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

[Drac II]

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

Perhaps you should actually show how they measured the eye pigmentation of all the samples and correlated it with frequencies of those SNPs. Where is the study where this was done? Until then, these "predictions" sound like speculation, nothing else.

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.

And the problem is...? I see, that you can't accept actual empirical results, just because you imagine they should be very different. Plus you also left out the higher value found among the Japanese, or the lowest values among Indians, and so. Did you expect that all these peoples should be of one uniform pigmentation through and through?

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.

More like such "arguments" are flimsy and speculative at best. Once again, where is the proof of any of this?

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.

If they did not bother to screen out non-natives in one sample, it is obviously not impossible at all that they might have done the same with other samples. Hardly trustworthy. Deal with it.

 

[Nobody1]

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

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;

 

[Knovas]

Now match it with the fact that both Louschbour (WHG) and Stuttgart (EEF) were C/C at rs16891982. Similar to most of your beloved Mozabites and other "Moors".

Page 88; Table S8.1: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf

Thanks for exposing even more your "honest" intentions. Smile for the camera

 

[Nobody1]

Now match it with the fact that both Louschbour (WHG) and Stuttgart (EEF) were C/C at rs16891982. Similar to most of your beloved Mozabites and other "Moors".

Page 88; Table S8.1: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf

Thanks for exposing even more your "honest" intentions. Smile for the camera

Well known fact;
But what does any of that have to do with the Spanish and their fellow Mozabites; If anything that is a direct connection between the Sardinians (68-85% SLC45A2/rs16891982 G/G) and Neolithic Stuttgart (you do know that Sradinians and Nelithic Europeans are closest to each other? unlike the Spanish); And i am just pointing out whats in the studies no need to get too emotional chico; That you rather like the distorted versions from DracII (that are always the most "helpful" for you) is not my problem;

PS: Mind your language;

 

[Knovas]

It doesn't surprise me at all that a person who thinks that Iberians are so incredibly African, isn't able to see the connection when it comes to some genes proven to be very old in Europe. Because in your logic, of course, Iberians are descended from "everything" except WHG and/or EEF (makes a lot of sense, sure xD).

You're just pointing out your own agenda, so definitely not my problem if there is one, don't worry. By the way, well exposed again

 

[Nobody1]

It doesn't surprise me at all that a person who thinks that Iberians are so incredibly African, isn't able to see the connection when it comes to some genes proven to be very old in Europe. Because in your logic, of course, Iberians are descended from "everything" except WHG and/or EEF (makes a lot of sense, sure xD).

I dont;

You're just pointing out your own agenda, so definitely not my problem if there is one, don't worry. By the way, well exposed again

If we have no problems than why were you insulting me?
But no probs. there either i forgive you;

 

[Knovas]

My argument was pretty clear and I never insulted you. If you are refering to the picture, most people knows that it doesn't literally mean what it says. True insults have been wrote today by your other pal, but that is not of my business.

Game over. Enjoy the weekend.

 

[Nobody1]

My argument was pretty clear and I never insulted you. If you are refering to the picture, most people knows that it doesn't literally mean what it says. True insults have been wrote today by your other pal, but that is not of my business.

Game over. Enjoy the weekend.

My other pal?
Well that says it all; You and DracII can enjoy the rest of your twisted and paranoid accusations and make sure you expose as much nonsense that suits your agendas; Truly Game Over;

 

[Aristocephalic]

How much effect does this whitening allele actually have?

 

[Drac II]

Now match it with the fact that both Louschbour (WHG) and Stuttgart (EEF) were C/C at rs16891982. Similar to most of your beloved Mozabites and other "Moors".

Page 88; Table S8.1: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf

Thanks for exposing even more your "honest" intentions. Smile for the camera

This "nobody1" fellow apparently still thinks that he is fooling someone with all his ridiculous manipulations.

 

[Aristocephalic]

Now match it with the fact that both Louschbour (WHG) and Stuttgart (EEF) were C/C at rs16891982. Similar to most of your beloved Mozabites and other "Moors".

Page 88; Table S8.1:

Thanks for exposing even more your "honest" intentions. Smile for the camera

But would you need a whitening allele to become white, if you don't have any specific darkening genes?

 

[Drac II]

How much effect does this whitening allele actually have?

You can pretty much tell how unreliable such single SNPs are at "predicting" actual observable pigmentation by looking at what happened in the Candille et al. 2012 study, where the Portuguese scored lower on one of these SNPs allegedly affecting skin pigmentation than Italians yet when the pigmentation was actually measured by skin reflectance they actually were lighter. See post #38 of this thread, a reply to one of the resident anti-Iberians here who was trying to use it taken straight from that study without realizing that it actually conflicted with the observed results.

 

[Nobody1]

How much effect does this whitening allele actually have?

Judging by the studies alot;
The 2 major lightening alleles are SLC45A2/rs16891982 G/G and SLC24A5/Rs1426654 A/A; Both (in combo as G/G & A/A) are the standard in Europe (apart from Spain and Portugal) - and i wouldnt listen too much to DracII because (as displayed in this thread) he doesnt seem to know much about any of it that is why he thinks the studies are all 'predictions' and 'hocus-pocus' they are not they are results from samples tested for it (with an academic method); DracII still believes that Tanning levels of UV radiation (tested on the inner upper arm) as with Candille 2012 are the bench mark where as Candille 2012 also showed that the basal-skin tone (not corrupted by any tanning) is reflected in Genetics;

Candille et al 2012-
The frequency of the rs183671 derived allele increases from Southern to Northern Europe: it is 88%, 89%, 98%, and 97% in the Portuguese, Italian, Polish, and Irish cohorts, respectively. We found that this SNP shows some evidence of association with skin pigmentation (p = 6×10⁻⁴, n = 289), and that each copy of the derived allele lightens the skin by 1.2 M index units,

rs183671 allele
88% Portuguese (from the North)
89% Italians (from Rome)
97% Irish
98% Polish

 

[Drac II]

Judging by the studies alot;
The 2 major lightening alleles are SLC45A2/rs16891982 G/G and SLC24A5/Rs1426654 A/A; Both are the standard (G/G - A/A) in Europe (apart from Spain and Portugal) - and i wouldnt listen too much to DracII because (as displayed in this thread) he doesnt seem to know much about any of it that is why he thinks the studies are all 'predictions' and 'hocus-pocus' they are not they are resul;ts from samples tested (with an academic method); DracII still believes that Tanning levels of UV radiation (tested on the inner upper arm) as with Candille 2012 are the bench mark where as Candille 2012 also showed that the basal-skin (not corrupted by tanning) is reflected in Genetics;

Candille et al 2012-
The frequency of the rs183671 derived allele increases from Southern to Northern Europe: it is 88%, 89%, 98%, and 97% in the Portuguese, Italian, Polish, and Irish cohorts, respectively. We found that this SNP shows some evidence of association with skin pigmentation (p = 6×10⁻⁴, n = 289), and that each copy of the derived allele lightens the skin by 1.2 M index units,

rs183671 allele
88% Portuguese (from the North)
89% Italians (from Rome)
97% Irish
98% Polish

This hilarious blunder of yours was already pointed out in post #38 of this thread, so by all means keep on repeating it and shooting yourself in the foot. When the samples were actually measured for skin reflectance the Portuguese were lighter skinned than the Italians. Now let's see you desperately try to use the "tanning" excuse by misquoting the text again, only so that I can shoot it down again by pointing out what that quote really is plainly saying. I am waiting.

 

[Aristocephalic]

You can pretty much tell how unreliable such single SNPs are at "predicting" actual observable pigmentation by looking at what happened in the Candille et al. 2012 study, where the Portuguese scored lower on one of these SNPs allegedly affecting skin pigmentation than Italians yet when the pigmentation was actually measured by skin reflectance they actually were lighter. See post #38 of this thread, a reply to one of the resident anti-Iberians here who was trying to use it taken straight from that study without realizing that it actually conflicted with the observed results.

I see. That is what I suspected.

So this is not even fixed in european populations? I guess it is not much to get excited about, then.

 

[Nobody1]

This hilarious blunder of yours was already pointed out in post #38 of this thread, so by all means keep on repeating it and shooting yourself in the foot. When the samples were actually measured for skin reflectance the Portuguese were lighter skinned than the Italians. Now let's see you desperately try to use the "tanning" excuse by misquoting the text again, only so that I can shoot it down again by pointing out what that quote really is plainly saying. I am waiting.

Pointed out by you i.e. a person that has no clue and manipulates and distorts scientific data as 'predictions' and 'prophesies'; It does not get any more ridiculous than the nonsense you presented in this thread; And Candille clearly states that the values you repeat are based on UV radiation and tested on the inner-upper arm i.e. tanning levels;

And Rindermann (post#40) used the same UV radiation method and the Portuguese and Spaniards were the darkest; Tanning levels are not as stable as the Genetic results;

 

[Aristocephalic]

Judging by the studies alot;
The 2 major lightening alleles are SLC45A2/rs16891982 G/G and SLC24A5/Rs1426654 A/A; Both (in combo as G/G & A/A) are the standard in Europe (apart from Spain and Portugal) - and i wouldnt listen too much to DracII because (as displayed in this thread) he doesnt seem to know much about any of it that is why he thinks the studies are all 'predictions' and 'hocus-pocus' they are not they are results from samples tested for it (with an academic method); DracII still believes that Tanning levels of UV radiation (tested on the inner upper arm) as with Candille 2012 are the bench mark where as Candille 2012 also showed that the basal-skin tone (not corrupted by any tanning) is reflected in Genetics;

Candille et al 2012-
The frequency of the rs183671 derived allele increases from Southern to Northern Europe: it is 88%, 89%, 98%, and 97% in the Portuguese, Italian, Polish, and Irish cohorts, respectively. We found that this SNP shows some evidence of association with skin pigmentation (p = 6×10⁻⁴, n = 289), and that each copy of the derived allele lightens the skin by 1.2 M index units,

rs183671 allele
88% Portuguese (from the North)
89% Italians (from Rome)
97% Irish
98% Polish

But is there any study looking at how much it actually changes it? Are Irish people without it much darker? I mean there's really not any dark irish people, though maybe that 2% are not really irish.

 

[Nobody1]

But is there any study looking at how much it actually changes it? Are Irish people without it much darker? I mean there's really not any dark irish people, though maybe that 2% are not really irish.

Which Irish people are you referring to;
I guess one would have to compare and Irish that is OCA2/Rs12913832 G/G, SLC45A2/rs16891982 G/G and SLC24A5/Rs1426654 A/A with an Irish that lacks those genotypes in order to see the diffs.; Or with an average Spaniard (that usually lacks those already) and the result is thus already clear;

Norton et al 2006 is good study in which Indo-Asian pops. (India/Pakistan/Afghanistan) are all overwhelmingly SLC24A5/Rs1426654 A/A but majority wise lack SLC45A2/rs16891982 G/G which is why a darker skin-tone compared to West Eurasia which majority wise also has SLC45A2/rs16891982 G/G;

 

[Drac II]

Pointed out by you i.e. a person that has no clue and manipulates and distorts scientific data as 'predictions' and 'prophesies'; It does not get any more ridiculous than the nonsense you presented in this thread; And Candille clearly states that the values you repeat are based on UV radiation and tested on the inner-upper arm i.e. tanning levels;

Says the funny guy who can't even understand a plain English quote that implies that measurements were taken from unexposed parts of the body precisely to avoid the effects of tanning. Priceless. Keep on repeating the same blunder over and over. It seems you never learn from your mistakes.

And Rindermann (post#40) used the same UV radiation method and the Portuguese and Spaniards were the darkest; Tanning levels are not as stable as the Genetic results;

Darkest? According to that table Romanians, Russians, Croatians & Yugoslavians are darker than both Spaniards and Italians.

 

[Drac II]

I see. That is what I suspected.

So this is not even fixed in european populations? I guess it is not much to get excited about, then.

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.