quote:Now you say Europeans don't really need "specific underived pristine lineages" to be "European".
No, so stop distorting you dumb prick. I said there are no lineages specific to Europe, therefore if you want to get technical there are no Europeans, just like technically there are no Native Americans, but Asian derived. Europeans are simply Asian and post OOA African derived humans living in Europe. Native Americans are Asian derived humans living in the Americas.
You asked how come they are called European then, and I answered...
"Just like there are no specific to America haplotypes, yet we call humans who have been here for thousands of years, Native American. Meanwhile Native Americans are really Asian derived individuals as well. Your pathetic strawmen don't work. Ancestors of modern Europeans have been in Europe for millenia, hence are now called European."
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I want to know is when are they "European" to you?
You took issue with Europeans (whites) mixing with Africans (blacks). You prefer to see Asians or differentiated "humans" mixing with Africans (blacks).
This preferred scenario you justified by saying "there are no specific underived pristine lineages in Europe, which would make one specifically European" so there cant by any Europeans (whites) mixing with Africans (blacks), the mixing actually occurred between Africans (blacks) and Asians (?).
Then why would you call the resulting population Europeans here too since, according to you, for Europeans to **exist** this would require having specific underived pristine lineages. But even after the mixing they don't have this. So why are you calling them "Europeans" here when they have none?
When are they "European" to you?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
To resolve the skin color issue...maybe, here are a few questions:
1)When were these post-OOA migration African contributions supposed to have taken place, and by when were the Europeans "white"? If said post-OOA migration African contribution took place before the latter, then how would one know what skin color the then European-habiting populations were? If the after the latter, then the European populations would have already been "white", no?
2)Was there one post-OOA migration African contribution to the European gene pool, or were there multiple?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
My, my, look what the kids have been up to while I was away - backsliding!
Re-education:
Before the (modern man), Khoisan Grimaldi entered Europe (45,000 B.C.), it was populated by only Neanderthals and perhaps some left-over Erectus. At about 35,000 B.C. the (archaic human) Cro-Magnon also entered Europe - Both were Black people.
{Archaic human - term used by Britannica}
Grimaldi spread out across Europe and Asia (painting as he went). And was probably responsible for the civilizations in southern Europe and Turkey.
Fast forward to about 1,500 - 1,200 B.C. Whites start invading from central Asia.
Spencer Wells suggests that the origin, distribution and age of the R1a1 haplotype points to an ancient migration, possibly corresponding to the spread by the Kurgan people in their expansion across the Eurasian steppe around 3000 BC. About his old teacher's proposal, Wells (2002) states that "there is nothing to contradict this model, although the genetic patterns do not provide clear support either," and instead argues that the evidence is much stronger for Gimbutas' model: while we see substantial genetic and archaeological evidence for an Indo-European migration originating in the southern Russian steppes, there is little evidence for a similarly massive Indo-European migration from the Middle East to Europe.
There is no known linage which identifies the genesis of these White people, no-one has any clue as to where, when, or how they originated. We can identify them in their final form, but have no idea what constituted their beginnings or middle. The eminent researcher meninarmer, has postulated that they are a fixed Albino race - so far, no-one has proven him wrong.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Lmao, look at the repetitive nonsense you've been reduced to. You're pathetic. First humans in Europe carried Asian derived lineages, descendants of these humans from 40-45kya still live in Europe, and are part of the population that are identified as European today. Scientists identify these Asian derived individuals as first Europeans, since they are the ancestors of modern Europeans. If one wants to become technical, then the population identified as European today, genetically are actually Asian and post OOA African derived humans living in Europe.
Same way the humans who have been living in the Americas for millenia, are called American Indians and/or Native American, albeit their ancestors originally coming from Asia, is the same way modern Europeans are identified as such.
So just like Europeans, Native Americans, are individuals who carry lineages from Asia, but are identified by the current place they inhabit.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Wrong, as there are NO underived specific European lineages to identify with Europe. So you can call them whatever you want, but fact remains paleolithic humans in Europe (whom modern Europeans descend from) carried non African post OOA, Asian derived lineages, and then mixed with incoming Africans carrying post OOA African lineages, to create the modern genepool, of humans in Europe, that we identify as Europeans. If humans in Europe never mixed with incoming post OOA Africans, than Europeans would therefore be totally Asian derived humans, who's ancestors existed in Europe from the UP.
See, this is why I was interested in the recent identification of a Y clade called IJK. I suspect that apon the splitting of K and IJ from this common ancestor, that K bearing populations would have likely been amongst the earliest male a.m.h. European inhabitants, before being outnumbered by the descendants the Hg K-descended R1* bearers.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Lmao, look at the repetitive nonsense you've been reduced to. You're pathetic. First humans in Europe carried Asian derived lineages, descendants of these humans from 40-45kya still live in Europe, and are part of the population that are identified as European today. Scientists identify these Asian derived individuals as first Europeans, since they are the ancestors of modern Europeans. If one wants to become technical, then the population identified as European today, genetically are actually Asian and post OOA African derived humans living in Europe.
Same way the humans who have been living in the Americas for millenia, are called American Indians and/or Native American, albeit their ancestors originally coming from Asia, is the same way modern Europeans are identified as such.
So just like Europeans, Native Americans, are individuals who carry lineages from Asia, but are identified by the current place they inhabit.
Ok, so according to scientists the population that mixed with incoming Africans were Europeans. Not what you said.
And if you call them "Americans" despite them being "Asian derived individuals as well" why couldnt you call the Asian derived Europeans at time of incoming Africans, European? because you had to validate Bowcock?
And also based on your frustrated ramblings are you saying it has to take millennia for Europeans to get citizenship (to be Europeans) but thousands of years for Native Americans to get theirs, to be called American? Is this some kind of genetic reverse discrimination or something?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: To resolve the skin color issue...maybe, here are a few questions:
1)When were these post-OOA migration African contributions supposed to have taken place, and by when were the Europeans "white"? If said post-OOA migration African contribution took place before the latter, then how would one know what skin color the then European-habiting populations were? If the after the latter, then the European populations would have already been "white", no?
2)Was there one post-OOA migration African contribution to the European gene pool, or were there multiple?
Well if the spread of agriculture into Europe was around 9kya, and Europeans are said to have lightened up 6kya, and African lineages were amongst the population that spread agriculture into Europe, than I would have to say the European population was not white yet. I also believe there were subsequent migrations after the Neolithic, as well.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, what does the above tell us about the skin color of Neolithic era Europeans ca. 9kya?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Wrong, as there are NO underived specific European lineages to identify with Europe. So you can call them whatever you want, but fact remains paleolithic humans in Europe (whom modern Europeans descend from) carried non African post OOA, Asian derived lineages, and then mixed with incoming Africans carrying post OOA African lineages, to create the modern genepool, of humans in Europe, that we identify as Europeans. If humans in Europe never mixed with incoming post OOA Africans, than Europeans would therefore be totally Asian derived humans, who's ancestors existed in Europe from the UP.
See, this is why I was interested in the recent identification of a Y clade called IJK. I suspect that apon the splitting of K and IJ from this common ancestor, that K bearing populations would have likely been amongst the earliest male a.m.h. European inhabitants, before being outnumbered by the descendants the Hg K-descended R1* bearers.
I say this, keeping in mind that the estimated coalescence age for R1* is approx. 35kya or so, while however, there is evidence of a.m.hs in European ca. between 40 and 42 kya or so.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Wrong, as there are NO underived specific European lineages to identify with Europe. So you can call them whatever you want, but fact remains paleolithic humans in Europe (whom modern Europeans descend from) carried non African post OOA, Asian derived lineages, and then mixed with incoming Africans carrying post OOA African lineages, to create the modern genepool, of humans in Europe, that we identify as Europeans. If humans in Europe never mixed with incoming post OOA Africans, than Europeans would therefore be totally Asian derived humans, who's ancestors existed in Europe from the UP.
See, this is why I was interested in the recent identification of a Y clade called IJK. I suspect that apon the splitting of K and IJ from this common ancestor, that K bearing populations would have likely been amongst the earliest male a.m.h. European inhabitants, before being outnumbered by the descendants the Hg K-descended R1* bearers.
If we would be able to get our hands on the work by Dr. Martin Richards of the University of Huddersfield in England, whereas he explains, 6% are descended from earliest ancestors 40-45kya, another 80% are said to have entered 30kya, and 10% in the Neolithic. It would be a better way to correlate these migrations and original founding haplotypes.
Well, for one, the Basques and Sami are said to be descended from UP humans in Europe 40-45kya, the lineages common amongst them might give us the clue we are looking for- earliest lineages to arrive in Europe.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: So, what does the above tell us about the skin color of Neolithic era Europeans ca. 9kya?
I would say according to data they were a brown complexion, probably a little lighter than their Paleolithic ancestors, to allow some UV in to produce Vitamin D through synthesis, the rest would've been obtained through their hunter gatherer diet. To keep a brown hue.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
There are no specific underived pristine lineages in Europe, which would make one specifically European, instead of Asian and African derived humans living in Europe.
Right; there are no fundamental lineages specific to Europe. They generally tend to carry "West Asian" and African derived markers.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: [QUOTE]I would say according to data they were a brown complexion, probably a little lighter than their Paleolithic ancestors, to allow some UV in to produce Vitamin D through synthesis, the rest would've been obtained through their hunter gatherer diet. To keep a brown hue.
So a "brown" race mixed with the incoming black race to produce a white secondary race? The white race "arose" as a **consequence** of this?
See, this is why I was interested in the recent identification of a Y clade called IJK. I suspect that apon the splitting of K and IJ from this common ancestor, that K bearing populations would have likely been amongst the earliest male a.m.h. European inhabitants, before being outnumbered by the descendants the Hg K-descended R1* bearers.
If we would be able to get our hands on the work by Dr. Martin Richards of the University of Huddersfield in England, whereas he explains, 6% are descended from earliest ancestors 40-45kya, another 80% are said to have entered 30kya, and 10% in the Neolithic. It would be a better way to correlate these migrations and original founding haplotypes.
I've read Richards et al. on the temporal make up of Eurpean gene pool, but that one is focused on the mtDNA gene pool, not the Y DNA gene pool.
quote: Well, for one, the Basques and Sami are said to be descended from UP humans in Europe 40-45kya, the lineages common amongst them might give us the clue we are looking for- earliest lineages to arrive in Europe.
If that's so, then given the current coalescence age given to R1*, they are not expected to be considerable carriers of R1 lineages from the male gene pool end. Let me add that, even if they were considerable carriers of R1 lineages due to mixing with neighboring European populations, then they'd have to show some other and older marker than R1*.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
I would say according to data they were a brown complexion, probably a little lighter than their Paleolithic ancestors, to allow some UV in to produce Vitamin D through synthesis, the rest would've been obtained through their hunter gatherer diet. To keep a brown hue.
What does "brown" hue mean to you? When and by what tangible indicator do we sense that this hue was attained?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Wrong, as there are NO underived specific European lineages to identify with Europe. So you can call them whatever you want, but fact remains paleolithic humans in Europe (whom modern Europeans descend from) carried non African post OOA, Asian derived lineages, and then mixed with incoming Africans carrying post OOA African lineages, to create the modern genepool, of humans in Europe, that we identify as Europeans. If humans in Europe never mixed with incoming post OOA Africans, than Europeans would therefore be totally Asian derived humans, who's ancestors existed in Europe from the UP.
See, this is why I was interested in the recent identification of a Y clade called IJK. I suspect that apon the splitting of K and IJ from this common ancestor, that K bearing populations would have likely been amongst the earliest male a.m.h. European inhabitants, before being outnumbered by the descendants the Hg K-descended R1* bearers.
I say this, keeping in mind that the estimated coalescence age for R1* is approx. 35kya or so, while however, there is evidence of a.m.hs in European ca. between 40 and 42 kya or so.
After some review, I realized Dr Martin Richards migrations are based on analysis of mitochondrial DNA....
quote:Dr. Richards's estimates, reported in the current issue of The American Journal of Human Genetics, are based on analysis of mitochondrial DNA, a genetic element that occurs in both men and women but that is transmitted only through the mother; thus, they reflect only the movement of women.
The movement of men can be followed through analysis of the Y chromosome, but the Y chromosome is harder to work with and data are only just now becoming available. In an article in the current issue of Science, Dr. Peter A. Underhill of Stanford University and colleagues reported the first analysis of the European population in terms of the Y chromosome. Although this agrees with the mitochondrial DNA findings in major outline, suggesting that Europe was populated mostly in the Paleolithic period with additions in the Neolithic, there are some points of difference.
The earliest migration into Europe according to mitochondrial DNA took place from the Near East 45,000 years ago, but Dr. Underhill and his colleagues said they could see no corresponding migration in the Y chromosome data.
They have found a very ancient Y chromosome mutation that occurs in Siberia as well as Europe. They boldly link this mutation with the bearers of the Aurignacian culture who entered Europe 40,000 years ago. The culture appears in Siberia at about the same time, as if these early people had spread both east and west.
It would seem there weren't any specific Y chromosomes correlated with the Mtdna arriving 40-45kya, but the first Y chromosomes are acknowledged to be arrive with the Aurignacian culture.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, for one, the Basques and Sami are said to be descended from UP humans in Europe 40-45kya, the lineages common amongst them might give us the clue we are looking for- earliest lineages to arrive in Europe.
If that's so, then given the current coalescence age given to R1*, they are not expected to be considerable carriers of R1 lineages from the male gene pool end. Let me add that, even if they were considerable carriers of R1 lineages due to mixing with neighboring European populations, then they'd have to show some other and older marker than R1*.
True. But this was before I realized Richards et al was associating Basque and Sami to be with Mtdna founders 40-45kya instead of Y.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, the issue of skin color is a side show and trivial to the issue of European gene pool comprising of African and Asian derived markers, which is not in doubt. Certainly morphological differentiations have taken place between the time that European forebearers first settled that region and by when they became "white" as in the sense that we know this term today, if as I read in the past, that this was observed from studying the limb proportion structuring of Mesolithic European skeletal specimen, as compared to older-dated specimens from that region.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Were the populations, that these "African and Asian derived markers" came from, black?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
I would say according to data they were a brown complexion, probably a little lighter than their Paleolithic ancestors, to allow some UV in to produce Vitamin D through synthesis, the rest would've been obtained through their hunter gatherer diet. To keep a brown hue.
What does "brown" hue mean to you? When and by what tangible indicator do we sense that this hue was attained?
There is no certainty as to exactly what brown skinned complexion these humans were, but according to research on other hunter gatherer populations living in harsher climates. I.e Inuits, we can use them as an example, but again Northern Europe is not under the exact harsh conditions of the arctic, so Europeans might have been a little darker, no clear definitive answer. But according to data they would've been brown skinned, and not pale as they are today.
quote: 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.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re: assopen - If as mentioned above, that the "whiteness" of Europeans as we recognize it today occurred ca. 6kya ago, one would have to assume that populations prior to this era were darker, no?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: if as I read in the past, that this was observed from studying the limb proportion structuring of Mesolithic European skeletal specimen, as compared to older-dated specimens from that region.
Indeed....
Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins*1
Trenton W. Holliday
quote: Abstract
Body proportions covary with climate, apparently as the result of climatic selection. Ontogenetic research and migrant studies have demonstrated that body proportions are largely genetically controlled and are under low selective rates; thus studies of body form can provide evidence for evolutionarily short-term dispersals and/or gene flow. Following these observations, competing models of modern human origins yield different predictions concerning body proportion shifts in Late Pleistocene Europe. Replacement predicts that the earliest modern Europeans will possess “tropical” body proportions (assuming Africa is the center of origin), while Regional Continuity permits only minor shifts in body shape, due to climatic change and/or improved cultural buffering. This study tests these predictions via analyses of osteometric data reflective of trunk height and breadth, limb proportions and relative body mass for samples of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP), Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) and Mesolithic (MES) humans and 13 recent African and European populations. Results reveal a clear tendency for the EUP sample to cluster with recent Africans, while LUP and MES samples cluster with recent Europeans. These results refute the hypothesis of local continuity in Europe, and are consistent with an interpretation of elevated gene flow (and population dispersal?) from Africa, followed by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions. These data do not, however, preclude the possibility of some (albeit small) contribution of genes from Neandertals to succeeding populations, as is postulated in Bräuer’s “Afro-European Sapiens” model.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
There is no certainty as to exactly what brown skinned complexion these humans were, but according to research on other hunter gatherer populations living in harsher climates. I.e Inuits, we can use them as an example, but again Northern Europe is not under the exact harsh conditions of the arctic, so Europeans might have been a little darker, no clear definitive answer. But according to data they would've been brown skinned, and not pale as they are today.
quote: 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.
According to what data do we know of this hue, aside from guessing from limb ratios of Mesolithic specimen(s) vs. Upper Paleolithic European specimen that morphological differentiation must have likely come in tandem with change in epidermal melanin content? What does "brown" mean here; at what level does melanin content become "brown", which is to say that it is not in the camp of "white" or "black"?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well besides from the fact that when humans moved into northern latitudes needed to become lighter in order to allow some UV rays to produce Vitamin D through synthesis. Is that, since early humans in Europe were hunter gatherers, fishers and herders, who survived on ready made vitamin D in their diets, a pale complexion wouldn't have been needed. Since we can use the Inuits as an example of a population who lives in harsher climates than Europe. Inuits are not as dark as their ancestors would've been, but still retain melanin due to this immense Vitamin D intake. I would have to say these humans in Europe would have lightened up a little from their Paleolithic ancestors, but not as much as Inuits, since not in as harsh of a climate, hence no need to be as light as Inuits, but still retaining a melanin level as Inuits, since both(Inuits and early Europeans) retained a hunter gatherer diet. Which gave them ready made sources of Vitamin D, besides the little obtained through synthesis of UV under darker skies, that lighterskin allows one to do, as we can see the Inuit did lighten up some, but are not pale. So when agriculture spread and these humans no longer acquired this ready made source of Vitamin D in Europe, they were therefore all dependent on synthesis of UV under darker skies, which is what lighterskin allows humans to do, hence turned pale.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know all that, and in fact many years ago have talked on and off about skin color variation; my query is really geared to the meaning of "brown", and represented by what "data" that suggests "brown".
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway enough with the query; but just so potential readers are clear, I take it that when it is said "brown", at least going by a scale such as the Von Luscan scale and a few others out there, on average, the implication is that any range of epidermal melanin phenotype between the score of ca 12 and 18 might be deemed as "brown".
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I know all that, and in fact many years ago have talked on and off about skin color variation; my query is really geared to the meaning of "brown", and represented by what "data" that suggests "brown".
Not too sure of the actual data that implicates an exact certain brown specific complexion. But I'm guessing from what I've posted, they probably are implying somewhere inbetween "Black" and "White". Retaining a melanin content, as Inuits are described as retaining a brown complexion. I think this complexion was obtained through the need to lighten up in colder climes, mixed in as well with the intake of Vitamin D from the hunter gatherer diet, so the complexion would've been lighter than their Paleolithic ancestors, due to need to lighten up in colder climes, but also retaining some melanin content due to their diet, as Inuits do.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Anyway enough with the query; but just so potential readers are clear, I take it that when it is said "brown", at least going by a scale such as the Von Luscan scale and a few others out there, on average, the implication is that any range of epidermal melanin phenotype between the score of ca 12 and 18 might be deemed as "brown".
Could be......but again not exactly sure.
From wiki:
A less finely tiered scale of six skin types is currently in use (introduced 1975) for the purpose of classifying sun tanning risk. These types correspond to:
type I: von Luschan 1-5 (very light). type II: von Luschan 6-10 (light). type III: von Luschan 11-15 (intermediate). type IV: von Luschan 16-20 ("Mediterranean"). type V: von Luschan 21-28 (dark or "brown"). type VI: von Luschan 29-36 (very dark or "black").
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Ps - Nevermind, the web address of your image says it's the von Luschan scale I was referring to.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yea, I googled the image you referenced, and I believe the pic comes from Wiki.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:they probably are implying somewhere inbetween "Black" and "White".
Ok, so you were referring to an ethnic midstream entity! You were saying basically that Africans (blacks) came in and mixed with this ethnic midstream populations to produce the "hybrid" European, whom you say don't really exist anyways since they don't have any specific underived pristine lineages.
But it only gets more interesting and bizarre from here on! Since your aim was to validate Bowcock and "prove" both groups weren't black, are you saying that Bowcock's "Asians" are really this ethnic midstream entity?
And as a representative of this somewhere inbetween "Black" and "White"/brown skinned population they choose a Chinese?
A less finely tiered scale of six skin types is currently in use (introduced 1975) for the purpose of classifying sun tanning risk. These types correspond to:
type I: von Luschan 1-5 (very light). type II: von Luschan 6-10 (light). type III: von Luschan 11-15 (intermediate). type IV: von Luschan 16-20 ("Mediterranean"). type V: von Luschan 21-28 (dark or "brown"). type VI: von Luschan 29-36 (very dark or "black").
I suppose the so-called "Mediterranean" score above more closely approximates what I was invoking earlier.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Of course, the issue of skin color is a side show and trivial to the issue of European gene pool comprising of African and Asian derived markers, which is not in doubt. Certainly morphological differentiations have taken place between the time that European forebearers first settled that region and by when they became "white" as in the sense that we know this term today, if as I read in the past, that this was observed from studying the limb proportion structuring of Mesolithic European skeletal specimen, as compared to older-dated specimens from that region.
If only the resident troll (gaykoben) could somehow understand this.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Of course, the issue of skin color is a side show and trivial to the issue of European gene pool comprising of African and Asian derived markers, which is not in doubt. Certainly morphological differentiations have taken place between the time that European forebearers first settled that region and by when they became "white" as in the sense that we know this term today, if as I read in the past, that this was observed from studying the limb proportion structuring of Mesolithic European skeletal specimen, as compared to older-dated specimens from that region.
If only the resident troll (gaykoben) could somehow understand this.
Oh but I do understand. I see where you're coming from now!
You were referring to an ethnic midstream entity! You were saying basically that Africans (blacks) came in and mixed with this ethnic midstream populations to produce the "hybrid" European, whom you say don't really exist anyways since they don't have any specific underived pristine lineages.
You're saying that Bowcock's "Asians" are really this ethnic midstream entity. And as a representative of this somewhere inbetween "Black" and "White"/brown skinned population they choose a Chinese!
posted
For a more accurate view of the von Luschan colour scale I present
1. The repro used in most biology texts
2. Some of the actual tiles themselves
I understand that reflectance photometer values are currently used to precisely label skin tones as there are certainly more than 36 of them.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: From wiki:
A less finely tiered scale of six skin types is currently in use (introduced 1975) for the purpose of classifying sun tanning risk. These types correspond to:
type I: von Luschan 1-5 (very light). type II: von Luschan 6-10 (light). type III: von Luschan 11-15 (intermediate). type IV: von Luschan 16-20 ("Mediterranean"). type V: von Luschan 21-28 (dark or "brown"). type VI: von Luschan 29-36 (very dark or "black").
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well much of the confusion comes from the fact that the populations sampled and featured in many studies do not exemplify the gradients as opposed to opposite ends of the same spectrum. The best place to see the gradients from aboriginal black African to the modern white European and Asian phenotype is India.
posted
^ Correct. Which is where 'brown' comes in as a medium hue or range. You can't get from black to white all of a sudden! The change in skin complexion was gradual.
Jablonski estimates that the change in skin color probably began before the ancestral populations entered Europe and were still living in Central Asia, that is as soon as they left the tropics. They were likely still 'black', but had to at least become slightly lighter.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Of course, the issue of skin color is a side show and trivial to the issue of European gene pool comprising of African and Asian derived markers, which is not in doubt. Certainly morphological differentiations have taken place between the time that European forebearers first settled that region and by when they became "white" as in the sense that we know this term today, if as I read in the past, that this was observed from studying the limb proportion structuring of Mesolithic European skeletal specimen, as compared to older-dated specimens from that region.
If only the resident troll (gaykoben) could somehow understand this.
Oh but I do understand. I see where you're coming from now!
You were referring to an ethnic midstream entity! You were saying basically that Africans (blacks) came in and mixed with this ethnic midstream populations to produce the "hybrid" European, whom you say don't really exist anyways since they don't have any specific underived pristine lineages.
You're saying that Bowcock's "Asians" are really this ethnic midstream entity. And as a representative of this somewhere inbetween "Black" and "White"/brown skinned population they choose a Chinese!
Already then. Makes sense to me.
As I've said before you can distort the facts all you want, twist my words etc etc... but in the end Europeans are still hybrids of Asian and Africans. The way we can test this is by looking at their genepool which consists totally of Asian and post OOA African derived lineages. This end *result* is the point that YOU'RE supposed to refute, how come you can't? Is it because Europeans are definitely Asian and post African derived? Instead you obscurely attack terminology? You're pathetic girl.
I asked you 1000 times to refute the fact of modern Europeans being products of Asian and African derived lineages. I've even put maps in front of your face showing you the uni-parental haplogrups present in Europe, asking you to show me the pristine lineages in Europe, which would refute this and put an end to the debate, yet you can't do this, why?.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: gaykoben whines: But you said this, but you said that, but didn't you say this, but didn't you say that....
^^^Lmao, look at what you're reduced to. You pathetic trolling cracka.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: [QUOTE]The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization.---Keita
In other words, if gradients of differentiation did not explain supra Saharan Africans intermediate characteristics, but instead supra Saharan Africans received it through admixture or colonization by/with Near Easterners or Europeans, then supra Saharan Africans would be hybrids. Since Europeans are products of Asia and Africa, Europeans are therefore hybrids. Plain and simple
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: I asked you 1000 times to refute the fact of modern Europeans being products of Asian and African derived lineages. I've even put maps in front of your face showing you the uni-parental haplogrups present in Europe, asking you to show me the pristine lineages in Europe, which would refute this and put an end to the debate, yet you can't do this, why?.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ this is another strawman. no skulls of current people are *the same* as 30 thousand year old skulls....
It would be a strawman if some of your cohorts wouldn’t keep on insisting that Ancient Africans looked just like modern Africans. They didn’t.
quote:this is true even if the modern population is the direct descendant of the 30 thousand year old one, so no point is made pertaining to ancestry or hybridization, and no point is made to refute what you replied to: [Hofmyer is] in agreement with the genetics-based "Out of Africa" theory
Ah, your usual strawman. I have never argued against the OOA theory. Nor have I argued against the concept that Europe is of 1/3rd direct African Ancestry and 2/3rds Asian ancestry. The fact that you keep on bringing up that strawman shows the weakness of your debate style. Shooting down non-issues to sound like you have something to say.
quote:all of your posts are basically strawman distractions Chimu.
Nice try. If you would get your head out of your anus for a moment, you would realize all debates do not rotate around you. Many times tangential debates will arise based on the comment of another.
quote:you try to generate and argument with, or ridicule facts that you can't refute.
Any non-biased reader can see your claim is a load of crap.
You ridiculed hybridization in Europeans. I pointed out hybridization has occurred in Africa. Never stated extent. Someone else claimed that Omo looked just like modern Africans. I pointed out he did not. This had NOTHING to do with the hybridization argument. But in your weak debate style, you will bring it up and then try to claim I am trying to ridicule the concept that Europe is of both African and Asian extraction. In fact I mention that in my own commentaries in debates on other forums. In other words, you are making false accusations, building false obstacles to claim petty intellectual superiority by tearing non-issues, strawmen down.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: No, in other words this human, Omo I, was much like modern humans living in the present area today, not identical, save for a few primitive throwback traits described as admixture with Neanderthals, but....... Osbjorn M. Pearson, Journal of Human Evolution, August 2008 "While it once may have been reasonable to interpret the presence of these ‘‘Neanderthal-like’’ features in Eurasian early modern humans as potential evidence of gene flow from neighboring and contemporaneous Neanderthal populations, the presence of these features in Omo I raises the distinct possibility that Eurasian early modern humans inherited these features from an African ancestor rather than Neanderthals."
Which is a non-issue. The only person’s I see postulating that Neanderthal like features in North Africans are a Neanderthal presence are Brace and Wolpoff. No geneticist that I know has made that claim. But what I am stating is that ALL human populations, regardless of genetic ancestry had more robust, plesiomorphic features than modern day humans. And actually Herto is a better more complete skull to compare to than Omo which is not as complete. (I was not aware that the body of Omo I was available though. Interesting)
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Lobotomized Chimp, of course tetonic plates are real physical barriers, that are in most cases, separated by oceans. You need to get it into your thick spic head that these had to have hampered mass pre-historic migrations, unless of course in your moronic way, you will try to convince us that they used aeroplanes, and hence forth, *real* physical barriers, as just mentioned, don't matter.
Extremely Imbecilic Imp, most cases are irrelevant. The ONLY cases relevant are the ones that affect the discussion at hand. There is no ocean that separates Africa, Asia and Europe. There has been no ocean during the whole human experience that has done this. Humans have always had the capacity to walk through the entire Afrasian supercontinent. What a true moron.
quote:Chimp, I intend to deal with your lack of education and flights of fantasy. There is no bi-nodal dichotomy between the San and the rest of Africa. But if you insist, demonstrate to us your "rest of Africa" are a homogenous entity, as opposed to that containing differentiated groups, and how the San supposedly carry primary African haplogroups that don't transcend this group.
Imp, go look up Haplogroups L0d and L0k, or A3b1 and A-M91. Tell me how they are all over Africa again.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:There is no bi-nodal dichotomy between the San and the rest of Africa.
This is correct. In terms of lineages San share following with other Africans. E3b, E3a, A, L1, L2 and L3. These lineages are found in everyone from Ashanti to Zulu, to Dinka, Somali, Taureg, Upper Egyptians and Biaka.
LOL. Keep playing the idiot. Feel free to show us what percentages of L1, L2, and L3 exist in the San. The level is very low, consistent with recent admixture. The same way, L0d and L0k are only seen in low proportions in other populations that have had contact with Khoisanid populations.
Obviously admixture has already occurred where the San have incorporated many aspects of the larger population, especially in regards to Y-DNA Haplotypes, but the distinctive aspects of certain mtDNA and Y-Chromosome still show that a divergence occurred and that the reunification of these populations with the rest of Africa has not erased all distinctive markers.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: I never said any modern population was identical, I did say there are modern populations resemble these early humans, and why is that? Well, because these early humans were in fact Africans. Closest resemble Africans and if they were alive today, they would be considered African.
Actually, facially they resemble Australians more than they do modern Africans. SO many would consider them pacific Islander/Australian, over African.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Chimp, you might not be aware of this, but the cranial skeleton provides the fundamental structures for the soft tissues of the face. News flash: intra-population variations within continents will ultimately translate into overall phenotypic variation. You are so f*cking obtuse that even a simple concept like this has to unnecessarily fly over your head.
Usual stupidity from the lobotomized imp. One, I am well aware of craniofacial relatedness. The skull has nothing to do with everted lips, skin color, hair type, etc. Go look at a Neanderthal. It has many similar proportions to that of ancient Africans. Yet DNA shows us that, at least some of the European ones where red haired, and probably light skinned. And if you want to talk craniofacial variation, let us just take another of Hanihara’s studies: Frontal and Facial Flatness of Major Human Populations, Tsunehiko Hanihara, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 111:105–134 (2000)
In every single case, The Out of Africa Diaspora has a clearly larger range of variation than Africa. (In fact, Eurasia alone beat Africa in all indexes except the Alveolar one) Try again.
The problem with that artistic rendition is that it is not exactly accurate with it’s contouring of the crania: And there are a lot of assumptions on the soft tissue:
quote:I would not have any confidence that the superficial parts (hair, color etc.) of the reconstruction are accurate. Every population has evolved over the last 150,000 years and we cannot assume that our last common ancestor (which may or may not have been something like Herto) had any particular "racial" characteristics. The Herto skull is huge and robust, and thus very different from the crania of modern people such as the San or Sandawe. Of any crania in the recent past it most resembles material like those from the late Pleistocene of Australia, but whether they show retention of ancestral characteristics or re-evolved robusticity within Australia is uncertain. Although it is a little old now, you might find my book African Exodus of interest with regard to some of these points, as well as the references on my personal web page (access via www.nhm.ac.uk science/palaeontology pages). Best, Chris Stringer
Based on that commentary, I superimposed the Idaltu skull on a Murrayan Aborigine from Australia. Just as likely a candidate.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Quit posting your anal plug. That is disgusting.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Before the (modern man), Khoisan Grimaldi entered Europe (45,000 B.C.), it was populated by only Neanderthals and perhaps some left-over Erectus. At about 35,000 B.C. the (archaic human) Cro-Magnon also entered Europe - Both were Black people.
No evidence as to their skin color. They could have had any of the gradients common to Africa and all Africans are not dark skinned. Nor was Grimaldi a KhoiSan. The skull is that of a child. With common plesiomorphic robusticity in the jaw. And it was found along with other Cro Magnon in the Grotte des Infantes so it obvioulsy did not predate them. KhoiSan vs Grimaldi
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Correct. Which is where 'brown' comes in as a medium hue or range. You can't get from black to white all of a sudden! The change in skin complexion was gradual.
Jablonski estimates that the change in skin color probably began before the ancestral populations entered Europe and were still living in Central Asia, that is as soon as they left the tropics. They were likely still 'black', but had to at least become slightly lighter.
LOL. Your living in Atlanta has brainwashed you. And I can see why, living here as well. One droppism has people of medium tones identifying as Black. And your foolish ass now goes around claiming all but the lightest brown people as Black even if they do not identify as such. But I am entertained how you continually dodge the label for yourself. Crazy Pinoy, I tell ya.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: I never said any modern population was identical, I did say there are modern populations resemble these early humans, and why is that? Well, because these early humans were in fact Africans. Closest resemble Africans and if they were alive today, they would be considered African.
Actually, facially they resemble Australians more than they do modern Africans. SO many would consider them pacific Islander/Australian, over African.
Yes Australian, and to a lesser extent African. This is the fact for all non Africans ancestors found around the ancient world. Where do Australians originally come from, and who do they closely resemble? Are you really that dim?
quote: And there are a lot of assumptions on the soft tissue:
quote:I would not have any confidence that the superficial parts (hair, color etc.) of the reconstruction are accurate.
Of course you can't guess the skin or eye color, or hair texture you dumb fool. But being that man originated in equatorial Africa, and needed to be have dark skin. herto himself would've been darkskinned as equatorial Africans to protect himself from sun damaging UV rays, this is a fact. You don't like it, oh well. The artists rendition is pretty much what herto, and Africans at the time would've looked like.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Extremely Imbecilic Imp, most cases are irrelevant. The ONLY cases relevant are the ones that affect the discussion at hand.
You over anally-sodomized dumb spic, water bodies that separate tetonic plates are a big deal. Would yo sorry ass be able to swim in say, an ocean from one continent to another without drowning yo dumb spic ass. This applies to seas that separate continents.
quote: There is no ocean that separates Africa, Asia and Europe. There has been no ocean during the whole human experience that has done this.
Gang-raped psychologically-fucked spic, do people have to literally spell every fuckin thing out for yo sorry illiterate spica-dum ass before the general idea soaks in. Large "Water bodies" separate continents, and these do in fact act as barriers to mass migration, they are not yo freakin imaginery political barriers.
quote: Humans have always had the capacity to walk through the entire Afrasian supercontinent. What a true moron.
CUNThimpu, when will it soak in yo thick spic skull? Lol. Humans don't have the capacity to walk over oceans, seas and other large water bodies.
quote:
Imp, go look up Haplogroups L0d and L0k, or A3b1 and A-M91. Tell me how they are all over Africa again.
Chimpu, the clade L0 is not limited to the Sans; you'd know this, if yo sorry as was read.
quote:Usual stupidity from the lobotomized imp. One, I am well aware of craniofacial relatedness. The skull has nothing to do with everted lips, skin color, hair type, etc.
Over anally-jacked moron, the cranial skeleton provides the primary structures for the things that you describe; so any significant intra and extra population variations in facial forms would come largely from this primary structure. Using yo mind-sodomized mentality, we might as well take into count flimsy distinct facial tissue forms between any two individual.
quote: Go look at a Neanderthal.
I'm already looking at one: yo sorry dumb spic ass.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic