Light skin allele of SLC24A5 gene was spread by the Indo-Europeans (R1a + R1b)

Sardinians and South Italians are equally neolitich.

The only difference is that South Italians are not a WHG/EEF mix, but rather an EEF/ANE mix which peaks in the Caucasus, hence the higher west asian component. However it did not originate there.

Regarding pigmentation Sardinians are on par with Sicilians and far Southern Calabrians who are much darker than other South Italians, probably because they have less light skin alleles and a significant amount of African Admixture from the Moors.
 
joeyc said:
Reading Drac can give you a headache. ROFL

The IrisPlex system was designed only for Europeans. You can see that in the original study. There is no point in arguing against that.

The rest of your arguments have already been debunked many times in last pages.

For the rest Italians as whole have a much higher percentage of the 3 most important light skin alleles found among West Eurasians, than the Iberians. They are also much lighter eyed, as proved by the Iris Plex system.
Click to expand...

And reading your posts is no picnic either.

That did not seem to stop the authors who try to make eye pigmentation "predictions" from employing it with non-Europeans, didn't it.

You must still be under the amusing delusion that your unproven accusations against authors of other studies that don't fit your agenda (Candille et al. Jablonski & Chaplin, basically all pigmentation surveys conducted by physical anthropologists) as well as the diatribes directed at anyone who is not buying your seemingly never-ending assortment of excuses and not very convincing "explanations" constitute a "debunking". Keep on trying, though, by all means. The more you keep trying to defend these "predictions" based on a few SNPs the more dubious and unreliable the whole thing is shown to be. So far thanks to your imaginary "debunkings" (actually more like self-debunkings) we have learnt that these "prediction" papers that you like so much are even more dubious since:

1- Their authors apparently don't shy away from using samples that they are even fully aware are not wholly native

2- They also liberally employ such methods with populations they were not designed for

3- Some other researchers have put such methods to the test and they have not performed as neatly as advertised

You are a very amusing guy, Joey. Let's see what other inconvenient facts about these already dubious "prediction" papers will come to the surface if you continue trying to defend them.

You mean like one of those important light skin alleles that Swedes scored lower than a bunch of other Europeans, including Italians and Spaniards? And so did the Swiss, and the Germans too, BTW. Yes, I am really impressed about how much this correlates with observable facts. Keep on blindly believing in such "predictions". This whole "prediction" based on SNPs thingy is recent, hardly infallible, and still in need of further research & development (as implied by Candille et al.) to reach the point of reliability that you wish it had. Maybe at some time in the future it will, but right now, forget it. This stuff is still in its infancy.
 
Dude you are fighting a lost a battle.

I've debunked all your arguments.

At least use fantasy and create new ones.
 
joeyc said:
Dude you are fighting a lost a battle.

I've debunked all your arguments.

At least use fantasy and create new ones.
Click to expand...

The only thing you are succeeding in is in defeating yourself, Nostradamus.

Here, more of these silly "predictions" for everyone's entertainment, this time for hair color, and just about as "believable" as any of the other ones that you keep desperately trying to defend:

http://unsafeharbour.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/2013-prediction-of-hair-colour.jpg

So French and even Italians from Bergamo are blonder than Orcadians, one of the most depigmented populations in Scotland, ironically, and Tuscans are just as blonde. Sardinians are about as blond as Palestinians and Druze. Yes, one should be speechless at the truly amazing high probability of such "predictions".

You keep on telling tall tales to yourself. It's pretty obvious since your very first posts here that you will try to defend such silly "predictions" as long as they keep telling you what you want to hear. Too bad that you keep miserably failing.
 
LOL this is ludicrous. First of all those clusters are from the HGDP panel, which means they all have less than 25 samples. The Tuscan cluster has 8 samples and the Lombard one has only 13 in it.

Second that's the HIRIS plex system which has a much lower rate of prediction accuracy than the Iris plex system.

Now hurry up and bring a new argument, so I can debunk it too.
 
joeyc said:
LOL this is ludicrous. First of all those clusters are from the HGDP panel, which means they all have less than 25 samples. The Tuscan cluster has 8 samples and the Lombard one has only 13 in it.

Second that's the HIRIS plex system which has a much lower rate of prediction accuracy than the Iris plex system.

Now hurry up and bring a new argument, so I can debunk it too.
Click to expand...


No need to, since you haven't even started debunking this one (or any other one, for that matter). Your excuses don't wash. The authors of the study did not see sample size as an impediment to conduct and publish the "predictions" and claim accuracy (yes, not as high as that claimed for IrisPlex, but still fairly accurate.) Plus they used 24 SNPs with this one. The fact that you keep trying to cling to sample size as an excuse only keeps re-emphasizing the dubious nature of both your claims as well as those of papers like this one. The authors apparently have no problem publishing papers using sample sizes to which you yourself object and yet at the same time you try to defend them and their methodology. In English this is called "have your cake... and eat it too!":

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/have_one's_cake_and_eat_it_too

You can't have it both ways, Nostradamus. So do you condemn this paper or are you going to try to defend it too?
 
I cannot insult you because I would be banned. But after reading your last post it's obvious to anyone with an IQ above 100, that you are an hopeless case. I rest my case.
 
joeyc said:
I cannot insult you because I would be banned. But after reading your last post it's obvious to anyone with an IQ above 100, that you are an hopeless case. I rest my case.
Click to expand...

What was that? No arguments? I thought so.

By the way, for those of you who want to further see how little seriously this JoeyC fellow and his obvious agenda must be taken, just check out the rather different tales he spins about this type of papers in this other site, and that he seeks to "explain" with a repertoire of (unconvincing) excuses around here when their dubious claims/results are pointed out:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sh...s-light-as-French-according-to-a-recent-study
 
Drac II said:
What was that? No arguments? I thought so.
Click to expand...

I've debunked all your arguments, muchacho. But you keep playing with "words" to win, and I don't have the time to talk with hopleless cases like you.

Drac II said:
By the way, for those of you who want to further see how little seriously this JoeyC fellow and his obvious agenda must be taken, just check out the rather different tales he spins about this type of papers in this other site, and that he seeks to "explain" with a repertoire of (unconvincing) excuses around here when their dubious claims/results are pointed out:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sh...s-light-as-French-according-to-a-recent-study
Click to expand...

Yes and in the same thread I also say that the sample size is very small, and we need more samples to get a reliable study. Read the whole thread.

Here

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sh...recent-study?p=1108954&viewfull=1#post1108954

BTW the samples size is quite small, so chill out
Click to expand...

So it seems that you are the one twisting facts here.
 
ROFL you have completely failed at proving that pigmentation prediction studies based on DNA are unreliable. All you can do, is posting the results for very small clusters with non native samples in them.

On the other hand Candille et al. is clearly biased since the main author is a Portuguese woman who had a great role in selecting the Portuguese samples from her native city.

Jablonky et al is such a retard study, that none takes it seriously, beside Iberians and their Hispanic slaves.

Do you need anything else?
 
Regarding the thread over Forumbiodiversity, I opened it about 4 mounths ago. Back then I did not really know much about genetics.

Now I know quite a lot more. So do you really need to quote a 4 mounths old post of me from another forum, to win an argument? How does that disprove anything I've said so far?
 
Drac II said:
What was that? No arguments? I thought so.

By the way, for those of you who want to further see how little seriously this JoeyC fellow and his obvious agenda must be taken, just check out the rather different tales he spins about this type of papers in this other site, and that he seeks to "explain" with a repertoire of (unconvincing) excuses around here when their dubious claims/results are pointed out:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sh...s-light-as-French-according-to-a-recent-study
Click to expand...

But a Morrocan from Genk asking where the samples come from does not exactly 'debunk' the results or the study; And the eye results come from a study of a Dutch University (Walsh et al 2010) that explains the Genetic method used; http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/PIIS1872497310000323/abstract

'We used the six currently most eye colour-informative single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that previously revealed prevalence-adjusted prediction accuracies of over 90% for blue and brown eye colour in 6168 Dutch Europeans'

As a user on there pointed out the 'undefined category' = mixed-eyes; The studies clearly show that the prediction of eye-color (based on SNPs) is much more stable and credible [91-99%] than that of the hair-color; And both post#8 and post#11 explain what the hair categories (Black/Brown/Red/Blonde) in that study even means;
 
joeyc said:
ROFL you have completely failed at proving that pigmentation prediction studies based on DNA are unreliable. All you can do, is posting the results for very small clusters with non native samples in them.

On the other hand Candille et al. is clearly biased since the main author is a Portuguese woman who had a great role in selecting the Portuguese samples from her native city.

Jablonky et al is such a retard study, that none takes it seriously, beside Iberians and their Hispanic slaves.

Do you need anything else?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for your delusions, both of those papers that you dislike are way better carried out and more believable than the shoddy papers that you so desperately want to defend. Even your own convenient excuses (using samples that are not fully native, using smaller samples, applying methods that were designed only for certain populations, etc.) keep incriminating them as hardly very reliable. The worst enemy these papers seem to have is you, ironically. You keep providing arguments against them in your desperate efforts to defend them.
 
Nobody1 said:
But a Morrocan from Genk asking where the samples come from does not exactly 'debunk' the results or the study; And the eye results come from a study of a Dutch University (Walsh et al 2010) that explains the Genetic method used; http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/PIIS1872497310000323/abstract

'We used the six currently most eye colour-informative single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that previously revealed prevalence-adjusted prediction accuracies of over 90% for blue and brown eye colour in 6168 Dutch Europeans'

As a user on there pointed out the 'undefined category' = mixed-eyes; The studies clearly show that the prediction of eye-color (based on SNPs) is much more stable and credible [91-99%] than that of the hair-color; And both post#8 and post#11 explain what the hair categories (Black/Brown/Red/Blonde) in that study even means;
Click to expand...

The Moroccan user asking questions doesn't do that, but the equally dubious "predictions" (French and Italians from Bergamo more blue-eyed than Orcadians, Tuscans practically as blue-eyed as Orcadians, Sardinians darker-eyed than Palestinians and Druze) of the eye pigmentation study mentioned there pretty much casts heavy doubts on these methods again. These attempts at "predicting" pigmentation by means of some SNPs are recent and do need more development for them to really be reliable, as some other papers have pointed out.
 
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting tired of stereotypical thinking and agenda driven polemics masquerading as science. You don't even need science actually, you just need to have spent time in these places...

There are whole villages in Toscana and neighboring Liguria and Emilia where virtually everyone is light-eyed. As for the people of Orkney, just google them for goodness sakes...they're extremely fair skinned, but by no means all blonde and blue-eyed.

These are some of the people of Toscana...local children of the Lunigiana
scuola.jpg

mulazzo_bancarelvino02.jpg


The people in the picture above are from one of those towns where upwards of three quarters of the people are light eyed.

Or, you can look at politicians...these are two of the three Tuscan women in the Italian cabinet.
Stefania-Giannini-ministro-istruzione-non-sprecare.jpg


152610813-b63ce4a7-0e76-4964-b381-c7df51254f78.jpg
 
There's no need to spam the thread with photos of Sardinians. The beauty of Sardinian women is well known. That doesn't mean that there's this large percentage of light eyed people there, although as on the mainland, things can vary from village to village. There's a lot of variety in most parts of Italy, something that people who come from more homogenous looking countries don't understand.

Also, please don't allow yourself to become infected by the nordicist disease that afflicts so many people on anthrofora. Pointing out how agenda driven comments conflict with properly understood genetic analysis doesn't mean that one has to subscribe to that type of thinking or those types of values.

As for the studies to which you refer, they have been superseded. The distinctiveness of the Sardinian genome is clear, and its connection to the Neolithic advance in Europe; both are things of which to be proud.
 
Fire Haired14 said:
If rs1426654 A/A is just as popular in west asians as in Europeans, why do people assume it significantly lightens skin? There are no answers in DNA(that i have read of) that can explain lighter skin in northern Europe than in southern Europe, and lighter skin in Europe than in west asia. No one at this forum is considering that there are unknown variations in DNA that effect skin color.
Click to expand...

There's way more darkening genes than lightening. I am not sure there is any need for whitening genes if you don't have the dark ones. I assume they came about because of darker people coming to an area where light skin fares better, and being strongly selected on. That is speculation but only way to judge is to find people with and without all the skin gene combos and see what they look like.
 
Aristocephalic said:
There's way more darkening genes than lightening. I am not sure there is any need for whitening genes if you don't have the dark ones. I assume they came about because of darker people coming to an area where light skin fares better, and being strongly selected on. That is speculation but only way to judge is to find people with and without all the skin gene combos and see what they look like.
Click to expand...
I am not a scientist so i don't know how to respond. Figuring out where certain pigmentation comes from isn't very useful if you are researching the genetic history of populations. So becoming an expert on how the genes work isn't so important and a waste of time. I just try to get a very basic understanding and use what i know about genetics and history of a population to make conclusions on where certain pigmentation comes from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 224286 times.

Back
Top