Recent Natural Selection in British populations

[Fire Haired14]

It may not be evolution, it may just be a few families, too inbreed, who happen to have a higher rate of light skin, light hair, light eyes. Even if they accomplish a tenth of what Ginges Khan did, maybe even just a hundredth, the idea that light = elite was born. Thus low class families who happen to get a light kid will spoil them rotten, at the expense of the swarthy ones, in hope to get a better social standing for them and their descendants. In turn, they will often get the best spouse as these elite look alike are highly sought after. And the elite, who probably wasn't so light to begin with would do the same to keep ahead, until a few thousand years later, light skin, hair and eyes become the new normal.

You just described a way in which evolution can occur. We don't know how the evolution happened but it did.

 

[LeBrok]

It may not be evolution, it may just be a few families, too inbreed, who happen to have a higher rate of light skin, light hair, light eyes. Even if they accomplish a tenth of what Ginges Khan did, maybe even just a hundredth, the idea that light = elite was born. Thus low class families who happen to get a light kid will spoil them rotten, at the expense of the swarthy ones, in hope to get a better social standing for them and their descendants. In turn, they will often get the best spouse as these elite look alike are highly sought after. And the elite, who probably wasn't so light to begin with would do the same to keep ahead, until a few thousand years later, light skin, hair and eyes become the new normal.

So far all points to the environmental selection of light skin due to northern climate, especially cloudy north of Baltic Sea than to sexual or cultural selection. If it was a strong sexual and cultural selection we would have had all world white and blond by now.

 

[Fire Haired14]

So far all points to the environmental selection of light skin due to northern climate, especially cloudy north of Baltic Sea than to sexual or cultural selection. If it was a strong sexual and cultural selection we would have had all world white and blond by now.

I don't think any new evidence has come back supporting that theory, besides the Moatla_HGs(extinct Northern population who was pretty pale). The change in pigmentation occurred in all of Europe, the Northern parts. We have to be looking for reasons as to why today 70% in Spain and 90% in Italy have SLC42A5 while just 5,000 years ago 20% of other their ancestors did.

 

[MOESAN]

Some faimilies of People had always been living at the edges of sub-boreal climates, before, during and after LGM: why general depigmentation did not occur sooner in these populations and why it occurred (when? I don't know) only in someones of them?
It's true, as a whole we can say the principal skin depigmentation occurred with diverse mutations in all the current populations under the "caucasian" or "europoïd" and "north-mongoloid" umbrella (except Inuits: why here too?). The additive depigmentation concerning hairs and eyes + some slight one for skin concerned only well determined populations before historic moves brought some mess: I fear we don't have all the clues and some of us ignore some anthropologic facts; by the way, whay are Western irishmen paler for skin but darker for hairs than Eastern Englishmen? Western Norwegians are less often blond than other Scandinavians, Saami too, Eastern Finns too and so on. And the Germanics trail for blond hairs is easy to follow in today Europe (before big erosion of late days) and they oppose themselves even to Slavs and Celts for that....
I'm not satisfied by the today explanations I red, none of them, so I wait.
I hope I shall not dead before!

 

[LeBrok]

I don't think any new evidence has come back supporting that theory, besides the Moatla_HGs(extinct Northern population who was pretty pale). The change in pigmentation occurred in all of Europe, the Northern parts. We have to be looking for reasons as to why today 70% in Spain and 90% in Italy have SLC42A5 while just 5,000 years ago 20% of other their ancestors did.

The evidence, is the ongoing process till our times. The epicenter of it is around Baltic Sea, the cloudiest place in Europe. The place with least UV radiation. The clue is that it happened in farmers societies the most. In Europe and in East Asia likewise (North China, Korea and Japan). Some Asians are as pale as Irish, but by means of different mutations. This should give you a clue that white skin is important in these climates for farmers. Other clue is that HGs of north are much lighter than HGs of south (please don't post pictures of suntanned Inuits). The clue is that UV radiation and colour of skin affects vitamin D production. The clue is that HGs of north get some of it from eating raw liver. The clue is that white people in hot climates get skin cancer much faster than people with darker skin.
Put these clues together to understand the big picture.

 

[LeBrok]

Some faimilies of People had always been living at the edges of sub-boreal climates, before, during and after LGM: why general depigmentation did not occur sooner in these populations and why it occurred (when? I don't know) only in someones of them?
It's true, as a whole we can say the principal skin depigmentation occurred with diverse mutations in all the current populations under the "caucasian" or "europoïd" and "north-mongoloid" umbrella (except Inuits: why here too?). The additive depigmentation concerning hairs and eyes + some slight one for skin concerned only well determined populations before historic moves brought some mess: I fear we don't have all the clues and some of us ignore some anthropologic facts; by the way, whay are Western irishmen paler for skin but darker for hairs than Eastern Englishmen? Western Norwegians are less often blond than other Scandinavians, Saami too, Eastern Finns too and so on. And the Germanics trail for blond hairs is easy to follow in today Europe (before big erosion of late days) and they oppose themselves even to Slavs and Celts for that....
I'm not satisfied by the today explanations I red, none of them, so I wait.
I hope I shall not dead before!

That's right, the connection of light eyes and hair to light skin is not well understood. East Asians have pale skin, though other features are black like eyes and hair. On the contrary, some black skin people have blue eyes and blond hair (in childhood).

 

[MOESAN]

For I think phoenotypes show (before going in genes analysis)
- we have mutations having favorized only skin depigmentations, in diverse poplations. (I would be very interested in knowing what is the genetic basis of the Khoisans skin colour, btw)
- mutations for light eyes without effect upon hair; but skin seems slightly lighter. Apparently disjoncted from hair and skin pigmentation. if I rely on genetics tudies.
- mutations seemingly involved in SLIGHT (additive) depigmentation of skin and STRONG depigmentation of hair and eyes.
- red hair is an other thing and freckling in not a neutral thing concerning pigment density, I think (it seems it never stroke the most of the scientists in their appreciation of lmight skin)
&: at the genetic level, close phoenotypes could be caused by different mutations, this is over my capacity of control.

in some Australoid people a blond hair seems associated to very dark eyes and very dark skin! So nothing in common with some Asiatic populations (Mongols, Turks of Steppes, where individuals show the "kit" of lighter skin, hair and eyes as in some Europeans. I say lighter than the most of their brethren, not everytime lilly white skin.

 

[Tomenable]

My Spreadsheet.
I only include results from Geneticker that got 5 or more reads.

Fire Haired,

I rely on the older version of your spreadsheet, which included also data on blonde hair:

(do you now think this data is not reliable - is it why you removed it from the new version?):

Hair colours from the old version: http://s24.postimg.org/l49x5dt79/Hair_Colours_by_Culture.png

Some of this data (e.g. Xiaohe mummies) was based on pigmentation from preserved hair, not from DNA.

But you've also removed this data which was based on visible pigmentation of well-preserved mummies.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Fire Haired,

I rely on the older version of your spreadsheet, which included also data on blonde hair:

(do you now think this data is not reliable - is it why you removed it from the new version?):

Some of the results are unreliable. The red hair results are especially unreliable, because most got few reads on MC1R SNPs. I still have Hirisplex results here. These are more accurate. I used the same interpretation of results I do on modern populations, and the results for moderns made a lot of sense. That spreadsheet isn't updated either, I'll update it later and then I'll add it to my main spreadsheet.

This summary gives all the info you would need........
Paleo-Meslo West Europeans uniformly Black and Dark Brown. Mesol Russia and Sweden had Light Brown and Blonde in the mix. Neolithic Turkey/Europe and Bronze age Russia did to but at a lower frequency. A rise in frequency of Light Brown/Blonde and first appearance of Red in Bronze age Central Europe+Central Asia. A rise in frequency of Light Brown/Blonde in all of modern Europe after 2000 BC and a rise of Red hair in the British Isles and Scandinavia after 2000 BC.

Mesolithic Russia and Sweden are unique in that it looks like they could have been pigmented the same as modern Northern Europeans but it evolved independently in them. In 3000 BC most of Europe though was pigmented like the Middle East, then things changed very quickly.

Some of this data (e.g. Xiaohe mummies) was based on pigmentation from preserved hair, not from DNA.

But you've also removed this data which was based on visible pigmentation of well-preserved mummies.

I'll add that later.

 

[MOESAN]

@FireHaired
Thanks for the work of sharing info you do (as do others, as Angela, Tomenable and ...
It is this quick change around the 2000 BC (I 'm not to confident about too precise dates, so it could have begun a bit earlier: 3000?) which push me to think only migrations could be responsible for so a revolution in North-West, and not a process of natural selection; we have to find unknown population in unkown place which could have underwent this selection of depigmentation genes for hair (and eyes) certainly more by isolation/bottleneck/founder effect than by natural pressure. I explained myself above.

 

[MOESAN]

In fact I wrote faster than I was thinking.
Natural selection could have played a role, but not in the Isles, not between 2000 and 0 BC, not between 0 and 1000 AD. This natural selection could have stroke more than a population, rather in North and not too quickly, if these populations were in "pools of mating" were existed already the mutation(S), even if the first mutation(S) appeared at low level more southernly. But as other Northern populations do not show this depigmentation, we can very well imagine relatively isolated pôpulations at some stage of chronology.
I still favour diverse populations but settled between Baltic and North Western Steppes. (diverse mutations, but promoted by similar climate and environment, we know there blue and blue eyes, and blonds and blonds, as we say in french)

 

[LeBrok]

For I think phoenotypes show (before going in genes analysis)
- we have mutations having favorized only skin depigmentations, in diverse poplations. (I would be very interested in knowing what is the genetic basis of the Khoisans skin colour, btw)
- mutations for light eyes without effect upon hair; but skin seems slightly lighter. Apparently disjoncted from hair and skin pigmentation. if I rely on genetics tudies.
- mutations seemingly involved in SLIGHT (additive) depigmentation of skin and STRONG depigmentation of hair and eyes.
- red hair is an other thing and freckling in not a neutral thing concerning pigment density, I think (it seems it never stroke the most of the scientists in their appreciation of lmight skin)
&: at the genetic level, close phoenotypes could be caused by different mutations, this is over my capacity of control.

in some Australoid people a blond hair seems associated to very dark eyes and very dark skin! So nothing in common with some Asiatic populations (Mongols, Turks of Steppes, where individuals show the "kit" of lighter skin, hair and eyes as in some Europeans. I say lighter than the most of their brethren, not everytime lilly white skin.

There is possible explanation, I think, in gene expression function. We know that all the genes are not expressed all the time. Different genes are expressed in different body parts and expression or lack of it also changes with time, especially during growth of young body. Hypothetical example: We could suppose that if light skin gene, allele of low pigmentation, is expressed in skin but not expressed in eyes, we could get a person of light skin and brown eyes. Conversely it could be expressed in both giving light skin and blue eyes. And to make the matter less transparent, it is usually a combination of many genes being expressed or not in eyes, skin, or even hair producing cells.

 

[MOESAN]

Yes, Lebork: more than a biallelic gene, in more than a locus, with possible interaction (additive?). But the expressivity or "penetrance" is surely a result of other genes actions, not hazard (I don't say you think it was "hazard", but I prefer precise it). That said, it seems that light hair+light eyes+ slightly lighter skin is a or more than a "kit" distinct from the more spred light skin mutations. It's complicated and I satisfy myself with statistical phoentypic results, by cause of lack of knowledge at the detailed genetic level. Whe have seen the progress of scientific knowledge, coming to debuke ancient erroneous dogma (sometimes creating new ones!). Good afternoon. Endervezh vad deoc'h.

 

[Angela]

Just to clarify something about the paper. They are discussing only the period of the last 2000 years, and they claim that there is indeed a difference in pigmentation in British populations during that period, with the population becoming "fairer".

We don't totally need to take their word for it. Although the sample size is small, we do have Bronze Age British samples, and they are significantly more brown eyed, for example, than current populations. As I and others have mentioned, an obvious alternative to continuing evolution might be the Anglo-Saxon invasions. The issue there is that they insist that their algorithms factor that out. Has anyone picked that apart to see if they're right?

The other issue is that we don't know what the majority of Anglo-Saxons looked like at the time. We have a Bronze Age Polish warrior who is supposedly darker than modern Poles, although to my knowledge no actual dna has been released.

All of that said, I think there is a problem with the concept of continuing evolution for modern populations in terms of pigmentation, given the changes in diet, and particularly in Vitamin D enriched foods and modern medications.

 

[MOESAN]

...
All of that said, I think there is a problem with the concept of continuing evolution for modern populations in terms of pigmentation, given the changes in diet, and particularly in Vitamin D enriched foods and modern medications....

If I understand well your thoughts, I agree.
I red so often fanciful conclusions of SOME scientists (young ones having something to prove soon??? or people addict to scoops and buzz?) with conclusions I'm tempted to qualify as "schoolish", at least very simplistic, spite preparation technical works of high quality.
I can mistake, evidently. But natural selection of every kind needs the most often some time to definitively promote genes of low frequency. It's so complicated, sometime, as we can see with considered "letal" genes remaining in populations after generations and generations. I cannot figure out any plague or other kind of pressure justifying so dramatical selection, thousand of years after the apparition of the mutated genes, and producing effects at so recent times. I don't buy it, to date, before other proofs. We see today populations living in same environments since 4000 or 5000 years at least with some intermatting - so possibilities to exchanges genes for selection - and globally remaining very differently pigmented (without speaking of other traits).
If natural selection, I would rather prefer older times when Mankind was less equiped against environment. Sure, I can mistake.

 

[MOESAN]

I add:
the samples are still very tiny for Britain Ireland, and we cannot be sure they are good examples of basic populations. only the christian era seems providing us big cimetaries with almost all the population, after the Dark Ages, I think.

 

[jgviv]

Very interesting the difference in such a small territory