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

[Fire Haired]

No. Reason?

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...t_Eyes_Map.png

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

[Fire Haired]

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

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

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

[Prisoner Of Ice]

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

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

[Longbowman]

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

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

[Prisoner Of Ice]

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

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

[Longbowman]

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

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

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

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

[Fire Haired]

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Fire Haired]

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

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

[Fire Haired]

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

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

[Prisoner Of Ice]

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

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