Melancon...this is not a coherent argument.
You said that R1b V88 moved into Africa while they were still "Negroid". The R1b V88 that "remained" became paler...
Melancon: These R1b-V88 men to me, were absolutely Negroids.
The R1b-V88 men that stayed in the Levant during the Mesolithic/Neolithic developed fair-skin.
That's why I asked you to
prove that R1b V88 was old enough to have moved into SSA
before the Mesolithic/Neolithic.
You then respond with
this?
Melancon:
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...A.shtml#Africa
"Like its northern counterpart (R1b-M269), R1b-V88 is associated with the domestication of cattle in northern Mesopotamia. Both branches of R1b probably split soon after cattle were domesticated, approximately 10,500 years ago (8,500 BCE). R1b-V88 migrated south towards the Levant and Egypt. The migration of R1b people can be followed archeologically through the presence of domesticated cattle, which appear in central Syria around 8,000-7,500 BCE (late Mureybet period), then in the Southern Levant and Egypt around 7,000-6,500 BCE (e.g. at Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba). Cattle herders subsequently spread across most of northern and eastern Africa. The Sahara desert would have been more humid during the Neolithic Subpluvial period (c. 7250-3250 BCE), and would have been a vast savannah full of grass, an ideal environment for cattle herding."
My whole point was that if R1b V88 moved into SSA in the Neolithic or later, it's
highly unlikely that they would have been "Negroid" in phenotype, by which I assume you mean SSA looking.
Melancon:Uh, no? You do realize that the Australian Aboriginals and the Dravidian people of India have been there since before the first Ice Age? Yet they are still Negroid people. Negroids are not a modern people...they've been around for tens of thousands of years. Probably around 30,000-50,000 years old.
As has already been pointed out to you, they're "Australoid" not "Negroid". You're obviously using "Negroid" when you mean SSA. Plus, human beings alive today show adaptations to their environment. People living in SSA have dark skin because they
need it in that environment. (People in Australia needed it too. Even with clothing, and sunscreens, and lives spent mostly indoors, European descended Australians have terrible stats for skin cancers of the deadly kind.) In fact, there are studies that show that there has been selection for darker pigment in many parts of Africa. I would post the studies but you don't seem to read them.
That's how evolution works. Mutations occur randomly. Many are deleterious. However, some are beneficial. People carrying beneficial mutations, and their descendents, have a better shot at surviving for longer and passing on more of their genes. Eventually, a population might develop that is "fixed" for certain traits. That's what happened with pigmentation. A dark brown skin is not optimal in northern latitudes. A nose adapted for the tropics isn't beneficial in dry climates. This isn't magic or phenotypes ordained by God.
Melancon: If the original R1b-V88 men were looking like Levantine people; then wouldn't the Africans with R1b have lighter skin than they already have? And yet; the Ouldeme people (highest tribe of SSA with R1b-V88 frequency) have extremely dark skin:
Why is it so difficult to understand that it all depends on the relative numbers of each group? I already explained this in the context of Latin America. Please re-read that post.
I'm going to give it one more try. Let's say that man (W) marries woman (B). However, in each succeeding generation, because there are no, or very few W's around, his descendents all marry with (B) people. So it goes 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, 1/128, 1/256 etc. How "White" do you think a person would look who was only .00390625 "White"? Now, it was obviously more than one man, but the tribe would have been surrounded by a sea of people with SSA phenotypes. The minority phenotype would disappear.
It works the other way around as well. How do you think African Americans "passed" into white society? They "passed" because they had enough "white" ancestry that the "black" ancestry no longer showed.
Soledad O'Brien's parents with her as a baby. Her mother was admixed herself:
Soledad O'Brien with her children. If her children marry white people, how "black" are her grandchildren going to look?
This is just arithmetic and elementary genetics. I don't know how to explain it any better.