Elba, the first Mesolithic woman found in Spain

The exemple was relative to the skin complexion i would imagine for some prehistoric Europeans, not about the Indian / Pakistanese phenotype. Dark features are a dominant gene, so if prehistoric europeans were like the cheddar man reconstruction, this complexion should have survived till today. Or are we gonna call to a WHG mass extinction who replaced dark features with faired ones?

Are you ever going to read the papers on pigmentation? Until you do you're going to post silly comments like these.

Wait, I looked for some papers to help you by checking the search engine and I find you've been schooled repeatedly on this subject without evident benefit.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...f-ancient-Europeans?highlight=de-pigmentation

Skin pigmentation is a polygenic trait. There are snps for de-pigmentation, like SLC24A5, SLC45A2, some forms of TYR and MCIR, OCA2, HERC2 etc. and snps which result in very dark pigmentation. To my knowledge the WHG did not have the ones which result in extremely dark skin, but the only skin de-pigmentation gene for which they test positive is HERC 2, which causes blue eyes and also has some role to play in general skin pigmentation.

Any decent forensic prediction algorithm chooses the most informative snps (with the biggest effect) and can tell you with very great accuracy whether the person whose dna was sampled is fair, medium or dark skinned. By those tests, the WHG were darker than the Anatolian farmers. I doubt they were black, however.

Regardless, their dark skin didn't survive in Europe because of SELECTION. Have you ever heard of it? It's part of this thing called EVOLUTION. Do us all a favor and go back and read the Mathiesen et al paper. Let me give you a hint. A 60% WHG/EEF hybrid could have inherited all the depigmentation snps of both parents, and would thrive better than a pure WHG with only HERC2. Is the light starting to dawn?

If that's too much for you, think of it this way: Let's say a Nigerian slave is impregnated by her owner (and a Nigerian is undoubtedly darker than any WHG), and let's further say that her descendants are also mated only with Irish and Scottish and English colonists. By the time you have a descendant who is only, say, 20% WHG, what color do you think they'll be?

Modern Spaniards have a lot of the de-pigmentation snps introduced into Europe by both the EEF and EHG. That they would be as dark as the WHG is highly unlikely.
 
just a point, on the general ground:
1- genetic dominance doesn't implies numeric dominance - It's implies (and here I'm not sure that dominance applies everytime) only that in an heterozygotic couple of alleles, the dominant one will impose its effects - in Northern Europe we see very numerous recessive genes and their percentages allow homozygoty often enough to produce effect: high frequence of light pigmentation - only selective pressure has the big role here -
2- it's true that very often the "good" alleles tend to be dominant genetically but it's not always the case (see other old threads about selection) and a "good gene" here can be a "bad gene" there -
 
just a point, on the general ground:
1- genetic dominance doesn't implies numeric dominance - It's implies (and here I'm not sure that dominance applies everytime) only that in an heterozygotic couple of alleles, the dominant one will impose its effects - in Northern Europe we see very numerous recessive genes and their percentages allow homozygoty often enough to produce effect: high frequence of light pigmentation - only selective pressure has the big role here -
2- it's true that very often the "good" alleles tend to be dominant genetically but it's not always the case (see other old threads about selection) and a "good gene" here can be a "bad gene" there -

Indeed, and that's why in equatorial Africa you don't have people with a full complement of de-pigmentation snps, and why in Europe you don't have people with SSBI, conferring very dark skin.
 
Are you ever going to read the papers on pigmentation? Until you do you're going to post silly comments like these.

Wait, I looked for some papers to help you by checking the search engine and I find you've been schooled repeatedly on this subject without evident benefit.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...f-ancient-Europeans?highlight=de-pigmentation

Skin pigmentation is a polygenic trait. There are snps for de-pigmentation, like SLC24A5, SLC45A2, some forms of TYR and MCIR, OCA2, HERC2 etc. and snps which result in very dark pigmentation. To my knowledge the WHG did not have the ones which result in extremely dark skin, but the only skin de-pigmentation gene for which they test positive is HERC 2, which causes blue eyes and also has some role to play in general skin pigmentation.

Any decent forensic prediction algorithm chooses the most informative snps (with the biggest effect) and can tell you with very great accuracy whether the person whose dna was sampled is fair, medium or dark skinned. By those tests, the WHG were darker than the Anatolian farmers. I doubt they were black, however.

Regardless, their dark skin didn't survive in Europe because of SELECTION. Have you ever heard of it? It's part of this thing called EVOLUTION. Do us all a favor and go back and read the Mathiesen et al paper. Let me give you a hint. A 60% WHG/EEF hybrid could have inherited all the depigmentation snps of both parents, and would thrive better than a pure WHG with only HERC2. Is the light starting to dawn?

If that's too much for you, think of it this way: Let's say a Nigerian slave is impregnated by her owner (and a Nigerian is undoubtedly darker than any WHG), and let's further say that her descendants are also mated only with Irish and Scottish and English colonists. By the time you have a descendant who is only, say, 20% WHG, what color do you think they'll be?

Modern Spaniards have a lot of the de-pigmentation snps introduced into Europe by both the EEF and EHG. That they would be as dark as the WHG is highly unlikely.

Yes and then just another post, another girl wich is mostly EEF was rethought to have dark complexion than previously thought no? So if we apply the rule of Numbers and Farmers outnumbered completely HG's, she cannot be mostly EEF and at the same time Darker than other EEF individuals that were mostly Light featured. Truth dont always come from Science... Selection and Evolution cannot explain by themselves the extinction of a dark complexion like some African one, into an entire population. Point is, we are talking about a population wich evolved in cold Europe for millenia, where was the selection and evolution process if they were extremelly dark featured? Natufians wich were in actual Levant, wich at their time was a Tropical Semi-Desert had mostly Light Features no? Instead of read papers individually and get their conclusion on their own, you should make a general and pluridisciplinary conclusion. If you can then found a reason for every solutions, you probably are the closest of the reality. If something seems odd in the conclusion, it then might be that the general rules cannot be applied on everything. The fact is that WHG individuals according Genetiker ( and i know you dont take his work for granted at all ) were mostly Medium Dark skinned with only a minority of individuals Dark Dark skinned. Also i dont really understand why you give me the Fire Headed thread, he seems to have a mixed view over the question of the prehistoric dark complexion conclusion.

Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis
 
Let's take this one at a time.

Yes and then just another post, another girl wich is mostly EEF was rethought to have dark complexion than previously thought no? So if we apply the rule of Numbers and Farmers outnumbered completely HG's, she cannot be mostly EEF and at the same time Darker than other EEF individuals that were mostly Light featured.

What girl? What on earth are you talking about? Who cannot be mostly EEF?

Truth dont always come from Science...

So what does it come from then? The fevered and illogical speculations of practically analphabet people? Received wisdom from on high? PLEASE.

Selection and Evolution cannot explain by themselves the extinction of a dark complexion like some African one, into an entire population. Point is, we are talking about a population wich evolved in cold Europe for millenia, where was the selection and evolution process if they were extremelly dark featured?

The closest the scientists have come to explaining it is diet, i.e. if you get your vitamin D from a lot of fish and the livers of lots of animals you don't need to lighten as much. Look, the scientists may discover tomorrow some gene present in the WHG which made them fair skinned, and that's fine with me. This is a nonsensical thing to get exercised about...the only people to whom it matters so much are usually racists of one form or another. Of course, if that does turn out to be the case, then why has selection continued up to the very present. You don't understand it, but the selection can be SEEN in what happens in the genes over time. SELECTION exists and it operates strongly over these modern de-pigmentation snps.
Natufians wich were in actual Levant, wich at their time was a Tropical Semi-Desert had mostly Light Features no?

No, they didn't. READ the damn papers.
The fact is that WHG individuals according Genetiker ( and i know you dont take his work for granted at all ) were mostly Medium Dark skinned with only a minority of individuals Dark Dark skinned.

You know what? Don't bother reading any papers. You don't understand or remember what you read, clearly. I never, ever, said they were dark, dark, skinned. I said that according to what we know so far they were darker skinned than the Anatolian farmers.

Also i dont really understand why you give me the Fire Headed thread, he seems to have a mixed view over the question of the prehistoric dark complexion conclusion.

I knew it. Either you didn't read the whole thread or you didn't understand it. His argument was demolished.

That's it. It's not worth it. I'm out.

Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis
 
Let's take this one at a time.

1) I'm talking about the Bell Beaker girl that was recently reconstructed. If datas suggest that mostly EEF people were Light Skinned and they say that this girl is a second generation migrant from " Northern Europe ". But the paper suggest " Mr Morrison said: "When I received the results of the DNA testing from Maya, which showed that Ava had straight dark hair, brown eyes and a less-fair complexion. " So in other sense, she is likely related with continental Neolithic ancestry but she had " less-fair complexion "?

2) When i say " Truth dont always come with Science " i mean Deduction needs to have a role in it. Scienitific facts can be interpreted in a very literal way, exemple " less than 100 samples of European HG's tells us that they were darker than modern Europeans = so HG's were all Dark Skinned ". The same rules apply with Yamnaya. Yes all tested Yamnaya samples for, were Light Skinned, Dark Haired and Dark Eyed. Absolutely no problem with that conclusion, but it doesn't mean = all Yamnaya individuals were obviously the same. Science needs to make Deductions ( and not Intuitions ) between prehistoric datas and modern datas. Evolution and Selection are not deductions, there is thousand of exemples none explaineable by Evoltuion or Selection. Exemple. Platypus.

3) I'm ok with this point. And as i explained probably 10 times in the past. My problem is not to prove that Europeans are none-related with Africans, that we are in Europe between 500'000 years old and that we are not related with Africans, and that our ancestors were Blonde Haired or Blue Eyed. My problem come with the fact that Science can be used as a Political Motivation. Yes Nazis and other did it, but it doesn't mean they are the only one who are doing it. Racism is a complexe behavior and a lot of racist people are pushing a progressive agenda because they got some God Complexe. One of this problem also lies with Lazaridis wich i also commented multiple times, over all the Harvard or MP searchers i'm following on Twiiter, he got some weird commentry over some points that can influenced, wich want to be influenced.

4) From Genetiker:
I1072Natufian11,840–9760 BC
LightBrownBrown
There is no mention in the actual study " The Genetic Structure of the World First Farmers ". So only the amateur community have put their hands on. As i already said multiple times, i take Genetiker with some salt, but apparently the amateurish community have to do things to have " complete datas ".

5) I read all papers, and i comprehend pretty good terminology, not the scientific verbiage however. And we go back to the point 3. Cheddar Man reconstruction is very dark, i expect then that Scientifics have Facts, translated in Genetic Datas that this guy was like his representation. Wich you just said " we know they were darker than us and ancient farmers, but to what extent? ". Problem is once again, Politics dont wait those " scientific confirmation " for pushing a Social Agenda, neither Religious people or various groups that could include Scientifics too.

5-6) In the thread you say " Even before the latest improvements in the tests, it was quite common to get extremely good predictions for skin pigmentation using the available forensic tests. It's done all the time. People just don't want to accept it for some reason " And now you say " I said that according to what we know so far they were darker skinned than the Anatolian farmers " those two sentences seems totally unrelated but they are. If we can have extremely good predictions, why then only stop to " darker than farmers ". Can we not have extremely good prediction with an actual population sample?
 
Dude, genes can vanish from populations quite easily over time if there is selection against them. Thats the basic concept of evolution. No reason why it shouldn't happen to pigmentation genes.
 

This thread has been viewed 11030 times.

Back
Top