| Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
 Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
C could have been the first haplogroup of Negroids that broke off Out of Africa. And this argument is really starting to become redundant.Originally Posted by Aberdeen
You just proved my point.
No you didn't. You proved MY point.
Let me ask you something wise-guy: What did the original R1a and R1b people look like? Did they have dark-skin? Fair-skin? How about the first N1c individuals? Since you seem to know all about this.
This isn't a: what came first, the chicken or the egg kind of question. It is obvious that all races must have came from a Negroid population in some way. So what are you arguing?
Who were the original Africans? They were not Negroids? What a joke.
Just because dark-skinned Caucasoid Egyptians carry R1b-V88 doesn't make them any more white than a Jewish Levantine Caucasoid who carries V88. And we all know that Black Chadic men carry V88 and have dark-skin.
So did these Chadic men have white ancestors?
That's an impossible question to answer because I don't know the date or dates you're using for "Mesolithic" or the exact geography of "in Asia". We should be getting some samples from Central Asia and the Caucasus soon, and that should answer some of the questions we have, such as whether they were derived for SLC 24A5 and 42A5 for that matter, and that may bring us closer to when and where the West Eurasian type depigmentation mutations occurred and started to spread.
However, we do know that a Samara hunter gatherer from 8,000 years ago who was R1b was derived for both SLC24A5 and SLC42A5, although the phenotypes in the Yamnaya R1b were more mixed, as although they were fixed for derived SLC24A5, they had much lower levels of SLC42A5 than do modern Ukrainians and they carried no depigmentation snps that could be interpreted as coding for blonde hair or blue eyes.
What you don't seem to grasp is that in the long time and over the long miles from the tropics to more northerly latitudes there was selection for one depigmentation snp after another. It took time. According to this paper, for example, " we estimate that the onset of the sweep shared by Europeans and East Asians at KITLG occurred approximately 30,000 years ago, after the out-of-Africa migration, whereas the selective sweeps for the European-specific alleles at TYRP1, SLC24A5, and SLC45A2 started much later, within the last 11,000–19,000 years, well after the first migrations of modern humans into Europe. We suggest that these patterns were influenced by recent increases in size of human populations, which favored the accumulation of advantageous variants at different loci."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3525146/
Do you get it now?
(If I had to guess right at this moment, I think the mutation on SLC 24A5 might have occurred somewhere around the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea and then spread from there. The one on SLC42A5 looks ANE related to me, but whether it occurred in the Caucasus as well and then moved north with ANE like populations or actually occurred in the northern reaches of far eastern Europe I don't know. I think it's also very likely that the spread to fixation was a post Neolithic occurrence. )
Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci
Well, that was mature.
In reality, you really did prove my point. Earlier, you equated dark skin with "being Negroid." Now you're admitting you were wrong ("Arabs and South Asian Indians are Caucasoids too; and they have slightly darker skin."), even if you don't care for it.
Thus, your entire theory (R1 peoples were "Negroids") crumbles. That the oldest R sample we have wasn't "Negroid" (which you've completely ignored) only underlines your failure.
Weren't they all "Negroids?" That's your claim, despite a lack of evidence and a complete misunderstanding of what "Negroid" means.Let me ask you something wise-guy: What did the original R1a and R1b people look like? Did they have dark-skin? Fair-skin? How about the first N1c individuals? Since you seem to know all about this.
I'm not arguing. I'm pointing out your mistakes, mistakes you have yet to respond to with anything but name-calling and "I'm rubber, you're glue." Those mistakes make your theory hard to credit.This isn't a: what came first, the chicken or the egg kind of question. It is obvious that all races must have came from a Negroid population in some way. So what are you arguing?
And I wouldn't even have bothered if you didn't take this smarmy and insulting "here's my whacko theory I can't support, but you're all idiots!" approach. Think on it.
Wait a moment. Your entire theory was based on the idea that "dark skin = Negroid." How can there be dark-skinned "Caucasoids?" You're all over the place.Just because dark-skinned Caucasoid Egyptians....
Wow. Now you want to debate who's "white." No thanks....carry R1b-V88 doesn't make them any more white...
Are you at all serious? Earlier, you opined that since R1b Chadic-speakers displayed typical SSA morphology, their R1b ancestors from Eurasia must have been "Negroid," because you simply couldn't understand how they could appear "Negroid" today...And we all know that Black Chadic men carry V88 and have dark-skin.
...after thousands of years of breeding with SSAs.
Is this a joke?
You've got like the worst logic of any person I've ever seen. And you never get it, and all you do is write up some dull, long-winded, misinformed view of anthropology that is a waste of mine and pretty much everyone else's to read. And when you are not winning this argument and are caught in a logic foxhole; you retort to nothing but insults about where I live geographically. Sounds like you are insecure or have some sort of guilt-complex.
It is certainly not a joke. Then tell me what original racial classification/race did Out of Africa peoples originate from?
"Thus, your entire theory (R1 peoples were "Negroids") crumbles. That the oldest R sample we haven't wasn't "Negroid" (which you've completely ignored) only underlines your failure."
What color of skin shade did they have? R1a and R1b are about the same age or probably older than I1 and I2.
Yes, but this website is about Europeans. And I was originally debating with people how Europeans acquired fair-skin and other eye colors. Seems like some people missed the plot. You are probably right and I may agree. But my point is, that all European haplogroups, I1, I2, G2a, T, E-V13, N1c, R1a, R1b, Q, J1 and J2 individuals may have simultaneously mutated into modern Europeans at the same time.
In other words, they may have all acquired fair-skin and fair-hair at the same time. The other races or subraces of Caucasoid may have merely took these Y-DNA before Europeans became fair-skinned. Which explains why Indians of South Asia have R1a but slightly darker skin; and also why Finnish people are fair-skinned and blonde European; while also bearing the Y-DNA of East Asian Yakuts: N1c.
It's the theory that most Out of Africa people were dark-skinned Negroids in Asia; that migrated into several territories with several migrations; and evolving into the races that they are today. One of the R1b Negroids went back into Sub-Saharan Africa; before skin pigmentation and other mutations happened.
Seems most of you people haven't "got it" yet.
I don't think we know. Seriously. It's entirely possible that the racial classifications you use simply aren't applicable that far back, especially (IMO) considering the impact of archaic admixtures (Eurasians bred with Neandertals and Denisovans, sub-Saharan Africans with another pre-sapiens population, after everyone else had left).
Suggesting that the original sapiens population at the time of OOA dispersal was "Negroid," and that today's SSA populations are "Negroid," suggests that "Negroids" haven't evolved like the rest of humanity, which is spurious, as far as I'm concerned.
For ****'s sake, it's not all about skin color. Why can't you grasp this?What color of skin shade did they have? R1a and R1b are about the same age or probably older than I1 and I2.
Just wow.Seems most of you people haven't "got it" yet.
"Negroid has both Latin and Ancient Greek etymological roots. It literally translates as "black resemblance" from negro/niger (black), and -oeidēs, equivalent to -o- + -eidēs "having the form of", derivative of eîdos "form".[8][9] The earliest recorded use of the term "Negroid" came in 1859.[10] In modern usage, it is associated with populations that on the whole possess the suite of typical Negroid physical characteristics.[11]"
Proving my point yet again. "Populations that on the whole possess the suite of typical Negroid physical characteristics," not your "La Brana man was a Negroid because he had tan skin" version.
And, with the exception of a few small "Negrito" populations, Australoids do not "possess the suite of typical Negroid physical characteristics". Nor do they have the typical "Negroid" Y DNA types (A, B and E, although E can also be Caucasian). Why are you not able to grasp these basic concepts?
I was theorizing. It's only common sense.
Where else did all the other races "Out of Africa" come from? Do you have an explanation? You people still have not got the point. Even if Europeans had tan skin; that means they originally started off as Negroids and then went from black to tan to fair-skin. Oh my gosh. Do I have to make it any more simpler?
La Brana man's ancestors most certainly were Negroids if he had tan skin and then his descendants turned into fair-skinned European.
You have zero evidence or suggestion that early Eurasians were "Negroid" past your own tautological assertion. The fact that pre-R1 R* wasn't "Negroid" tends to cast doubt on this theory of yours.
Do you really not see the possibility that the modern "Negroid" classification is as much the result of time and change as "Caucasoid" or "Mongoloid?"
Whose theory? Name me one geneticist who agrees with such nonsense. Subsaharan Africans evolved in Subsaharan Africa. And, as has already been explained to you repeatedly, Subsaharan Africans with Y haplotype R1b represent Caucasian pastoralists who back migrated into Africa and intermarried with the locals to the point where they physically resemble other Subsaharan Africans.
Again, you really don't know what "Negroid" means. I'm just being blunt. Your education has failed you, and any work you've done as a forensic anthropologist should be reviewed due to gross incompetence.
By your reckoning, you would find Sendhil Ramamurthy's body in some Louisianan swamp and declare them "Negroid" due to their skin color, whilst ignoring the fact they're, anthropologically-speaking, Caucasian.
Dark skin does not mean "Negroid." You fail.
Oh yeah? Can you give me a link to this individual?
Is this another joke?
Oh yeah really, kid? What does Negroid mean then? lmao. My education hasn't failed me. You aren't being blunt; you are mocking me over some possible guilt-complex and are trying to beguile or make up your own reality of events.
Take some time and think this through.
Whatever those people from 35,000 years ago looked like, and however they might be defined morphologically, R1b V88 is far too young to have been part of those populations. By 19,000-11,000 years ago, there was already a sweep in motion for depigmentation snps like SLC24A5 in more northerly latitudes, which is where R1b V88 was developing.
The back migration into Africa took place when phenotypes had undoubtedly already changed. You can even see it in the case of Horners. On the old admixture tests they came in as heavily "Caucasoid" admixed. I think that was from a back migration from the Middle East and you can see it in their phenotypes. They look markedly different from SSAs, although they are still very dark skinned, which only makes sense given the amount of annual average solar radiation in their area.
Look at this Oromo Ethiopian woman...or this other East African man. I don't think they're unrepresentative.
The only difference with R1b people in the Cameroons is that by the time they got there they were probably already very mixed and little of the original "Middle Eastern" autosomal component was left.
Such nonsense right? This is my own theory; but do you have your own explanation? Where is the explanation why Mongolian East Asians and Native Americans carry Y-DNA C; as do Australian Aboriginals? Where did the first haplogroup C mutate? Asia? If the first C man had dark-skin and descended from haplogroup A; then he is most certainly Negroid in origin. Once again, you fail at this and continue arguing over nothing; and wasting everybody's time...
No, are you a joke? You claim to know what the first R1 man looked like...you have the evidence?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
