Y DNA,mtDNA, Hair color, and Eye color and ethnic groups of pre Indo European Europe 6,000-8,000 ybp

[Fire Haired]

This is my thoery on the different ethnic groups that lived in Europe before the Indo Europeans invaded 6,000-8,000ybp
I also but Y DNA and hair color and eye color not skin color because they all would have definally had white skin



http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=34693&d=1371377577


Dark blue is Nordic hunter gathers and some farmers: Y DNA I1 or pre I1= 90-100%, I2a2=1-10% 50-79% light brown/blonde hair, or over 80%, probably 1-3% red hair or less than 1% the rest brown hair, 75-95% light eyes or 55-75%, the rest brown eyes
Light blue is Uralic speaking Nordic hunter gathers with a little bit of Siberian blood: Y DNA N1c1c= 30-60%, I1 and pre I1= 10-40%, I2a1b= 1-15%
50-79% light brown and blonde hair, 1% red hair or less, the rest Brown, 55-75% light eyes or 75-95% the rest brown

Red is Central European Farmer: Y DNA I2a2= 45-65%, G2a=28-40%, I2a1a=5-15%, I1=1-10% either 20-49% light brown or blonde hair, or 1-19%, 0% red hair the rest Brown, either 35-55% light eyes or 25-35% possible but almost definitely not 55-75% light eyes northern area would have more light hair and eyes because of inter marriage with Nordic hunter gathers
Light red British and Irish Farmers: Y DNA I2a2=65-75%, G2a= 15-30%, I2a1b2=15-25% ??????? Maybe 80-90% brown hair and eyes or 20-49% light hair and 35-55% light eyes but for sure 0% red hair

Dark Green French, western Iberian, and Alps farmers: Y DNA G2a= 60-75%, I2a1a= 20-30%, I2a2=10-20% ??????? Best guess is 50-70% brown hair and eyes possible 20-49% light hair and 35-55% light eyes definitely 0% red hair definitely would have had at least 20% little light hair and eyes
Mild Green Italian and Sicilian farmers: Y DNA G2a=55-65%, I2a2=15-30%, I2a1a=18-30%, E1b V13=1-15%, J2b=1-20%, I1=5-20% almost definitely 70-90% brown hair and eyes defintley some light hair and eyes definitely 0% red hair
Very light Green Sardine, eastern Iberian, and Corsican farmer: I2a1a1 =70-80%, G2a=20-35%, E1b V-13= 5-15%, possible some Y DNA I1 almost definitely 70-100% brown hair and eyes and almost definitely at least some light hair and eyes for sure 0% red hair

Dark Yellow eastern European farmer: Y DNA I2a1b=75-95%, G2a=8-20%, E1b V13=1-10%,J2b=1-10%,R1b1b=1-4%,R1a1a=1-20%, I1=1-5% almost definitely 35-55% light brown and blonde hair, 0% red hair possible some, the rest brown hair, definitely over 40-55% light eyes the rest brown
Lightish Yellow central and south Greek and Aegean sea farmer: Y DNA I2a1b=30-50%, G2a=45-60%, E1b V13=5-35%, R1b1b= 1-10%, J2b= 1-15%, I1=8-20%
almost definitely 60-80% brown hair and eyes definitely at less light hair and eyes because of inter marrige with mid easterns more than rest of east Europe definitely 0% red hair


I based my theory on the Y DNA of people in Europe today i took out all Indo European R1a and R1b which takes up 50% of European Y DNA I also took out all recent mid eastern and North African Y DNA J1,J2,E1b1b, and T all of these came mainly in Greco Roman timeshttp://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?84121-Rome-spread-Middle-Eastern-and-North-African-Y-DNA-not-Italian-and-European

It has pretty much been completely proven the R1b L11 Indo Europeans who spoke Proto Italo Celtic and Proto Germanichttp://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml is where all red hair in Europe comes from except parts of Scandinavia and the Udmurt people in Volga Russia
http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtml

so that is why i did not give any red hair the R1b L11 Indo Europeans probably had about 20% red hair modern southern Scandinavians have about 5% red hair so they do have alot of Indo European blood but they also have 55-75% blonde hair like Finnish people who have almost no Indo European blood so this means that southern Scandinavians still have mainly pre Indo European blood so the blonde hair color percentages in Europe would basically be the same as today Yugoslavians have about 40% non Indo European Y DNA I2a1b and probably have almost no Indo European blood they also have about 30% blonde hair even though they have over 30% mid eastern Y DNA and blonde hair is very spread out in all of Europe except Greece,Italy, Bulgaria,Spain, and central France which has the highest amount of mid eastern Y DNA E1b1b,J1, and J2 in France the reason why some areas of Europe don't have blonde hair is probably because of inter marriage with middle eastern people the only difference i think in hair color in Europe 6,000-8,000ybp was there was alot less red hair and less dark hair in southern Europe

http://bga101.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-rise-of-bronze-age-society-new.html

The Rise project anticipate subsequently genotyping between 100 and 150 samples for both mitochondrial (complete mtDNA genomes), Y chromosome and autosomal DNA (15,000 informative SNPs). from 5,000-4,000 year old early bronze age remains in mainly Scandinavia but also Germany and Poland the results should be in by at least December 2013 these remains will be of mainly Indo Europeans but some will be pre Indo European they will also get DNA from 7,000-6,000 year old stone age remains from Scandinavia this will put my theory about Pre Indo European Europe to the test

here are some of the resources i used to come up with my Theory
http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtml

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml

34694

34695

here are links to threads I made about ancient DNA
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?84012-Middle-to-late-Neolithic-6-625-4-025-year-old-mtDNA-and-Y-DNA-from-German
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?83954-Y-DNA-mtDNA-hair-color-eye-color-and-Skin-color-of-ancient-Indo-Iranians-from-3-800-1-900ybp
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?84121-Rome-spread-Middle-Eastern-and-North-African-Y-DNA-not-Italian-and-European
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?84356-Human-family-tree-Discovered-through-DNA
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?84121-Rome-spread-Middle-Eastern-and-North-African-Y-DNA-not-Italian-and-European

[Albion]

This is my guess on the different ethnic groups that lived in Europe before the Indo Europeans invaded 5,000-8,000ybp
Pre Indo European Ethnic groups of Europe with Y DNA haplogroups and guess's on hair and eye color not skin color because they all would for sure had white skin
34693


Dark blue is Nordic hunter gathers and some farmers: Y DNA I1 or pre I1= 90-100%, I2a2=1-10% 50-79% light brown/blonde hair, or over 80%, probably 1-3% red hair or less than 1% the rest brown hair, 75-95% light eyes or 55-75%, the rest brown eyes
Light blue is Uralic speaking Nordic hunter gathers with a little bit of Siberian blood: Y DNA N1c1c= 30-60%, I1 and pre I1= 10-40%, I2a1b= 1-15%
50-79% light brown and blonde hair, 1% red hair or less, the rest Brown, 55-75% light eyes or 75-95% the rest brown

Red is Central European Farmer: Y DNA I2a2= 45-65%, G2a=28-40%, I2a1a=5-15%, I1=1-10% either 20-49% light brown or blonde hair, or 1-19%, 0% red hair the rest Brown, either 35-55% light eyes or 25-35% possible but almost definitely not 55-75% light eyes northern area would have more light hair and eyes because of inter marriage with Nordic hunter gathers
Light red British and Irish Farmers: Y DNA I2a2=65-75%, G2a= 15-30%, I2a1b2=15-25% ??????? Maybe 80-90% brown hair and eyes or 20-49% light hair and 35-55% light eyes but for sure 0% red hair

Dark Green French, western Iberian, and Alps farmers: Y DNA G2a= 60-75%, I2a1a= 20-30%, I2a2=10-20% ??????? Best guess is 50-70% brown hair and eyes possible 20-49% light hair and 35-55% light eyes definitely 0% red hair definitely would have had at least 20% little light hair and eyes
Mild Green Italian and Sicilian farmers: Y DNA G2a=55-65%, I2a2=15-30%, I2a1a=18-30%, E1b V13=1-15%, J2b=1-20%, I1=5-20% almost definitely 70-90% brown hair and eyes defintley some light hair and eyes definitely 0% red hair
Very light Green Sardine, eastern Iberian, and Corsican farmer: I2a1a1 =70-80%, G2a=20-35%, E1b V-13= 5-15%, possible some Y DNA I1 almost definitely 70-100% brown hair and eyes and almost definitely at least some light hair and eyes for sure 0% red hair

Dark Yellow eastern European farmer: Y DNA I2a1b=75-95%, G2a=8-20%, E1b V13=1-10%,J2b=1-10%,R1b1b=1-4%,R1a1a=1-20%, I1=1-5% almost definitely 35-55% light brown and blonde hair, 0% red hair possible some, the rest brown hair, definitely over 40-55% light eyes the rest brown
Lightish Yellow central and south Greek and Aegean sea farmer: Y DNA I2a1b=30-50%, G2a=45-60%, E1b V13=5-35%, R1b1b= 1-10%, J2b= 1-15%, I1=8-20%
almost definitely 60-80% brown hair and eyes definitely at less light hair and eyes because of inter marrige with mid easterns more than rest of east Europe definitely 0% red hair


I based my theory on the Y DNA of people in Europe today i took out all Indo European R1a and R1b which takes up 50% of European Y DNA I also took out all recent mid eastern and North African Y DNA J1,J2,E1b1b, and T all of these came mainly in Greco Roman times

It has pretty much been completely proven the R1b L11 Indo Europeans who spoke Proto Italo Celtic and Proto Germanic is where all red hair i Europe comes from except parts of Scandinavia and the Udmurt people in Volga Russia
http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtml

so that is why i did not give any red hair the R1b L11 Indo Europeans probably had about 20% red hair modern southern Scandinavians have about 5% red hair so they do have alot of Indo European blood but they also have 55-75% blonde hair like Finnish people who have almost no Indo European blood so this means that southern Scandinavians still have mainly pre Indo European blood so the blonde hair color percentages in Europe would basically be the same as today Yugoslavians have about 40% non Indo European Y DNA I2a1b and probably have almost no Indo European blood they also have about 30% blonde hair even though they have over 30% mid eastern Y DNA and blonde hair is very spread out in all of Europe except Greece,Italy, Bulgaria,Spain, and central France which has the highest amount of mid eastern Y DNA E1b1b,J1, and J2 in France the reason why some areas of Europe don't have blonde hair is probably because of inter marriage with middle eastern people the only difference i think in hair color in Europe 6,000-8,000ybp was there was alot less red hair and less dark hair in southern Europe

http://bga101.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-rise-of-bronze-age-society-new.html

The Rise project anticipate subsequently genotyping between 100 and 150 samples for both mitochondrial (complete mtDNA genomes), Y chromosome and autosomal DNA (15,000 informative SNPs). from 5,000-4,000 year old early bronze age remains in mainly Scandinavia but also Germany and Poland the results should be in by at least December 2013 these remains will be of mainly Indo Europeans but some will be pre Indo European they will also get DNA from 7,000-6,000 year old stone age remains from Scandinavia this will put my theory about Pre Indo European Europe to the test

here are some of the resources i used to come up with my Theory
http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtml

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml

34694

34695

I like your theory, except for the part about British haplogroups. I think G2a would have predominated.

[Fire Haired]

I like your theory, except for the part about British haplogroups. I think G2a would have predominated.


The reason i said Britain and Ireland would have mainly I2a2 is because R1b came to Britain with the Celts 4,000-3,000ybp and R1b s21 came with Angol Saxons 1,300ybp it takes up about 70% of their Y DNA

Y DNA I1 came in Viking ivasions 1,100ybp and Anglo Saxon invasions 1,300ybp it takes up 10-20% Y DNA in Britain and 5-105 in Ireland

Y DNA J1, J2, and E1b1b came to Britain from Rome and maybe the Phoenicians the only Y DNA that would have been in Britain and Ireland before the Indo Europeans would have been I2a2, G2a, and I2a1 and then i added those togther for Scotland i got 5.5% of their Y DNA I2a2=4, G2a=0.5, and I2a1= 1
so the pre Indo European Y DNA of scotland is I2a2= 72.7%, G2a= 9.1%, I2a1= 18.2%

in Ireland pre Indo European Y DNA was 7%
I2a2= 71.4%, G2a= 14.2%, I2a1= 14.2%

in Britanny these people where Insular Celts like Irish, Scottish, and Welsh they migrated out of Britain when the Anglo saxons invaded 1,300ybp 7.5% had pre Indo European Y DNA
I2a2=60%, G2a=26.6%, I2a1=13.3%

also there is a I2a2 subclade that only exists in Britain, Ireland, and Britanny called I2a2a1 and it is over 3,000 years old it probabley came from the people that the Celts invaded

i also thought there would be alot more G2a becuse they have over 30 Y DNA samples from pre Indo European Europe over 80% had G2a but in France G2a would have been over about 70% same with most of Spain and Italy and southern Germany so far all the Y DNA they have of pre Indo European Europe comes from south central Germany, France, Spain, and Italy so u should except there to be over 60-70% G22a from those remains but now people are getting better and they will get Y DNA from people in other areas of Europe I2a2, I1, I2a1 will show up alot more

[Fire Haired]

i have a map with all the ethnic groups that is why i put the writing in color so u would know which region i am talking about but i don't know how to show the map the editing will only let me give a link that u can click on to see the picture do u know how to just show the picture

[Albion]

i have a map with all the ethnic groups that is why i put the writing in color so u would know which region i am talking about but i don't know how to show the map the editing will only let me give a link that u can click on to see the picture do u know how to just show the picture

To display pictures, you can use the insert picture button in the editor, or just type followed by the link to the picture and finish with

So for your picture, I'd put this:

So -

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=34693&d=1371377577


...without any spaces would display the picture.

I'll reply to that what you wrote about the actual topic tomorrow.

[Fire Haired]

Thank u very very much it worked this will help with my other threads too

[Fire Haired]

Also how do u make a profile picture i tried that too on my profile page and it did not work

[Albion]

Also how do u make a profile picture i tried that too on my profile page and it did not work

Top right of the page - click 'settings' followed by 'edit avatar' on the list of options on the left of the page. Or follow this link - http://www.theapricity.com/forum/profile.php?do=editavatar

Scroll down and select the 'choose file' button. Select what picture you want to use, click 'open', then scroll down the page and click 'save changes'.
It works best if your picture is already small, it should be around the size of my picture:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/image.php?u=1156&dateline=1369175136

Larger images tend to get shrunk by the forum software and look a mess afterwards, so it is best to make a small image in the first place in MS paint or something.

----------------------------------------------------

Alternatively:

You can go to that page that I linked to, scroll down to the bottom where it says 'Pre-defined Landscape / Nature' and choose one of the software's built-in pictures.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/profile.php?do=editavatar

[Ivan Kramskoï]

Quite good

[Fire Haired]

thanks

[Artek]

I appreciate your hard work but "it's to much Eupedia". Pre-I1?No one have proved that such thing existed. It's either I1 or I(xI1) for now.

Also lacks such haplogroups like T and Q and probably overestimates I1 percentages in some areas.

[Fire Haired]

I appreciate your hard work but "it's to much Eupedia". Pre-I1?No one have proved that such thing existed. It's either I1 or I(xI1) for now.

Also lacks such haplogroups like T and Q and probably overestimates I1 percentages in some areas.

i just put pre I1 everyone who has I1 today decends from one man who lived 7,000-10,000ybp and he probabley was not the only I1 person so all the other I1 lineages died at least that is what eupedia and wikpedia said

Y DNA Q is Siberian and native american it is extremley rare in Europe today and probabley came with N1c1 and uralic languages because teh URalic people came from northern Siberia and since Q is so rare i did not mind to put it down and Y DNA T is centered in southern Europe just like E1b1b,J1, and J2 it is from mid eastern inter marraige and probabley did not coem to Europe till GReco Roman times maybe in Neloithci age http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?84121-Rome-spread-Middle-Eastern-and-North-African-Y-DNA-not-Italian-and-European

I put on the thread how i came up with this map and the haplpogroups i took the Y DNA pof Europeans today from http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_mtdna_haplogroups_frequency.shtml

i toook out all R1a and R1b becuse they came from Indo European migrations i took out all J1 and J2 because they came in greco Roman times http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?84121-Rome-spread-Middle-Eastern-and-North-African-Y-DNA-not-Italian-and-European (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?84121-Rome-spread-Middle-Eastern-and-North-African-Y-DNA-not-Italian-and-European)

and i took out just about all E1b1b because it also came in Greco Roman times and i took out rare groups like T which also probabley came in Greco Roman times and i took out Q becuse it is so rare and only in some areas and probbaly only came from Uralics

then all ur left with in Europe is I lineages and G2a for Swedish they have 42% pre Indo European lineages 88% is I1 9% is I2b and 2.2% is G2a is is basicalley the same for all of scandnavia and since most of scandnaviens where farmers till just 4,000-5,000ybp they did not have contact with G2a farmers they would have had almost 100% purelly native European Y DNA and 100 European blood they came straight from Cro Magnons

when i took out all Y DNA that came from Indo Europeans or after 6,000-8,000ybp these are the percentages for regions that i got and i was able to find subclades that only exsisted in certain areas of europe so that is how i made ethnic groups like SPain FRance and Italy are the only areas with Y DNA I2a1a that is why a grouped them together Britain and Ireland have a subclade of I2a2 and that is their main non Indo European Y DNA haplogrops and i noticed GErmany was also mainly I2a2 so i grouoped pre Indo European Germans with pre Indo European British and Irish

for hair color and eye color i tried to figure out what teh Indo Europeans changed and i realized red hair in Europe comes only from the R1b L11 Indo Europeans https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eupedia.com%2Fgenetics%2Forig ins_of_red_hair.shtml&ei=EALBUajBE8SuyQGs54GADA&usg=AFQjCNEP1vrHeoa6NjY8zkDGe4ZGqrCHfg

and remains of early Indo Iraniens from 3,800-3,000ybp show they had mainly blonde hair and light eyes and some red hair and they where also Indo Europeans so i guess that the Indo Europeans that went to Europe where mainly light haired and eyed and had extrely high amounts of red hair like 20% but most blonde hair in Europe is not from the Indo Europeans it was already there mainly in Scandinavia and the Baltic area but also in central Europe eastern Europe would have had alot of blonde hair because even Yugoslavians who have been proven to be close relatives to Neolithic Europeans have 30% blonde hair and they also have over 25% mid eastern Y DNA basically most of Europe would have had brown hair but blonde hair would have still been very popular and brown hair goes with brown eyes same with blonde hair and light eyes

[Longbowman]

Dark blue is Nordic hunter gathers and some farmers: Y DNA I1 or pre I1= 90-100%, I2a2=1-10% 50-79% light brown/blonde hair, or over 80%, probably 1-3% red hair or less than 1% the rest brown hair, 75-95% light eyes or 55-75%, the rest brown eyes
Light blue is Uralic speaking Nordic hunter gathers with a little bit of Siberian blood: Y DNA N1c1c= 30-60%, I1 and pre I1= 10-40%, I2a1b= 1-15%
50-79% light brown and blonde hair, 1% red hair or less, the rest Brown, 55-75% light eyes or 75-95% the rest brown

Red is Central European Farmer: Y DNA I2a2= 45-65%, G2a=28-40%, I2a1a=5-15%, I1=1-10% either 20-49% light brown or blonde hair, or 1-19%, 0% red hair the rest Brown, either 35-55% light eyes or 25-35% possible but almost definitely not 55-75% light eyes northern area would have more light hair and eyes because of inter marriage with Nordic hunter gathers
Light red British and Irish Farmers: Y DNA I2a2=65-75%, G2a= 15-30%, I2a1b2=15-25% ??????? Maybe 80-90% brown hair and eyes or 20-49% light hair and 35-55% light eyes but for sure 0% red hair

Dark Green French, western Iberian, and Alps farmers: Y DNA G2a= 60-75%, I2a1a= 20-30%, I2a2=10-20% ??????? Best guess is 50-70% brown hair and eyes possible 20-49% light hair and 35-55% light eyes definitely 0% red hair definitely would have had at least 20% little light hair and eyes
Mild Green Italian and Sicilian farmers: Y DNA G2a=55-65%, I2a2=15-30%, I2a1a=18-30%, E1b V13=1-15%, J2b=1-20%, I1=5-20% almost definitely 70-90% brown hair and eyes defintley some light hair and eyes definitely 0% red hair
Very light Green Sardine, eastern Iberian, and Corsican farmer: I2a1a1 =70-80%, G2a=20-35%, E1b V-13= 5-15%, possible some Y DNA I1 almost definitely 70-100% brown hair and eyes and almost definitely at least some light hair and eyes for sure 0% red hair

Dark Yellow eastern European farmer: Y DNA I2a1b=75-95%, G2a=8-20%, E1b V13=1-10%,J2b=1-10%,R1b1b=1-4%,R1a1a=1-20%, I1=1-5% almost definitely 35-55% light brown and blonde hair, 0% red hair possible some, the rest brown hair, definitely over 40-55% light eyes the rest brown
Lightish Yellow central and south Greek and Aegean sea farmer: Y DNA I2a1b=30-50%, G2a=45-60%, E1b V13=5-35%, R1b1b= 1-10%, J2b= 1-15%, I1=8-20%
almost definitely 60-80% brown hair and eyes definitely at less light hair and eyes because of inter marrige with mid easterns more than rest of east Europe definitely 0% red hair


I based my theory on the Y DNA of people in Europe today i took out all Indo European R1a and R1b which takes up 50% of European Y DNA I also took out all recent mid eastern and North African Y DNA J1,J2,E1b1b, and T all of these came mainly in Greco Roman timeshttp://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?84121-Rome-spread-Middle-Eastern-and-North-African-Y-DNA-not-Italian-and-European

It has pretty much been completely proven the R1b L11 Indo Europeans who spoke Proto Italo Celtic and Proto Germanichttp://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml is where all red hair in Europe comes from except parts of Scandinavia and the Udmurt people in Volga Russia
http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtml

so that is why i did not give any red hair the R1b L11 Indo Europeans probably had about 20% red hair modern southern Scandinavians have about 5% red hair so they do have alot of Indo European blood but they also have 55-75% blonde hair like Finnish people who have almost no Indo European blood so this means that southern Scandinavians still have mainly pre Indo European blood so the blonde hair color percentages in Europe would basically be the same as today Yugoslavians have about 40% non Indo European Y DNA I2a1b and probably have almost no Indo European blood they also have about 30% blonde hair even though they have over 30% mid eastern Y DNA and blonde hair is very spread out in all of Europe except Greece,Italy, Bulgaria,Spain, and central France which has the highest amount of mid eastern Y DNA E1b1b,J1, and J2 in France the reason why some areas of Europe don't have blonde hair is probably because of inter marriage with middle eastern people the only difference i think in hair color in Europe 6,000-8,000ybp was there was alot less red hair and less dark hair in southern Europe

http://bga101.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-rise-of-bronze-age-society-new.html

The Rise project anticipate subsequently genotyping between 100 and 150 samples for both mitochondrial (complete mtDNA genomes), Y chromosome and autosomal DNA (15,000 informative SNPs). from 5,000-4,000 year old early bronze age remains in mainly Scandinavia but also Germany and Poland the results should be in by at least December 2013 these remains will be of mainly Indo Europeans but some will be pre Indo European they will also get DNA from 7,000-6,000 year old stone age remains from Scandinavia this will put my theory about Pre Indo European Europe to the test

here are some of the resources i used to come up with my Theory
http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtml

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml

34694

34695

here are links to threads I made about ancient DNA
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?84012-Middle-to-late-Neolithic-6-625-4-025-year-old-mtDNA-and-Y-DNA-from-German
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?83954-Y-DNA-mtDNA-hair-color-eye-color-and-Skin-color-of-ancient-Indo-Iranians-from-3-800-1-900ybp
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?84121-Rome-spread-Middle-Eastern-and-North-African-Y-DNA-not-Italian-and-European
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?84356-Human-family-tree-Discovered-through-DNA
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?84121-Rome-spread-Middle-Eastern-and-North-African-Y-DNA-not-Italian-and-European

I'm sorry, but this is mostly simply not true.

1) Before the Indo-Europeans there were no Nordics. There might have been some kind of Germanic sub-stratum, but the Nordic people are an Indo-European people. Furthermore, the Germanic peoples would not reach Scandinavia til the first millenium BC. There may well have been Finno-Ugric tribes like the traditional Saami, though.

2) Farming didn't come to Europe until the agricultural revolution which didn't occur until 5,500 BC, starting in waves from Anatolia that slowly made their way to Britain by around 3,000BC.

These two completely indisputable, universally acknowledged and widely known facts are enough to refute the core tenements of your theory. Sorry.

[Kale]

No. Reason?

Consider this map of Indo-European autosomal admixture. It says light eyes map, but its essentially the same thing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Light_Eyes_Map.png

[Artek]

No. Reason?

Consider this map of Indo-European autosomal admixture. It says light eyes map, but its essentially the same thing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Light_Eyes_Map.png
:lol00002:

[Anglojew]

What about Q?

Just saw you'd answered

[Prisoner Of Ice]

If r1b only came from east then G should have been main clade in british isles before then, representing neolithic farmers. With the hunter gatherers likely some other clades. But I doubt that's the case, r1b is too entrenched in iberia for that to be possible, and too light further east.

To look at specific hair and eye color I'd look more to the mtdna which is less mutable, unfortunately there's no easy way to get data for how much percentage of each hair color each clade has.

[Armatus]

Very light Green Sardine, eastern Iberian, and Corsican farmer: I2a1a1 =70-80%, G2a=20-35%, E1b V-13= 5-15%, possible some Y DNA I1 almost definitely 70-100% brown hair and eyes and almost definitely at least some light hair and eyes for sure 0% red hair

I actually disagree with these numbers, especially with I2a1a1. I-PF4398 (the sardininan subclade) spread even after the IE "invasion",before that Sardinia was ca. 40% J2 30% G2a 20% E-V13 and 10% LT.
Corsica doesn't have I-L160 at all, therefore i conclude they hadn't alot of I-L160 back then also. In modern day Spain, I-L160 is about 2-3%, not a lot, E1b or J2 are far more dominant.
Therefore i conclude about 5-15% I-L160.

Apart from that most numbers seem to be realistic.

[Fire Haired]

I actually disagree with these numbers, especially with I2a1a1. I-PF4398 (the sardininan subclade) spread even after the IE "invasion",before that Sardinia was ca. 40% J2 30% G2a 20% E-V13 and 10% LT.
Corsica doesn't have I-L160 at all, therefore i conclude they hadn't alot of I-L160 back then also. In modern day Spain, I-L160 is about 2-3%, not a lot, E1b or J2 are far more dominant.
Therefore i conclude about 5-15% I-L160.

Apart from that most numbers seem to be realistic.

I made these estimations along time ago I now really dis agree with this. Who knows what the Y DNA of Sardinia during the Neolithic was. I doubt it was majorly different than today because Sardinia have nearly identical autosomal DNA results to pre historic farmers Otzi and Gok4. I have heard before that Y DNA I2a1a1 M26 arrived in Sardinia recently. Possibly they mean thee was some type of bottleneck. Sardinia have the highest y DNA G2a and I2a1 in Europe both have been found in Neolithic France.

[Fire Haired]

I'm sorry, but this is mostly simply not true.

1) Before the Indo-Europeans there were no Nordics. There might have been some kind of Germanic sub-stratum, but the Nordic people are an Indo-European people. Furthermore, the Germanic peoples would not reach Scandinavia til the first millenium BC. There may well have been Finno-Ugric tribes like the traditional Saami, though.

2) Farming didn't come to Europe until the agricultural revolution which didn't occur until 5,500 BC, starting in waves from Anatolia that slowly made their way to Britain by around 3,000BC.

These two completely indisputable, universally acknowledged and widely known facts are enough to refute the core tenements of your theory. Sorry.

There was farming in much of Europe by 5,000bc it reached Britain pretty late. I know Nordic's are the Norse Germanic speaking people in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. You cant assume Germanic people in those countries have only ancestry from recent Germanic invasion 4,000-3,000ybp. There is over 20% Y DNA R1a1a1b1 Z283 in those countries and actually almost all is under unique Scandinavian subclade Z284. It arrived with Indo European(spoke ancestral language to Balto Slavic) Corded ware culture. Also how do you explain Y DNA I1 in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark with Germanic invasions. Finnish and Sami have about 25-30% Y DNA I1. For Finnish 80% is under their unique I1a2 L22 subclades. Close to 60% of Swedish and Norwegian I1 is also under I1a2 L22. Most of the paternal lineages aka Y DNA in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are from before Germanic migrations 3,000-4,000ybp. I1a2 L22 is really their only connection to Finnish and Sami and it is a pretty close connection.

[Fire Haired]

No. Reason?

Consider this map of Indo-European autosomal admixture. It says light eyes map, but its essentially the same thing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Light_Eyes_Map.png

That makes no sense at all. Did I post that?

[Fire Haired]

If r1b only came from east then G should have been main clade in british isles before then, representing neolithic farmers. With the hunter gatherers likely some other clades. But I doubt that's the case, r1b is too entrenched in iberia for that to be possible, and too light further east.

To look at specific hair and eye color I'd look more to the mtdna which is less mutable, unfortunately there's no easy way to get data for how much percentage of each hair color each clade has.

R1b did come from the "east" meaning Near east at least that is where R1b in Europe is from. There is really no arguing that. In west Europe mainly about 5,000-3,000ybp Y DNa R1b1a2a1a L11 spread rapidly and now is dominate in far western places like Ireland and Portugal. That does not mean it is impossible for it to have originated very far east from there. mtDNA haplogroups are passed from mother to children Y DNA passed from father to son. mtDNA and Y DNA tells nothing about what your hair or eye color will be.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

R1b did come from the "east" meaning Near east at least that is where R1b in Europe is from. There is really no arguing that. In west Europe mainly about 5,000-3,000ybp Y DNa R1b1a2a1a L11 spread rapidly and now is dominate in far western places like Ireland and Portugal. That does not mean it is impossible for it to have originated very far east from there. mtDNA haplogroups are passed from mother to children Y DNA passed from father to son. mtDNA and Y DNA tells nothing about what your hair or eye color will be.

Of course there's arguing with it. It makes a perfect west to east gradient, and the proto celts cremated their remains so how would you possibly do DNA analysis on them? All the scythian ancient dna is r1a not r1b, so it's pure fantasy to say they came from east, there's not one shred of proof of that.

[Longbowman]

Of course there's arguing with it. It makes a perfect west to east gradient, and the proto celts cremated their remains so how would you possibly do DNA analysis on them? All the scythian ancient dna is r1a not r1b, so it's pure fantasy to say they came from east, there's not one shred of proof of that.

Well, actually...they would have had to come from the east at some point. Think about it geographically. All Europeans would have. So the fact that the 'east-west gradient' is as it is is not proof of anything.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Well, actually...they would have had to come from the east at some point. Think about it geographically. All Europeans would have. So the fact that the 'east-west gradient' is as it is is not proof of anything.

That's not true either. There's been hominids in europe for at least 50 million years. In fact the only serious candidate for human-ape-chimp common ancestor is in europe.

[Longbowman]

That's not true either. There's been hominids in europe for at least 50 million years. In fact the only serious candidate for human-ape-chimp common ancestor is in europe.

Why are we like this? What is your inferiority complex about the out-of-Africa theory? The fossil record is almost entirely in Africa from beyond a million years ago. We're better than them BECAUSE we left Africa. Their ancestors were complacent and slothful, ours, resourceful and innovative - plus they had to adapt to harsher environments.

Please provide some prove for your ramblings. Preferably enough to counter all the Australopithecus and other fossils found in Africa, compared to the none elsewhere.

Does it matter where our ancestors lived 200,000 years ago? 50 million years ago would have looked a lot like shrews, and would have been not a whole lot different. We are better than our ancestors, and to suggest we aren't is an insult to our ancestors. A good teacher ensures his pupils become better than he is. The nature of progress is such that each generation should expect to be slightly smarter, more technologically advanced, stronger etc. than the one that came before it. Distant history is nowhere near as important as contemporary realities. If there ARE people in the Great Rift Valley who think they're the bees knees because their ancestors haven't changed at all in a quarter of a million years, just smile and nod. Remember, the species to do that before them were the chimpanzees.

[Fire Haired]

Of course there's arguing with it. It makes a perfect west to east gradient, and the proto celts cremated their remains so how would you possibly do DNA analysis on them? All the scythian ancient dna is r1a not r1b, so it's pure fantasy to say they came from east, there's not one shred of proof of that.

Melonhead I have to admit I don't understand the science perfectly but the little I do. Proves without a doubt R1b M269 in Europe came from the middle east originally and not before the Neolithic age. You cant base really anything on modern frequencies of a big haplogroup like R1b. At first people assumed it came from Palaeolithic west Europe. Later after figuring stuff out like the pholygenic tree of R1b and age estimates people realized there is now way it originated in west Europe. Almost all R1b in west Europe is under subclade R1b1a2a1a L11 which is estimated to be only be 5,000-6,000 years old. Almost no one has R1b1a2a1a L11* instead younger subclades under that mainly R1b1a2a1a2 P312 and R1b1a2a1a1 U106. Each estimated to be about 4,000-5,500 years old. Almost no one has R1b1a2a1a2 P312* or R1b1a2a1a1 U106* but even younger subclades under that. All evidence points to a rapid expansion of R1b L11 in west Europe mainly from 3,000-5,000ybp during copper and bronze age's. The story of R1b: it's complicated (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-story-of-r1b-its-complicated.html) FTDNA on R1b (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b/default.aspx?section=results).

To find where something originated like Y DNA it is a good strategy to look for the area it is diverse. For example in Britain there are many more accents of the English language than in America, Canada, or other former British colonies. The reason is the language originated there so it has been there longer. R1b is much more diverse in the middle east than in Europe especially west Europe which is like I said almost all under young subclade R1b1a2a1a L11. Those are some basic reasons why I know R1b did not originate in west Europe.

Ancient Y DNA in west Europe also defends the idea it arrived 5,000 years ago and spread mainly 5,000-3,000 years ago. 5 Y DNA samples from Spain dating to 7,000ybp 4 had G2a and one had E1b1b V13, three Y DNA samples in Germany from 7,000ybp one had G2a3 L30, one had F(XI,J,K,L,T,H,G), F(I,J,K,L,T,H,G), 22 Y DNA samples from southwest France dating to 5,000ybp 20 had G2a and 4 had I2a1, two y DNA samples from northwest France dating to 4,775ybp both had I2a1, one Y DNA sample from the alps dating to about 5,300ybp had G2a2a2 L91.

There are no Y DNA samples from Scythians just from related and ancestral people and cultures. 16 out of 17 samples had R1a1 and Y DNA R1a1a1b2 Z93 is very connected with spread of Indo Iranian languages so Scythians were probably full of it.


Honestly I see almost no reason to collect Y DNA from ancient known Celts during the iron age. We already know pretty well what they would have especially in the British isles since Briton's and Gaelic's still exist Genetically and linguistically. There definitely has been major Germanic influence in former Celtic central Europe so maybe Y DNA from Celtic central Europe will be important to get. Y DNA from Unetice culture, Urnfield culture, Hallstat, and other cultures in west Europe during the same time. I do think is important to collect. It will be used as evidence for or against the idea r1b L11 was spread by Germanic Italo Celts.

[Fire Haired]

That's not true either. There's been hominids in europe for at least 50 million years. In fact the only serious candidate for human-ape-chimp common ancestor is in europe.

All Genetic evidence points to humans originating in Africa and first arriving in Europe around 50,000 years ago from the middle east. If humanity did originate I Europe which is definitely possible modern Europeans including ancient Celts descend from later migrations from the middle east.

[Fire Haired]

That's not true either. There's been hominids in europe for at least 50 million years. In fact the only serious candidate for human-ape-chimp common ancestor is in europe.
All Genetic evidence points to humans originating in Africa and first arriving in Europe around 50,000 years ago from the middle east. If humanity did originate I Europe which is definitely possible modern Europeans including ancient Celts descend from later migrations from the middle east. Who knows a lot of things are possible including Celts being straight from Neolithic west Europe. But all evidence points to them coming from the same Indo European homeland as all other Indo European speakers.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

All Genetic evidence points to humans originating in Africa and first arriving in Europe around 50,000 years ago from the middle east. If humanity did originate I Europe which is definitely possible modern Europeans including ancient Celts descend from later migrations from the middle east. Who knows a lot of things are possible including Celts being straight from Neolithic west Europe. But all evidence points to them coming from the same Indo European homeland as all other Indo European speakers.

Not really, it's called multiregionalism. There's no evidence that R1b formed in east, even r1a does not look like it formed in the east.

[Fire Haired]

"Why are we like this? What is your inferiority complex about the out-of-Africa theory? The fossil record is almost entirely in Africa from beyond a million years ago. We're better than them BECAUSE we left Africa. Their ancestors were complacent and slothful, ours, resourceful and innovative - plus they had to adapt to harsher environments."

I don't think he is against the out of Africa theory. He is just thinking of other idea's besides mainstream which is very good. I don't think you can simplify the ancestors of sub Saharan Africans over 100,000 years. It is a lot more complicated no one knew they were leaving the continent of Africa or had a idea of their peoples thousands of years of history. All it is that Sub Saharan Africans are not from the same genetic family as non Africans. There was probably some type of split over 100,000ybp and they for some reason stayed in Africa.

[Longbowman]

Not really, it's called multiregionalism. There's no evidence that R1b formed in east, even r1a does not look like it formed in the east.

Ok, Mr. Brilliant, let's posit multiregionalism is true. Where did the various races come from? Rocks? Or various long lines of mammals that never ever interbred, going back to the dawn of time? If so, how come we can still produce children with blacks? Clearly, at some point, we're related. Some close point.

[Fire Haired]

Not really, it's called multiregionalism. There's no evidence that R1b formed in east, even r1a does not look like it formed in the east.

There is a lot of evidence R1b originated in the middle east it seems you ignore it though. What I think is that Sub Saharan Africans are from a brother genetic family to non Africans. Besides that all other evidence does support humans originating in Africa. But of course it is probably very complicated and many things are possible.

[Fire Haired]

Ok, Mr. Brilliant, let's posit multiregionalism is true. Where did the various races come from? Rocks? Or various long lines of mammals that never ever interbred, going back to the dawn of time? If so, how come we can still produce children with blacks? Clearly, at some point, we're related. Some close point.

Of course we are all related at some point. So there does have to be a basic region of where the original human family originated.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

There is a lot of evidence R1b originated in the middle east it seems you ignore it though. What I think is that Sub Saharan Africans are from a brother genetic family to non Africans. Besides that all other evidence does support humans originating in Africa. But of course it is probably very complicated and many things are possible.

What is the evidence it comes from middle east?

You don't seem to realize you are contradicting yourself, or rather that the evidence r1b comes from east is contradictory. You just told me that modern distribution doesn't mean anything, but all of the evidence for out of africa is based on that in the first place, and that alone. So which is it? Sometimes modern distribution is vital, other times it's supposed to indicate the opposite. And this is the case again and again, not one place of contradiction.

[Longbowman]

Of course we are all related at some point. So there does have to be a basic region of where the original human family originated.

Precisely. And the fossil record would suggest it's Africa - some ultra-nationalists seem to think that one particular point of origin for humans is geographically important, though, and put up flimsy arguments as to why it's in Europe. Which would suggest that non-Europeans left Europe and 'degenerated?' It's all hokum.

[Fire Haired]

What is the evidence it comes from middle east?

You don't seem to realize you are contradicting yourself, or rather that the evidence r1b comes from east is contradictory. You just told me that modern distribution doesn't mean anything, but all of the evidence for out of africa is based on that in the first place, and that alone. So which is it? Sometimes modern distribution is vital, other times it's supposed to indicate the opposite. And this is the case again and again, not one place of contradiction.

I gave you my evidence in another post with links to real experts. The evidence for out of Africa is based on lineages diversity and the fact sub Saharan Africans descend from different lineages than non Africans separating over 100,000 years ago.

[Fire Haired]

Precisely. And the fossil record would suggest it's Africa - some ultra-nationalists seem to think that one particular point of origin for humans is geographically important, though, and put up flimsy arguments as to why it's in Europe. Which would suggest that non-Europeans left Europe and 'degenerated?' It's all hokum.

I am not worried about proving my people are superior like some are. I am proud of my ancestors either way and it doesn't really matter who they were it matters who I am. What I have learned is pretty cool. My genetic makeup and the genetic makeup.

Is resulted from similar reasons as most Europeans, Middle easterns, south Asians, and probably most people.

Migration after migration, war after war, slave trade after slave trade, raid after raid. So many different tribes with distinct cultures, languages, and religions that loved, fought, and breed with each other. It is pretty cool that the San people have lived basically in the same area for over 200,000 years maybe since before humanity. They are a very unmixed people to. I also think it is also very cool to have extremely mixed ancestry of many different pre historic people's. Who didn't stay basically the same for 10,000's of 100,000's of years.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Ok, Mr. Brilliant, let's posit multiregionalism is true. Where did the various races come from? Rocks? Or various long lines of mammals that never ever interbred, going back to the dawn of time? If so, how come we can still produce children with blacks? Clearly, at some point, we're related. Some close point.

You can read about multiregionalism on wikipedia. It tells you all about it. The concept is one of natural selection. Variation happens because of the area you are in. So you might evolve blonde hair in northern climes, but it would be strongly selected against in equatorial regions.

You don't know even the basics of what you are talking about.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Precisely. And the fossil record would suggest it's Africa - some ultra-nationalists seem to think that one particular point of origin for humans is geographically important, though, and put up flimsy arguments as to why it's in Europe. Which would suggest that non-Europeans left Europe and 'degenerated?' It's all hokum.

Yes, and they are called afrocentrists. They are the ones who argue for a single point of human evolution, in east africa. Since there's neanderthal and denisovan and rhodiensiensis and now yet another one it's obviously false.

Multiregionalism is the opposite, that humans have been human or close to it a long time.

[Longbowman]

Yes, and they are called afrocentrists. They are the ones who argue for a single point of human evolution, in east africa. Since there's neanderthal and denisovan and rhodiensiensis and now yet another one it's obviously false.

Multiregionalism is the opposite, that humans have been human or close to it a long time.

Do you not understand that neanderthals and denisovans and homo sapiens all have the same ancestor? Stop being so arrogant.

Beyond that, we must be closely related, as we can breed with all humans.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Melonhead I have to admit I don't understand the science perfectly but the little I do. Proves without a doubt R1b M269 in Europe came from the middle east originally and not before the Neolithic age. You cant base really anything on modern frequencies of a big haplogroup like R1b. At first people assumed it came from Palaeolithic west Europe. Later after figuring stuff out like the pholygenic tree of R1b and age estimates people realized there is now way it originated in west Europe. Almost all R1b in west Europe is under subclade R1b1a2a1a L11 which is estimated to be only be 5,000-6,000 years old. Almost no one has R1b1a2a1a L11* instead younger subclades under that mainly R1b1a2a1a2 P312 and R1b1a2a1a1 U106. Each estimated to be about 4,000-5,500 years old. Almost no one has R1b1a2a1a2 P312* or R1b1a2a1a1 U106* but even younger subclades under that. All evidence points to a rapid expansion of R1b L11 in west Europe mainly from 3,000-5,000ybp during copper and bronze age's. The story of R1b: it's complicated (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-story-of-r1b-its-complicated.html) FTDNA on R1b (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b/default.aspx?section=results).

To find where something originated like Y DNA it is a good strategy to look for the area it is diverse. For example in Britain there are many more accents of the English language than in America, Canada, or other former British colonies. The reason is the language originated there so it has been there longer. R1b is much more diverse in the middle east than in Europe especially west Europe which is like I said almost all under young subclade R1b1a2a1a L11. Those are some basic reasons why I know R1b did not originate in west Europe.

Ancient Y DNA in west Europe also defends the idea it arrived 5,000 years ago and spread mainly 5,000-3,000 years ago. 5 Y DNA samples from Spain dating to 7,000ybp 4 had G2a and one had E1b1b V13, three Y DNA samples in Germany from 7,000ybp one had G2a3 L30, one had F(XI,J,K,L,T,H,G), F(I,J,K,L,T,H,G), 22 Y DNA samples from southwest France dating to 5,000ybp 20 had G2a and 4 had I2a1, two y DNA samples from northwest France dating to 4,775ybp both had I2a1, one Y DNA sample from the alps dating to about 5,300ybp had G2a2a2 L91.

There are no Y DNA samples from Scythians just from related and ancestral people and cultures. 16 out of 17 samples had R1a1 and Y DNA R1a1a1b2 Z93 is very connected with spread of Indo Iranian languages so Scythians were probably full of it.


Honestly I see almost no reason to collect Y DNA from ancient known Celts during the iron age. We already know pretty well what they would have especially in the British isles since Briton's and Gaelic's still exist Genetically and linguistically. There definitely has been major Germanic influence in former Celtic central Europe so maybe Y DNA from Celtic central Europe will be important to get. Y DNA from Unetice culture, Urnfield culture, Hallstat, and other cultures in west Europe during the same time. I do think is important to collect. It will be used as evidence for or against the idea r1b L11 was spread by Germanic Italo Celts.

Proto celts and hunter gatherers are what matter. If they are not r1b then it means migration is likely, but we don't have that dna. We only have some neolithic farmer dna to look at.

History of r1b: it's complicated should simply be called it's made up. If it came through migration and a huge expansion then it would have a large number of people all with the same clade. That's how it is in china where we have a huge expansion.

It's not, it's the opposite. There's dozens and maybe as much as what? 50 different subclades? It's really 50 different clades that have split off. That says that it's been so numerous a long long time. The times to most recent common ancenstor, for thousandth time, don't mean that's when the clade split and those people magically appeared.

Maciamo thinks this bullshit is true. Phil Oppenheimer does not. Who to go with? Well I agree with oppenheimer for now unless there's some much more credible evidence to the contrary.

There's also evidence that H could have originated with basques, too. So regardless of r1b, if that's true, then we know how europe got settled.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Do you not understand that neanderthals and denisovans and homo sapiens all have the same ancestor? Stop being so arrogant.

Beyond that, we must be closely related, as we can breed with all humans.

You don't know the basics but constantly try to lecture me, it's you who is arrogant. Sure they have same ancestor...going back millions of years.

Cladism does not just exist for y-dna or mtdna but for all gene variants. In some neanderthals are the originator of humans. In others denisovans. There's no common ancestor back in africa we all came from, as least not for millions of years. There is constant interbreeding back and forth over the whole world, until even everyone in africa gets each gene if it benefits them.

You seem to think this is some nazi theory but it's not. The afrocentric retardo theory is pretty racist to me. It implies that first came black people, then asians evolved from them then hispanics evolved from asians and then came glorious white people. To me this is a pretty fucked up theory on a lot of levels, but that is typical today I guess. They publicly make something look to have a "we are all one" message but their line of thinking shows them out as racist morons.

[Longbowman]

You don't know the basics but constantly try to lecture me, it's you who is arrogant. Sure they have same ancestor...going back millions of years.

Cladism does not just exist for y-dna or mtdna but for all gene variants. In some neanderthals are the originator of humans. In others denisovans. There's no common ancestor back in africa we all came from, as least not for millions of years.

You seem to think this is some nazi theory but it's not. The afrocentric retardo theory is pretty racist to me. It implies that first came black people, then asians evolved from them then hispanics evolved from asians and then came glorious white people. To me this is a pretty fucked up theory on a lot of levels, but that is typical today I guess. They publicly make something look to have a "we are all one" message but their line of thinking shows them out as racist morons.

Hispanics evolved from Asians.

Hispanics are a mix of whites and natives with some blacks. They only developed in the past 400 years. How's that for ignorance?

Millions of years? Argue with the fossil record, please. Furthermore, if we were that distantly related, we probably wouldn't be able to procreate with the ease with which we do.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Hispanics evolved from Asians.

Hispanics are a mix of whites and natives with some blacks.

They only developed in the past 400 years. How's that for ignorance?


Well no shit sherlock, that is the basic idea behind OoA though. It really is that stupid. It implies there's no mixing or selection, just magic.



Millions of years? Argue with the fossil record, please.

Go back to my first post you didn't read that talks about dmanisi. This time read it.

If you really want to point out the common ancestor between chimp and human, go for it. Not in africa....


Furthermore, if we were that distantly related, we probably wouldn't be able to procreate with the ease with which we do.
Again you show you have no idea what you are talking about.

Polar bears have been completely separated for millions of years and can still breed with black bears. However multiregionalism means everyone is connected. There is just one human race with local variants. 20 million years is more like the timeframe to become split to the point of no interbreeding, and it only comes from a real split in specialization not because of randomness. Koi and goldfish can't breed well because they came to be in separate niches, not because of random chance. Otherwise the initial flaw to change interbreeding ability would not be advantageous.

Like I said, before you even open your mouth you should know the basics. You are still completely clueless about what multiregionalism is, or what Out of Africa even means.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Why do you argue about something you just heard of, LB?

FH actually knows a lot but still makes some silly arguments at times. Unless you know an awful lot you are just talking out your ass.

[Longbowman]

[QUOTE]Well no shit sherlock, that is the basic idea behind OoA though. It really is that stupid. It implies there's no mixing or selection, just magic.


Reductio ad absurdium makes me think you're lying when you claim to have almost as high an IQ as I do.


Go back to my first post you didn't read that talks about dmanisi. This time read it.


http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-dmanisi-human-skull-georgia-01474.html quote:
An analysis of a complete 1.8-million-year-old hominid skull found at the archaeological site of Dmanisi in Georgia suggests the earliest Homo species – Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis and so forth – actually belonged to the same species.

Besides, this doesn't a) account for the abundance of similar fossils found in Africa in the same time frame or b) the ones found before 1.8 million years ago, also in Africa.
If you really want to point out the common ancestor between chimp and human, go for it. Not in africa....


Again you show you have no idea what you are talking about.


Again you show your arrogance.


Polar bears have been completely separated for millions of years and can still breed with black bears. However multiregionalism means everyone is connected. There is just one human race with local variants. 20 million years is more like the timeframe to become split to the point of no interbreeding, and it only comes from a real split in specialization not because of randomness. Koi and goldfish can't breed well because they came to be in separate niches, not because of random chance. Otherwise the initial flaw to change interbreeding ability would not be advantageous.


20 million years ago we hadn't even separated from gibbons.


Like I said, before you even open your mouth you should know the basics. You are still completely clueless about what multiregionalism is, or what Out of Africa even means.

Like I said, you're an arrogant, know-nothing conspiracionalist who ignores a wealth of evidence for one or two loosely-connected pieces of nothing. Don't insult me.

[Longbowman]

Why do you argue about something you just heard of, LB?

FH actually knows a lot but still makes some silly arguments at times. Unless you know an awful lot you are just talking out your ass.

Why are you such an arrogant, conceited blowhard who thinks posting hundreds of Dienekes' excerpts makes him an expert, and who thinks anyone who disagrees must be new to the subject, misinformed and wrong?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Why are you such an arrogant, conceited blowhard who thinks posting hundreds of Dienekes' excerpts makes him an expert, and who thinks anyone who disagrees must be new to the subject, misinformed and wrong?

You don't know basic facts and you make retarded claims. I find it funny you say it's impossible I have 145 IQ then claim to have higher one, too. And that you call me arrogant when you think you know it all but don't read the info I post and don't know the basics of the theory I am arguing OR EVEN THE ONE YOU ARE SUPPORTING. It is typical of people arguing out of africa to have no idea what it says, though. GUYS I SAW AN ARTICLE IT MUST BE TROO.

:lol:

[Longbowman]

[QUOTE]You don't know basic facts and you make retarded claims.

Same to you, nur-nur-ne-nur-nur.


I find it funny you say it's impossible I have 145 IQ then claim to have higher one, too.

Well, I don't think it's impossible to have an IQ of 145, of course! I just think it's very unlikely you do. If you like I could scan a copy of my psychologist's report. My scores were achieved on children's versions of the Weschler IQ test I took when I was 6 and 12.


And that you call me arrogant when you think you know it all but don't read the info I post and don't know the basics of the theory I am arguing OR EVEN THE ONE YOU ARE. It is typical of people arguing out of africa to have no idea what it says, though. GUYS I SAW AN ARTICLE IT MUST BE TROO.

See, there's the problem. 'All people who disagree with me have no idea what they're talking about.' It's that kind of disrespect that discredits you, even before anything else.


:lol:

This is something all clever people tag on to the end of their posts.

Anyow, it's 3.40AM here. Goodnight.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Reductio ad absurdium makes me think you're lying when you claim to have almost as high an IQ as I do.


I am in presence of a bona fide genius, then. I am a mere subgenius/borderline genius :(




http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-dmanisi-human-skull-georgia-01474.html quote:
An analysis of a complete 1.8-million-year-old hominid skull found at the archaeological site of Dmanisi in Georgia suggests the earliest Homo species – Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis and so forth – actually belonged to the same species.

Right. And what's this mean? It means that multiregionalism is correct and out of africa is incorrect. The entire paper is really about multiregionalism!



Besides, this doesn't a) account for the abundance of similar fossils found in Africa in the same time frame

They don't exist, bro. Again, you just don't get it. These fossils are all new ones. They are much more advanced than anything in africa for many hundreds of thousands of years. Basically they just proved out of africa wrong with these fossil finds.



or b) the ones found before 1.8 million years ago, also in Africa.

There's no homo erectus in africa until much later, and turkana boy is so much less advanced and smaller brained he is now considered homo ergaster and has for some time now. He is old news, and probably not a human ancestor anyway as his morphology is all wrong.



Again you show your arrogance.

20 million years ago we hadn't even separated from gibbons.

Then find the fossil that proves it for me. There isn't one because those dates are all made up. They backsolved the number of changes between human and chimp compared to number of changes in one generation of humans to see what some magic evolution rate is. However human y-dna turns out to be completely unrecognizable next to chimp DNA.

Turns out humans are closer to gorillas genetically anyways. So there's no fossil in africa for common ancestor. There is in europe, though. It's in germany, too. OMG NAZIS! I must be a nazi to mention it is in germany.



Like I said, you're an arrogant,

I don't talk about things unless I know about them. You are completely ignorant but try to make it out like I should simply believe what you say because you are the authority. You make appeals to authority but you don't make any case of any kind, just say I am wrong. If fossil record proves me wrong then come and show me what fossils do so and I will refute them.



know-nothing

I have degrees in math and computer science, so I know at least something. Besides, you know less about it than me, so you know less than nothing by this logic.



conspiracionalist

My favorite ad hominem attack. If you simply can't refute someone this is what it comes to. If they are attacking what you say, they are a troll. If you are attacking what they say they are a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Basically an admission of defeat.



who ignores a wealth of evidence

Then provide it, make your case. Show me fossils, tell me why it makes the case for OoA or whatever it is you are concerned about.



for one or two loosely-connected pieces of nothing.

If there's bad logic show me what it is. For a forum post I have pointed to about a dozen research papers you can read, and even pointed you out to read the basics on OoA and multiregionalism. That's as detailed as it gets, and you can't even chink the logic you just handwave and make appeals to authority. I also pointed out other authorities say other things, including a very conclusive paper that blows it out of the water, so appeals to authority make no sense as there is no consensus.



Don't insult me.

You called me a conspiracy theorist and doubted my IQ in this very post. Even if I doubt your IQ is higher than mine I did not insult you over it. You are one attacking me from the start, then you turn around and accuse me of attacking you.

I do say you don't know anything on subject because that's the honest truth. I have corrected you on basic things at least a dozen times now.

[Longbowman]

[QUOTE]I am in presence of a bona fide genius, then. I am a mere subgenius/borderline genius :(

Well, technically my IQ does fall in the 'genius' range but that's just noise. Like, someone with 136 is apparently a genius and someone with 135 is not. Who cares. But taking a test on the internet doesn't count, I'm afraid :)


Right. And what's this mean? It means that multiregionalism is correct and out of africa is incorrect. The entire paper is really about multiregionalism!


No it isn't. But of course I agree with you to an extent! Multiregionalism definitely occurred. You just seem to think it's occurred for '20 million years' (direct quote). Which is wrong. The article I showed you demonstrates all common humans share an ancestor 1.8 million years ago, anyway, so you can't have it both ways.


They don't exist, bro. Again, you just don't get it. These fossils are all new ones. They are much more advanced than anything in africa for many hundreds of thousands of years. Basically they just proved out of africa wrong with these fossil finds.


They do, bro. And you can see them in museums.


There's no homo erectus in africa until much later, and turkana boy is so much less advanced and smaller brained he is now considered homo ergaster and has for some time now. He is old news, and probably not a human ancestor anyway as his morphology is all wrong.


Perhaps true but those are two dead-end fossils (like you said!) out of thousands. Disprove them all, then we'll talk.


Then find the fossil that proves it for me. There isn't one because those dates are all made up. They backsolved the number of changes between human and chimp compared to number of changes in one generation of humans to see what some magic evolution rate is. However human y-dna turns out to be completely unrecognizable next to chimp DNA.


Chimps are our closest relative, fact. If you can give me even 1 article or paper that suggests otherwise and isn't written by you, I'll eat my hat.


Turns out humans are closer to gorillas genetically anyways. So there's no fossil in africa for common ancestor. There is in europe, though. It's in germany, too. OMG NAZIS! I must be a nazi to mention it is in germany.


No, it isn't. And no, there isn't. And if you're going to make outlandish claims like this, at least have the decency to provide a source.


I don't talk about things unless I know about them. You are completely ignorant but try to make it out like I should simply believe what you say because you are the authority. You make appeals to authority but you don't make any case of any kind, just say I am wrong. If fossil record proves me wrong then come and show me what fossils do so and I will refute them.


No, mate. I have offered you evidence, you've just said 'you're wrong,' same as you claim I'm doing.


I have degrees in math and computer science, so I know at least something. Besides, you know less about it than me, so you know less than nothing by this logic.


No, I really don't. I suspect nearly nobody in the West knows less about this than you.


You called me a conspiracy theorist and doubted my IQ in this very post. Even if I doubt your IQ is higher than mine I did not insult you over it. You are one attacking me from the start, then you turn around and accuse me of attacking you.


Actually you've insulted me repeatedly, calling me ignorant, suggesting I'd never heard of this before now, calling me stupid, etc.


I do say you don't know anything on subject because that's the honest truth. I have corrected you on basic things at least a dozen times now.


How about I spin you a tale? Sixteen or so million years ago apes split into gibbons and great apes. This probably happened in Asia because that's where gibbons live. Four million years later the apes split into Orang-Otans and other apes. This also probably happened in Asia for the same reason. Apes then spread around the world. We find fossils of extinct apes like Giganthropocus in places like central Asia, but the surviving ones that aren't Orang Otans live in Africa now. There, gorillas split from other apes. We know this because all other apes are found in Africa (though of course humans are now found elsewhere) and neither gorilla nor chimp fossils have ever been found anywhere else. Then, about four to six million years ago, chimps split from hominids. This also happened in Africa, for the same reasons.

Then comes the long advance of the genus Homo from chimp-like creatures to Australopithecus and so on. This first part happened in Africa. We know this to be true as there are no fossils from this time found elsewhere. Even the Georgian ones are a couple of million years later, but don't worry, we'll get to them soon. Eventually these beings had split too, into Australopithecuses (which would later die out) and daughter lineages of various Homo species, like Habilis, Robustus and whatnot. Most of these would eventually prove to be dead-ends, but anyway, some of them started to leave Africa around 2 million years ago. These creatures would eventually spread to eastern Asia (Erectus) which would only die out a few thousand years ago. Erectus may well have developed in Asia about 2 million years ago (note the Georgian Dmanisi cave finds) but ultimately have no living descendants.

Other humans, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans, left Africa around one million years ago, or perhaps only 600-750,000, splitting off from the 'modern human' proto-lineages. Their ethnogenesis probably occurred in the middle east, where their most southern and oldest fossils are. They spread across western Eurasia.

Around 250,000 years ago, or maybe a bit less or more, 'modern humans' left Africa. This kind of sucked for the ones left behind but they weren't to know that yet. These modern humans immediately bred with Neanderthals and later Denisovans and today all non-African populations have some of their DNA in them. Although the Neanderthals and Denisovans died out as separate races/subspecies, they still have descendants. Modern humans came to exist in nearly every corner of the globe and there developed into races.

Don't agree? I guess you think I'm ignorant? I guess then so is Robin Dunbar and Jared Diamond and literally every leading anthropologist or evolutionary biologist.

[Kale]

That makes no sense at all. Did I post that?

You said pre-Ie Europeans people had light eyes. My response was the map for light eyes and Indo-European genes are basically an exact match, casting doubt to your theory.

[Fire Haired]

You said pre-Ie Europeans people had light eyes. My response was the map for light eyes and Indo-European genes are basically an exact match, casting doubt to your theory.

What are Indo European genes? There is very strong evidence Y DNA R1a1a1 M417 and R1b1a2a1a L11 spread with some Indo Europeans languages. Other Y DNA haplogroups are also probably involved. Y DNA is just a direct paternal lineage. The proto Indo Europeans and early Indo Europeans were not aliens. I think they lived around the Black sea. And would have been total west Eurasians aka Caucasians. Probably very European and middle eastern type ancestry. In maybe about a week there will be info on DNA from probably early Indo European Yamna culture samples dating about 5,000-6,000 years old and mainly coming from the European side of the black sea. There was already info released that they had all west Eurasian mtDNA and also pale skin and darker eyes than most modern Europeans. But Indo Iranian speakers in central and eastern Asia mainly Siberia from bronze and iron age had vast majority light eyes over 70%.

It seems to me that the spread of Indo Europeans in copper and bronze age majorly changed the genetic makeup in many Europeans. In at least west and central Europe it was two distinct genetic groups the hunter gatherers and farmers. The farmers of course won and basically replaced almost all hunter gatherers and seem to have had very little inter marriage. The Indo Europeans seem to have been kind of the revenge of the hunter gatherers. I think they are probably the reason for the rise of hunter gatherer type autosomal DNA in Europe probably in the copper and bronze age. Certain Indo European groups that conquered much of Europe probably had high amount of hunter gatherer ancestry. The farmers like Otzi and their closest modern relatives Sardinia are basically only dark eyed. Europeans who are more related to autosomal DNA samples of hunter gatherers are very light eyed. It is possibly that along with raising hunter gatherer ancestry Indo European migrations raised light eyes percentages.

This is all just random idea's that have little evidence. I doubt most of it is true. I am sure it is much much more complicated than this.

[Kale]

Fire Haired - Basically the North_European component. Majority component in the Baltics and Scandinavia, about 45% in UK, Ireland, Northern France, Northern Germany. Drops farther as you go south until its less than 25% in the coastal Mediterranean.

Matches pretty well with that map.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Light_Eyes_Map.png

[Yuffayur]

M81 in Iberia is very Old not "recent".

[Jana]

Very interesting thread :) Almost nothing can't be concluded for sure, about pre IE-Europe. I don't think y-DNA is very telling about it.