R-V88 Among Europeans

We have no idea what was the original skin colour of (modern) humans . Early modern humans could have been as light as San Bushmen, or as dark as South Sudanese, or even similar to Amerindians (ie, intermediate between "light" and "dark"). We just don't know yet. Also, many experts believe dark skin has some correlation to the rates of polygyny in a population. For example, West Africans have one of the highest rates of polygyny in the world and are also one of the darkest populations in terms of skin colour. The opposite can be said of most European populations. This map may be of great help:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/70437468238909/
And to say the earliest modern humans looked " Negroid" is odd if we take into account the earliest "Negroid" remains which are only 7,000 years old (see Asselar Man). In fact, the Upper Paleolithic African specimens we have to date cluster with UP Eurasians and not with modern Africans (see Hofmeyr skull at 36,000 kya).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melancon

I am an R1b individual myself. I am not claiming to know anything, I am just theorizing.

---

Well, you did claim that "R1 peoples were Negroids" and that there's "no other available explanation." Just saying.

Quote:

---

But logically, it makes no sense for Mesolithic European I2 people to have dark-skin while R1a and R1b individuals in Mesolithic Central Asia have fair-skin.

---

Having darker skin than modern Europeans doesn't equate to being "Negroid." Per your own source (Wiki): "As dark skin is also relatively common in human groups that have historically not been defined as 'Negroid', including many populations in both Africa and Asia, it is only when present with other typical Negroid physical traits such as broad facial features, Negroid cranial and dental characteristics, prognathism, afro-textured hair and neoteny, that it has been used in Negroid classification."

I don't know why you're so needlessly condescending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athiudisc

I don't know why you're so needlessly condescending.

---

I am sorry, I am often very blunt and sharp. I am often involved in activities that require discipline and a tough-mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melancon

I am sorry, I am often very blunt and sharp. I am often involved in activities that require discipline and a tough-mind.

---

Well someone with such discipline and a tough-mind would not be making such bizarre and non-sensical claims as hg R1 being originally a "Negroid" haplogroup. BTW, I find it odd that you claim to be a forensic anthropologist and yet can not make a distinction between "Australoid" and "Negroid".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power77

Well someone with such discipline and a tough-mind would not be making such bizarre and non-sensical claims as hg R1 being originally a "Negroid" haplogroup. BTW, I find it odd that you claim to be a forensic anthropologist and yet can not make a distinction between "Australoid" and "Negroid".

---

Not really claiming; I was hypothesizing. Unless you can find me a genome of an R1 man with fair-skin, then I might take this theory back. But Loschbur man was haplogroup I2 and had dark skin:

Attachment 7190

Also, have you taken a look at the map of the haplogroups timeline here on Eupedia?

Attachment 7191


If you look at the timeline, you should notice that Asian Y-DNA R1 is slightly older than European Y-DNA I. So how did Loschbur man; who is haplogroup I2 and is 8,000 years old, have dark-skin as a Mesolithic European? Also...if you observe closely; theoretically, R1b and R1a broke off from R1 at a similar time as I1 and I2 from I.

Also sir, Australoid is merely a subrace of Negroid in the field of anthropology. We are meant to look for Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid skulls of the deceased. You do realize, that a Semitic Arab with darker skin than a European is considered a Caucasoid as well? Saying "Australoid" in terms of race is like saying "Europeanoid" or something similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melancon

Not really claiming; I was hypothesizing. Unless you can find me a genome of an R1 man with fair-skin, then I might take this theory back. But Loschbur man was haplogroup I2 and had dark skin:

Attachment 7190

Also, have you taken a look at the map of the haplogroups timeline here on Eupedia?

Attachment 7191


If you look at the timeline, you should notice that Asian Y-DNA R1 is slightly older than European Y-DNA I. So how did Loschbur man; who is haplogroup I2 and is 8,000 years old, have dark-skin as a Mesolithic European? Also...if you observe closely; theoretically, R1b and R1a broke off from R1 at a similar time as I1 and I2 from I.

Also sir, Australoid is merely a subrace of Negroid in the field of anthropology. We are meant to look for Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid skulls of the deceased. You do realize, that a Semitic Arab with darker skin than a European is considered a Caucasoid as well? Saying "Australoid" in terms of race is like saying "Europeanoid" or something similar.

---

Even if the original R1 man had "dark" skin, that doesn't mean he was a "Negroid". BTW, I do not take "molecular clocks" seriously anymore nor the mainstream "out-of-Africa" theory for that matter. I think both are nonsensical outdated "theories". And both are being contradicted by a bunch of recent anthropological, archeological and genetic findings anyway. See this blog as a case in point: http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/.
And since you clearly based your "hypothesis" of hg R1 being originally "Negroid" on an obsolete "out-of-Africa" perspective, I'm not surprised that you used flawed methodologies and concepts such as the "molecular clock" to argue for it. It's not your fault though, I think it is rather the pro-"out-of-Africa" geneticists'. Such people are similar to creationists when it comes to impose their beliefs on others even though there is evidence contradicting them. IMO, they should be called "cryptocreationists" instead of "scientists". And I'll have to disagree with you again on "Australoid" being a subset of "Negroid":

-"Australoid" skull:
http://www.canovan.com/HumanOrigin/P.../PINTUBI-1.htm

-"Negroid" skull:
https://www.skullsunlimited.com/prod...with-stand.htm

The two look quite different to me, so I'm rather surprised that a professional forensic anthropologist such as yourself would not be able to tell them apart...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melancon

Not really claiming; I was hypothesizing. Unless you can find me a genome of an R1 man with fair-skin, then I might take this theory back. But Loschbur man was haplogroup I2 and had dark skin:

Attachment 7190

Also, have you taken a look at the map of the haplogroups timeline here on Eupedia?

Attachment 7191


If you look at the timeline, you should notice that Asian Y-DNA R1 is slightly older than European Y-DNA I. So how did Loschbur man; who is haplogroup I2 and is 8,000 years old, have dark-skin as a Mesolithic European? Also...if you observe closely; theoretically, R1b and R1a broke off from R1 at a similar time as I1 and I2 from I.

Also sir, Australoid is merely a subrace of Negroid in the field of anthropology. We are meant to look for Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid skulls of the deceased. You do realize, that a Semitic Arab with darker skin than a European is considered a Caucasoid as well? Saying "Australoid" in terms of race is like saying "Europeanoid" or something similar.

---

No. I realize that if one relies on certain Wikipedia entries, one would think that the Australoid physical type is a subdivision of the Negroid type, but any physical anthropologist would tell you that is incorrect. Australoids are considered to be one of the four major racial types. They were the first modern humans to leave Africa and they differ from Negroids by having wavy rather than kinky hair, a generally softer skin texture and much larger brow ridges, and they tend to be dolichocephalic (long headed). Skin colour is not a useful guide to race and in fact more and more anthropologists are concluding that the concept of race is not particularly useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aberdeen

No. I realize that if one relies on certain Wikipedia entries, one would think that the Australoid physical type is a subdivision of the Negroid type, but any physical anthropologist would tell you that is incorrect. Australoids are considered to be one of the four major racial types. They were the first modern humans to leave Africa and they differ from Negroids by having wavy rather than kinky hair, a generally softer skin texture and much larger brow ridges, and they tend to be dolichocephalic (long headed). Skin colour is not a useful guide to race and in fact more and more anthropologists are concluding that the concept of race is not particularly useful.

---

Not in my country at least!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power77

Even if the original R1 man had "dark" skin, that doesn't mean he was a "Negroid". BTW, I do not take "molecular clocks" seriously anymore nor the mainstream "out-of-Africa" theory for that matter. I think both are nonsensical outdated "theories". And both are being contradicted by a bunch of recent anthropological, archeological and genetic findings anyway. See this blog as a case in point: http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/.
And since you clearly based your "hypothesis" of hg R1 being originally "Negroid" on an obsolete "out-of-Africa" perspective, I'm not surprised that you used flawed methodologies and concepts such as the "molecular clock" to argue for it. It's not your fault though, I think it is rather the pro-"out-of-Africa" geneticists'. Such people are similar to creationists when it comes to impose their beliefs on others even though there is evidence contradicting them. IMO, they should be called "cryptocreationists" instead of "scientists". And I'll have to disagree with you again on "Australoid" being a subset of "Negroid":

-"Australoid" skull:
http://www.canovan.com/HumanOrigin/P.../PINTUBI-1.htm

-"Negroid" skull:
https://www.skullsunlimited.com/prod...with-stand.htm

The two look quite different to me, so I'm rather surprised that a professional forensic anthropologist such as yourself would not be able to tell them apart...

---

Why are you telling me things that I probably already know? As I stated before; I'm not claiming, I'm theorizing. In a way, I do agree with you that the Out-of-Africa theory is severely flawed; and haplogroup science can prove this.

I had no idea until recently that Mesolithic Europeans had dark-skin until recently.

The only explanation in regards to this theory; is that most of these people Out of Africa must have been originally Negroid for several thousands of years; even whilst the Y-DNA like I2 or R1b or N1c or O3 mutated. But some migrated into Europe and some migrated into East Asia etc. and morphed into the different ethnicities that we see today (Caucasoid and Mongoloid)

Unless, you want to suggest that Finnish people carrying N1c (like the Mongoloid Yakuts of Siberia) are mixed with East Asians; or Europeans with E-V13 are mixed with Africans. And the R1b Chadic people of Sub-Saharan Africa are mixed with Caucasoids. Which is absolutely ridiculous.

There are total flaws in your argument- as a professional forensic anthropologist, I KNOW ;) what to look for- what to tell apart and what to look for. Does an East Asian Mongoloid (Chinese or Japanese) skull look the same as a Native American Mongoloid (Mayan, Aztec) skull? Excuse me? We do not look for "Australoid" skulls....we look for Negroid. And we do not look for Japanese or Native American skulls. We look for Mongoloid. Lmao.

Melancon, if you are a professional forensic anthropologist, why did you not know that forensic anthropologists use four main racial classifications? You stated that the Australoid type is a division of the Negroid type, which is not correct. And you seemed to think that skin colour is a useful guide to race when there are in fact many dark Caucasians and there are some Australoids that are darker than some Negroids. And you seem to have the rather strange notion that the Negroid type was the original type that other races evolved from, which any forensic anthropologist could tell you is not correct. The Negroid type evolved out of the same original early human types that produced the other three main racial types. And, as I've said, many anthropologists now consider the concept of race to be not very useful, since there are many populations that don't fit easily into the four main categories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aberdeen

Melancon, if you are a professional forensic anthropologist, why did you not know that forensic anthropologists use four main racial classifications? You stated that the Australoid type is a division of the Negroid type, which is not correct. And you seemed to think that skin colour is a useful guide to race when there are in fact many dark Caucasians and there are some Australoids that are darker than some Negroids. And you seem to have the rather strange notion that the Negroid type was the original type that other races evolved from, which any forensic anthropologist could tell you is not correct. The Negroid type evolved out of the same original early human types that produced the other three main racial types. And, as I've said, many anthropologists now consider the concept of race to be not very useful, since there are many populations that don't fit easily into the four main categories.

---

Um, go back and read my post again ... you contradicted everything that I just said. I know that there are Caucasoids and Mongoloids with dark-skin and not fair-skin as well.

The whole point in my theory is that all races started off as Negroid (evidently, which may explain Loschbour man's dark skin while being a Mesolithic European.) Unless you have any evidence that R1 people were fair-skinned in the Asian Paleo or Mesolithic, then I can say that you are correct.

I don't seem to think anything. I know.

What you and everyone else here is assuming; is that races out of Africa evolved as a mixture of races; instead of selection. Which may be only (partly) true.


The reason why Australoids have lived in Australia and retained their dark-skin for thousands of years, is because Australia has almost exclusively always been a desert. And it gets pretty hot like Africa in Papua New Guinea and Southern India too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melancon

Um, go back and read my post again ... you contradicted everything that I just said. I know that there are Caucasoids and Mongoloids with dark-skin and not fair-skin as well.

The whole point in my theory is that all races started off as Negroid (evidently, which may explain Loschbour man's dark skin while being a Mesolithic European.) Unless you have any evidence that R1 people were fair-skinned in the Asian Paleo or Mesolithic, then I can say that you are correct.

---

The whole point of your theory is an idea that any physical anthropologist will tell you is incorrect. It is not true that all races started off as Negroid. All races started off as early humans, with a variety of physical types and gradually evolved into the four main racial types. Your assumption that the Negroid type was the original is leading you to make some incorrect conclusions. Although one can find the notion that the Negroid type was the original race in 19th century and early 20th century textbooks, it's been known to be false for a long time. The Negroid type evolved in Africa but it is a distinct type, not the ancestor of other races.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aberdeen

The whole point of your theory is an idea that any physical anthropologist will tell you is incorrect. It is not true that all races started off as Negroid. All races started off as early humans, with a variety of physical types and gradually evolved into the four main racial types. Your assumption that the Negroid type was the original is leading you to make some incorrect conclusions. Although one can find the notion that the Negroid type was the original race in 19th century and early 20th century textbooks, it's been known to be false for a long time. The Negroid type evolved in Africa but it is a distinct type, not the ancestor of other races.

---

No. I can tell you that it IS correct. At least when I earned my degree. What are you talking about? Where do you think all other races "Out of Africa" came from? Some extraterrestrial invasion? Or did they come from the Dravidians of Asia? So it's the Out of South Asia theory now?



http://www.humanphenotypes.com/

Look at the 6th individual out of the 7 photos. That is a San.

You do realize that the San people, or the Bushmen, have ancestral haplogroup A? The oldest haplogroup in Africa and the world? And they are considered Negroid? Also, the third individual is a Sub-Saharan African; who most likely carries Y-DNA E or possibly even R1b. The 5th and 7th individuals are Australoids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melancon

No. I can tell you that it IS correct. At least when I earned my degree. What are you talking about? Where do you think all other races "Out of Africa" came from? Some extraterrestrial invasion? Or did they come from the Dravidians of Asia? So it's the Out of South Asia theory now?



http://www.humanphenotypes.com/

Look at the 6th individual out of the 7 photos. That is a San.

You do realize that the San people, or the Bushmen, have ancestral haplogroup A? The oldest haplogroup in Africa and the world? And they are considered Negroid? Also, the third individual is a Sub-Saharan African; who most likely carries Y-DNA E or possibly even R1b. The 5th and 7th individuals are Australoids.

---

You seem to have difficulty understanding what I said. Yes, all races originate from early modern humans who lived in Africa, but that does not mean that the current populations that physical anthropologists refer to as Negroid existed when the first modern humans left Africa. Nor does it mean that other racial groups evolved out of the current Negroid populations. All four major subgroups evolved out of a variable population of early modern humans, with those who left Africa mixing with Neanderthals and, in the case of some Asian populations, Denisovians. And it has already been explained to you that R1b in Africa comes from back migration by people whose R1b evolved outside of Africa. And, as I said, many anthropologists now consider the concept of race to be dubious, since many groups don't fit well into the four main categories. For example, the San and related groups don't fit well into the Negroid category so a separate category (Capoid) has been suggested for them. It's not accepted by all anthropologists, but the difference between Capiod and other Negroid groups is generally acknowledged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melancon

I am sorry, I am often very blunt and sharp. I am often involved in activities that require discipline and a tough-mind.

---

Unwarranted condescension and insult shouldn't be mistaken for discipline and tough-mindedness.

That aside, I'm curious despite myself: where do the oldest R remains fit into your theory? They're not "Negroid," but they're also not ancestral to R1a or R1b. Did the population that produced the Mal'ta genome from 24kbp rapidly divest themselves of Negroid characteristics whilst the rest of the R populations retained them for thousands of years after? If so, do you have an explanation as to how or why this occurred?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aberdeen

You seem to have difficulty understanding what I said. Yes, all races originate from early modern humans who lived in Africa, but that does not mean that the current populations that physical anthropologists refer to as Negroid existed when the first modern humans left Africa. Nor does it mean that other racial groups evolved out of the current Negroid populations. All four major subgroups evolved out of a variable population of early modern humans, with those who left Africa mixing with Neanderthals and, in the case of some Asian populations, Denisovians. And it has already been explained to you that R1b in Africa comes from back migration by people whose R1b evolved outside of Africa. And, as I said, many anthropologists now consider the concept of race to be dubious, since many groups don't fit well into the four main categories. For example, the San and related groups don't fit well into the Negroid category so a separate category (Capoid) has been suggested for them. It's not accepted by all anthropologists, but the difference between Capiod and other Negroid groups is generally acknowledged.

---

That's not what I have been taught. We don't look for Australoids dude. Looking for Australoids is like looking for Native Americans, who are Mongoloid. And if you understand the haplogroup tree; the San people are one of the oldest races; I believe they carry Y-DNA A.

You do realize that these "Australoids" sometimes are born with blonde hair, right? And you also realize that they carry Y-DNA C? Just like the Mesolithic Europeans who had dark skin and blue eyes? Which is also a descendant of haplogroup A? Meaning that they descend directly from San people; as do the Sub-Saharan Africans who carry haplogroup E, right?

Y-DNA Haplogroup C > CT > BT > A


Haplogroup C subclades are also extremely abundant in Mongolian people as well as other East Asians. But they also carry haplogroups that descend from F, just like Europeans. (O and N, sometimes Q. Very rarely R1) Also, we already know La Brana man was European but had haplogroup C6 which later died off. In theory; this is proof enough that all races started out as Negroid. And that they mixed with descending-haplogroup F Negroids. And then mutated into the races that they are today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melancon

That's not what I have been taught. We don't look for Australoids dude. Looking for Australoids is like looking for Native Americans, who are Mongoloid. And if you understand the haplogroup tree; the San people are one of the oldest races; I believe they carry Y-DNA A.

You do realize that these "Australoids" sometimes are born with blonde hair, right? And you also realize that they carry Y-DNA C? Just like the Mesolithic Europeans who had dark skin and blue eyes? Which is also a descendant of haplogroup A? Meaning that they descend directly from San people; as do the Sub-Saharan Africans who carry haplogroup E, right?

Y-DNA Haplogroup C > CT > BT > A


Haplogroup C subclades are also extremely abundant in Mongolian people as well as other East Asians. But they also carry haplogroups that descend from F, just like Europeans. (O and N, sometimes Q. Very rarely R1) Also, we already know La Brana man was European but had haplogroup C6 which later died off. In theory; this is proof enough that all races started out as Negroid. And that they mixed with descending-haplogroup F Negroids. And then mutated into the races that they are today.

---

I think I now understand what people in the northeastern U.S. are referring to when they talk about someone having "a southern education".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aberdeen

I think I now understand what people in the northeastern U.S. are referring to when they talk about someone having "a southern education".

---

Well you have heard nothing but disinformation. So is an insult all that you can come up with, now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aberdeen

I think I now understand what people in the northeastern U.S. are referring to when they talk about someone having "a southern education".

---

Some of those people up in Northeast U.S. are my relatives too. Even in your country Nova Scotia. If you've ever heard of a Melancon, Pitre, Leblanc, Fontenot, Berza, Guidry, Manuel, Gaspard, Nadeau, Aucoin, Crochet, Comeaux, Babin/Babineaux, Fuselier, Lafleur. I am a distant cousin of these. Any sound familiar to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aberdeen

I think I now understand what people in the northeastern U.S. are referring to when they talk about someone having "a southern education".

---

If you think my theory isn't true; explain to me why Mongolians as well as Native American Indians carry Y-DNA haplogroup C3? Which is a break-off of C? Also, why do both Finnish Caucasoid (Europeans) carry Y-DNA N1c as do the Yakuts (who are East Asian Mongoloids?)

Attachment 7193

Haplogroup C in Oceania:

Attachment 7194

Most Australian aboriginals are Y-DNA C4.

Not far off from La Brana's man C6 in Iberia, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melancon

Also, we already know La Brana man was European but had haplogroup C6 which later died off. In theory; this is proof enough that all races started out as Negroid.

---

A Y-DNA C male in Europe 7,000 years ago is proof "all races started out as Negroid?"

You're going to have to explain that one a little further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athiudisc

A Y-DNA C male in Europe 7,000 years ago is proof "all races started out as Negroid?"

You're going to have to explain that one a little further.

---

Loschbour man was 8,000 years old also carried Y-DNA I2 and was also dark-skinned and blue eyed.

So what is the alternative explanation for these two individuals? I'd like to hear your own analysis.


Were the R1b people in Mesolithic Asia looking like me in the avatar there on the left at the same time of these two individuals' existence? Did they look like me or the Modern Europeans? Fair-skinned?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melancon

Loschbour man was 8,000 years old also carried Y-DNA I2 and was also dark-skinned and blue eyed.

So what is the alternative explanation for these two individuals? I'd like to hear your own analysis.

---

My analysis is that you imagine for some reason that someone with dark skin (relative to what?) is "Negroid."

You've made this mistake several times already. Earlier in the thread, you said

Quote:

---

And as we all know, Loschbour man (Y-DNA I2) had dark skin, right? So this must mean that the original R1a and R1b men may have also been Negroid too, right?

---

"Also been Negroid too," suggesting that (because he had dark skin) Loschbour man was "Negroid."

You also said

Quote:

---

If people of Y-DNA I2 or C6 were Negroid; why wouldn't R1 and it's descendants be Negroid too?

---

There is exactly zero evidence or suggestion that I2 or C6 individuals were "Negroid." You're simply conflating having darker skin than the modern European average with being "Negroid."

You then opined that

Quote:

---

It doesn't matter; he doesn't have fair-skin ... and his skin is very dark; so he is certainly a Negroid in some way.

---

Again, you're completely either misunderstanding or misusing the term "Negroid." As I pointed out previously, even your own source (Wiki) says you're wrong.

Dark skin does not equate to being "Negroid."

You're a forensic anthropologist, so I don't understand how this is even a debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melancon

If you think my theory isn't true; explain to me why Mongolians as well as Native American Indians carry Y-DNA haplogroup C3? Which is a break-off of C? Also, why do both Finnish Caucasoid (Europeans) carry Y-DNA N1c as do the Yakuts (who are East Asian Mongoloids?)

Attachment 7193

Haplogroup C in Oceania:

Attachment 7194

Most Australian aboriginals are Y-DNA C4.

Not far off from La Brana's man C6 in Iberia, right?

---

You won't find Y haplotype C in Sub-Saharan Africa in any measurable amounts because it isn't associated with the Negroid type. For a (very) basic understanding of Y DNA, please visit this website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Y...DNA_haplogroup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athiudisc

Again, you're completely either misunderstanding or misusing the term "Negroid." As I pointed out previously, even your own source (Wiki) says you're wrong.

Dark skin does not equate to being "Negroid."

You're a forensic anthropologist, so I don't understand how this is even a debate.

---

My source doesn't say that I am wrong. Arabs and South Asian Indians are Caucasoids too; and they have slightly darker skin.