Very advanced Indoeuropeans - cows reveal their history! :-)

[Finalise]

Stupid article. Dark eyes and light skin in Europe are mostly a result of the Neolithic farming migrations. If you're talking strictly Northern Europe, then even SHGs had light skin. Lactose tolerance was relatively rare in Yamna samples in Allentoft, while in Haak it practically non-existent. Lactose tolerance was a late evolution amongst Europeans and it certainly wasn't just down to Yamna migrations, but more of a native European trait (although plenty of populations in Africa and Asia have this trait so it's not exclusively European). Yamna might have had a genetic pre-disposition to tall heights, but height is not a robust genetic trait, and it can easily change even with 1 generation. Just look at the difference in height between South and North Koreans.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Check this out, Angela: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ns-brought-Europe-Near-East-study-claims.html

It seems that western hunter-gatherers were a bit different from Scandinavian hunter-gatherers.

And this article refers to a third gene on Scandinavians: http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

"They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin."

both Motala and first European farmers had SLC24A5
that can't be coincidence?

 

[Rethel]

Le Brok,
I don't have enough time for next disscusion about
that, because about this allready exists a thread.

Once again, you gave arguments against your
own theory, for support my point of view and
you didn't even mention this!

I see, that you cannot accept that things simply are.
That there are not reason to exist for them, or that
they cannot exist because they... exist. You need
badly some quasi-religions belives, and you are so
deeply belive that you cannot see that you are by
yourself giving examples destroing your worldview.
This is so amazing for me.... really!

You mentioned theory of relativity. This is a very good
example like you are seeing things. You don't understand
something, but SOMEONE else understand, so you
belive that this is fact and truth - ergo you are really
religious! You are beliving (and ready to belive) in
something what you dont understand, or what does
not have any sens for you, because someone said so.

Why then are you laughting at christian people, who
are beliving in much more reasonable things than you?
They can at least understand things in wich they belive.
You cannot.

p.s. I can imagine relativity, this is no problem for me.

 

[LeBrok]

Lebrok,

How do you explain blonde hair in West Asia, North Africa, and South Asia? It obviously didn't originate as a result as mixtures between EEF/WHG/Steppe(ANE).

See post 55.

 

[LeBrok]

"According to Allencroft et al., the derived mutation at rs16891982 (SLC45A2) was found at only around 25% in the Bronze Age steppe (!), and the derived mutation at rs12913832 (OCA2-HERC2) was found at 0%. To put that in perspective, that means these people were darker than living Pakistanis, who have higher percentages of the derived mutation at rs16891982, and who do display the derived mutation at rs12913832 (but at very low levels for this mutation). Same with Yamnaya in Haak et al., these people were much darker than any living population in Europe, and approached lighter South Asian populations in terms of pigmentation genetics."

If that's correct, and all of the steppe people looked like this they certainly didn't bring pale pigmentation to Europe.

There is something going on other than migration of peoples carrying these traits. As others have been pointing out, these are indeed recessive traits. It has to be down to selection, and recent selection, and that's indeed what the researchers are saying. I don't see how it can be denied.

.

The acceleration of whitening happened since the Bronze Age when many groups, got very mobile. The mobility accelerated population mixing, even with groups from far away, therefore sped up beneficial gene transfer and genes flow through populations.

 

[LeBrok]

I see, that you cannot accept that things simply are.
That there are not reason to exist for them, or that
they cannot exist because they... exist.

I give examples of blond hair in Papua and blue eyes in Africans? I admitted many times existence of spontaneous mutations, which creates new things to exist, as a part of natural selection process, didn't I? Did you miss my comments completely, just to make your "logical" remark? Next time, pay attention to nuances, the devil is in the detail.

You need
badly some quasi-religions belives, and you are so
deeply belive that you cannot see that you are by
yourself giving examples destroing your worldview.
This is so amazing for me.... really!

Are you ridiculing someones beliefs just to admit your religious convictions in next paragraf, (that is very "logical" or perhaps a form of "psychology" of yours that I don't get, lol):

Why then are you laughting at christian people, who
are beliving in much more reasonable things than you?
They can at least understand things in wich they belive.
You cannot.

You mentioned theory of relativity. This is a very good
example like you are seeing things. You don't understand
something, but SOMEONE else understand, so you
belive that this is fact and truth - ergo you are really
religious! You are beliving (and ready to belive) in
something what you dont understand, or what does
not have any sens for you, because someone said so.

Again, for an intelligent person you managed to lose all most important parts of my comment. So no, I believe in it because mathematical equations agree with this, known laws of physics agree with it, all predictions turn to be right. GPS satellite need to use relativistic correction for time ticking slower with speed to be correct, our sun/gravity bands light from distant stars, and many others. With so many empirical proofs, it doesn't take huge leap of faith, to believe that Einstein was right, and General Relativity is correct. Try not to miss these "Nuances" next time, or you continue to be confused.

It is not like believing your parents, who blindly believed their parents, and their parents, etc in existence of something nobody saw or measured with scientific tools, or proved existence based on laws of physics. I guess, what you call "logic" fits a popular definition of a belief.


Why is it so hard for you to accept the fact, that no amount of spontaneous mutations can be so uniform and persistent to encompass millions of people in northern Europe. We are not even talking about one mutation, like one gene albino mutation, but several whitening mutations, which conglomerated in Northern Europe. Conveniently it is the same place where UV radiation is low.
Natural selection elegantly explains why a beneficial trait can give advantage to a person and offspring. It explains a role of environment in shaping species. It explains why Northern Europeans are most white, in this case.

Furthermore, if you know something about math and statistics, and you should because you grasp General Relativity well, it should give you an idea how improbable and impossible your scenario of "just exist" in context of white Europeans is. I was waiting for you to explain why people don't have two hearts or 6 eyes, to lead you to the right answer.
Let's start again. According to you, white skin "just happened there", because things just happen spontaneously. Why then we don't have tribes with some weird spontaneous anomalies like a third eye, or a elephant trunk, or whatever? According to your hypothesis these all things are equally valid and can happen everywhere.

 

[Drax]

~35% not half.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30936-Yamna-quot-25-ENF-30-35-ANE-quot-and-40-45-WHG

some of them have near 45% WHG, so we can talk of half, of if you prefer between 1/3 and 1/2; so near half.

 

[Drax]

I have a surprise for you:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=blac...ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI0bDe6YmTxgIVzpeICh2zfABf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_albinism

be careful with the sensational pictures you can found in internet, this little girl is simply ill; that nothing to do with healthing blue eyes from Europeans.

Or this:

Mutations happen spontaneously. The thing is that if this mutation is not beneficial it doesn't have much chance spreading into entire tribe or population. Some traits might be lucky or persist on sexual selection, but if it doesn't bring much of a benefit to health and survival of offspring, it is sooner or later dropped off the genome.
The blond hair in Papua tribes is very interesting and intriguing. Many kids are blond when they are young. Perhaps we witness a beneficial mutation of blond hair in hot climate independently from European blond. Nobody knows yet, but it doesn't mean that in future science can't explain it. We just didn't care much about this yet to do any research into this phenomenon.

Again we should be careful with this kind of sensational article; first that yet to find if their blond hairs is not a product of a form of albinism; by the way:

http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/05/origin-blond-afros-melanesia

The mutation, which has no obvious advantages, likely arose by chance in one individual and drifted to a high frequency in the Solomon Islands because the original population was small, says Jonathan Friedlaender, an anthropologist emeritus at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study. "This whole area seems to have been populated by very small groups of people making it across these stepping-stone islands, so you do have very dramatic effects in fluctuations of gene frequency."

That the opposite situation of WHG with blue eyes who have invaded mixed multiples times by brown peoples; again it was their isolation who have kept these blond afros.

What surprises many people, and it creates some confusion in explanation is that European blondism is made of many independent mutations. It is a conglomeration of mutations. Some are from EEF farmers, some from WHG, some from ANE.

Only natural selection, population genetics, beneficial gene flow, historical movements of people, can explain why these all beneficial genes found the perfect place by Baltic and North Sea.

Well first the theory of WHG peoples with blue eyes is the opposite of your example, because peoples who defend say they are the ones sources of blue eyes, they don't say Europeans have multiples genes for blue eyes from multiples peoples....it's the problem of your example of the natural selection because blue eyes were supposed among a tiny group and is extremely recessive.

What Rethel proposes is that all of these white mutations in Europe popped up spontaneously there. He is yet to explain why only there and not around the planet. Sure one or two mutations can pop up anywhere, and the above pictures are the best example. But several popping up and most importantly persisting for thousands of years in Scandinavia?! Statistically it doesn't make sense. It only make sense in relation to environment, in contexts of environment, selection of beneficial genes by environmental forcing. In this case low UV radiation there.

Your theory have yet to be proven, so I don't know how you can say that the true, you have no idea what they have caused blue eyes, blond hairs etc...

 

[Rethel]

Drax,

try to read mine discussion with LeBrok

here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-in-the-future?p=453600&viewfull=1#post453600

Since post #198 to about 245.

You will save a lot of time

Because it will be over and over again the same - you and him

 

[Drax]

Do you understand General Theory of Relativity? Me neither, it is not sitting well in my head, and it is counter intuitive to most human minds. However by empirical evidence and mathematical formulas we know that Einstein was right. Only few top minds can really grasp it, the rest of us need to take it on faith.
Is is exactly the same with Evolution and Natural selection. Just because it doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't mean it is wrong. As Angela and I said, it is confirmed by archaeology, by biology, by observable mutations, by population genetics, and it is in agreement with laws of physics, statistics and computer modeling. What else do you want to believe in it, miracle?

No, but I find funny that you talk first about a theory, so not yet proven, and say in the same that have a been proven, that a contradiction, and no population genetic, archeology etc...are not agree about everything, it's far from the true, you can see lot of refutation about these kinds of theory too...I don't need a miracle, but a theory who respect the reality.

There was never a serious research into advantage of blue eyes in certain environments, so we don't know for sure if it does or not. Some people claim, blue eyes can see better in dark. There is another viable explanation for blue eyes. It as well, might have been a side effect of some white skin and hair mutations. Statistically the whiter the skin and hair the bigger the chance of having blue eyes.

That a pure legend, by the way there are various study about the useful or not of blue eyes, that clearly not an direct advantage:

http://www.spiegel.de/international...yed-people-related-to-brad-pitt-a-532346.html

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/origin-blue-eyes

"Like freckles, hair color or baldness, there's no real physical advantage to being blue-eyed. Says Eiberg: “It simply shows that nature is constantly shuffling the human genome, creating a genetic cocktail of human chromosomes and trying out different changes as it does so.”

I can agree with your explanation with the side effect of blue eyes with white skin and light hairs, and that our problem with these WHG with brown eyes and so-called light eyes.

All we know for sure so far that white skin is advantageous in higher latitudes, because it produced more vitamin D. We also know that black skin is advantageous in Africa for skin cancer protection. Sun is intensive enough there, so even black skin can produce enough vitamin D. If all if this didn't matter, we would have had examples of black tribes living in Siberia, Alaska or Scandinavia. So far I'm not aware of any.

Light skins is an different example of blue eyes, see the quote above; by the way Siberians and Inuits peoples have relatively dark skin but live in the coldest climate and have dark brown eyes, so it's a little more complicated than that, another concrete example in the animals worlds, the cats are from the Egypt, they have all light eyes; the white bear all black eyes.

So far the overwhelming archaeological evidence, and now supported by modern population genetics point to Africa.
Again, just because you don't like it, it doesn't make it wrong.

http://anthrojournal.com/issue/octo...iregional-theory-vs-the-out-of-africa-2-model

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2004/3/out-of-africa

http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/6349.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatole_Klyosov

http://www.academia.edu/6077284/Rec..._of_Africa_Concept_as_Not_Having_Enough_Proof

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudi...-origins/out-of-america-family-of-hypotheses/

And there are mutliples theories like that and the scientific communities don't see agree to each other, so...so I can't accept one theory to another.

 

[Drax]

Drax,

try to read mine discussion with LeBrok

here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-in-the-future?p=453600&viewfull=1#post453600

Since post #198 to about 245.

You will save a lot of time

Because it will be over and over again the same - you and him

Yes, lol, thanks for the link, so I guess Lebrock and me are agree to disagree.

 

[LeBrok]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_albinism
be careful with the sensational pictures you can found in internet, this little girl is simply ill; that nothing to do with healthing blue eyes from Europeans.

Well, this example was used to show you that even black people can have blue eyes, which you didn't know.
Albinism is only a disease when effects skin, sometimes eyes, and exposes skin to UV radiation and cancer. People are pale and they can't tan.
Besides, personally I know 2 black people with blue eyes and they are completely healthy. They just have blue eye mutation. Mutation is a mutation, could be beneficial, and it could be disastrous, then we call it a disease. Sometimes it is confusing like a "sickle cell" mutation. It can protect you from malaria, but it also can give you a cycle cell anemia. This mutation is beneficial and a disease, good and bad, at the same time. Interestingly, this mutation is very common in Africa where malaria is. Talking about natural selection by environmental factors? Why Eskimos don't have this mutation popular?

Again we should be careful with this kind of sensational article; first that yet to find if their blond hairs is not a product of a form of albinism; by the way:

Yes, you can call it albinism of hair. But it is not a disease in this case. And listen to this:

But a new study fingers a random mutation instead

http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/05/origin-blond-afros-melanesia
I was right, saying that this is just a random and independent mutation.
Just keep in mind that these are just one gene mutations, unlike erupean skin.

The mutation, which has no obvious advantages, likely arose by chance in one individual and drifted to a high frequency in the Solomon Islands because the original population was small, says Jonathan Friedlaender, an anthropologist emeritus at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study. "This whole area seems to have been populated by very small groups of people making it across these stepping-stone islands, so you do have very dramatic effects in fluctuations of gene frequency."

If you read my post carefully you would notice that I'm in agreement with this.

What I'm arguing against is that as many as 5-10 European light skin mutations grew up to the scale of millions individuals just by a pure chance, and in the place that suits the white skin the most! Heck, we know that these mutations started in different original populations, through out whole Europe and West Asia. Now they are in one place. Do you know what is a the chance of it?!
If European developed black skin mutations spontaneously, or any Northern tribe of Syberia, you would have a point. But we know white skin is beneficial up north, it goes well with environment. Isn't it interesting, that it happens to be popular there?

That the opposite situation of WHG with blue eyes who have invaded mixed multiples times by brown peoples; again it was their isolation who have kept these blond afros.

How isolated where the Scandinavians in Europe? Farmers got there in Neolithic, Corded Ware in Bronze Age, then there were Samis/Finnish, and who knows who else. And yet, despite all of this mixing, they are overwhelmingly blond. Heck, they became more blond with time. They were less blond in Mesolithic. The recessive gene in action?
I'm not saying it isn't recessive, it is, but even a recessive gene can get "popular" if it is very beneficial. It gives survival advantage to the host and host's kids, therefore is propagated through the population. It is simple like this, and explains why recessive genes are persisting in spite of being recessive. It is simple and beautiful explanation.

Well first the theory of WHG peoples with blue eyes is the opposite of your example, because peoples who defend say they are the ones sources of blue eyes, they don't say Europeans have multiples genes for blue eyes from multiples peoples...

The white skin and blue eyes science is still young. We don't know all the details.

.it's the problem of your example of the natural selection because blue eyes were supposed among a tiny group and is extremely recessive

The same way the blond hair in Papua had spread over entire population.
Again, you concentrated on one gene mutation. White European skin is a product of many mutations, which "surprisingly" and conveniently like the North Europe the most.

Your theory have yet to be proven, so I don't know how you can say that the true, you have no idea what they have caused blue eyes, blond hairs etc...

Right, so lets talk about white skin, which is roughly figured out.

 

[Drax]

That's right! For Aryans!

For the Aryans, if we trust academic study:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranian_languages

So closer to the Western Siberian part/Russian and Ural river.

@Rethel

Aaaa... I thought that maybe some new dicoveries were made in that matter...

Any way, thanks, for trying.

Yes, I have never understand these kind of articles from genetics scientifics like they have done a news discoveries...I find that direspectful for Historians and Archeologists (who have already done this works since the 50"s, and way before for the theory).

 

[LeBrok]

No, but I find funny that you talk first about a theory, so not yet proven, and say in the same that have a been proven, that a contradiction, and no population genetic, archeology etc...are not agree about everything, it's far from the true, you can see lot of refutation about these kinds of theory too...I don't need a miracle, but a theory who respect the reality.

What theory is not proven? Actually word theory means proven, or most likely to be true. Both Relativity and Natural Selection are proven Theories. Unlike Creationism hypothesis.

That a pure legend, by the way there are various study about the useful or not of blue eyes, that clearly not an direct advantage:

http://www.spiegel.de/international...yed-people-related-to-brad-pitt-a-532346.html

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/origin-blue-eyes

"Like freckles, hair color or baldness, there's no real physical advantage to being blue-eyed. Says Eiberg: “It simply shows that nature is constantly shuffling the human genome, creating a genetic cocktail of human chromosomes and trying out different changes as it does so.”

I can agree with your explanation with the side effect of blue eyes with white skin and light hairs, and that our problem with these WHG with brown eyes and so-called light eyes.

I don't have a problem with this, as I said we don't know any beneficial factors of blue eyes or blond hair. It doesn't mean we won't find any in the future.

Light skins is an different example of blue eyes, see the quote above; by the way Siberians and Inuits peoples have relatively dark skin but live in the coldest climate and have dark brown eyes, so it's a little more complicated than that, another concrete example in the animals worlds, the cats are from the Egypt, they have all light eyes; the white bear all black eyes.

Yes, Inuits are bit brown but they eat fresh liver, which is an excellent source of D3. They don't need to be as white as northern farmers to be healthy. Even Korean farmers are white or norther Japanese. They developed independent mutations of white skin, without blondism of eyes and hair, though they have different mutations, so it is hard to compare.

When you compare untanned skin of Inuits, they turn to be rather light skin too.

Some are European kids, for easier comparison.

 

[Rethel]

here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-in-the-future?p=453600&viewfull=1#post453600
Since post #198 to about 245.

LeBrok,
could you be so nice to create new thread from ours posts
from that theat, and from yours and Drax from this thread?
Disscusion is about the same thing, and is very important.
It should not be hidden among others threads and topics.

 

[Rethel]

Unlike Creationism hypothesis.

etrified:

Yes, Inuits are bit brown

Wow! This is really a big step for you LeBrok,
that you finally admitted this simple fact!

Even Korean farmers are white or norther Japanese.

Do not exagerate.
One day on the sun... and whitness is vanished... :innocent:

 

[Drax]

Well, this example was used to show you that even black people can have blue eyes, which you didn't know.

Of course I have already known this kind of pictures, but that don't change the fact that unhealthy.

Albinism is only a disease when effects skin, sometimes eyes, and exposes skin to UV radiation and cancer. People are pale and they can't tan.

Well...no:

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/ocular-albinism

"Ocular albinism is characterized by severely impaired sharpness of vision (visual acuity) and problems with combining vision from both eyes to perceive depth (stereoscopic vision). Although the vision loss is permanent, it does not worsen over time. Other eye abnormalities associated with this condition include rapid, involuntary eye movements (nystagmus); eyes that do not look in the same direction (strabismus); and increased sensitivity to light (photophobia). Many affected individuals also have abnormalities involving the optic nerves, which carry visual information from the eye to the brain.

Unlike some other forms of albinism, ocular albinism does not significantly affect the color of the skin and hair. People with this condition may have a somewhat lighter complexion than other members of their family, but these differences are usually minor."

Besides, personally I know 2 black people with blue eyes and they are completely healthy. They just have blue eye mutation. Mutation is a mutation, could be beneficial, and it could be disastrous, then we call it a disease. Sometimes it is confusing like a "sickle cell" mutation. It can protect you from malaria, but it also can give you a cycle cell anemia. This mutation is beneficial and a disease, good and bad, at the same time. Interestingly, this mutation is very common in Africa where malaria is. Talking about natural selection by environmental factors? Why Eskimos don't have this mutation popular?

No it's different, your friends have necessary whites ancestors, see this article:

http://www.livescience.com/9578-common-ancestor-blue-eyes.html

That nothing to do the ocular albinism of the little girl.

Yes, you can call it albinism of hair. But it is not a disease in this case. And listen to this:

http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/05/origin-blond-afros-melanesia
I was right, saying that this is just a random and independent mutation.
Just keep in mind that these are just one gene mutations, unlike erupean skin.

I have never say the opposite, I have posted myself more or less the same article, for the consequence of this albinism of hair, we don't know well if that physically it's a problem of not...or if this have a consequence for their health.

If you read my post carefully you would notice that I'm in agreement with this.

What I'm arguing against is that as many as 5-10 European light skin mutations grew up to the scale of millions individuals just by a pure chance, and in the place that suits the white skin the most! Heck, we know that these mutations started in different original populations, through out whole Europe and West Asia. Now they are in one place. Do you know what is a the chance of it?!
If European developed black skin mutations spontaneously, or any Northern tribe of Syberia, you would have a point. But we know white skin is beneficial up north, it goes well with environment. Isn't it interesting, that it happens to be popular there?

See my example of the dark skin Inuit for to know that it's far more complicated than that...and again we talk about blue eyes, not hair or skin.

How isolated where the Scandinavians in Europe? Farmers got there in Neolithic, Corded Ware in Bronze Age, then there were Samis/Finnish, and who knows who else. And yet, despite all of this mixing, they are overwhelmingly blond. Heck, they became more blond with time. They were less blond in Mesolithic. The recessive gene in action?
I'm not saying it isn't recessive, it is, but even a recessive gene can get "popular" if it is very beneficial. It gives survival advantage to the host and host's kids, therefore is propagated through the population. It is simple like this, and explains why recessive genes are persisting in spite of being recessive. It is simple and beautiful explanation.

No, see the Inuit or Siberian examples, and apparently not every migration have the same impact, for Indo-Europeans invaders, lot of studies talk about at best a population substitution, at worst a genocide of the pre-europeans, naturally, they have a biggest numbers, their blond hairs/blue eyes (see the test of the Globular Culture I have posted) have survived better, not because of adaptation, but simply because of their bronze weapons...That a complete different situation than WHG dark skin/blue eyes.

The white skin and blue eyes science is still young. We don't know all the details.

We can agree about that.

The same way the blond hair in Papua had spread over entire population.
Again, you concentrated on one gene mutation. White European skin is a product of many mutations, which "surprisingly" and conveniently like the North Europe the most.

No that different Papua have been isolated, that because of that these blond hair have survived according the article, the Europeans example differents, because apparently they have mixed multiples times (3 different ancestors, but now, maybe they seem close to each others...); I'm not against your example, but there are lot of problem with this theory...the Inuits, Siberians etc...they live all in the colder climate than the Europeans; they still have dark skins

Right, so lets talk about white skin, which is roughly figured out.

There are still the Inuits problem, so no white skin seem more complicated too.

 

[Drax]

LeBrok,
could you be so nice to create new thread from ours posts
from that theat, and from yours and Drax from this thread?
Disscusion is about the same thing, and is very important.
It should not be hidden among others threads and topics.

Thousand times sorry Rethel, I'm very sorry.

Lebrock, thank you for to have taken the time to reply, I think we are just agree to disagree, that would be my last reply; thanks again.

Again sorry Rethel; and thank you for this thread.

 

[Rethel]

Thousand times sorry Rethel, I'm very sorry.

Again sorry Rethel; and thank you for this thread.

Why are you sorry?

 

[Alan]

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30936-Yamna-quot-25-ENF-30-35-ANE-quot-and-40-45-WHG

some of them have near 45% WHG, so we can talk of half, of if you prefer between 1/3 and 1/2; so near half.

Some doesn't really matter, Some also had as low as 30% And as said in the thread itself, the title was misleading. The average Yamna is 35% WHG.