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

[Drac II]

You can win this argument, Drac. Just post a picture of yourself so we can see your blond hair, blue eyes and pale white skin.

Or you could stop with all the internalized self-hatred and just be proud of your olive skin. I think that's a much healthier approach. Why should it matter whether the darker Mediterranean look is an adaptation to local conditions or a result of some minor mixing with "Moors". We're all pretty closely related, when it comes down to it. The scientists tell us that there's often more genetic diversity in one band of chimpanzees than you'll find in the whole of Europe's human population.

Strange that you should be addressing this nonsensical angry post at me and not the actual instigators here. I am merely responding and exposing their manipulations to try to paint rosy pictures of themselves by trying to present mistaken claims about other groups.

 

[Drac II]

The Von Luschan's chromatic scale is not a valid method of classifying skin colour, as in many instances, different investigators would give different readings of the same person. Moreover Coon cites clearly racist and ludicrous scientists like Earnest Hooton, who has never set his foot in Italy.

Says who? You, right? Fact is that until skin reflectance techniques were developed (which you also don't like since they don't agree with your agenda either), such methods were the standard to measure pigmentation. It might be outdated today thanks to skin reflectance, but it always was a valid method.

 

[Drac II]

It's not very accurate if it claims that South East Asians are lighter skinned than Japanese people.

The only southeast Asians they used in the study seem to be Cambodians and Filipinos (many of whom are really descendants of very old Chinese arrivals there, not the native Tagalogs), and they scored lower than some Japanese regions. Nothing "weird" here. Perfectly possible.

Actually I've read the whole book, and the authors give no information about the sample size or how the samples were collected. They also have not checked the ancestry of tested samples. Very unreliable.

The article was published in the Journal of Human Evolution, a peer reviewed anthropological publication, and so far I have seen none of their fellow professionals question either their methods, samples or results.

 

[Drac II]

One of the main author of Candille et al. is the Portuguese researcher Sandra Beleza from Porto.

The same Sandra Beleza also picked the participants from the university and a research institute of Porto. Guess what? The Portuguese came out as super nordic.

Do you really believe that it is just a coincidence?

Where does it say they came up "super Nordic"? I think this is just your assumption because you did not like the results. They in fact were found to be darker overall (considering eyes and hair into the equation too) than the Poles and Irish, so obviously it's not like the Portuguese in the samples were like stereotypical Scandinavians. I have yet to see evidence that Sandra Beleza purposefully chose the lightest people she could find, and that also somehow her colleagues did not notice such a manipulation.

 

[Drac II]

@Drac

1) The connection between the frequencies of these 3 light skin alleles and the fairness of the skin among West Eurasians, has been proved by several peer reviewed studies, and I doubt you can prove them wrong.

I see, so when a study seems to say what you want to hear then its "peer-reviewedness" is evident and must be accepted as the "Law", but when other peer-reviewed studies don't say what you want to hear then it must be a deceitful manipulation, apparently by evil Iberian researchers. I have only seen a few of your posts so far but somehow I already knew you were going to try such "arguments".

Plus how unreliable these "predictions" based on single SNPs really are can be seen by using a similar argument as the one you tried to use against Jablonski & Chaplin's study: the frequencies of some of them are actually higher in people like Iraqis, Iranians, Turks, etc. than in some Iberian, some Greek and even some Scottish groups. According to your way of trying to interpret these frequencies, we should conclude that even people like Orcadians are "darker" than Middle Easterners.

2) I've only picked the largest clusters from the Alfred Alleles database. Generally speaking the bigger the cluster the more reliable it is. Smaller clusters as the ones from Madrid or France should be ignored. I did not notice the Galician cluster.

There's lots of problems with your arbitrary approach, since besides the issue that many samples come from different locations (thus making the issue of sample size not as important in the case of regions where no more studied samples are available) some of these studies also seem to deal only with "predictions" for eye color, or only with skin pigmentation, so some of these results might actually be in accordance with the actual observed data (in the case of light eye color, for example, we should expect Italians to have more than Spaniards since this agrees with the actual pigmentation surveys of those countries) while others don't match the observed results (Italy, for example, has a higher frequency of darker skin tones not only than Spain, but also than Greece.)

Another thing that you carefully avoid saying: from the data gathered in that database it seems that there's much more Italian samples from all sorts of locations within Italy that have been studied than you want to call attention to (since many of them score lower than some of the Spanish ones, obviously.) Since you like to use the "bigger sample size, the more accuracy" card, we can easily use it against you by gathering together all these "predictions" for Italians and contrasting them to the higher Spanish ones. In the case of the allele that you used, the majority of the Italian samples scored in the lower 400s, below both the Galicia and Madrid samples. Only the Italian samples from Verona that you used and 3 or 4 other samples from unspecified Italian regions came up above those two.

By the way, the whole unreliability of these "predictions" based on single SNPs can again be plainly seen by using your very own argument of sample size too: the French sample from Paris was even bigger than the Italian sample from Verona, yet it came up below it. Are we to conclude that the French are actually somewhat darker than Italians? Somehow I think that a most definite "NO!" is the only answer here, as it plainly contradicts every study with actual observed pigmentation for populations of both countries.

3) You should consider the frequencies of the 3 light skin alleles, not just one. Galicians and Iberians as whole have much lower percentages of the 3 light skin alleles than any mainland Italian. That of course means that Iberians are much darker skinned.

Nope, see above reply to your point 2, for why your attempts at interpreting these "predictions" are quite problematic, to say the least.

4) These results are in line with the ones from the IrisPlex System (rate of prediction accuracy of over 90%) which shows the lightest Italians as being about 2 times lighter than the lightest Iberians.

That Italy should score lighter in the eye department does not surprise me at all, since it actually agrees with the empirical data for pigmentation for both nations. But it is hardly as you want to paint it too, since the "lightest eyed Iberians" have not been tested in any of these studies. The difference would obviously not be as big as you want to believe it is if that had been the case.

 

[joeyc]

Just yesterday I saw the great match between Real Madrid and Barcellona. I saw so many Celtic pinkish faces among the players and the audience, that I am now 100% sure that Iberians are as light as the Brits and the Poles and lighter than the Italians. So are hundreds of millions of people who have seen that match.

Says who? You, right? Fact is that until skin reflectance techniques were developed (which you also don't like since they don't agree with your agenda either), such methods were the standard to measure pigmentation. It might be outdated today thanks to skin reflectance, but it always was a valid method.

I was talking about the pseudo-scientific Von Luschan's chromatic scale. Or are you going to defend it too, because it makes Iberians looks whiter than the Italians?

The only southeast Asians they used in the study seem to be Cambodians and Filipinos (many of whom are really descendants of very old Chinese arrivals there, not the native Tagalogs), and they scored lower than some Japanese regions. Nothing "weird" here. Perfectly possible.

What the jeez are you talking about? Chinese immigrants in South East Asia? According to that crappy study Cambodians, Vietnames, Filipinos and Southern Chinese are lighter skinned than the Japanese. Actually the Japanese are as dark skinned as Arabs from Jordan and the Indians.

http://anthrospain.blogspot.it/2011/08/skin-reflectance-of-selected-world.html

The article was published in the Journal of Human Evolution, a peer reviewed anthropological publication, and so far I have seen none of their fellow professionals question either their methods, samples or results.

Actually I've read the whole book, and the authors give no information about the sample size or how the samples were collected. They also have not checked the ancestry of tested samples.

I don't need a peer reviewed anthropological publication to see that.

Where does it say they came up "super Nordic"? I think this is just your assumption because you did not like the results. They in fact were found to be darker overall (considering eyes and hair into the equation too) than the Poles and Irish, so obviously it's not like the Portuguese in the samples were like stereotypical Scandinavians. I have yet to see evidence that Sandra Beleza purposefully chose the lightest people she could find, and that also somehow her colleagues did not notice such a manipulation.

The Portuguese males are lighter skinned than the Polish females according to Candille et al. But that's not the main point here.

One of the main author of Candille et al. is the Portuguese researcher Sandra Beleza from Porto.

The same Sandra Beleza also personally selected the participants from the university and a research institute of Porto. Guess what? The Portuguese came out as super nordic.

Do you really believe that it is just a coincidence?

 

[joeyc]

I see, so when a study seems to say what you want to hear then its "peer-reviewedness" is evident and must be accepted as the "Law", but when other peer-reviewed studies don't say what you want to hear then it must be a deceitful manipulation, apparently by evil Iberian researchers. I have only seen a few of your posts so far but somehow I already knew you were going to try such "arguments".

Plus how unreliable these "predictions" based on single SNPs really are can be seen by using a similar argument as the one you tried to use against Jablonski & Chaplin's study: the frequencies of some of them are actually higher in people like Iraqis, Iranians, Turks, etc. than in some Iberian, some Greek and even some Scottish groups. According to your way of trying to interpret these frequencies, we should conclude that even people like Orcadians are "darker" than Middle Easterners.



There's lots of problems with your arbitrary approach, since besides the issue that many samples come from different locations (thus making the issue of sample size not as important in the case of regions where no more studied samples are available) some of these studies also seem to deal only with "predictions" for eye color, or only with skin pigmentation, so some of these results might actually be in accordance with the actual observed data (in the case of light eye color, for example, we should expect Italians to have more than Spaniards since this agrees with the actual pigmentation surveys of those countries) while others don't match the observed results (Italy, for example, has a higher frequency of darker skin tones not only than Spain, but also than Greece.)

Another thing that you carefully avoid saying: from the data gathered in that database it seems that there's much more Italian samples from all sorts of locations within Italy that have been studied than you want to call attention to (since many of them score lower than some of the Spanish ones, obviously.) Since you like to use the "bigger sample size, the more accuracy" card, we can easily use it against you by gathering together all these "predictions" for Italians and contrasting them to the higher Spanish ones. In the case of the allele that you used, the majority of the Italian samples scored in the lower 400s, below both the Galicia and Madrid samples. Only the Italian samples from Verona that you used and 3 or 4 other samples from unspecified Italian regions came up above those two.

By the way, the whole unreliability of these "predictions" based on single SNPs can again be plainly seen by using your very own argument of sample size too: the French sample from Paris was even bigger than the Italian sample from Verona, yet it came up below it. Are we to conclude that the French are actually somewhat darker than Italians? Somehow I think that a most definite "NO!" is the only answer here, as it plainly contradicts every study with actual observed pigmentation for populations of both countries.

Nope, see above reply to your point 2, for why your attempts at interpreting these "predictions" are quite problematic, to say the least.



That Italy should score lighter in the eye department does not surprise me at all, since it actually agrees with the empirical data for pigmentation for both nations. But it is hardly as you want to paint it too, since the "lightest eyed Iberians" have not been tested in any of these studies. The difference would obviously not be as big as you want to believe it is if that had been the case.

1) The French cluster from Paris is from the the European Eye Study(EUREYE), and includes many North Africans. Other clusters from the same project are 100% native to their region.

2) The Orcadian cluster has about 20 samples, while the cluster from Madrid has only 48 samples, so you can ignore them.

3) Stop making this nonsense reductio ad absurdum. I've already told you that you have to consider the frequencies for all the 3 light skin alleles, not just one. Certain Spaniards (like the Galicians) and MENAs may have a high percentegace of a certain single light skin allele (like the A111T allele) and be almost on par with the Italians, but they score very little of other 2 light skin alleles.

For example the Turks have a very small percentage of the 374f allele. Much much much lower than any European population.

While the Galicians have barely any 374L and probably also the Ala111Thr alleles, by looking at the results for the IBS cluster from 1000 Genomes with includes also the Galicians.

On the other hand, ignoring the very small clusters, mainland Italians have a much higher percentage of all the 3 light skin alleles (SLC45A2 (MATP Leu374Phe), SLC24A5 (NCKX5 Ala111Thr) and OCA2 (r12913832 T/C)) than any Iberian. And so the Iberians are much darker skinned as whole than the Italians.

4) There is a clear correlation between light eyes and light skin in Europe. A recent peer reviewed study found out that the Spaniards from the Alicante-Valencia area have the highest amount of light eyes in Spain. On the other hand they are about 2 times darker eyed than the Italians from Verona. All this by using the IRISplex system with a rate of prediction accuracy of over 90%.

 

[Nobody1]

@ joeyc

There is no point in conversing with DracII; He has an agenda (promote Celt-Iberian fantasy and use Italians as scape-goats) and nothing will change his mind (no matter how many studies and how many facts); So in the words of Paul McCartny - Let it be; I was even once told by the Celt-Iberians that mtDNA "doesnt count" and now app. the academic/genetic results for pigmentation (SLC45A2 & SLC24A5) also "do not count"; the reason is simple: because Celt-Iberia has less than the European even South European norm (especially SLC45A2 Lucotte 2011 et al / post#33); But that is the Genetic/Biological reality given in academic studies and determined by scientific methods;

As for Anthropology (post#125/Carleton Coon):
Coon -
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img191/8199/coon1.png
Lundman -
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7VYUS39sX...aKs/s1600/maps-europefair-berthildlundman.jpg
Brace - 1973
http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_frost61z/Old-World1.jpg
Jablonksi - 2000 (p.76)
http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/ch...em447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf

 

[joeyc]

Iberians have also a ridiculously low amount of the light skin allele on OCA2 gene, excluding for the somewhat isolate Galicians (who make 4% of total Iberian population).

The serious problem is that this dude really believes that Iberians are as light as the British and Polish people. ROFL!

 

[Knovas]

WOW I missed this post. So Galicians are an Isolated population, very interesting news.

Now I remember another famous T****. This guy also liked to focus atention on Iberians. Of course he loved Italy and, curiously enough, he was quite friendly with Galicians, who according to him were so incredibly different from the rest of Iberia (lighter and more European). Nothing surprising, since he was part Galician (mostly Italian descent though, but that was pretty obvious ¿right? xD).

¿Coincidence or Ferreiro? Make an educated guess.

By the way, seems like Mesolithic Europeans were dark pigmented regarding skin. I wonder how does this point fits into some people's rhetoric.

Iberians have also a ridiculously low amount of the light skin allele on OCA2 gene

The AA mutation in SLC24A5 (Chromosome 15) associated with light skin, accounts for more than 95% everywhere in Europe. Hard to find someone of European descent carrying the G allele today, unlike Mesolithic Europeans. In short: ridiculous statement.

 

[Drac II]

Just yesterday I saw the great match between Real Madrid and Barcellona. I saw so many Celtic pinkish faces among the players and the audience, that I am now 100% sure that Iberians are as light as the Brits and the Poles and lighter than the Italians. So are hundreds of millions of people who have seen that match.

Same happens to me every time I see a match between Milan and Napoli. I saw so many tall Germanic pinkish faces and blonde hair and blue eyes among the players and the fans, that I am now 100% sure that Italians are really just a lost Germanic tribe and therefore lighter than not just Iberians but even than French and Orcadians. So are the millions of people who have seen those games.

I was talking about the pseudo-scientific Von Luschan's chromatic scale. Or are you going to defend it too, because it makes Iberians looks whiter than the Italians?

How is it "pseudo-scientific"? It's just a set of tiles with a range of increasingly darker/lighter tones. Until the advent of skin reflectance such tables were in fact the only good method to measure such things.

What the jeez are you talking about? Chinese immigrants in South East Asia?

You mean you don't know that the Chinese have been in the Phillipines for centuries?

http://asia.isp.msu.edu/wbwoa/southeast_asia/philippines/history.htm

According to that crappy study Cambodians, Vietnames, Filipinos and Southern Chinese are lighter skinned than the Japanese. Actually the Japanese are as dark skinned as Arabs from Jordan and the Indians.

http://anthrospain.blogspot.it/2011/08/skin-reflectance-of-selected-world.html

You should bother to actually consult the article in question before talking about it, since they had more samples from Japan (and other places) than shown in that blog:

http://faculty.washington.edu/charles/562_f2011/Additional Readings/Jablonski 2000.pdf

Actually I've read the whole book, and the authors give no information about the sample size or how the samples were collected. They also have not checked the ancestry of tested samples.

I doubt it since it is not a "book" and also you did not know that they used samples from several areas of Japan, not just one. Once again, show me one of their fellow professionals who has questioned their sampling and testing methods.

I don't need a peer reviewed anthropological publication to see that.

Apparently their peers from that Journal had no problem with the study and its samples. I am sure that if you are so curious to get more details you can actually write the authors and request further data.

The Portuguese males are lighter skinned than the Polish females according to Candille et al. But that's not the main point here.

One of the main author of Candille et al. is the Portuguese researcher Sandra Beleza from Porto.

The same Sandra Beleza also personally selected the participants from the university and a research institute of Porto. Guess what? The Portuguese came out as super nordic.

Do you really believe that it is just a coincidence?

Once again, where is the evidence that they came out "super nordic"? Had they really fit such a stereotype the Portuguese samples obviously would have been lighter overall than every other population sampled in that study. That was not the case.

 

[Drac II]

@ joeyc

There is no point in conversing with DracII; He has an agenda (promote Celt-Iberian fantasy and use Italians as scape-goats) and nothing will change his mind (no matter how many studies and how many facts); So in the words of Paul McCartny - Let it be; I was even once told by the Celt-Iberians that mtDNA "doesnt count" and now app. the academic/genetic results for pigmentation (SLC45A2 & SLC24A5) also "do not count"; the reason is simple: because Celt-Iberia has less than the European even South European norm (especially SLC45A2 Lucotte 2011 et al / post#33); But that is the Genetic/Biological reality given in academic studies and determined by scientific methods;

As for Anthropology (post#125/Carleton Coon):
Coon -
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img191/8199/coon1.png
Lundman -
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7VYUS39sX...aKs/s1600/maps-europefair-berthildlundman.jpg
Brace - 1973
http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_frost61z/Old-World1.jpg
Jablonksi - 2000 (p.76)
http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/ch...em447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf

Funny, look who is talking, Mr. Spin Doctor since day #1 with his blatant anti-Iberian and pro-Italian agenda who pretends to not really be an Italian and supposedly has an "objective" outlook. Too bad that you keep getting exposed and debunked. Evidence? Well, just look at all your usual manipulations, like those hilariously deficient "maps" that have already been discussed to death (none of them are exclusively based on the results of actual surveys) in other threads (see threads about pigmentation in Europe), but yet you keep on desperately trying to use them anyway, or your manipulation of the data used by Coon (exposed right here on post #135, among other places), and so forth. Nothing new, really. Same old.

Oh, and here in this study:

http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/ch...em447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf

it should be look at pp. 74-75, you know the pages that you try to avoid like the plague, which are the ones that show the results of actual testing of samples, not "predictions" like on page 76.

 

[joeyc]

Considering that you are an Americunt, I doubt that you have ever seen a soccer match in your whole life.

I also doubt that you are really Iberian. You are surely one of those self hating triracial latinos who wants the brown cookie from his Iberian masters. I've met countless of types like you in these kinds of forums.

1) Stop with this bullshit about Chinese immigrants in South East Asia. That crappy study clearly states that Cambodians, Vietnames, Filipinos and Southern Chinese are lighter skinned than the Japanese. Actually the Japanese are as dark skinned as Arabs from Jordan and North Indians.

2) The Von Luschan's chromatic scale is a pseudo scientific unreliable method. That's why none has been using it in last 70 years.

3) You were the first and only one who claimed that Iberians are as light skinned or even ligther than Poles and Brits. So avoid calling Italians "nordicist", because it only makes you look really ludicrous.

4) Candille et al. claims that Portuguese males are lighter skinned than Polish females. That's quite an evidence.

Moreover I've already told ya that the whole study is highly questionable. The main Portuguese researcher personally selected the Portuguese partecipants for the pigmentation measurements in her native city.

If an Italian researcher had done the same, you would have considered the study unreliable.

 

[Drac II]

1) The French cluster from Paris is from the the European Eye Study(EUREYE), and includes many North Africans. Other clusters from the same project are 100% native to their region.

And you know this because...? That's the same study where the samples from Verona and Alicante come from. So we might take the same liberties that you keep taking and just claim that the Alicante sample had even more North Africans than the French sample, and the Verona sample was full of Germans.

2) The Orcadian cluster has about 20 samples, while the cluster from Madrid has only 48 samples, so you can ignore them.

And this is because...? Oh, that's right, because it doesn't suit your agenda, that's why. There are no more samples from Madrid and only two Orcadian samples. This is hardly something that can be just "ignored". There are no more samples from these places in the database for this allele. Period.

3) Stop making this nonsense reductio ad absurdum. I've already told you that you have to consider the frequencies for all the 3 light skin alleles, not just one. Certain Spaniards (like the Galicians) and MENAs may have a high percentegace of a certain single light skin allele (like the A111T allele) and be almost on par with the Italians, but they score very little of other 2 light skin alleles.

Absurd arguments based on single SNPs deserve suitable replies, and that's exactly what you get. I am simply using the data on that allele that you first mentioned and that you arbitrarily pulled some results for from that database to push your agenda around here. You want to argue numbers, well there are actually a total of 13 Italian entries and only 4 Spanish ones for that allele. 8 (more than half) of the Italian entries came up lower than 2 (half) of the Spanish ones. Strange results, to say the least, if Italians are so much "lighter" like you want to make everyone think based on these flimsy "predictions". One would have expected the majority of the Italian entries to come up higher than the Spanish ones. Now you want to move on to other selected alleles, so we would need to take a look at all the samples available in the database for a particular allele, because it's obvious from the rs12913832 example that your word is hardly to be taken without actually checking first. The actual data on the database and your version of it after careful selection are two pretty different things. Then there's also other hilarious results that also fly on the face of all common sense and observed pigmentation data if interpreted in the manner that you want to interpret these "predictions", like, for example, French Basques being darker than Jews & Turks, Sardinians being darker than Cambodians & Brazilian Amerindians, and such like nonsense.

For example the Turks have a very small percentage of the 374f allele. Much much much lower than any European population.

While the Galicians have barely any 374L and probably also the Ala111Thr alleles, by looking at the results for the IBS cluster from 1000 Genomes with includes also the Galicians.

On the other hand, ignoring the very small clusters, mainland Italians have a much higher percentage of all the 3 light skin alleles (SLC45A2 (MATP Leu374Phe), SLC24A5 (NCKX5 Ala111Thr) and OCA2 (r12913832 T/C)) than any Iberian. And so the Iberians are much darker skinned as whole than the Italians.

I don't have time now to go through all these "predictions" that so much fascinate you, but just for curiosity's sake I decided to check your claims for one of them. The MATP Leu374Phe:

http://alfred.med.yale.edu/alfred/SiteTable1A_working.asp?siteuid=SI003963V

I take it that here "G" is the value for the light skin allele (as sub-Saharan Africans have virtually nothing of it, while Europeans and other groups have more of it.) If that's so, the "predictions" for many groups are as dubious as the other allele that you tried to use before. Example: here even the Swedes score lower than many other Europeans, including Italians and Spaniards.

4) There is a clear correlation between light eyes and light skin in Europe. A recent peer reviewed study found out that the Spaniards from the Alicante-Valencia area have the highest amount of light eyes in Spain. On the other hand they are about 2 times darker eyed than the Italians from Verona. All this by using the IRISplex system with a rate of prediction accuracy of over 90%.

Where is the actual survey for this? I don't mean these silly "predictions" that you like so much just because you want to interpret them in a way that tells you what you want to hear, I mean actual measurements of eye color from a given sample, because it's obvious it contradicts actual surveys of eye pigmentation in Spain. Alicante has never been considered by any anthropologist as the lightest eyed area of Spain.

 

[Drac II]

Considering that you are an Americunt, I doubt that you have ever seen a soccer match in your whole life.

Nowadays there's a thing called TV that allows people to watch soccer matches from anywhere in the world.

I also doubt that you are really Iberian. You are surely one of those self hating triracial latinos who wants the brown cookie from his Iberian masters. I've met countless of types like you in these kinds of forums.

1) Stop with this bullshit about Chinese immigrants in South East Asia. That crappy study clearly states that Cambodians, Vietnames, Filipinos and Southern Chinese are lighter skinned than the Japanese. Actually the Japanese are as dark skinned as Arabs from Jordan and North Indians.

After reading more and more of your posts, it doesn't surprise me that you seem to have a hard time interpreting data. The study clearly shows that the samples from some parts of Japan are lighter than the Filipino, Vietnamese and Cambodian samples. Japanese people are not homogeneously pigmented. Plus it is a fact that the Philippines has had Chinese presence since long ago.

2) The

Von Luschan's chromatic scale is a pseudo scientific unreliable method. That's why none has been using it in last 70 years.

It hasn't been used because skin reflectance displaced it. In fact, even as late as the 1970s similar tables (like the Fitzpatrick one) were still being developed.

3) You were the first and only one who claimed that Iberians are as light skinned or even ligther than Poles and Brits. So avoid calling Italians "nordicist", because it only makes you look really ludicrous.

I never said that all Iberians are as light as Poles and Brits. Learn to read.

4) Candille et al. claims that Portuguese males are lighter skinned than Polish females. That's quite an evidence.

Yes, and it is the only "unexpected" result. The Portuguese also came out darker in other departments.

Moreover I've already told ya that the whole study is highly questionable. The main Portuguese researcher personally selected the Portuguese partecipants for the pigmentation measurements in her native city.

If an Italian researcher had done the same, you would have considered the study unreliable.

Which part of the study said that the Portuguese researcher chose the samples personally? Also, who chose the Italian samples? And the Polish?

 

[joeyc]

1) 17% of Paris samples in the EUREYE project were born in North Africa. Other clusters are made of native whites. Unfortunately they have not checked the ancestry of grandparents. But then again not even Jablonky et al did it.

2) Sandra Beleza is from Porto and has worked for many years in the local university. So it's very likely that she personally picked the partecipants for the test, or at least had a great role in it.

3) You have claimed that Portguese are as light skinned as the Poles and some Spaniards are lighter skinned than Brits. Everyone has seen that, but I am too lazy to find the exact quote.

4) You must be joking. I've already told you many times that only very large clusters (with at least 80-90 samples) should be taken in account. Also you keep focusing on a sinlge SNP, whereas you should consider the frequencies for all 3 SNPs.

5) Jablonski et al is a crappy study. Just like the Von Luschan's chromatic scale. You are trying to defend the impossible.

6) Spaniards from Alicante/Valencia area came out as the lightest Spaniards, at least in this study.

Gender is a major factor explaining discrepancies in eye colour prediction based on HERC2/OCA2 genotype and the IrisPlex model (2013).

 

[Drac II]

1) 17% of Paris samples in the EUREYE project were born in North Africa. Other clusters are made of native whites. Unfortunately they have not checked the ancestry of grandparents. But then again not even Jablonky et al did it.

Being born in North Africa does not necessarily mean being ethnically North African. It could just be French people born there. France had colonies in North Africa. And if it is true that these samples are not "screened" for people who should be ethnically from these countries, as you claim for the French sample, then the more reason yet to not take such "prediction" studies seriously at all.

2) Sandra Beleza is from Porto and has worked for many years in the local university. So it's very likely that she personally picked the partecipants for the test, or at least had a great role in it.

Speculation, not facts.

3) You have claimed that Portguese are as light skinned as the Poles and some Spaniards are lighter skinned than Brits. Everyone has seen that, but I am too lazy to find the exact quote.

I only said what those studies found, and it is that their northern Spanish samples scored lighter skin reflection than their Belgian, southeastern English samples, and similar as their Welsh and Irish samples. At the same time they were darker than their northern English, Dutch, German samples. The other study found its northern Portuguese samples lighter than the central Italian ones. That's what the empirical results say. The thing with the Poles was just something unexpected, but then again not "impossible". Could be a fluke.

4) You must be joking. I've already told you many times that only very large clusters (with at least 80-90 samples) should be taken in account. Also you keep focusing on a sinlge SNP, whereas you should consider the frequencies for all 3 SNPs.

There are NO OTHER SAMPLES STUDIED FOR MANY POPULATIONS, it's not like you have plenty of choices here. You can't simply conveniently be discarding them just because they don't suit your agenda. The fact is that many of these "predicted" values contradict empirical data on pigmentation.

5) Jablonski et al is a crappy study. Just like the Von Luschan's chromatic scale. You are trying to defend the impossible.

Jablonski & Chaplin's paper is a perfectly legitimate study that used actual empirical testing, not just speculations, way better than all these "predictions" on single SNPs that you fancy so much (because you think they are telling you what you want to hear.)

6) Spaniards from Alicante/Valencia area came out as the lightest Spaniards, at least in this study.

Gender is a major factor explaining discrepancies in eye colour prediction based on HERC2/OCA2 genotype and the IrisPlex model (2013).

These figures were arrived at how? With more "predictions" or by actually gathering samples and measuring them? If the first, then don't bother. It's like trying to establish unproven speculation by using more unproven speculation. Until someone establishes without any shadow of a doubt and without any contradictions that the frequencies of these few alleles do correspond with people manifesting lighter pigmentation (I mean by actually measuring them for pigmentation and thus verifying it, not just by "predicting"), it is all unproven speculation.

 

[joeyc]

1) The IrisPlex system has a rate of prediction accuracy of over 90%. That has been proved by several peer reviewed studies.

2) Jablonski claims that Japanese people are as dark as North Indians and Arabs and are darker than South East Asians. If you really believes that it is legitimate, then you have some serious mental problems.

3) As I've said before the Portuguese samples from Candille et al. come from the City of Porto. Sandra Beleza is from Porto and has worked for years in that University. You are saying that she had zero responsibily in selecting the samples from the University of Porto, aren't you?

4) If you have some problems with the Eureye clusters, then you should have some problems with Jablonski et al. too, which has not even checked the birth place of the partecipants.

5) The correlation between the frequencies of those light skin alleles and the fairness of light skin has been proved by many peer reviewed studies. Your non sense reductio ad absurdum by focusing on a single SNP of very small clusters is becoming ludicrous.

 

[Drac II]

1) The IrisPlex system has a rate of prediction accuracy of over 90%. That has been proved by several peer reviewed study.

How is the "accuracy" established? By actually observing the subjects and correlating their pigmentation with these alleles?

2) Jablonski claims that Japanese people are as dark as North Indians and Arabs and are darker than South East Asians. If you really believes that it is legitimate, then you have some serious mental problems.

Apparently you still haven't bothered to compare all the data presented for those populations in pp. 74-75 of that study. What North Indians scored 55.42 or 59.10??? You must be hallucinating.

3) As I've said before the Portuguese samples from Candille et al. come from the City of Porto. Sandra Beleza has worked for years in that University. You are denying that she has zero responsibily in the picking of the samples from the University of her city, aren't you?

I am not denying anything, but you are a priori affirming that she somehow manipulated the samples. Where is the proof? The burden of proof is on the claimant. It's pure speculation on your part.

4) If you have some problems with the Eureye clusters, then you should have some problems with Jablonski et al. too, who has not even checked the birth place of the partecipants.

How do you know this? As you pointed out before, they only gave information of the geographical origin of their samples. It goes without saying that in an study written purposefully about the pigmentation of NATIVE PEOPLES OF DIFFERENT AREAS the researchers will obviously TRY TO DO THEIR BEST TO USE LOCAL SAMPLES, not foreigners or tourists, otherwise what would be the point. At least that is the prevailing common sense. But you seem to think that Jablonski & Chaplin lack this common sense and then just went ahead and tested people from all over the place except where they were supposed to be from.

 

[joeyc]

How is the "accuracy" established? By actually observing the subjects and correlating their pigmentation with these alleles?

Yes, perhaps you should get more info about the IrisPlex system.

Apparently you still haven't bothered to compare all the data presented for those populations in pp. 74-75 of that study. What North Indians scored 55.42 or 59.10??? You must be hallucinating.

Some of the results.

Japan (Northern) 54·90
Japan (Southwest) 53·55
Japan (Central) 55·42
Jordan (NH) 53·00
Libya (Cyrenaica) (NH) 53·50
Morocco (NH) 54·85
Libya (Tripoli) (NH) 54·40
Afghanistan/Iran (NH) 55·70
Algeria (Aures) (NH) 58·05
Cambodia (NH) 54·00
India (Northern) (NH) 53·26
India (Rajasthan) (NH) 52·00
India (Punjab) (NH) 54·24
Pakistan (NH) 52·30
Russia (Chechen) (NH) 53·45
Philippines (Manila) (NH) 54·10
Saudi Arabia (NH) 52·50
Tunisia (NH) 56·30
Vietnam (NH) 55·90

Yes perfectly legitimate study, ROFL.

I am not denying anything, but you are a priori affirming that she somehow manipulated the samples. Where is the proof? The burden of proof is on the claimant. It's pure speculation on your part.

The fact that she had a role in picking the samples from her city (something tha you can't deny) is already a proof of non reliability of the study. The rest is semantics.

How do you know this? As you pointed out before, they only gave information of the geographical origin of their samples. It goes without saying that in an study written purposefully about the pigmentation of NATIVE PEOPLES OF DIFFERENT AREAS the researchers will obviously TRY TO DO THEIR BEST TO USE LOCAL SAMPLES, not foreigners or tourists, otherwise what would be the point. At least that is the prevailing common sense. But you seem to think that Jablonski & Chaplin lack this common sense and then just went ahead and tested people from all over the place except where they were supposed to be from.

Then you should also not question the clusters from the EUREYE project. The researchers only picked white natives, the only exception being the cluster from Paris. Deal with it.