- Reaction score
- Da Great White North
- Ethnic group
- 1/4 Sephardic 3/4 Ashkenazi
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- mtDNA haplogroup
Not really claiming; I was hypothesizing. Unless you can find me a genome of an R1 man with fair-skin, then I might take this theory back. But Loschbur man was haplogroup I2 and had dark skin:
View attachment 7190
Also, have you taken a look at the map of the haplogroups timeline here on Eupedia?
View attachment 7191
If you look at the timeline, you should notice that Asian Y-DNA R1 is slightly older than European Y-DNA I. So how did Loschbur man; who is haplogroup I2 and is 8,000 years old, have dark-skin as a Mesolithic European? Also...if you observe closely; theoretically, R1b and R1a broke off from R1 at a similar time as I1 and I2 from I.
Also sir, Australoid is merely a subrace of Negroid in the field of anthropology. We are meant to look for Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid skulls of the deceased. You do realize, that a Semitic Arab with darker skin than a European is considered a Caucasoid as well? Saying "Australoid" in terms of race is like saying "Europeanoid" or something similar.
Even if the original R1 man had "dark" skin, that doesn't mean he was a "Negroid". BTW, I do not take "molecular clocks" seriously anymore nor the mainstream "out-of-Africa" theory for that matter. I think both are nonsensical outdated "theories". And both are being contradicted by a bunch of recent anthropological, archeological and genetic findings anyway. See this blog as a case in point: http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/.
And since you clearly based your "hypothesis" of hg R1 being originally "Negroid" on an obsolete "out-of-Africa" perspective, I'm not surprised that you used flawed methodologies and concepts such as the "molecular clock" to argue for it. It's not your fault though, I think it is rather the pro-"out-of-Africa" geneticists'. Such people are similar to creationists when it comes to impose their beliefs on others even though there is evidence contradicting them. IMO, they should be called "cryptocreationists" instead of "scientists". And I'll have to disagree with you again on "Australoid" being a subset of "Negroid":
The two look quite different to me, so I'm rather surprised that a professional forensic anthropologist such as yourself would not be able to tell them apart...