". If you don't have access to it, just go to Google Books, and sample it for particular topics. Here is where he discusses the fact that domesticated cattle were present in earliest Neolithic Thessaly from 5500 BC.
https://books.google.com/books?id=rOG5VcYxhiEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q=cattle%20in%20Neolithic%20Europe&f=false

In fact, you can use the google books version to see how farming, cattle and sheep domestication, and some developmnents in metallurgy moved from the southeastern European Neolithic cultures into Yamnaya. There's then the separate movement of culture and technology from south of the Caucasus to north of the Caucausus mentioned above.

As to pigmentation, if memory serves you were already directed to all the relevant papers so I won't bother to list them all again. Perhaps you haven't had time to read them yet.

Numerous scientists have examined the genomes of the WHG. They were homozygous for the snps which lead to blue eyes, but did not possess any of the modern European snps for pale skin. There is, I suppose, a possibility that they possessed some other snps which depigmented them of which we're not aware, but it is hardly a parsimonious theory; why so much selection for the modern versions if they were already depigmented? However, if you wish to cling to that hope, for whatever reason, that's your prerogative. As for me, when a scientist finds these missing genes I will, of course, change my mind on the matter. Until then, the science is what it is, and light pigmentation is the result of, in evolutionary terms, relatively recent selection.

Angela
15-06-15, 19:08
I wish to remind the second most interesting thing in this article.

They brought with them new technology, new family structures, new religion and new ways of burying
their dead. They also brought the start of cities. They were a hightech culture” he said. (...) The old Neolithic
farming cultures were replaced by a completly new perception of family, property and personhood.

But they didn't mention any specifics. So, my question is: what were this new customs,
ideas, perceptions and belives and what was the old ones? Somebody maybe knows?

Any ideas?:thinking:

Please see post #26.
Their technology, including their burial practices, were borrowed from other cultures. They did spread them around, however, and later made some improvements of their own.

If you wish to review evolutionary theory, in particular natural selection, there are, I'm sure, some simplified texts on line.

Well, I feel helpful today...see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Angela
15-06-15, 19:13
Blue eyes and red hair genes have been around for a long time.
http://donsmaps.com/images31/img_3545kostenkivlad.jpg

http://anthropology.net/2014/11/07/kostenki-14-a-36000-year-old-european/
http://dna-explained.com/2014/11/12/kostenki14-a-new-ancient-siberian-dna-sample/

Others say that light skin and blue eyes and L/P are from the middle/near east farmer types. We need more genomes. However one thing is clear; the Haak et al 2015 &
Allentoft et al 2015 have basically come to the same conclusion using different data sets, clearly pointing to the ancient region in the pictures below, and coinciding with your diagram.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/full/nature14507.html
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433


7298
7299

I don't know what you're getting at...Mal'ta was not red haired. One minor allele supposedly found by Genetiker does not a red haired person make...Do we really have to go over all of this again? Pigmentation is a polygenic trait. Please google pigmentation on this site for relevant threads. They will direct you to the relevant papers.

Drax
15-06-15, 19:14
It is called natural selection. People who don't understand how it works call it miracle.

Well, the problem that blue eyes have no advantage and is extremely recessive (see my link with the USA); and we know the WHG were a really weak numbers and have been replaced by Yamna/indo-Europeans peoples (and before that by farmers); I don't see how natural selection could work in this context.

@Rethel

for the new traditions, according Marita Gimbutas, Dumezil etc.., the Indo-Europeans were patriarcal, more warriors-like, and have brought all these news religions/mythology well known today like Norse Gods, Celtic, Greeks etc...; apparently the olds gods of the farmers were more matriarcal:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Europe_%28archaeology%29

Marija Gimbutas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marija_Gimbutas) investigated the Neolithic period in order to understand cultural developments in settled village culture in the southern Balkans, which she characterized as peaceful, matrilineal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineality), and possessing a goddess-centered religion. In contrast, she characterizes the later Indo-European influences as warlike, nomadic, and patrilineal. Using evidence from pottery and sculpture, and combining the tools of archaeology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology), comparative mythology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology), linguistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics), and, most controversially, folkloristics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkloristics), Gimbutas invented a new interdisciplinary field, archaeomythology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeomythology)."

LeBrok
15-06-15, 19:14
Lebrok, andI have sometimes impression, that these, who claim that understand, in some cases dont uderstand at all,
or in these cases which dont fit to the theory they are trying to explain some things by not quite logical ways aspecially
mostly denying their own theory by truing to defance her... because belive in untouchable natural selection is pretty
religious belive, which always must be true, because without that, this kind of people are loosing sens of life :grin:

(I know, I know, terrible sentence... :) )

Terrible indoctrination by Catholic Church.
The only sense of life is making next generation. Once you understand it and embrace natural selection all nature will become transparent and will make sense. Otherwise you will be stuck in old ways, lost and confused and counting on miracles to explain how it works.
I know what I'm saying. 20 years ago I was exactly like you, trying to unify my christian beliefs with laws of nature and human nature. It didn't work. Now I understand, all make sense, and I'm at peace.

The "loosing sens of life", "losing morality" is religious propaganda. To keep you away from free thinking, from taking all possibilities under consideration. Remember, every time you consider a possibility that God doesn't exist, you are sinning. You don't want that, do you?

Rethel
15-06-15, 19:15
for whatever reason

No reason.
Simply deduction and logic.
That's all.

Fire Haired14
15-06-15, 19:17
How do you know the Western Hunter Gatherers were blue eyed??? is there some magical study that actually saw all samples as blue eyed? We dont know what the Yamnaya or Sintashta-Andrononvo people looked like (I mean as far as eye colored). We can only guess or infer. You are assuming the WHG were this and the IE were that. You are simply guessing.

There's a marker in DNA that can determine whether someone has light or dark eye color with something like 99% accuracy. Blue eyed people from the Middle East have the same marker as blue eyed people in Europe. We have these ancient people's DNA, so we have a good idea what eye color they had.

LeBrok
15-06-15, 19:20
Well, the problem that blue eyes have no advantage and is extremely recessive (see my link with the USA); and we know the WHG were a really weak numbers and have been replaced by Yamna/indo-Europeans peoples (and before that by farmers); I don't see how natural selection could work in this context.
."
Please explain without invoking natural selection how blue eyes could start at all. I suppose, you believe that, Homo Sapiens came from Africa they had only black eyes to start with. How is it possible that first blue eyes happened and made itself dominant in black eyes population?

Drax
15-06-15, 19:29
Terrible indoctrination by Catholic Church.
The only sense of life is making next generation. Once you understand it and embrace natural selection all nature will become transparent and will make sense. Otherwise you will be stuck in old ways, lost and confused and counting on miracles to explain how it works.
I know what I'm saying. 20 years ago I was exactly like you, trying to unify my christian beliefs with laws of nature and human nature. It didn't work. Now I understand, all make sense, and I'm at peace.

The "loosing sens of life", "losing morality" is religious propaganda. To keep you away from free thinking, from taking all possibilities under consideration. Remember, every time you consider a possibility that God doesn't exist, you are sinning. You don't want that, do you?

Lol that sound like a preach for "natural selection", like a religious speech.:laughing:

More seriously, I don't think Rethel is 100% against the theory of the natural selection, he is against the way that have been used like a magical explanation, blue eyes is a recessive traits, that have been proved, and everybody can see that...so that seem illogical, and I'm 100% agree with him, that a tiny population like WHG have given to have a majority, and far more advanced groups, a recessive traits; and that this population were dark skinned with blue eyes (?); there are too much no sense; for him the indo-europeans have without any doubt light eyes too (and there are plenty examples of proto-indo-europeans with light eyes hairs and eyes, sometimes older than Yamna, see my previous examples).

Drax
15-06-15, 19:32
Please explain without invoking natural selection how blue eyes could start at all. I suppose, you believe that, Homo Sapiens came from Africa they had only black eyes to start with. How is it possible that first blue eyes happened and made itself dominant in black eyes population?

I don't have to explain something, I'm not a scientific, but I know when something have no sense; if you are not agree, please explain me how today, in USA, among Whites peoples, despites that they have the populations with more powers, blue eyes simply disappear and how a tiny minority like WHG should have been abble to give to a vast majority an extremely recessive traits...there are something wrong somewhere.

And so explain me how natural selection could work about blue eyes, when it's well known that blue eyes don't give any advantage in the nature.

For peoples "come from Africa", lot of scientifics don't necessary agree with this theory, so no I don't specially believe that humans or homo-sapiens (whatever you call them) come from Africa.

Drax
15-06-15, 19:42
There's a marker in DNA that can determine whether someone has light or dark eye color with something like 99% accuracy. Blue eyed people from the Middle East have the same marker as blue eyed people in Europe. We have these ancient people's DNA, so we have a good idea what eye color they had.

No, not 99%, there are too much problem also with modern peoples to be sure for ancients WHG; for example, for what I have read, the karitiana, an ameridians groups have the genes for blue eyes, but have dark brown eyes..so I guess other factors could play a role.

Rethel
15-06-15, 19:49
for the new traditions, according Marita Gimbutas, Dumezil etc.., the Indo-Europeans were patriarcal, more warriors-like, and have brought all these news religions/mythology well known today like Norse Gods, Celtic, Greeks etc...; apparently the olds gods of the farmers were more matriarcal:

Aaaa... I thought that maybe some new dicoveries were made in that matter... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif
Any way, thanks, for trying. :good_job:



Terrible indoctrination by Catholic Church.

OMG! Paranoia? :rolleyes2:

Last time I was indoctrinate by CCh when I was 10 or maybe 12 years old...



The only sense of life is making next generation.


No, I was talking abut something else. :rolleyes2:

For evolutionists their concepts are so important, because they loved to belived in them.
This is their sens of life, because every man have sens in that what he likes, belives and
apreciate. It dosent matter if this is evolution belives, christian faith, political convictions
or even collecting the poststamps. Especially if some one is focused on that or combined
with that some images about his existance or worldview. You can call it religion or not. It
doesn't matter. Some people can die for their football-club... because this is their religion.


Once you understand it and embrace natural selection all nature will become transparent and will make sense. Otherwise you will be stuck in old ways, lost and confused and counting on miracles to explain how it works.

I have no such problems. Only curiosity.


I know what I'm saying. 20 years ago I was exactly like you, trying to unify my christian beliefs with laws of nature and human nature. It didn't work. Now I understand, all make sense, and I'm at peace.

Maybe you are in peace, but your trying was probably from wrong point of view.
A knew many people who were trying - some of them became irrational biggots,
totaly blind for everything, some of them became in the best case deisitic, and of
course totaly blind for everything but not their own imagination, and some of them
became ateists like you, whose discover their new idols called natural selection,
evolution, atheism, Dawkins, aso - and they are probably most blindly from all
this groups, they are more biggot than biggots, because they are knowing true
about everything and are always right, and of course they are not so stupid, as
this christian people... they are the most inteligent people of all times! :laughing:
In their own eyes of course, because Dawkins said so... http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/037.gif


The "loosing sens of life", "losing morality" is religious propaganda.

Atheists probably dont have any sense of life, so they cannot loose it? :thinking:
No! They have, like religious people, and they put thier sens in some
things in the same way as religious people do. And by the same way
they can be sectarian in their mind, or can be free. But ateist is never
totaly free minded, because he is already in prison called: "God does
not exist". Beliving person can uderstand everything, even evolution,
but atheist cannot understand everything, for example creation. Why?
Because in his mind it is impossible, because creation cannot be done
without Creator! So if Creator exists and create the Universe, atheist
never get it, because he allready know, that this is impossible. But in
the case of beliving person, everything is possible with God, even this
so laudly called Evolution. She could be made with Creator, this is no
problem at all. Only atheists are limited, not beliving people. Postulated
by atheists open minded is not true. They are closed for creation and
for existing of god or supernatural powers by principle. Theists are not.
So, who is more close minded? :laughing:


To keep you away from free thinking, from taking all possibilities under consideration. Remember, every time you consider a possibility that God doesn't exist, you are sinning. You don't want that, do you?

I already demonstrated you, who is really free thinking.
You are not, because you already know that God doesnt
exists at all, and that evolution is a fact. Congratulations. :rolleyes2:

Silesian
15-06-15, 19:57
.Do we really have to go over all of this again? ...................Mal'ta was not red haired
No I prefer not.
However you do realize a different mix of genes between these two; yes?
One found closer to Yamnaya; the other sharing basal R*
7302

7303

Rethel
15-06-15, 20:03
Please explain without invoking natural selection how blue eyes could start at all. I suppose, you believe that, Homo Sapiens came from Africa they had only black eyes to start with. How is it possible that first blue eyes happened and made itself dominant in black eyes population?


LeBrok, I was trying to explain you that thing for a long thead, and you still don't get it? :petrified:

No, because you allready know that:
1) It can be done only by natural selection
2) It can be done only in one way by natural selection.

You simply don't want find another explenations either for
natural selecton neither for some kind or way of that process.

Why? Because you already belive in one only true subdogma of the one only true dogma.

So, how can you be open minded and free thinking? :petrified:

Fire Haired14
15-06-15, 20:17
The "loosing sens of life", "losing morality" is religious propaganda. To keep you away from free thinking, from taking all possibilities under consideration. Remember, every time you consider a possibility that God doesn't exist, you are sinning. You don't want that, do you?

There is no evil man saying "I'm going to prevent free thinking". That's such a myth. To call it propaganda is ridiculous, insulting, and wrongly making innocent people look like manipulative bad guys. No one is trying to prevent free thinking. It clearly shows you're aggressive attitude towards in this subject. Those are attack words. People simply believe in something and dis agree with other things.

There's nothing wrong about believing in something that doesn't have 100% prove. Nothing really can be proven as a fact. Like what Jesus said "thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are those that have not seen and yet have believed." There's nothing wrong with faith, and some people have lost that value. Life is more complicated than a test tube or what we can see and understand.

Angela
15-06-15, 20:17
No reason.
Simply deduction and logic.
That's all.

Logic and deduction is what scientists use, the scientists who study evolution, and natural selection as part of that evolution, and who have studied how pigmentation works, in fish, in mammals and in humans. In the same way, archaeology tells us about the flow of culture into and out of different areas, and genetics show us about how ancient populations admixed in different proportions to create modern groups. You can embrace that, or you can rely on myths and ideology. I'm sure if you think about it, you'll prefer to be part of the former rather than the latter.

@FireHaired.
Science and religion are not, in my opinion, necessarily antithetical. Believe me, it's quite possible to be a regular church goer and a believer in science and evolution at the same time.

I don't know your religious persuasion, but every Roman Catholic theologian who ever instructed me would tell you that the Bible is a book of religion, not science. Even the Pope believes in evolution! :)

Rethel
15-06-15, 20:19
More seriously, I don't think Rethel is 100% against the theory of the natural selection, he is against the way that have been used like a magical explanation, blue eyes

We had with LeBrok a very long disscusion about such matter, and I was trying to explain him
how totaly accidental recessive mutation could servive and spread across the continent, without
any unnatural intervention. He couldn't get it, because he is such deep and devot beliver, that
any reasonable and logical explanation cannot change his religios belives... I was using almost
only natural ways, historical/anthropological examples, and elementary logic... everything in vain...


if you are not agree, please explain me how today, in USA, among Whites peoples, despites that they have the populations with more powers, blue eyes simply disappear

Yea!:good_job:
Why they vanished among Latinos and Negros who has very huge european admixture...
The same in 20-some american countres, in north and central Africa, in Turkey, Armenia,
Georgia, China, India,. Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Arabia a.s.o...

Everywhere recessive genes were vanished, but in Scandinavia was a miracle! :laughing:

Oh! Holy Penninsula of Miracles! http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/0recourse.gif

Fire Haired14
15-06-15, 20:20
No, not 99%, there are too much problem also with modern peoples to be sure for ancients WHG; for example, for what I have read, the karitiana, an ameridians groups have the genes for blue eyes, but have dark brown eyes..so I guess other factors could play a role.

How do you know some Karitiana don't have blue eyes? It makes sense because of their ANE ancestry, and ANE is closely related to WHG.

Johannes
15-06-15, 20:22
possible place of origin for Indo_Iranians


http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/iiayk6z1hwx7.jpg

That's right! For Aryans!

Drax
15-06-15, 20:27
How do you know some Karitiana don't have blue eyes? It makes sense because of their ANE ancestry, and ANE is closely related to WHG.

ANE is closely related to indo-europeans too and Yamna were supposed to be half WHG...for Karitiana, how I know they don't have blue eyes ? Very simple, with the pictures:

https://www.google.fr/search?q=karitiana&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIrrG3pamSxgIVBOsUCh3GDwDQ&biw=1600&bih=789

You can find also the pictures of the Karitiana who have been tested, all brown dark eyes.

dark skin and blue eyes don't work together, it's the other big problem with the WHG theory.

Fire Haired14
15-06-15, 20:28
ANE is closely related to indo-europeans too, how I know Karitiana don't have blue eyes ? Very simple, with the pictures:

https://www.google.fr/search?q=karitiana&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIrrG3pamSxgIVBOsUCh3GDwDQ&biw=1600&bih=789

dark skin and blue eyes don't work together, it's the other big problem with the WHG theory.

A small minority probably have blue(or another type of light) eyes. You can't expect to find them in those pictures. There's actually an entire haplotype with over 10 markers, that 97% of blue eyed people have(In Middle East and EUrope), and WHGs have it. So, not just 1 marker.

Drax
15-06-15, 20:33
We had with LeBrok a very long disscusion about such matter, and I was trying to explain him
how totaly accidental recessive mutation could servive and spread across the continent, without
any unnatural intervention. He couldn't get it, because he is such deep and devot beliver, that
any reasonable and logical explanation cannot change his religios belives... I was using almost
only natural ways, historical/anthropological examples, and elementary logic... everything in vain...



Yea!:good_job:
Why they vanished among Latinos and Negros who has very huge european admixture...
The same in 20-some american countres, in north and central Africa, in Turkey, Armenia,
Georgia, China, India,. Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Arabia a.s.o...

Everywhere recessive genes were vanished, but in Scandinavia was a miracle! :laughing:

Oh! Holy Penninsula of Miracles! http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/0recourse.gif

Lol again 100% agree with you Rethel, that have absolutely no sense.

Drax
15-06-15, 20:38
A small minority probably have blue(or another type of light) eyes. You can't expect to find them in those pictures. There's actually an entire haplotype with over 10 markers, that 97% of blue eyed people have(In Middle East and EUrope), and WHGs have it. So, not just 1 marker.

Yes, and that the case with these peoples but they don't have blue eyes, you can find some discussion about that in various forums, and you know they are not a very large group, they are a tiny tribe (320 peoples !!!), if one of them would have blue eyes, that would have been well known.

arvistro
15-06-15, 21:15
I once made correlation of blond hair % vs EHG and WHG proportion in Euro populations after Haak et al.
EHG was rather perfect match, with high over 90% R squared and positive. WHG was positive but not perfect. Probably, although in data both EHG and WHG were present (it was 3 way WHG, EHG, EEF model) correlation was only caused by EHG rich pops having more WHG too.

If you can point me to blue eyes stats by population and relevant EHG/WHG/(EEF or ENF) mix for that population I can draw a correlation line and check on blue eyes too.

LeBrok
16-06-15, 01:42
LeBrok, I was trying to explain you that thing for a long thead, and you still don't get it? :petrified:

No, because you allready know that:
1) It can be done only by natural selection
2) It can be done only in one way by natural selection.

You simply don't want find another explenations either for
natural selecton neither for some kind or way of that process.

Why? Because you already belive in one only true subdogma of the one only true dogma.

So, how can you be open minded and free thinking? :petrified:
I already explained it by ways of Natural Selection (mutations and natural forcings). Why would I look for another explanation? Natural selection is in tune with laws of physics, statistical modeling, changing environment, and other subtleties of known Universe. On other hand you don't have explanations at all, no viable hypothesis. You constantly recall miracles to explain things that you don't grasp, and come back confused with always the same questions.

And now you are asking me to open my mind? I'm not the one who is confused. I have a valid and scientific explanation, you have your miracles. My mind was opened for miracles first 20 something years of my life, and I was just as confused as you.

Alan
16-06-15, 01:58
That's right! For Aryans!

Changed the map a bit. This is rather correct.

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

Alan
16-06-15, 02:07
ANE is closely related to indo-europeans too and Yamna were supposed to be half WHG...for Karitiana, how I know they don't have blue eyes ? Very simple, with the pictures:

https://www.google.fr/search?q=karitiana&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIrrG3pamSxgIVBOsUCh3GDwDQ&biw=1600&bih=789

You can find also the pictures of the Karitiana who have been tested, all brown dark eyes.

dark skin and blue eyes don't work together, it's the other big problem with the WHG theory.

~35% not half.

LeBrok
16-06-15, 02:09
I don't have to explain something, I'm not a scientific, but I know when something have no sense; if you are not agree, please explain me how today, in USA, among Whites peoples, despites that they have the populations with more powers, blue eyes simply disappear and how a tiny minority like WHG should have been abble to give to a vast majority an extremely recessive traits...there are something wrong somewhere. Do you understand General Theory of Relativity? Me neither, it is not sitting well in my head, and it is counter intuitive to most human minds. However by empirical evidence and mathematical formulas we know that Einstein was right. Only few top minds can really grasp it, the rest of us need to take it on faith.
Is is exactly the same with Evolution and Natural selection. Just because it doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't mean it is wrong. As Angela and I said, it is confirmed by archaeology, by biology, by observable mutations, by population genetics, and it is in agreement with laws of physics, statistics and computer modeling. What else do you want to believe in it, miracle?


And so explain me how natural selection could work about blue eyes, when it's well known that blue eyes don't give any advantage in the nature. There was never a serious research into advantage of blue eyes in certain environments, so we don't know for sure if it does or not. Some people claim, blue eyes can see better in dark. There is another viable explanation for blue eyes. It as well, might have been a side effect of some white skin and hair mutations. Statistically the whiter the skin and hair the bigger the chance of having blue eyes.
All we know for sure so far that white skin is advantageous in higher latitudes, because it produced more vitamin D. We also know that black skin is advantageous in Africa for skin cancer protection. Sun is intensive enough there, so even black skin can produce enough vitamin D. If all if this didn't matter, we would have had examples of black tribes living in Siberia, Alaska or Scandinavia. So far I'm not aware of any.


For peoples "come from Africa", lot of scientific don't necessary agree with this theory, so no I don't specially believe that humans or homo-sapiens (whatever you call them) come from Africa. So far the overwhelming archaeological evidence, and now supported by modern population genetics point to Africa.
Again, just because you don't like it, it doesn't make it wrong.

Regio X
16-06-15, 03:19
Numerous scientists have examined the genomes of the WHG. They were homozygous for the snps which lead to blue eyes, but did not possess any of the modern European snps for pale skin. There is, I suppose, a possibility that they possessed some other snps which depigmented them of which we're not aware, but it is hardly a parsimonious theoryCheck this out, Angela: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3028813/Europeans-dark-skinned-8-000-years-ago-Pale-complexions-brought-Europe-Near-East-study-claims.html

It seems that western hunter-gatherers were a bit different from Scandinavian hunter-gatherers.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/07/14/2758AA2A00000578-3028813-image-a-20_1428414965553.jpg

And this article refers to a third gene on Scandinavians: http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

"They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin."

LeBrok
16-06-15, 03:46
dark skin and blue eyes don't work together, it's the other big problem with the WHG theory.
I have a surprise for you:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/00/7b/d4/007bd45f2f60657db4e578de1e95e668.jpg
https://www.google.ca/search?q=black+people+with+blue+eyes&hl=en-CA&biw=1745&bih=868&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI0bDe6YmTxgIVzpeICh2zfABf

Or this:
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTEodlT9Yiss-coRv_nCNyptWkzvMM9RifjaZjnNQAi_6kZxzVIhQ

Mutations happen spontaneously. The thing is that if this mutation is not beneficial it doesn't have much chance spreading into entire tribe or population. Some traits might be lucky or persist on sexual selection, but if it doesn't bring much of a benefit to health and survival of offspring, it is sooner or later dropped off the genome.
The blond hair in Papua tribes is very interesting and intriguing. Many kids are blond when they are young. Perhaps we witness a beneficial mutation of blond hair in hot climate independently from European blond. Nobody knows yet, but it doesn't mean that in future science can't explain it. We just didn't care much about this yet to do any research into this phenomenon.

What surprises many people, and it creates some confusion in explanation is that European blondism is made of many independent mutations. It is a conglomeration of mutations. Some are from EEF farmers, some from WHG, some from ANE. Only natural selection, population genetics, beneficial gene flow, historical movements of people, can explain why these all beneficial genes found the perfect place by Baltic and North Sea.

What Rethel proposes is that all of these white mutations in Europe popped up spontaneously there. He is yet to explain why only there and not around the planet. Sure one or two mutations can pop up anywhere, and the above pictures are the best example. But several popping up and most importantly persisting for thousands of years in Scandinavia?! Statistically it doesn't make sense. It only make sense in relation to environment, in contexts of environment, selection of beneficial genes by environmental forcing. In this case low UV radiation there.

LeBrok
16-06-15, 04:14
We had with LeBrok a very long disscusion about such matter, and I was trying to explain him
how totaly accidental recessive mutation could servive and spread across the continent, without
any unnatural intervention. He couldn't get it, because he is such deep and devot beliver, that
any reasonable and logical explanation cannot change his religios belives... I was using almost
only natural ways, historical/anthropological examples, and elementary logic... everything in vain... Please explain why, by ways of accidental mutations, some tribes don't have two harts, 6 eyes, 3 hands, translucent skin, black fingernails, etc?




Yea!:good_job:
Why they vanished among Latinos and Negros who has very huge european admixture...
The same in 20-some american countres, in north and central Africa, in Turkey, Armenia,
Georgia, China, India,. Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Arabia a.s.o...

Everywhere recessive genes were vanished, but in Scandinavia was a miracle! :laughing:

Oh! Holy Penninsula of Miracles! http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/0recourse.gif

Keep digging, lol. Please, finely educate yourself what recessive gene means. It doesn't mean it vanishes into nothing. Is this what you are implying?

Fire Haired14
16-06-15, 05:38
Lebrok,

How do you explain blonde hair in West Asia, North Africa, and South Asia? It obviously didn't originate as a result as mixtures between EEF/WHG/Steppe(ANE).

Angela
16-06-15, 05:44
Check this out, Angela: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3028813/Europeans-dark-skinned-8-000-years-ago-Pale-complexions-brought-Europe-Near-East-study-claims.html

It seems that western hunter-gatherers were a bit different from Scandinavian hunter-gatherers.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/07/14/2758AA2A00000578-3028813-image-a-20_1428414965553.jpg

And this article refers to a third gene on Scandinavians: http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

"They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin."

That's actually not too bad as a simplistic summary of the tentative conclusions reached thus far by researchers working in the field. Usually reporters, even science reporters, get it much more wrong than this.

They're still missing some facts, however. If I'm remembering correctly (and if I'm not please correct the record) there were a few stray de-pigmentation genes in some of the WHG, and the "light genes" were not uniform among hunter gatherers in the far north. The SHG were a specific subset. (We're also not even sure how much genetic input there is from them.) Arvistro has posted about a proposed link with the EHG. However, if I remember correctly, the EHG were not all fair. Furthermore, the Central European farmers had some people with light hair, eye and skin snps, yet I don't think they're modeled with EHG, are they? (You can see the results in Gamba et al.)

That component came later, supposedly with the Indo-Europeans, yet look at their pigmentation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finalise
16-06-15, 06:05
Stupid article. Dark eyes and light skin in Europe are mostly a result of the Neolithic farming migrations. If you're talking strictly Northern Europe, then even SHGs had light skin. Lactose tolerance was relatively rare in Yamna samples in Allentoft, while in Haak it practically non-existent. Lactose tolerance was a late evolution amongst Europeans and it certainly wasn't just down to Yamna migrations, but more of a native European trait (although plenty of populations in Africa and Asia have this trait so it's not exclusively European). Yamna might have had a genetic pre-disposition to tall heights, but height is not a robust genetic trait, and it can easily change even with 1 generation. Just look at the difference in height between South and North Koreans.

bicicleur
16-06-15, 10:57
Check this out, Angela: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3028813/Europeans-dark-skinned-8-000-years-ago-Pale-complexions-brought-Europe-Near-East-study-claims.html

It seems that western hunter-gatherers were a bit different from Scandinavian hunter-gatherers.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/07/14/2758AA2A00000578-3028813-image-a-20_1428414965553.jpg

And this article refers to a third gene on Scandinavians: http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

"They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin."

both Motala and first European farmers had SLC24A5
that can't be coincidence?

Rethel
16-06-15, 12:39
Le Brok,
I don't have enough time for next disscusion about
that, because about this allready exists a thread.

Once again, you gave arguments against your
own theory, for support my point of view and
you didn't even mention this!

I see, that you cannot accept that things simply are.
That there are not reason to exist for them, or that
they cannot exist because they... exist. You need
badly some quasi-religions belives, and you are so
deeply belive that you cannot see that you are by
yourself giving examples destroing your worldview.
This is so amazing for me.... really!:thinking:

You mentioned theory of relativity. This is a very good
example like you are seeing things. You don't understand
something, but SOMEONE else understand, so you
belive that this is fact and truth - ergo you are really
religious! You are beliving (and ready to belive) in
something what you dont understand, or what does
not have any sens for you, because someone said so.

Why then are you laughting at christian people, who
are beliving in much more reasonable things than you?
They can at least understand things in wich they belive.
You cannot.

p.s. I can imagine relativity, this is no problem for me.

LeBrok
16-06-15, 17:14
Lebrok,

How do you explain blonde hair in West Asia, North Africa, and South Asia? It obviously didn't originate as a result as mixtures between EEF/WHG/Steppe(ANE).
See post 55.

LeBrok
16-06-15, 17:26
"According to Allencroft et al., the derived mutation at rs16891982 (SLC45A2) was found at only around 25% in the Bronze Age steppe (!), and the derived mutation at rs12913832 (OCA2-HERC2) was found at 0%. To put that in perspective, that means these people were darker than living Pakistanis, who have higher percentages of the derived mutation at rs16891982, and who do display the derived mutation at rs12913832 (but at very low levels for this mutation). Same with Yamnaya in Haak et al., these people were much darker than any living population in Europe, and approached lighter South Asian populations in terms of pigmentation genetics."

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

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

.
The acceleration of whitening happened since the Bronze Age when many groups, got very mobile. The mobility accelerated population mixing, even with groups from far away, therefore sped up beneficial gene transfer and genes flow through populations.

LeBrok
16-06-15, 18:33
I see, that you cannot accept that things simply are.
That there are not reason to exist for them, or that
they cannot exist because they... exist.
I give examples of blond hair in Papua and blue eyes in Africans? I admitted many times existence of spontaneous mutations, which creates new things to exist, as a part of natural selection process, didn't I? Did you miss my comments completely, just to make your "logical" remark? Next time, pay attention to nuances, the devil is in the detail.



You need
badly some quasi-religions belives, and you are so
deeply belive that you cannot see that you are by
yourself giving examples destroing your worldview.
This is so amazing for me.... really!:thinking:

Are you ridiculing someones beliefs just to admit your religious convictions in next paragraf, (that is very "logical" or perhaps a form of "psychology" of yours that I don't get, lol):

Why then are you laughting at christian people, who
are beliving in much more reasonable things than you?
They can at least understand things in wich they belive.
You cannot.






You mentioned theory of relativity. This is a very good
example like you are seeing things. You don't understand
something, but SOMEONE else understand, so you
belive that this is fact and truth - ergo you are really
religious! You are beliving (and ready to belive) in
something what you dont understand, or what does
not have any sens for you, because someone said so.
Again, for an intelligent person you managed to lose all most important parts of my comment. So no, I believe in it because mathematical equations agree with this, known laws of physics agree with it, all predictions turn to be right. GPS satellite need to use relativistic correction for time ticking slower with speed to be correct, our sun/gravity bands light from distant stars, and many others. With so many empirical proofs, it doesn't take huge leap of faith, to believe that Einstein was right, and General Relativity is correct. Try not to miss these "Nuances" next time, or you continue to be confused.

It is not like believing your parents, who blindly believed their parents, and their parents, etc in existence of something nobody saw or measured with scientific tools, or proved existence based on laws of physics. I guess, what you call "logic" fits a popular definition of a belief.


Why is it so hard for you to accept the fact, that no amount of spontaneous mutations can be so uniform and persistent to encompass millions of people in northern Europe. We are not even talking about one mutation, like one gene albino mutation, but several whitening mutations, which conglomerated in Northern Europe. Conveniently it is the same place where UV radiation is low.
Natural selection elegantly explains why a beneficial trait can give advantage to a person and offspring. It explains a role of environment in shaping species. It explains why Northern Europeans are most white, in this case.

Furthermore, if you know something about math and statistics, and you should because you grasp General Relativity well, it should give you an idea how improbable and impossible your scenario of "just exist" in context of white Europeans is. I was waiting for you to explain why people don't have two hearts or 6 eyes, to lead you to the right answer.
Let's start again. According to you, white skin "just happened there", because things just happen spontaneously. Why then we don't have tribes with some weird spontaneous anomalies like a third eye, or a elephant trunk, or whatever? According to your hypothesis these all things are equally valid and can happen everywhere.

Drax
16-06-15, 20:20
~35% not half.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30936-Yamna-quot-25-ENF-30-35-ANE-quot-and-40-45-WHG

some of them have near 45% WHG, so we can talk of half, of if you prefer between 1/3 and 1/2; so near half.

Drax
16-06-15, 20:57
I have a surprise for you:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/00/7b/d4/007bd45f2f60657db4e578de1e95e668.jpg
https://www.google.ca/search?q=black+people+with+blue+eyes&hl=en-CA&biw=1745&bih=868&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI0bDe6YmTxgIVzpeICh2zfABf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_albinism

be careful with the sensational pictures you can found in internet, this little girl is simply ill; that nothing to do with healthing blue eyes from Europeans.



Or this:
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTEodlT9Yiss-coRv_nCNyptWkzvMM9RifjaZjnNQAi_6kZxzVIhQ

Mutations happen spontaneously. The thing is that if this mutation is not beneficial it doesn't have much chance spreading into entire tribe or population. Some traits might be lucky or persist on sexual selection, but if it doesn't bring much of a benefit to health and survival of offspring, it is sooner or later dropped off the genome.
The blond hair in Papua tribes is very interesting and intriguing. Many kids are blond when they are young. Perhaps we witness a beneficial mutation of blond hair in hot climate independently from European blond. Nobody knows yet, but it doesn't mean that in future science can't explain it. We just didn't care much about this yet to do any research into this phenomenon.

Again we should be careful with this kind of sensational article; first that yet to find if their blond hairs is not a product of a form of albinism; by the way:

http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/05/origin-blond-afros-melanesia

The mutation, which has no obvious advantages, likely arose by chance in one individual and drifted to a high frequency in the Solomon Islands because the original population was small, says Jonathan Friedlaender, an anthropologist emeritus at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study. "This whole area seems to have been populated by very small groups of people making it across these stepping-stone islands, so you do have very dramatic effects in fluctuations of gene frequency."

That the opposite situation of WHG with blue eyes who have invaded mixed multiples times by brown peoples; again it was their isolation who have kept these blond afros.


What surprises many people, and it creates some confusion in explanation is that European blondism is made of many independent mutations. It is a conglomeration of mutations. Some are from EEF farmers, some from WHG, some from ANE.
Only natural selection, population genetics, beneficial gene flow, historical movements of people, can explain why these all beneficial genes found the perfect place by Baltic and North Sea.

Well first the theory of WHG peoples with blue eyes is the opposite of your example, because peoples who defend say they are the ones sources of blue eyes, they don't say Europeans have multiples genes for blue eyes from multiples peoples....it's the problem of your example of the natural selection because blue eyes were supposed among a tiny group and is extremely recessive.


What Rethel proposes is that all of these white mutations in Europe popped up spontaneously there. He is yet to explain why only there and not around the planet. Sure one or two mutations can pop up anywhere, and the above pictures are the best example. But several popping up and most importantly persisting for thousands of years in Scandinavia?! Statistically it doesn't make sense. It only make sense in relation to environment, in contexts of environment, selection of beneficial genes by environmental forcing. In this case low UV radiation there.

Your theory have yet to be proven, so I don't know how you can say that the true, you have no idea what they have caused blue eyes, blond hairs etc...

Rethel
16-06-15, 21:33
Drax,

try to read mine discussion with LeBrok

here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28314-Will-all-people-of-the-world-mix-creating-one-race-in-the-future?p=453600&viewfull=1#post453600

Since post #198 to about 245.

You will save a lot of time :)

Because it will be over and over again the same - you and him :)

Drax
16-06-15, 21:57
Do you understand General Theory of Relativity? Me neither, it is not sitting well in my head, and it is counter intuitive to most human minds. However by empirical evidence and mathematical formulas we know that Einstein was right. Only few top minds can really grasp it, the rest of us need to take it on faith.
Is is exactly the same with Evolution and Natural selection. Just because it doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't mean it is wrong. As Angela and I said, it is confirmed by archaeology, by biology, by observable mutations, by population genetics, and it is in agreement with laws of physics, statistics and computer modeling. What else do you want to believe in it, miracle?

No, but I find funny that you talk first about a theory, so not yet proven, and say in the same that have a been proven, that a contradiction, and no population genetic, archeology etc...are not agree about everything, it's far from the true, you can see lot of refutation about these kinds of theory too...I don't need a miracle, but a theory who respect the reality.


There was never a serious research into advantage of blue eyes in certain environments, so we don't know for sure if it does or not. Some people claim, blue eyes can see better in dark. There is another viable explanation for blue eyes. It as well, might have been a side effect of some white skin and hair mutations. Statistically the whiter the skin and hair the bigger the chance of having blue eyes.

That a pure legend, by the way there are various study about the useful or not of blue eyes, that clearly not an direct advantage:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/new-genetics-discovery-all-blue-eyed-people-related-to-brad-pitt-a-532346.html

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/origin-blue-eyes

"Like freckles, hair color or baldness, there's no real physical advantage to being blue-eyed. Says Eiberg: “It simply shows that nature is constantly shuffling the human genome, creating a genetic cocktail of human chromosomes and trying out different changes as it does so.”

I can agree with your explanation with the side effect of blue eyes with white skin and light hairs, and that our problem with these WHG with brown eyes and so-called light eyes.


All we know for sure so far that white skin is advantageous in higher latitudes, because it produced more vitamin D. We also know that black skin is advantageous in Africa for skin cancer protection. Sun is intensive enough there, so even black skin can produce enough vitamin D. If all if this didn't matter, we would have had examples of black tribes living in Siberia, Alaska or Scandinavia. So far I'm not aware of any.

Light skins is an different example of blue eyes, see the quote above; by the way Siberians and Inuits peoples have relatively dark skin but live in the coldest climate and have dark brown eyes, so it's a little more complicated than that, another concrete example in the animals worlds, the cats are from the Egypt, they have all light eyes; the white bear all black eyes.



So far the overwhelming archaeological evidence, and now supported by modern population genetics point to Africa.
Again, just because you don't like it, it doesn't make it wrong.


http://anthrojournal.com/issue/october-2011/article/analysis-of-two-competing-theories-on-the-origin-of-homo-sapiens-sapiens-multiregional-theory-vs-the-out-of-africa-2-model

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2004/3/out-of-africa

http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/6349.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatole_Klyosov

http://www.academia.edu/6077284/Reconsideration_of_the_Out_of_Africa_Concept_as_No t_Having_Enough_Proof

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/anthropology-of-human-origins/out-of-america-family-of-hypotheses/

And there are mutliples theories like that and the scientific communities don't see agree to each other, so...so I can't accept one theory to another.

Drax
16-06-15, 22:04
Drax,

try to read mine discussion with LeBrok

here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28314-Will-all-people-of-the-world-mix-creating-one-race-in-the-future?p=453600&viewfull=1#post453600

Since post #198 to about 245.

You will save a lot of time :)

Because it will be over and over again the same - you and him :)

Yes, lol, thanks for the link, so I guess Lebrock and me are agree to disagree.

LeBrok
16-06-15, 22:12
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_albinism
be careful with the sensational pictures you can found in internet, this little girl is simply ill; that nothing to do with healthing blue eyes from Europeans. Well, this example was used to show you that even black people can have blue eyes, which you didn't know.
Albinism is only a disease when effects skin, sometimes eyes, and exposes skin to UV radiation and cancer. People are pale and they can't tan.
Besides, personally I know 2 black people with blue eyes and they are completely healthy. They just have blue eye mutation. Mutation is a mutation, could be beneficial, and it could be disastrous, then we call it a disease. Sometimes it is confusing like a "sickle cell" mutation. It can protect you from malaria, but it also can give you a cycle cell anemia. This mutation is beneficial and a disease, good and bad, at the same time. Interestingly, this mutation is very common in Africa where malaria is. Talking about natural selection by environmental factors? Why Eskimos don't have this mutation popular?


Again we should be careful with this kind of sensational article; first that yet to find if their blond hairs is not a product of a form of albinism; by the way: Yes, you can call it albinism of hair. But it is not a disease in this case. And listen to this:

But a new study fingers a random mutation instead
http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/05/origin-blond-afros-melanesia
I was right, saying that this is just a random and independent mutation.
Just keep in mind that these are just one gene mutations, unlike erupean skin.


The mutation, which has no obvious advantages, likely arose by chance in one individual and drifted to a high frequency in the Solomon Islands because the original population was small, says Jonathan Friedlaender, an anthropologist emeritus at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study. "This whole area seems to have been populated by very small groups of people making it across these stepping-stone islands, so you do have very dramatic effects in fluctuations of gene frequency."
If you read my post carefully you would notice that I'm in agreement with this.

What I'm arguing against is that as many as 5-10 European light skin mutations grew up to the scale of millions individuals just by a pure chance, and in the place that suits the white skin the most! Heck, we know that these mutations started in different original populations, through out whole Europe and West Asia. Now they are in one place. Do you know what is a the chance of it?!
If European developed black skin mutations spontaneously, or any Northern tribe of Syberia, you would have a point. But we know white skin is beneficial up north, it goes well with environment. Isn't it interesting, that it happens to be popular there?



That the opposite situation of WHG with blue eyes who have invaded mixed multiples times by brown peoples; again it was their isolation who have kept these blond afros. How isolated where the Scandinavians in Europe? Farmers got there in Neolithic, Corded Ware in Bronze Age, then there were Samis/Finnish, and who knows who else. And yet, despite all of this mixing, they are overwhelmingly blond. Heck, they became more blond with time. They were less blond in Mesolithic. The recessive gene in action?
I'm not saying it isn't recessive, it is, but even a recessive gene can get "popular" if it is very beneficial. It gives survival advantage to the host and host's kids, therefore is propagated through the population. It is simple like this, and explains why recessive genes are persisting in spite of being recessive. It is simple and beautiful explanation.




Well first the theory of WHG peoples with blue eyes is the opposite of your example, because peoples who defend say they are the ones sources of blue eyes, they don't say Europeans have multiples genes for blue eyes from multiples peoples... The white skin and blue eyes science is still young. We don't know all the details.


.it's the problem of your example of the natural selection because blue eyes were supposed among a tiny group and is extremely recessive The same way the blond hair in Papua had spread over entire population.
Again, you concentrated on one gene mutation. White European skin is a product of many mutations, which "surprisingly" and conveniently like the North Europe the most.




Your theory have yet to be proven, so I don't know how you can say that the true, you have no idea what they have caused blue eyes, blond hairs etc... Right, so lets talk about white skin, which is roughly figured out.

Drax
16-06-15, 22:32
That's right! For Aryans!

For the Aryans, if we trust academic study:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranian_languages

So closer to the Western Siberian part/Russian and Ural river.

@Rethel


Aaaa... I thought that maybe some new dicoveries were made in that matter... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif
Any way, thanks, for trying. http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/good_job.gif

Yes, I have never understand these kind of articles from genetics scientifics like they have done a news discoveries...I find that direspectful for Historians and Archeologists (who have already done this works since the 50"s, and way before for the theory).

LeBrok
16-06-15, 22:36
No, but I find funny that you talk first about a theory, so not yet proven, and say in the same that have a been proven, that a contradiction, and no population genetic, archeology etc...are not agree about everything, it's far from the true, you can see lot of refutation about these kinds of theory too...I don't need a miracle, but a theory who respect the reality. What theory is not proven? Actually word theory means proven, or most likely to be true. Both Relativity and Natural Selection are proven Theories. Unlike Creationism hypothesis.




That a pure legend, by the way there are various study about the useful or not of blue eyes, that clearly not an direct advantage:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/new-genetics-discovery-all-blue-eyed-people-related-to-brad-pitt-a-532346.html

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/origin-blue-eyes

"Like freckles, hair color or baldness, there's no real physical advantage to being blue-eyed. Says Eiberg: “It simply shows that nature is constantly shuffling the human genome, creating a genetic cocktail of human chromosomes and trying out different changes as it does so.”

I can agree with your explanation with the side effect of blue eyes with white skin and light hairs, and that our problem with these WHG with brown eyes and so-called light eyes.
I don't have a problem with this, as I said we don't know any beneficial factors of blue eyes or blond hair. It doesn't mean we won't find any in the future.



Light skins is an different example of blue eyes, see the quote above; by the way Siberians and Inuits peoples have relatively dark skin but live in the coldest climate and have dark brown eyes, so it's a little more complicated than that, another concrete example in the animals worlds, the cats are from the Egypt, they have all light eyes; the white bear all black eyes. Yes, Inuits are bit brown but they eat fresh liver, which is an excellent source of D3. They don't need to be as white as northern farmers to be healthy. Even Korean farmers are white or norther Japanese. They developed independent mutations of white skin, without blondism of eyes and hair, though they have different mutations, so it is hard to compare.

When you compare untanned skin of Inuits, they turn to be rather light skin too.
http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/pub/photos/inuit-kids.jpg
Some are European kids, for easier comparison.

Rethel
16-06-15, 22:51
here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28314-Will-all-people-of-the-world-mix-creating-one-race-in-the-future?p=453600&viewfull=1#post453600
Since post #198 to about 245.

LeBrok,
could you be so nice to create new thread from ours posts
from that theat, and from yours and Drax from this thread?
Disscusion is about the same thing, and is very important.
It should not be hidden among others threads and topics.

Rethel
16-06-15, 22:59
Unlike Creationism hypothesis.

:petrified:


Yes, Inuits are bit brown

Wow! This is really a big step for you LeBrok,
that you finally admitted this simple fact! :smile:



Even Korean farmers are white or norther Japanese.

Do not exagerate. :rolleyes2:
One day on the sun... and whitness is vanished... :innocent:

Drax
16-06-15, 23:06
Well, this example was used to show you that even black people can have blue eyes, which you didn't know.

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


Albinism is only a disease when effects skin, sometimes eyes, and exposes skin to UV radiation and cancer. People are pale and they can't tan.

Well...no:

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

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

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




Besides, personally I know 2 black people with blue eyes and they are completely healthy. They just have blue eye mutation. Mutation is a mutation, could be beneficial, and it could be disastrous, then we call it a disease. Sometimes it is confusing like a "sickle cell" mutation. It can protect you from malaria, but it also can give you a cycle cell anemia. This mutation is beneficial and a disease, good and bad, at the same time. Interestingly, this mutation is very common in Africa where malaria is. Talking about natural selection by environmental factors? Why Eskimos don't have this mutation popular?


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

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

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



Yes, you can call it albinism of hair. But it is not a disease in this case. And listen to this:

http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/05/origin-blond-afros-melanesia
I was right, saying that this is just a random and independent mutation.
Just keep in mind that these are just one gene mutations, unlike erupean skin.

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


If you read my post carefully you would notice that I'm in agreement with this.

What I'm arguing against is that as many as 5-10 European light skin mutations grew up to the scale of millions individuals just by a pure chance, and in the place that suits the white skin the most! Heck, we know that these mutations started in different original populations, through out whole Europe and West Asia. Now they are in one place. Do you know what is a the chance of it?!
If European developed black skin mutations spontaneously, or any Northern tribe of Syberia, you would have a point. But we know white skin is beneficial up north, it goes well with environment. Isn't it interesting, that it happens to be popular there?

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



How isolated where the Scandinavians in Europe? Farmers got there in Neolithic, Corded Ware in Bronze Age, then there were Samis/Finnish, and who knows who else. And yet, despite all of this mixing, they are overwhelmingly blond. Heck, they became more blond with time. They were less blond in Mesolithic. The recessive gene in action?
I'm not saying it isn't recessive, it is, but even a recessive gene can get "popular" if it is very beneficial. It gives survival advantage to the host and host's kids, therefore is propagated through the population. It is simple like this, and explains why recessive genes are persisting in spite of being recessive. It is simple and beautiful explanation.

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




The white skin and blue eyes science is still young. We don't know all the details.

We can agree about that.


The same way the blond hair in Papua had spread over entire population.
Again, you concentrated on one gene mutation. White European skin is a product of many mutations, which "surprisingly" and conveniently like the North Europe the most.

No that different Papua have been isolated, that because of that these blond hair have survived according the article, the Europeans example differents, because apparently they have mixed multiples times (3 different ancestors, but now, maybe they seem close to each others...); I'm not against your example, but there are lot of problem with this theory...the Inuits, Siberians etc...they live all in the colder climate than the Europeans; they still have dark skins



Right, so lets talk about white skin, which is roughly figured out.

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

Drax
16-06-15, 23:10
LeBrok,
could you be so nice to create new thread from ours posts
from that theat, and from yours and Drax from this thread?
Disscusion is about the same thing, and is very important.
It should not be hidden among others threads and topics.

Thousand times sorry Rethel, I'm very sorry.

Lebrock, thank you for to have taken the time to reply, I think we are just agree to disagree, that would be my last reply; thanks again.

Again sorry Rethel; and thank you for this thread.

Rethel
16-06-15, 23:16
Thousand times sorry Rethel, I'm very sorry.

Again sorry Rethel; and thank you for this thread.

Why are you sorry?

Alan
17-06-15, 00:17
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30936-Yamna-quot-25-ENF-30-35-ANE-quot-and-40-45-WHG

some of them have near 45% WHG, so we can talk of half, of if you prefer between 1/3 and 1/2; so near half.

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

Rethel
17-06-15, 01:48
The average Yamna is 35% WHG.

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

LeBrok
17-06-15, 02:03
Of course I have already known this kind of pictures, but that don't change the fact that unhealthy.



Well...no:

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

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

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

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





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

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

That nothing to do the ocular albinism of the little girl. Possibly yes, I didn't research this enough to find their independent blue eye mutation. However, would you care explaining, how is it possible if this trait is, as you put it, extremely recessive.
Again my point was to show you possibility when you said this:

dark skin and blue eyes don't work together
do you remember?




I have never say the opposite, I have posted myself more or less the same article, for the consequence of this albinism of hair, we don't know well if that physically it's a problem of not...or if this have a consequence for their health. By prevalence of blond hair in their population, we can assume, that there is no negative effect on health of population. Right?




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





No, see the Inuit or Siberian examples, and apparently not every migration have the same impact, for Indo-Europeans invaders, lot of studies talk about at best a population substitution, at worst a genocide of the pre-europeans, naturally, they have a biggest numbers, their blond hairs/blue eyes (see the test of the Globular Culture I have posted) have survived better, not because of adaptation, but simply because of their bronze weapons...That a complete different situation than WHG dark skin/blue eyes.I can't understand your explanation. The point is that their were not isolated, the way you described blond hair situation in Papua. Scandinavians are mixture of EEF, WHG, and ANE the 3 distinct ancestral populations. And yet the are the blondest on this planet with their recessive genes.






We can agree about that. I'm sure we can find more agreements once you learn few more things about genetics and population genetics.:)




No that different Papua have been isolated,
Is it my imagination or you just contradicted yourself?


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




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





There are still the Inuits problem, so no white skin seem more complicated too. They are not really darker than some South Euroepans or Near Easterners, and they suntan a lot too by long polar days and snow effect.
This is Inuit who works in the office.
http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/pub/photos/DSC01628.JPG

And this is Inuit who hunts all day:
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPaHctlmFLTfIZgEtGYgS7Y77kN80bH 8420eVlVrnqLT1HKwmG

LeBrok
17-06-15, 02:09
The point is, that IF preindoeuropean scandinavians and avarage WHG were blueeyed, and
WHG in Yamna included this blue-eye'ism, then yamnas invasion wasn't only brown eyed, so,
the whole defence tactic builded upon very small blue eyed minority in Scandinavia who was
totaly dominated by brown eyed yamnas people and domination them later by this not only
small minority, but also recessive-gens local population, are at whole nonsensical, because
at least minimum 35% yamnas people had WHG, plus some (not so small) lighter admixture
from R1a-kind people, plus mythical nearly 100% blue-eyeed scandinavian locals, are giving
together the chance to existing this blue genes in the new mixing population. But I say this,
under the condition, if we will even agree about this IF. So, what the problem is?
This is precious. Didn't you forget how recessive blue eyes are? Conviviality forgotten, lol. According to you and Drax, as soon as you start mixing blue and brown eyes, brown is going to win and blue disappear. Especially after thousands of years of mixing, which happened since Scandinavian hunter gatherers times. Something must be wrong with your hypothesis, don't you think?
Yes, keep digging the whole.

Rethel
17-06-15, 02:16
As I said I know black people with blue eyes, they are completely healthy and don't use glasses for their vision. Have blue eye Europeans form of albinism? Well, so we know that blue eyes can exist without effects of Ocular albinism.

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


And this is Inuit who hunts all day:

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

Rethel
17-06-15, 02:22
According to you and Drax, as soon as you start mixing blue and brown eyes, brown is going to win and blue disappear.

We never claimed such a thing.
Especially I.


Especially after thousands of years of mixing,

You really love this spells... amazing... :thinking:


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

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

LeBrok
17-06-15, 05:28
We never claimed such a thing.
Especially I.



You really love this spells... amazing... :thinking:



Yes, yes, there is really something very wrong with that hypothesis.
Probably the biggest problem is that, that she was create in your mind.
I just had enough of your constant ridiculing everybody for everything and your disrespectful and impertinent attitude. If you want to be a member of Eupedia and discuss your ideas here you need to behave like in face to face discussion, civil and respectful.

LeBrok
17-06-15, 05:37
http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by LeBrok http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=459995#post459995)
According to you and Drax, as soon as you start mixing blue and brown eyes, brown is going to win and blue disappear.

We never claimed such a thing.
Especially I
This is form your post:

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


And some more:

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

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

From Drax:

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

Rethel
17-06-15, 12:19
I just had enough of your constant ridiculing everybody for everything and your disrespectful and impertinent attitude. If you want to be a member of Eupedia and discuss your ideas here you need to behave like in face to face discussion, civil and respectful.

Don't be so pouter :rolleyes2:
I am only showing you, some conclusions, which you're doing yourself.
This is like whith this glass, which is in half filled...
Btw, smile is healthy:good_job:


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

Le Brok, your last statement was:

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

It is not true, what you can see even in this fragments which you quoted.
There is explicite written, not only in context, that we are talking about
situation, when small recessive minority is mixing with larger group with
dominant allelas. So, I don't know who don't understand. I can, but you? http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/smile.gif


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

Rethel
17-06-15, 12:51
Le Brok, thank you very much for your punishment.
That only testifyed not so good about you.
You are very easy let go of nerves when something is not going by your way.

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

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

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

Alan
17-06-15, 13:56
They are not really darker than some South Euroepans or Near Easterners, and they suntan a lot too by long polar days and snow effect.
This is Inuit who works in the office.
http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/pub/photos/DSC01628.JPG

And this is Inuit who hunts all day:
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPaHctlmFLTfIZgEtGYgS7Y77kN80bH 8420eVlVrnqLT1HKwmG


Look at this Taliban/Mujahideen from the early times.

http://41.media.tumblr.com/c21ffa818128a7ea116063a65efc20a9/tumblr_nkypwur0Eu1s5kgq3o1_500.png


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

http://www.budomagazin.hu/media/kepek/2861_0.jpg


The strong Sun of Afghanistan has tanned him almost to looking indistinguishable from a regulare Afghan (of Hazara descend).
http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/2010/0322-weekly/0322-cafghan-02-massoud-afghanistan-russia/7563917-1-eng-US/0322-CAFGHAN-02-MASSOUD-AFGHANISTAN-RUSSIA_full_600.jpg

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

Angela
17-06-15, 15:48
There's room for disagreement and debate on these matters, as, for example, about where certain alleles appeared, or on the relative roles of migration, and whose migration, versus selection depending on the place and time, but there shouldn't be room for ignorance. If people don't have some rudimentary familiarity with evolutionary theory and the place of natural selection within that, apparently never hear of even elementary Mendelian inheritance rules, don't know a Punnett Square from a checkers's board, and never read a research paper on human pigmentation, their contributions are of limited value, unfortunately, and I for one am not going to spend time engaging.

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

Rethel
17-06-15, 18:40
There's room for disagreement and debate on these matters, as, for example, about where certain alleles appeared, or on the relative roles of migration, and whose migration, versus selection depending on the place and time, but there shouldn't be room for ignorance. If people don't have some rudimentary familiarity with evolutionary theory and the place of natural selection within that, apparently never hear of even elementary Mendelian inheritance rules, don't know a Punnett Square from a checkers's board, and never read a research paper on human pigmentation, their contributions are of limited value, unfortunately, and I for one am not going to spend time engaging.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johannes
17-06-15, 18:55
Changed the map a bit. This is rather correct.

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

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

Angela
17-06-15, 19:29
Seemingly Angela, you are right, but you overvalue scientists authority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rethel
17-06-15, 19:53
We shouldn't rely on scientific studies? We should rely on wild, baseless and uninformed speculations?

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

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


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

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



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

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

Angela
17-06-15, 19:54
OK it still fits the Aryan homeland as Russian archealogists have discovered. Not much difference.

It is Alan's HYPOTHESIS for INDO-IRANIANS.

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

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

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

Rethel
17-06-15, 20:19
Angela,
in short:
you demand from me, to proof, that something, what never happed in observable reality during dozens of centuries,
couldn't also happend in unobservable obscure times - aspecially, when mine interlocutor was over again prooving
against himself, and against the theory which he claimed to be correct. Can you explain me that nonsens?

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

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT_ROUX1DwMhwX2PUQVrX2WXVP7IdNjp 6VVgpUk3p9GPEZyY4FN7g

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

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

No way.

Angela
17-06-15, 20:34
Angela,
in short:
you demand from me, to proof, that something, what never happed in observable reality during dozens of centuries,
couldn't also happend in unobservable obscure times - aspecially, when mine interlocutor was over again prooving
against himself, and against the theory which he claimed to be correct. Can you explain me that nonsens?

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

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT_ROUX1DwMhwX2PUQVrX2WXVP7IdNjp 6VVgpUk3p9GPEZyY4FN7g

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

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

No way.

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

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

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

Drax
17-06-15, 21:12
Some doesn't really matter, Some also had as low as 30% And as said in the thread itself, the title was misleading. The average Yamna is 35% WHG.

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

Regio X
17-06-15, 21:14
They're still missing some facts, however. If I'm remembering correctly (and if I'm not please correct the record) there were a few stray de-pigmentation genes in some of the WHG, and the "light genes" were not uniform among hunter gatherers in the far north.Good point. On light genes, the articles mentioned specifically Motala, and not all HG from north.


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

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

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

There is something going on other than migration of peoples carrying these traits. As others have been pointing out, these are indeed recessive traits. It has to be down to selection, and recent selection, and that's indeed what the researchers are saying. I don't see how it can be denied.What about the SL24A5 taken by the farmers? Was it in the steppes?
Regarding to the Bronze Age steppe traits, I read an Abstract that states something different: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-009-0683-0 It's old, from 2009. Perhaps it's not in accordance with latest findings.
There are others, of course, that argue the opposite, like Razib K.: http://www.unz.com/gnxp/allowing-the-dead-to-speak/ (read from "Northern European archetypical physical characteristics are younger than the pyramids")


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

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

There's still a lot of research to be done, but what I think can't be denied is that changes were happening in these two areas, and happening quickly, and furthermore that our views of the past were wrong on so many levels. Ancient dna surprises, and surprises, and surprises.Your rhetorical questions also are mine. :) In fact, I'm just a neophyte interested in the subject, and I still have many, many more queries than answers.

Drax
17-06-15, 21:24
Why are you sorry?

For to have contributed to derail this very interesting thread, and thank you for to have reply and explain better than myself my own point of view, lol (I don't see where Lebrock see a contradiction for these isolated blond Papu who are a tiny minority; I make a parallel about a the weak numbers of the so-called WHG blue eyes/brown skin mixed with 2 others big populations, not the very big majority of invaders blue eyes/blond hairs Indo-Europeans, and the Inuit office is still dark, sun or not...but whatever);

I'm 100% agree with you (but also with the interesting post by Silesian)...thanks again for this thread.

edit: I also really like your comment and the picture you have posted in your first post; my favorite of mine, this Iranian girl (look very Nordic):

7308

like you can see, very tanned by the strong sun of Iran.:laughing:

Rethel
17-06-15, 22:55
For to have contributed to derail this very interesting thread,


Drax,
you don't must be sorry, because we didn't understand each other! :smile:

I only wanted ask Lebrok, to create new thread, which would contain
mostly yours, mine and Lebrok's posts about spreading fair genes,
either from this thread and from this one which I linked.

Your posts are very very precious and I wish you continiue, especially,
that you have some fresh looking on that matter. Please, write! :good_job:

But as you can see, Lebrok, rather want me expell from this forum, than
do something usefull as combine our posts together on this theme in some
one separate thread, in which his point of view would be massacre :laughing:

Drax
18-06-15, 00:34
Okay no problem, and thank you very much for your words, but to be honest I'm little tired to repeat each time my opinion; I'm not fluent in english, so for me it's a little complicated; that take too much of my energy lol.

Thank you again for these threads, but also for your clear logical arguments; your great sense of humor and your very humble attitude about sciences (sadly I can't say the same thing about some peoples in this forum).

Rethel
18-06-15, 02:17
but to be honest I'm little tired to repeat each time my opinion;

So you see the biggest problem :)
But it must be done by this way :)
I fill the same, but someone must do this job... :)


I'm not fluent in english, so for me it's a little complicated; that take too much of my energy lol.

Exactly the same is in my case! :)
But practice maketh master :P


clear logical arguments;

I'm trying my best. :smile:
Unfortunatly, people usually don't like logic. :sad-2:



your great sense of humor

I am really thankfull, that you mentioned this.
At least and finally someone! :smile:

It seems to me, that almost everybody on this
forum is without any basic sense of humor.
It is really very strange... :thinking:

LeBrok
18-06-15, 06:59
Thank you again for these threads, but also for your clear logical arguments; your great sense of humor and your very humble attitude about sciences (sadly I can't say the same thing about some peoples in this forum).




I am really thankfull, that you mentioned this.
At least and finally someone! :smile:


Oh, get a room!

Johannes
18-06-15, 13:40
True, but WHG was close to 100%. They're the source of that trait today. In the case of Central Asian IEs(Sintashta/Andronovo), like I said before they looked differnt from Yamnaya because they had a bunch of WHG, because they were immigrants from probably around Ukraine. It wasn't because of isolation.

You are speculating to the max here: yes you can have a lot of blue-eyed people but you will also have many green-eyed and brown eyed. Have you read about the Laws of Genetics? Its impossible to have almost 100% blue eyes! Blue eyes are a recessive gene! Its better to say -- the majority had blue eyes not almost 100%!

Johannes
18-06-15, 14:11
Rethel I'm 100% agree with you; there are something completly wrong with these analysis; we talk about a minority (WHG) with a huge recessive trait (blue eyes) and dark skin (?) mixed with two different larger populations with brown eyes, and everybody end with light eyes ?:laughing:

First there are no R1a in Yamna , so I doubt Yamna are the original proto-indo-europeans; we have found haplogroup R1b but also I2 among them; and their female lineages are for a good part Armenians, that sound like they (Yamna) are invaders and they have taken Caucasus wives (like they have done in various places, Iran, India etc...); in theory that could have changed theirs physical appearances; but that my point of view...; but this theory don't change something weird about this analysis; we know now, thanks Reich, that Yamna were near half WHG; yeah the same WHG with so-called 100% blue eyes...my question is very simple, how we don't have found more blue eyes; among a population half WHG ? there are also the fact that we don't have the haplogro9up Y of the Yamna folks tested for light hairs/eyes, so there are a problem to know their identity (I2 ? R1b ? etc...); Yamna were also close to modern North and east Europeans genetically (more than 50%) a population well known for to have light hairs and eyes.

Johannes, I'm agree with you, that don't exist a population with 100% of blue eyes, and according a previous study, this genes is very young (around 8000 BC); so among WHG, there were brown eyes.

How do you get Yamnaya culture that had "Armenians" for women??? The Allentoft article showed the Corded Ware population of women as H4=9%, U5=23%, J1=25%, K1=25%, T21-9%, and U4=9%; while the Yamnaya population of females as U5=50%, T2= 38% and U4=12%. Where do you get this Armenians DNA?

Angela
18-06-15, 15:35
How do you get Yamnaya culture that had "Armenians" for women??? The Allentoft article showed the Corded Ware population of women as H4=9%, U5=23%, J1=25%, K1=25%, T21-9%, and U4=9%; while the Yamnaya population of females as U5=50%, T2= 38% and U4=12%. Where do you get this Armenians DNA?

Corded Ware is not Yamnaya. Figure out which mtDNA clades were European hunter-gatherer and which were from the Near East. Learn about f3 and f4 stats and what they mean and can reveal, as well, of course, as ADMIXTURE.

READ HAAK ET AL:
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf

AFTER you've read it comment in the appropriate threads, such as :
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30878-Massive-migration-from-the-steppe-is-a-source-for-Indo-European-languages-in-Europe?highlight=Massive+Migration+Steppe

The topic of this thread is the hypothesis, such as it is, that cows reveal the history of the Indo-Europeans.

This is for everyone, from now on, stay on topic.

Johannes
18-06-15, 15:38
As Johannes said PIE (If we go by Yamna theory) were predominantly dark haired and eyed. A part of them moved to Northeast and Central Europe mixing with the EEF people there and becoming Corded Ware. Those were still rather Dark haired and eyed though in middle of the process of becoming lighter.

Than we have the Sintashta/Andronovo who were either migrants from CW OR just a geneticwise very similar group.

Those Andronvo people however were now by majority (60%) light haired and eyed (includes green eyes and brown hair).

Those Andronovo merged with BMAC and gave birth to the Indo_Iranians around what is modern day Turkmenistan, Uzebkistan/Northeast Iran and Southeastern portion of Kazakhstan.

And Aryan is the ethnic designation of just one branch, namely the Indo_Iranians.

Alan, you are on the right track: CW and Yamna populations were predominantly brown eyed and brown haired with probably light to sallow skinned tone and a minority green and blue eyed population. What happened is that many split into tribes and lived in isolation from each other. Some had more green eyed and blue eyed, while some had more brown-eyed. Eventually the populations became more lighter because of the aesthetic phenomenon -- meaning that blue eyes and light skin was more beautiful. Therefore they would multiply faster than brown eyed and dark skin.

Angela
18-06-15, 15:44
^^READ post number 109. I have had enough of every thread being derailed into a discussion of phenotype by people obsessed with the subject. You're free to discuss it, but try to keep such discussions to the appropriate threads. There are many pigmentation threads in the Anthropology section. Even there keep the discussions civil and based on science. There are racist, monitored sites a plenty where Nordicists can indulge their fantasies.

Just generally, Johannes, you are projecting your preferences and subjective judgments onto other people. That's never a good idea.

Johannes
18-06-15, 16:44
Le Brok,
I don't have enough time for next disscusion about
that, because about this allready exists a thread.

Once again, you gave arguments against your
own theory, for support my point of view and
you didn't even mention this!

I see, that you cannot accept that things simply are.
That there are not reason to exist for them, or that
they cannot exist because they... exist. You need
badly some quasi-religions belives, and you are so
deeply belive that you cannot see that you are by
yourself giving examples destroing your worldview.
This is so amazing for me.... really!:thinking:

You mentioned theory of relativity. This is a very good
example like you are seeing things. You don't understand
something, but SOMEONE else understand, so you
belive that this is fact and truth - ergo you are really
religious! You are beliving (and ready to belive) in
something what you dont understand, or what does
not have any sens for you, because someone said so.

Why then are you laughting at christian people, who
are beliving in much more reasonable things than you?
They can at least understand things in wich they belive.
You cannot.

p.s. I can imagine relativity, this is no problem for me.

Thats a good point Rethel: Nietzsche once said that rationalists or scientists are the same as believers in religion in that they put all their trust into "science." So yeah: people dont understand some things about science but they fight tooth and nail about it without understanding it! Science eventually is religion!

Johannes
18-06-15, 17:09
For the Aryans, if we trust academic study:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranian_languages

So closer to the Western Siberian part/Russian and Ural river.

@Rethel



Yes, I have never understand these kind of articles from genetics scientifics like they have done a news discoveries...I find that direspectful for Historians and Archeologists (who have already done this works since the 50"s, and way before for the theory).

Yes I agree Drax: but "Aryans" must have traveled south from the Urals and eventually ended in Iran, Afghanistan, and India. The evidence of Russian archeologists is that the Aryans left Southern Russia and headed towards the south because of serious droughts and because they heard or discovered there were civilizations to the south (Babylonia) to conquer.

Angela
18-06-15, 17:18
Yes I agree Drax: but "Aryans" must have traveled south from the Urals and eventually ended in Iran, Afghanistan, and India. The evidence of Russian archeologists is that the Aryans left Southern Russia and headed towards the south because of serious droughts and because they heard or discovered there were civilizations to the south (Babylonia) to conquer.

Last time I checked archaeology was a science. I thought you had no faith in science? You'd better stick with " ARYANS dropped out of an alien spaceship" so that you're consistent.

Or do you believe in science only when it supports your pre-conceived notions?

Rethel
18-06-15, 17:40
Science eventually is religion!

Even worse :)

For exaple, some yerars ago, they belived as a fact, that blond colour
existed from 100.000 years... if you would not share there view, you
would be calld stupid and ignorant.

10-20 years ago they belived, that this happened 10.000 years ago.
If you would disagree - you would be called syupid and ignorant.

Now they are claiming that it happend spotaniously in many small places in
Scandinavia and West Europe 4000 or less years ago among very dark people.
If you disagee - the same as above.

They always have absolute truth, even if it is constantly changing.

They don't even bother, that many things from historical records dont fit.
They try to ignore this, because they have some theory which must be truth,
because they read so many papers... so they must always repeat after
some one else - and always they are having two main points: evolution
is true and is making miracles, and everything comes from nothing.:thinking:

Faster you can came to conclusion with some radical muslim than with them.
They don't even listen - mostly they are talking with themselves creating in
their minds wishfull picture about what you are actually talking and thinking.

As we have two examples in this thread.

Drax
18-06-15, 17:44
Alan, you are on the right track: CW and Yamna populations were predominantly brown eyed and brown haired with probably light to sallow skinned tone and a minority green and blue eyed population. What happened is that many split into tribes and lived in isolation from each other. Some had more green eyed and blue eyed, while some had more brown-eyed. Eventually the populations became more lighter because of the aesthetic phenomenon -- meaning that blue eyes and light skin was more beautiful. Therefore they would multiply faster than brown eyed and dark skin.

Maybe for Yamna; but not for the ancestors of CW; for example their ancestors; the Globular Amphora Culture (probably the first proto-Indo-Europeans; around 3.400-2.800); they have 80% of light hairs and eyes (TYR and HERC2) according Haak 2015 (edit: according Wilde Sandra), you can see the link her (their name is KAK):

http://eurogenes.blogspot.fr/2015/03/population-genetics-of-copper-and.html

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQbVVHNjA2Um1FLXM/view?pli=1


Yes I agree Drax: but "Aryans" must have traveled south from the Urals and eventually ended in Iran, Afghanistan, and India. The evidence of Russian archeologists is that the Aryans left Southern Russia and headed towards the south because of serious droughts and because they heard or discovered there were civilizations to the south (Babylonia) to conquer.

Yes, I know that, my point was more about their homeland/place of the Aryans before their migrations/invasion.

Rethel
18-06-15, 17:51
Maybe for Yamna; but not for the ancestors of CW; for example their ancestors; the Globular Amphora Culture (probably the first proto-Indo-Europeans; around 3.400-2.800); they have 80% of light hairs and eyes (TYR and HERC2) according Haak 2015, you can see the link her (their name is KAK):

:good_job:

Very good job!:cool-v:

Do you have some similar data about for example Samara Culture or Dniepr-Donets?
It would be interesting.

Angela
18-06-15, 18:04
Even worse :)

For exaple, some yerars ago, they belived as a fact, that blond colour
existed from 100.000 years... if you would not share there view, you
would be calld stupid and ignorant.

10-20 years ago they belived, that this happened 10.000 years ago.
If you would disagree - you would be called syupid and ignorant.

Now they are claiming that it happend spotaniously in many small places in
Scandinavia and West Europe 4000 or less years ago among very dark people.
If you disagee - the same as above.

They always have absolute truth, even if it is constantly changing.

They don't even bother, that many things from historical records dont fit.
They try to ignore this, because they have some theory which must be truth,
because they read so many papers... so they must always repeat after
some one else - and always they are having two main points: evolution
is true and is making miracles, and everything comes from nothing.:thinking:

Faster you can came to conclusion with some radical muslim than with them.
They don't even listen - mostly they are talking with themselves creating in
their minds picture about what you are actually talking and thinking.

As we have two examples in this thread.

You might want to take a course in the history of science and one on the scientific method, as well. It is based on data. As the data improves the conclusions change. Is this really news to you?

Since you purport not to believe in it stop quoting results from scientific papers when it suits your agenda. That is completely inconsistent and illogical.

If posters continue to post off topic comments I will close the thread, or I'll just remove the posts.

If you wish to discuss the pigmentation of the Indo-Europeans go to the appropriate threads.

Rethel
18-06-15, 18:15
You might want to take a course in the history of science and one on the scientific method, as well. It is based on data. As the data improves the conclusions change. Is this really news to you?

For what? To know, that everything, what science was claiming in past decades it was nonsense?

No, I don't want ruind my credit in science.


Since you purport not to believe in it stop quoting results from scientific papers when it suits your agenda. That is completely inconsistent and illogical.

It wasn't the point.
But, nevermind.

Rethel
18-06-15, 18:20
If posters continue to post off topic comments I will close the thread, or I'll just remove the posts.

If you wish to discuss the pigmentation of the Indo-Europeans go to the appropriate threads.


Maybe you didn't get it yet, but the pigmentation is the main theme from the very beginnig.

Not the cows, as you trying to endeavor.

Drax
18-06-15, 18:35
:good_job:

Very good job!:cool-v:

Do you have some similar data about for example Samara Culture or Dniepr-Donets?
It would be interesting.

No, sadly I have just this link; which curiously nobody seem take in count (I guess that don't fit well with their agenda).

Except that, 100% agree with you and Johannes about the zealoutry for the science; I really like your examples about hair colors lol.

LeBrok
19-06-15, 01:52
You might want to take a course in the history of science and one on the scientific method, as well. It is based on data. As the data improves the conclusions change. Is this really news to you?

Since you purport not to believe in it stop quoting results from scientific papers when it suits your agenda. That is completely inconsistent and illogical.

If posters continue to post off topic comments I will close the thread, or I'll just remove the posts.

If you wish to discuss the pigmentation of the Indo-Europeans go to the appropriate threads.
Exactly Angela. They claim that science is wrong, that they don't believe in science, and yet they come up with arguments based in scientific research in archaeology and population genetics. The worse is that they don't see any contradiction in it. Their "brilliant" method to cut and past snippets of science, myths and their imagination to fit their need to feel superior to others, to feel special.

LeBrok
19-06-15, 01:57
No, sadly I have just this link; which curiously nobody seem take in count (I guess that don't fit well with their agenda).


For true scientific mind the only agenda is to go were science leads. Unthinkable for 3 of you.

Rethel
19-06-15, 09:03
They claim that science is wrong, that they don't believe in science,

Really did you understand only this? :petrified:
Or you are doing this on purpose?

Johannes
19-06-15, 16:58
Exactly Angela. They claim that science is wrong, that they don't believe in science, and yet they come up with arguments based in scientific research in archaeology and population genetics. The worse is that they don't see any contradiction in it. Their "brilliant" method to cut and past snippets of science, myths and their imagination to fit their need to feel superior to others, to feel special.

Wrong: I never said science is "wrong" you seem to put labels on people who never make them and try to discredit them. I respect science. But science is only a tool to interpret reality. Nothing more nothing less. With respect to Voltaire I have learned to set limits to what science can do. You and Angela use it like its religion -- like its the panacea of everything.

Johannes
19-06-15, 17:03
For true scientific mind the only agenda is to go were science leads. Unthinkable for 3 of you.

What is unthinkable for you is that science has its limitations. It seems to have escaped you.

Rethel
19-06-15, 17:06
Wrong: I never said science is "wrong" you seem to put labels on people who never make them and try to discredit them. I respect science. But science is only a tool to interpret reality. Nothing more nothing less. With respect to Voltaire I have learned to set limits to what science can do. You and Angela use it like its religion -- like its the panacea of everything.

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/anime-arts/images/2/25/Applause-o.gif/revision/latest?cb=20131225161738

Johannes
19-06-15, 17:13
Last time I checked archaeology was a science. I thought you had no faith in science? You'd better stick with " ARYANS dropped out of an alien spaceship" so that you're consistent.

Or do you believe in science only when it supports your pre-conceived notions?

Angela please: I do respect science (and I respect you too!): I am an atheist. But don't you think there are limitations to everything?

LeBrok
19-06-15, 17:13
What is unthinkable for you is that science has its limitations. It seems to have escaped you. Quote me not agreeing with this, or apologize for lying.

LeBrok
19-06-15, 17:15
Angela please: I do respect science: I am an atheist. But don't you think there are limitations to everything? Wow, you just lost your best friend, the devoted religious Rethel. Watch his axe now, lol.

Johannes
19-06-15, 17:25
Even worse :)

For exaple, some yerars ago, they belived as a fact, that blond colour
existed from 100.000 years... if you would not share there view, you
would be calld stupid and ignorant.

10-20 years ago they belived, that this happened 10.000 years ago.
If you would disagree - you would be called syupid and ignorant.

Now they are claiming that it happend spotaniously in many small places in
Scandinavia and West Europe 4000 or less years ago among very dark people.
If you disagee - the same as above.

They always have absolute truth, even if it is constantly changing.

They don't even bother, that many things from historical records dont fit.
They try to ignore this, because they have some theory which must be truth,
because they read so many papers... so they must always repeat after
some one else - and always they are having two main points: evolution
is true and is making miracles, and everything comes from nothing.:thinking:

Faster you can came to conclusion with some radical muslim than with them.
They don't even listen - mostly they are talking with themselves creating in
their minds wishfull picture about what you are actually talking and thinking.

As we have two examples in this thread.

Well its not "wishful thinking" its just that they want to use logic and reason as their guide to interpret reality and for them it seems like a perfect tool. But then they forget that there is a lot of reality that is unknowable with science. For example: how does electric current exists or how we send signals using electric current -- for example how I am sending you these signals!

Johannes
19-06-15, 18:09
There's a marker in DNA that can determine whether someone has light or dark eye color with something like 99% accuracy. Blue eyed people from the Middle East have the same marker as blue eyed people in Europe. We have these ancient people's DNA, so we have a good idea what eye color they had.

Please explain how you got this incredible amount of information???

Rethel
19-06-15, 18:24
Wow, you just lost your best friend, the devoted religious Rethel. Watch his axe now, lol.

No, he didn't.

Are you jealous? :thinking:

As you see, someone can be an athiest and be not a dawkings-like-biggot
who is hating everything but himself and his view. And can think logicly, not
only repeating tons of paper after some guru's even if this is no coherent
with other things.

Johannes, keep that! :)

In the world exist even atheists-scientists who do not belive that world have bilions
of years, even they don't belive in tens of thousands of years so called human history,
because in the reality are existing things, which show, that evolution etc is impossible.
Of course you can belive in what you wish, but is does not make fairy-tail a real story,
and impossible does not became possible. So you must have a very BIG faith, bigger,
that christians and muslims together. If something is impossible, and cannot happend
then it doesn't matter who you are - atheist or not.

holderlin
19-06-15, 19:57
@angela

The Alien-Aryan connection is highly speculative, but I think it's possible because of 18th dynasty Y hgs and pyramids. How else can you explain that?

@everyone

I'm rather inclined to predict that Yamnaya will reveal alot of light eyes/hair and skin based on Karelia and Samara, which show mesolithic R1a and R1b on the steppe and in NE europe which are nearly identical autosomally (EHG + ANE), and lighter than WHGs found so far. R1b Samara looks to be very light in all facets, possibly with freckles. I dunno. More DNA obviously.

Rethel
19-06-15, 20:08
I'm rather inclined to predict that Yamnaya will reveal alot of light eyes/hair and skin based on Karelia and Samara, which show mesolithic R1a and R1b on the steppe and in NE europe which are nearly identical autosomally (EHG + ANE), and lighter than WHGs found so far. R1b Samara looks to be very light in all facets, possibly with freckles. I dunno. More DNA obviously.

http://media.karaspartyideas.com/media/plugins/floating-social-media-links/img/like.png

Fire Haired14
19-06-15, 20:20
Please explain how you got this incredible amount of information???

For most posters this is common sense. Just Google the SNPs I listed. There should be plenty of info. It was discovered like over 5 years ago.

Fire Haired14
19-06-15, 20:23
Wow, you just lost your best friend, the devoted religious Rethel. Watch his axe now, lol.

No one will listen to you if you make fun of. All you'll do is gain enemies. It is as if debating is a war to you, where you do your best to mock your enemy, than discussing ideas.

Sile
19-06-15, 20:33
No one will listen to you if you make fun of. All you'll do is gain enemies. It is as if debating is a war to you, where you do your best to mock your enemy, than discussing ideas.

well said, I stop listening to him long ago.

Angela
19-06-15, 21:11
well said, I stop listening to him long ago.

You'd better re-read the rules pronto, especially the one about insulting team members.

Angela
19-06-15, 21:36
@angela

The Alien-Aryan connection is highly speculative, but I think it's possible because of 18th dynasty Y hgs and pyramids. How else can you explain that?

@everyone

I'm rather inclined to predict that Yamnaya will reveal alot of light eyes/hair and skin based on Karelia and Samara, which show mesolithic R1a and R1b on the steppe and in NE europe which are nearly identical autosomally (EHG + ANE), and lighter than WHGs found so far. R1b Samara looks to be very light in all facets, possibly with freckles. I dunno. More DNA obviously.

The Yamnaya we have so far are pretty uniformly dark. It might be that they were lighter before their EHG was "diluted". Or, we may indeed have a case where this particular group came from the east already. We don't know about the ones to the west on the southern steppe. Time will tell. I also think the people to the north of Yamnaya were probably fairer.

As to your first comment, I assume you're kidding. If I had thought you were serious, I might have been moved to send you a private e-mail gently suggesting that you go back on your meds. :)

holderlin
19-06-15, 23:40
The Yamnaya we have so far are pretty uniformly dark. It might be that they were lighter before their EHG was "diluted". Or, we may indeed have a case where this particular group came from the east already. We don't know about the ones to the west on the southern steppe. Time will tell. I also think the people to the north of Yamnaya were probably fairer.

As to your first comment, I assume you're kidding. If I had thought you were serious, I might have been moved to send you a private e-mail gently suggesting that you go back on your meds. :)

I guess my allusions are to the notion of the male Yamnaya line originating on the steppe as opposed to the Caucasus or South. So far that's what it looks like to me, and so "dilution" would have been mostly female. I know this suggestion pisses people off, and it's a bit of an extreme model, but Samara/Karelia are pretty convincing to me in spite of the small sample size. I'll say again, AUTOSOMALLY IDENTICAL. Not to mention the archaeological continuity, which I've already beat to death on dead genocentric ears. If we find R1b in Maykop with all or much more caucasus_Gedrosian/ENF("Armenian") or whatever then I'll eat crow, but until then I have to go with Steppe origin receptive to technological streams via Balkans/CT and the Caucasus. That being said, R1, especially R1b is a hair ball, and the 50-50 Armenian-Karelia/Samara model along with the unlikelihood of a purely female source of this "Armenian" weighs on my mind.

I'll be taking lots of med tonight, don't worry.

LeBrok
20-06-15, 01:50
No one will listen to you if you make fun of. All you'll do is gain enemies. It is as if debating is a war to you, where you do your best to mock your enemy, than discussing ideas.
Be my guest and show me how you discuss ideas with Rethel. Remember that he asked us to have better sense of humor, so I tried.

Angela
20-06-15, 01:51
I guess my allusions are to the notion of the male Yamnaya line originating on the steppe as opposed to the Caucasus or South. So far that's what it looks like to me, and so "dilution" would have been mostly female. I know this suggestion pisses people off, and it's a bit of an extreme model, but Samara/Karelia are pretty convigncing to me in spite of the small sample size. I'll say again, AUTOSOMALLY IDENTICAL. Not to mention the archaeological continuity, which I've already beat to death on dead genocentric ears. If we find R1b in Maykop with all or much more caucasus_Gedrosian/ENF("Armenian") or whatever then I'll eat crow, but until then I have to go with Steppe origin receptive to technological streams via Balkans/CT and the Caucasus. That being said, R1, especially R1b is a hair ball, and the 50-50 Armenian-Karelia/Samara model along with the unlikelihood of a purely female source of this "Armenian" weighs on my mind.

I'll be taking lots of med tonight, don't worry.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the whole buying and raiding for 'Armenian' wives thing doesn't ****me off. I would describe my reaction to the macho posturing and adolescent delight exhibited by a few posters as they describe it as one of amusement.

That's separate from the fact that just in terms of scale, if nothing else, this does indeed seem like an "extreme model" to use your phrase. Still possible, I suppose.

LeBrok
20-06-15, 01:53
No one will listen to you if you make fun of. All you'll do is gain enemies. It is as if debating is a war to you, where you do your best to mock your enemy, than discussing ideas.
Be my guest and show me how you discuss ideas with Rethel. Remember that he asked us to have better sense of humor, so I tried.

Did you like the one "Get a room". ;)

holderlin
20-06-15, 05:14
I can't speak for anyone else, but the whole buying and raiding for 'Armenian' wives thing doesn't ****me off. I would describe my reaction to the macho posturing and adolescent delight exhibited by a few posters as they describe it as one of amusement.

That's separate from the fact that just in terms of scale, if nothing else, this does indeed seem like an "extreme model" to use your phrase. Still possible, I suppose.

Well I can imagine how it might "piss off" a dude who sees themselves as being ancestors of these "Armenians".

holderlin
20-06-15, 05:20
Angela please: I do respect science (and I respect you too!): I am an atheist. But don't you think there are limitations to everything?

"Those who idolize "facts" never notice that their idols only shine in a borrowed light. They are also meant not to notice this; for thereupon they would have to be at a loss and therefore useless. But idolizers and idols are used wherever gods are in flight and so announce their nearness."

-MH

All scientists should have this quote up on their wall.

Johannes
21-06-15, 06:52
"Those who idolize "facts" never notice that their idols only shine in a borrowed light. They are also meant not to notice this; for thereupon they would have to be at a loss and therefore useless. But idolizers and idols are used wherever gods are in flight and so announce their nearness."

-MH

All scientists should have this quote up on their wall.


Who wrote this? It's pretty deep. Was he/she a poet or scientist or both?

holderlin
21-06-15, 22:48
Who wrote this? It's pretty deep. Was he/she a poet or scientist or both?

Martin Heidegger. The most important philosopher in the last 100 years and maybe even 1000s of years aside from Nietzsche. Not coincidentally a large body of his work are some of the most important interpretations of Nietzsche. Without Heidegger, we never fully understand Nietzsche. I sort of see them both as the same epoche.

Salmon
29-06-15, 19:07
Eurasia has a diverse range of "bovines."

Exploiting dairy to its limits was important for Northern Europeans as many of the crops domesticated in warmer and more temperate climates in Eurasia did not grow very well in some places. The cows could process inedible cellulose into milk which humans could transform in butter, cheese, yogurt.

Eurasians to the South and South East could exploit other food sources. Asians went on to favor pigs and chickens. They would ferment legumes and vegetables instead of milk, most of the time. Mongolians loved dairy. Chinese preferred to use the cows to pull wagons and large loads. They liked the taste of pork over the taste of sheep and goats.

Johannes
01-07-15, 21:57
Martin Heidegger. The most important philosopher in the last 100 years and maybe even 1000s of years aside from Nietzsche. Not coincidentally a large body of his work are some of the most important interpretations of Nietzsche. Without Heidegger, we never fully understand Nietzsche. I sort of see them both as the same epoche.

Ah, did you read and fully understand what he wrote? I remember reading him at the same time I was studying Nietzsche. I could not understand what the hell he was talking about and all I remember him saying was about Nietzsche being the last metaphysical philosopher and about instinct as opposed to reason. Except for Nietzsche most German philosophers were very bad writers. Have you tried to read Kant, Marx, and Hegel?? I fully understood Nietzsche without the use of Heidegger's analysis.

Tomenable
01-07-15, 23:19
Can someone give me a link to that recent study which describes how cattle got to China ???

I mean the one which says that cattle was brought to China via the steppe by Indo-Europeans.


Except for Nietzsche most German philosophers were very bad writers.

Nietzsche actually self-identified as an ethnic Pole. So I'm not sure if we can call him German.

Though objectively he spoke German etc., but it is self-identity that really matters, or not?

Johannes
02-07-15, 00:04
Can someone give me a link to that recent study which describes how cattle got to China ???

I mean the one which says that cattle was brought to China via the steppe by Indo-Europeans.

Man I wish I would have kept all the National Geographic magazines I used to collect!!! In one, during the 1990's, there was an article about Indo-Europeans (Tocharians) who settled in the Tarim Basin and began to trade with China. They brought with them cattle, the wagons (wheel), chariots, and bronze weapons. All these were introduced (along with jade) to the Chinese around the 3rd millenium BCE. When the Chinese could not find any wheels, chariots or bronze metals made by the Chinese before 2,500 BCE, they stopped all studies into Tocharian history and since then have hidden from the world all new discoveries.

Johannes
02-07-15, 00:14
Nietzsche actually self-identified as an ethnic Pole. So I'm not sure if we can call him German.

Though objectively he spoke German etc., but it is self-identity that really matters, or not?

Nietzsche self-identified as a Pole because of self-hatred. The Germans did not read his books or understood where he was coming form. He also resented the fact that he was not famous. Nietzsche also saw how the Germans had degenerated from being "Thinkers and Poets" to military men who blindly obeyed and hated the rise of Germany as a world power. However, there was a study made of Nietzsche's family, especially on his father's side (because Nietzsche thought his real surname was "Nietsky"). The study found no Polish or Slav ancestors back to the 18th century. So it seems that Nietzsche was 100% Deutsch.

Mordred
10-08-16, 11:28
This would mean that you actually know more about Nitsche than he did. I think he was clever enough to know his origins. Your reasoning would diminish all his work just by stating the fact that he didn't know what he was or what he wrote.

Sent from my SM-T815 using Tapatalk