Brown-skinned, blue-eyed, Y-haplogroup C-bearing European hunter-gatherer from Spain

[Power77]

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

 

[bicicleur 2]

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

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

 

[Angela]

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ple-birth-black-white-twins--second-time.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Greying Wanderer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Angela]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Fire Haired14]

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

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

 

[Angela]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Engel]

ja, the woman in the daily mail article is also mixed from middle east

 

[Fire Haired14]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do these 15,000 year old west Europeans look dark skinned? I doubt the carvings are authentically 15,000 years old, because of the modern-like clothing.

 

[Fire Haired14]

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

 

[Fire Haired14]

Angela, I am not going to take your crap. You should be more polite when arguing. Every post shouldn't be filled with high and mighty insults.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

ja, the woman in the daily mail article is also mixed from middle east

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

 

[Greying Wanderer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

"try to look at the data objectively."

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

#

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

Yes.

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

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

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

 

[Greying Wanderer]

Just to stress the critical point which I don't think people have taken in.

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

 

[Nobody1]

In the Lazaridis (April edition) all of the MC1R SNP's (tested) were identical for both Loschbour, Motola12 and Stuttgart alike;

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

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

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

 

[Angela]

"try to look at the data objectively."

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

#

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Aberdeen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Greying Wanderer]

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

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

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

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

 

[Greying Wanderer]

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

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

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

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

What I said was, quoting myself

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

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

And it would.

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

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

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

 

[Fire Haired14]

Nor have any Europeans been found who have light skin reflectance but carry only the minor alleles.

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