R-V88 Among Europeans

[Melancon]

They could looking even like Chinese but they were asimilated by locals, that's all.



The same as above.

Ha! You're dreaming.

Unless you want to get into the argument that Finnish people are mixed with Mongoloid Asians; which explains their N1c. Is that what you are suggesting?

Looking Chinese right? So R1b Mongoloids mixing with an African population sounds interesting; but the chances of that seem pretty low. But I still believe my theory is the most logical; and holds the most weight. These R1b-V88 men to me, were absolutely Negroids.

The R1b-V88 men that stayed in the Levant during the Mesolithic/Neolithic developed fair-skin. This is also where agriculture and farming first originated:

Europe-diffusion-farming.jpg

[Rethel]

the genetic split can be much older than the geographic split, they don't have to coincide

Of course!
But offten many do this error, when no one knows, when and where did it happend. :)

Unless you want to get into the argument that Finnish people are mixed with Mongoloid Asians; which explains their N1c. Is that what you are suggesting?

Yeah.

[Melancon]

Why is it so hard to believe that R1* men in Central Asia may have been Negroid? Haplogroup R1 is almost about as old as the European Y-DNA Haplogroup I. 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?

Would it make sense that these R1a and R1b peoples eventually developed fair-skin in Eastern Europe and Central Asia; by mixing with the women of slain I2 and G2a men?

Your Y-DNA haplogroup may be R1a or R1b; but you cannot deny that you may have had male ancestors who carried I1, I2 and even G2a at one point.

[Melancon]

Yeah.

Oh really! I am really interested in hearing this. So Finnish people are mixed with Nordic Germans and Mongoloid Asians? Finns will disagree with you on this one; with a clenched fist. lol

[Angela]

I disagree with this analysis. Look at the Hispanics/Mestizo people. They are a mix of European Spaniards and indigenous Native American indians. While their skin is obviously more fairer than Native Americans' skin, they still have tan skin; not skin that is very fair at all. There are also (although rare) there are also Hispanics who have blonde hair; from the European admixture. But it is darker than the blonde hair seen in European white people; and is more of a light brown.

It's not something with which you can disagree. It's what happens with admixture.Everything depends on the numbers involved, as well as the degree of intermarriage and whether the incoming group brought their own women. In genetics parlance, the question is whether it was an elite male migration again. Let's give it one more try...

Every situation is specific. In north America, the indigenous peoples were not very numerous. In addition, they fell prey to European specific diseases, and many of them were killed in conflicts with the settlers. There was some intermarriage despite all of this. Those admixed children who were absorbed by the Europeans look European. Those who remained with the indigenous peoples look "mostly" indigenous, but their dna tells the story. Perhaps it was that dna which protected them against these diseases.

In countries like Bolivia and Peru where the indigenous tribes remained isolated, the intrusive "West Eurasian" haplotypes indeed appear, but the people still look very indigenous.

In countries like Mexico, the indigenous people were very numerous. Most Mexicans are "mixed", anywhere from 40-60% European from what I can remember from genetic studies. They look what they are...mixed...both in features and in pigmentation. Of course, in the upper classes there will be people who are predominantly European. In the lower classes there will be people who are predominantly "Indian". In out of the way areas like the Yucatan, they will be predominantly "Indian" in genetic markers and appearance. In a country like Argentina or in pockets of Brazil, you still have people who are either 100% European or 90% European, and they look it.

The same rules hold true for African Americans. The amount of SSA ancestry can range from a few percent to about 20% as an average, although some have close to 50% European ancestry. Vanessa Williams and Dr. Gates obviously have a lot, and it shows. As it does in Cory Booker. Dr. Gates, indeed, has both a European yDna marker (R1b) and a European mtDna marker.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...sL._SL290_.jpg

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/T...17974_8015.jpg

http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net...CoryBooker.jpg

The African ancestry in most African Americans is from Nigeria.
http://www.okayafrica.com/wp-content...56-620x413.jpg

This isn't rocket science Melancon, which leads me to ask about the purpose of these posts.

If you're truly interested, there are a number of recent papers on the subject. The largest on admixture in new world populations is this one from 23andme.
http://blog.23andme.com/23andme-research/dna-usa-2/

[Sile]

I think 8000 years ago.
Here are the first herders from Asia in Africa :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabta_Playa

There may have been cattle as well.

2 groups of herders made into sub-Saharan Africa : T and R1b-V88.
IMO 2 different groups, but around the same age, when the Sahara was still a savanna.
They ousted the Bantoe HG to the west.

they are farmers

A migration to Northeast Africa from this area occurred by T1a-Page21* males with a coalescence age of 14 kya.
A similar migration was by T1a1b-P77 males with a coalescence age of 7.6 kya (Mendez et al. 2011).
These lineages may well have entered Northeast Africa during the same migration shortly after 7.6 kya as a group of distantly related male farmers. Haplogroups R1b1c-V88 and T1a-Page21* thus inform of relevant male migrations to Northeast Africa

A group of R1b1c-V88 trveled along the north african coast and established the huge wheat farms of Algeria, which by the time the Romans destroyed the carthagians, this wheat area supplied 60% of Rome with its wheat.

[Angela]

Ha! You're dreaming.

Unless you want to get into the argument that Finnish people are mixed with Mongoloid Asians; which explains their N1c. Is that what you are suggesting?

Looking Chinese right? So R1b Mongoloids mixing with an African population sounds interesting; but the chances of that seem pretty low. But I still believe my theory is the most logical; and holds the most weight. These R1b-V88 men to me, were absolutely Negroids.

The R1b-V88 men that stayed in the Levant during the Mesolithic/Neolithic developed fair-skin. This is also where agriculture and farming first originated:

Europe-diffusion-farming.jpg

Please post papers or data to the effect that R1b V88 is old enough to have moved to Cameroon before the Mesolithic/Neolithic. Otherwise, your argument is fantasy.

The most reasonable theories are for migrations in the Neolithic or the early Metal Ages. By that time there were no "Negroid" Levantines. Also, for the umpteenth time, while early West Eurasians may have been dark, they were not "Negroid". That is a modern designation, even if a poor one, for a modern group of people.

[Angela]

Oh really! I am really interested in hearing this. So Finnish people are mixed with Nordic Germans and Mongoloid Asians? Finns will disagree with you on this one; with a clenched fist. lol

Are you unfamiliar with autosomal testing?
resnorm chart Lazardis and Haak.JPG

Finns are best modeled with 9.3% Nganasan.

[Melancon]

This isn't rocket science Melancon, which leads me to ask about the purpose of these posts.

If you're truly interested, there are a number of recent papers on the subject. The largest on admixture in new world populations is this one from 23andme.
http://blog.23andme.com/23andme-research/dna-usa-2/

If your argument is proving anything; it's proving that I am still correct. BTW Vanessa Williams has blue eyes. Do you see the Levantine features in the Chadic people who have R1b-V88?

If the original R1b-V88 men were looking like Levantine people; then wouldn't the Africans with R1b have lighter skin than they already have? And yet; the Ouldeme people (highest tribe of SSA with R1b-V88 frequency) have extremely dark skin:

3448484539_b822c7986a.jpg

two Oulderme (R1b-V88) people playing flutes

3448496009_56cbcc9dac.jpg

An Oulderme man.

Looks just like any other African group; don't they?

[Melancon]

Are you unfamiliar with autosomal testing?
resnorm chart Lazardis and Haak.JPG

Finns are best modeled with 9.3% Nganasan.

We've been over this argument already. And I ended up getting infractions from it. And I was the one who was skeptical of Finns being white Europeans that time; now I'm not. I believe that N1c purely developed with the rest of the European race.

9.3% Siberian admixture isn't much; and it could have come from the Saami people; who are already known to be mixed-race.

[Rethel]

And I was the one who was skeptical of Finns being white Europeans that time

Fins are white Europeans, but male ancestors of 60% of them were not.
Do you see a diffrence?

[Melancon]

Please post papers or data to the effect that R1b V88 is old enough to have moved to Cameroon before the Mesolithic/Neolithic. Otherwise, your argument is fantasy.

The most reasonable theories are for migrations in the Neolithic or the early Metal Ages. By that time there were no "Negroid" Levantines. Also, for the umpteenth time, while early West Eurasians may have been dark, they were not "Negroid". That is a modern designation, even if a poor one, for a modern group of people.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...A.shtml#Africa

"Like its northern counterpart (R1b-M269), R1b-V88 is associated with the domestication of cattle in northern Mesopotamia. Both branches of R1b probably split soon after cattle were domesticated, approximately 10,500 years ago (8,500 BCE). R1b-V88 migrated south towards the Levant and Egypt. The migration of R1b people can be followed archeologically through the presence of domesticated cattle, which appear in central Syria around 8,000-7,500 BCE (late Mureybet period), then in the Southern Levant and Egypt around 7,000-6,500 BCE (e.g. at Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba). Cattle herders subsequently spread across most of northern and eastern Africa. The Sahara desert would have been more humid during the Neolithic Subpluvial period (c. 7250-3250 BCE), and would have been a vast savannah full of grass, an ideal environment for cattle herding."

[Melancon]

Fins are white Europeans, but male ancestors of 60% of them were not.
Do you see a diffrence?

No offense; but you're totally ignorant on the matter. You do know that Finns also have the highest abundance of blonde hair in their population in the world; as well?

N1c as well as R1b and R1a all descend from Haplogroup F. If all descendants of haplogroup F were Negroid; and they took European women that were Negroid; then they would have easily developed fair-skin, wouldn't they? Simultaneously with people who have the Paleolithic European Y-DNA I1 and I2. It could be that the first Finnish people were Y-DNA I men; but their women were taken by N1c men. Just like the R1a and R1b men killed the I2a and I1 men and took their women.

[Melancon]

Please post papers or data to the effect that R1b V88 is old enough to have moved to Cameroon before the Mesolithic/Neolithic. Otherwise, your argument is fantasy.

The most reasonable theories are for migrations in the Neolithic or the early Metal Ages. By that time there were no "Negroid" Levantines. Also, for the umpteenth time, while early West Eurasians may have been dark, they were not "Negroid". That is a modern designation, even if a poor one, for a modern group of people.

Uh, no? You do realize that the Australian Aboriginals and the Dravidian people of India have been there since before the first Ice Age? Yet they are still Negroid people. Negroids are not a modern people...they've been around for tens of thousands of years. Probably around 30,000-50,000 years old.

In theory; there were two migrations Out of Africa. One occurred before the Ice Age. The second occurred during the Last Glacial Maximum; and these people turned into Caucasoids and Mongoloids.

[skaheen15]

Uh, no? You do realize that the Australian Aboriginals and the Dravidian people of India have been there since before the first Ice Age? Yet they are still Negroid people. Negroids are not a modern people...they've been around for tens of thousands of years. Probably around 30,000-50,000 years old. In theory; there were two migrations Out of Africa. One occurred before the Ice Age. The second occurred during the Last Glacial Maximum; and these people turned into Caucasoids and Mongoloids.

Dravidians and native Australians aren't negroid, they're Australoid. Dark skin doesn't equal negroid, that term describes a set of craniometric and facial features. And what does that have to do with V88 in any case? You're confused.

[Melancon]

Dravidians and native Australians aren't negroid, they're Australoid. Dark skin doesn't equal negroid, that term describes a set of craniometric and facial features. And what does that have to do with V88 in any case? You're confused.

AHAHAHAHAHA. Are you joking?

I am not confused in the slightest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(h...lassification)

Where does it claim that there is an Australoid subrace? No where. Even Melanesians are categorized as Negroids.

And, I had never claimed that R1b-V88 had anything to do with Australian Aboriginals or Dravidian peoples ... *eye roll* please read it again...

[skaheen15]

No, I'm definitely not joking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australoid_race

"They were described as having dark skin with wavy hair, in the case of the Veddoid race of South Asia (including the eponymous Vedda people indigenous to Sri Lanka) and Aboriginal Australians, or hair ranging from straight to kinky in the case of the Melanesian group."

[Melancon]

No, I'm definitely not joking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australoid_race "They were described as having dark skin with wavy hair, in the case of the Veddoid race of South Asia (including the eponymous Vedda people indigenous to Sri Lanka) and Aboriginal Australians, or hair ranging from straight to kinky in the case of the Melanesian group."

You must be joking; because on the map; Melanesians and Australian Aboriginals are classified as Negroids dummy.

And on that last map; the Dravidians are classified as Caucasoids, smarty.

This comes from an obsolete Anthropological classification system designed by Thomas Huxley; as well. He also refers to races such as Xanthochroi (light-skinned Europeans) and Melanochroi (dark-skinned Europeans) - are you kidding me?


Australoid racial classification is unofficial and Thomas Huxley's racial classifications are not accepted in mainstream anthropological fields. Meaning - Australian Aboriginals and Dravidians are Negroids.

[skaheen15]

You must be joking; because on the map; Melanesians and Australian Aboriginals are classified as Negroids dummy.

And on that last map; the Dravidians are classified as Caucasoids, smarty.

This comes from an obsolete Anthropological classification system designed by Thomas Huxley; as well. He also refers to races such as Xanthochroi (light-skinned Europeans) and Melanochroi (dark-skinned Europeans) - are you kidding me?


Australoid racial classification is unofficial and Thomas Huxley's racial classifications are not accepted in mainstream anthropological fields. Meaning - Australian Aboriginals and Dravidians are Negroids.

LOL yeah, I saw that the map from 1893 does class Australians and South Sea folk as Negroid, but I prefer to go with the one from the 21st century, on display at the Horniman museum in London, which classes the same people as Australoid, which has the same origins as the "negroid" term, and is still in use by many physical anthropologists. The makers of the first map probably believed in the "ether", so I'm inclined to go with the more modern interpretation, because science has this silly way of moving forward in it's understandings.

As for the classification of Dravidians as Caucasoid, there certainly is a range, but if you think that these people are Caucasoid, I have a bridge to sell you.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Australoid.png

[Angela]

Melancon...this is not a coherent argument.

You said that R1b V88 moved into Africa while they were still "Negroid". The R1b V88 that "remained" became paler...

Melancon: These R1b-V88 men to me, were absolutely Negroids.

The R1b-V88 men that stayed in the Levant during the Mesolithic/Neolithic developed fair-skin.

That's why I asked you to prove that R1b V88 was old enough to have moved into SSA before the Mesolithic/Neolithic.

You then respond with this?

Melancon:http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...A.shtml#Africa

"Like its northern counterpart (R1b-M269), R1b-V88 is associated with the domestication of cattle in northern Mesopotamia. Both branches of R1b probably split soon after cattle were domesticated, approximately 10,500 years ago (8,500 BCE). R1b-V88 migrated south towards the Levant and Egypt. The migration of R1b people can be followed archeologically through the presence of domesticated cattle, which appear in central Syria around 8,000-7,500 BCE (late Mureybet period), then in the Southern Levant and Egypt around 7,000-6,500 BCE (e.g. at Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba). Cattle herders subsequently spread across most of northern and eastern Africa. The Sahara desert would have been more humid during the Neolithic Subpluvial period (c. 7250-3250 BCE), and would have been a vast savannah full of grass, an ideal environment for cattle herding."

My whole point was that if R1b V88 moved into SSA in the Neolithic or later, it's highly unlikely that they would have been "Negroid" in phenotype, by which I assume you mean SSA looking.

Melancon:Uh, no? You do realize that the Australian Aboriginals and the Dravidian people of India have been there since before the first Ice Age? Yet they are still Negroid people. Negroids are not a modern people...they've been around for tens of thousands of years. Probably around 30,000-50,000 years old.

As has already been pointed out to you, they're "Australoid" not "Negroid". You're obviously using "Negroid" when you mean SSA. Plus, human beings alive today show adaptations to their environment. People living in SSA have dark skin because they need it in that environment. (People in Australia needed it too. Even with clothing, and sunscreens, and lives spent mostly indoors, European descended Australians have terrible stats for skin cancers of the deadly kind.) In fact, there are studies that show that there has been selection for darker pigment in many parts of Africa. I would post the studies but you don't seem to read them.

That's how evolution works. Mutations occur randomly. Many are deleterious. However, some are beneficial. People carrying beneficial mutations, and their descendents, have a better shot at surviving for longer and passing on more of their genes. Eventually, a population might develop that is "fixed" for certain traits. That's what happened with pigmentation. A dark brown skin is not optimal in northern latitudes. A nose adapted for the tropics isn't beneficial in dry climates. This isn't magic or phenotypes ordained by God.

Melancon: If the original R1b-V88 men were looking like Levantine people; then wouldn't the Africans with R1b have lighter skin than they already have? And yet; the Ouldeme people (highest tribe of SSA with R1b-V88 frequency) have extremely dark skin:

Why is it so difficult to understand that it all depends on the relative numbers of each group? I already explained this in the context of Latin America. Please re-read that post.

I'm going to give it one more try. Let's say that man (W) marries woman (B). However, in each succeeding generation, because there are no, or very few W's around, his descendents all marry with (B) people. So it goes 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, 1/128, 1/256 etc. How "White" do you think a person would look who was only .00390625 "White"? Now, it was obviously more than one man, but the tribe would have been surrounded by a sea of people with SSA phenotypes. The minority phenotype would disappear.

It works the other way around as well. How do you think African Americans "passed" into white society? They "passed" because they had enough "white" ancestry that the "black" ancestry no longer showed.

Soledad O'Brien's parents with her as a baby. Her mother was admixed herself:

Soledad O'Brien with her children. If her children marry white people, how "black" are her grandchildren going to look?


This is just arithmetic and elementary genetics. I don't know how to explain it any better.

[Melancon]

LOL yeah, I saw that the map from 1893 does class Australians and South Sea folk as Negroid, but I prefer to go with the one from the 21st century, on display at the Horniman museum in London, which classes the same people as Australoid, which has the same origins as the "negroid" term, and is still in use by many physical anthropologists. The makers of the first map probably believed in the "ether", so I'm inclined to go with the more modern interpretation, because science has this silly way of moving forward in it's understandings.

As for the classification of Dravidians as Caucasoid, there certainly is a range, but if you think that these people are Caucasoid, I have a bridge to sell you.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Australoid.png

I never "thought" anything. Don't put words in my mouth. I was mocking you; not myself - I'm not that dumb. And Australoids and Negroids must be relative in some way, don't they? Don't go off topic; changing the subject here...

[Rethel]

It works the other way around as well. How do you think African Americans "passed" into white society?

If I corectly remember, in early XIX century in U.S. 1/8 negroid man, was formaly white.
Sometimes probably he wasn't totaly white, but children of that person probably should
be. 1/8 = 12,5% ergo 87,5% of white genes in third descent generation from 1/1 negro.
Sometimes 1/4 could be totaly white, if he inherit right genes. Sometimes even child of
two normal black people can be white. Even twins can be different.

durranttwins1black1white02.jpg

[Melancon]

Melancon...this is not a coherent argument.

You said that R1b V88 moved into Africa while they were still "Negroid". The R1b V88 that "remained" became paler...


Why is it so difficult to understand that it all depends on the relative numbers of each group? I already explained this in the context of Latin America. Please re-read that post.

Not a coherent argument? I think it's coherent enough...And you still have yet to explain the situation with Hispanics/Mestizos and instead made up your own reality. What if these R1b-V88 men blended in with native African women? They most certainly weren't fair-skinned in all likelihood - deal with it. They would not last in Africa if they had fair-skin. They would easily be seen as outsiders. Many of the Spanish Europeans raped the Amerindian women and killed the men. Which is why Hispanics/Mestizos still look like a mix of both races. I am assuming this may have happened with the R1b-V88 Chadic men.

And by the way; R1b-V88 is actually very rare outside of Sub-Saharan Africa...even in the Levant it is averaging under 10% in most populations ... it actually reaches its peak of about 28% in Egyptian Berbers. Which is actually a pretty small homogeneous population, too... (Who knows; the Egyptians could actually be the mixed people; not the Chadic Africans.)


--

And, those offspring don't look too white to me. They have white genetics; but I can still notice African features in them; even if they are Quadroons.

I know a friend of mine who is mostly Irish, Welsh and English but is 7th generation Cherokee; and I can still see the Amerindian in him - he has the long straight brown hair like an Indian; and high cheekbones; and it is harder for him to grow facial hair. Biologically; he is also lactose intolerant.

[Angela]

Not a coherent argument? I think it's coherent enough...And you still have yet to explain the situation with Hispanics/Mestizos and instead made up your own reality. What if these R1b-V88 men blended in with native African women? They most certainly weren't fair-skinned in all likelihood - deal with it. They would not last in Africa if they had fair-skin. They would easily be seen as outsiders. Many of the Spanish Europeans raped the Amerindian women and killed the men. Which is why Hispanics/Mestizos still look like a mix of both races. I am assuming this may have happened with the R1b-V88 Chadic men.

And by the way; R1b-V88 is actually very rare outside of Sub-Saharan Africa...even in the Levant it is averaging under 10% in most populations ... it actually reaches its peak of about 28% in Egyptian Berbers. Which is actually a pretty small homogeneous population, too... (Who knows; the Egyptians could actually be the mixed people; not the Chadic Africans.)


--

And, those offspring don't look too white to me. They have white genetics; but I can still notice African features in them; even if they are Quadroons.

I know a friend of mine who is mostly Irish, Welsh and English but is 7th generation Cherokee; and I can still see the Amerindian in him - he has the long straight brown hair like an Indian; and high cheekbones; and it is harder for him to grow facial hair. Biologically; he is also lactose intolerant.

Is there some study or data point in there which I missed? I don't think so...

Do you believe R1b V88 populations moved to Sub Saharan Africa around 24,000 years ago when even Europeans looked like this?

If you do, please provide data to support that theory.

If you believe R1b V88 populations moved to Sub Saharan Africa during or after the Neolithic, please provide proof that Neolithic Near Easterners would have looked like Sub Saharan Africans.

Do you believe that someone who has one SSA ancestor from 2-300 years ago would always show SSA ancestry in terms of phenotype or appearance? If you do, please provide the evidence.

Actually, as you would know if you read any studies of admixture in New World populations, there are a lot of people walking around who "pass" as Europeans or "white" who in fact have SSA or Amerindian ancestry. Of course, perhaps they didn't encounter you, with your extraordinary ability to detect such things on sight, and that's why they remain in ignorance of that fact.





I

[Melancon]

Is there some study or data point in there which I missed? I don't think so...

Do you believe R1b V88 populations moved to Sub Saharan Africa around 24,000 years ago when even Europeans looked like this?

If you do, please provide data to support that theory.

If you believe R1b V88 populations moved to Sub Saharan Africa during or after the Neolithic, please provide proof that Neolithic Near Easterners would have looked like Sub Saharan Africans.

Do you believe that someone who has one SSA ancestor from 2-300 years ago would always show SSA ancestry in terms of phenotype or appearance? If you do, please provide the evidence.

Actually, as you would know if you read any studies of admixture in New World populations, there are a lot of people walking around who "pass" as Europeans or "white" who in fact have SSA or Amerindian ancestry. Of course, perhaps they didn't encounter you, with your extraordinary ability to detect such things on sight, and that's why they remain in ignorance of that fact.

Prove that I am wrong though? Prove that R1 individuals weren't originally Negroid? If people of Y-DNA I2 or C6 were Negroid; why wouldn't R1 and it's descendants be Negroid too? R1a and R1b? Obviously they were Negroids in Central Asia if you understand logic. Both haplogroups (Y-DNA R1 and I) emerged/mutated at the same time. Just in different locations. (Europe for I and Central Asia for R1) Yes, there were Negroids in Central Asia ... all logic points to that.

Did you know that some Tibetan or Chinese people also have R1b in their population too? But it is more rarer; than say Y-DNA O or N1b or N1c ... this is because there were migrations of negroid R1 people that evolved among other Negroids of Y-DNA O, C, N, Q whom eventually became Mongoloids and East Asians.

I don't need to prove that the original R1 (R1a and R1b) peoples were Negroids ... because they obviously were! All logic points to it. There is no other available explanation. If Mesolithic Europeans who have Y-DNa I1 or I2 have dark skin ... then you can bet that the Central Asians had dark skin as well.