R-V88 Among Europeans

Dravidians and native Australians aren't negroid, they're Australoid. Dark skin doesn't equal negroid, that term describes a set of craniometric and facial features. And what does that have to do with V88 in any case? You're confused.
AHAHAHAHAHA. Are you joking?

I am not confused in the slightest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)

Where does it claim that there is an Australoid subrace? No where. Even Melanesians are categorized as Negroids.

And, I had never claimed that R1b-V88 had anything to do with Australian Aboriginals or Dravidian peoples ... *eye roll* please read it again...
 
No, I'm definitely not joking.

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

"They were described as having dark skin with wavy hair, in the case of the Veddoid race of South Asia (including the eponymous Vedda people indigenous to Sri Lanka) and Aboriginal Australians, or hair ranging from straight to kinky in the case of the Melanesian group."
 
No, I'm definitely not joking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australoid_race "They were described as having dark skin with wavy hair, in the case of the Veddoid race of South Asia (including the eponymous Vedda people indigenous to Sri Lanka) and Aboriginal Australians, or hair ranging from straight to kinky in the case of the Melanesian group."
You must be joking; because on the map; Melanesians and Australian Aboriginals are classified as Negroids dummy.

And on that last map; the Dravidians are classified as Caucasoids, smarty.

This comes from an obsolete Anthropological classification system designed by Thomas Huxley; as well. He also refers to races such as Xanthochroi (light-skinned Europeans) and Melanochroi (dark-skinned Europeans) - are you kidding me?


Australoid racial classification is unofficial and Thomas Huxley's racial classifications are not accepted in mainstream anthropological fields. Meaning - Australian Aboriginals and Dravidians are Negroids.
 
You must be joking; because on the map; Melanesians and Australian Aboriginals are classified as Negroids dummy.

And on that last map; the Dravidians are classified as Caucasoids, smarty.

This comes from an obsolete Anthropological classification system designed by Thomas Huxley; as well. He also refers to races such as Xanthochroi (light-skinned Europeans) and Melanochroi (dark-skinned Europeans) - are you kidding me?


Australoid racial classification is unofficial and Thomas Huxley's racial classifications are not accepted in mainstream anthropological fields. Meaning - Australian Aboriginals and Dravidians are Negroids.

LOL yeah, I saw that the map from 1893 does class Australians and South Sea folk as Negroid, but I prefer to go with the one from the 21st century, on display at the Horniman museum in London, which classes the same people as Australoid, which has the same origins as the "negroid" term, and is still in use by many physical anthropologists. The makers of the first map probably believed in the "ether", so I'm inclined to go with the more modern interpretation, because science has this silly way of moving forward in it's understandings:LOL:.

As for the classification of Dravidians as Caucasoid, there certainly is a range, but if you think that these people are Caucasoid, I have a bridge to sell you.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...es_of_Malabar_Kerala_Dravidian_Australoid.png
 
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-w-Parents.jpg

Soledad O'Brien with her children. If her children marry white people, how "black" are her grandchildren going to look?
soledadxg0.jpg


This is just arithmetic and elementary genetics. I don't know how to explain it any better.
 
LOL yeah, I saw that the map from 1893 does class Australians and South Sea folk as Negroid, but I prefer to go with the one from the 21st century, on display at the Horniman museum in London, which classes the same people as Australoid, which has the same origins as the "negroid" term, and is still in use by many physical anthropologists. The makers of the first map probably believed in the "ether", so I'm inclined to go with the more modern interpretation, because science has this silly way of moving forward in it's understandings:LOL:.

As for the classification of Dravidians as Caucasoid, there certainly is a range, but if you think that these people are Caucasoid, I have a bridge to sell you.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...es_of_Malabar_Kerala_Dravidian_Australoid.png
I never "thought" anything. Don't put words in my mouth. I was mocking you; not myself - I'm not that dumb. And Australoids and Negroids must be relative in some way, don't they? Don't go off topic; changing the subject here...
 
It works the other way around as well. How do you think African Americans "passed" into white society?

If I corectly remember, in early XIX century in U.S. 1/8 negroid man, was formaly white.
Sometimes probably he wasn't totaly white, but children of that person probably should
be. 1/8 = 12,5% ergo 87,5% of white genes in third descent generation from 1/1 negro.
Sometimes 1/4 could be totaly white, if he inherit right genes. Sometimes even child of
two normal black people can be white. Even twins can be different.

durranttwins1black1white02.jpg
 
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...


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.
Not a coherent argument? I think it's coherent enough...And you still have yet to explain the situation with Hispanics/Mestizos and instead made up your own reality. What if these R1b-V88 men blended in with native African women? They most certainly weren't fair-skinned in all likelihood - deal with it. They would not last in Africa if they had fair-skin. They would easily be seen as outsiders. Many of the Spanish Europeans raped the Amerindian women and killed the men. Which is why Hispanics/Mestizos still look like a mix of both races. I am assuming this may have happened with the R1b-V88 Chadic men.

And by the way; R1b-V88 is actually very rare outside of Sub-Saharan Africa...even in the Levant it is averaging under 10% in most populations ... it actually reaches its peak of about 28% in Egyptian Berbers. Which is actually a pretty small homogeneous population, too... (Who knows; the Egyptians could actually be the mixed people; not the Chadic Africans.)


--

And, those offspring don't look too white to me. They have white genetics; but I can still notice African features in them; even if they are Quadroons.

I know a friend of mine who is mostly Irish, Welsh and English but is 7th generation Cherokee; and I can still see the Amerindian in him - he has the long straight brown hair like an Indian; and high cheekbones; and it is harder for him to grow facial hair. Biologically; he is also lactose intolerant.
 
Not a coherent argument? I think it's coherent enough...And you still have yet to explain the situation with Hispanics/Mestizos and instead made up your own reality. What if these R1b-V88 men blended in with native African women? They most certainly weren't fair-skinned in all likelihood - deal with it. They would not last in Africa if they had fair-skin. They would easily be seen as outsiders. Many of the Spanish Europeans raped the Amerindian women and killed the men. Which is why Hispanics/Mestizos still look like a mix of both races. I am assuming this may have happened with the R1b-V88 Chadic men.

And by the way; R1b-V88 is actually very rare outside of Sub-Saharan Africa...even in the Levant it is averaging under 10% in most populations ... it actually reaches its peak of about 28% in Egyptian Berbers. Which is actually a pretty small homogeneous population, too... (Who knows; the Egyptians could actually be the mixed people; not the Chadic Africans.)


--

And, those offspring don't look too white to me. They have white genetics; but I can still notice African features in them; even if they are Quadroons.

I know a friend of mine who is mostly Irish, Welsh and English but is 7th generation Cherokee; and I can still see the Amerindian in him - he has the long straight brown hair like an Indian; and high cheekbones; and it is harder for him to grow facial hair. Biologically; he is also lactose intolerant.

Is there some study or data point in there which I missed? I don't think so...

Do you believe R1b V88 populations moved to Sub Saharan Africa around 24,000 years ago when even Europeans looked like this?

If you do, please provide data to support that theory.

If you believe R1b V88 populations moved to Sub Saharan Africa during or after the Neolithic, please provide proof that Neolithic Near Easterners would have looked like Sub Saharan Africans.

Do you believe that someone who has one SSA ancestor from 2-300 years ago would always show SSA ancestry in terms of phenotype or appearance? If you do, please provide the evidence.

Actually, as you would know if you read any studies of admixture in New World populations, there are a lot of people walking around who "pass" as Europeans or "white" who in fact have SSA or Amerindian ancestry. Of course, perhaps they didn't encounter you, with your extraordinary ability to detect such things on sight, and that's why they remain in ignorance of that fact.





I
 
Is there some study or data point in there which I missed? I don't think so...

Do you believe R1b V88 populations moved to Sub Saharan Africa around 24,000 years ago when even Europeans looked like this?

If you do, please provide data to support that theory.

If you believe R1b V88 populations moved to Sub Saharan Africa during or after the Neolithic, please provide proof that Neolithic Near Easterners would have looked like Sub Saharan Africans.

Do you believe that someone who has one SSA ancestor from 2-300 years ago would always show SSA ancestry in terms of phenotype or appearance? If you do, please provide the evidence.

Actually, as you would know if you read any studies of admixture in New World populations, there are a lot of people walking around who "pass" as Europeans or "white" who in fact have SSA or Amerindian ancestry. Of course, perhaps they didn't encounter you, with your extraordinary ability to detect such things on sight, and that's why they remain in ignorance of that fact.
Prove that I am wrong though? Prove that R1 individuals weren't originally Negroid? If people of Y-DNA I2 or C6 were Negroid; why wouldn't R1 and it's descendants be Negroid too? R1a and R1b? Obviously they were Negroids in Central Asia if you understand logic. Both haplogroups (Y-DNA R1 and I) emerged/mutated at the same time. Just in different locations. (Europe for I and Central Asia for R1) Yes, there were Negroids in Central Asia ... all logic points to that.

Did you know that some Tibetan or Chinese people also have R1b in their population too? But it is more rarer; than say Y-DNA O or N1b or N1c ... this is because there were migrations of negroid R1 people that evolved among other Negroids of Y-DNA O, C, N, Q whom eventually became Mongoloids and East Asians.

I don't need to prove that the original R1 (R1a and R1b) peoples were Negroids ... because they obviously were! All logic points to it. There is no other available explanation. If Mesolithic Europeans who have Y-DNa I1 or I2 have dark skin ... then you can bet that the Central Asians had dark skin as well.
 
Prove that I am wrong though? Prove that R1 individuals weren't originally Negroid? If people of Y-DNA I2 or C6 were Negroid; why wouldn't R1 and it's descendants be Negroid too? R1a and R1b? Obviously they were Negroids in Central Asia if you understand logic. Both haplogroups emerged/mutated at the same time. Yes, there were Negroids in Central Asia ... all logic points to that.

Did you know that some Tibetan or Chinese people also have R1b in their population too? But it is more rarer; than say Y-DNA O or N1b or N1c ... this is because there were migrations of negroid R1 people that evolved among other Negroids of Y-DNA O, C, N, Q whom eventually became Mongoloids and East Asians.

I don't need to prove that the original R1 (R1a and R1b) peoples were Negroids ... because they obviously were! All logic points to it. There is no other available explanation. If Mesolithic Europeans who have Y-DNa I1 or I2 have dark skin ... then you can bet that the Central Asians had dark skin as well.

I don't have to prove you're wrong. You're the one proposing a theory, so you have to present evidence for it. Surely you know that?

Who says that YDna I2 or C6 people were Negroid? You must stop using terms you don't understand or you won't be taken at all seriously. That Paleolithic Europeans were still probably dark skinned doesn't mean they looked "Negroid". Even if they looked like this most recent reconstruction, they didn't look Negroid.
dn25041-1_1200.jpg

Regardless, that was 24,000 years ago. What does that have to do with what people living in the Levant looked like 6,000 or 4,000 years ago when the movement into West Africa would have taken place?

Here's just another example of what those people would have looked like...(I don't really need to state this was carved in dark stone do I?)

I
Statue_Gudea_Met_59.2.jpg
 
If I corectly remember, in early XIX century in U.S. 1/8 negroid man, was formaly white.
Sometimes probably he wasn't totaly white, but children of that person probably should
be. 1/8 = 12,5% ergo 87,5% of white genes in third descent generation from 1/1 negro.
Sometimes 1/4 could be totaly white, if he inherit right genes. Sometimes even child of
two normal black people can be white. Even twins can be different.

View attachment 7176

I don't know what you're getting at...We don't need to guess about admixture in the U.S. or in Latin America now that we have widespread genetic testing.

See:
http://blog.23andme.com/23andme-research/dna-usa-2/

"Bryc found that about 4 percent of whites [in the U.S.] have at least 1 percent or more African ancestry.

Read more at http://blog.23andme.com/23andme-research/dna-usa-2/#GTXrTyux8iM2QFz0.99"

Most of them don't know it...their ancestors "passed". It's a well known phenomenon.

It is also discussed here:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/03/admixture-in-us-populations.html


 
I don't have to prove you're wrong. You're the one proposing a theory, so you have to present evidence for it. Surely you know that?

Who says that YDna I2 or C6 people were Negroid? You must stop using terms you don't understand or you won't be taken at all seriously. That Paleolithic Europeans were still probably dark skinned doesn't mean they looked "Negroid". Even if they looked like this most recent reconstruction, they didn't look Negroid.

It doesn't matter; he doesn't have fair-skin ... and his skin is very dark; so he is certainly a Negroid in some way. He has slanted eyes ... very reminiscent of a Bushmen:

http://www.humanphenotypes.com/

The Bushmen phenotype is the 6th of the 7th photos here on the main page. Bushmen are also known as "San people". They are the oldest race in Africa; and obviously have different features from Sub-Saharan Africans (the 3rd phenotype of the 7 photos) Last time I checked; Bushmen or San people, are considered "Negroid".
 
I don't have to prove you're wrong. You're the one proposing a theory, so you have to present evidence for it. Surely you know that?

So La Brana (C6) and Loschbour man (I2) aren't proof enough? They don't have fair-skin ... so what makes you think R1 people (as well as other Y-DNA haplogroups out of Africa) developed fair-skin, too?
 
Angela,
you was shocking about white obsession.
Now you have some kind of black fascination...
How do you feel about this? :rolleyes:

So La Brana (C6) and Loschbour man (I2) aren't proof enough? They don't have fair-skin ... so what makes you think R1 people (as well as other Y-DNA haplogroups out of Africa) developed fair-skin, too?

Because everywhere where are light people, there is almost always R1.
And somehow in most cases also indoeurpean language is present.
 
Because everywhere where are light people, there is almost always R1.
And somehow in most cases also indoeurpean language is present.
Actually; men carrying G2a in the Neolithic are recorded to be the first Europeans to acquire fair-skin, so far.

Look up Otzi the Iceman.
 
Angela,
you was shocking about white obsession.
Now you have some kind of black fascination...
How do you feel about this? :rolleyes:

Because everywhere where are light people, there is almost always R1.
And somehow in most cases also indoeurpean language is present.

My only concern, as always, is to keep the conversations civil, and, where truly misinformed statements are made, to correct the record to the best of my ability.

Once more, Oetzi had all the modern European snps for skin depigmentation. He was not R1. He also didn't speak an Indo-European language. Neither were yet present in Central Europe.

It may be news, but the male chromosome doesn't code for pigmentation. No one knows precisely where each of the depigmentation snps arose (it's not just a question of SLC24A5 or SLC42A5 either), nor do I see that it matters. What we know is that their effect is cumulative and that they swept to fixation rather recently.

Melancon:So La Brana (C6) and Loschbour man (I2) aren't proof enough? They don't have fair-skin ... so what makes you think R1 people (as well as other Y-DNA haplogroups out of Africa) developed fair-skin, too?

When did I ever say that the original R1 people might not have been darker skinned than modern West Eurasians? Mal'ta had an "R" related lineage, and he had none of the modern European de-pigmentation snps. However, R1b V88 was thousands and thousands of years later. Once more, we know what people in the Levant looked like around 2,000 BC. If R1b V88 left the Levant around that time, or even a thousand or so years before that, it is highly unlikely that they looked like West Africans. That's all.

I hate to pull the moderator hat out, but this is a thread on V88 in Europeans. I've let it go off-topic to correct some misinformation, but I think it's time to get back to the topic at hand.
 
Actually; men carrying G2a in the Neolithic are recorded to be the first Europeans to acquire fair-skin, so far.

Look up Otzi the Iceman.

But not hair, skin and eyes. 3 in 1? No...
037.gif


And no one knows, with whom these people had contact before...
There, where is the pattern concetration of G2a, there people
are not so light or in the best case - mixed, so not very light too.
For example Sardinia (geneticly very close to Ötzi) and Georgia.

It may be news, but the male chromosome doesn't code for pigmentation.

Who was claiming that?
petrified.gif
 
But not hair, skin and eyes. 3 in 1? No...
037.gif


And no one knows, with whom these people had contact before...
There, where is the pattern concetration of G2a, there people
are not so light or in the best case - mixed, so not very light too.
For example Sardinia (geneticly very close to Ötzi) and Georgia.



Who was claiming that?
petrified.gif

Perhaps you missed my last post. If you wish to discuss pigmentation, please find the appropriate thread. It might actually be helpful, as then you can read the numerous studies cited, and get a better and more informed grasp of the issues.
 
this thread was about V88 among Europeans, not about skin or appearance

nevertheless I want to point out :

R1b-V88 has, as far as I know no assaociated Eurasian mtDNA, it looks no wives accompanied them on their yourney, it seems they took indogenous wives

There is a lot of R1a in India originating from the steppe ; do these R1a Indians look like steppe people today? I don't think so, they look Indian.
 

This thread has been viewed 112530 times.

Back
Top