New thoughts on Indo-Europeans in the light of recent data

Pardon, I did not notice that you was responding to me.
So the following statement demands clarification then:


I'm sorry I was not more clear. Even I have trouble remembering what I wanted to say here. Well, I think my point was that there is a big proportion of south-europeans (maybe 50%?) which are not olive-skinned. These individuals seem to pale out (and some show freckles) to about the same degree (no scientific measurement here, just simple observation!) as many north-european natives if both live in northern latitude under sparse sunlight. I think this is one evidence that skin paleness has become somewhat independent (drift) from autosomal composition over time, regardless from which autosomal component it once originated.

individuals are making collective populations - types too but supposed to represent a previous stage, so previous populations mixed in new populations, with the results of crossed individuals showing all kinds of new and heterogenous distributions of traits -
my experience tells me there is no present pure population nor type - some populations are fairer, some darker - among fairer population, fair individuals are very common, dark ones very rare - in others, dark individuals are very common, fair ones very rare (the opposite) - but every time we see intermediary middle pigmented individuals: logical!
the 'olive' skin is the rule among true dolichocephalic 'mediterranean' type of any sort, and the majority among the populations where these types are dominant in % - other dark pigmented europoids show less "hard" colour, more a mate pale yellowish white skin than an 'olive' one -
the sun exposure tann every sort of skin, pinky white or middle of every sort or mate or 'olive', the darker hues tanning more and easier -
BUT I NEVER SEE AN EMIGRATED POPULATION OF SOUTH SETTLING IN NORTH AND BECOMING FAIRER OF SKIN AFTER THREE GENERATIONS (we have the case in France: Spaniards, Portugueses, Italians of South, Maghrebins...: only the same result we can have after a hard tanning summer when we pass the foloowing winter: our skin founds back its first colour, but doesn't become fairer than before -
under strong selective pressure (as in ancient times) the composition of genes submitted to it can evolved very quickly independently from the rest of the autosomals - they are themselves autosomals by the way! - but in modern times and without a new STRONG environmental pressure, the "cocktail" of autosomals associated with the selectionable ones keep on steady - we have enough vitamine D providers in our variated food -
+ NOT CONFUSE SOME INDIVIVUALS WITH WHOLE POPULATION

&: by the way too a survey about irish first agricultors conclude (?) milk was more absorbed for proteins than for vitamine D ... to look at later...
 
most of Arabic people (the ones without subsaharian admixture) showing brown skin on visage shwo only the 'olive' kinf of white skin under their armpits - (true Bedwins) - these people, comong to live among us, pass as southern European for this trait - but they never become fairer in a controlable time -
 
most of Arabic people (the ones without subsaharian admixture) showing brown skin on visage shwo only the 'olive' kinf of white skin under their armpits - (true Bedwins) - these people, comong to live among us, pass as southern European for this trait - but they never become fairer in a controlable time -

I would agree with this, and with your prior post.

Some of this has to do with different tanning ability. The two pictures below are of the same man:

Also, I don't think people are aware of the range of phenotypes that can be found in southern Europe, because, as you've pointed out before, much depends on the specific region from which the migrants were drawn.

For example, I don't think that most people would think that our schoolchildren can look like this...this picture was taken at a local school in my area.

scuola.jpg
 
Sorry, the two pictures of the young man didn't post above.

pucci_paolo_facebook1.jpg


pu1.jpg
 
BUT I NEVER SEE AN EMIGRATED POPULATION OF SOUTH SETTLING IN NORTH AND BECOMING FAIRER OF SKIN AFTER THREE GENERATIONS

Actually I meant within ONE generation - within one and the same individual. I've seen many south europeans living in germany who are no way darker by skin color than average germans or other europeans. At least I'm not able to tell most south europeans from natives by their skin color (for instance make an image search for Chatzimarkakis, a german politician). I can tell them from natives only by other features like hair and eye color and shape. Of course there are many other emigrants, mostly Turks and Arabs, who become pale too, but in a different, less rosy, more white-yellow-grey way. I explicitly mentioned that I don't refer to those!

(we have the case in France: Spaniards, Portugueses, Italians of South, Maghrebins...: only the same result we can have after a hard tanning summer when we pass the foloowing winter: our skin founds back its first colour, but doesn't become fairer than before -
under strong selective pressure (as in ancient times) the composition of genes submitted to it can evolved very quickly independently from the rest of the autosomals - they are themselves autosomals by the way! - but in modern times and without a new STRONG environmental pressure, the "cocktail" of autosomals associated with the selectionable ones keep on steady - we have enough vitamine D providers in our variated food -
+ NOT CONFUSE SOME INDIVIVUALS WITH WHOLE POPULATION

I don't confuse that, you possibly misunderstood me. If I understand you correctly, I agree and this is what I'm trying to say. Autosomals without selective bias behave randomly, so an autosomal as a whole remains statistically much more stable than one single gene and one gene behaves randomly in absense of selective bias, but much more fluctuantly. I was just saying that genes for skin color are already very overlapping and similar between north and south europe, so basically 'white', not matter from where it started - EEF, WHG. ANE or whichever autosomal cluster.

&: by the way too a survey about irish first agricultors conclude (?) milk was more absorbed for proteins than for vitamine D ... to look at later...

Possible. I was also thinking that Britain is optimal for cattle and less optimal for crop but also less optimal for fishing, because fishing is not so easy in the wild north-Atlantic. So maybe this was a (additional?) reason why neolithic Britons prefered dairy over fish and thus increased LP over generations (Possibly even the irish famine in 19th century can be explained by difficulties to go fishing?) Maybe the mesolthic hunter-gatherers had special fishing techniques which the farmers were unable to adopt. I think this is possible because there was a similar situation with Icelandic settlers in Greenland who refused to learn special hunting-techniques (for big targets like walrus and whales) from the native Inuits. As a result many icelandic settlements died out from starvation. These icelanders were already partially christianized (about 13th century, I don't remember exactly), and it was believed that christian religiosity contributed to their arrogance not to learn from the natives. The neolithic farmers were possibly also reluctant or arrogant.
 

This thread has been viewed 72232 times.

Back
Top