Light skin allele of SLC24A5 gene was spread by the Indo-Europeans (R1a + R1b)

[Nobody1]

No, not really, unless you are one of these weird Italians with a strange complex who are obsessed about trying to prove that "Iberians" are much darker than them. Then get ready to conveniently overlook all contradictions between such "predictions" and actual observed facts.

These are not predictions;
Where do you even get such an idea from? Samples from populations are tested for these genotypes (in the manner as Y-DNA gets tested in pops.) and than a result (not prediction) is known; And there are no contradictions either for there is a clear North/South cline (Europe) for SLC45A2/rs16891982 G/G and OCA2/rs12913832 G/G in all the results; As also for worldwide results;

 

[Drac II]

These are not predictions;
Where do you even get such an idea from? Samples from populations are tested for these genotypes (in the manner as Y-DNA gets tested in pops.) and than a result (not prediction) is known; And there are no contradictions either for there is a clear North/South cline (Europe) for SLC45A2/rs16891982 G/G and OCA2/rs12913832 G/G in all the results; As also for worldwide results;

The frequencies of these SNPs are the results, yes, but the "prediction" part is how they supposedly will show on the phenotype of the populations who carry them (lighter or darker pigmentation.) And there are plenty of contradictions and discrepancies if you interpret these percentages in such a simple manner. Just look at all the results on these SNPs gathered by that database that has been mentioned several times here. In the data set for one of these skin pigmentation SNPs, for example, the Swedish sample scored lower than many other Europeans, including from the south. With Swedes being one of the lightest people on the planet I think that it's pretty safe to conclude that such a lower score does not go quite well with observable facts.

By the way, the results available on this eye pigmentation SNP in that database has been tabulated by this blogger:

http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/more-blue-eyes-snp-rs12913832-allele-frequencies/

There are some very dubious results here as well (ex: Swiss lighter eyed than Norwegians, Estonians, Finns, Dutch, Germans etc.???), but overall it is a bit more believable than some of the other "predictions". Notice that more than half of the Italian samples scored lower than half of the Spanish samples (already brought up earlier in the thread, and now better observed in the table made by this blogger.) And keep in mind that I have no problem acknowledging that Italy should be lighter eyed than Spain (as shown by the old anthropological surveys of both nations.)

 

[joeyc]

ROFL 90% of those clusters have less than 15 samples. You never get tired of your insignificant reductio ad absurdum, don't you???

Jablonsky et al. did not check neither the birthplace nor the ancestry of the samples they used, but it's still a reliable study to you

EUREYE project only used white natives born in their native countries (excluding for the cluster from Paris), but it's not a reliable source to you.

Yes you make a lot of sense. ROFL.

You even tried to debunk the Irisplex system, which has a rate of prediction accuracy of over 90% (confirmed by many peer reviewed studies with thousands of fully native samples).

Stick to your crappy Candille et al., with the Portuguese Sandra Beleza selecting the lightest Portuguese from her University/Research centre. That's true science. ROFL.

In that crappy studies the Poles and the Italians were the darkest skinned. Guess what? None of the authors is Polish/Italian. All the authors are either British or Portuguese. Good stuff for laughs.

 

[Aristocephalic]

The frequencies of these SNPs are the results, yes, but the "prediction" part is how they supposedly will show on the phenotype of the populations who carry them (lighter or darker pigmentation.) And there are plenty of contradictions and discrepancies if you interpret these percentages in such a simple manner. Just look at all the results on these SNPs gathered by that database that has been mentioned several times here. In the data set for one of these skin pigmentation SNPs, for example, the Swedish sample scored lower than many other Europeans, including from the south. With Swedes being one of the lightest people on the planet I think that it's pretty safe to conclude that such a lower score does not go quite well with observable facts.

Seems reasonable to me. The question here is not some comparison or who is whitest like these guys seem to think.

The question is, does having these particular alleles exclude coloring that's similar to europeans today. Since scandinavian people and Irish people don't always have them, that would make it an obvious and resounding NO.

 

[Knovas]

@ Aristocephalic

To make it short, this SNPs work to some extent. They are helpful, but for instance the gene for blue eyes does not work as expected 30% of the times aprox., and it's way more reliable than those associated with light skin in terms of effects. The other point is that some individuals use the light pigmentation SNPs as clear signal of "Europeaness", telling for example that if one population gets lower figures on those, it must be because of Mozabite or some kind of other "Mooorish" ancestry. Too bad I already proved (see post 163 debunking such a statement), that dark skin genes were present in both European Hunter Gatherers and Farmers thousands of years ago, groups that definitely made the major genetic impact in Iberia over thousands of years.

Being that said, take your own conclusions

 

[joeyc]

Indeed even Enolithic Ukrainians were much darker than modern day Ukrainians. Depigmentation in Europe is recent thing, and mostly happened in last 3000-4000 years, in line with the latitude.

Tell that to cholo Drac who thinks that Iberians are lighter skinned than people who live 2000 miles North of them.

 

[Knovas]

Indeed even Enolithic Ukrainians were much darker than modern day Ukrainians. Depigmentation in Europe is recent thing, and mostly happened in last 3000-4000 years, in line with the latitude.

Tell that to cholo Drac who thinks that Iberians are lighter skinned than people who live 2000 miles North of them.

I told that yesterday to your pal, since he wrote the following to reply that Mesolithic Europeans carried the dark alleles:

As do the Mozabites (only 40% are SLC45A2/rs16891982 G/G - Norton et al 2007) to whom the Spanish have a closer genetic relation than to any Mesolithic European; Not surprisng that SLC45A2/rs16891982 G/G is thus in Europe also the lowest in Spain and Portugal - Lucotte et al 2010;

If you have something to tell to Drac, just quote him. Enough of manipulations, the text speaks by itself.

 

[Drac II]

Indeed even Enolithic Ukrainians were much darker than modern day Ukrainians. Depigmentation in Europe is recent thing, and mostly happened in last 3000-4000 years, in line with the latitude.

Tell that to cholo Drac who thinks that Iberians are lighter skinned than people who live 2000 miles North of them.

Says the guy who wants to believe in "predictions" where Italians are lighter than even the most depigmented Scots thousands of miles north of them.

 

[Drac II]

ROFL 90% of those clusters have less than 15 samples. You never get tired of your insignificant reductio ad absurdum, don't you???

Jablonsky et al. did not check neither the birthplace nor the ancestry of the samples they used, but it's still a reliable study to you

EUREYE project only used white natives born in their native countries (excluding for the cluster from Paris), but it's not a reliable source to you.

Yes you make a lot of sense. ROFL.

You even tried to debunk the Irisplex system, which has a rate of prediction accuracy of over 90% (confirmed by many peer reviewed studies with thousands of fully native samples).

Stick to your crappy Candille et al., with the Portuguese Sandra Beleza selecting the lightest Portuguese from her University/Research centre. That's true science. ROFL.

In that crappy studies the Poles and the Italians were the darkest skinned. Guess what? None of the authors is Polish/Italian. All the authors are either British or Portuguese. Good stuff for laughs.

A lot of these are unique samples from a particular region, nothing else available, nothing else to go by, plus even studies using such SNPs are using smaller samples to make such "predictions". So much for your imaginary "reductio ad absurdum".

We don't know for sure if Jablonski & Chaplin did or didn't check (it is to be presumed that as professional anthropologists trying to study skin pigmentation of NATIVE POPULATIONS they did their best to use only local samples), but we do know for sure that the IrisPlex study you like did not bother to check. They even openly recognized that they had no idea whether the French samples born in North Africa were ethnically French people born in French colonies there or local "Arabs", but still went ahead and used the sample anyway. Very "serious" study, indeed.

Way more than you and your funny cherry-pickings & manipulations.

The IrisPlex system has been put to the test, and the accuracy is not exactly as you want to picture it, at least when it comes to certain eye pigmentations:

http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(13)00250-0/abstract

Plus a lot of the very dubious "predictions" (according to them we should expect that Sardinians are darker eyed than Palestinians and Druze, and that French and even Italians from Bergamo are apparently lighter eyed than even Orkney Islanders, who ironically are in fact one of the most depigmented Scottish populations... simply ridiculous) speak for themselves about how "reliable" it is.

Candille et al. at least did something that most of these "predictions" you like so much apparently have never actually bothered to do: actually test the samples for their observed pigmentation. Too bad that the empirical results did not always match the "predicted" values based on a few SNPs. "Predictions" belong more in books like those of Nostradamus. Pigmentation belongs in the studies of physical anthropologists.

 

[joeyc]

A lot of these are unique samples from a particular region, nothing else available, nothing else to go by, plus even studies using such SNPs are using smaller samples to make such "predictions". So much for your imaginary "reductio ad absurdum".

The author of that blog has simply copied and pasted the results from the Alfred Alleles Database. 90% of the clusters in that database have less than 25 samples. Plus quite a lot of the clusters includes non native samples.

We don't know for sure if Jablonski & Chaplin did or didn't check (it is to be presumed that as professional anthropologists trying to study skin pigmentation of NATIVE POPULATIONS they did their best to use only local samples), but we do know for sure that the IrisPlex study you like did not bother to check. They even openly recognized that they had no idea whether the French samples born in North Africa were ethnically French people born in French colonies there or local "Arabs", but still went ahead and used the sample anyway. Very "serious" study, indeed.

Way more than you and your funny cherry-pickings & manipulations.

The IrisPlex system has been put to the test, and the accuracy is not exactly as you want to picture it, at least when it comes to certain eye pigmentations:

http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(13)00250-0/abstract

Plus a lot of the very dubious "predictions" (according to them we should expect that Sardinians are darker eyed than Palestinians and Druze, and that French and even Italians from Bergamo are apparently lighter eyed than even Orkney Islanders, who ironically are in fact one of the most depigmented Scottish populations... simply ridiculous) speak for themselves about how "reliable" it is.

Candille et al. at least did something that most of these "predictions" you like so much apparently have never actually bothered to do: actually test the samples for their observed pigmentation. Too bad that the empirical results did not always match the "predicted" values based on a few SNPs. "Predictions" belong more in books like those of Nostradamus. Pigmentation belongs in the studies of physical anthropologists.

Your empirical results have been discredited several pages ago, muchacho. The Iris plex system has a rate of prediction accuracy of 90-95% for blue and brown eyes and 80% for mixed eyes for Europeans. But since mixed eyes are quite rare (~ 20% of the total), the overall rate of prediction accuracy is ~90% for Europeans

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23986280

I can't download the full text of that study. But I see that it was done in the US, so it's sure that the authors have used non European samples.

The EUREYE project has only used white natives born in their countries, excluding for the cluster from Paris. But you like to focus on that to discredit the whole study. OK!

 

[Drac II]

The author of that blog has simply copied and pasted the results from the Alfred Alleles Database. 90% of the clusters in that database have less than 25 samples. Plus quite a lot of the clusters includes non native samples.

I know this is not your fault or anything, but why in blazes are they including non-native samples then??? This only will lead to more misleading results and less reliability. It's self-defeating.

Your empirical results have been discredited several pages ago, muchacho.

In your imagination they have, bambino. In real life anthropologists are still using them to assess pigmentation, and so far it is the only really reliable method: direct observation & measurement. You saw what happened in Candille et al. when the SNP "predictions" were put to the test by actually observing and measuring pigmentation of the samples. Things did not go as neatly as the SNP "predictions" suggested.

The Iris plex system has a rate of prediction accuracy of 90-95% for blue and brown eyes and 80% for mixed eyes for Europeans. But since mixed eyes are quite rare (~ 20% of the total), the overall rate of prediction accuracy is ~90% for Europeans

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23986280

I can't download the full text of that study. But I see that it was done in the US, so it's sure that the authors have used non European samples.

In that test the alleged accuracy of the system was hardly impressive. Why would non-European samples matter anyway? Aren't these SNPs supposed to be present among non-Europeans too? Obviously the authors would have been aware of this if it was the case and would not have included non-European samples.

The EUREYE project has only used white natives born in their countries, excluding for the cluster from Paris. But you like to focus on that to discredit the whole study. OK!

Well, what can you say about a study where the authors are fully cognizant of the fact that a sample might not be fully made up of natives yet go ahead and use it anyway? I am sure that if this had been done in a skin reflectance study of native populations like that one of Jablonski & Chaplin you would be denouncing this irresponsible decision too. Plus how lazy were these researchers anyway? Couldn't they just have excluded the 17% that they had no idea if they were ethnically French or not? Silly.

 

[epoch]

Indeed even Enolithic Ukrainians were much darker than modern day Ukrainians. Depigmentation in Europe is recent thing, and mostly happened in last 3000-4000 years, in line with the latitude.

Tell that to cholo Drac who thinks that Iberians are lighter skinned than people who live 2000 miles North of them.

The funny thing is that Motola 12 WHG actually had light skin allels, the same as Stuttgart EEF. So the gradually declining darkness when you get to higher latitudes actually already was visible in mesolithic Europe, only the gradients went further south later on. Mind you, we only have 3 examples, so this might be a bit premature conclusion.

 

[Nobody1]

The funny thing is that Motola 12 WHG actually had light skin allels, the same as Stuttgart EEF. So the gradually declining darkness when you get to higher latitudes actually already was visible in mesolithic Europe, only the gradients went further south later on. Mind you, we only have 3 examples, so this might be a bit premature conclusion.

Motola12 is SHG (p.73 'The SHG appear intermediate between WHG and ANE') not WHG (Loschbour/LaBrana) and Motola12 and the the other SHG were (and that is a great and logical revelation) much lighter than the WHG (both Loschbour/LaBrana dark-skin rs16891982 C/C & rs1426654 G/G) and also lighter eyed (lightered eye) than the EEF; And there is also a fifth corpse (after Stuttgart/Motola12/Loschbour/LaBrana) and that is Ötzi ~3300BC who was both (Keller et al 2012) rs16891982 G/G [light-skin] and rs1426654 A/A [light-skin] other than Stuttgart (~1500 years earlier only rs1426654 A/A in respects like the modern Hindu-Kush people - Norton et al 2006); rs16891982 could not get tested by/on Motola12;

Is anything known on ANE corpses?

 

[joeyc]

Reading Drac can give you a headache. ROFL

The IrisPlex system was designed only for Europeans. You can see that in the original study. There is no point in arguing against that.

The rest of your arguments have already been debunked many times in last pages.

For the rest Italians as whole have a much higher percentage of the 3 most important light skin alleles found among West Eurasians, than the Iberians. They are also much lighter eyed, as proved by the Iris Plex system.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Maciamo "The question is where and when exactly did this mutation occur ? It could have been in Anatolia, Kurdistan or around the Caucasus, but then how comes it doesn't peak in the Middle East today, and is even more common in places like eastern Spain and northern Pakistan at equal latitude ? It could have first appeared among some European tribes during the Late Palaeolithic. However even Mesolithic European samples from Western and Northern Europe had apparently darker skin than Neolithic farmers. Yet it surely wasn't spread by Neolithic farmers, otherwise the Sardinians would be a hotspot of fair skin in Europe, which isn't the case. Greece and western Anatolia also have lower frequencies. "

 

[Fire Haired14]

Maciamo

"The question is where and when exactly did this mutation occur ? It could have been in Anatolia, Kurdistan or around the Caucasus, but then how comes it doesn't peak in the Middle East today, and is even more common in places like eastern Spain and northern Pakistan at equal latitude ? It could have first appeared among some European tribes during the Late Palaeolithic. However even Mesolithic European samples from Western and Northern Europe had apparently darker skin than Neolithic farmers. Yet it surely wasn't spread by Neolithic farmers, otherwise the Sardinians would be a hotspot of fair skin in Europe, which isn't the case. Greece and western Anatolia also have lower frequencies. "

I don't see the correlation. why is this mutation dominate in non Indo European Estonians(possibly most Mesolithic) and Sardinians(most Neolithic)? Laz suggests that Mesolithic Europeans(and MA1) were pure west Eurasians, while Neolithic near easterns were mainly descended from their close relatives in the near east and had a significant mount of basal Eurasian ancestry. The fact that this mutation existed in both populations that had been separated for more than 20,000 years, proves it is very old. Neolithic near easterns did not have any ANE ancestry or Y DNA R, and their long lost step brothers(Mesolithic Europeans) primarily had Y DNA I, and i guess possibly some had R because of ANE ancestry or just because they had their own R lineages. I think this mutation is very ancient in west Eurasians and that in Europe when hunters(possibly had ~33%) and farmers(possibly had ~100%) mixed this mutation may have been selected, which is why it's ~100% in modern Europeans.Maciamo,

It's also interesting that the Sahel region of sub-Saharan Africa, where R1b-V88 is found at relatively high frequency in numerous ethnic groups (Fulani, Kirdi, Hausa), falls in the range 15 to 30% for the A111T mutation.

I am sure other west Eurasian admixed east Africans have similar frequencies. Couldn't plain west Eurasian ancestry be the answer.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Maciamo, "It's also interesting that the Sahel region of sub-Saharan Africa, where R1b-V88 is found at relatively high frequency in numerous ethnic groups (Fulani, Kirdi, Hausa), falls in the range 15 to 30% for the A111T mutation."

 

[Fire Haired14]

Response to above quote.I am sure other west Eurasian admixed east Africans have similar frequencies. Couldn't plain west Eurasian ancestry be the answer.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Motola12 is SHG (p.73 'The SHG appear intermediate between WHG and ANE') not WHG (Loschbour/LaBrana) and Motola12 and the the other SHG were (and that is a great and logical revelation) much lighter than the WHG (both Loschbour/LaBrana dark-skin rs16891982 C/C & rs1426654 G/G) and also lighter eyed (lightered eye) than the EEF; And there is also a fifth corpse (after Stuttgart/Motola12/Loschbour/LaBrana) and that is Ötzi ~3300BC who was both (Keller et al 2012) rs16891982 G/G [light-skin] and rs1426654 A/A [light-skin] other than Stuttgart (~1500 years earlier only rs1426654 A/A in respects like the modern Hindu-Kush people - Norton et al 2006); rs16891982 could not get tested by/on Motola12;Is anything known on ANE corpses?

Hold your horses. Swedish hunter gatherers had some ANE ancestry but vast majority WHG(I use to refer to Mesolithic Europeans) ancestry that's why Laz calls them SHG. I pointed out in my thread that Motala12 and Loschbour probably largely descended from the same central European hunter gatherers. Motala12 got his blue eyes from his WHG ancestry like La Brana-1 and Loschbour did, i bet that's also where he got rs1426654 A/A from.

 

[Fire Haired14]

If rs1426654 A/A is just as popular in west asians as in Europeans, why do people assume it significantly lightens skin? There are no answers in DNA(that i have read of) that can explain lighter skin in northern Europe than in southern Europe, and lighter skin in Europe than in west asia. No one at this forum is considering that there are unknown variations in DNA that effect skin color.