New study claims that Irishmen descended from Turkish farmers

[LeBrok]

vitamin d theory of light skin adaptaion to low uv to produce more vitamin d is debunked long ago

firstly light eyes and skin repel sunlight not attract it so pale skin does not produce any vitamin d

Vitamin D[SUB]3[/SUB] (cholecalciferol) is produced through the action of ultraviolet irradiation (UV) on its precursor 7-dehydrocholesterol. Human skin makes vitamin D[SUB]3[/SUB] and supplies about 90% of vitamin D.^[1]

Vitamin D[SUB]3[/SUB] is produced photochemically in the skin from 7-dehydrocholesterol. The precursor of vitamin D[SUB]3[/SUB], 7-dehydrocholesterol is produced in relatively large quantities, 10,000 to 20,000 IU of vitamin D are produced in 30 minutes of whole-body exposure, in the skin of most vertebrate animals, including humans.^[109] 7-Dehydrocholesterol reacts with UVB light at wavelengths between 270 and 300 nm, with peak synthesis occurring between 295 and 297 nm.^[110] These wavelengths are present in sunlight, as well as in the light emitted by the UV lamps in tanning beds (which produce ultraviolet primarily in the UVA spectrum, but typically produce 4% to 10% of the total UV emissions as UVB). Vitamin D[SUB]3[/SUB] can be made in the skin. Exposure to light through windows is insufficient because glass almost completely blocks UVB light

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D#cite_ref-Holick_2006_1-0
At the bottom of this wiki page you will find 162 titles of scientific papers confirming this. 162 papers!

so again adaptation theory is debunked by real science, no light skin does not produce vitamin d light skinned people have usually much lower levels of vitamin d

Please produce one scientific paper saying that skin of white people doesn't produce vitamin D3!

if light skin would produce more vitamin d these white children would not get a deficiency of vitamin d on a vegan(fishless, dairyless diet)!!! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1028854/How-strict-vegan-diet-children-ill.html

They sit in school half a day, spend time in front of computers at home and mother religiously apply sunscreen these days.

 

[vigilantexplorer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D#cite_ref-Holick_2006_1-0
At the bottom of this wiki page you will find 162 titles of scientific papers confirming this. 162 papers!


Please produce one scientific paper saying that skin of white people doesn't produce vitamin D3!


They sit in school half a day, spend time in front of computers at home and mother religiously apply sunscreen these days.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15151930

and here for those who think blue eyes are an adaptation for low uv and better night vision https://eccentricscientist.wordpress.com/2007/03/02/do-brown-eyes-see-better-than-blue/

 

[LeBrok]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15151930

Where does it say that white skin doesn't produce vitamin D? Please quote the paper.

PS. You don't want to be a liar, do you?

 

[vigilantexplorer]

Where does it say that white skin doesn't produce vitamin D? Please quote the paper.

PS. You don't want to be a liar, do you?

i realized a while ago you have problems reading buddy.. or maybe just ignoring all what does not fit into your belief system.. who knows..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15151930
The Cancer Research UK-funded team say that even with a lot of sun exposure, those with fair skin may not be able to make enough vitamin D.

white skin reflects sunlight! this is why white people on a vegan diet get rickets because they cannot produce enough vitamin d through the skin and need to eat fish. again proving white people are tyrosinase defective oca1b not adapted to low uv as many falsely claim.. otherwise we would not sell vitamin d fortified foods even in sunny california! so the only way our white ancestors could have survived was to settle in the cold north regions of the world because sunlight damages our skin, brings cancers, destroys folic acid and sperm which leads to degenerative births and other health issues.. since the british settled in australia they have lot of skin cancer issues

unless you have melanin in your skin you cannot produce enough vitamin d because melanin absorbs and converts sunlight into vitamin d which cannot happen when you are fair skinned because you lack melanin and tyrosinase to convert sunlight into vitamin d = oca1b

 

[LeBrok]

i realized a while ago you have problems reading buddy.. or maybe just ignoring all what does not fit into your belief system.. who knows..



white skin reflects sunlight! this is why white people on a vegan diet get rickets because they cannot produce enough vitamin d through the skin and need to eat fish. again proving white people are tyrosinase defective oca1b not adapted to low uv as many falsely claim.. otherwise we would not sell vitamin d fortified foods even in sunny california! so the only way our white ancestors could have survived was to settle in the cold north regions of the world because sunlight damages our skin, brings cancers, destroys folic acid and sperm which leads to degenerative births and other health issues.. since the british settled in australia they have lot of skin cancer issues

unless you have melanin in your skin you cannot produce enough vitamin d because melanin absorbs and converts sunlight into vitamin d which cannot happen when you are fair skinned because you lack melanin and tyrosinase to convert sunlight into vitamin d = oca1b

You said this:

firstly light eyes and skin repel sunlight not attract it so pale skin does not produce any vitamin d

Now you can't find even one scientific paper confirming your statement?
On contrary, I pointed you to 162 scientific papers saying otherwise. You look like a liar.

unless you have melanin in your skin you cannot produce enough vitamin d because melanin absorbs and converts sunlight into vitamin d

Before you open your mouth you should educat yourself. Melanin doesn't produce vitamin D, it only plays protectiver role:

Melanin ⁱ/ˈmɛlənɪn/ (Greek: μέλας - melas, "black, dark") is a broad term for a group of natural pigments found in most organisms (arachnids are one of the few groups in which it has not been detected). Melanin is produced by the oxidation of the amino acid tyrosine, followed by polymerization. The pigment is produced in a specialized group of cells known as melanocytes.
There are three basic types of melanin: eumelanin, pheomelanin, and neuromelanin. The most common type is eumelanin, and is produced in 'black' and 'brown' subtypes. Pheomelanin is a cysteine-containing red-brown polymer of benzothiazine units largely responsible for red hair and freckles. Neuromelanin is found in the brain, though its function remains obscure.
In the skin, melanogenesis occurs after exposure to UV radiation, causing the skin to visibly tan. Melanin is an effective absorber of light; the pigment is able to dissipate over 99.9% of absorbed UV radiation.^[1] Because of this property, melanin is thought to protect skin cells from UVB radiation damage, reducing the risk of cancer. Furthermore, though exposure to UV radiation is associated with increased risk of malignant melanoma, a cancer of the melanocytes, studies have shown a lower incidence for skin cancer in individuals with more concentrated melanin, i.e. darker skin tone. Nonetheless, the relationship between skin pigmentation and photoprotection is still being clarified.^[2]

With humans, exposure to sunlight stimulates the skin to produce vitamin D. Because high levels of cutaneous melanin act as a natural sun screen, dark skin can be a risk factor for vitamin D deficiency in regions of the Earth known as cool temperate zones, i.e., above 36 degrees latitude in the Northern hemisphere and below 36 degrees in the Southern hemisphere. As a result of this, health authorities in Canada and the USA have issued recommendations for people with darker complexions (including people of southern European descent) to consume between 1000-2000 IU (International Units) of vitamin D, daily, autumn through spring

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin

Now, let's learn what produces Vitamin D:

[h=4]Synthesis in the skin[edit][/h]Depending on the intensity of UVB rays and the minutes of exposure, an equilibrium can develop in the skin, and vitamin D degrades as fast as it is generated.^[67]Vitamin D[SUB]3[/SUB] is produced photochemically in the skin from 7-dehydrocholesterol. The precursor of vitamin D[SUB]3[/SUB], 7-dehydrocholesterol is produced in relatively large quantities, 10,000 to 20,000 IU of vitamin D are produced in 30 minutes of whole-body exposure, in the skin of most vertebrate animals, including humans.^[109] 7-Dehydrocholesterol reacts with UVB light at wavelengths between 270 and 300 nm, with peak synthesis occurring between 295 and 297 nm.^[110] These wavelengths are present in sunlight, as well as in the light emitted by the UV lamps in tanning beds (which produce ultraviolet primarily in the UVA spectrum, but typically produce 4% to 10% of the total UV emissions as UVB). Vitamin D[SUB]3[/SUB] can be made in the skin. Exposure to light through windows is insufficient because glass almost completely blocks UVB light.^[111][112]
The skin consists of two primary layers: the inner layer called the dermis, composed largely of connective tissue, and the outer, thinner epidermis. Thick epidermis in the soles and palms consists of five strata; from outer to inner, they are: the stratum corneum, stratum lucidum, stratum granulosum, stratum spinosum, and stratum basale. Vitamin D is produced in the two innermost strata, the stratum basale and stratum spinosum.
The naked mole-rat appears to be naturally cholecalciferol-deficient, as serum 25-OH vitamin D levels are undetectable.^[113] In some animals, the presence of fur or feathers blocks the UV rays from reaching the skin. In birds and fur-bearing mammals, vitamin D is generated from the oily secretions of the skin deposited onto the feathers or fur and is obtained orally during grooming

As you see, melanin doesn't produces Vitamin D, as you wrongly stadey. The only function of melanin to protect skin against UV radiation. The more melanin, the lesser vitamin D3 production.
It is supported by 162 scientific papers.


I hope you can comprehend it finally.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Out of Afrika theory is just a pure nonsense.
When such a nonsense is supported with wrong interpreted arguments,no wonder that we can see also the theory that most Irish and British males are descending from Anatolia.
In fact,while West and East European languages are of Indian/Pakistan/Afghanistan origins,I think most genetics is from Finnic people,at Germanics people,because Germanics speakers assimilated Finnic people and next,they moved to Great Britain - the Angles and the Saxons.But most of the genetics,is not from these Germanic people.So here,from Germanics,no trace of Anatolian people.
Sure,the Celts came and assimilated the population in Great Britain which as most of their genetics,no idea from where they came,but from a very rainy and lacked of sun area,look at their very white skin,most people from Great Britain,they have very few sun tolerance compared to average German or Scandinavian.Also doubt that Celts came from Anatolia,never seen that they were farmers.So we have Celtic people,which came and assimilated native people from Britain and after that,Germanic people.
Areas with lots of rain are very good for raising cows so is quite obvious that most people from Great Britain,are not from Anatolia.
Geramnics also have high lactose tolerance and we can guess it was same at Celts.
Now I do not recall that Celts or Germans came from Anatolia,and according to lactose tolerance and white skin,neither the people that were in Great Britain before Celts came,are from Anatolia.
If we take a look in Basque country,there the raising of cows is also traditional,but in Anatolia,it was not.
So this theory with most British people being of Anatolian origin is just pure nonsense.
No logic behind it,just some people said that ,because they consider this,R1b-L21 is from Anatolia.
Nonsense,as already said.
Just another thing,wonder from where red hair originated,well besides Irish,Welsh and Scottish people,who had lots of red hair,there is also an Ugric tribe,living in Russia,which has lots of red hair.
So a more good theory is that Celts were living near Eastern Slavs and moved from there,towards West Europe.In Celtic languages can be found words from Slavic,just as a curiosity.

 

[Melancon]

Out of Afrika theory is just a pure nonsense.
When such a nonsense is supported with wrong interpreted arguments,no wonder that we can see also the theory that most Irish and British males are descending from Anatolia.
In fact,while West and East European languages are of Indian/Pakistan/Afghanistan origins,I think most genetics is from Finnic people,at Germanics people,because Germanics speakers assimilated Finnic people and next,they moved to Great Britain - the Angles and the Saxons.But most of the genetics,is not from these Germanic people.So here,from Germanics,no trace of Anatolian people.
Sure,the Celts came and assimilated the population in Great Britain which as most of their genetics,no idea from where they came,but from a very rainy and lacked of sun area,look at their very white skin,most people from Great Britain,they have very few sun tolerance compared to average German or Scandinavian.Also doubt that Celts came from Anatolia,never seen that they were farmers.So we have Celtic people,which came and assimilated native people from Britain and after that,Germanic people.
Areas with lots of rain are very good for raising cows so is quite obvious that most people from Great Britain,are not from Anatolia.
Geramnics also have high lactose tolerance and we can guess it was same at Celts.
Now I do not recall that Celts or Germans came from Anatolia,and according to lactose tolerance and white skin,neither the people that were in Great Britain before Celts came,are from Anatolia.
If we take a look in Basque country,there the raising of cows is also traditional,but in Anatolia,it was not.
So this theory with most British people being of Anatolian origin is just pure nonsense.
No logic behind it,just some people said that ,because they consider this,R1b-L21 is from Anatolia.
Nonsense,as already said.
Just another thing,wonder from where red hair originated,well besides Irish,Welsh and Scottish people,who had lots of red hair,there is also an Ugric tribe,living in Russia,which has lots of red hair.
So a more good theory is that Celts were living near Eastern Slavs and moved from there,towards West Europe.In Celtic languages can be found words from Slavic,just as a curiosity.

It is obvious that we are all related to each other. (races) But I do agree that the current (working) theory of Out of Africa isn't good and contradictory to me.

I would assume that the Udmurts may have originally been R1b people; related to the pre-Celts, long before being decimated by N1c people. It seems the Kunda/Combed ware culture and the Yamna culture had a cross-roads/mixture of sorts.

I believe that the Hungarians are the descendents of Sarmatians that were mixed and brought to a Uralic speaking population. They dropped their Indo-European language and gradually migrated into Central Europe.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

It's possible that the earliest kind of wheat may have been affected by moisture problems, but the archeological evidence nevertheless suggests that it was a common crop that helped boost the population during the Neolithic. And barley, peas and flax would have flourished. Widespread lactase persistence seems to have developed later.

As for potatoes, they seem to have been introduced to western Ireland by Spanish cod fishermen in the late 1500s, and were a boon to the Irish population, who had been driven off most of the land by English colonists. However, there were massive potato crop failures from 1845 to 1851, and millions of Irish starved to death or were forced to immigrate while English landlords continued to export meat and grain. If you want to learn something about Irish history, pick an author who isn't English.

I know the history.

The Atlantic coast wasn't suitable for neolithic crop farming - for whatever reason - hence the Atlantic Megalith culture mostly relying on fishing and that big gap along hte western edge of the range of the LBK culture. (I'm just assuming it was wind and rain as the unsuitability spread all the way down the Atlantic coast.) It seems to me this lack of suitability will be a critical factor in the history of what happened so shouldn't be ignored because of a contemporary political argument.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

Nobody is saying that Anatolians got into boats and sailed directly to Ireland. But there's plenty of evidence that the ancestors of early European farmers moved through Anatolia and the Balkans on their way to western Europe, and I believe some also migrated along the Mediterranean and Atlantic over the course of many generations.

I think that's what the journalists are saying and what most people reading it would think they meant. I agree with the rest though.

edit: also agree it's not worth getting too het up over what journalists say

 

[Greying Wanderer]

vitamin d theory of light skin adaptaion to low uv to produce more vitamin d is debunked long ago

firstly light eyes and skin repel sunlight not attract it so pale skin does not produce any vitamin d

if light skin would produce more vitamin d these white children would not get a deficiency of vitamin d on a vegan(fishless, dairyless diet)!!! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1028854/How-strict-vegan-diet-children-ill.html

so again adaptation theory is debunked by real science, no light skin does not produce vitamin d light skinned people have usually much lower levels of vitamin d

oca2 is the only responsible for blue eyes blondism and fair skin it for sure never was an adaptation at all.

also brown eyes have better night vision this is why most nocturnal animals have dark eyes! there is even a study which confirmed blue eyes have no advantage in nightvision, you can google it! again all points to oca1b / oca2

If there were multiple adaptations for lighter skin among separate populations - say a NW one, a NE one and a southern farmer one - and all those adaptations worked fine separately it doesn't mean they would all work together.

 

[Aberdeen]

I know the history.

The Atlantic coast wasn't suitable for neolithic crop farming - for whatever reason - hence the Atlantic Megalith culture mostly relying on fishing and that big gap along hte western edge of the range of the LBK culture. (I'm just assuming it was wind and rain as the unsuitability spread all the way down the Atlantic coast.) It seems to me this lack of suitability will be a critical factor in the history of what happened so shouldn't be ignored because of a contemporary political argument.

The fishing and gathering culture of Mesolithic Ireland was a fishing and gathering culture that didn't rely on agriculture not because agriculture would have been impossible in Ireland during that period but because it had a Mesolithic culture that hadn't yet discovered farming. By about 6000 years ago, farmers were starting to displace the previous fishing and gathering culture, but the earliest evidence for livestock does not predate the earliest evidence for the cultivation of wheat and barley. In the early Neolithic, crops and livestock went together. A good source of information about the Irish Neolithic is "Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland" by Gabriel Cooney (ISBN 9780415169776).

I only mentioned potatoes in the context of discussing population crashes. You're the one who wanted to discuss the positive aspects of Irish potatoes. I was just reminding you that the reality was far more complex.

 

[vigilantexplorer]

You said this:

Now you can't find even one scientific paper confirming your statement?
On contrary, I pointed you to 162 scientific papers saying otherwise. You look like a liar.


Before you open your mouth you should educat yourself. Melanin doesn't produce vitamin D, it only plays protectiver role:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin

Now, let's learn what produces Vitamin D:


As you see, melanin doesn't produces Vitamin D, as you wrongly stadey. The only function of melanin to protect skin against UV radiation. The more melanin, the lesser vitamin D3 production.
It is supported by 162 scientific papers.


I hope you can comprehend it finally.

Now you can't find even one scientific paper confirming your statement?
On contrary, I pointed you to 162 scientific papers saying otherwise. You look like a liar.

none of us is lying we both have half truths with our theories, this article puts all nicely together..

in sunlight? We already know that sunlight exposure can reduce the risk of over 30 diseases, and that its primary metabolite in our skin, vitamin D, may reduce the risk of over 150 additional conditions. Our biological connection to, and dependence on, the sun, is so profound that the very variation in human skin color from African, melanin-saturated dark skin, to the relatively melanin de-pigmented, Caucasian lighter-skin, is a byproduct of the offspring of our last common ancestor from Africa (as determined by mitochondrial DNA) migrating towards sunlight-impoverished higher latitudes, which began approximately 60,000 years ago. In order to compensate for the lower availability of sunlight, the body rapidly adjusted, essentially requiring the removal of the natural "sunscreen" melanin from the skin, which interferes with vitamin D production; vitamin D, of course, is involved in the regulation of over 2,000 genes, and therefore is more like a hormone, without which our entire genetic infrastructure becomes destabilized.

While a life-saving adaptation, the loss of melanin likely has adverse health effects, which include losing the ability to convert sunlight into metabolic energy, increased prevalence of Parkinson's disease (which involves de-melanization of the substantia nigra and disproportionately affects those of Caucasian descent), and others effects which have yet been investigated in any detail. For now, it is important to point out that within the span of only 60,000 years (a nanosecond in biological time), many of the skin "color" differences among the world's human inhabitants reflect how heavily genetically-conserved was the ability of the human body to produce vitamin D. Furthermore, the trade-off involved in maintaining the ability create enough vitamin D within a sunlight-deprived clime by sacrificing melanin may have had adverse health effects that are only now being investigated.http://www.sott.net/article/243195-Is-Skin-Pigment-Melanin-A-Light-Harvesting-Substance

Melanin is capable of transforming ultraviolet light energy into heat in a process known as "ultrafast internal conversion"; more than 99.9% of the absorbed UV radiation is transformed from potentially genotoxic (DNA-damaging) ultraviolet light into harmless heat.

this is what i meant when i said polar bears eskimos inuits heat up their bodies through melanin..

so in a sense both of us were right you with your adaptation theory and i with my oca1b theory about how low melanin levels lead to serious health problems and the thermal advantage of melanin in colder climate..

 

[MOESAN]

Peace then? it's true, Christmas os coming on! (humor)

equilibrium between diverse adaptative traits are very subtil in some climatic environment, not straight-away results, not everytime -
that said, the most advantaged people are not the allways dark skinned ones but the ones who can change colour according to needs and environment:
finally, most of Europeans and slightly brown skinned people are not too disadvantaged, because they are basically fair enough under weak sun action and can tan easily enough (with some time) when sun action tends to be stronger...

 

[Harutyan Jort]

Turkey? I think Anatolia is the name for that place back to few thousand years ago

 

[RobertColumbia]

i dont need one. cause any man with knowledge in genetics should know the irsh are dominated by haplogroup R as well as the indians (UNDENIABLE)....

This is correct, and is most likely a significant contributor to the fact that Ireland and much of India speak Indo-European languages. The so-called "Aryan Invasion" theory of India, which may have brought Sanskrit and/or other IE languages to India, actually fits in reasonably well with a similar IE invasion of Ireland that brought R lineages and Celtic languages.

What this doesn't tell us, however, is where these R men came from. The greatest diversity in R seems to cluster in West Asia and Anatolia, leading to the hypothesis (but not proof) that these men probably spread from there. By contrast, Ireland (for example) is dominated by certain rather specific subclades (a big one being L21 and its own subclades, one of which I belong to), and lacks the diversity found in most other places. This leads to a likelihood that the R-men of Ireland are paternally descended from only a small subset of the original "R" population.

 

[RobertColumbia]

Peace then? it's true, Christmas os coming on! (humor)

equilibrium between diverse adaptative traits are very subtil in some climatic environment, not straight-away results, not everytime -
that said, the most advantaged people are not the allways dark skinned ones but the ones who can change colour according to needs and environment:
finally, most of Europeans and slightly brown skinned people are not too disadvantaged, because they are basically fair enough under weak sun action and can tan easily enough (with some time) when sun action tends to be stronger...

Europeans are also quite adaptable. Why would Europeans ever try to live in Florida, and stay there for multiple generations? Florida gets as much sun as Egypt. Why didn't all the Europeans die from sunburn?

 

[LeBrok]

Europeans are also quite adaptable. Why would Europeans ever try to live in Florida, and stay there for multiple generations? Florida gets as much sun as Egypt. Why didn't all the Europeans die from sunburn?

Cloths, hats and sunscreen these days. If they lived naked like some tribes in Africa and Amazon Jungle you would see that the whitest ones would experience high mortality due to skin cancer. Australia is top example of highest skin cancer of people of European descent. Having said that, clothing is an adaptation component, though not necessarily invented by Europeans.

 

[RobertColumbia]

Cloths, hats and sunscreen these days. If they lived naked like some tribes in Africa and Amazon Jungle you would see that the whitest ones would experience high mortality due to skin cancer. Australia is top example of highest skin cancer of people of European descent. Having said that, clothing is an adaptation component, though not necessarily invented by Europeans.

Of course. This just goes to show that genetics aren't the only thing affecting adaptability to climate. Culture and technology also play important roles.

 

[RobertColumbia]

...
As for the influence of sexual selection, that has always seemed problematic to me because it is so subject to changes in culture. Obviously, if a group rises to power which carries a certain phenotype, that phenotype might and probably will become preferred and there will be sexual selection for it....

Of course. This is sometimes given as a potential reason for the modern commonality of y-haplogroup R1b-M222 in historically Gaelic speaking areas, as it is hypothesized to be (but cannot be proven to be) the haplotype of the Uí Néill and related ruling dynasties. It's interesting to speculate whether a medieval grandmother of mine may have intentionally gone on a quest to claim her own Irish Prince (or at least someone related to a prince), resulting in her sons passing along R1b-M222 to their own sons.

Also, speaking of male attractiveness, why is it that Celtic men are significantly over represented in romance novels, at least the romance novels that are popular in the USA? Do many women have an innate desire for them or is it more of a cultural thing?

 

[João Resende]

Concerning Ireland, there's a new interesting study: [h=1]Ancient DNA sheds light on Irish origins[/h]By Paul Rincon Science editor, BBC News website


«The work shows that early Irish farmers were similar to southern Europeans.

Genetic patterns then changed dramatically in the Bronze Age - as newcomers from the eastern periphery of Europe settled in the Atlantic region.»

«DNA analysis of the Neolithic woman from Ballynahatty, near Belfast, reveals that she was most similar to modern people from Spain and Sardinia. But her ancestors ultimately came to Europe from the Middle East, where agriculture was invented.

The males from Rathlin Island, who lived not long after metallurgy was introduced, showed a different pattern to the Neolithic woman. A third of their ancestry came from ancient sources in the Pontic Steppe - a region now spread across Russia and Ukraine.»