Origin of European Paleness(skin, hair and eye color)

[Fire Haired]

http://duhmerica.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/67.jpghttp://slacktory.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/drunk-baby-I-got-your-nose.jpg
Basics of what i will say
White skin: Origin mid east with early Caucasins 60,000-80,000ybp. Became dominte in Europeans ancestors wither while still in the mid east probably over 50,000ybp or while in Europe 60,000-20,000ybp. It would not have randomly spread across Europe when it was already heavily populated for thousends of years like some have said. It comes from the founding population of all Europeans which aust dna tests have found that spread acroos europe when Europe was not populated by Humans or those humans bloodlines are extinct. So Europeans ancestors have been white skinned in my opinon from anywhere from 20,000-60,000 years.

Fair hair: For fair hair so blonde and blonde brown hair mixes. It seems it was probably more popular in Europe before farming spread starting 10,000ybp. and may have been the most popular hair color in Europeans before farming spread. It either originated in Europe well over 20,000ybp or in the mid east 60,000-80,000ybp.

light eyes: since the ancestral alle and derived alle percentages for blue eyes is diff in Europeans and mid easterns. And that they are somewhat popular in mid east groups like Assyrians who in aust dna show no traces of European blood. They all most likely originate din the mid east 60,000-80,000ybp. and became more popular in Europeans ancestor's possible because of Europe's climate.

red hair: Origins of Red hair (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?91491-Origin-and-ancient-History-of-red-hair). Since it exists in Samartians of Palestine who show no traces of European blood in aust dna there have been tests on all 700. It most likely originated in the mid east 60,000-80,000ybp. as it probably first went over 1% around Russia 10,000-20,000ybp, Then as Indo European languages began around that area. Spread to west Europe with Germanic Italo celtic languages starting 5,000ybp and R1b L51 and R1b L11. Red hair also existed in proto Indo Iranian speakers.

I think the reason why Europeans became so pale even though the genes for their paleness exists in all Caucasians so mid easterns, north Africans, and north Indians is because of climate. The Paleness of Europeans in a way tell a story of the cold and dark climate Europeans ancestors had to find a way to adapt too.

Since the genes associated with European pale skin are almost as popular in all other Caucasians mid easterns, north Africans, and north Indians (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?91397-Supposedly-Euro-light-skin-genes-are-popular-in-all-Caucasins-and-exists-in-about-all-Humans). There are also some mid eastern ethnic groups with just about as pale skin as Europeans. With little to no traces of strong European blood in aust DNA (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.isogg.org%2Fwiki%2FAutosomal_ DNA&ei=QyQtUrT2NsjSrQHLloGICQ&usg=AFQjCNG8NuxkUWi-3fPmcn4czYal0U-tAA&sig2=arnUsSawHR6wADUAu_YPtA&bvm=bv.51773540,d.aWM) defintley not more than dark skinned people in the mid east. Some exaples are Georgians (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGeorgia ns&ei=rSQtUv7iAuX4yQGb8ICQAg&usg=AFQjCNFyRAAB7CGeuy1Oms4HkmIjEWcDPg&sig2=PZuSZ06_O1lKKfOwzjmzTA&bvm=bv.51773540,d.aWM), Samartians (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSamarit ans&ei=myQtUp61OcynqQH8pYCoBA&usg=AFQjCNGEcRFZCrg0oW4i2EaG2NJ-6mo5rQ&sig2=ZzeFNyJ2sb3U9kxosULQrg&bvm=bv.51773540,d.aWM), and Druze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze).

If u dont believe me there are mid easterns as pale as Europeans here are some examples. I guess u can say a cherry picked.
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0fPbeWR4SObTP/340x.jpghttp://nimg.sulekha.com/others/original700/mideast-israel-palestinians-samaritans-2009-5-31-5-21-4.jpg
http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/druze.jpg

Also red hair does exist in Samartiens of Palestine. Even though on their was a globe13 aust dna test of all 700. All had 0% of Paleolithic-Mesolithic European group called North Euro. Which is the only aust group to originate in Europe and defines Europeans as separate from other Caucasians. So really no traces of European blood.


Samaritan redhead boy during Passover. click here for Origin of red hair (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?91491-Origin-and-ancient-History-of-red-hair).
http://static2.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_scale_large/600-0/photos/1303134632-samaritans-passover-sacrifice-at-mount-grizim_662410.jpg

There is no doubt that the genes associated with European pale skin originated with early Caucasians in the mid east 60,000-80,000ybp. For red hair it also most likely originated in the mid east with early Caucasians 60,000-80,000ybp. If u dont think red hair can survive in the mid east for that long because of how recessive it is u are wrong. Because the proto Indo iranian speakers who migrated out of northern Russia starting 5,000ybp. and spread throughout all of central asia and from iran-india from 5,000-3,00ybp. They had over 1% red hair my explanations are on the link of origin of red hair (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?91491-Origin-and-ancient-History-of-red-hair). and Where proto Indo Iranian speakers ancestry originate (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?91491-Origin-and-ancient-History-of-red-hair). I also show in those links red hair still pops up in Indo iranian speaking ethnic groups after 3,500 years such as Kalash in Pakistan, Pashuten in Afghanistan, Kurds in iraq, Syria, Iran, and Turkey. So red hair defintley could survive in the mid east for 60,000-80,000 years Samaritan redheads are evidence of that.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTky1Aqr6t3c_ATRBq4w9WQAPlpy4Q_T I2ZYqCf4alXIxcCv12w
For blue eyes which distributions is connected with all non brown eye colors meaning they may have all originated together. Click here (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/herc2-haplotypes-phylogeny-and.html) the percentage of the ancestral alle and derived alle of blue eyes is different in Europeans and mid easterns. Showing mid eastern blue eyes which are more popular than u would think don't come from European inter marriage. One of the groups they showed in the mid east were Assyrians. Who in the globe13 test like Samaritans showed no traces of European blood.

http://www.mikethenomad.com/photos/fin_mikko_me_peter.jpg
For blonde hair i don't really know if there are any blondes in the mid east or in any other Caucasians but Europeans. Blonde hair from just looking at it seem to be connected with brown hair. Since u can have light brown and many blondes who have traces of brown hair. It may just be a lighter version of brown hair but i have no knowledge of how the genes work so i don't know. Orignalley all humans had black hair but brown hair only exists in Caucasians probably originate din the mid east with early Caucasians 60,000-80,000ybp. It is very popular throughout Europe, mid east, and north Africa it has less pigmentation than black hair so it is paler. I have heard of some rare cases of brown hair in Japanese and Native Americans but probably caused by diff genes so it has a diff origin. I have showed on this thread how blonde probably was more popular in Europe before the spread of farming starting 10,000ybp and may have ven been the main hair color of Europeans over 10,000ybp. (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?91728-Theory-blonde-hair-origin-Paleolithic-Europe-and-possible-main-hair-color-of-Euro-s-over-10-000ybp)I would think blonde hair originated in Europe well over 20,000ybp or mid east with early Caucasians 60,000-80,000ybp.

So overall European white skin, red hair, and light eyes most likely first appeared in early Caucasians in the mid east 60,000-80,000ybp. For blonde hair and all brown hair blonde hair mixes either orignated in Europe well over 20,000ybp or in the mid east with early Caucasians 60,000-80,000ybp.

It is hard to say when those genes became popular and dominate in Europeans ancestors. For pale skin since i showed how some mid eastern ethnic groups are about as pale as Europeans and the genes associated with European pale skin are just about as popular in other Caucasians mid east, north Africa, and northern India. There is a chance when Europeans ancestors arrived in Europe 30,000-60,000ybp that they were already white skinned. But if they were not looking at Genetics and spread of diff ethnic groups and languages families and all that other stuff in Europe. Europe has deifntley been white skinned for well over 10,000 years. At the very least i would say 20,000 years. Pale skinned i dont think could have just randomly spread acroos Europe like some have theorized. Because then u are talking about one pale skinned people genetically replacing the rest of europe that is the only way. Everyone in a contient cant randomly start to be aple skinned why would pale skin keep winning and spreading. It would have been in the founding population of all Europeans that then spread acroos Europe which was not populated yet or the populations that did live there like Neanderthals bloodline is extinct.

In globe13 aust DNa the only trace of a group that originated in Europe probably 30,000ybp or more. Is called North Euro it is called that because it is most popular there but is spread out in all of Europe. Europeans before farming spread were like Native Americans very genetically isolated. They all would have been 100% of the group North Euro. So they are deifntley the source of European populations being all pale skinned. There are no other traces of people in Europe over 10,000ybp. So when this group spread acroos Europe and they either were the only people there or for some reason the other humans there died out. I think Europeans founding populations 30,000-60,000ybp would have been white skinned.

[SilverKnight]

according to 23andme, I have the mutation chromosome AA. But this is common

[blogen]

The pale skin color is very young:

European Skin Turned Pale Only Recently, Gene Suggests

Researchers have disagreed for decades about an issue that is only skin-deep: How quickly did the first modern humans who swept into Europe acquire pale skin? Now a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggests that Europeans lightened up quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago. This contradicts a long-standing hypothesis that modern humans in Europe grew paler about 40,000 years ago, as soon as they migrated into northern latitudes. Under darker skies, pale skin absorbs more sunlight than dark skin, allowing ultraviolet rays to produce more vitamin D for bone growth and calcium absorption. “The [evolution of] light skin occurred long after the arrival of modern humans in Europe,” molecular anthropologist Heather Norton of the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in her talk.

The genetic origin of the spectrum of human skin colors has been one of the big puzzles of biology. Researchers made a major breakthrough in 2005 by discovering a gene, SLC24A5, that apparently causes pale skin in many Europeans, but not in Asians. A team led by geneticist Keith Cheng of Pennsylvania State University (PSU) College of Medicine in Hershey found two variants of the gene that differed by just one amino acid. Nearly all Africans and East Asians had one allele, whereas 98% of the 120 Europeans they studied had the other (Science, 28 October 2005, p. 601).

Norton, who worked on the Cheng study as a graduate student, decided to find out when that mutation swept through Europeans. Working as a postdoc with geneticist Michael Hammer at the University of Arizona, she sequenced 9300 base pairs of DNA in the SLC24A5 gene in 41 Europeans, Africans, Asians, and American Indians.

Using variations in the gene that did not cause paling, she calculated the background mutation rate of SLC24A5and thereby determined that 18,000 years had passed since the light-skin allele was fixed in Europeans. But the error margins were large, so she also analyzed variation in the DNA flanking the gene. She found that Europeans with the allele had a “striking lack of diversity” in this flanking DNA—a sign of very recent genetic change, because not enough time has passed for new mutations to arise. The data suggest that the selective sweep occurred 5300 to 6000 years ago, but given the imprecision of method, the real date could be as far back as 12,000 years ago, Norton said. She added that other, unknown, genes probably also cause paling in Europeans.

Either way, the implication is that our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years—a suggestion made 30 years ago by Stanford University geneticist L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He argued that the early immigrants to Europe, who were hunter-gatherers, herders, and fishers, survived on ready-made sources of vitamin D in their diet. But when farming spread in the past 6000 years, he argued, Europeans had fewer sources of vitamin D in their food and needed to absorb more sunlight to produce the vitamin in their skin. Cultural factors such as heavier clothing might also have favored increased absorption of sunlight on the few exposed areas of skin, such as hands and faces, says paleoanthropologist Nina Jablonski of PSU in State College.

Such recent changes in skin color show that humans are still evolving, says molecular anthropologist Henry Harpending of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City: “We have all tacitly assumed for years that modern humans showed up 45,000 years ago and have not changed much since, while this and other work shows that we continue to change, often at a very fast rate.”
source (http://galsatia.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/blanche_paleur.pdf)

[Fire Haired]

according to 23andme, I have the mutation chromosome AA. But this is common

I guess that is the one they associate with European pale skin. even though most brown skinned mid easterns, north Africans, and north Indians have it. Ur Y DNA and mtDNa are sub sharen African i u deifntley get ur AA from European blood. So i guess ur a total mix. Brown skin pops up in my family even though we are 100%, German, British isles, Norway, and Swiss. My dads who am i test on geno 2,0. his to biggest groups 40% med and 35% north Euro average for people of his ancestry over 55% north euro and under 35% med. i saw for the mid east they werent specfic they dont have groupslike west asina. They i gues just call it all med so i was thinking maybe it is mid eastern blood. He also got 5% native american most of our ancestry or around 50% has been here since before america was formed. We have record all the way back on both sides no non white's. My Dad Y DNA direct paternal lineage is typical western European Germanic Italo Celtic (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?89535-R1b-L51-L11-Germanic-Italo-Celts-Rulers-and-conqueres-of-Bronze-Iron-age-west-Europe) R1b1a2a1a L11. when my dad was a kid he though possible his mom cheated on his dad even though they have the same birth marks. we know it had to off come from before my dads grandparents on his dads side somehow a woman maybe mid eastern inter married but no records of it. So it may just be we have over time more mid eastern mix than average.

the 5% native american 3% sub shara, and 2% oceania may be for real. i think the native american is the best chance. I have noticed even though in aust dna tests mexicans average about half Iberian origin and half native american they almost always have native american dark reddish skin. Look at zimmerman german father mexican mother he has dark skin. Native american dark skin genes for some reason survive very well. i dont maybe thats the source.

[Fire Haired]

The pale skin color is very young:

European Skin Turned Pale Only Recently, Gene Suggests

Researchers have disagreed for decades about an issue that is only skin-deep: How quickly did the first modern humans who swept into Europe acquire pale skin? Now a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggests that Europeans lightened up quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago. This contradicts a long-standing hypothesis that modern humans in Europe grew paler about 40,000 years ago, as soon as they migrated into northern latitudes. Under darker skies, pale skin absorbs more sunlight than dark skin, allowing ultraviolet rays to produce more vitamin D for bone growth and calcium absorption. “The [evolution of] light skin occurred long after the arrival of modern humans in Europe,” molecular anthropologist Heather Norton of the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in her talk.

The genetic origin of the spectrum of human skin colors has been one of the big puzzles of biology. Researchers made a major breakthrough in 2005 by discovering a gene, SLC24A5, that apparently causes pale skin in many Europeans, but not in Asians. A team led by geneticist Keith Cheng of Pennsylvania State University (PSU) College of Medicine in Hershey found two variants of the gene that differed by just one amino acid. Nearly all Africans and East Asians had one allele, whereas 98% of the 120 Europeans they studied had the other (Science, 28 October 2005, p. 601).

Norton, who worked on the Cheng study as a graduate student, decided to find out when that mutation swept through Europeans. Working as a postdoc with geneticist Michael Hammer at the University of Arizona, she sequenced 9300 base pairs of DNA in the SLC24A5 gene in 41 Europeans, Africans, Asians, and American Indians.

Using variations in the gene that did not cause paling, she calculated the background mutation rate of SLC24A5and thereby determined that 18,000 years had passed since the light-skin allele was fixed in Europeans. But the error margins were large, so she also analyzed variation in the DNA flanking the gene. She found that Europeans with the allele had a “striking lack of diversity” in this flanking DNA—a sign of very recent genetic change, because not enough time has passed for new mutations to arise. The data suggest that the selective sweep occurred 5300 to 6000 years ago, but given the imprecision of method, the real date could be as far back as 12,000 years ago, Norton said. She added that other, unknown, genes probably also cause paling in Europeans.

Either way, the implication is that our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years—a suggestion made 30 years ago by Stanford University geneticist L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He argued that the early immigrants to Europe, who were hunter-gatherers, herders, and fishers, survived on ready-made sources of vitamin D in their diet. But when farming spread in the past 6000 years, he argued, Europeans had fewer sources of vitamin D in their food and needed to absorb more sunlight to produce the vitamin in their skin. Cultural factors such as heavier clothing might also have favored increased absorption of sunlight on the few exposed areas of skin, such as hands and faces, says paleoanthropologist Nina Jablonski of PSU in State College.

Such recent changes in skin color show that humans are still evolving, says molecular anthropologist Henry Harpending of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City: “We have all tacitly assumed for years that modern humans showed up 45,000 years ago and have not changed much since, while this and other work shows that we continue to change, often at a very fast rate.”
source (http://galsatia.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/blanche_paleur.pdf)

If u read what i wrote is shows this is total BS. honestly triggered by racism. European lght skin, red hair, an dlight eyes all orignated in the mid eats probably 60,000-80,000ybp. There are some light skinned mid eastern groups. 6,000 year old DNA from early Indo European Kurgen people in souther Ukriane all light skin. If u look at the spread of people in Europe there is no way light skin in europeans is that young. Stating 10,000ybp was the spread of Y DNa G2a, E1b1b V13, j1, and J2 farmers from the mid east with predomintley in aust dna a group most call med. The native hunter gathers hg I with 100% a group they call north euro. If anything dark skinned people have spread acroos europe in the last 10,000 years.'

There is no doubt dominte light skin, high amounts of fair hair and eyes are rements of mesloithic-Paleoithic European hunter gathers who were the only people in Europe over 10,000ybp. The idea that somehow brown skin died out and light skin spread in a contient already densly populated and had been settled over 30,000 years early is insane. U are talking about huge migrations of these light skinned peple how would they trun everyone esle brown. Aust dna has shown all europeans trace back to the same family. And that family is the only one we know of that lived in europe over 10,000ybp. most likley arrived 30,000-60,000ybp since this aust dna group is unqiue to Europe and originated there. When Europeans pread acroos the contient that was not populate they were already pale skinned.

at first i just listend to what those people said. Until i began to think for myself and realize they are just guessing and age estimates on genes and when they spread is very unaccurate. Just wait till they can tell skin color of pre historic european remains u will be shocked by how pale they are.

[Fire Haired]

Those genes they said cause European pale skin i shows in this thread are almost just as popular as in mid easterns and north Africans. Teh fact they say those genes are only 20,000 years old and originate din europe shows they are full of BS. Those gene sdid not randomly spread acroos europe which they are theorizing they already were very popular just as much as today when europeans ancestors arrived, So that destorys their whole theory.

[blogen]

The idea that somehow brown skin died out and light skin spread in a contient already densly populated and had been settled over 30,000 years early is insane.

Why? Lactose tolerance did not exist ten thousand years ago!

But now:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-snKmMS7WKpo/T-PZnbOkogI/AAAAAAAAAZk/741ftY2LOE0/s1600/Old+World+LP+phenotype+frequencies+based+on+all+ph enotype+frequencies.png

Sorry, the European population was changed many times.

[Fire Haired]

Why? Lactose tolerance did not exist ten thousand years ago!

But now:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-snKmMS7WKpo/T-PZnbOkogI/AAAAAAAAAZk/741ftY2LOE0/s1600/Old+World+LP+phenotype+frequencies+based+on+all+ph enotype+frequencies.png

Sorry, the European population was changed many times.

That is not true. The sami and far northern Scandinavians were nit farmers till very recently but they have the highest amount. So obvisouly it has nothing to do with the spread of farming which brings domesticated animals which brings milk. I dont think people understand that northern Scandnaviens are not Norwiegan or Swedish they are either Sami or Finnish. Sami and Finnish people overall in aust dna are the closet match to samples of Mesloithic European hunter gathers so not farmers. (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?90760-Sardine-Neloithic-Euro-s-Finnish-and-Sami-Mesolithic-Paleolithic-Euro-s) The aust dna samples of NEloithic European farmers in globe13 test showed they were dominted by the group they call meditreaen. And that before farming spread Europeans had 100% a group they call north european. Meditreaen came in the neloithic age with farmers who brought milk. ut Sami and finnish have the lowest amount of med highest amount of north euro and are the best natural milk drinkers in europe.

The percatge of europeans who can drink milk i forgot what it is called. is very similar to the distrubtation of Mesloithic-Paleoithic european aust dna group north euro. which like i said came from pre farming pre milk drinking europeans. So it is really from europeans who lived over 10,000ybp.

I showed u so manyw ays how it is impossible for light skin to have spread acroos europe 6,000-12,000ybp. The genes they said that spread we now know exist in mid easterns and north africans at about the same rate as europeans. So there theory it originated in europe and spread acroos europe is wrong it would have already been dominte in europeans ancestors when they arrived anywhere from 30,000-60,000ybp. right there that destorys there whole theory now we need to start over. I showed u how there are light skinned groups of mid easterns. Mainly Geogians who have the highest amount in the globe13 test of west asian the brother of North European which really should just be called European or Paleoithic European. There is a very good chance Europeans ancestors were pale skinned when they arrived in Europe.

Also there is no way pale skin could have spread acroos a continent that had was densly populated and had been populated for over 40,000 years already. There was already a long history of genetics. Why would everyone suddenly became pale skinned why would pale skin always win it makes no sense. Europeans founding family spread acroos europe with pale skin when it was not populated with humans so a very very very very very long time ago. Also i showed how light eyes and red hair would have originated in the mid east probably 60,000-80,000ybp. but became more popular in europeans ancestors while in europe. But since Paleolithic European group North Euro is very similar to the distrubtation of fair hair and eyes i made an argument that both have a very old age in europe (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?91728-Theory-blonde-hair-origin-Paleolithic-Europe-and-possible-main-hair-color-of-Euro-s-over-10-000ybp). And were much more popular before the spread of farming mainly 9,000-6,000ybp. So overall European paleness is much older than some predictions i have seen.

U can judge this 15,000 year old Magdlonian carvings of humans in western France. The cave is called La Marche. There is no doubt they were what u call in the European family. They actulley would have been 100% European. Europeans get their pale skin form their Mesolithic-Paleolithic European side not a suprise these people were 100%. This culture in southwestern europe has been shown i think as pretty much a fact to have spread mtDNa H1, H3, U5b1(not all), and V. They most likley had Y DNa I2, or I2a, or I2a1, or I2a1a. at this time Europeans were like native Americans genetically isolated.
http://geolines.ru/netcat_files/18/10/h_3ed7685dfd8049b78ad139e5b8d01917http://thenutshellparagraph.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/lamarchecaveportrait.jpghttps://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUioIlE-VcT6WlUj5fS86EhbilT84-RQiUk8cCqPy50QmquRF_http://www.donsmaps.com/images3/boysmarche.gifhttp://www.pureinsight.org/pi/pi_images/2003-6-1-cavepaintings3.jpe

[blogen]

So there is not a contact between the Lactose tolerance and the animal husbandry. :picard1: This is an interesting theory too, but this was the reality 5,400-4,300 years before present:

"Here we investigate the frequency of an allele (-13910*T) associated with lactase persistence in a Neolithic Scandinavian population. From the 14 individuals originally examined, 10 yielded reliable results. We find that the T allele frequency was very low (5%) in this Middle Neolithic hunter-gatherer population, and that the frequency is dramatically different from the extant Swedish population (74%)."
source: Helena Malmström, Anna Linderholm, Kerstin Lidén, Jan Storå, Petra Molnar, Gunilla Holmlund, Mattias Jakobsson and Anders Götherström: High frequency of lactose intolerance in a prehistoric hunter-gatherer population in northern Europe - BMC Evolutionary Biology, 2010 (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/89)

The contemporary European population's ancestors were Neolithic or later immigrants.

[rashka]

If u dont believe me there are mid easterns as pale as Europeans here are some examples.
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0fPbeWR4SObTP/340x.jpg

This man is olive-skinned - the type of pale found in Southern Europe however I would not call that fair.

[Pjeter Pan]

This man is olive-skinned - the type of pale found in Southern Europe however I would not call that fair.
:picard2: how the hell is this olive skin??

[Vasconcelos]

Just because his skin isn't ruddy, it doesn't immediatly make it olive...it's not.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Basically there's only three basic patterns. Everyone else is just mixed. And of course that's east asian, caucasian, and then the truly black people like in west africa and South India.

Just like with red and blonde hair and blue eyes the caucasian type is very easy to wash out. Even easier because it's multigenic meaning that you can pick up a few genes almost like ink and they don't wash out very easy, you can't pop back to pure white without a whole lot of breeding with only pure white genes.

That pretty much sums it up. Only thing of interest is that the vast majority of the planet is of caucasian type at heart when it comes to skin. The differences in tone are from often slight amounts of mixing and possibly from some localized novel skin color genes here and there.

[Fire Haired]

Basically there's only three basic patterns. Everyone else is just mixed. And of course that's east asian, caucasian, and then the truly black people like in west africa and South India.

If u click here and here (http://dodecad.blogspot.com/) and here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?84361-All-Human-Races-According-to-DNA). Its talking about aust dna (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CD4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.isogg.org%2Fwiki%2FAutosomal_ DNA&ei=ij0yUvmeDMmsqgH184DoCg&usg=AFQjCNG8NuxkUWi-3fPmcn4czYal0U-tAA&sig2=YtZ86lQ7LrAA-LQyXqsMUA&bvm=bv.52164340,d.aWM) U will see that the there major Human families are Sub Sharen African, Caucasin, and Oceania Mongliod, The reason why Sub sharen african is not Negriod anymore is because some Oceania also have black skin and nappy hair but are unrelated. Also the only mystery are Indians. Most Indians are a mix of Brown skinned Caucasin West asian group and black skinned South asian group. the almost pure pbread south sians who are draviden speakers have all Caucasin features except their skin color they have Caucasian skull shape, body build, body hair, hair texture, and facial hair. But in aust dna they are a little more related to Oceania Mongliod and their mtDNa and Y DNa points to them being more connected to Oceania Mongliod.

The reason why Pakistini are darker skinned than Iraq's is because they have pretty signifcant blood from south asia they are a mix. Europe was settled by a Caucasin family from around Antolia-Caucus-Iran over 30,000ybp. The specific European group the only to orignate in Europe and to exist in Europe before farming spread so 10,000ybp is called North Euro and is the brother to west asian they are more related than any other two human groups in the globe13 test. It is kind of a mystery why Europeans overall are so much more pale than other Caucasians. Origin of European Paleness (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?92883-Origin-of-European-Paleness(skin-hair-and-eye-color)) but what gets annoying is when people dont get it that just because Chinese have pale skin does not make them related to white people they are very related top black skinned austrlien aboriginals. There are Human families and those families uselly have distinct features but just because indians and africans have dark skin does not make them very related.


Just like with red and blonde hair and blue eyes the caucasian type is very easy to wash out. Even easier because it's multigenic meaning that you can pick up a few genes almost like ink and they don't wash out very easy, you can't pop back to pure white without a whole lot of breeding with only pure white genes.
Red hair and blonde hair distrbiubtation is not connected at all. They probably developed in tow diff groups all it is that i can tell is both are extra pale so they almost always have light eyes. Origin of red hair (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?91491-Origin-and-ancient-History-of-red-hair). U can see in that link and the origin of European palness that red hair exists in mid eastern groups like Samartians who have no traces in globe13 test of specifically European group North Euro and probably;y have no European blood so it probably originated in the mid east before Caucasians arrived in Europe over 30,000ybp. Also it shows how blue eyes also exists in mid eastern groups with either no traces of European blood or extremely little and blue and all light eyes probably originated with early Caucasians 60,000-80,000ybp. And it also shows how European pale skin originated at that time too and the genes associated with it are almost as popular in all Caucasians as in Europeans.

There is no doubt high amounts of non dark hair and eyes is European and does not exist in other peoples gene flow except a tiny bit in other Caucasians. So of course when a Swedish person has a kid with a Chinese or native american or sub sharan African the kid will have dark hair and eyes. But then if that kid marries a white person then his kid does the same of course they will look white agian.

That pretty much sums it up. Only thing of interest is that the vast majority of the planet is of caucasian type at heart when it comes to skin. The differences in tone are from often slight amounts of mixing and possibly from some localized novel skin color genes here and there.[/QUOTE]

This is how i see it with naming globe13 aust dna groups

Caucasians
West asian, southwest asian, and Mediterranean group: mainly brown skinned with some light brown and sometimes white.'
European(called North Euro): all white skinned then fair hair and eyes are very popular and with some groups n russi over 15,000ybp red hair would have gone over 1% for the first time.

Oceania Mongliod
Native American: dark brown and reddish

east asian, siberian, and artic: light skinned

I guess they dont count this but Polynesians: very brown skinned and reddish

OCeania: pretty much almost all black skinned with some brown skinned in Austrlla

Sub Sharan African: all black skinned except San in southern Africa who are kind of light bronze skinned

South asians: very very dark brown and black skinned.

In my opinon the first humans most likely had black skin, or brown, or light brown to white.

[daedal1]

This man is olive-skinned - the type of pale found in Southern Europe however I would not call that fair.

It isn't necessarily olive, but the hue is different from the typical central european hue. It's a type of light olive/brownish hue. Similarly, even pale skinned east asians tend to have different hues.

[blogen]

Newer evidence onto the late depigmentation process:

"An interesting finding is that the Luxembourg hunter-gatherer probably had blue eyes (like a Mesolithic La Brana Iberian, a paper on which seems to be in the works) but darker skin than the LBK farmer who had brown eyes but lighter skin. Raghavan et al. did not find light pigmentation in Mal'ta (but that was a very old sample), so with the exception of light eyes that seem established for Western European hunter-gatherers (and may have been "darker" in European steppe populations, but "lighter" in Bronze Age South Siberians?), the origin of depigmentation of many recent Europeans remains a mystery. Ancient DNA continues to surprise at every turn."

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-s_8ZwA5jQlU/UrjjaLImDFI/AAAAAAAAJc0/pzDKnvT3zFY/s1600/pigmentation.png
Loschbour: 8000yBP hunter-gatherer (dark skin, dark hair, ~50% chance onto the blue eye)
Stuttgart: 7500yBP LBK farmer (light skin, dark hair, dark eye)
source (http://dienekes.blogspot.hu/)

The white peoples (light hair, light eyes and light skin) are neolithic origins.

[Fire Haired]

Newer evidence onto the late depigmentation process:

"An interesting finding is that the Luxembourg hunter-gatherer probably had blue eyes (like a Mesolithic La Brana Iberian, a paper on which seems to be in the works) but darker skin than the LBK farmer who had brown eyes but lighter skin. Raghavan et al. did not find light pigmentation in Mal'ta (but that was a very old sample), so with the exception of light eyes that seem established for Western European hunter-gatherers (and may have been "darker" in European steppe populations, but "lighter" in Bronze Age South Siberians?), the origin of depigmentation of many recent Europeans remains a mystery. Ancient DNA continues to surprise at every turn."

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-s_8ZwA5jQlU/UrjjaLImDFI/AAAAAAAAJc0/pzDKnvT3zFY/s1600/pigmentation.png
Loschbour: 8000yBP hunter-gatherer (dark skin, dark hair, ~50% chance onto the blue eye)
Stuttgart: 7500yBP LBK farmer (light skin, dark hair, dark eye)
source (http://dienekes.blogspot.hu/)

The white peoples (light hair, light eyes and light skin) are neolithic origins.

Blogen I am sick of your biased raciest crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obviously you want European paleness to be as recent as possible. They never said the ~8,000 year old hunter gatherer from Luxemburg had dark skin, all they said is he most likely had blue eyes(or another light eye color), dark hair, and darker skin than the 7,500BP LBK farmer. Blue eyes was just found in a ~7,000 year old hunter gatherer from northern Spain named La Brana-1. You cant say Mesolithic west Europeans were very blue eyed and dark skinned, that doesn't make sense. light hair and eyes in Europeans always exists with light skin. So far Mesolithic Europeans are 2/2 light eyed that is good evidence light eyes descends from them and did not develop in the Neolithic. You should look at my thread about this, the distribution of hunter gatherer ancestry in Europe today is almost identical to distribution of light hair and eyes.

I am not biasedly pushing for European paleness to be as old as possible, I am just looking at the evidence. Otzi who was extremely similar to the LBK farmer had "fair skin, brown hair, and brown eyes". Modern Sardinia are also very similar are are basically pale skinned I guess you can say white to olive. It is very likely the farmers and hunter gatherers even though very unrelated both had pale skin. But in my opinion the farmers were almost completely dark haired and eyed while the farmers had a lot of light eyes and hair. Honestly I was surprised that hunter gatherer had very dark hair and over 20% possibility of brown eyes, because if Lithuanians who have the highest amount of their blood(around 49%) have vast majority light hair and eyes I would except nearly all the hunter gatherers to have light hair and eyes. Maybe the hunter gatherers most modern Europeans descend from were very light compared to most. You have to remember MA1 only came out 34% pre Neolithic European the rest was Native American and central-south Asian like. I do think Europeans at that time probably had dark skin, hair, and eyes though.

[blogen]

Blogen I am sick of your biased raciest crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, but this is the reality. The depigmentation was a very young event.


Obviously you want European paleness to be as recent as possible. They never said the ~8,000 year old hunter gatherer from Luxemburg had dark skin, all they said is he most likely had blue eyes(or another light eye color), dark hair, and darker skin than the 7,500BP LBK farmer. Blue eyes was just found in a ~7,000 year old hunter gatherer from northern Spain named La Brana-1. You cant say Mesolithic west Europeans were very blue eyed and dark skinned, that doesn't make sense. light hair and eyes in Europeans always exists with light skin. So far Mesolithic Europeans are 2/2 light eyed that is good evidence light eyes descends from them and did not develop in the Neolithic. You should look at my thread about this, the distribution of hunter gatherer ancestry in Europe today is almost identical to distribution of light hair and eyes.

http://m2.i.pbase.com/g1/82/643382/2/110109182.9Ljzv5wm.jpg
http://s4.hubimg.com/u/636027_f520.jpg


I am not biasedly pushing for European paleness to be as old as possible, I am just looking at the evidence. Otzi who was extremely similar to the LBK farmer had "fair skin, brown hair, and brown eyes". Modern Sardinia are also very similar are are basically pale skinned I guess you can say white to olive. It is very likely the farmers and hunter gatherers even though very unrelated both had pale skin. But in my opinion the farmers were almost completely dark haired and eyed while the farmers had a lot of light eyes and hair.

Your assumption is conflicting with this facts. The LBK farmer was typical swarthy Mediterranid, for example a Sardinian (they were "lighter" and not pale!):
http://z3.ifrm.com/67/29/0/p399721/11127_n.jpg

The Mal'ta boy was dark, like a Veddoid:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UT9uEU18egc/UIV_jxfpr4I/AAAAAAAAAX0/SR30_M-5tyw/s1600/x_Sri_Lanka_Girl.jpg

The Mesolithic hunter was somewhere between this two based on this publication.


Honestly I was surprised that hunter gatherer had very dark hair and over 20% possibility of brown eyes, because if Lithuanians who have the highest amount of their blood(around 49%) have vast majority light hair and eyes I would except nearly all the hunter gatherers to have light hair and eyes. Maybe the hunter gatherers most modern Europeans descend from were very light compared to most. You have to remember MA1 only came out 34% pre Neolithic European the rest was Native American and central-south Asian like. I do think Europeans at that time probably had dark skin, hair, and eyes though.

The contemporary Northerners are depigmented population. They are not analogies for the original population. But for example the Saami peoples are partially analogies, only their skin is light now:

http://img2.custompublish.com/getfile.php/861767.1332.xaetypcpxs/800x650/Rauni%20%C3%84%C3%A4rel%C3%A4.jpg

[Tropico]

according to 23andme, I have the mutation chromosome AA. But this is common

Too bad you're STILL brown.

[Fire Haired]

Sorry, but this is the reality. The depigmentation was a very young event.



http://m2.i.pbase.com/g1/82/643382/2/110109182.9Ljzv5wm.jpg
http://s4.hubimg.com/u/636027_f520.jpg



Your assumption is conflicting with this facts. The LBK farmer was typical swarthy Mediterranid, for example a Sardinian (they were "lighter" and not pale!):
http://z3.ifrm.com/67/29/0/p399721/11127_n.jpg

The Mal'ta boy was dark, like a Veddoid:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UT9uEU18egc/UIV_jxfpr4I/AAAAAAAAAX0/SR30_M-5tyw/s1600/x_Sri_Lanka_Girl.jpg

The Mesolithic hunter was somewhere between this two based on this publication.



The contemporary Northerners are depigmented population. They are not analogies for the original population. But for example the Saami peoples are partially analogies, only their skin is light now:

http://img2.custompublish.com/getfile.php/861767.1332.xaetypcpxs/800x650/Rauni%20%C3%84%C3%A4rel%C3%A4.jpg

Blogen, all of your pictures are cherry picked and this is all just myth. Why do you keep trying to push for a recent origin of European paleness? I think you assume it is young, for whatever reasons. Light colored eyes are almost completely exclusive to Europe, FACT!!!!!!!! There is no use arguing that. I don't want to sound over confident, but I know much more than you about genetics and history including Sami people. They were not originally "dark" like you wish, just because some in the far northern region have much less light hair and eyes than Finnish and Germanic Scandinavians does not mean they have dark skin, they are still very pale.

Sardinia are basically pale like many southern Europeans, you cherry picked that picture. It doesn't matter though two farmers from Neolithic Europe both very related and both had pale skin(probably for LBK), dark hair, and dark eyes. It is true MA1 was probably very dark maybe not as dark as a Vedic. But to say that ~8,000BP hunter gatherer from Luxemburg was in between a Vedic and a pretty dark Sardinia, is crazy. For one thing neither had blue eyes, today blue eyes are very exclusive to Europe, today hunter gatherer ancestry correlates very well with light hair and eyes in Europe, there was also a blue eyes hunter gatherer found in northern Spain who was 7,000 years old. I have many relatives who have pretty tan skin but are northern European and also have blue eyes. That Luxemburg guy is one example but you would only except 2 out of 2 blue eyes from modern Europeans who have pale skin.

[blogen]

Blogen, all of your pictures are cherry picked and this is all just myth.

Yes, these pictures are mostly cherry picked, since these pictures are examples for the these prehistoric populations. Blue eyed dark peoples, swarthy neolithic migrants, or onto the partially paelolithic survivor Saamis.


Why do you keep trying to push for a recent origin of European paleness?

This is the fact based on the genetic studies.


Sardinia are basically pale like many southern Europeans, you cherry picked that picture.

No, the Sardinian picture is not cherry picked, the typical South European are very swarthy.


It doesn't matter though two farmers from Neolithic Europe both very related and both had pale skin(probably for LBK), dark hair, and dark eyes.

No pale skin. Again:
"the Luxembourg hunter-gatherer probably had blue eyes but darker skin than the LBK farmer who had brown eyes but lighter skin."

The LBK farmer's skin color is only lighter than the dark mesolithic skin color.


It is true MA1 was probably very dark maybe not as dark as a Vedic.

"Raghavan et al. did not find light pigmentation in Mal'ta"


But to say that ~8,000BP hunter gatherer from Luxemburg was in between a Vedic and a pretty dark Sardinia, is crazy.

Based on the genetic remains. Maybe this facts are crazy for you, but this is the reality and all other ideas aer unsubstantiated speculation now.

[Fire Haired]

Blue eyed dark peoples, swarthy neolithic migrants, or onto the partially paelolithic survivor Saamis.

That's evidence you really don't know what your talking about blogen. The distribution of hunter gatherer ancestry in modern Europeans correlates very well with light hair and eyes. If you read my thread about the new DNA from Mesolithic and Neolithic Europe you would see. It is extremely unlikely that any population had a high amount of blue eyes but dark skin, it doesn't exist.


This is the fact based on the genetic studies.

That shows the little experience you have with doing just little research. It is just hypothesis not fact. The same people that said European palness(including blue eyes) descends from farmers have already been proven incorrect with already two light eye samples from Mesolithic European hunter gatherers. The fact the most Neolithic descended Europeans are the darkest and the most pre Neolithic are the lightest, says something. It makes you idea that European planes is Neolithic seem very unlikely. It could have developed in the recently in the upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic or it could be very going back before the LGM(26,600ybp) you never know.

[blogen]

New evidence onto the late depigmentation and the late mesolithic, early neolithic expansion of the pale skin color in Europe:

Can we date the A111T mutation?

The preceding analysis is consistent with a wide range of possible dates for the origin of A111T, including the period before the initial colonization of Europe by anatomically modern humans >40 thousand years ago (kya) (Mellars 2006). An estimate for the date of origin of A111T based on microsatellites (Beleza et al. 2012) places the origin at 19 kya (95% confidence interval 6−38 kya), for a dominant model, or 11 kya (95% confidence interval 1−56 kya), for a more plausible additive model. To create an independent estimate, we applied a molecular clock approach to 1000 Genomes data by using the combined C and D subregions. Because proportions of different classes of nucleotide substitutions in the C11 + D4 variants and in the human-chimpanzee alignment are not significantly different (χ2 = 4.42, df = 5, P = 0.49; Table S15), we combined these classes for analysis. For the combined population samples, before making corrections for undercounts in the source data, we obtained an estimate of 7.8 kya for the most recent common ancestor of the C11 + D4 haplotype combination (Table 3). Corresponding 95% confidence limits are 4.8−12.2 kya, whereas uncorrected estimates derived from individual European samples or the combined New World samples (also of European origin) ranged from 5.2 to 10.4 kya (Table 3). These values are clearly underestimates as a result of low sequence depth (1000 Genomes Project Consortium 2012). Adjustment for undercounting is substantial, increasing the estimated age for the combined samples to 12.4 (95% confidence interval 7.6−19.2) kya. If mutation rates in recent humans are lower than predicted from the human-chimpanzee divergence (Scally and Durbin 2012), true ages will be even older. Our adjusted dates overlap those previously reported (Beleza et al. 2012) and are also consistent with the lower limit for the origin of A111T set by the finding that the Alpine “iceman” dated to 5.3 kya was homozygous for this variant (Keller et al. 2012). This date range implies an origin clearly preceding the Neolithic transition in Europe. These dates are later than the initial colonization of Europe but are consistent with an A111T origin before or after post-glacial population expansions.

http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonous/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Neolith_Exp.jpg

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/6979/h62m.jpg
Obtaining a better date for the origin of the A111T mutation is challenged by a number of issues. Our approach provides a date for the common ancestor of the sampled C11-D4−containing chromosomes. This common ancestor may be significantly younger than the origin of A111T if positive selection was initially weak or nonexistent, or if there was a subsequent bottleneck. In addition, our date estimation relies on samples of predominantly European origin. Inclusion of Middle Eastern or South Asian examples would be expected to yield a more representative result. Incomplete detection of rare variants is a limitation that can be improved with higher-coverage sequencing. More direct limits on the age of A111T could result from genotyping of ancient human DNA.

Where did C11 originate?
The precursors to C11, haplotypes C3 and C10, are common in East Asia and the New World (Figure S5), but the distribution of C11 indicates that these locations are not likely sites for the origin of C11 or its immediate precursor. Similarly, B6 not associated with C11 is distributed widely in East Asia and the New World (data not shown). The paucity of C3 and C10 among existing African haplotypes suggests that both events leading to the origin of C11 took place outside this continent. Our dating for this haplotype is consistent with a non-African origin. The most likely location for the origin of C11 is, therefore, within the region in which it is fixed or nearly so. As both models for the origin of C11 imply that C3 and C10 were present in ancestors of Europeans, the observed and inferred distributions of these autosomal haplotypes are consistent with the single-out-of-Africa hypothesis derived using uniparental markers (Oppenheimer 2003; Macaulay et al. 2005).

The presence in Africa of A111T only in association with C11 indicates that the observed examples, like those of C3 and C10, resulted from introduction into the continent subsequent to origin. The low diversity of B-region haplotypes associated with C11 in MKK, equivalent to that seen in European samples (Figure 5 and File S2) supports this view because those individuals live among a majority population with high B-region diversity. Although too few African C11 sequences have been determined to draw strong conclusions, those available from the 1000 Genomes Project show no evidence of greater age in the form of greater SNP diversity than the European examples. It should be noted that the relatively high abundance of A111T in several equatorial East African samples indicates the absence of sustained strong negative selection against this allele at low latitudes.

Although a non-African origin for C11 is clear, near fixation of this haplotype over a wide geographical region prevents strong inferences regarding a precise location of origin. Existing data are consistent with a model in which the C11 precursor did not extend outside the geographical region in which C11 is now nearly fixed, a conclusion subject to limited haplotype sampling in some neighboring regions, such as India. With sufficiently strong positive selection for C11, it is possible that this haplotype could have originated anywhere within its current range and spread via local migration. However, selection acting in concert with major population migrations would have facilitated a much more rapid dispersal. Archeological, mitochondrial, and Y-chromosomal data suggest involvement of multiple dispersals in shaping the current populations of Europe and the Middle East (Soares et al. 2010). Because A111T is far from fixation in most Indian samples (Table S1), the high diversity of B-region haplotypes associated with C11 in the GIH sample may be the result of prolonged recombination rather than early arrival of A111T. In fact, the decrease in frequency of A111T to the east of Pakistan suggests that C11 originated farther to the west and after the initial genetic split between western and eastern Eurasians. On this basis, we hold the view that an origin of C11 in the Middle East, broadly defined, is most likely.

source: Victor A. Canfield, Arthur Berg, Steven Peckins, Steven M. Wentzel§, Khai Chung Ang, Stephen Oppenheimer and Keith C. Cheng: Molecular Phylogeography of a Human Autosomal Skin Color Locus Under Natural Selection - G3 6 November 2013: 2059-2067 (http://www.g3journal.org/content/3/11/2059.full.pdf)

[Balmung]

I think there's a difference between the types of pale. IMO pinkish skin evolved in the North/Central/Northwest due to the lack of sunlight in comparison to Southern regions of the world. They simply did not have the right climate to produce skin like that naturally. Pinkies in Southern regions are most likely the result of later migration.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Europe_sunshine_hours_map.png

[Fire Haired]

I think there's a difference between the types of pale. IMO pinkish skin evolved in the North/Central/Northwest due to the lack of sunlight in comparison to Southern regions of the world. They simply did not have the right climate to produce skin like that naturally. Pinkies in Southern regions are most likely the result of later migration.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Europe_sunshine_hours_map.png


I know some things about Genetics especially European genetics, the people that live in Italy or Germany or Finland are not the same people that lived there just 5,000 years ago. There has been a lot of population change in Europe since farmers from the near east came. The pigmentation of different Europeans is probably not the result of adaption to climate but instead just genetic makeup. It just happens that the people who have migrated to Italy in the last many thousands of years mixed and their descendants are very dark haired and eyed and tannish skinned. Same for Scandinavia, autosomal DNAand mtDNA from Mesolithic and Neolithic Scandinavians have pretty much proven those people were not their main ancestors. Almost all of Scandinavians ancestors were in mainland Europe around 5,000 years ago. Most of Irish ancestors were probably somewhere in eastern Europe 6,000 years ago, they are descended of Celts who came in the bronze age.

There has been a decent amount of pigmentation genes already taken from ancient Europeans and one 24,000 year old Siberian named Malta boy. Of the European hunter gatherers(descended probably mainly of some of the earliest Europeans) a 7,000 year old one from northern Spain named La Brana-1 was reported by a Spanish article as having blue eyes. The lAz 2013 study found an 8,000 year old hunter gatherer in Luxemburg had the "blue eye" G,G alleles in SNP rs12913832, he did not have the "light skin" alleles in rs146554, and had a 97.5% probability of dark hair.

7,500 year old farmer from Germany had brown eyes, over 98% probability of dark hair, and "light skin" alleles in rs146554, 5,300 year old early copper age farmer from the alps is reported by ancestral journeys as having fair skin, brown hair, and brown eyes. People of the Pontiac steppe(came mainly from around the black sea) from 3,000-4,000BC were reported as having pale skin and darker eyes than average modern Europeans, Indo Iranians from bronze and iron age mainly in Siberia but also other parts of asia had pale skin and higher amount of light hair and eyes than almost any modern Europeans.

The most surprising thing is that Luxemburg hunter gatherer did not have the "light skin allele" in SNP rs146554 but also probably had blue eyes. Two out of two blue eyes from Mesolithic Europe is definitely not random in my opinion because blue eyes are so isolated to Europe today. Close to 100% of Europeans though have that "light skin" gene, I doubt those alleles in SNP rs146554 make a huge effect on skin color because it is about as popular in west Asians as in Europeans. There are definitely different sources of European pale skin. We will probably see soon if the Spanish hunter gatherer had the light skin alleles or not, if he does it is still possible it is from farmer mixing.

You can see by reading this thread it has been my opinion for a while that the hunter gatherers of Europe were very pale skinned, light haired and eyes. So far I seem to be right about the eye color but I may be wrong about the skin and hair color. Some people now are saying Mesolithic Europeans were dark skinned by blue eyed and the near eastern farmers were light skinned and brown eyed. The Laz 2013 study and other research has shown, farmer ancestry in Europe correlates with dark hair, dark eyes, and olive skin but hunter gatherer ancestry correlates with light hair, light eyes, and pale skin. I think there is no way that pale skin descends from the near eastern farmers but blue eyes from the hunter gatherers. Where does light and red hair fit in the picture then? People associate light eyes with light skin, even the ancient Romans did. It is possibly this so called European light skin gene was brought to Europe from the near east in the Neolithic, and that European pale skin has another source.

[Fire Haired]

Blogen you wont stop fighting to prove everything about Europeans is young. I know you enjoy saying light skin in Europe is young. Here is why i think Mesolithic Europeans had pale skin.

1.Two out of two so far probably have blue eyes, that eye color is very restricted to Europe. Blue eyes have always been seen as connected with pale skin, and are most popular in paler skinned and light haired Europeans.

2.Mesolithic ancestry today in Europe correlates with pale skin, light hair, and light eyes. While Neolithic farmer ancestry correlates with olive skin, dark hair, and brown eyes.

3.Y DNA I, mtDNA U5, U2e, and U4 all are mainly or exclusively European just like Mesolithic European ancestry, light eyes, light skin(excluding east Asians and some near easterns), and light hair. All can be connected with pre Neolithic people of Europe.

4.The farmers and hunter gatherers were two very different people and many modern Europeans are very different from each other. You cant make the assumption light skin developed in both hunter gatherers and farmers at the same time because they shared almost none of the same ancestry.

I could give other reasons, I except more pigmentation genes from Mesolithic Europeans to show more blue eyes probably some light hair and skin.

[blogen]

Blogen you wont stop fighting to prove everything about Europeans is young. I know you enjoy saying light skin in Europe is young. Here is why i think Mesolithic Europeans had pale skin.

This is your baseless speculation only, but sorry. The genetic evidences are conflicting with your faith. Try to accept the reality!

[Fire Haired]

This is your baseless speculation only, but sorry. The genetic evidences are conflicting with your faith. Try to accept the reality!

See you assume that the paleness must be young. I give good evidence but obviously you ignore, I am perfectly willing to say any of it is young but in my opinion the two blue eyes hunter gatherers is evidence it Is not young. My opinion is not based on speculation anymore than your's. Seriously two out of two blue eyed hunter gatherers from over 6,000 years ago, when today blue eyes are almost completely exclusive to Europe, connected with pale skin and light hair. I have heard people I think including you who said the first person with blue eyes lived 6,000 years ago, that's already been proven incorrect. What is surprising is based on what they say about SNP rs146554 the hunter gatherer from Luxemburg should have had very dark skin. The light skin alleles in that gene are just as popular in west Asians as in Europeans so it is not a white skin gene it lightens skin but not dramatically

. The connection today between Mesolithic ancestry and pale skin, light eyes and hair and the already two blue eyes hunter gatherers is good enough evidence for me to say they were pale skinned. The Luxemburg man is probably just a fluke. How could you argue paleness comes from the near eastern farmers when their ancestry today Is highest in southern Europeans. Who I have realized are much darker than heavily Mesolithic descended Europeans in northern Europe. Sardinia are the closest modern relatives to the LBK girl and Otzi the iceman you should look up google images of them and compare them to Sami(same east Asian admixture) or Estonians, Lithuanians, Finnish(some east Asian admixture), Latvians who have the highest amount of Mesolithic ancestry.

[blogen]

:noidea:

If you ignored the genetic evidences onto the origin of the paleness, that is your problem.

[Fire Haired]

:noidea:

If you ignored the genetic evidences onto the origin of the paleness, that is your problem.

I am done fighting with you. I have no problem with saying the paleness is any age. I have a problem with your biased and your assumption everything educational will point to it being recent. To me the evidence still seems to say Mesolithic Europeans were very pale, paler than any modern Europeans. Of course I font ignore the Luxemburg man. I have given you my opinion with the evidence. Some people who study genetics have a problem with thinking certain people groups have a destiny or think for emotional reasons what their history is. History is random, it happened how it happened there is no momentum that says everything about European paleness has to be very young or old.

[HellLander87]

Apart from that, there's also the slight shock factor of learning that our not too distant indigenous European ancestors were probably of a deep shade of brown. Imagine that, Europe might have only really lightened up and become white after Near Eastern migrants made their way over. Well, let's wait and see.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.gr/

[Jackson]

See you assume that the paleness must be young. I give good evidence but obviously you ignore, I am perfectly willing to say any of it is young but in my opinion the two blue eyes hunter gatherers is evidence it Is not young. My opinion is not based on speculation anymore than your's. Seriously two out of two blue eyed hunter gatherers from over 6,000 years ago, when today blue eyes are almost completely exclusive to Europe, connected with pale skin and light hair. I have heard people I think including you who said the first person with blue eyes lived 6,000 years ago, that's already been proven incorrect. What is surprising is based on what they say about SNP rs146554 the hunter gatherer from Luxemburg should have had very dark skin. The light skin alleles in that gene are just as popular in west Asians as in Europeans so it is not a white skin gene it lightens skin but not dramatically

. The connection today between Mesolithic ancestry and pale skin, light eyes and hair and the already two blue eyes hunter gatherers is good enough evidence for me to say they were pale skinned. The Luxemburg man is probably just a fluke. How could you argue paleness comes from the near eastern farmers when their ancestry today Is highest in southern Europeans. Who I have realized are much darker than heavily Mesolithic descended Europeans in northern Europe. Sardinia are the closest modern relatives to the LBK girl and Otzi the iceman you should look up google images of them and compare them to Sami(same east Asian admixture) or Estonians, Lithuanians, Finnish(some east Asian admixture), Latvians who have the highest amount of Mesolithic ancestry.

Well, if the Indo-Iranians with relatively light skin and high levels of light hair and eyes, and high levels of R1 had a mixture of WHG, EEF, ANE (although in different amounts), then it could be plausible that in some areas of Europe they largely replaced the Neolithic peoples, and in other areas they largely didn't? Don't know about the plausability of that, but if these ancient Indo-Iranians had the same components as modern Europeans in roughly similar (although not the same) amounts, it might be hard to tell how much they contributed to modern Europeans, as we're unsure as to whether the WHG found f.e in western Europe has been there a long time, or whether it is part of that component shared with the WHG people that came later from the east. It would certainly fit with R1 becoming so dominant, and a lack of modern links of Mesolithic lineages with Palaeolithic lineages, and the Lochabour man matching someone as far away as Russia the closest is also interesting in this regard.

It could then explain why southern Europeans are a bit darker, because they have more of this Neolithic ancestry (although they had 'light' skin, i guess it was probably some sort of Mediterranean colouration) and ancestry from these WHG's that have been there for a long time (who were also dark but with light eyes. So if you think about it a lot of these places are over 70% EEF, and the rest is ANE and WHG, if ANE and WHG both had large amounts of light eyes, that would roughly correspond with modern frequencies of light eyes in the south, and of course the slightly (it's important that their skin is actually only slightly darker, especially when we are talking about WHG people too) darker skin would kind of fit with that.

Of course it could just be a phenomena local to many parts of northern Europe, after all we know now that actually many southern Europeans are not that much darker skinned than many northern Europeans, but the lighter hair and eyes make a greater contrast i guess.

[Fire Haired]

Jackson, the Indo Iranians(extremely likely) I am talking about come from a study or multiple studies from 2009, I am pretty sure most or all of the samples came from Siberia. They probably though can represent the entire early Indo Iranian population in Asia. What sticks out about the them to me is they had close to 100% Y DNA R1a1a M17(guessing Z93 subclade), over 30% mtDNA U5a, U4, and U2e, over 10% mtDNA T1, and majority light hair and eyes possibly as high or higher than any modern Europeans. They are suppose to originally have come from Yamna culture in far eastern Europe and started to migrate east over 4,000 years ago during the bronze age. They never spread into Europe except for Scythians much later but made a very small effect on European genetics, and if they did only in some areas of far eastern Europe.

They would have had relatives who spread other Indo European languages. The Corded ware people probably spread R1a1a1b1 Z283 a brotherclade to what was probably spread by Indo Iranians R1a1a1b2 Z93. It is possibly the people who spread Germanic and Italo Celtic languages(and possibly others) shared ancestry with them. Maybe even Uralic's who came to Scandinavia sometime in the copper or bronze age had common ancestry with them. There are obvious differences between mtDNA of copper age Bell beaker and Corded ware cultures and previous Neolithic people in central Europe and evidence they had ancestry from east Europe. Here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?106725-Evidence-in-Ancient-central-European-DNA-of-major-Genetic-changes-in-Europe-during-the-metal-ages) is why I think so. There is no way modern west Europeans descend mainly from the Neolithic people(farmers only) at least in central Europe and Scandinavia. That is probably because of Indo Europeans who raised WGH and ANE ancestry, in Italy there has been a rise of new near eastern ancestry also.

I know it is hard to tell if the WGH ancestry in west Europe today is from Luxemburg and La brana's people or east European Indo Europeans. I think the low amount in LBK girl, Otzi, and Swedish Funnel beaker farmers is evidence it mainly comes from east Europe same for the ANE. The same type of genetic shift that occurred in west Europe could have occurred in east Europe and Finland and northern Scandinavia. Modern Finnish and Sami's main ancestors probably came up through Russia or somewhere else in east Europe during the metal ages. They and Baltics have the highest amount of WGH ancestry I don't know why. It could be because they have a lot of hunter gatherer ancestry from those areas or their ancestors who lived in Russia had a very large amount.

WGH ancestry correlates very well with light hair, light eyes, and light skin in Europe while EEF ancestry is the opposite. There is seriously almost no way west European hunter gatherers had a large amount of light eyes but also dark skin and hair. Those three genes said to be the white skin European genes are about as popular in west Asians, two of them exist in about 50% or less Europeans, and one exists in over 95% of Europeans and west Asians. There are other factors to the paleness of European skin. I think all the European hunter gatherers were very pale and maybe there are genes we don't know about that cause European pale skin. I do think based on what I have read about the three so called white skin genes that the Luxemburg man probably had very dark brown skin.

The farmer girl had this one light skin gene that is over 95% in west Asians and Europeans so no surprise, she very well may have had brown skin. There are estimates of when this gene became dominate in Europeans but what about west Asians. Just because it is estimated this gene became dominate in Europe over 10,000 years ago does not mean that is when Europeans became light skinned. What ancestors of Europeans are they talking about anyways? We know because of Laz 2013 there are many different sources of European ancestry and there are major differences between different Europeans.

ANE probably did not have a large amount of light eyes, mal'ta boy is reported as having dark skin, very dark brown hair, and brown eyes. I think his people were most related to west Eurasians but west Eurasian, it's confusing.

Southern Europeans are darker skinned than northern Europeans that is just fact, and it does correlate with WGH and EEF ancestry. I have only few times in my life seen full blooded southern Europeans and they are surprisingly dark. It is like a mixture of brown skin and somewhat light skin and almost all have very dark hair and brown eyes. Even their facial features look different from the rest of Europe, honestly they looked very foreign. Phenotypes like Pau Gasol I am guessing are not normal for Spaniards. I remember reading an ancient Roman writer saying we Romans are the best looking because we are not as dark as Egyptians but not as white as Germans. I saw a documentary on Italy and I think that is a very accurate description of how they look, some look white some look near eastern.

In my opinion the near eastern farmers had brownish skin and 99% dark hair and eyes. After mixing with hunter gatherers they would have lightened. In K= something I forgot but what it should is the LBK girl was dominated by a component that dominates all near easterns and north Africans(which is surprising based on other tests I have seen) why wouldn't she be dark like near easterns and north Africans.

The Sardinian people are the closest to the 7,500 year old farmer girl from Germany and Otzi 5,300 year old farmer from the alps. Both those farmers had brown eyes and dark hair, modern Sardinians have the lowest percent of light eyes and hair in Europe and have fairly dark skin. I just looked through Google images and some were pale and looked northern European and I bet that is from hunter gatherers they mixed with in eastern Europe some 8,000 years ago.

Here you can see obvious pigmentation difference between Europeans with the most WGH(Sami, Finnish, and Baltics) and most EEF (Sardinian), I don't even need to tell you which is which.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43222&d=1389499522 http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43223&d=1389499536

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43225&d=1389499923 [http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43226&d=1389499937 http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43227&d=1389499996 http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43228&d=1389500007 http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43229&d=1389500066 http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43230&d=1389500078

[Incal]

Acclimatization. Now close thread.

[blogen]

Swarthy Proto-Indoiranians and Aryans.

"Our analysis indicates that positive selection on pigmentation variants associated with depigmented hair, skin, and eyes was still ongoing after the time period represented by our archaeological population, 6,500–4,000 y ago. This finding suggests that either the selection pressures that initiated the selective sweep during the Late Pleistocene or early Holocene were still operative or that a new selective environment had arisen in which depigmentation was favored for a different reason."

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/440/qocg.jpg

"The high selection coefficients estimated for pigmentation genes HERC2, SLC45A2, and TYR are best understood in the context of estimates obtained for other recently selected loci. Using spatially explicit simulation and approximate Bayesian computation, selection on the LCT -13,910*T allele—which is strongly associated with lactase persistence in Europeans and southern Asians—was inferred to fall in the range 0.0259–0.0795 and to have begun around 7,500 y ago in the region between the Balkans and central Europe (37)."

"In sum, a combination of selective pressures associated with living in northern latitudes, the adoption of an agriculturalist diet, and assortative mating may sufficiently explain the observed change from a darker phenotype during the Eneolithic/Early Bronze age to a generally lighter one in modern Eastern Europeans, although other selective factors cannot be discounted. The selection coefficients inferred directly from serially sampled data at these pigmentation loci range from 2 to 10% and are among the strongest signals of recent selection in humans."

source: Sandra Wildea, Adrian Timpsonb, Karola Kirsanowa, Elke Kaiserd, Manfred Kaysere, Martina Unterländera, Nina Hollfeldera,1, Inna D. Potekhinaf, Wolfram Schierd, Mark G. Thomasb and Joachim Burgera: Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 y - Edited by Nina G. Jablonski, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, and accepted by the Editorial Board February 1, 2014 (received
for review September 4, 2013) PNAS (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/03/05/1316513111.full.pdf)

[Argang]

http://oi57.tinypic.com/11joxkw.jpg

Isn't that interesting. If proto-indo-europeans were swarthy, could those light skin alleles be purely from neolithic farmers and perhaps from Middle East?

[safinator]

http://oi57.tinypic.com/11joxkw.jpg

Isn't that interesting. If proto-indo-europeans were swarthy, could those light skin alleles be purely from neolithic farmers and perhaps from Middle East?

Light Skin its obvious that was present among the Neolithic people, the problem arises when it gets into the depigmentation process of eye and hair colour.

[Fire Haired]

Swarthy Proto-Indoiranians and Aryans.

"Our analysis indicates that positive selection on pigmentation variants associated with depigmented hair, skin, and eyes was still ongoing after the time period represented by our archaeological population, 6,500–4,000 y ago. This finding suggests that either the selection pressures that initiated the selective sweep during the Late Pleistocene or early Holocene were still operative or that a new selective environment had arisen in which depigmentation was favored for a different reason."

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/440/qocg.jpg

"The high selection coefficients estimated for pigmentation genes HERC2, SLC45A2, and TYR are best understood in the context of estimates obtained for other recently selected loci. Using spatially explicit simulation and approximate Bayesian computation, selection on the LCT -13,910*T allele—which is strongly associated with lactase persistence in Europeans and southern Asians—was inferred to fall in the range 0.0259–0.0795 and to have begun around 7,500 y ago in the region between the Balkans and central Europe (37)."

"In sum, a combination of selective pressures associated with living in northern latitudes, the adoption of an agriculturalist diet, and assortative mating may sufficiently explain the observed change from a darker phenotype during the Eneolithic/Early Bronze age to a generally lighter one in modern Eastern Europeans, although other selective factors cannot be discounted. The selection coefficients inferred directly from serially sampled data at these pigmentation loci range from 2 to 10% and are among the strongest signals of recent selection in humans."

source: Sandra Wildea, Adrian Timpsonb, Karola Kirsanowa, Elke Kaiserd, Manfred Kaysere, Martina Unterländera, Nina Hollfeldera,1, Inna D. Potekhinaf, Wolfram Schierd, Mark G. Thomasb and Joachim Burgera: Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 y - Edited by Nina G. Jablonski, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, and accepted by the Editorial Board February 1, 2014 (received
for review September 4, 2013) PNAS (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/03/05/1316513111.full.pdf)

These people were not proto Indo Iranian and Aryans(I get sick of how people miss use that word). The Yamna were probably early Indo Europeans, and not even all of the samples were from the Yamna culture. They came from around the black sea and many(I think most) came from Bulgaria where the people today are swarthy according to north European standards. Pigmentation genes from early indo Iranians has proven they were mainly light haired and eyed and there is a very low chance these southern Yamna people were their ancestors. Only 8% had G,G alleles in SNP rs1291382 which means they probably had around the same amount of light eyes as modern southern Europeans and near easterns, and had a small amount of Mesolithic European ancestry(La Brana-1 and Loschbour had G,G). Their alleles in SNP's associated with skin color is surprising and I will have to look more into it.

Also blogen can you please get a baggy and throw your raciest shit in the trash. Pedestrians are getting it on their shoes.

Your Hungarian why in the world do you try so hard to prove light pigmentation in Europe was born yesterday?

[Fire Haired]

http://oi57.tinypic.com/11joxkw.jpg

Isn't that interesting. If proto-indo-europeans were swarthy, could those light skin alleles be purely from neolithic farmers and perhaps from Middle East?

It is more complicated. Yamna, Catcomb, and Eneolithic people from the European side of the black sea were mainly dark eyed, haired, and probably had a Meditreaen tone of skin. The Indo Iranians were lighter than almost all modern Europeans, there wasn't a pigmentation change in east Europe just these people are not their ancestors. Some of the samples from these swarthy Catcomb people are as old as the blonde and light eyed samples from the Andronovo people of Siberia. So the pigmentation change thing doesn't make sense. We know light eyes had developed by the Mesolithic and were popular so the dark eyes probably just means they were mainly EEF. The alleles in SNP's associated with skin color are very suprising for modern Europeans and near easterns, there had to of been sometype of selection because the one in gene SLC45A2 was also absent in Stuttgart and of course in Loschbour and La Brana-1. Who knows what effect on skin color the change had, I still think there is a possibility light skin in Europe like light eyes is WHG. I see a possibility for EEF-WHG mutts and selection being the source, there are a lot of possibilities.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

http://oi57.tinypic.com/11joxkw.jpg

Isn't that interesting. If proto-indo-europeans were swarthy, could those light skin alleles be purely from neolithic farmers and perhaps from Middle East?

It probably just means PIE didn't really colonize whole of europe, which is a really wild/ridiculous assumption no one seems to challenge any more.

Language != people.

[blogen]

These people were not proto Indo Iranian and Aryans(I get sick of how people miss use that word). The Yamna were probably early Indo Europeans

Based on the Kurgan theory...


Pigmentation genes from early indo Iranians has proven they were mainly light haired and eyed and there is a very low chance these southern Yamna people were their ancestors.

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/1743/cna5.jpg

15 light eyed (60%) and 10 (40%) brown eyed from the 25 sample. This is not mainly, this is only mostly. And only 5 (20% and maybe ~30% from the full appreciable sample) had light hair from the 15 light eyed!

So the Andronovo population were mostly light eyed, dark haired (this genetic study) and basically Cromagnoid population (Soviet/Russian sources about the anthropology of the Andronovans).


Your Hungarian why in the world do you try so hard to prove light pigmentation in Europe was born yesterday?

Since these are the known facts. :D

[Fire Haired]

Based on the Kurgan theory...



http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/1743/cna5.jpg

15 light eyed (60%) and 10 (40%) brown eyed from the 25 sample. This is not mainly, this is only mostly. And only 5 (20% and maybe ~30% from the full appreciable sample) had light hair from the 15 light eyed!



Since these are the known facts. :D

Blogen I got my info from here (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnaintro.shtml) thank you very much for the charts I planned on studying the original paper eventually. The facts are that proto Indo Iranians were pigmented like modern north Europeans who are mainly WHG+ANE not near eastern, that and a lot of other reasons is why I think EEF origin of all European paleness doesn't make sense but is still possible.

[blogen]

This was the source: Christine Keyser, Caroline Bouakaze, Eric Crubézy, Valery G. Nikolaev, Daniel Montagnon, Tatiana Reis, Bertrand Ludes: Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people - Hum Genet (2009) 126:395–410 (http://www.hamagmongol.narod.ru/library/keyser_2009_e.pdf)

[blogen]

The facts are that proto Indo Iranians were pigmented like modern north Europeans

No. Based these studies the proto-Indo Iranians were pigmented!

If the Kurgan theory is the true, then the PII peoples (Andronovo) were similar than the present South Russian, Ukrainian peoples (minus the Mongoloid influence).

If the Anatolian theory is the true, then the PII peoples (Yamna) were similar than the present Northern MENA (Caucasian) peoples.

But definitely not Northern Europeans.

[Smeagol]

If the Kurgan theory is the true, then the PII peoples (Andronovo) were similar than the present South Russian, Ukrainian peoples (minus the Mongoloid influence).

Yes, the Andronovo people were similar racially to the living South Russians, and Ukrainians, but many were tested as being light pigmented.


90% of the Bronze Age period mtDNA haplogroups were of west Eurasian origin and the study determined that at least 60% of the individuals overall (out of the 26 bronze and Iron Age human remains' samples of the study that could be tested) had light hair and blue or green eyes.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-009-0683-0

[Fire Haired]

No. Based these studies the proto-Indo Iranians were pigmented!

If the Kurgan theory is the true, then the PII peoples (Andronovo) were similar than the present South Russian, Ukrainian peoples (minus the Mongoloid influence).

If the Anatolian theory is the true, then the PII peoples (Yamna) were similar than the present Northern MENA (Caucasian) peoples.

But definitely not Northern Europeans.

There is not much evidence of a strong genetic relation between southern Russians and early Indo Iranians, your just basing that on pigmentation. Do you know what hair and eye color southern Russians and whoever else you mentioned have, or are you just guessing?

[Fire Haired]

Yes, the Andronovo people were similar racially to the living South Russians, and Ukrainians. Many were tested as being light pigmented though.


Do you have evidence?

[Smeagol]

Do you have evidence?

Based on the skeletal evidence, the early Indoiranians belonged to mainly the same types racially.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Do you have evidence?

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/05/light-pigmented-caucasoids-from.html

They genetically tested to be pale and have light eyes.

[Fire Haired]

Look how brown skinned, black eyed, and dark haired this Sami person is. I know the Sami are a light people with hair and eye color that is a bit but not much darker norwiegan, and Finnish neighbors. There is some brown skin in my family but still this is a surprise. Blogen, don't start making big biased theories alright.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A4Fldf8_Yzw

[Prisoner Of Ice]

So the Andronovo population were mostly light eyed, dark haired (this genetic study) and basically Cromagnoid population (Soviet/Russian sources about the anthropology of the Andronovans).

Since these are the known facts. :D

But the Andronovo had 0% r1b. It's impossible for europe to have gotten their pigment from andronovo, and this busts any idea that europe was populated by a massive burst of westward expansion ie kurgan theory.

At this point it's busted by both DNA and archaeology. Also, r1b would have to have split off from r at same time as r1a so it's got to be older than any find of r1a.

[blogen]

There is not much evidence of a strong genetic relation between southern Russians and early Indo Iranians, your just basing that on pigmentation. Do you know what hair and eye color southern Russians and whoever else you mentioned have, or are you just guessing?

Mostly light eyed and mostly dark haired. This was the situation and I referred to this only.


But the Andronovo had 0% r1b. It's impossible for europe to have gotten their pigment from andronovo, and this busts any idea that europe was populated by a massive burst of westward expansion ie kurgan theory.
At this point it's busted by both DNA and archaeology. Also, r1b would have to have split off from r at same time as r1a so it's got to be older than any find of r1a.

Not that's the problem with the theory, but the deficiency of the kurgan incluence towards West. The Western European population were an other story. And the European population was changed almost totally many times. Mesolithi/neolithic boundery, lactose tolerance, the plagues (the last in the medieval). The depigmentation happened in many waves in the different European population. This was the story of the depigmentation of the Eastern European, mostly Cromagnoid population. This does not affect the formation of the Nordid race from the Mediterranids or other Central and Western european depigmented races.