Pigmentation of European Hunter Gatherers

[holderlin]

I have no part in all of this silliness, but I can't ignore data.

 

[Angela]

who had the first alleles for white skin does not matter, the alleles were present long before white skin became common

what matters it to understand when, where, how and why white skin was favoured by natural selection
the same goes for LP and so many other traits

we don't have enough data yet to understand the selection

easier to understand should be LP, and even there we don't know the when, the where and the how

Indeed, but our representatives from the White Nationalist groups have difficulty dealing with that.

@Tomenable,
Stop with the straw man arguments. The theory that selection for these traits had something to do with farming was one possibility. As new data comes out, you adjust your theories. Well, you do unless your mission is to support some bizarre view of history even to the point of totally distorting the available evidence.

@Aaron 1981,

Oh please, you identify as Scots or whatever do you? Not as an American? You think you are less "American" than an Ojibway? I beg leave to doubt.

So, let me see how this works...The first group to arrive in totally uninhabited territory gets to claim nationality and everyone else is excluded. I'm afraid that leaves both R1a and R1b out, as various forms of Ydna "I" arrived first. Isn't that how it's supposed to work under your scheme? What gives you the right to decide to close the door after your own yDna haplogroup arrives?

Or are you going to tell me that R was in "Europe" before "I"? How do you know? It looks to me as if R arrived barely ahead of the farmers. Unless, of course, you're going to say that Mal'tas remains (phenotypically very "dark", by the way) were also in "Europe"? What do you do, use your crayon to draw the "Europe" line further and further east until it includes all your ancestors? Who knows, we might discover some G2 in Greece that is older than the Karelian R. What will you do then?

I suddenly had an epiphany. This is why where "R" went after the time of Mal'ta is such an emotional issue for some of you people. If, instead of staying in that area throughout the LGM, which makes no sense to me, it went south and found a refuge around the Caspian before spreading out, then it didn't spend all its time in "Europe", never mind that there was no "Europe" or "Europeans" at that time.

This is a-scientific and a-historical. Do you spout this stuff over at anthrogenica, or would you get banned? You would have gotten banned instantly at the old dna-forums, I can tell you that...

 

[Fluffy]

I am not sure if we can say R1b and R1a are true "whites" and the others not, but I would say that at minimum R1b, R1a, and I are the true Europeans. It is quite clear that G-P303 for instance originates in the Middle East, where as it is far more difficult to construct an argument that the former three did.

At what point do you get considered European? I don't know...will I ever be considered a Native American? Doubtful

Yeah they originated in the middle east like 5000 thousand years ago, since then they have been in Europe. Nice ******** though. You did that on purpose just to piss me off. You are one ignorant MF aren't you.

 

[Angela]

I realize it's difficult, but let's keep the profanity out of this, ok guys? (and believe me, I do understand)

Just consider the source. This is all, as I said, a-scientific, a-historic nonsense, and yes, Arvistro, illogical as well, as I trust you can see. (if you're reading this)

 

[Angela]

Indeed, but our representatives from the White Nationalist groups have difficulty dealing with that.

@Tomenable,
Stop with the straw man arguments. The theory that selection for these traits had something to do with farming was one possibility. As new data comes out, you adjust your theories. Well, you do unless your mission is to support some bizarre view of history even to the point of totally distorting the available evidence.

@Aaron 1981,

Oh please, you identify as Scots or whatever do you? Not as an American? You think you are less "American" than an Ojibway? I beg leave to doubt.

So, let me see how this works...The first group to arrive in totally uninhabited territory gets to claim nationality and everyone else is excluded. I'm afraid that leaves both R1a and R1b out, as various forms of Ydna "I" arrived first. Isn't that how it's supposed to work under your scheme? What gives you the right to decide to close the door after your own yDna haplogroup arrives?

Or are you going to tell me that R was in "Europe" before "I"? How do you know? It looks to me as if R arrived barely ahead of the farmers. Unless, of course, you're going to say that Mal'tas remains (phenotypically very "dark", by the way) were also in "Europe"? What do you do, use your crayon to draw the "Europe" line further and further east until it includes all your ancestors? Who knows, we might discover some G2 in Greece that is older than the Karelian R. What will you do then?

I suddenly had an epiphany. This is why where "R" went after the time of Mal'ta is such an emotional issue for some of you people. If, instead of staying in that area throughout the LGM, which makes no sense to me, it went south and found a refuge around the Caspian before spreading out, then it didn't spend all its time in "Europe", never mind that there was no "Europe" or "Europeans" at that time.

This is a-scientific and a-historical. Do you spout this stuff over at anthrogenica, or would you get banned? You would have gotten banned instantly at the old dna-forums, I can tell you that...

OMG, how could I have forgotten?! There was J1 in the EHG progenitors of the white race wasn't there???!!!! Now there's a turn around for you! Does that make all the J1 Semitic people "white" but the G2a Anatolians not??? But wait, what if the G2a person is blonde, blue eyed and fair skinned? What do you do then? What does the chancellery of racial affairs say?

Honestly, it's hard to keep track of all the twists and turns of this "logic".

For those of you who are "irony challenged", I neither expect nor WANT a response.

 

[Kristiina]

To my endless astonishment, there are people who are obsessed with the East Asian percentage of Uralics. Here are photos of two former Finnish football players. If we should describe Jari Litmanen more East Asian than Sami Hyypiä, who really cares! I would readily accept a man like him if also mental things would match.



As for white skin, I am very pale myself, and I never thought that it is something to be particularly proud of. When I was young, I desperately wanted to get sun tan. It is only on these forums that I have realized that it really is an asset.

 

[Kristiina]

And then, there is the ice hockey player Teemu Selänne. He is doing brilliantly with his Siberian genes.

 

[Angela]

To my endless astonishment, there are people who are obsessed with the East Asian percentage of Uralics. Here are photos of two former Finnish football players. If we should describe Jari Litmanen more East Asian than Sami Hyypiä, who really cares! I would readily accept a man like him if also mental things would match.

View attachment 7984 View attachment 7985

As for white skin, I am very pale myself, and I never thought that it is something to be particularly proud of. When I was young, I desperately wanted to get sun tan. It is only on these forums that I have realized that it really is an asset.

Yes, but with what kind of men??? I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole.

All three of those athletes are quite good looking, each in his own particular way. If anything, I would prefer the hockey player, all other things being equal..

I don't know why people can't leave it at that.

It's like a sickness. I can't explain it.

 

[Kristiina]

The glorification of white skin here and elsewhere is madness. As a pale-skinned person, I can say that on a white face, all red spots, capillaries and the like are clearly visible. On white legs, all veins and hair are catching the attention. A fat white body easily looks like an uncooked weisswurst. A white-skinned person easily becomes a cooked crab at the sun and must hide in the shade.

IMO, the white skin is a status symbol - often unpractical and not more beautiful than a darker skin.

It is well known that sport dancers, fitness freaks and bodybuilders use tanning creams or sunbed to look better.

This comment is off-topic, but I think that many people agree with me on this.

 

[Tomenable]

IMO, the white skin is a status symbol

But why does white skin correlate with high status? It has been shown that IQ influences status.

So why is it that light-skinned groups tend to have higher average IQ than dark-skinned groups?

Maybe it has something to do with pleiotropy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiotropy

Pleiotropy occurs when one gene influences two or more seemingly unrelated phenotypic traits. Consequently, a mutation in a pleiotropic gene may have an effect on some or all traits simultaneously. (...) Pleiotropic gene action can limit the rate of multivariate evolution when natural selection, sexual selection or artificial selection on one trait favours one specific version of the gene (allele), while selection on other traits favors a different allele. Genetic correlations and hence correlated responses to selection most often exemplify pleiotropy. (...)

Why did natural selection promote ugly white skin over beautiful dark skin, if not due to pleiotropy?

Apparently the same genes which made skin uglier also had many other - very beneficial - effects.

 

[Tomenable]

And I am not writing just about "Whites" in a narrow sense of this term.

Ashkenazi Jews and North-East Asians also tend to have very light skin.

 

[Kristiina]

I am sure that pigmentation varies according to UV exposure, nutrition and vitamin D synthesis (and maybe some sexual selection is at play) and has nothing to do with intelligence; and not even with Indo-Europeans . According to Wikipedia: people living close to the equator are highly darkly pigmented, and those living near the poles are generally very lightly pigmented. The rest of humanity shows a high degree of skin color variation between these two extremes, generally correlating with UV exposure. The main exception to this rule is in the New World, where people have only lived for about 10,000 to 15,000 years and show a less pronounced degree of skin pigmentation.

 

[berun]

This discussion about white skin is quite boring (better to open another tread), there are so many traits to take into account...

Even so if someone don't have blue eyes could not be a "true Aryan", and to make more fun about the theme, if someone don't drink as much alcohol as possible he would'nt be a real white but a bastard.



You can see clearly how white race is related to alcohol consumption (and also everybody can check out how easily is possible to provide pseudoscientific proofs).

Oh! USA is full of bastards!

 

[Angela]

The glorification of white skin here and elsewhere is madness. As a pale-skinned person, I can say that on a white face, all red spots, capillaries and the like are clearly visible. On white legs, all veins and hair are catching the attention. A fat white body easily looks like an uncooked weisswurst. A white-skinned person easily becomes a cooked crab at the sun and must hide in the shade.

IMO, the white skin is a status symbol - often unpractical and not more beautiful than a darker skin.

It is well known that sport dancers, fitness freaks and bodybuilders use tanning creams or sunbed to look better.

This comment is off-topic, but I think that many people agree with me on this.

Totally agree, Kristina. That's how most people see it. Really pale skin is totally unforgiving. It can be lovely on a baby's fresh skin, but as you get older every blemish, bruise, unwanted hair, and ounce of fat shows. (I particularly like your visual image there! How true.) Even lack of sleep or ill health shows up more, and I don't even want to get into the subject of sun damage marks. In most cases it also wrinkles and loses elasticity more easily and much earlier. Thank God those two don't seem to be true for me but all the others definitely apply. That's why I've spent a fortune on bronzers, body make-up, and spray tans.

You won't convince "white supremacists" of that, however. They inhabit an alternate universe where it means they're "superior" ubermenschen. I'm sure the women they encounter don't agree. That's probably why they drift into these groups in the first place. I would bet that sexual insecurity is the most common factor for all of these guys, that and mental health problems. I mean, look at the original Nazis...

Oh, agree, of course, with your attempt to bring science into it in your thread below, but that won't convince them either. They can't let go of this, you see, because then they'll be judged on actual accomplishments.

I'm temporarily out of the ability to award reputation points, but will rectify that later.

Now I'm going to have to move this and all the pigmentation posts to a separate thread. Some people just can't stay off the topic, and we can't let them post their nonsense unanswered, but it's not fair to those who want to discuss Lake Baikal genetics.

 

[Tomenable]

That's why I've spent a fortune on bronzers, body make-up, and spray tans.

You won't convince "white supremacists" of that, however.

Ekhm, so "white supremacists" have much thicker wallets thanks to not having to buy bronzers and spray tans... ??? :48:

If you want to convince me to spend a fortune (!) on making my skin artificially darker, then you are right: you won't.

By the way: why do all emoticons on this forum have light skin? Do we call this emoji-racism?

===================

Edit:

OK, I found two with black skin:

:burned::after_boom:

 

[Volat]

The people of Europe were sitting around scratching themselves as they huddled in their caves or yurts while civilization was starting its march in the Middle East.

Some archaeological cultures of Europe were colourful and their societies were advanced already having farming practises in Neolith. Such as Cucuteni_Tripillian culture (6000 - 3500BC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni-Trypillian_culture

Steppe dwellers had relatively advanced societies. They invented wheel and the chariot able to spread their language from northern India to western Europe. During bronze age to have chariots were probably similar as in having advanced missile technology able to carry nuclear war-heads today.

 

[Angela]

Some archaeological cultures of Europe were colourful and their societies were advanced already having farming practises in Neolith. Such as Cucuteni_Tripillian culture (6000 - 3500BC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni-Trypillian_culture

Steppe dwellers had relatively advanced societies. They invented wheel and the chariot able to spread their language from northern India to western Europe. During bronze age to have chariots were probably similar as in having advanced missile technology able to carry nuclear war-heads today.

How does that really change what I said? You want me to change it to European hunter-gatherers? OK, fine by me.

Societies like Cucuteni were practicing a culture developed in the Near East. That's where the "Neolithic" was invented, right?Contact continued even after the initial migration and with it the transfer of not only goods, but technology.

As for the steppe dwellers, it is unclear whether the wheel was invented by them or by Neolithic "Old Europe" in the Balkans or in the Near East. Use the search engine to get to the threads where all the papers are discussed.

After sifting through all the books and papers, the two de novo, unequivocal achievements of the steppe dwellers seem to be the domestication of the horse, and the invention of the spoked wheel chariot. The latter was not until 2000 BC.

I don't get what the problem is with giving proper credit to the civilizations which deserve it. As I said above, the Industrial Revolution is Great Britain's contribution, the Age of Enlightenment is a western European philosophical movement, and I could go on and on. At different periods in history the center of innovation and achievement was in different areas. In the future it might not be in Europe or even America any more. That's the way it goes. No group or area is ordained by God to be superior and the source of all knowledge.

Any Europeans who look as if they can't accept that just look stupid and childish, in my opinion. (Of course, that's not directed at you personally.)

 

[Volat]

Societies like Cucuteni were practicing a culture developed in the Near East. That's where the "Neolithic" was invented, right?Contact continued even after the initial migration and with it the transfer of not only goods, but technology.
)

The transition between hunter gatherer and agricultural lifestyles happened in different times at different part of the world. Neolithic started earlier in the middle east. Their agricultural practises may had an influence on southern European societies. In eastern Europe the transition to agricultural practices was separate from the Middle East. CT culture is a good example. Other earliest traces of agriculture were in Dnieper-Donets (5000 BC) and Narva cultures (Bronze). Corded-ware was the largest archaeological culture with agriculture. Early IE of Corded ware came from the East in north-eastern and central Europe bringing their skills and practises. In theory early IE could have contacts with people of Maykop culture that had agriculture and links to eastern Anatolia. Other than that agriculture in northern and eastern Europe developed later and seperately for the most part.

 

[Angela]

The transition between hunter gatherer and agricultural lifestyles happened in different times at different part of the world. Neolithic started earlier in the middle east. Their agricultural practises may had an influence on southern European societies. In eastern Europe the transition to agricultural practices was separate from the Middle East. CT culture is a good example. Other earliest traces of agriculture were in Dnieper-Donets (5000 BC) and Narva cultures (Bronze). Corded-ware was the largest archaeological culture with agriculture. Early IE of Corded ware came from the East in north-eastern and central Europe bringing their skills and practises. In theory early IE could have contacts with people of Maykop culture that had agriculture and links to eastern Anatolia. Other than that agriculture in northern and eastern Europe developed later and seperately for the most part.

What does "Neolithic started earlier in the Middle East", mean? Did it start independently somewhere in Europe at some other point in time? No, it didn't. Northern and Eastern and Southern Europe had nothing to do with any of it except as recipients of someone else's technology. It was invented in the Near East. So was animal domestication, and metallurgy, and irrigation, and writing. In the West Eurasian world, that's where it was invented. Why is that so difficult to accept or say?

OK, some northern areas got these advancements from intermediaries who had already been in Europe for a while. It doesn't change the fact that the advancements were made in the Near East instead of Europe. It's a distinction without a difference.

Steppe people, learned agriculture from the Neolithic communities in Old Europe, just as they got the animals for their herding, and metallurgy...well, in the case of metallurgy Bronze might also have come over the Caucasus.Even then it was for quite a while very primitive...a few fields here and there in the river valleys, a few animals, a few badly made copies of Balkan metallurgy.

You should try to get a copy of David Anthony's book.

Corded Ware technology developed from Yamnaya and from the Neolithic cultures with which it came into contact. It originated NONE OF IT.

The fact that your ancestors learned it second hand instead of first hand doesn't change who gets the "credit" for inventing it.

This is as absurd as to claim that the Japanese had something to do with the development of the Industrial Revolution because they adopted it from the west. They adopted the technology, and they've done very well with it, but they had nothing to do with inventing it. That's down to Great Britain.

 

[Yetos]

Ekhm, so "white supremacists" have much thicker wallets thanks to not having to buy bronzers and spray tans... ??? :48:

If you want to convince me to spend a fortune (!) on making my skin artificially darker, then you are right: you won't.

By the way: why do all emoticons on this forum have light skin? Do we call this emoji-racism?

===================

Edit:

OK, I found two with black skin:

:burned::after_boom:

Ha

I think he had big wallet

sometimes I wonder if he was a racist????