I know it seems that things evolve but it still seems impossible. Natural selection seems really impossible maybe we just cant explain why things change. I am a redhead and alot of my relatives are on my dad's side it is the most popular hair color the red hair genes are extremely strong in my DNA. I am as much as a redhead as possible i know what it is like more than u. I don't endure cold any better than a black person my extremely pale skin does not give me an advantage at all. I dont see how i would survive better in ice age Europe than a black person would. The only negative thing is i get sun burned a little more easily than the average white person but there is nothing majorly differnt. Red hair goes very deep under the 45th parrel.
Funny a lot of "scientists" have tried to chalk things up as 100% "drift" as well. That's really the biggest tenant of original out of africa. Basically it doesn't make any sense, though. You have no reason for big changes to go in a particular direction. If you are in a neutral state stuff changes back and forth randomly, you don't become new stuff on a group basis.
If you were outside a lot you'd absorb a lot more vitamin D than most white people, and way more than most black people, in low sunlight kind of area. Which doesn't matter a lot today but used to.
It is easy to explain why red hair does not cover all of Italy and Spain as 1% or above. Because the celtic blood in Spain became less and less the more south they went and the dark hair genes dominate more than the light hair genes in Denmark which is why red hair from Germans survived better in Denmark than red hair from Celts in Spain. Same probably with italics and Celts in the alps and Italy. What about the decline of red hair as u get east of Germany why doesnt maciamo talk about that. The Sycthians and other Indo Iranians tribes lived in very sunny desert like areas of central Asia and they had high amounts of red hair but did fine from 4,000-1,500ybp till they were conquered by central Asian turkic tribes.
Which says that things happened as I was talking about. At end of ice age R group settled all of eurasia and went hog wild growing all over the place. However even though they have tons of r1a in India theya re all pretty dark skinned and haired. The idea is they have had some selection to not die in the immense sunlight of lower lattitudes. The red hair is being weeded out. A lot of this is just mixing in, but most of the scientists today treat everything like it's mixing a cake and that leads to some really dumb conclusions. Truth is for african americans they have taken on european genes very unequally, meaning that selection is happening. Probably mostly for disease resistance.
It is alot more complicated than what u say sure relatives to humans have lived in Europe for over a million years. But that does not mean they were humans ancestors only off shoots of the same family while humans ancestors could have stayed in africa that whole time. Our human family would have begun in sub shara africa 200,000-400,000ybp. Then the family it seems all non sub sharen africans come from migrated to north africa and the mid east over 100,000ybp. Then they split into Caucasins and Oceania mongliod or they came from separate migrations out of Africa. Oceania mongliod migrated to India then further into asia splitting into Mongliods and Oceania i dont know maybe 80,000ybp Oceania going south and Mongliods north. Caucasins stayed in the mid east and groups of Caucasians would have made it to Europe first over 55,000ybp. The founder population of all modern Europeans probably arrived from a mix of diff groups or one group anywhere from 30,000-60,000ybp.
So go back and read my post about african and european potential human ancestors. The heidelbergensis is an ancestor of everyone, no one seems to dispute that. The neanderthal is an ancestor probably of everyone but possibly just everyone but about 1% of africa. Recent evidence shows rhodiensis is only the ancestor of a similarly tiny portion of the human ancestry, it also shows all the supposed chimp-human missing links don't make any sense at all, and modern humans suddenlys how up at 160k years ago and not in sub saharan africa but right by the levant meaning they came from elsewhere. So everything being said about out of africa is actually completely backwards.
Because the missing part is obviously out there and probably related to peking man. To tie up where modern humans come from you have to have a large brained hominid with a chin. Which sounds a lot like peking man. In africa we don't have either of those things, the only thing close is rhodiensis but clearly modern humans exist at the same time as rhodiensis.
Yes some Neanderthals i think the ones they tested were from spain and they had very pale skin and red hair i think they were only 50,000 years old. Their red hair and pale skin came from a diff source than what mod Europeans have so that does not matter when arguing a older age for Europeans paleness. I also wnat to say we dont know who the neanderthals were. I have looked at so many of their skulls and so many from diff ages and regions look so diff. When u look at a Caucasian skull and the type African americans have so west African they look extremely similar u have to study it to see the difference.
Not really, they are quite distinct, and we have a pretty good record of them in europe at least. Their range will expand even more as russia and or soviet states do some archaeology.
Neanderthal skull has a big prefrontal area, unibrow, occiptal bun which no pure african has and few europeans have, and a forhead that slopes backwards. Also deep set eyes like many europeans. Critically the corner of eyes are set way back. Everything else we see is the opposite and in rhodiensis actually juts forward and to me looks very alien.
Black africans mostly have a pretty standard blend of east versus west features, in cameroon many of them have skulls pretty similar to cro magnon 1. Only a few in west africa seem to have something akin to heavy faces that is a bit similar to neanderthal. I don't think it comes from rhodiensis (I keep spelling it wrong but can't be bothered to care, sorry), because that doesn't look like anything in modern humans except maybe some of the odder looking people in the levant seem to have a slight amount of sharp edges around their eye sockets that just forward. I think they got it rather where they come from which is India, not africa. Andamese have those similar heavy faces and austronesians have it even more heavily, so I have little doubt that's what happened, unless we can find some new artifacts in africa to say otherwise.
Not everyone with a heavy face is a neanderthal, and not many black african people have that heavy a face. Those that do are similar to much different austronesian look.
The only times you see the term "negroid" used for old skulls is because it's when neanderthal had not been discovered yet. If you know what they look like it's hard to mistake.
Even though their ancestors have been split for probably around 150,000-250,000 years. But if neanderthal skulls looked so obviously diff they probably were very unrelated compared to all modern humans today. I think the so called Neanderthal is just random some what related breds that might have come in multiple migrations. So when they have that DNA from Neanderthals and say they can tell u how much DNA u have from them if that is liget they are only talking about some Neanderthals.
Maybe what happened is just like the indian r1as!
The largest group of immigrants absorbed the smaller group of neanderthal. Over time the y-dna of neanderthal trickled out OR SO WE ASSUME AFTER SAMPLING ONE IN A THOUSAND INDIVIDUALS FROM A CONVENIENCE SAMPLE!
Note this convenience sample is also mostly people who don't know their ancestry, ie people who are either of uncertain parentage or have immigrated recently. So that's a pretty terrible sample to look for the oldest inhabitants in.
So the r1a kept their y-dna but they look very similar to the other people in india.
Just like some of the altaics with the same y-dna look exactly the same as the populations around them.
And just like happened with Q haplogroup.
They have soaked up a lot of genes around them but kept the same y-dna.
U dont get what i am saying the first hg R people were Mongliods they were not apart of the Caucasin bloodline they were in the Mongliod bloodline. 50,000ybp Europeans ancestors most likely had tannish skin they are still in the European bloodline.
Yeah, obviously but why can't it go the other way? We know it can't go your way because red hair is recessive so it couldn't just change like that. It would have to be a foudner effect from an older population. Like I said, going back to pre ice age or even a couple ice ages ago then spreading out. This doesn't happen over night.
Yes they are sure they have many tribes but they all go back to the first Chinese speakers. There where many Germanic tribes but they were still all German. Han chinese and some othe group of Chinese dont come from completly diff sources they come from the orignal Chinese source. Maybe not completely geneticalley but defintley in language.
The germans all had a different language. Every little city in germany had its own language. There's no one single german ethnicity, no single chinese ethnicity, not now not then, there just isn't and wasn't.
No it does not. 4,000ybp is not that long ago epxlain how almost all tarium mummies had mongliod mtdna haplogroups. There were mongliods everywhere but for some reason refused to go to the tarium basin after living in east asia for over 40,000 years does that make any sense. Khazars were not red haired and blue eyes sure some Indo iranian tribes 2,000-4,000ybp who did not inter marry did have around 3-15% red hair but Khazars did not. Y dna Q is not popular any where in asia except central siberera get ur facts together at least try to check stuff in Wikipedia before throwing out lie's. The European light features in central asia all come form Indo Iranian migrations starting 5,000ybp. Unified Indo Iranian tribes who kept their European blood seem to have all been killed off in the early mid ages that is why they dont exist they were very famous and we have alot of their ancient DNA but they were not the only iron and bronze age central Asians. I do think that east Asian like all Turkic speakers are very recent in central asia but i may be wrong.
Popularity is nothing to do with it :lol:
Khazars are not in ukrain any more, they don't really exist any more except as part of east europe and part of (some) ashkenazi jews. And yes they did have red hair and blue eyes and have Q haplotype. They tested the royal burial mounds.
I dont believe red hair evolved out of Mongliod that is crazy talk. red hair in central asia from what we know is only from Indo Iranians that started migrating there at the earliest 5,000ybp.
Drift isn't really evolution. Say a white guy marries a black girl 1/10 times. So over time all the features darken up a bit but probably most of his ancestors still have european y-dna and mtdna. That's just exactly how it is in india. The south asians are obviously very related to blacks from africa and andamese look vert similar.
U are making up consipircy theorys with no evidence to put down mongliod people to make them feel recent. I get sick of that when it is done on whites. did u read when i mentioned 42,000 year old mtdna sample near bejing with specifcalley mongliod B4'5 and aust dna proving it was in the mongliod family. Mongoloids are from what i can see the first and only settlers of places like Korea and probably Japan.
Nobody is less recent, but they didn't have all the same features. And the east asian population expansion is a very real phenomenon and huge.
Have u even looked up when Eskeoms came. from what i have looked up on google the Eskemo Aluet language is probably 4,000 years old. I am sorry i cant find the link but i looked at this genetic stuff about native americans and eskemo inuit people. Native Americans ancestors when looking at mtdna and y dna haplogroups most likely arrived over 20,00ybp eskemo inuit ancestors 6,000-10,000ybp. When u look at the globe13 aust da groups of mongliod's artic which represents easta sian looking people in north america is closest to native american not east asian. Originally native Americans ancestors may have looked east asian.
Well peruvians look nothing like asians so....
There's also chance that some siberians came from america, the other way around. Language age doesn't mean anything, but the language is related to basque if that tells you anything.
The only heavily hg Q people i can think of is native americans and east asian looking native people of america and central siberns. There is no doubt the first hg Q people would have been Mongliod looking. ANtive Americans count as Mongliod looking they have the highcheck bons and many other of the same features There is a native american center by my house some full bloded native americans go to my school and most have slanted eyes when i first saw them i thought they were like dark skinned east asians.
Like i have been saying the red hair that existed and kind of still exists in central asia is from R1a1a1b2 Z93 Indo Iranian migrations out of Russia starting at the earliest 5,000ybp. What evidence do u have with y dna Q being connected with red hair. I dont know how true those native american stories are and who knows how popular they were. There are probably many similar storys that sound like people are talking about aliens or something. Native Americans ancestors spread acrros north and south america from 25,000-10,000ybp. So those stories would have to very very old if those red haired people were there before them i doubt they could keep the same story for that long. Also there is no such thing as a red haired people red hair at the highest gets up to 15-20% in some Insular Celts of Ireland and Britain and the Uralic speaking Udmurts of Volga Russia.
I told you already. DNA tests plus physical descriptions plus living descendants. What more do you need?
Obviously huge migrations did happen when huns came and tamerlane and ghengis khan etc. and they have greatly mongolized a big portion of the planet, that's just a fact.