Are Irish or North Germans lighter?

[Damião de Góis]

The topic was about Northern Germans, why is it that you and some other people are bringing Scandinavians into this?

Why indeed? Why don't you browse a few pages back and find out for yourself? Start with my first post and then move on to my second post, and pay attention to what i was replying to.

[Septentrion]

Why indeed? Why don't you browse a few pages back and find out for yourself? Start with my first post and then move on to my second post, and pay attention to what i was replying to.

Let us get back to the topic. It was who is lighter between the Irish and the North Germans? Overall the Irish are lighter, as the North Germans are only more blond.

[Septentrion]

More or less but type 1 tone is associated with red hair and Ireland has the highest ratio of gingers in the world. Type 1 is low anywhere in continental Europe. Higher number of fair haired people in N Germany of course

Wait a minute. In Celtic populations, there is another variation of dark hair, blue eyes, freckles and skin phototype 1 ( IRF4 gene) which is most frequent. This is most common in Ireland. Although it is seen in lower variation throughout the European continent.

[Septentrion]

These sort of questions have been done to death here but they aren't going to stop. I've been pondering reasons why genetically (at least), the Irish have the highest amount of genes that inhibit the production of melanin. The genes that I'm aware of are the MC1-R gene (I've seen a study that says that 47% of Irish carry at least one variant) and the other gene known to inhibit melanin production is the IRF4 gene which is highest in the Irish by quite a margin.



https://dermnetnz.org/topics/interfe...-factor-4-gene

Ireland has low levels of sunlight as does Scandinavia but something which I found interesting is that the Irish have never been great fish eaters. People that eat fish get Vitamin D from the fish which is why Eskimos have darker skin despite living in very cold areas with long winters. Possibly something else that caused adaptation to developing lighter skin in areas of low sunlight? Icelanders eat loads of fish and it would be interesting to see if there are differences with the Irish in that population especially as there is Irish ancestry also in the Icelanders.

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2020/0...eat-more-fish/



These things are always difficult to prove by looking at pictures but there has been enough studies done now to show that some populations carry a larger amount of genes that cause certain physical characteristics. This is what makes genetics interesting. Irish carry higher amounts of genes that reduce melanin production so this is the reason why they have a higher amount of Skin I & II than other populations. It is only an asset if Irish stay in Ireland but not so great if you live in Australia.

I think Scandinavians when they don't tan are every bit as fair skinned as the Irish but as a percentage more Scandinavians can tan whereas the Irish are more likely to freckle. I think that's what the data shows.

Sorry. Scandinavians are not every bit as fair - skinned as the Irish. If they were, they would not be able to tan just like the Irish or British.

[Finnish Swede]

Sorry. Scandinavians are not every bit as fair - skinned as the Irish. If they were, they would not be able to tan just like the Irish or British.

Wants to ask: Why this Irish/British vs Scandinavians is so important matter to you? First with eye colors (deep real blue eyes vs something else .... ''a wrong blue eyes'' I guess?). And now with skin tone? You are Belgian by yourself. You ain't nearly neither of those ethnics.

I criticized the use of numbers of skin cancers to describe skin types of ethnics. One to one anyway. If all people would live in same country (same climate) and totally same ways (food, habits, lifestyle, clothes etc.) ... then perhaps. But we are not. There are other things which will also influence numbers of skin cancers. Not only the skin type of humans.

As reading other threads here about Europeans skin types (I, II, III ... and serious debates are there any with IV)? Now if Irish/Brits are type I and Scandinavians type II and almost all the rest fits inside of type III ... then the difference between type I and type II is like 5cm and difference between type II vs type III like 50cm. Same what comes to variations inside of those different types. Type I and type II being about 5cm and type III 50cm.

Maybe you should focus something else; type III Belgian.

[Septentrion]

[QUOTE=Finnish Swede;7305934]Wants to ask: Why this Irish/British vs Scandinavians is so important matter to you? First with eye colors (deep real blue eyes vs something else .... ''a wrong blue eyes'' I guess?). And now with skin tone? You are Belgian by yourself. You ain't nearly neither of those ethnics.

I criticized the use of numbers of skin cancers to describe skin types of ethnics. One to one anyway. If all people would live in same country (same climate) and totally same ways (food, habits, lifestyle, clothes etc.) ... then perhaps. But we are not. There are other things which will also influence numbers of skin cancers. Not only the skin type of humans.

As reading other threads here about Europeans skin types (I, II, III ... and serious debates are there any with IV)? Now if Irish/Brits are type I and Scandinavians type II and almost all the rest fits inside of type III ... then the difference between type I and type II is like 5cm and difference between type II vs type III like 50cm. Same what comes to variations inside of those different types. Type I and type II being about 5cm and type III 50cm.

Maybe you should focus something else; type III Belgian.





[

Finland, Scandinavian countries with the Baltic States are the blondest. Ireland and the United Kingdom are the palest. In Europe, blue eyes are distributed to west reaching the climax in Ireland. Grays eyes to the east, centering in the lands of Balts and Finns.

[Septentrion]

Belgium is intermediate in pigmentation, although leaning towards the lighter side. As type 1 frequency is high, but a considerable number is type 4.

Belgians:
Type 4 - 28.3%
Type 3 - 37.7%
Type 2 - 20.7%
Type 1 - 13.2%

Finns are lighter in pigmentation, but not the palest.
Type 4 - 10%
Type 3 - 57%
Type 2 - 25%
Type 1 - 8%

[Finnish Swede]

Finland, Scandinavian countries with the Baltic States are the blondest. Ireland and the United Kingdom are the palest. In Europe, blue eyes are distributed to west reaching the climax in Ireland. Grays eyes to the east, centering in the lands of Balts and Finns.

Belgium is intermediate in pigmentation, although leaning towards the lighter side. As type 1 frequency is high, but a considerable number is type 4.

You did not answer what is you ambition, motivation, interest on this topic?

Belgium? Believe me ''mister'', you do not want to hear what I think about that country (based on hair color, skin color, eye color or you as a TA member).

[Finnish Swede]

Belgium is intermediate in pigmentation, although leaning towards the lighter side. As type 1 frequency is high, but a considerable number is type 4.

Belgians:
Type 4 - 28.3%
Type 3 - 37.7%
Type 2 - 20.7%
Type 1 - 13.2%

Finns are lighter in pigmentation, but not the palest.
Type 4 - 10%
Type 3 - 57%
Type 2 - 25%
Type 1 - 8%

Do not offer that BS. I know Finns and Swedes very well (also Norwegians, Danes, Estonians ... well enough) to say that those ethnics will not have that clear differences/variations in their skin tones. Not if we skip minorities away like all kind of immigrants, Samis, Gypsies, Russians (in Estonia) etc. Saying things how they are: My skin color is exactly same as Harkonnen, Lemminkäinen, Saiwalo (here are no ethnics Swedes) .... if those guys have not now taken Sun a lot last summer time. Or anybody in Stockholm or here in Skåne. The difference comes out only as I tan worse than most here, but all being non tanned, no differences at all. And that is how people are here. The only persons whose ''natural skin tone'' might look bit different (slightly darker) are those with brown eyes. I have noticed. But again, like I have said, here in Scandinavia those people might have something else interest in their family trees. And they are tiny minorities.

[Septentrion]

Do not offer that BS. I know Finns and Swedes very well (also Norwegians, Danes, Estonians ... well enough) to say that those ethnics will not have that clear differences/variations in their skin tones. Not if we skip minorities away like all kind of immigrants, Samis, Gypsies, Russians (in Estonia) etc. Saying things how they are: My skin color is exactly same as Harkonnen, Lemminkäinen, Saiwalo (here are no ethnics Swedes) .... if those guys have not now taken Sun a lot last summer time. Or anybody in Stockholm or here in Skåne. The difference comes out only as I tan worse than most here, but all being non tanned, no differences at all. And that is how people are here. The only persons whose ''natural skin tone'' might look bit different (slightly darker) are those with brown eyes. I have noticed. But again, like I have said, here in Scandinavia those people might have something else interest in their family trees. And they are tiny minorities.

The only BS right now is you.