R-V88 Among Europeans

He also believes that the original Out-of-Africa humans were not of the Negroid racial classification ... which is such a joke because all evidence and logic points to that reality. Y-DNA Haplogroup C people most definitely weren't originally fair-skinned or even tan-skinned people.

The joke is that you still don't understand that "Negroid" is not defined by "dark skin."

My dad is also a professional Forensic scientist himself.

That just happened. Melancon provided as support for his misunderstanding of physical anthropology that "his dad is a professional forensic scientist." Except he capitalised "forensic" for some weird, non-English reason.

But you people really give me something to laugh about because most of you are such a pitiful joke. I really cannot believe this argument my theorizing exists; but it seems to be a reality because I am still debating it......

"You're all fools! I cannot bother to support my pet theories because my dad and I are too busy trying to redefine 'Negroid." We're totally professional Forensic scientists. Dark skin = Negroid. Don't confuse me with your facts! Did I tell you about my dad, kid?"

I am absolutely convinced this is all a jest. It's reaching beyond absurdity to clownshoes.
 
Are you saying that it would have been impossible for Subsaharan Africans to become darker than their ancestors? I've noticed that while one sees a variety of skin shades among Mediterranean Caucasians, they are, on average, darker than northern Europeans in a way that doesn't seem to be caused by genetics so I assume it's in response to living in a hotter climate. Even the average Acadian looks a bit darker than the average French Canadian after only about 2.5 centuries in a hotter climate. Humans evolve to suit their environment.

very often I pay attention to what you write because yur points are well based or at least logical
let me here disagree a bit; I don't think such adaptation could take place at modern times in so a short span of time, sorry - that said I support your other views -
Melancon is a curiously minded person, I think and so numerous post in a day about pigmentation only, amazing
 
The joke is that you still don't understand that "Negroid" is not defined by "dark skin."



That just happened. Melancon provided as support for his misunderstanding of physical anthropology that "his dad is a professional forensic scientist." Except he capitalised "forensic" for some weird, non-English reason.



"You're all fools! I cannot bother to support my pet theories because my dad and I are too busy trying to redefine 'Negroid." We're totally professional Forensic scientists. Dark skin = Negroid. Don't confuse me with your facts! Did I tell you about my dad, kid?"

I am absolutely convinced this is all a jest. It's reaching beyond absurdity to clownshoes.
Where are your facts, son? You claim to know more than me but have yet to provide any definition of Negroid. I have asked you to define the meaning of a Negroid racial specimen. So um, excuse me?
 
Where are your facts, son?

I am not your "son." I am likely of an age with your father. Let it go. Judging by your picture, I have shirts older than you. Stop with the immature attempts at insult that only people of limited experience think are pithy.

You claim to know more than me but have yet to provide any definition of Negroid.

YOU provided the definition earlier, from Wikipedia. You've continued to contradict it. No one is employing you as a forensic anthropologist if you can't even understand the definitions you claim to be basing an argument on (which are still wrong).

I have asked you to define the meaning of a Negroid racial specimen. So um, excuse me?

You are not excused. Take your drubbing. The only reason I even bothered with any of this, as I said before, is that you've been entirely and undeservedly insulting of almost every single poster on this thread.

Yet AGAIN, for you to educate yourself:

"In modern usage, it is associated with populations that on the whole possess the suite of typical Negroid physical characteristics."

and

"As dark skin is also relatively common in human groups that have historically not been defined as 'Negroid,' including many populations in both Africa and Asia, it is only when present with other typical Negroid physical traits such as broad facial features, Negroid cranial and dental characteristics, prognathism, afro-textured hair and neoteny, that it has been used in Negroid classification."

So your usage is, and has been throughout this thread (based, as it is, on the presence of dark skin ALONE being a defining factor of "Negroid"), entirely incorrect.

In the physical anthropological sense.

Which is the field you claim to be employed in.

Stop. Digging.
 
Last edited:
to MELANCON

Melancon, what is running with you? have you not the impression to "run after your tail"?
I 'ii not going to take again the good arguments exposed here by other forumers in the details
just
-Australian Aborigenes (and other Australoids) don't have more ties with Subsaharian Negroids than we have, or not at a great scale
-for true anthropologists, black or very dark skin is not a sufficiant criteria to be classed 'negroid'
-we have no proof of what was the basic allele for a lot of traits at the beginning of Humanity even if today the genes conditining dark skin are considered as 'ancestral'
so some mutations can have darkened the skin colour among today Subsaharian 'negroids', as other mutations had differentiated them from the primitive human types: maybe occurred AND lightening mutations AND darkening mutations? (only hypothesis here, just to stay sceptical but look at chimps: some have very light skin under their dark body hair (and freckling) when other have black skin!)
-all of us had inherited different mutations putting us, in different aspects, not always the same, farther from our primitive forms - maybe Australoids, stayed always in small populations, have underwent a bit fewer new mutations?
-it would be interesting to measure the%s of 'oceanian' aDNA among Europeans and subsaharian Africans -
-NO, our ancestors from Africa (the only ones?) were not already 'negroid' - 'negroid' kit of features accumulted itself with times and mutations different from the mutations other types underwent -
-only American anglo-saxon accultured persons can make "a Black" of a man by the reason he has a light brown skin -
all that keep us far from the V88 question, a DNA-HGr supposed by someones as from Iberia, and by the majority from Near-Eastern what seems making sense at first sight

I don't know what your are going to do, Melancon, but a glass of a fresh drink and a CD of pacific music could do it very well
 
I don't know what your are going to do...but a glass of a fresh drink and a CD of pacific music could do it very well

Going to have to agree with this.
 
I am not your "son." I am likely of an age with your father. Let it go. Judging by your picture, I have shirts older than you. Stop with the immature attempts at insult that only people of limited experience think are pithy.



YOU provided the definition earlier, from Wikipedia. You've continued to contradict it. No one is employing you as a forensic anthropologist if you can't even understand the definitions you claim to be basing an argument on (which are still wrong).



You are not excused. Take your drubbing. The only reason I even bothered with any of this, as I said before, is that you've been entirely and undeservedly insulting of almost every single poster on this thread.

Yet AGAIN, for you to educate yourself:

"In modern usage, it is associated with populations that on the whole possess the suite of typical Negroid physical characteristics."

and

"As dark skin is also relatively common in human groups that have historically not been defined as 'Negroid,' including many populations in both Africa and Asia, it is only when present with other typical Negroid physical traits such as broad facial features, Negroid cranial and dental characteristics, prognathism, afro-textured hair and neoteny, that it has been used in Negroid classification."

So your usage is, and has been throughout this thread (based, as it is, on the presence of dark skin ALONE being a defining factor of "Negroid"), entirely incorrect.
Well if you are likely as old as my father; you should surely act your age. LOL. That could be a start. No one was insulting anyone here until you and Aberdeen came along, so therefore.


Definition of Negroid from Wikipedia:

Negroid has both Latin and Ancient Greek etymological roots. It literally translates as "black resemblance" from negro/niger (black), and -oeidēs, equivalent to -o- + -eidēs "having the form of", derivative of eîdos "form".[8][9] The earliest recorded use of the term "Negroid" came in 1859.[10] In modern usage, it is associated with populations that on the whole possess the suite of typical Negroid physical characteristics.[11]


Where is dark skin mentioned? I see "Black resemblance".

YOU provided the definition earlier, from Wikipedia. You've continued to contradict it. No one is employing you as a forensic anthropologist if you can't even understand the definitions you claim to be basing an argument on (which are still wrong).
Um, what. I haven't even contradicted myself. Please proof-read this post before you comment on it.
 
Well if you are likely as old as my father; you should surely act your age. LOL. That could be a start. No one was insulting anyone here until you and Aberdeen came along, so therefore.

I'll compile your pointless insults if I have to. But we both know you're just punching out of your weight.

Where is dark skin mentioned?

By YOU. Why else do you consider the La Brana or Loschbour samples "Negroid?" Please keep your own theories straight if you're going to be so insulting towards those who point out their fallacies.

Um, what. I haven't even contradicted myself. Please proof-read this post before you comment on it.

Please read the thread before sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "you never pointed out my contradictions in numerous posts that I am choosing to ignore because I can't respond to them with anything other than 'kid!'"
 
This discussion has become absurd. The topic is R1b V88 among Europeans...not definitions of "Negroid" or the pigmentation of R1b V88 when it left for Africa. Any more personal attacks, or spam comments, or off topic discussions and some of you will start getting infractions. Last warning.
 
DO NONE OF YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH? I have deleted three posts. The next one to post an off topic comment on this thread is going to get an infraction.
 
Are you saying that it would have been impossible for Subsaharan Africans to become darker than their ancestors? I've noticed that while one sees a variety of skin shades among Mediterranean Caucasians, they are, on average, darker than northern Europeans in a way that doesn't seem to be caused by genetics so I assume it's in response to living in a hotter climate. Even the average Acadian looks a bit darker than the average French Canadian after only about 2.5 centuries in a hotter climate. Humans evolve to suit their environment.

Most agreed Angela, getting back to business. Haplogroups don't really contribute to skin color; that would make Ydna Haplogroups E, H and C to have been sister clades and that can't be write. That being said due to R1B-V88s presence in North Africa; not to mention the Moors and Caspian Culture in Spain. I don't see any problem with R1B-V88 being in Europe in trace amounts.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)#R1b1c_.28R-V88.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#/media/File:Roman_Empire_Trajan_117AD.png


Although if R1B-V88 is to cross over to Europe, I reckon that both the Moors and The Former Carthaginian Romans could have possibly brought this Haplogroup to Europe or at least the Mediterranean.

Apparently V-88 originated among Sub-Saharan Africans, however we also see many cases of it in Europe and the UK.

How would it have ended up in these places and who would have carried it there?

As far as the UK is concerned, perhaps a couple of Romanized North Africans bearing YDNA R1B-V88 migrated into Britannia; probably due to military campaigns, trading, etc and decides to Retire and raise a family in Britannia.

Maciamo has typed up a wonderful description of R1B-V88 on this link :)

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Africa
 
...As far as the UK is concerned, perhaps a couple of Romanized North Africans bearing YDNA R1B-V88 migrated into Britannia; probably due to military campaigns, trading, etc and decides to Retire and raise a family in Britannia.

Maciamo has typed up a wonderful description of R1B-V88 on this link :)

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Africa

It's also possible that a small amount of R1b-V88 remained with other R1b cousins and became part of the original Celtic, Roman, etc. cultures.

R1b-V88 could also have been picked up by Vikings or other seafarers trading between Egypt and Britain.
 
Very true, I'd be quite curious to see what the original poster; Learning Genetic's Eurogene K36 admixture. Perhaps Eurogene can narrow down his " direct ancestor's ancient homeland" :). If Learning Genetics is not R1B-V88 than perhaps there are other Englishmen of this class that can help
 
I have not had time to completely read this thread - I red 4 or 5 pages, and I saw a lot of out of topic posts and curious affirmations concerning past and current pigmentation -
Here a post a link about a possible origin of V88 (it's the topic, is it not?) in Iberia before reaching North East Africa... I have no opinion for now.
If this link had already been posted I beg your pardon;

https://www.academia.edu/8458787/Y_...iogeographical_Evidence_for_an_Iberian_Origin
 
V88 is IE in origin (IE it is what I called IE, not what someone else think
IE is) and this is the reason, why this haplotype is spread in Europe also...

Back migration from Africa? For what, why and when? :petrified:

Did V88 was in Iberia - yes it was because are findings of that haplotype
long before mainstream IEs came to Spain. V88 probably split early from R
1-one tribe, and went where ever he wish to go :) In Iberia if I remember
correctly the samples are dating aroud 6000 ya so even this scenario once
again had prooved that some scientists are lying creating fary tales like this:

9533655.jpg


Here:

R1b-V88.jpg


We have some more carefull datation, but still it is very wishfull thinking.
15.000 years was created from nothing, simply number was taken from air.

As we can see on this map of dislocation R1b mostly V88 in subsaharian Africa,
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_R1b_World.png the source
of V88 is on the east - in Sudan. I guess, as I said earlier in this thread that V88
came to Africa about 3,5-5,5k ybp probably through Egypt. The best guess which
I can make, is that first V88 could be Hyksoses, because they were a mixes tribes
of indoeuropean, hurian and semitic peoples who came to Egypt in historical time.
It can be also some non well known to us invasion on Africa and Egypt some 5500
years ago which can be validate by quite european-looking people in the pre- and
first dynasties Egypt. For example the oldest known mummy called Ginger is from
about 3300bc was blond. This invasion after leaving Egypt had to stay some time
in Sudan and after that (as some sahels stories tells) go into west. When? Know
one knows, it could be not so long time ago, as well as at the beginning of their
jourey. Maybe this people have something to do with Sao civilisation. About IEn
origin of that subclade testifies not only realtion to another R1b group, but also
remains of that subgroup in Spain, Europe and Levant. In polish project in FT
we have 3 samples of that subgroup, what gives almost 0,1 % of all project
members. If this percentage would be accurate number to whole Poland or
even plus Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine (which are part of project also),
that percentages gives tens or hundreds thousands of people with that
mutation living among east-central Europeans. And this is not so smal
number as some one can think.

In this article is said also that reemigration took place 1000-3200 bp - but
exactly the same could be done otherwise in the at the same time - so this
is additional reason, why I can make a hipotesy, that V88 is IE in origin, as
every subclade of R1 M173 (or maybe even M207, but I am not cerain; but
in the case of R1 - I am). And - what is probably much more importat than
that, according to this author, emigration from Iberia could have place 1000
to 1600 years ago... so... It is very very indeuropean subgroup...

Quote:

A small sample of 69 records was used as the seed population.
This was amplified to 119 records. This population gives an out
of Iberia TMRCA of 7,700 ± 1,600 ybp, an into Africa TMRCA of
5,500 ± 1,000 ybp and a re-migration to Europe TMRCA of
3,200 ± 1,000 ybp. While TMRCA calculations are notoriously
inaccurate, these calculations give a r e l a t i v e chronological
magnitude. Genetic data is too often treated as discrete units
having no interaction. SNP populations tend to be analyzed in a
vacuum. Population genetics needs to be viewed as a network
analysis.


 
It's certainly not impossible, Rethel, but I would disagree that V88 is a "very Indo-European subgroup." Even if it were IE in origin, today the vast majority of bearers have very little connection to anything would could consider IE, except perhaps for a colonial language legacy.

Assuming it was IE when it came to Africa, we're looking at a Chadic version of the Basque situation...lots of uniparental input, but prior language retention.

Still assuming V88 was IE, do you believe the scarcity of it in Europe is due to mere bad luck amongst earlier Eurasian V88s, or do you envision the European V88s as an extreme minority due to the mass and almost complete emigration of V88 to Africa?
 
I have not had time to completely read this thread - I red 4 or 5 pages, and I saw a lot of out of topic posts and curious affirmations concerning past and current pigmentation -
Here a post a link about a possible origin of V88 (it's the topic, is it not?) in Iberia before reaching North East Africa... I have no opinion for now.
If this link had already been posted I beg your pardon;

https://www.academia.edu/8458787/Y_...iogeographical_Evidence_for_an_Iberian_Origin



this paper is far superior on why and how R-V88 when back into africa from the levant

http://www.academia.edu/3642572/Unr..._An_Archaeogenetic_Approach_to_Neolithisation
 
V88 is IE in origin .......................
As we can see on this map of dislocation R1b mostly V88 in subsaharian Africa,
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_R1b_World.png the source
of V88 is on the east - in Sudan. I guess, as I said earlier in this thread that V88
came to Africa about 3,5-5,5k ybp probably through Egypt. The best guess which
I can make, is that first V88 could be Hyksoses, because they were a mixes tribes
of indoeuropean, hurian and semitic peoples who came to Egypt in historical time.
It can be also some non well known to us invasion on Africa and Egypt some 5500
years ago which can be validate by quite european-looking people in the pre- and
first dynasties Egypt. For example the oldest known mummy called Ginger is from
about 3300bc was blond. This invasion after leaving Egypt had to stay some time
in Sudan and after that (as some sahels stories tells) go into west. When? Know
one knows, it could be not so long time ago, as well as at the beginning of their
jourey. Maybe this people have something to do with Sao civilisation. About IEn
origin of that subclade testifies not only realtion to another R1b group, but also
remains of that subgroup in Spain, Europe and Levant. In polish project in FT
we have 3 samples of that subgroup, what gives almost 0,1 % of all project
members. If this percentage would be accurate number to whole Poland or
even plus Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine (which are part of project also),
that percentages gives tens or hundreds thousands of people with that
mutation living among east-central Europeans. And this is not so smal
number as some one can think.

In this article is said also that reemigration took place 1000-3200 bp - but
exactly the same could be done otherwise in the at the same time - so this
is additional reason, why I can make a hipotesy, that V88 is IE in origin, as
every subclade of R1 M173 (or maybe even M207, but I am not cerain; but
in the case of R1 - I am). And - what is probably much more importat than
that, according to this author, emigration from Iberia could have place 1000
to 1600 years ago... so... It is very very indeuropean subgroup...

Have you ever wondered what King Tut's results were, taken so many years ago? With the latest technology, we could retest him, even if the results from 2007 were valid or not valid. Anyway, they still have not been officially released results as far as I know; and we are coming up into 2016:rolleyes:.

https://www.igenea.com/en/tutankhamun
 

This thread has been viewed 116856 times.

Back
Top