Irish fair skin can be traced to India and the Middle East

[Kazimiera]

Irish fair skin can be traced to India and the Middle East

http://media.irishcentral.com/images/MI_LightSkinofIrish_PhotoCall.jpg

Have you ever wondered where the Irish get their light skin color from? Well, it appears we may now have the answer.

A major new US study at Penn State University has found that Europeans' light skin stems from a gene mutation from a single person who lived 10,000 years ago.

Scientists made the discovery after identifying a key gene that contributes to lighter skin color in Europeans, and the Irish fall into this category.

The Mail Online reports that, in earlier research, Keith Cheng from Penn State College of Medicine reported that one amino acid difference in the gene SLC24A5 is a key contributor to the skin color difference between Europeans and West Africans. This is undoubtedly where the Irish get their light skin from.

"The mutation in SLC24A5 changes just one building block in the protein, and contributes about a third of the visually striking differences in skin tone between peoples of African and European ancestry," he said.

Cheng and his team studied segments of genetic code that have a mutation and are located closely on the same chromosome and are often inherited together.

The mutation, called A111T, is found in virtually everyone of European ancestry.

A111T is also found in populations in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent, but not in high numbers in Africans.

All individuals from the Middle East, North Africa, East Africa and South India who carry the A111T mutation share traces of the ancestral genetic code. According to the researchers, this indicates that all existing instances of this mutation originate from the same person.

The pattern of people with this lighter skin color mutation suggests that the A111T mutation occurred somewhere between the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent.

‘This means that Middle Easterners and South Indians, which includes most inhabitants of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, share significant ancestry,’ Professor Cheng said.

Professor Cheng now plans to look at more genetic samples to better understand what role genes play in East Asian skin color. Perhaps he will take a look into where Irish redheads come from after this.


Source: http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/the-light-skin-of-the-irish-can-be-traced-to-india-and-the-middle-east-239166271-239671671.html

[Cleitus]

ARYANS

[Mortimer]

cool. that disproves also aryan invasion or white mideast etc. because light skin comes from there

[StonyArabia]

Well there are people in the Middle East with zero European ancestry that can be fair skinned, but they cluster not with Europeans but with the other Mideasterners this shows that it was more selected in Europe and especially in the Northern areas because of advantage it was not selected in the Mideast because it would have been a disadvantage. I don't think Europeans can survive in the harsh heat of the Arabian Desert. Marsh Arabs who are Arabians genetically, culturally, often have blondism in them, but it appears from time to time, it was just not selected because of the harsh hot climate of southern Iraq.

Here blond MarshArab :

http://s3.postimg.org/wlee2pfwz/Marsh_Arab.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

Here is regular MarshArabs:

http://s29.postimg.org/wd5rvh6rr/Marsh_Arab2.jpg (http://postimage.org/)


Both fair skin and blondism including blue eyes are now shown to be of Middle Eastern origins, so it's not via admixture with Crusaders, British, French, ect, but often if there is admixture, the genes for it does increase, but not in the isolated/tribal communities rather it is within their own genome.

So this study does not sound strange to the people educated in genetics, anthropology and such. Europeans after all were an early off-shoot of Mideasterners and South Asians to some this might be offensive but this what science shows.

[Vidå]

cool. that disproves also aryan invasion or white mideast etc. because light skin comes from there

It's a new study at Penn State -- it by no means provides conclusive evidence. New studies are often riddled with errors that are only at a later stage discovered.

The heaps of established linguistic evidence on the issue (as well as countering genetic, archaeological and literary sources) stands athwart to studies such as these.

[LightHouse89]

more 'skin color is a social construct' and 'Europeans are just light skinned black people'.......my God multiculturalists will stop at nothing to come up with as much crap about 'Out of Africa' nonsense. Yes Irish people are just light skinned Africans :rolleyes:

[LightHouse89]

It's a new study at Penn State -- it by no means provides conclusive evidence. New studies are often riddled with errors that are only at a later stage discovered.

The heaps of established linguistic evidence on the issue (as well as countering genetic, archaeological and literary sources) stands athwart to studies such as these.

I wouldnt trust much of anything out of America these days. The gov and many groups here have hidden agendas.

[Styrian Mujo]

I smell bullshit.

[LightHouse89]

ARYANS

No Neanderthals were light skinned and this retarded study entirely left that out. Proof its fake and made up crap with more 'out of africa' theories. As soon as I here the only thing that seperates europeans from west africans is pigmentation then I know its a bunch of crap.

[LightHouse89]

I smell bullshit.

:thumb001:

[Insuperable]

Well there are people in the Middle East with zero European ancestry that can be fair skinned, but they cluster not with Europeans but with the other Mideasterners this shows that it was more selected in Europe and especially in the Northern areas because of advantage it was not selected in the Mideast because it would have been a disadvantage. I don't think Europeans can survive in the harsh heat of the Arabian Desert. Marsh Arabs who are Arabians genetically, culturally, often have blondism in them, but it appears from time to time, it was just not selected because of the harsh hot climate of southern Iraq.

Here blond MarshArab :

http://s3.postimg.org/wlee2pfwz/Marsh_Arab.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

Here is regular MarshArabs:

http://s29.postimg.org/wd5rvh6rr/Marsh_Arab2.jpg (http://postimage.org/)


Both fair skin and blondism including blue eyes are now shown to be of Middle Eastern origins, so it's not via admixture with Crusaders, British, French, ect, but often if there is admixture, the genes for it does increase, but not in the isolated/tribal communities rather it is within their own genome.

So this study does not sound strange to the people educated in genetics, anthropology and such. Europeans after all were an early off-shoot of Mideasterners and South Asians to some this might be offensive but this what science shows.

Light features in the Middle East may not be of direct or recent European ancestry that is, but are of ancestreal origins which are at the core of European people and not someone else.

[StonyArabia]

I smell bullshit.

Well explain why blond/fair skinned Middle Easterners have nothing to do with Europeans. Did you know they cluster with their darker brethren especially true in regards of the Semitic ethnic group and are genetically "identical" there autosomes are the same. Europeans are an off shoot of Middle Easterners and South Asians, it's fact that can not be denied. There is no Crusader, French, British, admixture in the Marsh Arabs for example, nor in the Syrian Desert Bedouins who sometimes have little bit of blondism.

Europeans= Middle Easterners and South Asians off-shoot.

[Arcadefire]

more 'skin color is a social construct' and 'Europeans are just light skinned black people'.......my God multiculturalists will stop at nothing to come up with as much crap about 'Out of Africa' nonsense. Yes Irish people are just light skinned Africans :rolleyes:

Yea.. except out of Africa theory does not claim that modern Europeans were originally Negroids. The modern man who walked out of Africa THEN did not look like the moderl day SSA either. Dont be so paranoid man :lol:

[Smaug]

Noice!

[Insuperable]

Well explain why blond/fair skinned Middle Easterners have nothing to do with Europeans.

And how do you know that doctor?


Did you know they cluster with their darker brethren especially true in regards of the Semitic ethnic group and are genetically "identical" there autosomes are the same.

Oh noes they don't cluster


Europeans are an off shoot of Middle Easterners and South Asians, it's fact that can not be denied. There is no Crusader, French, British, admixture in the Marsh Arabs for example, nor in the Syrian Desert Bedouins who sometimes have little bit of blondism.

There are traces of "European" ancestry throughout the ME, recent or ancestreal so there is nothing surprising if blondism pops out in four-five people per year.


Europeans= Middle Easterners and South Asians off-shoot.

http://i62.tinypic.com/ekhoxt.gif

Obviously not of modern ME and South Asians.

[Amud]

10,000 years ago? What about Neanderthals?

[LightHouse89]

Yea.. except out of Africa theory does not claim that modern Europeans were originally Negroids. The modern man who walked out of Africa THEN did not look like the moderl day SSA either. Dont be so paranoid man :lol:

I am not mad I just know what they are doing.

[LightHouse89]

10,000 years ago? What about Neanderthals?

Thats my point.

[Watch_Owl]

Irish got fair skin 10000 years ago yet the 7000 year old Spaniard skeleton didn't. Something doesn't add up.

[Styrian Mujo]

Well explain why blond/fair skinned Middle Easterners have nothing to do with Europeans. Did you know they cluster with their darker brethren especially true in regards of the Semitic ethnic group and are genetically "identical" there autosomes are the same. Europeans are an off shoot of Middle Easterners and South Asians, it's fact that can not be denied. There is no Crusader, French, British, admixture in the Marsh Arabs for example, nor in the Syrian Desert Bedouins who sometimes have little bit of blondism.

Europeans= Middle Easterners and South Asians off-shoot.
A better term would be more evolved/refined rather than off-shoot:)

[ramon]

OK, Irish are really Indian. What next, Spanish descend from Norwegians?

[Styrian Mujo]

Irish got fair skin 10000 years ago yet the 7000 year old Spaniard skeleton didn't. Something doesn't add up.
Probably becuase it's all bullshit. I would't trust anything that is written on the internet.

[HillY35]

I believe climate has something to do with the phenomenon of skin color. Skin color is obviously a genetic trait...however, could it be a genetic mutation that has at least SOMETHING to do with regional climate?

[LightHouse89]

I believe climate has something to do with the phenomenon of skin color. Skin color is obviously a genetic trait...however, could it be a genetic mutation that has at least SOMETHING to do with regional climate?

I think only a little bit. I don't think there is just a difference of 'skin' color that exists. That's what the 'We come from West Africans' etc... crap doesn't cover and only say 'Oh we are all really just Africans and moved to Europe and after 10,000 became white'. I don't buy it.

[StonyArabia]

And how do you know that doctor?

Because I have seen their genetic results and they don't cluster with Europeans. Some of these people barely have any North European admixture yet they still get some form of blondism. This clearly shows that blondism did not originate in Europe but probably somewhere in the Middle East, and it was selected only in Europe due to advantage.



Oh noes they don't cluster
There are traces of "European" ancestry throughout the ME, recent or ancestreal so there is nothing surprising if blondism pops out in four-five people per year.

Yes that is true, but if one is speaking about groups that don't intermix with anyone else but themselves and do have some form of blondism well that's because those genes originated among them rather than being brought from Europe.




http://i62.tinypic.com/ekhoxt.gif

Obviously not of modern ME and South Asians.

Well you can disagree and laugh at it all you want but science shows otherwise.

[Graham]

La Brana 7000 year old Mesolthic Iberian, was said to have dark skin. It's not too far fetched to say it slowly spread from East to West.

[StonyArabia]

La Brana 7000 year old Mesolthic Iberian, was said to have dark skin. It's not too far fetched to say it slowly spread from East to West.

Yes it was mostly likely due to natural selection a good example of it actually. If the Mideasterners and South Asians have the mutation for it but are relatively dark it can be explained why it was not selected due to environmental conditions were not favorable like those in Europe were.

[randomguy1235]

OK, Irish are really Indian. What next, Spanish descend from Norwegians?

That's not what the study implied at all. I suggest you actually read the paper before you ignorantly presume something.

[Anglojew]

cool. that disproves also aryan invasion or white mideast etc. because light skin comes from there

No it says white skin is Middle Eastern (so they invaded India). It proves the ancient Middle East was white.

[Ivan Kramskoï]

I smell bullshit.
This

[StonyArabia]

No it says white skin is Middle Eastern (so they invaded India). It proves the ancient Middle East was white.

No it's the other way around. Europeans are from the Mideast and South Asia and were dark, but the mutation was selected for them. If people like the Marsh Arabs who have no European admixture have some blondism in them and other Mideast/South Asian groups it shows that the trait originated with them and not with Europeans.

[Insuperable]

Because I have seen their genetic results and they don't cluster with Europeans. Some of these people barely have any North European admixture yet they still get some form of blondism. This clearly shows that blondism did not originate in Europe but probably somewhere in the Middle East, and it was selected only in Europe due to advantage.

If existent barely can be enough for , especially if we take inbred people such as your Marsh Arabs where recessive genes they carry due to traces of European like ancestry become more dominant.


Yes that is true, but if one is speaking about groups that don't intermix with anyone else but themselves and do have some form of blondism well that's because those genes originated among them rather than being brought from Eur

Well I am telling you that everyone in the ME has some sort of distant European like ancestry roaming around. So what is your point?


Well you can disagree and laugh at it all you want but science shows otherwise.

Show me evidence to support this! Please shaman proletarian scholar don't refer to this thread because one mutation in one gene is not a sufficient evidence to say there is something more beyond common sharing. 10 000 years ago is a long time. Middle East wasn't the same 10000 years ago. You see I will even take Bruce Lee's post on the first page seriously and I might say that relatively high North European in parts of India goes in that support.

[Mark]

Irish fair skin can be traced to India and the Middle East

Makes sense, my Mum is a fair-skinned ginger.

[Insuperable]

La Brana 7000 year old Mesolthic Iberian, was said to have dark skin. It's not too far fetched to say it slowly spread from East to West.

Yes, that is true. However, he most probably had dark skin based on what scientists can say comparing modern genomes with the ancient ones. If I am not mistaken Fire Haired found some individuals with similar pigmentation allele frequency like La Brana individual and have normal white skin. In any case whatever skin he had that individual has very low connection with modern Middle Easterners and I don't see why Nabatea is jumping around claiming Europeans are an off shoot of Middle Easterners. Sure we all had to come from somewhere, nobody was dropped down by storks.

[Graham]

There was nothing 10 000 years ago that would define someone as European anyway, perhaps the ancient hunter gatherers. Europe's being a Greek term though.. Our Neolithic ancestors mixed in from the Middle East, the spread of culture from Mesopotamia in the Middle East.


Obviously fair skin would have progressed & evolved in cooler climates of Europe, than that of a dessert. Freckly skin and the sun don't mix well at all. :P

[Insuperable]

There was nothing 10 000 years ago that would define someone as European anyway, perhaps the ancient hunter gatherers. Europe's being a Greek term though.. Our Neolithic ancestors mixed in from the Middle East, the spread of culture from Mesopotamia in the Middle East.

By European I am am having HG and EEF genomes on mind. It is quite clear by current information (who knows, perhaps in the future there will be a different scenario) that 10000 years ago Middle East was swarming with EEF like people. If Sardinians are the best modern representatives of EEF it is enough to see where is their genome placed on say Mcdonald PCA plot and where are various Middle Easterners located compared to them. Sure, Med component is till very well present in the Middle East in varying percentages.


Obviously fair skin would have progressed & evolved in cooler climates of Europe, than that of a dessert. Freckly skin and the sun don't mix well at all. :P

If you could have mentioned dark La Brana individual you could have mentioned light skinned EEF in that case. We don't know from where exactly they came from, but farming first developed in Levantine areas. If they developed light skin with the beginning of neolithic age in European areas I also wonder why La Brana's pigmentation markers are not associated with the light skin. It is not always easy to explain something with selection of mutations, environment... Of course I will humbly say nobody can still claim something for sure.

[Neanderthal]

:rotfl:

[StonyArabia]

If existent barely can be enough for , especially if we take inbred people such as your Marsh Arabs where recessive genes they carry due to traces of European like ancestry become more dominant.

Marsh Arabs are typical Southwest Asian population. They are the closest relatives to the Syrian Desert Arab Bedouins, and Arabian Bedouins of the interior of Arabia. They don't have any European ancestry that is worth mentioning and yet they still get blondism at minor levels, the same is true of other two groups. Also the mtDNA of the Marsh Arabs resembles that of Arabians and Syrian Desert Bedouins, indicating they are an Arabian subset population.



Well I am telling you that everyone in the ME has some sort of distant European like ancestry roaming around. So what is your point?

This possible but rather Europeans originated from the Mideast genome which got selected for.


Show me evidence to support this! Please shaman proletarian scholar don't refer to this thread because one mutation in one gene is not a sufficient evidence to say there is something more beyond common sharing. 10 000 years ago is a long time. Middle East wasn't the same 10000 years ago. You see I will even take Bruce Lee's post on the first page seriously and I might say that relatively high North European in parts of India goes in that support.

The evidence is clear as day. Do you want to see a result of a blond Arabian Bedouin or Marsh Arab? You will be disappointed because they will be like other Arabian Bedouins and Marsh Arabs in their autosomes.

[Neanderthal]

Neanderthal light traits are 'totally unrelated' to modern humans or so they say, but we are supposed to believe we come from some albino Pakistani? :icon_lol:

[Insuperable]

Marsh Arabs are typical Southwest Asian population. They are the closest relatives to the Syrian Desert Arab Bedouins, and Arabian Bedouins of the interior of Arabia. They don't have any European ancestry that is worth mentioning and yet they still get blondism at minor levels, the same is true of other two groups. Also the mtDNA of the Marsh Arabs resembles that of Arabians and Syrian Desert Bedouins, indicating they are an Arabian subset population.

Again, what is your point? We can go like this all day. I am not denying that they are a typical Southwest Asian population.


This possible but rather Europeans originated from the Mideast genome which got selected for.

You are confusing the "Middle East" mentioned in OP (the one 10 000 years ago) with the modern Middle East. EEF thousands of years ago have little to do with modern Middle Easterners. Sure, there is some shared ancestry. The point is that it is a bit ambigous what they mean by Middle East here.


The evidence is clear as day. Do you want to see a result of a blond Arabian Bedouin or Marsh Arab? You will be disappointed because they will be like other Arabian Bedouins and Marsh Arabs in their autosomes.

How the frak are Arabian Bedouin and Marsh Arab genomes going to prove that Europeans are an offshoot of Middle Easterners and that the Middle East today is the same as of 10 000 years ago? Did you mean to quote something else or what?

[LightHouse89]

No it's the other way around. Europeans are from the Mideast and South Asia and were dark, but the mutation was selected for them. If people like the Marsh Arabs who have no European admixture have some blondism in them and other Mideast/South Asian groups it shows that the trait originated with them and not with Europeans.

I believe what is possible is that the first population in Europe may have had connections with West Asia but the Indo Europeans came from somewhere in Eurasia.

[LightHouse89]

Neanderthal light traits are 'totally unrelated' to modern humans or so they say, but we are supposed to believe we come from some albino Pakistani? :icon_lol:

That's a step up over the belief we some how built boats and ended up in Europe :rolleyes: A history teacher in high school told my class that. I almost shat my pants I laughed so hard.

[Black Wolf]

It makes some sense when you look at the ancient genetic data so far from mesolithic and Neolithic Europe. It has been shown that Mesolithic Europeans were dark skinned while the Neolithic Europeans who had a lot of ancestry from the Near East originally (migrating farmers) had genes coding for the light skin of modern day Europeans. So it seems rather likely that modern Europeans inherited light skin from Neolithic peoples originating in the Near East. One European hunter-gatherer from Sweden has been shown to have the light skin gene version as well but that is a very late sample and may have Neolithic farmer admixture to some degree.

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2014/01/brown-skinned-blue-eyed-y-haplogroup-c.html

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29789-Revised-Laz-Ancient-genomes-suggest-three-ancestral-populations-for-Europeans

[Fire Haired]

Irish fair skin can be traced to India and the Middle East

http://media.irishcentral.com/images/MI_LightSkinofIrish_PhotoCall.jpg

Have you ever wondered where the Irish get their light skin color from? Well, it appears we may now have the answer.

A major new US study at Penn State University has found that Europeans' light skin stems from a gene mutation from a single person who lived 10,000 years ago.

Scientists made the discovery after identifying a key gene that contributes to lighter skin color in Europeans, and the Irish fall into this category.

The Mail Online reports that, in earlier research, Keith Cheng from Penn State College of Medicine reported that one amino acid difference in the gene SLC24A5 is a key contributor to the skin color difference between Europeans and West Africans. This is undoubtedly where the Irish get their light skin from.

"The mutation in SLC24A5 changes just one building block in the protein, and contributes about a third of the visually striking differences in skin tone between peoples of African and European ancestry," he said.

Cheng and his team studied segments of genetic code that have a mutation and are located closely on the same chromosome and are often inherited together.

The mutation, called A111T, is found in virtually everyone of European ancestry.

A111T is also found in populations in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent, but not in high numbers in Africans.

All individuals from the Middle East, North Africa, East Africa and South India who carry the A111T mutation share traces of the ancestral genetic code. According to the researchers, this indicates that all existing instances of this mutation originate from the same person.

The pattern of people with this lighter skin color mutation suggests that the A111T mutation occurred somewhere between the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent.

‘This means that Middle Easterners and South Indians, which includes most inhabitants of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, share significant ancestry,’ Professor Cheng said.

Professor Cheng now plans to look at more genetic samples to better understand what role genes play in East Asian skin color. Perhaps he will take a look into where Irish redheads come from after this.


Source: http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/the-light-skin-of-the-irish-can-be-traced-to-india-and-the-middle-east-239166271-239671671.html

This mutation has been known about for a long time. The experts are just guessing it originated somewhere around the middle east based on modern distribution. Saying Irish get their pale skin from middle easterns and south Asians, is like calling everyone African. We all trace our human ancestry back to Africa over 100,000 years ago, but that does not make us all African genetically in the modern sense. The first humans were not African genetically, and the earliest people to have this skin lighting mutation would have been very very very very very differnt from modern middle easterns genetically, because they lived 10,000 of years ago.

If Irish get their light skin from this mutation why don't middle easterns have the same light skin, since they have this mutation at the same rate?

[Neanderthal]

It makes some sense when you look at the ancient genetic data so far from mesolithic and Neolithic Europe. It has been shown that Mesolithic Europeans were dark skinned while the Neolithic Europeans who had a lot of ancestry from the Near East originally (migrating farmers) had genes coding for the light skin of modern day Europeans. So it seems rather likely that modern Europeans inherited light skin from Neolithic peoples originating in the Near East. One European hunter-gatherer from Sweden has been shown to have the light skin gene version as well but that is a very late sample and may have Neolithic farmer admixture to some degree.

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2014/01/brown-skinned-blue-eyed-y-haplogroup-c.html

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29789-Revised-Laz-Ancient-genomes-suggest-three-ancestral-populations-for-Europeans

Irish light skin is directly linked to Neanderthal:


Neanderthal Influence on Skin, Hair, Common Diseases

Despite their different approaches, both teams converged on similar results. They both found that genes involved in making keratin—the protein found in our skin, hair, and nails—are especially rich in Neanderthal DNA.

For example, the Neanderthal version of the skin gene POU2F3 is found in around 66 percent of East Asians, while the Neanderthal version of BNC2, which affects skin color, among other traits, is found in 70 percent of Europeans.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140129-neanderthal-genes-genetics-migration-africa-eurasian-science/

This basically means the gene of light skin color in Europeans and Asians is the same gene as the Neanderthal, it just says tho, that East Asians are on average 34% darker (more polluted with other hominids) than Neanderthal and Europeans 30% darker (depending on ethnicity unless you happen to believe all Europeans have the same skin color...)

Of course there are some Mesolithic people with dark skin color and light eyes, because they were hybrids. Mesolithic people probably had a skin tone similar to some Siberian/Amerids, some a bit whitened and some light eyed due Neanderthal admix, but of course this depending on the percentage of admixture.

Probably the tiny Neanderthal admixture Negroids have is due some very late Mesolithic admixture. First Negroids were probably similar to pygmies and the Sudanid and some other robust types are actually result of Mesolithic/Neanderthal admixture. Makes sense since this type is one of the newest to appear in history.

There was even an article were they proved skin color in East Asians was mostly due Neanderthal genetics (can't find it now, i'm not at home) and there's no reason to doubt it could be the same case with Europeans.

[Smeagol]

cool. that disproves also aryan invasion

No it doesn't at all. It says light skin probably originated in the Middle East. This does not in anyway disprove the Aryan invasion theory. (or migration, whatever you want to call it..) You want to believe that only because it's part of your agenda, you don't care about the facts.

[Mortimer]

No it doesn't at all. It says light skin probably originated in the Middle East. This does not in anyway disprove the Aryan invasion theory. (or migration, whatever you want to call it..) You want to believe that only because it's part of your agenda, you don't care about the facts.

between mideast and southindia, could very well be closer to northindia. it doesnt disprove the aryan invasion really, true. it is unrelated. but it shows that history and genetics are much more complex then what is believed by white supremacists. and if white skin originates in india or mideast then it means there was a movement from east to west, no? anyways it is a good finding and will piss of anti-indian racist jews like you and anglo and norman de poer

[Smeagol]

between mideast and southindia, could very well be closer to northindia.

More likely the Middle East I'm guessing, but we can't say for sure now.


it doesnt disprove the aryan invasion really, true. it is unrelated.

Yes, good you admit that.


but it shows that history and genetics are much more complex then what is believed by white supremacists. and if white skin originates in india or mideast then it means there was a movement from east to west, no?

Yes, but this has nothing to do with Aryans/Indoeuropeans, who originated on the South Russian Steppe. This just suggests that White people originated in the Middle East actually.


anyways it is a good finding and will piss of anti-indian racist jews like you and anglo and norman de poer

There isn't anything pro-Indian in this article.

[blogen]

This is what I say about the great Mediterranid race based on the Eastern European taxonomies (Hungarian, Russian (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=45383&d=1394525095), etc):

http://s27.postimg.org/y0spd56oz/1curly_red_hair_pretty.jpg

[Mortimer]

More likely the Middle East I'm guessing, but we can't say for sure now.



Yes, good you admit that.



Yes, but this has nothing to do with Aryans/Indoeuropeans, who originated on the South Russian Steppe. This just suggests that White people originated in the Middle East actually.



There isn't anything pro-Indian in this article.

i think more likely in india, because otherwise mideasterners had moved to southindia, but southindians dont look mideastern and they are darker then mideasterners, and there is a graduall increas in light skin from southindia to ireland with mideast inbetween so it makes sense that it originated in india and spread towards mideast and then to europe. but we cant know it you are right. also i believe that indian civilisation is older then believed, call me esoteric but i believe indians had supercivilisation 50.000 years ago there is evidence that they built space shattles in the past etc. most call it conspiracy etc. though, so aryans could very well be older and at some point moved to europe where they mutated into whites

[Smeagol]

i think more likely in india, because otherwise mideasterners had moved to southindia, but southindians dont look mideastern and they are darker then mideasterners, and there is a graduall increas in light skin from southindia to ireland with mideast inbetween so it makes sense that it originated in india and spread towards mideast and then to europe. but we cant know it you are right.

Middle Easterners have been moving into India for a long time. Original Dravidians came from the Middle East too, (There are even still Dravidian speakers in Pakistan), but were pushed further south by Aryans, and mixed with Weddids, which is one reason why South Indians do not look like Middle Easterners.


also i believe that indian civilisation is older then believed, call me esoteric but i believe indians had supercivilisation 50.000 years ago there is evidence that they built space shattles in the past etc. most call it conspiracy etc. though, so aryans could very well be older and at some point moved to europe where they mutated into whites

Well this is all nonsense claimed by Indian nationalists. It's the same nonsense as Afrocentrism, Nordicism, Medcentrism, etc..

[Mortimer]

Middle Easterners have been moving into India for a long time. Original Dravidians came from the Middle East too, (There are even still Dravidian speakers in Pakistan), bu were pushed further south by Aryans, and mixed with Weddids, which is one reason why South Indians do not look like Middle Easterners.



Well this is all nonsense claimed by Indian nationalists. It's the same nonsense as Afrocentrism, Nordicism, Medcentrism, etc..

if original dravidians are mideasterners what subrace have they been? i mean before they mixed with weddids? arabid, iranid? also that dravidians are from mideast is just a speculation, and the few ones in pakistan could be later displaced ones, there is no evidence that dravidians have lived outside india once. just speculation etc. and the classification of them is uncertain some anthropologists classified them as weddid themselfes etc. or proto-australoid etc. or a own dravida race. if it is all nonsense why are you a nordicist and eurocentrist then? also how do you know it is nonsense http://veda.wikidot.com/ancient-city-found-in-india-irradiated-from-atomic-blast

[Smeagol]

if original dravidians are mideasterners what subrace have they been? i mean before they mixed with weddids? arabid, iranid?

Probably some type of Mediterranoid or Protoindid I guess.


also that dravidians are from mideast is just a speculation, and the few ones in pakistan could be later displaced ones, there is no evidence that dravidians have lived outside india once. just speculation etc.

It explains the main Europid element in Indians. Also, the Dravidians in Pakistan are racially different from South Indians, so it's unlikely they are just displaced ones.


and the classification of them is uncertain some anthropologists classified them as weddid themselfes etc. or proto-australoid etc. or a own dravida race.

Dravidians in South India are mainly Indomelanid.


if it is all nonsense why are you a nordicist and eurocentrist then?

I'm not. That's just what you call people when you don't like facts.


also how do you know it is nonsense http://veda.wikidot.com/ancient-city-found-in-india-irradiated-from-atomic-blast

Sorry but I don't take seriously Indiancentric websites like that. I can also show you plenty of articles from Eurocentric/Nordicist websites that claim to prove original Indians were White, or even Nordid White, but you wouldn't take that seriously would you? (I wouldn't either, I'm just using it as an example).

[Mortimer]

Probably some type of Mediterranoid or Protoindid I guess.



It explains the main Europid element in Indians. Also, the Dravidians in Pakistan are racially different from South Indians, so it's unlikely they are just displaced ones.



Dravidians in South India are mainly Indomelanid.



I'm not. That's just what you call people when you don't like facts.



Sorry but I don't take seriously Indiancentric websites like that. I can also show you plenty of articles from Eurocentric/Nordicist websites that claim to prove original Indians were White, or even Nordid White, but you wouldn't take that seriously would you? (I wouldn't either, I'm just using it as an example).

if they were proto-indid why is there no mideastern nation who is proto-indid? if dravidians are from mideast? and not all dravidians are indo-melanid, lots of them are indid or indid with various degree of admixture. also pakistan is not in the mideast, dravidians dont exist outside the indian subcontinent/southasia etc. they maybe came very well from northindia/pakistan if they live now in pakistan, like from indus valley but not from mideast. because there are no dravidians in the mideast or protoindids etc. but you do claim that original aryans were white or even nordid white so why wouldnt you show me that website or use that as example? or am i wrong, you dont claim original indian civilisation was founded by whites? where is the difference between you and a nordicist? also i admitt it sounds incredible that indians had nuclear weapons in ancient times, but fact is that a destroyed city was found which was radioactive like hiroshima was radioactive etc. and that has nothing to do with indo-centrism, it could have other reasons though not atomic bombs, i dont know. i try to be fair.

[Mortimer]

also you say i have a agenda and that im a lier, when you clearly do have a agenda and say it originated in the mideast while the article says "somewhere between mideast and india" while you made it mideast, just that it is not india etc. so you dont have a agenda?

[Smeagol]

also pakistan is not in the mideast, dravidians dont exist outside the indian subcontinent/southasia etc. they maybe came very well from northindia/pakistan

Yes, this is a possibility, although the original Europid element in Indians must be Middle Eastern in origin I guess.


or am i wrong, you dont claim original indian civilisation was founded by whites? where is the difference between you and a nordicist?

I never claimed that. Indus Valley Civilization was native to Northindia/Pakistan, and the people were Indid, and Nordindid mostly based on skeletal evidence. Indoeuropeans originated in Europe, but they were mixed with Middle Easterners by the time they got to Southasia.

[Smeagol]

also you say i have a agenda and that im a lier, when you clearly do have a agenda and say it originated in the mideast while the article says "somewhere between mideast and india" while you made it mideast, just that it is not india etc. so you dont have a agenda?

I said that I guess it is most likely the Mideast. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[Mortimer]

all you do is take a guess, the skeletall evidence in india shows that there was diversity of sub-races just as today and there was no different subraces, like "white european skelletons or black african" etc. the skeletall evidence shows no aryan people there. and not all indus valley persons were nordindid lol, they were a mix just like today etc.
you are a whitecentrist and caucasoidcentrist if you cant prove they were white you will prove they were caucasoid/nordindid etc. also you hate everything negroid/australoid etc. all you say is "i dont know it but i guess and i doubt etc." thats based on your wishes, and old eurocentrist policies

[Smeagol]

and not all indus valley persons were nordindid lol, they were a mix just like today etc.

I said they were mainly a mix of Nordindid, and Indid, and it's the same today.:picard1:

[Artek]

Irish light skin is directly linked to Neanderthal:



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140129-neanderthal-genes-genetics-migration-africa-eurasian-science/

This basically means the gene of light skin color in Europeans and Asians is the same gene as the Neanderthal, it just says tho, that East Asians are on average 34% darker (more polluted with other hominids) than Neanderthal and Europeans 30% darker (depending on ethnicity unless you happen to believe all Europeans have the same skin color...)

Convergent evolution, heaven't you heard of it? It doesn't necessarilly mean that we had to mix so hard(if we had in any case) with Neanderthals like some people want to believe.

Of course there are some Mesolithic people with dark skin color and light eyes, because they were hybrids. Mesolithic people probably had a skin tone similar to some Siberian/Amerids, some a bit whitened and some light eyed due Neanderthal admix, but of course this depending on the percentage of admixture.
Mesolithic people were very uniform genetically, at least basing on an autosomal material we have today. And what's even more important, neanderthals were already long-gone during mesolithic period in Europe -if any homo sapiens genome was touched by a neanderthal admix, it managed to flush out and/or even during middle paleolithic, upper paleolithic and mesolithic period.


Probably the tiny Neanderthal admixture Negroids have is due some very late Mesolithic admixture. First Negroids were probably similar to pygmies and the Sudanid and some other robust types are actually result of Mesolithic/Neanderthal admixture. Makes sense since this type is one of the newest to appear in history.
I don't think that any debatable 1-3% admix makes an influence on appearance.


There was even an article were they proved skin color in East Asians was mostly due Neanderthal genetics (can't find it now, i'm not at home) and there's no reason to doubt it could be the same case with Europeans.
And as well, suggesting that people needed neanderthals to have this or that skin/eye/hair colour, like we wouldn't be able to evolve it ourselves by a selection, etc.

Think about basic problems, like chances of survival of hypotetical human-neanderthal hyrids http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/10/neandertal-modern-hybrid-babies-and.html and if there was an ability to reproduce between humans and neanderthals. If their lines diverged so long ago, it would be problematic to produce any offspring.

The next thing is an obvious complete lack of any neanderthal y-dna and mtdna among more than tens of thousands tested subjects from every population in the world combined. It leads to a conclusion that even if mix occured and infant survived, it would've been a male kid of male homo sapiens and female neanderthal. Y-dna remains homo sapiens, mtdna didn't passed on. We have neanderthal admix that flushes out in a few generations, some alele remained positively or negatively selected. Poow!

[Ultra]

Well there are people in the Middle East with zero European ancestry that can be fair skinned, but they cluster not with Europeans but with the other Mideasterners this shows that it was more selected in Europe and especially in the Northern areas because of advantage it was not selected in the Mideast because it would have been a disadvantage. I don't think Europeans can survive in the harsh heat of the Arabian Desert. Marsh Arabs who are Arabians genetically, culturally, often have blondism in them, but it appears from time to time, it was just not selected because of the harsh hot climate of southern Iraq.

Here blond MarshArab :

http://s3.postimg.org/wlee2pfwz/Marsh_Arab.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

Here is regular MarshArabs:

http://s29.postimg.org/wd5rvh6rr/Marsh_Arab2.jpg (http://postimage.org/)


Both fair skin and blondism including blue eyes are now shown to be of Middle Eastern origins, so it's not via admixture with Crusaders, British, French, ect, but often if there is admixture, the genes for it does increase, but not in the isolated/tribal communities rather it is within their own genome.

So this study does not sound strange to the people educated in genetics, anthropology and such. Europeans after all were an early off-shoot of Mideasterners and South Asians to some this might be offensive but this what science shows.
Only thing science shows is that modern Mid-Easterners are mongrel subhumans who resemble very little the ancient and pre-historic populations of these areas.

[Insuperable]

i think more likely in india, because otherwise mideasterners had moved to southindia, but southindians dont look mideastern and they are darker then mideasterners, and there is a graduall increas in light skin from southindia to ireland with mideast inbetween so it makes sense that it originated in india and spread towards mideast and then to europe. but we cant know it you are right. also i believe that indian civilisation is older then believed, call me esoteric but i believe indians had supercivilisation 50.000 years ago there is evidence that they built space shattles in the past etc. most call it conspiracy etc. though, so aryans could very well be older and at some point moved to europe where they mutated into whites

Lololololololo. Some of Indian proletarian scholar don't want to accept that Europeans-Aryans gave them their language and influened their culture despite evidence pointing that, but it is very much possible that Indians were the same people 50 000 years ago who build space shuttles and nuclear weapon and using this crap they try to prove that invading Aryans were the one who destroyed this advanced civilization loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool. Shaman scholar proletarians. You are also not much better than other -centrism proponents in this regard. It is not European fault that out of all -centrism Eurocentrism has more sense, backed up by evidence to a certian degree. I am not saying that it makes much sense, don't get me wrong.

Regarding your flying saucers it is quite obvious it is a hoax pushed by Indian supremacists:

First Hoax
On the internet, which recognized outstanding paragraphs from the book of the Mahabharata is said to describe and prove the existence of war (explosive) nuclear antiquity. I found this paragraph quoted many web or blog that discusses the ancient nuclear reactor. I took it and this is the sound of that paragraph:

"Gurkha, flying vimanas (plane) is strong and quick throws a projectile (missile) is filled with the power of the universe (nuclear). Glowing pillar of fire and smoke as obvious as the sun rose to light 10 000 all its glory. It was an unknown weapon , an iron thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death and makes the whole tribe Vrishnis Andhakas to ashes. bodies to be burned up so can not be recognized anymore. hair and nails falling off, broken clay tiles for no apparent reason and the birds turned into white ... after a few hours, all foodstuffs contaminated (radiation) ... to escape from this fire, the soldiers jumped into the stream of water to clean themselves and their equipment. (Mahabharata - 6500 BC?)

Well, the problem is the book of the Mahabharata contains a paragraph that was never in it. You can look it up on the internet via google.


Second Hoax - Mohenjodaro, Harappa and Rajasthan
Called that in the city of Mohenjodaro and Harappa, the scientists found ancient cities with a framework that littered the streets, mostly visible on the streets holding hands, this show came to their death suddenly. This framework and age thousands of years. And frameworks have the same high levels of radioactivity in Hiroshima Nagasaki bomb survivors.

While in Rajasthan is called that has found a layer of radioactive dust that covers an area of ​​three square miles at ten miles west of Jodhpur. Radioactivity is a study that found after the researchers saw a high level of defects in newborns in the region and many local residents who suffer from cancer. Radiation levels at the site are very high that the researchers asked the government to isolate India's territory.

If you browse the websites of the government or private website at Mohenjodaro, Harappa and Rajasthan, no one ever mentions the findings of the framework. Archeology websites also never mentioned the results of the present invention. The story of "discovery" is only available in the website outside of India. Even those Indians who live in the area of ​​Jodhpur admitted that he never knew there were discoveries. There are some places in India that contain radiation, yet it is the result of nuclear testing in modern day India. An India once wrote that the stories are not worthy of circulating blasts in India.


The third hoax - a giant crater Bombay
Called the giant crater at Lonar crater named Bombay are proof of ancient nuclear explosion. The crater was formed from basalt rock layer 600-700 meters thick. Crater diameter is about 2154 meters and the depth of about 150 meters, is located at about 400 kilometers northeast of Bombay. The crater was estimated to be 50,000 years

Later, scientists found that the crater was caused by a comet, not a nuclear explosion.(Actually this can not be called a hoax, because the crater is indeed there, but I include it for ease of discussion).

But, this one is one of my favorite:

Proponents of the bomb explosion often like to point to the preservation of the bodies, particularly the lack of signs of scavengers as proof that something like a background radiation had to keep animals away. Several important points about this, the first is this is one of the driest and hottest spots on the planet, perfect weather for preservation. The scavenger problem is only a problem for the pseudohistorians who seem unaware that the bodies were actually buried.

http://cayodagyo.blogspot.com/2012/03/reactors-and-nuclear-explosions-early.html


Only thing science shows is that modern Mid-Easterners are mongrel subhumans who resemble very little the ancient and pre-historic populations of these areas.

You once described Nabatea and his thumbing up sidekick Randomgay1235 as nice examples of simpletons. They just prove day after day that they are just that. Nabatea read something about Middle East in OP and immediately started writing stupid things like Europeans being an offshoot of Middle Easterners and Indians and posting blond eurolooking Arabs. This article just confirms that white skin developed somewhere between the Middle East and India as evidenced by early European farmers.

[Mortimer]

Lololololololo. Some of Indian proletarian scholar don't want to accept that Europeans-Aryans gave them their language and influened their culture despite evidence pointing that, but it is very much possible that Indians were the same people 50 000 years ago who build space shuttles and nuclear weapon and using this crap they try to prove that invading Aryans were the one who destroyed this advanced civilization loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool. Shaman scholar proletarians. You are also not much better than other -centrism proponents in this regard. It is not European fault that out of all -centrism Eurocentrism has more sense, backed up by evidence to a certian degree. I am not saying that it makes much sense, don't get me wrong.

[spoiler]Regarding your flying saucers it is quite obvious it is a hoax pushed by Indian supremacists:


europeans are not aryans. it is a loaded word with racial connotations which was invented in 19th century which has little to do with history. prehistoric peoples dont fit into the modern sheme, and science proved already that europeans are mongrels between a mideastern a asian and a west european population and now it is proven their light skin is recent mutation from india. which suggests a movement from east to west. i was joking i dont believe in the space shuttles etc. but genetic components are old, it is very possible that indians existed 50.000 years ago and that europeans are more recent population.

[Insuperable]

europeans are not aryans. it is a loaded word with racial connotations which was invented in 19th century which has little to do with history. prehistoric peoples dont fit into the modern sheme,i

Aryan genome is at core of modern European people and I am having Northern Europeans on mind (and perhaps EEF), specifically.


now it is proven their light skin is recent mutation from india

You just prove again how biased you are. It says it is a mutation risen somewhere between the Middle East and India and you just constantly write India, India, India, India. Don't mind me writing about Middle East in this regard too since I am just trying prove a point.


europeans are mongrels between a mideastern a asian and a west european population and. which suggests a movement from east to west.

And I am not neglecting that it is a movement from the East to the West. Remember, we are speaking about times of 10 000 years ago. At that time Middle East and probably some area between the Middle East and India wasn't exactly the same as today. If you read something about recent discoveries and read at least some of this thread you would see that Middle Easterners or at least good part of them were much more similar to early European farmers who came from the Middle East and whose genome is the most represented by certain modern Europeans and yes, this genome still exists in the Middle East to a certain degree. We also know that Millenias ago people resembling Indo-Europeans were much more spread than today and their genomes can be found accross Asia, but that was after the time we are discussing here. That is just what can be extrapolated for now. Sure, everything is a subject of change.


was joking i dont believe in the space shuttles etc. but genetic components are old, it is very possible that indians existed 50.000 years ago and that europeans are more recent population

No shit. That is bullshit and you just keep writing more. According to you it is very much true that prehistoric people don't fit into modern scheme including Europeans, but this can't be said for Indians. What you wrote is not possible. The truth is that we are all much more recent compared to that time.

[Mortimer]

Aryan genome is at core of modern European people and I am having Northern Europeans on mind (and perhaps EEF), specifically.



You just prove again how biased you are. It says it is a mutation risen somewhere between the Middle East and India and you just constantly write India, India, India, India.



And I am not neglecting that it is a movement from the East to the West. Remember, we are speaking about times of 10 000 years ago. At that time Middle East and probably some area between the Middle East and India wasn't exactly the same as today. If you read something about recent discoveries and read at least some of this thread you would see that Middle Easterners or at least good part of them were much more similar to early European farmers who came from the Middle East and whose genome is the most represented by certain modern Europeans and yes, this genome still exists in the Middle East to a certain degree. We also know that Millenias ago Indo-Europeans were much more spread than today and their genomes can be found accross Asia. That is just what can be extrapolated for now. Sure, everything is a subject of change.



No shit. That is bullshit and you just keep writing more. According to you it is very much true that prehistoric people don't fit into modern scheme including Europeans, but this can't be said for Indians. What you wrote is not possible. The truth is that we are all much more recent compared to that time.

wrong. if light skin is recent those people werent like modern europeans, but dark skinned like modern indians or mideasterners etc. that pisses me off what eurocentrists say that mideast was much different and more like modern day europe etc. which is completely false or just has not any scientific basis, a bullshit claim. india has more genetic components but some populations are old as 50.000 years almost. the ASI is very old, and the ANI is more recent but older then "aryan invasion" etc. i dont know how genetics and races fit with languages etc. but it looks much more complex then what a european would think, ancient europeans conquering and colonising the world etc. fair nordid people and such prehistoric people dont fit into that sheme, also haplogroups dont, because for example haplgroup R1a is also found in a prehistoric person with amerindian, caucasian and australian aboriginal ancestry. how all those populations split and formed the modern populations or how they blend to form modern populations etc. they also a spoke a kind of language i guess, so the first indo-european language might be older then russian steppes 3.000 years ago etc. and the genetic links between europe and india are older

[MINARDOWICZ]

I have trouble believing this. I bet it comes from somewhere more along the lines of the Levant, tbh. Where red hair likely comes from. Not saying I know for sure. This just makes sense.

[Insuperable]

wrong. if light skin is recent those people werent like modern europeans, but dark skinned like modern indians or mideasterners etc.

Before dark skinned Middle Easterners (who could have been spread even beyond the ME) acquired white skin they obviously didn't look like modern Europeans. We can't say for sure were Mesolithic Europeans light skinned or not, but they didn't have mutations which today we would associate with light skin. Mutations related to pigmentation make up only a very tiny amount of someone's genome. Before both of them acquired white skin they were still genetically wery much different from modern Middle Easterners at least.


that pisses me off what eurocentrists say that mideast was much different and more like modern day europe etc. which is completely false or just has not any scientific basis, a bullshit claim.

Did you ever thought that someone may not be some kind of -centrist, but is trying to be objective? Yes, I admit, I may not be entirely objective, but I am trying to be. Even if if I am full blooded Eurocentrist you still have to deal with it.
Saying that the Middle East wasn't exactly the same as today has nothing to do with being Eurocentric. Some facts are facts. Early European farmers who came from the Middle East were not similar with modern Middle Easterners. This is by now mainstream science. If you are not informed, that is your problem.

[Mortimer]

Before dark skinned Middle Easterners (who could have been spread even beyond the ME) acquired white skin they obviously didn't look like modern Europeans. We can't say for sure were Mesolithic Europeans light skinned or not, but they didn't have mutations which today we would associate with light skin. Mutations related to pigmentation make up only a very tiny amount of someone's genome. Before both of them acquired white skin they were still genetically wery much different from modern Middle Easterners at least.



Did you ever thought that someone may not be some kind of -centrist, but is trying to be objective? Yes, I admit, I may not be entirely objective, but I am trying to be. If if I am full blooded Eurocentrist you still have to deal with it.
Saying that the Middle East wasn't exactly the same as today has nothing to do with being Eurocentric. Some facts are facts. Early European farmers who came from the Middle East were not similar with modern Middle Easterners. This is by now mainstream science. If you are not informed, that is your problem.

then give me a link which says that mideasterners were not the same as today or very different or closer to europeans etc. a scientific paper please. also different then today could mean anything, also that they were black african, show me the evidence they were like europeans. also just house logic but early european farmers are a mideastern population, then probably they know it because they resemble mideast populations etc. so they are actually similar but there might be more to it and i might be wrong. well i also try to be objective, but no one is hundred percent i dont like how you belittle other people etc. and you are the guy who said southern euros are subhumans because they more mideastern genes etc. and that lighter people are better, so im not far from truth when i call you eurocentrist, right?

[Insuperable]

then give me a link which says that mideasterners were not the same as today or very different or closer to europeans etc. a scientific paper please.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?121668-Revised-Lazaridis-Ancient-Genomes-suggest-three-ancestral-
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12/europeans-neolithic-farmers-mesolithic.html
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/12/ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three.html
This farmers were of "Middle Eastern" origin and Sardinians are representatives of this farmers, almost the exact match.


also different then today could mean anything, also that they were black african, show me the evidence they were like europeans. also just house logic but early european farmers are a mideastern population, then probably they know it because they resemble mideast populations etc. so they are actually similar but there might be more to it and i might be wrong.

No as shown.


well i also try to be objective,

Well, you suck at it more than I do.


but no one is hundred percent i dont like how you belittle other people etc. and you are the guy who said southern euros are subhumans because they more mideastern genes etc. and that lighter people are better, so im not far from truth when i call you eurocentrist, right?

I said that northern Europeans are superior than southern Europeans including me. You see, I just deal with things.

[Mortimer]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?121668-Revised-Lazaridis-Ancient-Genomes-suggest-three-ancestral-
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12/europeans-neolithic-farmers-mesolithic.html
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/12/ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three.html
This farmers were of "Middle Eastern" origin and Sardinians are representatives of this farmers, almost the exact match.



No as shown.



Well, you suck at it more than I do.



I said that northern Europeans are superior than southern Europeans including me. You see, I just deal with things.

Early European Farmer (EEF): apparently this is a hybrid component, the result of mixture between "Basal Eurasians" and a WHG-like population possibly from the Balkans. It's based on the aforementioned LBK farmer from Stuttgart, but today peaks at just over 80% among Sardinians. Apart from the Stuttgart sample, the EEF meta-population includes Oetzi the Iceman and a Neolithic Funnelbeaker farmer from Sweden.

seems as if EEF were a hybrid population of near east and european and they are like sardinians, that doesnt mean the ancient middle east was very different then today, where the modern day mideasterners come from then? also they are only one population and it doesnt mean all the populations in the mideast were different then today, i dont try to prove that europeans are mideastern, but i think it is bullshit claim that mideast was european like in the past, EEF is a hybrid population not al mideasterners are hybrid populations etc. also modern day mideasterners and europeans are often related, caucasian or westeuroasian ancestry etc. and gene flow exists on both sides, from here to there and vice versa etc. they are related world regions. no nordid mideast. sorry man

[Insuperable]

seems as if EEF were a hybrid population of near east and european and they are like sardinians

Yes, but they were already a hybrid population (where HG is a relatively small part) when coming to Europe. HG is related to Northern European component and the main Farmer component was Med component which today peaks in Europe. They have this influence probably for being a "neighbouring" populations for milleniums.


that doesnt mean the ancient middle east was very different then today,

Obviously it does, especially if take research in OP in consideration which everybody failed to understand.


where the modern day mideasterners come from then?

I don't want to guess, but EEF signal still exists there.


also they are only one population and it doesnt mean all the populations in the mideast were different then today,

That is why I also said we still can't claim something for sure when it comes to spread of this population, but I bet this white skin mutations which happened somewhere between the Middle East and Indian has something to do with EEF. One thing is for sure and that is the Middle East 10 000 years ago is not entirely the same as today, including Europe.


i dont try to prove that europeans are mideastern, but i think it is bullshit claim that mideast was european like in the past,

European is an arbitrary term. Obviously as you can see it is not much of bullshit to think that the Middle East was populated by people who are today closer to European population, at least to a larger extent than today.


EEF is a hybrid population not al mideasterners are hybrid populations etc. also modern day mideasterners and europeans are often related,

Yes, they were a hybrid population as already explained and they are related, but only to a certain extent by today time.

caucasian or westeuroasian ancestry etc. and gene flow exists on both sides, from here to there and vice versa etc. they are related world regions. no nordid mideast. sorry man

Caucasian ancestry and related gene flow comes from a really late neolithic, after farmers that is, so this goes beyond the scope of this thread.

[Caismeachd]

There's no mention of this on plusone or in any peer reviewed sources. This article is sensationalised nonsense.

[Mortimer]

Yes, but they were already a hybrid population (where HG is a relatively small part) when coming to Europe. HG is related to Northern European component and the main Farmer component was Med component which today peaks in Europe. They have this influence probably for being a "neighbouring" populations for milleniums.



Obviously it does, especially if take research in OP in consideration which everybody failed to understand.



I don't want to guess, but EEF signal still exists there.



That is why I also said we still can't claim something for sure when it comes to spread of this population, but I bet this white skin mutations which happened somewhere between the Middle East and Indian has something to do with EEF. One thing is for sure and that is the Middle East 10 000 years ago is not entirely the same as today, including Europe.



European is an arbitrary term. Obviously as you can see it is not much of bullshit to think that the Middle East was populated by people who are today closer to European population, at least to a larger extent than today.



Yes, they were a hybrid population as already explained and they are related, but only to a certain extent by today time.


Caucasian ancestry and related gene flow comes from a really late neolithic, after farmers that is, so this goes beyond the scope of this thread.

actually it says they are a hybrid between near east and WHG from balkan?
so the WHG is not from mideast. and the singals from EEF in mideasterners are from shared near eastern origins, the EEF are a hybrid. the near easterners are probably older then europeans, the first humans who came out of africa went into middle east. it is quiete the bullshit to think that mideasterners were white in the past or like europeans.

[TCDA1986]

Have you ever wondered where the Irish get their light skin color from? Well, it appears we may now have the answer.


Depigmentation in order to absorb vitamin D. It did not begin in Ireland or in India.

[Insuperable]

actually it says they are a hybrid between near east and WHG from balkan?
so the WHG is not from mideast.

That WHG in EEF comes from Balkan HGs is just Polako's opinion which he stated there. Yes, it is most possible that EEFs on their way to Central Europe mixed with HGs from Balkans. I went too far by stating what I did in the last post. I don't know why I thought that, but I must have read it somewhere or it was an early opinion in original papers nor is it important since Bruce we are talking about 10% of HG ancestry in EEF nor do I know why you keep grabbing with this hybrid thing because of that.


and the singals from EEF in mideasterners are from shared near eastern origins, the EEF are a hybrid.it is quiete the bullshit to think that mideasterners were white in the past or like europeans.

EEF ancestry peaks in Europe. It makes up almost half of genome of northern Europeans and it peaks in Sardinians with over 80%. I am not saying they were white, but we can obviously say from a modern point of view that farmers were most closely related to modern Europeans.

[Rojava]

I got blonde relatives with light eyes and fair skin.

[LightHouse89]

There's no mention of this on plusone or in any peer reviewed sources. This article is sensationalised nonsense.

I like it here when white liberals claim that race is a social construct.

[Black Wolf]

Irish light skin is directly linked to Neanderthal:



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140129-neanderthal-genes-genetics-migration-africa-eurasian-science/

This basically means the gene of light skin color in Europeans and Asians is the same gene as the Neanderthal, it just says tho, that East Asians are on average 34% darker (more polluted with other hominids) than Neanderthal and Europeans 30% darker (depending on ethnicity unless you happen to believe all Europeans have the same skin color...)

Of course there are some Mesolithic people with dark skin color and light eyes, because they were hybrids. Mesolithic people probably had a skin tone similar to some Siberian/Amerids, some a bit whitened and some light eyed due Neanderthal admix, but of course this depending on the percentage of admixture.

Probably the tiny Neanderthal admixture Negroids have is due some very late Mesolithic admixture. First Negroids were probably similar to pygmies and the Sudanid and some other robust types are actually result of Mesolithic/Neanderthal admixture. Makes sense since this type is one of the newest to appear in history.

There was even an article were they proved skin color in East Asians was mostly due Neanderthal genetics (can't find it now, i'm not at home) and there's no reason to doubt it could be the same case with Europeans.

Do you know of a list of SNPs located at these genes such as BNC2? Are any listed in any papers anywhere?

[Arcadefire]

Some south Asians and middle easterners may appear to have the pseudo European look because the environment which they come from is similar to that of Europe. After all, light hair, and light eyes are forms of environmental adaptation right?

[Tooting Carmen]

Some south Asians and middle easterners may appear to have the pseudo European look because the environment which they come from is similar to that of Europe. After all, light hair, and light eyes are forms of environmental adaptation right?

But many Europeans have dark hair and dark eyes themselves (a majority in many countries do, in fact). It is the lighter features that came later.

[arcticwolf]

Nope, Aryans were R1a, Irish are R1b.

Plus this whole theory is bs.

[Fire Haired]

I like it here when white liberals claim that race is a social construct.

People who say all humans are exactly the same are just scared of the truth and way too politically correct. I get so tired of people who say it's just skin color, when skin color is really just one result of differnt ancestry.

The way people define race is a social construct because we are not born knowing the genetic history of humanity, we make guesses. There are distinctions that can be made with DNA like African and non-African, and for non-Africans west Eurasian and east Eurasian. It is probably more complicated than that though, it has been found "Near eastern ancestry" is a mixture of either African or "Basal Eurasian" and west Eurasian. Therefore all west Asians, north Africans, Europeans, and some others, have a significant amount of ancestry from a third branch of Eurasians that split before the east-west split or they have some very ancient African ancestry that has been hard to detect.

Calling a population something pure is way to simplistic, no one is from a pure branch of the human family tree. Race distinctions people created are somewhat accurate, but are not perfectly accurate, and were created for cultural reasons. When people mention races they need to acknowledge it is only for social and cultural reasons and all the definitions are not totally accurate genetically.

Reading your profile stuff I have to ask, why are you raciest? Why should non-European people be treated like they are less than Europeans, just because they have differnt ancestry or culture? Mentally and psychologically there is probably almost no difference between everyone in the world, and they would feel the oppression as badly as a European person would. Do they deserve it just because of the parents and culture they were born to? So your only reason to be raciest is hate. Hardly anyone wants another culture(non-whites) influencing their culture, but is treating the others like shit the answer? Being a European person who is not racist does not mean you are a raciest towards European people or a political correct nut case, it means you care about morals.