Originally posted by Chimu:
More, non Euro mixed light San and Khoi
quote:Hot air. Of course, dark skin as the original state of modern humanity has been comfirmed.
Originally posted by Chimu:
Mark Shriver, Rick Kittle’s partner in that study agreed with Frank and had this to say.quote:He clearly states that there is not enough data to speculate intelligently. They only know that from there research, there is no clear indication West Africans haven’t gotten darker since the migration out of Africa (a claim contradicted by Jablonski who says there was further skin color selection), but this still does not address the populations that are lighter within Africa, and he clearly states that.
Frank has some good points. Clearly more work needs to be done on the variation within continents in particular Africa. We do have one recent paper that shines some light on these questions (McEvoy, Beleza & Shriver, 2006). Note that we did not find many genes with signatures of natural selection on the West African branch and thus no clear indication that the West Africans have gotten darker since their separation from the East Asians and Europeans. This fact, although interesting in and of it's own, does not address the issue of the lighter skinned African populations. Good questions, clearly, But There Is Not Data Yet To Even Let Us Speculate Intelligently.
And again, for reasons that I have posted before, I don’t fully agree with Jablonski that darker skinned people like Dinka had less to go in terms of skin color evolution than the Bisa Sandawe did, or the San.
quote:
Signatures of Positive Selection in Genes Associated with Human Skin Pigmentation as Revealed from Analyses of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120118254/abstract
KEYWORDS
human pigmentation • skin color • positive selection • genetic adaptation • Perlegen database • SNP • EHH test
ABSTRACT
Phenotypic variation between human populations in skin pigmentation correlates with latitude at the continental level. A large number of hypotheses involving genetic adaptation have been proposed to explain human variation in skin colour, but only limited genetic evidence for positive selection has been presented. To shed light on the evolutionary genetic history of human variation in skin colour we inspected 118 genes associated with skin pigmentation in the Perlegen dataset, studying single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and analyzed 55 genes in detail. We identified eight genes that are associated with the melanin pathway (SLC45A2, OCA2, TYRP1, DCT, KITLG, EGFR, DRD2 and PPARD) and presented significant differences in genetic variation between Europeans, Africans and Asians. In six of these genes we detected, by means of the EHH test, variability patterns that are compatible with the hypothesis of local positive selection in Europeans (OCA2, TYRP1 and KITLG) and in Asians (OCA2, DCT, KITLG, EGFR and DRD2), whereas signals were scarce in Africans (DCT, EGFR and DRD2). Furthermore, a statistically significant correlation between genotypic variation in four pigmentation candidate genes and phenotypic variation of skin colour in 51 worldwide human populations was revealed. Overall, our data also suggest that light skin colour is the derived state and is of independent origin in Europeans and Asians, whereas **dark skin** color seems of unique origin, **reflecting the ancestral state in humans**.
quote:Chimu you seem to have quite a challenge ahead of you, hope you don't become frightened....
The genetic architecture of normal variation in human pigmentation: an evolutionary perspective and model
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/15/suppl_2/R176
ABSTRACT
Skin pigmentation varies substantially across human populations in a manner largely coincident with ultraviolet radiation intensity. This observation suggests that natural selection in response to sunlight is a major force in accounting for pigmentation variability. We review recent progress in identifying the genes controlling this variation with a particular focus on the trait's evolutionary past and the potential role of testing for signatures of selection in aiding the discovery of functionally important genes. We have analyzed SNP data from the International HapMap project in 77 pigmentation candidate genes for such signatures. On the basis of these results and other similar work, we provide a tentative three-population model (West Africa, East Asia and North Europe) of the evolutionary–genetic architecture of human pigmentation. These results suggest a complex evolutionary history, with selection acting on different gene targets at different times and places in the human past. Some candidate genes may have been selected in the ancestral human population, others in the ‘out of Africa’ proto European-Asian population, whereas most appear to have selectively evolved solely in either Europeans or East Asians separately despite the pigmentation similarities between these two populations. Selection signatures can provide important clues to aid gene discovery. However, these should be viewed as complements, rather than replacements of, functional studies including linkage and association analyses, which can directly refine our understanding of the trait.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:Generally, y whom? That is the problem. By Eurocentrics? By Afrocentrics? I know KhoiSan that would throw a fit if you called them Black. They see their complexions as red.
Originally posted by T. Rex:
[QB] It seems a former dissident forumer Chimu, aka Salsassin, has returned. I offer the following challenge to him:
1) Provide evidence that any the first humans in equatorial Africa were lighter than the range of complexions generally called "black", therefore justifying your assertion that we cannot call the first humans "black".
quote:Show me first that all Maghrebians of medium complexion are of partial European descent. Not all Maghrebis are Kabyles.
2) Provide evidence that light-skinned, partially European-descended Maghrebians* are as tropically adapted as dynastic-era Egyptians
quote:Feel free to quote the study. I hope you aren't referring to Diop's mythical study.
(whose melanin levels have been reported as"Negroid" according to a fairly recent study on mummified remains). You were insisting earlier that Maghrebians had limb ratios similar to those of tropically adapted Africans based on the eyeballing of one photograph of a Maghrebian athlete, but that isn't hard enough data here.
quote:Again, where is your evidence all Maghrebians have substantial European ancestry or that the genetics for short limbs is prevalent in all populations.
* BTW, Keita mentions in one of his papers that Egyptian skeletons' limb ratios are closer to those of Africans than southern Europeans. Since southern Europeans are the maternal ancestors of "Caucasoid" Berbers, I think it logical to infer that said Berbers would have more southern European-type skeletons.
quote:Well here's the thing dimwit. T-rex wasn't asking you to tell him about Khoisan throwing fits, he asked you to provide information which says that modern humans did not evolve in equatorial tropical East Africa, and being in this tropical zone wouldn't have been dark...?
quote:Generally, y whom? That is the problem. By Eurocentrics? By Afrocentrics? I know KhoiSan that would throw a fit if you called them Black.
Originally posted by Chimu:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by T. Rex:
[QB] It seems a former dissident forumer Chimu, aka Salsassin, has returned. I offer the following challenge to him:
1) Provide evidence that any the first humans in equatorial Africa were lighter than the range of complexions generally called "black", therefore justifying your assertion that we cannot call the first humans "black".
quote:I was going to say much earlier, on this point, this arguement was over AS soon as you posted the above.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
What could possibly address this to be other than what it is, explained in plain English...
Norton, Kittles et al:
In general, the derived allele (associated with lighter pigmentation) is most common in Europeans and East Asians, and the **ancestral allele** predominates in **sub-Saharan Africa** and **Island Melanesia.**
quote:
Signatures of Positive Selection in Genes Associated with Human Skin Pigmentation as Revealed from Analyses of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120118254/abstract
ABSTRACT
Phenotypic variation between human populations in skin pigmentation correlates with latitude at the continental level. A large number of hypotheses involving genetic adaptation have been proposed to explain human variation in skin colour, but only limited genetic evidence for positive selection has been presented. To shed light on the evolutionary genetic history of human variation in skin colour we inspected 118 genes associated with skin pigmentation in the Perlegen dataset, studying single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and analyzed 55 genes in detail. We identified eight genes that are associated with the melanin pathway (SLC45A2, OCA2, TYRP1, DCT, KITLG, EGFR, DRD2 and PPARD) and presented significant differences in genetic variation between Europeans, Africans and Asians. In six of these genes we detected, by means of the EHH test, variability patterns that are compatible with the hypothesis of local positive selection in Europeans (OCA2, TYRP1 and KITLG) and in Asians (OCA2, DCT, KITLG, EGFR and DRD2), whereas signals were scarce in Africans (DCT, EGFR and DRD2). Furthermore, a statistically significant correlation between genotypic variation in four pigmentation candidate genes and phenotypic variation of skin colour in 51 worldwide human populations was revealed. Overall, our data also suggest that light skin colour is the derived state and is of independent origin in Europeans and Asians, whereas **dark skin** color seems of unique origin, **reflecting the ancestral state in humans**.
quote:Mindless Matter, I see you ignored the fact that the Bisa Sandawe where lighter until recently due to admixture.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
[Well here's the thing dimwit. T-rex wasn't asking you to tell him about Khoisan throwing fits, he asked you to provide information which says that modern humans did not evolve in equatorial tropical East Africa, and being in this tropical zone wouldn't have been dark...?
quote:Bisa Sandawe didn't have a mutation, weren't killed off by the intense sun and were lighter.
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).
quote:Uh no, they weren't. They were regarded as Griqua or Colored.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Khoisans are in fact regarded as 'black' in South Africa. They must be throwing fits there quite often, 24/7.
quote:Note that in Botsana, the Black identity has been pushed while in South Africa it has not. The Khoi in Botwana are also much more heavily mixed with Bantu than the San in South Africa.
it really depends on our different definitions of black and white. In apartheid South Africa, where classification was rife, Bushmen people were regarded as Coloured. In Botswana, we are regarded as Black. They call themselves N/oakhwe, 'the red people'.
Kgeika Kwena means the First People. N/oakhwe means The Red People. In our Bushmen societies, we do not have many stratas as the other societies do (blacks, whites, indians etc). That I think is the reason why we have not considered ourselves along any lines of race. Of course we're as unique as you can imagine to all of you in our ways of core existence. In Botswana, we have accepted that we're black and not coloured.
quote:
I have to make a few things clear in order to answer you.
1. The Khoisan are not Black
2. They are separate from other population
The Khoisan people are not easy to classify due to outside elements that has been playing part in destroying our identity. We are brown; yellowish in colour even some are white. There are even some of us that are darker in colour, but we don’t classify ourselves as Blacks. Why? The term Black, same as Coloured has become an insult, because we are seen as not White and also not Black we are seen as not part of the population in this country. I really get angry for those Khoisan people who call themselves Coloureds and say they are even proud. I feel sorry for them because they do not know their culture and their heritage. I am asked a lot about why do I still wear that animal skin in front and I simply say it’s my culture. To answer you, on are we Black, the answer is no no no. You can call us Brown but not Black. The term Black refers to the Nguni people, the Xhosas (name given by us), Zulus, and other Black tribes. We are indigenous to this land so if we were labelled as Blacks, our Nguni people that are Blacks and us would be on the same level (which we are not). You see, to call us Blacks would be an insult, but sadly our people of Khoisan descent because of poverty and for getting jobs in the new South Africa they now call themselves Black (Black economic empowerment). The Khoisan can never be seen as Black nor can they be called Black they are the true Africans because they are indigenous to this land. The outside areas (outside South Africa) even Namibia there are Khoisan, but to the overseas people there are two people in South Africa: Blacks and Whites (we need to tell them about the Khoisan) I ask one tourist this question and his answer was that their knowledge about the Khoisan was that they are rebellious and that they wore animal skins. You see, that is why I am proud to wear my traditional clothes for heritage day to show people that I am Khoisan. That is who I am. To finish the discussion we as the Khoisan see ourselves as people not like the Blacks, but separate from them and would not be seen or known like anything else.
quote:An ancestral allele that was present in the Bisa Sandawe and yet they were lighter.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Norton, Kittles et al:
In general, the derived allele (associated with lighter pigmentation) is most common in Europeans and East Asians, and the **ancestral allele** predominates in **sub-Saharan Africa** and **Island Melanesia.**
quote:LOL, I am always entertained by these claims. And Eurocentrics call me Afrocentric. Extremists always try to project.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
^^The Khoisan that he knows, most likely doesn't feel comfortable being called black, being around an individual who suffers from blackphobia, such as Chimpu.
quote:[/QUOTE]
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Overall, our data also suggest that light skin colour is the derived state and is of independent origin in Europeans and Asians, whereas **dark skin** color seems of unique origin, **reflecting the ancestral state in humans**.
quote:Don't make me laugh. Eurocentrics constantly accuse me of being Afrocentric, Mulattocentrics accuse me of being Afrocentric, Indigenocentrists accuse me of being Afrocentric. Why? Because while I will shoot down Afrocentric mythologies in boards such as this, I actually promote the very real Afro Diaspora that is alive and kicking today. I don't live in lala land fantasies.
Originally posted by Alive:
^Agreed. It's rather weak that Chimpu rails against "black", "black-centrism", etc, and not "white", "mixed", or any of those centrisms.
quote:^It also predominates in sub-Saharan Africa.
chimu:
An ancestral allele that was present in the Bisa Sandawe and yet they were lighter.
quote:The Sandawe have enough melanin to survive in the environment they live in, and their complexion is what one would call "dark complexioned"; essentially what we also call "black".
Originally posted by Chimu:
Bisa Sandawe didn't have a mutation, weren't killed off by the intense sun and were lighter.
quote:Do you have evidence that in Apartheid South Africa, Khoisans were given the same treatment as "coloreds", and were better treated than the "blacks"?
Uh no, they weren't. They were regarded as Griqua or Colored.
quote:So, is this your way of saying that the San in Botswana are darker in skin tone than those in South Africa?
Note that in Botsana, the Black identity has been pushed while in South Africa it has not. The Khoi in Botwana are also much more heavily mixed with Bantu than the San in South Africa.
quote:What was the allele, found in the Bisa Sandawe by whom, and associated with what skin complexion [that is to say, with "dark" or "light" according to the study]? Your opinionating that the Bisa Sandawe are "lighter" in no way changes the fact of the study that you are citing above about dark skin alleles in Africans and Melanesians, nor does your *personal* characterization of the Sandawe as "lighter" make them not to be "dark" complexioned folks, that is to say, "black".
quote:An ancestral allele that was present in the Bisa Sandawe and yet they were lighter.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Norton, Kittles et al:
In general, the derived allele (associated with lighter pigmentation) is most common in Europeans and East Asians, and the **ancestral allele** predominates in **sub-Saharan Africa** and **Island Melanesia.**
quote:And how light is this supposed lighter? Of course Bisa Sandawe are dark enough and retain enough melanin to survive in tropical climates. Therefore there skin would not be light. Please show otherwise, and post evidence that this "admixture" made them darker..... Btw, Non Africans ancestors migrated out of tropical East Africa, the horn.
quote:Mindless Matter, I see you ignored the fact that the Bisa Sandawe where lighter until recently due to admixture.
Originally posted by Chimu:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
[Well here's the thing dimwit. T-rex wasn't asking you to tell him about Khoisan throwing fits, he asked you to provide information which says that modern humans did not evolve in equatorial tropical East Africa, and being in this tropical zone wouldn't have been dark...?
quote:Of course they have the mutation you idiot, as all Africans do. It's the ancestral state of all humans. The Bisa Sandawe are not white and were not white ever. The original humans when they lost their fur were likely pink/white skinned, and under the intense sun of Equatorial Africa it would of killed of any offspring that retained this pink skin, Bisa are not pink, nor is any indigenous African.
quote:Bisa Sandawe didn't have a mutation, weren't killed off by the intense sun and were lighter.
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).
quote:And indeed, they'd have to have ancestral alleles, because after all, that is what's keeping them "dark complexioned". In the meantime,...
Originally posted by The Explorer:
What was the allele, found in the Bisa Sandawe by whom, and associated with what skin complexion [that is to say, with "dark" or "light" according to the study]?
quote:There is no evidence that anatomically modern humans as they emerged, were ever anything but dark complexioned, i.e. "black", because there is no evidence of the alleles generally associated with the dark skin seen in equatorial Africans and groups like Melanesians, were ever a product of a selection event subsequent to an earlier state. Even Chimu openly admitted to this fact.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
The original humans when they lost their fur were likely pink/white skinned, and under the intense sun of Equatorial Africa it would of killed of any offspring that retained this pink skin, Bisa are not pink, nor is any indigenous African.
quote:This fellow has a different take...
Originally posted by Chimu:
Uh no, they weren't. They were regarded as Griqua or Colored.
quote:True, this is basic biological science, in tropical climates humans would have to be darkskinned to protect themselves from harmful UV rays. There is no guessing about this, and the fact that there is no evidence that the peoples you mention in Melanesia were any lighter or any selection to make them darker. The fact that Oceanic's represent OOA descendants the most, I.e, genetically and phenotypically. Is all the evidence we need to come to the conclusion that the ancestors of non Africans(a group of East Africans who left from equatorial Africa) were definitely black.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:There is no evidence that anatomically modern humans as they emerged, were ever anything but dark complexioned, i.e. "black", because there is no evidence of the alleles generally associated with the dark skin seen in equatorial Africans and groups like Melanesians, were ever a product of a selection event subsequent to an earlier state. Even Chimu openly admitted to this fact.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
The original humans when they lost their fur were likely pink/white skinned, and under the intense sun of Equatorial Africa it would of killed of any offspring that retained this pink skin, Bisa are not pink, nor is any indigenous African.
quote:Speaking of Melanesians, we are told...
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
There is no guessing about this, and the fact that there is no evidence that the peoples you mention in Melanesia were any lighter or any selection to make them darker. The fact that Oceanic's represent OOA descendants the most, I.e, genetically and phenotypically. Is all the evidence we need to come to the conclusion that the ancestors of non Africans(a group of East Africans who left from equatorial Africa) were definitely black...
quote:And that variation allowed for more than one skin tone. No evidence that they were not of multiple hues, just like great apes today.
Originally posted by Alive:
Oh.
quote:^It also predominates in sub-Saharan Africa.
chimu:
An ancestral allele that was present in the Bisa Sandawe and yet they were lighter.
This is because dark skin is simply a trait that evolved in tandom with the loss of fur/hair.
So it only shows that the ancient ancestral population full of the ancestral melanin genes still likely possesed a variation in skin tone. Big whoop. [
quote:Wrong. They were always described as lighter. Don't confuse the Tehla Sandawe with the Bisa.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
The Sandawe have enough melanin to survive in the environment they live in, and their complexion is what one would call "dark complexioned"; essentially what we also call "black".
quote:
Do you have evidence that in Apartheid South Africa, Khoisans were given the same treatment as "coloreds", and were better treated than the "blacks"?
quote:http://www.come2capetown.com/thecity/people_language/Khoi_San.asp
In the 1950s they were classified as coloured by the Apartheid authorities.
quote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1971103.stm
Chief Little believes the event is a signal for all those of Khoisan descent to reclaim their identity.
"She's brought to the fore that we need to be proud of our identity instead of hiding behind the classification of 'coloured' which was given to us by the racist apartheid regime," he added.
quote:Yes, they are.
So, is this your way of saying that the San in Botswana are darker in skin tone than those in South Africa?
quote:Lighter than a tanned Japanese woman. Not Black.
What was the allele, found in the Bisa Sandawe by whom, and associated with what skin complexion [that is to say, with "dark" or "light" according to the study]? Your opinionating that the Bisa Sandawe are "lighter" in no way changes the fact of the study that you are citing above about dark skin alleles in Africans and Melanesians, nor does your *personal* characterization of the Sandawe as "lighter" make them not to be "dark" complexioned folks, that is to say, "black".
quote:Go read the literature. I already quoted it. And the Snadawe do show strong admixture today with Bantu. Go read Tishkoff.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
And how light is this supposed lighter? Of course Bisa Sandawe are dark enough and retain enough melanin to survive in tropical climates. Therefore there skin would not be light. Please show otherwise, and post evidence that this "admixture" made them darker..... Btw, Non Africans ancestors migrated out of tropical East Africa, the horn.
quote:I meant a mutation from that original MCR1 gene.
Of course they have the mutation you idiot, as all Africans do. It's the ancestral state of all humans. The Bisa Sandawe are not white and were not white ever. The original humans when they lost their fur were likely pink/white skinned, and under the intense sun of Equatorial Africa it would of killed of any offspring that retained this pink skin, Bisa are not pink, nor is any indigenous African.
quote:And indeed, they'd have to have ancestral alleles, because after all, that is what's keeping them "dark complexioned". In the meantime,...
Originally posted by The Explorer:
What was the allele, found in the Bisa Sandawe by whom, and associated with what skin complexion [that is to say, with "dark" or "light" according to the study]?
quote:Yes the Griquas are mixed. But the pure KhoiSan were also classified as coloured.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
This fellow has a different take...
Coloreds: Mixed-race descendants of Africans, Asians, and Europeans, coloreds compose two distinct communities: the Malays (mostly Moslem, descended from Indonesian slaves), and the Griquas, whose origins are from Khoikhoi and white **unions**. The Coloreds speak Afrikaans and, to a lesser extent, English. They are concentrated in the three Cape provinces. Since the official beginning of apartheid in 1948, they have tended to identify socially with Blacks more and more - Obi O. Akwani, IMDiversity.com
quote:And KhoiSan fell under Coloreds.
Modern South Africa is composed of many peoples who, as a result of the country's history, fall into four main race-based categories: indigenous [1*]Africans or Blacks, [2*]Europeans or Whites, [3*]Asians or Indians, and [4*]Coloreds.
quote:Yes there were two African groups. The Colored and the Blacks or Bantus.
The African majority consists of three main cultural groups: the Khoikhoi, the San or Khoisan people of the Cape region and the Bantus.[/i]
quote:Read above.
Chimu, do you have evidence that Apartheid South Africa, and henceforth, modern South Africa's "racial" or ethnic categories are different from what is being stated above?
quote:Neither were modern Horners. Did you have a point?
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
The Bisa Sandawe and Khoisan of South Africa, were not part of the single group of East Africans who left via the horn to populate the world.
quote:Good catch, could be a possible explanation. The derived state, and the very low frequency of said ancestral alleles found in said population compared to others where the allele predominates. As indeed you've noted, in the original Island Melanesian sample and equatorial East Africa.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Whether the derived state has much of a "lightening" effect amongst sections of Melanesians or not, is trivial to the point that the ancestral state is predominantly found in equatorial Africans.
quote:Feel free to show that Jablonski shws any evidence, other than hypothesis. that they have a derived state. I know what Jablonski believes. I am only interested in what she has proven though.
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:And that variation allowed for more than one skin tone. No evidence that they were not of multiple hues, just like great apes today.
Originally posted by Alive:
Oh.
quote:^It also predominates in sub-Saharan Africa.
chimu:
An ancestral allele that was present in the Bisa Sandawe and yet they were lighter.
This is because dark skin is simply a trait that evolved in tandom with the loss of fur/hair.
So it only shows that the ancient ancestral population full of the ancestral melanin genes still likely possesed a variation in skin tone. Big whoop. [
quote:Wrong. They were always described as lighter. Don't confuse the Tehla Sandawe with the Bisa.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
The Sandawe have enough melanin to survive in the environment they live in, and their complexion is what one would call "dark complexioned"; essentially what we also call "black".
quote:
Do you have evidence that in Apartheid South Africa, Khoisans were given the same treatment as "coloreds", and were better treated than the "blacks"?quote:http://www.come2capetown.com/thecity/people_language/Khoi_San.asp
In the 1950s they were classified as coloured by the Apartheid authorities.
quote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1971103.stm
Chief Little believes the event is a signal for all those of Khoisan descent to reclaim their identity.
"She's brought to the fore that we need to be proud of our identity instead of hiding behind the classification of 'coloured' which was given to us by the racist apartheid regime," he added.
quote:Yes, they are.
So, is this your way of saying that the San in Botswana are darker in skin tone than those in South Africa?
Botswana (Kalahari - Central Bushmen, Yellow Bushmen at Lone Tree, Central San, Yellow Bushmen at Takashwani, Central San, Yellow Bushmen at Ghanzi, Central San) 42.4
South Africa (Warmbath - Hottentot) 43.75
South Africa (Namaqualand, Hottentot) 46.8
South Africa (Cape - Cape Coloureds) 50.96
quote:Lighter than a tanned Japanese woman. Not Black.
What was the allele, found in the Bisa Sandawe by whom, and associated with what skin complexion [that is to say, with "dark" or "light" according to the study]? Your opinionating that the Bisa Sandawe are "lighter" in no way changes the fact of the study that you are citing above about dark skin alleles in Africans and Melanesians, nor does your *personal* characterization of the Sandawe as "lighter" make them not to be "dark" complexioned folks, that is to say, "black".
quote:Go read the literature. I already quoted it. And the Snadawe do show strong admixture today with Bantu. Go read Tishkoff.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
And how light is this supposed lighter? Of course Bisa Sandawe are dark enough and retain enough melanin to survive in tropical climates. Therefore there skin would not be light. Please show otherwise, and post evidence that this "admixture" made them darker..... Btw, Non Africans ancestors migrated out of tropical East Africa, the horn.
quote:I meant a mutation from that original MCR1 gene.
Of course they have the mutation you idiot, as all Africans do. It's the ancestral state of all humans. The Bisa Sandawe are not white and were not white ever. The original humans when they lost their fur were likely pink/white skinned, and under the intense sun of Equatorial Africa it would of killed of any offspring that retained this pink skin, Bisa are not pink, nor is any indigenous African.
And no one claimed they were White. Nice strawman. I said they weren't Black. Your dumb dichotomy, not mine.
quote:And indeed, they'd have to have ancestral alleles, because after all, that is what's keeping them "dark complexioned". In the meantime,...
Originally posted by The Explorer:
What was the allele, found in the Bisa Sandawe by whom, and associated with what skin complexion [that is to say, with "dark" or "light" according to the study]?
The lightly pigmented hunter-gatherer San populations of Southern Africa is exceptional in having a high frequency of the derived allele relative to geographically proximate and more darkly pigmented African populations (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000), further supporting the importance of OCA2 in regulating normal variation in pigmentation. The widespread distribution of the derived allele in the CEPH-Diversity Panel suggests that it is not necessarily a new mutation, nor has it been restricted to a specific geographic area. - Norton et al.
Note that while it is said that the allele in question is suggestive of not being a new one, it is recognized as being in the "derived" state.
quote:Yes the Griquas are mixed. But the pure KhoiSan were also classified as coloured.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
This fellow has a different take...
Coloreds: Mixed-race descendants of Africans, Asians, and Europeans, coloreds compose two distinct communities: the Malays (mostly Moslem, descended from Indonesian slaves), and the Griquas, whose origins are from Khoikhoi and white **unions**. The Coloreds speak Afrikaans and, to a lesser extent, English. They are concentrated in the three Cape provinces. Since the official beginning of apartheid in 1948, they have tended to identify socially with Blacks more and more - Obi O. Akwani, IMDiversity.com
quote:And KhoiSan fell under Coloreds.
Modern South Africa is composed of many peoples who, as a result of the country's history, fall into four main race-based categories: indigenous [1*]Africans or Blacks, [2*]Europeans or Whites, [3*]Asians or Indians, and [4*]Coloreds.
quote:Yes there were two African groups. The Colored and the Blacks or Bantus.
The African majority consists of three main cultural groups: the Khoikhoi, the San or Khoisan people of the Cape region and the Bantus.[/i]
quote:Read above.
Chimu, do you have evidence that Apartheid South Africa, and henceforth, modern South Africa's "racial" or ethnic categories are different from what is being stated above?
quote:Neither were modern Horners. Did you have a point?
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
The Bisa Sandawe and Khoisan of South Africa, were not part of the single group of East Africans who left via the horn to populate the world.
[/QUOTE]
quote:Awwwwww still pissed because I fvcked your mother?
Originally posted by JMT:
[b]You and your blatant color complex is truly repugnant. I suspect you're not the color or shade you wish to be. You're probably miserable. Do yourself a favor and put the barrel of a chambered .45 caliber pistol in your mouth and pull the
quote:They do possess the ancestral allele. What do you mean by a mutation from the original gene?
quote:I meant a mutation from that original MCR1 gene.
quote:Of course they have the mutation you idiot, as all Africans do. It's the ancestral state of all humans. The Bisa Sandawe are not white and were not white ever. The original humans when they lost their fur were likely pink/white skinned, and under the intense sun of Equatorial Africa it would of killed of any offspring that retained this pink skin, Bisa are not pink, nor is any indigenous African.
quote:Bisa Sandawe didn't have a mutation, weren't killed off by the intense sun and were lighter.
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).
And no one claimed they were White. Nice strawman. I said they weren't Black. Your dumb dichotomy, not mine.
quote:According to what scale are they described as anything but "dark complexion". What?
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:Wrong. They were always described as lighter. Don't confuse the Tehla Sandawe with the Bisa.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
The Sandawe have enough melanin to survive in the environment they live in, and their complexion is what one would call "dark complexioned"; essentially what we also call "black".
quote:What legal document from the Apartheid State said Khoisans, who are not mixed with non-African groups, are anything but in the same camp as "black Africans"? Your link doesn't provide this.
quote:http://www.come2capetown.com/thecity/people_language/Khoi_San.asp
In the 1950s they were classified as coloured by the Apartheid authorities.
quote:Yes, Khoisans mixed with non-African groups may have been given leeway to identify as "coloreds", but you have shown no evidence that Khoisans were not grouped with "black Africans". I've already cited a piece that suggests otherwise.
quote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1971103.stm
Chief Little believes the event is a signal for all those of Khoisan descent to reclaim their identity.
"She's brought to the fore that we need to be proud of our identity instead of hiding behind the classification of 'coloured' which was given to us by the racist apartheid regime," he added.
quote:This scale doesn't even make sense; what is it suppose to relay; that the higher the score, the lighter? What is the source?
quote:Yes, they are.
So, is this your way of saying that the San in Botswana are darker in skin tone than those in South Africa?
Botswana (Kalahari - Central Bushmen, Yellow Bushmen at Lone Tree, Central San, Yellow Bushmen at Takashwani, Central San, Yellow Bushmen at Ghanzi, Central San) 42.4
South Africa (Warmbath - Hottentot) 43.75
South Africa (Namaqualand, Hottentot) 46.8
South Africa (Cape - Cape Coloureds) 50.96
quote:You realize that you evaded what you cited above, don't you?
quote:Lighter than a tanned Japanese woman. Not Black.
What was the allele, found in the Bisa Sandawe by whom, and associated with what skin complexion [that is to say, with "dark" or "light" according to the study]? Your opinionating that the Bisa Sandawe are "lighter" in no way changes the fact of the study that you are citing above about dark skin alleles in Africans and Melanesians, nor does your *personal* characterization of the Sandawe as "lighter" make them not to be "dark" complexioned folks, that is to say, "black".
quote:You can't read; the study you are looking at, was from actual geneticists. It's their word. Nobody said anything about Jablonski.
quote:Feel free to show that Jablonski shws any evidence, other than hypothesis. that they have a derived state. I know what Jablonski believes. I am only interested in what she has proven though.
And indeed, they'd have to have ancestral alleles, because after all, that is what's keeping them "dark complexioned". In the meantime,...
The lightly pigmented hunter-gatherer San populations of Southern Africa is exceptional in having a high frequency of the derived allele relative to geographically proximate and more darkly pigmented African populations (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000), further supporting the importance of OCA2 in regulating normal variation in pigmentation. The widespread distribution of the derived allele in the CEPH-Diversity Panel suggests that it is not necessarily a new mutation, nor has it been restricted to a specific geographic area. - Norton et al.
Note that while it is said that the allele in question is suggestive of not being a new one, it is recognized as being in the "derived" state.
quote:Exactly, so why did you pass off the term as though it were some kind of a category in which **all** Khoisans were generally placed?
quote:Yes the Griquas are mixed.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
This fellow has a different take...
Coloreds: Mixed-race descendants of Africans, Asians, and Europeans, coloreds compose two distinct communities: the Malays (mostly Moslem, descended from Indonesian slaves), and the Griquas, whose origins are from Khoikhoi and white **unions**. The Coloreds speak Afrikaans and, to a lesser extent, English. They are concentrated in the three Cape provinces. Since the official beginning of apartheid in 1948, they have tended to identify socially with Blacks more and more - Obi O. Akwani, IMDiversity.com
quote:If the Khoisans were also classified as "coloreds", then why would they need the term "Griquas" for the other "coloreds" also of Khoisan descent; why?
But the pure KhoiSan were also classified as coloured.
quote:Not according to what you are reading. What official Apartheid document can you present that suggests what you are replying to is wrong? What Apartheid state or even contemporary south African state documents can you produce that suggests that they was/are 5 as opposed to the 4 "racial" categories mentioned. And if you are saying that Khoisans were grouped in the African category, well then, that was only one category of that kind. There was no "two African" categories; if you have official south African state documents stating otherwise, then produce them for us.
quote:Yes there were two African groups. The Colored and the Blacks or Bantus.
Modern South Africa is composed of many peoples who, as a result of the country's history, fall into four main race-based categories: indigenous [1*]Africans or Blacks, [2*]Europeans or Whites, [3*]Asians or Indians, and [4*]Coloreds.
The African majority consists of three main cultural groups: the Khoikhoi, the San or Khoisan people of the Cape region and the Bantus.
quote:I have, I was the one who posted it, and it contradicts everything you've said; how do you intend to prove otherwise?
quote:Read above.
Chimu, do you have evidence that Apartheid South Africa, and henceforth, modern South Africa's "racial" or ethnic categories are different from what is being stated above?
quote:Source: http://www.jyu.fi/viesti/verkkotuotanto/kp/sa/peop_ethnicgrps.shtml
Until 1991, South African law divided the population into four major racial categories: (1.) The Black Africans, of which the Nguni and Sotho groups account for 90% of the Black population. Black population accounts 75% of the South Africa's entire population. (2.) The Whites who account for about 13% of the population. (3.) The Indians who account for around 3 % and (4.) the Coloreds who are mixed White and Black descent and account for 9% of the population. Although the South African law of racial categories has been abolished, many South Africans still view themselves according to these categories.
The black population consists of several groups: Khoi-San, Xhosa, Zulu, Ndebele, Sotho, Shangaan and Venda, just to name a few. The biggest groups are Zulus (21 %), Xhosas (17 %) and the Sotho (15%). Next smaller minorities are the Tswana, Venda, Ndebele, Swasi, and Pedi, among others. The Khoi-Sans are originally hunter-gatherers who have inhabited the land for a long time. Many political leaders, Nelson Mandela among them, come from the Xhosa. Most of the Blacks used to live in the countryside following a traditional way of life, but a class of progressive farmers also formed. Many of these became Christians and had some education from Missionaries. In the towns many Blacks worked as labourers. A small class of professional newspaper editors, lawyers and teachers emerged.
The apartheid regime over-emphasised the differences among the various ethnic group, mainly between whites and non-whites, but also between black groups (i.e. Xhosas and Zulus), and turned them against each other rather than against the government. The policy of racial segregation favoured the political and economic power for the white minority. Until today, South Africa has to deal with the consequences of this disastrous policy. Large part of the fast growing black majority lives in oppressive poverty in the outer districts of the cities lacking sufficient sanitation, electricity and water. Many of the residents are illiterate. The enormous poverty problem in South Africa is the major reason for the high crime rates.
quote:This scale doesn't even make sense; what is it suppose to relay; that the higher the score, the lighter? What is the source? [/QUOTE]
quote:
quote:Yes, they are.
So, is this your way of saying that the San in Botswana are darker in skin tone than those in South Africa?
Botswana (Kalahari - Central Bushmen, Yellow Bushmen at Lone Tree, Central San, Yellow Bushmen at Takashwani, Central San, Yellow Bushmen at Ghanzi, Central San) 42.4
South Africa (Warmbath - Hottentot) 43.75
South Africa (Namaqualand, Hottentot) 46.8
South Africa (Cape - Cape Coloureds) 50.96
quote:Funny, ain't it?
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
According to the data..... If the higher the score, lighter the skin. So South African Bantus are lighter than Sandawe, meanwhile Bantus supposedly mixed with Sandawe to make them darker?
quote:LOL, Those pictures of Kio-San look like faded airline clips from the Early 90's. The San Bushmen do not represent the Africans that evolved in East Africa...they represent a people adapted to the envioment where they migrated to.(South Africa)
Originally posted by Chimu:
More, non Euro mixed light San and Khoi
quote:Oh indeed it is, actually hilarious, and to an extent pretty much ridiculous.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Funny, ain't it?
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
According to the data..... If the higher the score, lighter the skin. So South African Bantus are lighter than Sandawe, meanwhile Bantus supposedly mixed with Sandawe to make them darker?
quote:Also, if you haven't noticed, he always posts the same same selective pics. The kid is a clown......
Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun:
Plus your posting of the Kiaosan as some sort of validity to your argument is rather weak, The said people are black Africans..
quote:BTW, what study of uniparental paternal and maternal markers suggest that the Khoisans in Botswana are more "mixed" with "exotic" groups than those in South Africa?
Originally posted by Chimu:
Note that in Botsana, the Black identity has been pushed while in South Africa it has not. The Khoi in Botwana are also much more heavily mixed with Bantu than the San in South Africa.
quote:Now all of a sudden "you're" all for black, since some of "us" are calling for Keita to state the AE were black. Hmmm...
Originally posted by akoben:
If there were "pure KhoiSan" how can they be classified as "coloured"? Isn't colored category for "mixed races"? And if the Khoisan were indeed classified as such this is obviously a political move by the regime, another divide and rule tactic. Dividing Africans as "black" and "not black" is a common colonial practice from Rwanda to South Africa. It doesnt mean one group is more (or less) "black" or African than the other.
As I said this guy chimp's ass was kicked before.
quote:Its is rather pathetic, the boys argument is flawed and contradictory....I mean if the first humans looked like the San then he first humans were on average darker complected. He only selects pictures of the lightest San, and the presumes his argument is a valid one...lol
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Also, if you haven't noticed, he always posts the same same selective pics. The kid is a clown......
Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun:
Plus your posting of the Kiaosan as some sort of validity to your argument is rather weak, The said people are black Africans..
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000266
quote:Of course they have the mutation you idiot, as all Africans do.[b](But you obviously are too clueless to read a post in context It's the ancestral state of all humans. The Bisa Sandawe are not white and were not white ever. The original humans when they lost their fur were likely pink/white skinned, and under the intense sun of Equatorial Africa it would of killed of any offspring that retained this pink skin(More stupidity. they are not talking about babies being with born with pink skin from ancestral times with fur, they are speaking of new mutations that arise that would lead to change of skin color. In other words mutations like that of Europe may have occurred, but they never survived in the population), Bisa are not pink, nor is any indigenous African. [/QUOTE]I meant a mutation from that original MCR1 gene.
Originally posted by MindlessMatter78:
quote:Bisa Sandawe didn't have a mutation(speaking about the mutation specifically mentioned by Rogers0[b], weren't killed off by the intense sun and were lighter.
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).
quote:A few factors you blatantly ignore:
You commented on Rogers saying any progeny with any whiter skin would've been killed off, by you saying "Sandawe were not killed off". Therefore I replied "Sandawe are not white". They are pigmented Africans, retaining melanin levels to protect from harmful UV rays. The original humans who left Africa to become non Africans from the horn of East Africa were darkskinned Africans. These humans are represented by the Oceanic populations, these Oceanic populations possess the ancestral allele that all Africans possess, and these people are black, these are what the ancestors of non Africans looked like and the color they were.
quote:You have yet to prove that all Horn of Africans are Dark, Or even that modern Horn of Africans represent the color of Ancient Horners
In equatorial East Africa, where modern humans evolved, where dark skinned populations are seen in today's tropical East Africa, is how dark modern humans who left Africa were. This is all you have to worry about. That single population who left Africa. Not the San in South Africa or any other African population. Ancestors of modern non Africans migrated from equatorial East Africa, not South Africa or West Africa, so the complexion of the San has nothing to do with the original humans who left Africa to become non Africans who were indeed dark skinned as today's equatorial East Africans.
quote:Less African, of course not. But they never identified as Black. And the San saw the Bantu as foreigners to their land as well
Originally posted by akoben:
If there were "pure KhoiSan" how can they be classified as "coloured"? Isn't colored category for "mixed races"? And if the Khoisan were indeed classified as such this is obviously a political move by the regime, another divide and rule tactic. Dividing Africans as "black" and "not black" is a common colonial practice from Rwanda to South Africa. It doesnt mean one group is more (or less) "black" or African than the other.
quote:Just do a search through old literature.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
According to what scale are they described as anything but "dark complexion". What?
quote:
The original Sandawe were lighter in skin colour than are those of today
quote:What legal document from the Apartheid State said Khoisans, who are not mixed with non-African groups, are anything but in the same camp as "black Africans"? Your link doesn't provide this.
quote:http://www.come2capetown.com/thecity/people_language/Khoi_San.asp
In the 1950s they were classified as coloured by the Apartheid authorities.
quote:And you don't think the Black majority today aren't imposing their own racial dichotomies today? LMAO. You sure are Naive. In Today's South Africa, to be Colored is to be homeless. The unoficial state policy is for KhoiSan to identify as Black or else not participate in all indigenous rights programs, which are geared toward the Black majority. Many KhoiSan have been fighting against this, as I quoted one already. Go read him again.
Read below I quote the names of the acts involved.
We do know the belief in the area was that the San and Khoi were "Already mixed with Hamitic Whites". In other words their look marked them as not Black and not White, so the Boers rationalized that they were already mixed.
It may have been political as well:
quote:http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=3803
Nama and San people know that the suppression of their identities and languages was required to assert the ideology of apartheid and justify the seizure of lands. According to one Nama speaker, Sacharias Christiaan, the apartheid government forced Nama people to register as coloured so as to invalidate their status as aboriginal people. If the Khoe and San people ceased to exist, no claims could be made to original occupation of land. This was in sharp contrast to the Bantustan policy which had brought to the fore the legal concept of separate territoriality for different linguistic groups. By declaring Nama people to be of mixed race and Afrikaans-speaking, the government was able to suppress any argument for a Nama state, or Nama cultural and linguistic rights.
Language is not the only apartheid rubric that has survived the transition to democracy. The Central Statistics Service (CSS) continues to use the terms African, white, coloured and Asian to describe the racial-ethnic variation in the country. There are two problems with this. Firstly, the majority of three million so-called coloured South Africans are of direct Khoe and San descent, with over one hundred thousand still referring to themselves as Griqua, Nama, Bushman or Koranna. Though some South Africans may comfortably identify themselves as "coloured," the term has been rejected by others. For it is a myth that still holds some force that "coloured" people are of "mixed race," with settler origins. In fact, the majority of so-called "coloured" South Africans are at least as indigenous as so called "Africans."
The flip side of this mythology is that Bantu-language speaking South Africans may claim a special authenticity and indigenous status and assert that they are not of "mixed race." These assumptions are rooted firmly in colonial and apartheid policies. In the building of colonial and then apartheid hegemony, the settler regime promoted distinctions between South Africans whose languages, cultures and genetic material were in fact interwoven. The racial terminology, "Native", "Bantu" and later the nine ethno-linguistic African groups, carried forth the fiction that most South Africans are not of mixed race, whereas historical research clearly shows much intermarriage between Khoe, San, Nguni and Sotho speaking peoples. Arguably, in the new era this racial mythology has been recycled and conveniently creates a mythological original and authentic status for the dominant "Black" "African" "Nguni-Sotho" elite which is contrasted with other less authentic identities: white, coloured and Asian.
It is quite obvious though that the Nama, the Khoe, the San, etc were seen as aboriginal, or mixed, but never as Black. And even when seen as aboriginal, they were forced in the same status as the Griqua, Coloured. In fact, if you ooked like a stereotypical Black (Read Bantu) you were just classified as Black. But if you were mixed or one of the lighter skinned KhoiSan you were classified as Colored regardless
In fact, Colored basically came to mean anyone not seen as White or Bantu (Black), whether they were mixed or not.[b]
[b]What is even worse, the Colored people where removed fo their rightful as First Peoples of the region
quote:The irony is that although the Bantus are immigrants just as the Boers, they have been given indigenous status, while the KhoiSan/Colored populations have been given an ambiguous status as not belonging to the land. Effectively a displaced people, much like the African American people.
In South Africa the social construction of the mixed person passed through various phases, at times containing some of the elements of the Brazilian racial continuum and at times approaching the dichotomous American version of racial purity. One experiences considerable cognitive dissonance as one moves (as I have) among the three systems. The South African classification of "coloured" is somewhat analogous to the US notion of "black," while the South African classification of "black" is closer to the North American concept of the "Indian" or "Native American."
quote:Note that the Khoi, San, Nama, and othe rKhoiSanid populations weren't allowed the identity of being an aboriginal tribe, so they were seen as mixed race, Colored, not Black
The existence of ambiguously "raced" people ( i.e.,"coloureds" ) was a "wild card" (the Joker) in the system and ideology of strict race segregation on which modern South African apartheid was built. The origins of the popular view of "coloureds" as a residual or "left over" category is inscribed in the apartheid laws which defined South African citizenship in terms of a system of racist population classifications (see Ridd 1981 and West 1988 from which the following is summarized). Apartheid was implemented through the hated Population Registration Act of 1950 (which was amended no less than 15 times between 1956 and 1986).
The Population and Registration Act (in Section 1) identified three basic classifications of South Africans: black, coloured, and white. A black (previously a Native or a Bantu) was defined as "a person who is, or is generally accepted as, a member of any aboriginal race or tribe of Africa." A white person was defined (in extremely hedged language) as: "a person who (a) in appearance obviously is a White person, and who is not generally accepted as a Colored person; or (b) is generally accepted as a White person and is not in appearance obviously not a White person. Finally, "white person" excludes those who voluntarily confess that they are "by descent a Black or a Colored person, unless it is proved that the admission is not based on fact." The definition of a "coloured" is what remains: "a Colored is a person who is not a White person or a Black."
quote:http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/publications/hongkong/scheper.htm
Because they stand in-between what was arguably an essentially a bi-polar race model (black/ white), South African "coloureds" are social "liminals," the half-way mark between "whites" and "blacks."
The KhoiSanid populations, wether mixed or not, where never seen as Black. and in a bi-polar racial model, they could only be mixed or Colored
If you think that the various KhoiSan peoples were seen as Black, think again. Read this blog by a Nama:
http://bikerpat.blogspot.com/2008/07/going-back-to-my-nama-roots.html
quote:[b]Nope, Not Black
Under the oppressive laws of apartheid, Khoe and South African people were forced to register and adopt and identity as coloured people.
quote:http://www.conquest.org.za/documents/!Xu%20and%20Khwe%20profile%202.pdf
The apartheid system in South Africa required that every individual within the society be classified and segregated according to four major racial categories, i.e., White, Black, Coloured, and Indian. The category “Coloured” became the most arbitrary racial category in that it functioned as a way of disguising the cultural heterogeneity of people who possessed African, European, Khoe, San, Indian, and Malay backgrounds. Indigenous groups were especially likely to accept this categorization due to the severely derogatory connotations associated with “Bushmen” during the apartheid years. It is not until recently that the gains made by emerging indigenous rights movements have encouraged people to reclaim and take pride in African, San, and Khoe ancestry.
quote:http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001464/146436e.pdf
Under the racial administrative system of Apartheid(1949 – 1993), all indigenous peoples were forced to be registered as other racial groups, with most being classified as “Coloured” or mixed race.
Now please don't tell me the UNESCO doesn't know what it's talking about.
quote:Uh Yeah!?!?
This scale doesn't even make sense; what is it suppose to relay; that the higher the score, the lighter? What is the source?
http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/faculty/leontis/chem447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf
quote:No, you can't read. Kittles was not the primary source If you knew how to read, you would know Kittles paper is making that claim citing Jablonski's paper. Try again.
You realize that you evaded what you cited above, don't you?
QUOTE]You can't read; the study you are looking at, was from actual geneticists. It's their word. Nobody said anything about Jablonski.
quote:[b]There is a difference between auto classification, and official classification by law.
If the Khoisans were also classified as "coloreds", then why would they need the term "Griquas" for the other "coloreds" also of Khoisan descent; why?
quote:Source: http://www.jyu.fi/viesti/verkkotuotanto/kp/sa/peop_ethnicgrps.shtml
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Furthermore...
[QUOTE]Until 1991, South African law divided the population into four major racial categories: (1.) The Black Africans, of which the Nguni and Sotho groups account for 90% of the Black population. Black population accounts 75% of the South Africa's entire population. (2.) The Whites who account for about 13% of the population. (3.) The Indians who account for around 3 % and (4.) the Coloreds who are mixed White and Black descent and account for 9% of the population. Although the South African law of racial categories has been abolished, many South Africans still view themselves according to these categories.
The black population consists of several groups: Khoi-San, Xhosa, Zulu, Ndebele, Sotho, Shangaan and Venda, just to name a few. The biggest groups are Zulus (21 %), Xhosas (17 %) and the Sotho (15%). Next smaller minorities are the Tswana, Venda, Ndebele, Swasi, and Pedi, among others. The Khoi-Sans are originally hunter-gatherers who have inhabited the land for a long time. Many political leaders, Nelson Mandela among them, come from the Xhosa. Most of the Blacks used to live in the countryside following a traditional way of life, but a class of progressive farmers also formed. Many of these became Christians and had some education from Missionaries. In the towns many Blacks worked as labourers. A small class of professional newspaper editors, lawyers and teachers emerged.
The apartheid regime over-emphasised the differences among the various ethnic group, mainly between whites and non-whites, but also between black groups (i.e. Xhosas and Zulus), and turned them against each other rather than against the government. The policy of racial segregation favoured the political and economic power for the white minority. Until today, South Africa has to deal with the consequences of this disastrous policy. Large part of the fast growing black majority lives in oppressive poverty in the outer districts of the cities lacking sufficient sanitation, electricity and water. Many of the residents are illiterate. The enormous poverty problem in South Africa is the major reason for the high crime rates.
quote:Boy are you dense. South African Bantus have also been mixing with San. And Sandawe were never as light as San.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
According to the data..... If the higher the score, lighter the skin. So South African Bantus are lighter than Sandawe, meanwhile Bantus supposedly mixed with Sandawe to make them darker? Sandawe seem like one of the darker observed populations.
quote:Oh the stupidity. Those pictures are not faded. Deal with it. And they are not dark skinned, and obviously Afrikaners did not see them as Black.
Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun:
LOL, Those pictures of Kio-San look like faded airline clips from the Early 90's. The San Bushmen do not represent the Africans that evolved in East Africa...they represent a people adapted to the envioment where they migrated to.(South Africa)
Plus your posting of the Kiaosan as some sort of validity to your argument is rather weak, The said people are black Africans..
quote:[b]Obviously not, as the Boers considered them mixed from the get go. And these are Namibian Bushmen, again not the San of South Africa.
compared to white people the San are clearly Black Africans...The people in your selected faded pics are not a representation of the San people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c246fZ-7z1w
quote:Look at Cavalli-Sforza's work I posted.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
BTW, what study of uniparental paternal and maternal markers suggest that the Khoisans in Botswana are more "mixed" with "exotic" groups than those in South Africa?
quote:This confirms you're a jackass racist. An undercover apartheid apologist.
The irony is that although the Bantus are immigrants just as the Boers
quote:Oh man, you dumb piece of sh*t. Lighter doesn't mean anything, as they retained a melanin level like all Africans, even the lightest indigenous San does, that is/was able to prevent UV damage. Sorry but your little argument that Sandawe were once lighter and now are 20 shades darker because they mixed with Bantu is rubbish, on top of that, your use of this supposedly ligterskinned population(that would still be considered black, would've rode at the back of the bus in America, during civil rights era) to somehow argue that Early humans were lightskinned, I.e, not black is ridiculous. Albinos don't live long in Africa, which tells you pale melaninless skin is not for Africa.
Originally posted by Chimu:
[QB] Follow along nincompoop
quote:Bisa Sandawe didn't have a mutation[b](speaking about the mutation specifically mentioned by Rogers0[b], weren't killed off by the intense sun and were lighter.
Originally posted by MindlessMatter78:
[QUOTE]By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).
quote:That man is an indigenous African, and hence black, what the fu*k is wrong with you? Stop trying to split up Africans. You seriously need to go and check your eyes out. In America there are lightskinned African Americans, just like the Khoisan or even lighter, and they are considered black, nothing else. so don't play the fucking seperatism color game you dumb sh*t.
quote:You have yet to prove that all Horn of Africans are Dark, Or even that modern Horn of Africans represent the color of Ancient Horners
In equatorial East Africa, where modern humans evolved, where dark skinned populations are seen in today's tropical East Africa, is how dark modern humans who left Africa were. This is all you have to worry about. That single population who left Africa. Not the San in South Africa or any other African population. Ancestors of modern non Africans migrated from equatorial East Africa, not South Africa or West Africa, so the complexion of the San has nothing to do with the original humans who left Africa to become non Africans who were indeed dark skinned as today's equatorial East Africans.
quote:Also, is that Khoisan seem to possess high frequencies of the allele in a derived state.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
The discordance between our Fst-based divergence values and allele frequencies in the Melanesian CEPH populations at ASIP largely stem from the relatively low frequency of the ancestral allele in the 2 CEPH Island Melanesian populations relative to our original Island Melanesian sample. These discrepancies make it difficult to determine if ASIP truly underlies broad pigmentation differences between darkly and lightly pigmented populations or instead inter-population variation at this locus can largely be explained by differences between Africans and non-Africans. The discordance between the frequencies of the ASIP ancestral allele in our original Island Melanesian sample and the Melanesian samples from the CEPH panel may be indicative of both the complex demographic history of Island Melanesia (involving several migratory events (Spriggs 1997) and probable extensive genetic drift (Friendlaender 1975, 1987) as well as the importance of multiple loci in determining pigmentation phenotype - Norton, Kittles et al.
Note that the sample of the "original Island Melanesians" showed up relatively greater frequencies of the ancestral state of the allele in question than the "CEPH Island Melanesians".
Whether the derived state has much of a "lightening" effect amongst sections of Melanesians or not, is trivial to the point that the ancestral state is predominantly found in equatorial Africans. [/QB]
quote:and of course the fact that every study on pigmentation confirms that darkskin is the ancestral state in humans, and lightskin in East Asians and Europeans are not only independent of eachother, but are also of recent origin.....
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:[/QB]
And indeed, they'd have to have ancestral alleles, because after all, that is what's keeping them "dark complexioned". In the meantime,...
The lightly pigmented hunter-gatherer San populations of Southern Africa is exceptional in having a high frequency of the derived allele relative to geographically proximate and more darkly pigmented African populations (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000), further supporting the importance of OCA2 in regulating normal variation in pigmentation. The widespread distribution of the derived allele in the CEPH-Diversity Panel suggests that it is not necessarily a new mutation, nor has it been restricted to a specific geographic area. - Norton et al.
Note that while it is said that the allele in question is suggestive of not being a new one, it is recognized as being in the "derived" state.
quote:
Signatures of Positive Selection in Genes Associated with Human Skin Pigmentation as Revealed from Analyses of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120118254/abstract
ABSTRACT
Phenotypic variation between human populations in skin pigmentation correlates with latitude at the continental level. A large number of hypotheses involving genetic adaptation have been proposed to explain human variation in skin colour, but only limited genetic evidence for positive selection has been presented. To shed light on the evolutionary genetic history of human variation in skin colour we inspected 118 genes associated with skin pigmentation in the Perlegen dataset, studying single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and analyzed 55 genes in detail. We identified eight genes that are associated with the melanin pathway (SLC45A2, OCA2, TYRP1, DCT, KITLG, EGFR, DRD2 and PPARD) and presented significant differences in genetic variation between Europeans, Africans and Asians. In six of these genes we detected, by means of the EHH test, variability patterns that are compatible with the hypothesis of local positive selection in Europeans (OCA2, TYRP1 and KITLG) and in Asians (OCA2, DCT, KITLG, EGFR and DRD2), whereas signals were scarce in Africans (DCT, EGFR and DRD2). Furthermore, a statistically significant correlation between genotypic variation in four pigmentation candidate genes and phenotypic variation of skin colour in 51 worldwide human populations was revealed. Overall, our data also suggest that light skin colour is the derived state and is of independent origin in Europeans and Asians, whereas **dark skin** color seems of unique origin, **reflecting the ancestral state in humans**.
quote:
In contrast, the **ancestral allele** associated with **dark pigmentation** has a shared high frequency in **sub- Saharan African and Island Melanesians**.A notable exception is the relatively lightly pigmented San population of Southern Africa where the **derived allele** predominates (93%), although this may be simply due to small sample size (n514). The distributions of the **derived and ancestral alleles** at TYR A192C, MATP C374G, and SLC24A5 A111G are consistent with the FST results suggesting strong Europeans pecific divergence at these loci. The *derived allele* at TYR, 192*A (previously linked with lighter
pigmentation [Shriver et al. 2003]), has a frequency of 38% among European populations but a frequency of only 14% among non-Europeans. The differences between Europeans and non-Europeans for the MATP 374*G and SLC24A5 111*A alleles (both derived alleles associated with lighter pigmentation) were even more striking (MATP European 5 87%; MATP non-European 5 17%; SLC24A5 European 5 100%; SLC24A5 non-European 5 46%). The frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%).
quote:San are an exception-to-the-rule in sub-Saharan Africa in that they have a high occurence of derived alleles, where as other groups generally have a high occurence of the ancestral allele.
Djehuti wrote: it is likely that the Khoisan complexion evolved afterward and that their ancestors were much darker when they first settled subtropical Southern Africa.
quote:^Yep.
Originally posted by Djehuti: it is likely that the Khoisan complexion evolved afterward and that their ancestors were much darker when they first settled subtropical Southern Africa.
quote:
In contrast, the **ancestral allele** associated with **dark pigmentation** has a shared high frequency in **sub- Saharan African and Island Melanesians**.A notable exception is the relatively lightly pigmented San population of Southern Africa where the **derived allele** predominates (93%), although this may be simply due to small sample size (n514). The distributions of the **derived and ancestral alleles** at TYR A192C, MATP C374G, and SLC24A5 A111G are consistent with the FST results suggesting strong Europeans pecific divergence at these loci. The *derived allele* at TYR, 192*A (previously linked with lighter
pigmentation [Shriver et al. 2003]), has a frequency of 38% among European populations but a frequency of only 14% among non-Europeans. The differences between Europeans and non-Europeans for the MATP 374*G and SLC24A5 111*A alleles (both derived alleles associated with lighter pigmentation) were even more striking (MATP European 5 87%; MATP non-European 5 17%; SLC24A5 European 5 100%; SLC24A5 non-European 5 46%). The frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%).
The virtual absence of MATP 374*G–derived allele in the sub-Saharan African populations that we examined in the CEPH-Diversity Panel is consistent with the origin of this mutation outside of Africa after the divergence of modern Asians and Europeans. In contrast, the SLC24A5 111*A–derived allele is found at low frequencies in several sub-Saharan populations including the West African Mandenka and Yoruba, the Southern African San , and SouthWest Bantu. The relatively high frequencies of the derived allele in Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and North Africa seem likely to be due to gene flow with European populations. Similarly, the presence of the derived allele (albeit at low frequencies) in some sub-Saharan African populations may be due to recent gene flow from European and Central Asian populations.
quote:Immaterial; the burden is on you to produce the scale by which it is said that the Sandawe could not possibly be "dark complexed".
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:Just do a search through old literature.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
According to what scale are they described as anything but "dark complexion". What?
The Physical Characters of the Sandawe, J. C. Trevor, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 77, No. 1 (1947), pp. 61-78.
quote:"Acts" involved is not the same thing as "Official" apartheid state and current South African government census of south African "racial" demography that supports anything you've said; that "Africans" had two camps -- colored and black, which included Khoisans as "colored", and that there was a *separate* colored camp -- which too had Khoisans under the name Griquas. Essentially, you have to back up your claim accordingly, about there being some kind of 5 "racial" categories, as opposed to the often mentioned "4 category".
quote:Read below I quote the names of the acts involved.
What legal document from the Apartheid State said Khoisans, who are not mixed with non-African groups, are anything but in the same camp as "black Africans"? Your link doesn't provide this.
quote:Of course, they were seen as aboriginal, and were only included in the "colored" camp, along with any other person of supposed "mixed" backgrounds, if they 'mixed" with non-African groups, primarily Europeans. Otherwise, the often mentioned "racial" construct was a "4 category" one, wherein thoroughly "aboriginal" Khoisans were included with thoroughly "aboriginal" African groups like the Bantu speakers. You have produced no official document as requested, that suggests otherwise.
It is quite obvious though that the Nama, the Khoe, the San, etc were seen as aboriginal, or mixed, but never as Black.
quote:This is based on the notion that the thoroughly aboriginal Khoisans were nearly wiped out, and the few remaining had since heavily "mixed" with non-Khoisan groups, both foreign and African. But of course, those perceived as thoroughly aboriginal were said to have been placed in the same camp as other aboriginal Africans, namely Bantu speakers.
Note that the Khoi, San, Nama, and othe rKhoiSanid populations weren't allowed the identity of being an aboriginal tribe, so they were seen as mixed race, Colored, not Black
quote:If you have so much faith in this UNESCO excerpt, then why don't you do the simple task asked of you; to back it up with official South African government census documents about supposed "racial" groups, and their specific ethnic constituents? Can't be that hard, can it?
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001464/146436e.pdf
Now please don't tell me the UNESCO doesn't know what it's talking about.
quote:And I'm sure you heard, when it was stated that the same source suggests South African Bantus speakers were even lighter than the Sandawe, right?
quote:Uh Yeah!?!?
This scale doesn't even make sense; what is it suppose to relay; that the higher the score, the lighter? What is the source?
quote:Indeed I'll try again; if the author's are referencing Jablonski and Chaplin - 2000 on the "derived allele", then please tell us what DNA analysis Jablonski and Chaplin did themselves, and came to the said conclusion...
quote:No, you can't read. Kittles was not the primary source If you knew how to read, you would know Kittles paper is making that claim citing Jablonski's paper. Try again.
You can't read; the study you are looking at, was from actual geneticists. It's their word. Nobody said anything about Jablonski.
quote:Why would people of Khoisan descent be placed under discrete monikers in the "colored"; if they are all viewed "colored" anyway, as you profess, does it not make sense to simply say here, "khoisans are colored". Period. Why all the unnecessary discrete names, like say Khoisan here and Griquas here -- all of Khoisan descent?
quote:There is a difference between auto classification, and official classification by law.
If the Khoisans were also classified as "coloreds", then why would they need the term "Griquas" for the other "coloreds" also of Khoisan descent; why?
quote:Wherever did you get the idea about when this structure was set up; according to what official data? It says right up there, in what I cited, "until 1991", and that "Although the South African law of racial categories has been abolished, many South Africans still view themselves according to these categories"; what does that mean to you?
quote:And you don't think the Black majority today aren't imposing their own racial dichotomies today? LMAO.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Furthermore...
quote:Source: http://www.jyu.fi/viesti/verkkotuotanto/kp/sa/peop_ethnicgrps.shtml
Until 1991, South African law divided the population into four major racial categories: (1.) The Black Africans, of which the Nguni and Sotho groups account for 90% of the Black population. Black population accounts 75% of the South Africa's entire population. (2.) The Whites who account for about 13% of the population. (3.) The Indians who account for around 3 % and (4.) the Coloreds who are mixed White and Black descent and account for 9% of the population. Although the South African law of racial categories has been abolished, many South Africans still view themselves according to these categories.
The black population consists of several groups: Khoi-San, Xhosa, Zulu, Ndebele, Sotho, Shangaan and Venda, just to name a few. The biggest groups are Zulus (21 %), Xhosas (17 %) and the Sotho (15%). Next smaller minorities are the Tswana, Venda, Ndebele, Swasi, and Pedi, among others. The Khoi-Sans are originally hunter-gatherers who have inhabited the land for a long time. Many political leaders, Nelson Mandela among them, come from the Xhosa. Most of the Blacks used to live in the countryside following a traditional way of life, but a class of progressive farmers also formed. Many of these became Christians and had some education from Missionaries. In the towns many Blacks worked as labourers. A small class of professional newspaper editors, lawyers and teachers emerged.
The apartheid regime over-emphasised the differences among the various ethnic group, mainly between whites and non-whites, but also between black groups (i.e. Xhosas and Zulus), and turned them against each other rather than against the government. The policy of racial segregation favoured the political and economic power for the white minority. Until today, South Africa has to deal with the consequences of this disastrous policy. Large part of the fast growing black majority lives in oppressive poverty in the outer districts of the cities lacking sufficient sanitation, electricity and water. Many of the residents are illiterate. The enormous poverty problem in South Africa is the major reason for the high crime rates.
quote:You sure are dense, as seen from your supposed interest in legitimizing the apartheid South African state's racial constructs, as opposed to what you believe -- without producing the source of where you came up with the idea -- that of the current "black" South African government. Going by your rationale, why would apartheid South African state's racial constructs be any better than some supposed one today, under a "black" South African government?
You sure are Naive.
quote:Read whom; the post I presented? If so, where does it state what you are saying?
Go read him again.
quote:What uniparental markers - paternal & maternal - does Sforza's work suggest that South African-based Khoisans are less "mixed" than those in Botswana. The burden is on you to present the evidence, not for me to look it up. If you do that in a court of law, you'd loose a case so fast that your head would spin.
quote:Look at Cavalli-Sforza's work I posted.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
BTW, what study of uniparental paternal and maternal markers suggest that the Khoisans in Botswana are more "mixed" with "exotic" groups than those in South Africa?
quote:^ Post anything that can show that you're not a....
Originally posted by akoben:
^ no need for links, just post ref. or quotes where i was "opposed" to black as an ethno-national label.
quote:Chimu = chumped.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Reposted:
Furthermore, the derived allele and ancestral allele does seem to show a positive correlation with lighter and darker skinned populations, and it seems the frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate
populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%). What does this tell you Chimu?
Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and
East Asians
Heather L. Norton,*1 Rick A. Kittles
quote:
In contrast, the **ancestral allele** associated with **dark pigmentation** has a shared high frequency in **sub- Saharan African and Island Melanesians**.A notable exception is the relatively lightly pigmented San population of Southern Africa where the **derived allele** predominates (93%), although this may be simply due to small sample size (n514). The distributions of the **derived and ancestral alleles** at TYR A192C, MATP C374G, and SLC24A5 A111G are consistent with the FST results suggesting strong Europeans pecific divergence at these loci. The *derived allele* at TYR, 192*A (previously linked with lighter
pigmentation [Shriver et al. 2003]), has a frequency of 38% among European populations but a frequency of only 14% among non-Europeans. The differences between Europeans and non-Europeans for the MATP 374*G and SLC24A5 111*A alleles (both derived alleles associated with lighter pigmentation) were even more striking (MATP European 5 87%; MATP non-European 5 17%; SLC24A5 European 5 100%; SLC24A5 non-European 5 46%). The frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%).
The virtual absence of MATP 374*G–derived allele in the sub-Saharan African populations that we examined in the CEPH-Diversity Panel is consistent with the origin of this mutation outside of Africa after the divergence of modern Asians and Europeans. In contrast, the SLC24A5 111*A–derived allele is found at low frequencies in several sub-Saharan populations including the West African Mandenka and Yoruba, the Southern African San , and SouthWest Bantu. The relatively high frequencies of the derived allele in Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and North Africa seem likely to be due to gene flow with European populations. Similarly, the presence of the derived allele (albeit at low frequencies) in some sub-Saharan African populations may be due to recent gene flow from European and Central Asian populations.
quote:Chimu = chumped -> again.
1)Tell me; are they referring to Jablonski's and Chaplin's samples?
2)And even if they were referencing Jablonski and Chaplin 2000, the burden is on you to prove their work wrong; not me. If so, then cite them and tell us what is wrong about their methodologies in sequencing pigmentation alleles, if they ever performed one in the first place.
quote:Which Khoisan group in South Africa have South African Bantus been mixing with to give them a lighter complexion, and in essence I'd expect these South African Khoisan to be dark skinned..please provide this??
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:[b]Boy are you dense. South African Bantus have also been mixing with San.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
According to the data..... If the higher the score, lighter the skin. So South African Bantus are lighter than Sandawe, meanwhile Bantus supposedly mixed with Sandawe to make them darker? Sandawe seem like one of the darker observed populations.
quote:Ok, so now you're telling me the Sandawe weren't as light as the San, but wasn't it you who said Sandawe were lighter than a "tanned" Japanese Woman??
And Sandawe were never as light as San.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Chimu would have to pull off a neat trick there, since it was his premise that South African Khoisans are somehow less "mixed" with "non-Khoisan" groups than those in Botswana. I guess he supposes that the Kalahari San "Bushmen" are more "mixed" with non-San groups than those in South Africa. Of course, like I said, notwithstanding this commotion about San skin tones, none of them would fall into anything but "dark complexion" on such scales like the Von Lushcan, and none of them will be "hybrid" groups, as in the sense that Sforza says Europeans are.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Which Khoisan group in South Africa have South African Bantus been mixing with to give them a lighter complexion, and in essence I'd expect these South African Khoisan to be dark skinned..please provide this??
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Indeed, which is why I can't wait to hear his response.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Chimu would have to pull off a neat trick there, since it was his premise that South African Khoisans are somehow less "mixed" with "non-Khoisan" groups than those in Botswana.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Which Khoisan group in South Africa have South African Bantus been mixing with to give them a lighter complexion, and in essence I'd expect these South African Khoisan to be dark skinned..please provide this??
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Chimu = chumped.
per usual. as expected.
quote:^ yes, the above psychology and antics were a fundamental strategim for apartheid.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Chimpu just wants every one to be part of his one big international family of "coloreds" or "hybrids". The Sans particularly seem to have a special place in his heart.
^Africans just seem to bring that out in ethno-centric non-Africans, don't they?...selecting an African group here and there, and hold them dear to their hearts. Notwithstanding antagonistic agendas, for Eurocentrists & Medicentrists, it's the East and North Africans; for Mulatto-centrists, now we know that it's the Sans & North Africans. LOL
quote:Well said.
Originally posted by rasol:
^ yes, the above psychology and antics were a fundamental strategim for apartheid.
to deny the existence of the indigenous Black majority - it was claid that only the San are Indigenous - and only the Bantu were Black. and, the Blacks have 'their own' separate countries from White majority South Africa.
^ this is what you argue when you're outnumbered, in the wrong, and terrified.
Fear and resentment, are the primary motives behind Chimu's irrationality.
quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Your opinionating that the Bisa Sandawe are "lighter" in no way changes the fact of the study that you are citing above about dark skin alleles in Africans and Melanesians, nor does your *personal* characterization of the Sandawe as "lighter" make them not to be "dark" complexioned folks, that is to say, "black".
quote:Sorry but no can do.
And indeed, they'd have to have ancestral alleles, because after all, that is what's keeping them "dark complexioned". In the meantime,...
The lightly pigmented hunter-gatherer San populations of Southern Africa is exceptional in having a high frequency of the derived allele relative to geographically proximate and more darkly pigmented African populations (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000), further supporting the importance of OCA2 in regulating normal variation in pigmentation. The widespread distribution of the derived allele in the CEPH-Diversity Panel suggests that it is not necessarily a new mutation, nor has it been restricted to a specific geographic area. - Norton et al.
Note that while it is said that the allele in question is suggestive of not being a new one, it is recognized as being in the "derived" state.
quote:Again. Bisa Sandawe lighter than Bantu, and no evidence that it is the derived gene. Norton clearly says that while, like Jabonski, she beleives that the environment will favor darker skin, the genetic allow for the full diversity from the get go, and history has shown us that lighter (as in San and Bisa Sandawe lighter) populations have existed from South Africa all the way to Tanzania. Area for open investigation.
From: Heather Norton
To: Jaime Andres Pretell
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians
Dear Mr. Pretell,
Thanks for your interest in my work. Yes, these genes "exist" in other primates. That is to say, primates have stretches of DNA sequence that produce the same protein in humans and in chimps, and these are usually found in the same corresponding region on their chromosomes. So, it would be correct to say that both humans and chimps, for example, have the gene for ASIP, OCA2, MC1R, etc. When we look at the sequence of individual nucleotides (A, C, G, or T) that make up a particular gene, we may see small differences between chimps and humans. So, for example, at one place in the OCA2 gene chimps might all have a "G" base, where humans all carry an "A" in the corresponding position. This is what is known as a fixed difference, and studying fixed differences may help us to understand why humans and chimps differ for certain traits. However, you can imagine that there may be other cases were chimps carry a "G" at a certain position while some humans carry the "G" and others carry an "A". When we see the same nucleotide being carried in both species (in this case, the "G") we call it the ancestral allele. When the nucleotide differs (in this case, the "A") we refer to it as the derived allele. The term allele here is used to refer to a different versions of the same gene. So, while chimps and humans have the same pigmentation genes (so do mice, and pigs, and fish), they may carry slightly different versions of that gene. Sometimes we see slightly different versions of a gene within the same species. These different versions may explain some of the physical differences (like skin pigmentation) that we see among individuals. In other cases, though, these differences don't affect the protein that the gene produces, and so they don't seem to explain physical differences.
The question of the San and Sandawe is an interesting one. We are not sure if the alleles that explain why their pigmentation is so different from neighboring populations reflect new (derived) mutations or if instead maybe they are actually ancestral alleles shared with light-skinned primates. I would say that this is an area of open investigation. As for ASIP and OCA2...I think that even if you ignored the contribution of these two genes to pigmentation variation we would still see good range of diversity. For example, genes like SLC24A5 and MATP also have a major impact on phenotype. I would also assume that in the past there was variation in human skin color. It would be unlikely to be as much variation as we see across the human species today, since today modern humans live in a range of environments where different pigmentation types are more or less adaptive. In general, I would say that the pigmentation of early humans, who originated in Africa, was dark to provide protection against the damage that ultraviolet radiation can do. However, when we look at populations in Africa today (or populations living in other places where ultraviolet radiation is strong) we see a wide range of variation in pigmentation--I suspect that if we could go back in time we would probably see similar levels of diversity to those that we see in Africa today.
Thanks again for your interest--if you have any more questions, please let me know.
Cheers,
~Heather
quote:Wonder how long you've been waiting for this response..
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:Again. Bisa Sandawe lighter than Bantu, and no evidence that it is the derived gene. Norton clearly says that while, like Jabonski, she beleives that the environment will favor darker skin, the genetic allow for the full diversity from the get go, and history has shown us that lighter (as in San and Bisa Sandawe lighter) populations have existed from South Africa all the way to Tanzania. Area for open investigation.
From: Heather Norton
To: Jaime Andres Pretell
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians
Dear Mr. Pretell,
Thanks for your interest in my work. Yes, these genes "exist" in other primates. That is to say, primates have stretches of DNA sequence that produce the same protein in humans and in chimps, and these are usually found in the same corresponding region on their chromosomes. So, it would be correct to say that both humans and chimps, for example, have the gene for ASIP, OCA2, MC1R, etc. When we look at the sequence of individual nucleotides (A, C, G, or T) that make up a particular gene, we may see small differences between chimps and humans. So, for example, at one place in the OCA2 gene chimps might all have a "G" base, where humans all carry an "A" in the corresponding position. This is what is known as a fixed difference, and studying fixed differences may help us to understand why humans and chimps differ for certain traits. However, you can imagine that there may be other cases were chimps carry a "G" at a certain position while some humans carry the "G" and others carry an "A". When we see the same nucleotide being carried in both species (in this case, the "G") we call it the ancestral allele. When the nucleotide differs (in this case, the "A") we refer to it as the derived allele. The term allele here is used to refer to a different versions of the same gene. So, while chimps and humans have the same pigmentation genes (so do mice, and pigs, and fish), they may carry slightly different versions of that gene. Sometimes we see slightly different versions of a gene within the same species. These different versions may explain some of the physical differences (like skin pigmentation) that we see among individuals. In other cases, though, these differences don't affect the protein that the gene produces, and so they don't seem to explain physical differences.
The question of the San and Sandawe is an interesting one. We are not sure if the alleles that explain why their pigmentation is so different from neighboring populations reflect new (derived) mutations or if instead maybe they are actually ancestral alleles shared with light-skinned primates. I would say that this is an area of open investigation. As for ASIP and OCA2...I think that even if you ignored the contribution of these two genes to pigmentation variation we would still see good range of diversity. For example, genes like SLC24A5 and MATP also have a major impact on phenotype. I would also assume that in the past there was variation in human skin color. It would be unlikely to be as much variation as we see across the human species today, since today modern humans live in a range of environments where different pigmentation types are more or less adaptive. In general, I would say that the pigmentation of early humans, who originated in Africa, was dark to provide protection against the damage that ultraviolet radiation can do. However, when we look at populations in Africa today (or populations living in other places where ultraviolet radiation is strong) we see a wide range of variation in pigmentation--I suspect that if we could go back in time we would probably see similar levels of diversity to those that we see in Africa today.
Thanks again for your interest--if you have any more questions, please let me know.
Cheers,
~Heather
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
lol.quote:[/qb]
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Wonder how long you've been waiting for this response..
Originally posted by Chimu:
[QUOTE]From: Heather Norton
To: Jaime Andres Pretell
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 4:29 PM
quote:Wrong. Jablonski never made studies on those genes. Go read the entire study again.
In any event, it is clear from Norton's paper she was citing Jablonski on the derived alleles, correct? So why didn't you e-mail Jablonski? As it is pretty clear there are derived alleles that Norton was referencing from Jablonski, correct?
quote:Again, you need to learn the difference of a scientist speculating, "I would say". And stating what she knows for a fact. That the genetic capacity was there to have the same range back then as there is now. And the San and Bisa Sandawe are still there. You also missed the part where she says she is not sure if the light skin of the Bisa Sandawe is the derived form or the ancestral form. Ooops.
Also, regardless of which way you split it, Norton made clear to you that.....
In general, I would say that the pigmentation of early humans, who originated in Africa, was dark to provide protection against the damage that ultraviolet radiation can do. --Norton
So this derived allele was an imaginary one you're saying, made up fictitiously? quote:
In contrast, the **ancestral allele** associated with **dark pigmentation** has a shared high frequency in **sub- Saharan African and Island Melanesians**.A notable exception is the relatively lightly pigmented San population of Southern Africa where the **derived allele** predominates (93%), although this may be simply due to small sample size (n514). The distributions of the **derived and ancestral alleles** at TYR A192C, MATP C374G, and SLC24A5 A111G are consistent with the FST results suggesting strong Europeans pecific divergence at these loci. The *derived allele* at TYR, 192*A (previously linked with lighter
pigmentation [Shriver et al. 2003]), has a frequency of 38% among European populations but a frequency of only 14% among non-Europeans. The differences between Europeans and non-Europeans for the MATP 374*G and SLC24A5 111*A alleles (both derived alleles associated with lighter pigmentation) were even more striking (MATP European 5 87%; MATP non-European 5 17%; SLC24A5 European 5 100%; SLC24A5 non-European 5 46%). The frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%).
quote:Hence the reason why I asked Heather Norton herself. hnorton@email.arizona.edu
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Wouldn't that throw this whole study into question if there is no derived allele and instead it was made up,
even though as shown it's specifically mentioned?
Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and
East Asians
Heather L. Norton,*1 Rick A. Kittles
quote:
In contrast, the **ancestral allele** associated with **dark pigmentation** has a shared high frequency in **sub- Saharan African and Island Melanesians**.A notable exception is the relatively lightly pigmented San population of Southern Africa where the **derived allele** predominates (93%), although this may be simply due to small sample size (n514). The distributions of the **derived and ancestral alleles** at TYR A192C, MATP C374G, and SLC24A5 A111G are consistent with the FST results suggesting strong Europeans pecific divergence at these loci. The *derived allele* at TYR, 192*A (previously linked with lighter
pigmentation [Shriver et al. 2003]), has a frequency of 38% among European populations but a frequency of only 14% among non-Europeans. The differences between Europeans and non-Europeans for the MATP 374*G and SLC24A5 111*A alleles (both derived alleles associated with lighter pigmentation) were even more striking (MATP European 5 87%; MATP non-European 5 17%; SLC24A5 European 5 100%; SLC24A5 non-European 5 46%). The frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%).
quote:
From: Heather Norton
To: Jaime Andres Pretell
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians
Dear Mr. Pretell,
Thanks for your interest in my work. Yes, these genes "exist" in other primates. That is to say, primates have stretches of DNA sequence that produce the same protein in humans and in chimps, and these are usually found in the same corresponding region on their chromosomes. So, it would be correct to say that both humans and chimps, for example, have the gene for ASIP, OCA2, MC1R, etc. When we look at the sequence of individual nucleotides (A, C, G, or T) that make up a particular gene, we may see small differences between chimps and humans. So, for example, at one place in the OCA2 gene chimps might all have a "G" base, where humans all carry an "A" in the corresponding position. This is what is known as a fixed difference, and studying fixed differences may help us to understand why humans and chimps differ for certain traits. However, you can imagine that there may be other cases were chimps carry a "G" at a certain position while some humans carry the "G" and others carry an "A". When we see the same nucleotide being carried in both species (in this case, the "G") we call it the ancestral allele. When the nucleotide differs (in this case, the "A") we refer to it as the derived allele. The term allele here is used to refer to a different versions of the same gene. So, while chimps and humans have the same pigmentation genes (so do mice, and pigs, and fish), they may carry slightly different versions of that gene. Sometimes we see slightly different versions of a gene within the same species. These different versions may explain some of the physical differences (like skin pigmentation) that we see among individuals. In other cases, though, these differences don't affect the protein that the gene produces, and so they don't seem to explain physical differences.
The question of the San and Sandawe is an interesting one. We are not sure if the alleles that explain why their pigmentation is so different from neighboring populations reflect new (derived) mutations or if instead maybe they are actually ancestral alleles shared with light-skinned primates. I would say that this is an area of open investigation. As for ASIP and OCA2...I think that even if you ignored the contribution of these two genes to pigmentation variation we would still see good range of diversity. For example, genes like SLC24A5 and MATP also have a major impact on phenotype. I would also assume that in the past there was variation in human skin color. It would be unlikely to be as much variation as we see across the human species today, since today modern humans live in a range of environments where different pigmentation types are more or less adaptive. In general, I would say that the pigmentation of early humans, who originated in Africa, was dark to provide protection against the damage that ultraviolet radiation can do. However, when we look at populations in Africa today (or populations living in other places where ultraviolet radiation is strong) we see a wide range of variation in pigmentation--I suspect that if we could go back in time we would probably see similar levels of diversity to those that we see in Africa today.
Thanks again for your interest--if you have any more questions, please let me know.
Cheers,
~Heather
quote:I already did. And gave you the email as well. Feel free to email her and confirm. The logic is hers. Not my problem you can't handle it. I suspect that she just assumed derived because they didn't consider the Bisa Sandawe in Tanzania. But that is speculation on my part. You will have to email her and ask her why she recanted on it being derived for sure.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
^^^The response you've provided totally contradicts her original study,
where derived alleles are specifically mentioned to be present.
Lol, shows where your logic lies, if you have any at all.
I would love to see the e-mail you sent her....please provide it!!
quote:Indeed, that is double speak on Norton's part. In a published journal, it clearly states that the marker is "derived", even though and as expected, it is hard to determine the age of the mutation. Yet, in a personal e-mail correspondence, Norton says that she isn't sure if it is derived, or else "an ancestral" marker, presumably carried over from primate-like ancestors. This doesn't even make sense, considering that the earliest modern humans in the tropics would have needed considerable skin pigmentation to survive. It is just common sense. They didn't have extensive post-cranial body hair like gorillas do. And if they did, I sure would like to see evidence of it, LOL. Paleontological record and quantitative cranio-metric diversity-by-distance model simulations have all implicated tropical Africa as the likely place of origin for modern humanity. Certainly much of KhoiSan territory is below the tropics. Is it then possible, from the tone of Jaime's question, she felt compelled to please him, by telling him what she thinks he probably wanted to hear? I mean this right here, is shaking up her own credibility; the credibility is on the line.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Maybe Norton needs to read her study again, because she's clearly contradicting herself.
quote:Ditto. Maybe, Kittles does indeed have to be contacted, to shed light on what's going on here. This doesn't bode well either for the credibility of the published work, or Norton.
In any event, you make no sense!
quote:No, you showed us her response but not your original e-mail, where is it?
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:I already did.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
^^^The response you've provided totally contradicts her original study,
where derived alleles are specifically mentioned to be present.
Lol, shows where your logic lies, if you have any at all.
I would love to see the e-mail you sent her....please provide it!!
quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Indeed, that is double speak on Norton's part. In a published journal, it clearly states that the marker is "derived", even though and as expected, it is hard to determine the age of the mutation.
quote:The fact remains that they never stated what specific reason why it would be derived in the first place. And the Bisa Sandawe lived in the tropics.
Yet, in a personal e-mail correspondence, Norton says that she isn't sure if it is derived, or else "an ancestral" marker, presumably carried over from primate-like ancestors. This doesn't even make sense, considering that the earliest modern humans in the tropics would have needed considerable skin pigmentation to survive. It is just common sense. They didn't have extensive post-cranial body hair like gorillas do. And if they did, I sure would like to see evidence of it, LOL. Paleontological record and quantitative cranio-metric diversity-by-distance model simulations have all implicated tropical Africa as the likely place of origin for modern humanity. Certainly much of KhoiSan territory is below the tropics.
quote:I don't agree, I think she clarified.
Is it then possible, from the tone of Jaime's question, she felt compelled to please him, by telling him what she thinks he probably wanted to hear? I mean this right here, is shaking up her own credibility; the credibility is on the line.
quote:It means that they could have been light skinned, I guess.
As for the photo spam that Chimu just posted, it makes no difference. These folks would have been sitting at the back of the bus in the U.S., during the Jim Crow era. That right there and then, should educate him on what that means.
quote:Not at all. She stated that the genetics allowed for skin color back then that mirrored the diversity today. That picture elucidates that diversity right on the equator.
Moreover, as noted, it is immaterial to the study cited.
quote:So contact him. And her. And if you don't think the study or the scientists are credible, don't quote them. But have it as it may, that is her bona fide statement.
Maybe, Kittles does indeed have to be contacted, to shed light on what's going on here. This doesn't bode well either for the credibility of the published work, or Norton.
quote:My original email
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:No, you showed us her response but not your original e-mail, where is it?
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:I already did.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
^^^The response you've provided totally contradicts her original study,
where derived alleles are specifically mentioned to be present.
Lol, shows where your logic lies, if you have any at all.
I would love to see the e-mail you sent her....please provide it!!
quote:You are just grasping at straws because you didn't like her answer.
Hello Dr. Norton,
Very interesting reading. I was curious, if primates where lighter skinned and then became dark skinned with the evolution of, I believe it was MCR1? Then when humans lightened again in Africa, like the San in South Africa or the Sandawe in Tanzania it could not be any reoccurrence of a prior genetic trait right? So the light skin in primates like the chimp would have nothing to do with derived genes like ASIP or OCA2. Do genes like these even exist in other primates? I was curious if you knew how the Sandawe got comparatively lighter in the equator. Or were they always medium complected within the original gene markers? How much variance can be seen in skin color without ASIP and OCA2 genes? Where all humans the same complexion or was there still a range of skin color possible? Also when you say that they are derived genes, what was the original gene and what is the science to determine which gene was derived from the other?
Sincerely,
Jaime Pretell
quote:Hundred bucks that "email" to the blue-eyed white soldier boy Jaime is suspect.
Yet, in a personal e-mail correspondence, Norton says that she isn't sure if it is derived,
quote:Yep.
I don't see why we're banking so heavily on personal correspondence. It is clear in literature published that marker associated with pale skin is derived.
quote:How am I grasping at straws when what she says (?) in an e-mail reply to you completely contradicts her studies results? Lol.
Originally posted by Chimu:
You are just grasping at straws because you didn't like her answer.
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
In all actuality, you're the one grasping at straws, because if anyone didn't like her answer it was you,
and which is why you felt so compelled to e-mail her, and have her contradict herself therein,
quote:Take note:
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Indeed, that is double speak on Norton's part. In a published journal, it clearly states that the marker is "derived", even though and as expected, it is hard to determine the age of the mutation.quote:The fact remains that they never stated what specific reason why it would be derived in the first place. And the Bisa Sandawe lived in the tropics.
Yet, in a personal e-mail correspondence, Norton says that she isn't sure if it is derived, or else "an ancestral" marker, presumably carried over from primate-like ancestors. This doesn't even make sense, considering that the earliest modern humans in the tropics would have needed considerable skin pigmentation to survive. It is just common sense. They didn't have extensive post-cranial body hair like gorillas do. And if they did, I sure would like to see evidence of it, LOL. Paleontological record and quantitative cranio-metric diversity-by-distance model simulations have all implicated tropical Africa as the likely place of origin for modern humanity. Certainly much of KhoiSan territory is below the tropics.[
quote:Sitting at the back of the bus in the Jim Crow era means being "light skinned" to you? I wonder why the "whites" did not think of that then, after all "white skin" is also "light skin"?
quote:It means that they could have been light skinned, I guess.
As for the photo spam that Chimu just posted, it makes no difference. These folks would have been sitting at the back of the bus in the U.S., during the Jim Crow era. That right there and then, should educate him on what that means.
quote:
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Your opinionating that the Bisa Sandawe are "lighter" in no way changes the fact of the study that you are citing above about dark skin alleles in Africans and Melanesians, nor does your *personal* characterization of the Sandawe as "lighter" make them not to be "dark" complexioned folks, that is to say, "black".
And this is an orthochromatic picture for sure, so the older guy could be even lighter. But you still see the difference.
quote:Sorry but no can do.
And indeed, they'd have to have ancestral alleles, because after all, that is what's keeping them "dark complexioned". In the meantime,...
The lightly pigmented hunter-gatherer San populations of Southern Africa is exceptional in having a high frequency of the derived allele relative to geographically proximate and more darkly pigmented African populations (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000), further supporting the importance of OCA2 in regulating normal variation in pigmentation. The widespread distribution of the derived allele in the CEPH-Diversity Panel suggests that it is not necessarily a new mutation, nor has it been restricted to a specific geographic area. - Norton et al.
Note that while it is said that the allele in question is suggestive of not being a new one, it is recognized as being in the "derived" state.
quote:Again. Bisa Sandawe lighter than Bantu, and no evidence that it is the derived gene. Norton clearly says that while, like Jabonski, she beleives that the environment will favor darker skin, the genetic allow for the full diversity from the get go, and history has shown us that lighter (as in San and Bisa Sandawe lighter) populations have existed from South Africa all the way to Tanzania. Area for open investigation.
From: Heather Norton
To: Jaime Andres Pretell
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians
Dear Mr. Pretell,
Thanks for your interest in my work. Yes, these genes "exist" in other primates. That is to say, primates have stretches of DNA sequence that produce the same protein in humans and in chimps, and these are usually found in the same corresponding region on their chromosomes. So, it would be correct to say that both humans and chimps, for example, have the gene for ASIP, OCA2, MC1R, etc. When we look at the sequence of individual nucleotides (A, C, G, or T) that make up a particular gene, we may see small differences between chimps and humans. So, for example, at one place in the OCA2 gene chimps might all have a "G" base, where humans all carry an "A" in the corresponding position. This is what is known as a fixed difference, and studying fixed differences may help us to understand why humans and chimps differ for certain traits. However, you can imagine that there may be other cases were chimps carry a "G" at a certain position while some humans carry the "G" and others carry an "A". When we see the same nucleotide being carried in both species (in this case, the "G") we call it the ancestral allele. When the nucleotide differs (in this case, the "A") we refer to it as the derived allele. The term allele here is used to refer to a different versions of the same gene. So, while chimps and humans have the same pigmentation genes (so do mice, and pigs, and fish), they may carry slightly different versions of that gene. Sometimes we see slightly different versions of a gene within the same species. These different versions may explain some of the physical differences (like skin pigmentation) that we see among individuals. In other cases, though, these differences don't affect the protein that the gene produces, and so they don't seem to explain physical differences.
The question of the San and Sandawe is an interesting one. We are not sure if the alleles that explain why their pigmentation is so different from neighboring populations reflect new (derived) mutations or if instead maybe they are actually ancestral alleles shared with light-skinned primates. I would say that this is an area of open investigation. As for ASIP and OCA2...I think that even if you ignored the contribution of these two genes to pigmentation variation we would still see good range of diversity. For example, genes like SLC24A5 and MATP also have a major impact on phenotype. I would also assume that in the past there was variation in human skin color. It would be unlikely to be as much variation as we see across the human species today, since today modern humans live in a range of environments where different pigmentation types are more or less adaptive. In general, I would say that the pigmentation of early humans, who originated in Africa, was dark to provide protection against the damage that ultraviolet radiation can do. However, when we look at populations in Africa today (or populations living in other places where ultraviolet radiation is strong) we see a wide range of variation in pigmentation--I suspect that if we could go back in time we would probably see similar levels of diversity to those that we see in Africa today.
Thanks again for your interest--if you have any more questions, please let me know.
Cheers,
~Heather
quote:Do you have any paper regarding melanin level suggesting that? Just because someone (whoever they are) may observe that doesn't mean it's true.
Originally posted by Chimu:
Yawn, your reposting of earlier quotes does not change the fact that you have no direct evidence (as in an actual genetic explanation) that would indicate that one was definitely the derived version and the other the ancestral version.
quote:
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Your opinionating that the Bisa Sandawe are "lighter" in no way changes the fact of the study that you are citing above about dark skin alleles in Africans and Melanesians, nor does your *personal* characterization of the Sandawe as "lighter" make them not to be "dark" complexioned folks, that is to say, "black".
And this is an orthochromatic picture for sure, so the older guy could be even lighter. But you still see the difference.
quote:Sorry but no can do.
And indeed, they'd have to have ancestral alleles, because after all, that is what's keeping them "dark complexioned". In the meantime,...
The lightly pigmented hunter-gatherer San populations of Southern Africa is exceptional in having a high frequency of the derived allele relative to geographically proximate and more darkly pigmented African populations (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000), further supporting the importance of OCA2 in regulating normal variation in pigmentation. The widespread distribution of the derived allele in the CEPH-Diversity Panel suggests that it is not necessarily a new mutation, nor has it been restricted to a specific geographic area. - Norton et al.
Note that while it is said that the allele in question is suggestive of not being a new one, it is recognized as being in the "derived" state.
quote:Again. Bisa Sandawe lighter than Bantu, and no evidence that it is the derived gene. Norton clearly says that while, like Jabonski, she beleives that the environment will favor darker skin, the genetic allow for the full diversity from the get go, and history has shown us that lighter (as in San and Bisa Sandawe lighter) populations have existed from South Africa all the way to Tanzania. Area for open investigation.
From: Heather Norton
To: Jaime Andres Pretell
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians
Dear Mr. Pretell,
Thanks for your interest in my work. Yes, these genes "exist" in other primates. That is to say, primates have stretches of DNA sequence that produce the same protein in humans and in chimps, and these are usually found in the same corresponding region on their chromosomes. So, it would be correct to say that both humans and chimps, for example, have the gene for ASIP, OCA2, MC1R, etc. When we look at the sequence of individual nucleotides (A, C, G, or T) that make up a particular gene, we may see small differences between chimps and humans. So, for example, at one place in the OCA2 gene chimps might all have a "G" base, where humans all carry an "A" in the corresponding position. This is what is known as a fixed difference, and studying fixed differences may help us to understand why humans and chimps differ for certain traits. However, you can imagine that there may be other cases were chimps carry a "G" at a certain position while some humans carry the "G" and others carry an "A". When we see the same nucleotide being carried in both species (in this case, the "G") we call it the ancestral allele. When the nucleotide differs (in this case, the "A") we refer to it as the derived allele. The term allele here is used to refer to a different versions of the same gene. So, while chimps and humans have the same pigmentation genes (so do mice, and pigs, and fish), they may carry slightly different versions of that gene. Sometimes we see slightly different versions of a gene within the same species. These different versions may explain some of the physical differences (like skin pigmentation) that we see among individuals. In other cases, though, these differences don't affect the protein that the gene produces, and so they don't seem to explain physical differences.
The question of the San and Sandawe is an interesting one. We are not sure if the alleles that explain why their pigmentation is so different from neighboring populations reflect new (derived) mutations or if instead maybe they are actually ancestral alleles shared with light-skinned primates. I would say that this is an area of open investigation. As for ASIP and OCA2...I think that even if you ignored the contribution of these two genes to pigmentation variation we would still see good range of diversity. For example, genes like SLC24A5 and MATP also have a major impact on phenotype. I would also assume that in the past there was variation in human skin color. It would be unlikely to be as much variation as we see across the human species today, since today modern humans live in a range of environments where different pigmentation types are more or less adaptive. In general, I would say that the pigmentation of early humans, who originated in Africa, was dark to provide protection against the damage that ultraviolet radiation can do. However, when we look at populations in Africa today (or populations living in other places where ultraviolet radiation is strong) we see a wide range of variation in pigmentation--I suspect that if we could go back in time we would probably see similar levels of diversity to those that we see in Africa today.
Thanks again for your interest--if you have any more questions, please let me know.
Cheers,
~Heather
quote:It is not strange, it is quite logical given his anti-black agenda.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Outside your strange fixation with the Sandawe,
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:I just gave you an actual *genetic explanation*, the one actually published and conducted by a group of geneticists, and not a personal correspondence with one participant, as to why the most parsimonious explanation of OAC2 variant--implicated in Sans and later in Europeans and East Asians--is one wherein it could only have been a derived allele, as opposed to the upstream one. This explanation is *supported* by the study, as cited! You simply did not understand, nor capable of addressing the point brought forth head on, and so, you just chose to ignore it. Norton's personal correspondence to you, does NOT address the points I raised, and so, you cannot use that as some sort of rebuttal. The onus is on either you or Norton to explain why that pattern of findings is so, other than the one provided by both myself, AND the published journal itself. Your response, or rather non-response, is immaterial to what I just raised about the patterns of DNA findings in the samples studied.
Originally posted by Chimu:
Yawn, your reposting of earlier quotes does not change the fact that you have no direct evidence (as in an actual genetic explanation) that would indicate that one was definitely the derived version and the other the ancestral version.
quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Take note:
Elsewhere I wrote, with regards to the dichotomy in trends seen between "Original" Inland Melanesians and "CEPH" Island Melanesians:
Further extensions of variations detected amongst Melanesians can be explained by successive demographic events After their African ancestors migrated over 40ky ago. The “original Melanesian sample” appears to have more ancestral pigmentation genes in common with tropical Africans, which is to be expected given that they are direct descendants of the earliest Eurasians, as demonstrated as follows with the OCA2 gene…
quote:
As for ASIP and OCA2...I think that even if you ignored the contribution of these two genes to pigmentation variation we would still see good range of diversity. For example, genes like SLC24A5 and MATP also have a major impact on phenotype. I would also assume that in the past there was variation in human skin color.
quote:
That is to say, primates have stretches of DNA sequence that produce the same protein in humans and in chimps, and these are usually found in the same corresponding region on their chromosomes. So, it would be correct to say that both humans and chimps, for example, have the gene for ASIP, OCA2, MC1R, etc.
quote:Nice strawman. The derived gene in Europeans and Asians, is not the gene responsible for lightness in the Bisa Sandawe.
In general, the derived allele (associated with lighter pigmentation) is most common in Europeans and East Asians, and the ancestral allele predominates in sub-Saharan Africa and Island Melanesia.
quote:The San so called derived gene is
Three loci, TYR A192C, MATP C374G, SLC24A5 A111G, show very strong signals of European-specific divergence. At all 3 loci, Europeans have the highest frequency of the derived alleles relative to the other 5 populations.
quote:Note that there is an ASSUMPTION that it is derived because of the lack of frequency in Melanesians and Africans, but there is NO EXPLANATION as to why the San's allele would be derived. In other words, a hypothesis. And when pressed, Dr. Norton stated succinctly, that they didn't know for sure.
At OCA2 355, the derived allele (linked with lighter pigmentation) occurs at its highest frequencies across Europe and Asia but is also relatively common among Native American populations (18–34%) and is present at much lower frequencies (0–10%) among Bantu-speaking African groups. In contrast, the ancestral allele associated with dark pigmentation has a shared high frequency in sub-Saharan African and Island Melanesians. A notable exception is the relatively lightly pigmented San population of Southern Africa where the derived allele predominates (93%), although this may be simply due to small sample size (n = 14).
quote:
The mutations in the OCA2 gene may well have implications on imparting paleness, as demonstrated in the south African San people…
The lightly pigmented hunter-gatherer San populations of Southern Africa is exceptional in having a high frequency of the derived allele relative to geographically proximate and more darkly pigmented African populations (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000), further supporting the importance of OCA2 in regulating normal variation in pigmentation. The widespread distribution of the derived allele in the CEPH-Diversity Panel suggests that it is not necessarily a new mutation, nor has it been restricted to a specific geographic area.
quote:
The question of the San and Sandawe is an interesting one. We are not sure if the alleles that explain why their pigmentation is so different from neighboring populations reflect new (derived) mutations or if instead maybe they are actually ancestral alleles shared with light-skinned primates. I would say that this is an area of open investigation.
quote:Again, dealing with derived genes in Asians, not the supposed derived gene in Sandawe.
While it seems plausible that the “derived” OCA2 gene came to being before the out-of-Africa migration that give rise to modern Eurasians, it doesn’t appear that this derived allele was necessarily widespread, and may well have been later on selected for in European and East Asians…
Interestingly, derived allele frequencies at this locus are quite different between Native American (15%) and East Asian populations (45%), suggesting that perhaps the derived allele at this locus did not reach very high frequencies in East Asians until after the colonization of the Americas
The pattern observed between the "original" Island Melanesians and the sub-Saharan populations, and that between the "original" Island Melanesians and the "CEPH" Island Melanesians, suggests that OAC2 variations different from those of the former pair, must be derive variants. The shared markers between sub-Saharan African and the "original" Island Melanesians would otherwise have to be explained off by "convergent evolution" at possibly different points in time; what are the odds of that happening at a single locus? However, as suggested above, while the other OAC2 variant-- different from those shared between said sub-Saharans and the "original" Island Melanesian samples--may well be the "derived" variant, it doesn't appear to have emerged after the oft talked about successful OOA migrations of a.m.hs. Thus it could have simply contributed to natural African variation, and then was carried off in modest frequencies with OOA migrants, whereupon it would later be selected for in certain groups [explaining the relatively high frequencies therein], as mentioned above.
So, again, it is hard to determine the ages of the mutations themselves, but from distribution patterns, extrapolations thereof of the molecular chronology of the markers is possible.
quote:1947-Trevor-The Physical Characters of the Sandawe
Originally posted by Bob_01:
Do you have any paper regarding melanin level suggesting that? Just because someone (whoever they are) may observe that doesn't mean it's true.
quote:That would be the Tehla Sandawe. The Sandawe have been mixing extensively with Bantu populations.
Originally posted by Bob_01:
According to Jablonski and Chaplin 2000's study, Sandewe has similar reflectance levels as Namibians or those from Zaire. The San populations found in Botswana and South Africa are much lighter. That excerpted posted by Mind suggesting that San has a high level of derived alleles also include San populations with higher reflectance levels.
www.yanaiweb.com/genome/HumanVariation/Jablonski_JHE_2000.pdf
quote:
From: "Imogene Lim"
To: "Jaime Pretell"
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:17 PM
Subject: RE: Rock-shelter Use Today: An Indicator of Usandawe Prehistory
If you look at recent photographs, there has been increasing intermarriage between groups. Certainly when I conducted my field work some 20 years ago, there were those who shared strong resemblance to their southern counterparts, the Ju/'hoansi and other Bushmen/San, the only other true Khoisan language speakers. After being in the field over a year, I was "darker" in skin tone than many of the Sandawe in the community where I lived.
Eric Ten Raa who studied among the Sandawe in the early 1960s has photographs in one particular article showing the distinction between the Tehla and Bisa Sandawe. The latter are the ones who exhibit the classic Sandawe phenotype.
Regards,
Imogene
quote:Nice try. Not supported by the study. A statement of fact was made, but no actual evidence was provided. And Dr. Norton clarified that they really did not know.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
I just gave you an actual *genetic explanation*, the one actually published and conducted by a group of geneticists, and not a personal correspondence with one participant, as to why the most parsimonious explanation of OAC2 variant--implicated in Sans and later in Europeans and East Asians--is one wherein it could only have been a derived allele, as opposed to the upstream one. This explanation is *supported* by the study, as cited!
quote:Humans are primates.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Here's an even easier challenge than addressing my earlier post above, which is apparently too difficult for Chimu: Give us this "ancestral OCA2" marker shared between primates and humans!
quote:Clown, the strawman is your response, since it has nothing to do with my post. Take note, Chimu has not even addressed the point made, and instead just blindly copies & pastes random notes from his personal correspondence.
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Take note:
Elsewhere I wrote, with regards to the dichotomy in trends seen between "Original" Inland Melanesians and "CEPH" Island Melanesians:
Further extensions of variations detected amongst Melanesians can be explained by successive demographic events After their African ancestors migrated over 40ky ago. The “original Melanesian sample” appears to have more ancestral pigmentation genes in common with tropical Africans, which is to be expected given that they are direct descendants of the earliest Eurasians, as demonstrated as follows with the OCA2 gene…quote:
As for ASIP and OCA2...I think that even if you ignored the contribution of these two genes to pigmentation variation we would still see good range of diversity. For example, genes like SLC24A5 and MATP also have a major impact on phenotype. I would also assume that in the past there was variation in human skin color.quote:
That is to say, primates have stretches of DNA sequence that produce the same protein in humans and in chimps, and these are usually found in the same corresponding region on their chromosomes. So, it would be correct to say that both humans and chimps, for example, have the gene for ASIP, OCA2, MC1R, etc.quote:Nice strawman. The derived gene in Europeans and Asians, is not the gene responsible for lightness in the Bisa Sandawe.
In general, the derived allele (associated with lighter pigmentation) is most common in Europeans and East Asians, and the ancestral allele predominates in sub-Saharan Africa and Island Melanesia.
quote:It is called the most parsimonious explanation of the pattern seen. And you are dead wrong. There is a definitive pattern here: The "original" Island Melanesian samples consistently share ancestral alleles with sub-Saharan African samples for many of the pigmentation alleles studied; whereas this was not always the case with the "CEPH" panel Island Melanesians. The "original" Island Melanesians look to be a group that received relatively less subsequent waves of migration from exotic groups than the CEPH panel counterpart. This explains why they also share more ancestral markers than the CEPH panel counterpart, with sub-Saharan Africans. Virtually every group that has ever been implicated in ancestral alleles, had also been done so, in tandem with sub-Saharan Africans. This pattern is suggestive of the prospect that the ancestral allele(s) is (are) the one that predominates in sub-Saharan Africans, and the derived ones came later. It is against this backdrop, it was observed that the OCA2 example frequent [according to the study at hand] in southern African San, Europeans and East Asians, must be the later arrival of the examples seen in African populations. Fact is, the observation that the said OCA2 allele--as seen in the San--is derived is not an aberration; it was deliberatly thought of as one in the study, hence, contradicting your position that the authors were not sure about their findings. It had not been stated once, but several times throughout the study.
Note that there is an ASSUMPTION that it is derived because of the lack of frequency in Melanesians and Africans, but there is NO EXPLANATION as to why the San's allele would be derived. In other words, a hypothesis. And when pressed, Dr. Norton stated succinctly, that they didn't know for sure.
quote:Red herring. Staying on-topic is not amongst your talents. The issue at hand is OCA2 derived allele in the San. Nobody spoke of the Sandawe, the folks you seem particularly obsessed with. But since you keep bringing them up for no apparent reason, the burden is on you to demonstrate to us what OCA allele the Sandawe supposedly carry.
Again, dealing with derived genes in Asians, not the supposed derived gene in Sandawe.
quote:As in which part? Point it out, and why it is so.
quote:Nice try. Not supported by the study.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
I just gave you an actual *genetic explanation*, the one actually published and conducted by a group of geneticists, and not a personal correspondence with one participant, as to why the most parsimonious explanation of OAC2 variant--implicated in Sans and later in Europeans and East Asians--is one wherein it could only have been a derived allele, as opposed to the upstream one. This explanation is *supported* by the study, as cited!
quote:It was presented, backed by citations of findings from the published study, not personal chit chat. Just admit that you don't comprehend what was said, and you are not equipped to provide a substantiated rebuttal. I won't hold it against you.
A statement of fact was made, but no actual evidence was provided.
quote:Norton's personal correspondence does NOT account for the observations seen in the study, as I had already told you in the last post. This therefore, makes your stuck-on-record citation of a personal correspondence outmoded. It has outlived it usefulness, because you are now confronted with explaining away a definitive pattern reported by the geneticists in the study. This definitive pattern, and the geneticists observations made thereof, says that Norton is either suggesting she and the other geneticists are liars, who publish things they did not observe, OR, that she isn't being frank with you. You take your pick; or else, let's see your counter-substantiation, instead of using that outmoded personal correspondence, which is incapable of addressing what I just pointed out.
And Dr. Norton clarified that they really did not know.
quote:Which is why Norton also mentioned them? Tell me you are just fooling around, and you cannot possibly be that obtuse, not to know what is being said.
quote:Humans are primates. And irrelevant question.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Here's an even easier challenge than addressing my earlier post above, which is apparently too difficult for Chimu: Give us this "ancestral OCA2" marker shared between primates and humans!
quote:Already shown, and as already demonstrated, you don't understand what I just explained, it is too complicated for your faculty, let alone have a substantive counter-reply to show, other than spaming an e-mail correspondence that has outlived its purpose...for you. Your correspondence raised the possibility that the "derived" allele may actually turn out to be an ancestral one shared with primates [which you claim is irrelevant]. It should be easy then; show us this said "shared" allele between humans and "light skinned" primates.
you have yet to show anything other than conclusive statements that the OCA2 in San is derivative.
quote:Exactly, plain and simple, it was mentioned more than once, it wasn't a slip up, and this is the point that Chimpu fails to comprehend, he's grasping at straws with his personal correspondance as if it trumps the studies numerous confirmations of this derived allele being present, it simply can't, her correspondence wasn't peer reviewed as the study was, of course this is why he took a year to come back and reply.
Fact is, the observation that the said OCA2 allele--as seen in the San--is derived is not an aberration; it was deliberatly thought of as one in the study, hence, contradicting your position that the authors were not sure about their findings. It had not been stated once, but several times throughout the study.
quote:In essence wouldn't this imply that there were different primate ancestors to anatomically modern humans, as it is pretty much known around 1.2 million years ago our primate ancestors lost their fur and needed this deeply melanized skin.
It should be easy then; show us this said "shared" allele between humans and "light skinned" primates.
quote:The idea here is presumably, that modern primates [not talking about "humans", as Chimu intentionally confuses himself with] may still carry an OCA2 allele that is associated with lighter pigment [the reason being, presumably, that our common ancestors had been extensively covered with fur or body hair], since their post-cranial body are heavily covered with fur, usually hiding lightly pigmented skin...which they could potentially share with certain recent humans. The implication then, is that this marker may not necessarily have undergone mutation and selection thereof--in contrast to the example that would have produced dark skin in the earliest humans, who did away with extensive post-cranial body hair--in all of the human populations. In other words: the "older" lighter-pigment-invoking OCA2 allele was retained for some humans, while it must undergone a nonsynonymous mutation characterizing darker pigmentation across the rest of humanity, at an early point of human biohistory. The pattern of distribution of these alleles, as I have demonstrated however, suggest that if this marker was around at an early point, i.e. before the often talked about OOA dispersions, then it clearly was not widespread. It must have been randomly around at modest frequencies. There is a problem with this mentality though, because while humanity's ape-like ancestors, bearing thick fur, could have had some OCA2 allele that was lax in pigment phenotype, it doesn't necessarily hold true that the earliest anatomically modern humans had this same allele. This allele could have undergone mutation in our earliest "upright"-walking ancestors, like the Homo Erectus, who had by then, already done away with extensive postcranial body "fur" or hair that earlier hominids likely had. This new allele could have just been carried over to anatomically modern human, who too, did away with body hair...or yet, gave a step mutation(s) that caused more pigmentation in the earliest modern humans of the tropics [the home latitudes of modern humans].
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
In essence wouldn't this imply that there were different primate ancestors to anatomically modern humans, as it is pretty much known around 1.2 million years ago our primate ancestors lost their fur and needed this deeply melanized skin.
quote:Good. There is definitely some explaining to do here. Norton's claim is at odds with the patterns seen in their findings and the extrapolations made thereof. This either says that she is tacitly saying that she and her colleagues simply published observations that DID NOT HAPPEN...Or...she wasn't being entirely open or frank with Chimu/Jaime. These are the two outcomes we will soon verify, should they see it fit to reply your inquiry. Of course, one cannot speak of absolute certainty in these circumstances, but there is such as thing as the most parsimonious explanation based on the weight of evidence, and this, I think, is what the published article was telling us.
Btw, I sent H. Norton and R. Kittles an e-mail about this derived allele, and am currently awaiting a reply....
quote:Yes, you DO. Your personal correspondance attempts to muddle up the non-accidental consideration of the San OCA2 allele example as the derived variant, by arguing that the said allele could be shared with primates, and hence, could be indicative of an ancestral allele. It is therefore either your responsibility or Norton's to point out this common ancestral allele.
Originally posted by Chimu:
LOL. Nice try. I don't have to show a common ancestral allele of OCA2 in other primates and the San.
quote:Red herring; what else is new from you? The matter at hand is THE ancestral *modern human allele*, not "ancient primates".
The San are darker than a primate like the Chimpanzee. But they are not as dark as the Bantu. All humans would have derived OCA2 from ancient primates.
quote:Mindless. This has no relevancy to the discussion as you neither know what allele the Sandawe bear, nor is the Sandawe an issue even though you love to talk about them. You just like to shoot off-tangent blanks that don't make sense, and stall your delivery of the actual evidence requested of you. This is because, all you've got is that correspondence, outside of which you understand very little about the subject matter at hand. This is why you also incoherently answered my post, which is not addressed by your correspondence, with outmoded regurgitations of pieces from that correspondence, that don't follow what you are replying to.
But some derivations could have been earlier and not as divergent, and stuck around, like the that of the Sandawe. No evidence against it.
quote:My initial e-mail for those interested...
Dear (name withheld)
Thank you for your interest in my work. I'm not sure that I fully understand your question--are you asking me if it is correct to interpret light pigmentation of the San as a derived trait, or that the A allele in the OCA2 gene (rs1800404) is derived? Let me try to address both. First, the "A" allele observed at such high frequency among the San is derived. When we talk about alleles being ancestral or derived we are basing this terminology on what allele is carried by other primates (usually chimpanzee). At this particular SNP, chimps, orangutans, and macaques all carry the G allele (to my knowledge, the A allele has not yet been observed in these species). So, for rs1800404, the G allele is considered ancestral while the alternative, the "A" is derived. Of course, this does not mean that the light pigmentation of the San is entirely due to derived alleles (for example, at the other SNPs in that study the San overwhelmingly carry the ancestral allele). Pigmentation is a complex trait that is determined by multiple genetic loci. Although we know that rs1800404 has an effect on skin pigmentation, I would be very surprised if it is responsible for all of the variation between the lightly pigmented San and more darkly pigmented neighboring African populations. It may be that in addition to carrying the derived allele at rs1800404 the San also carry ancestral alleles (those found in non-human primates) that are associated with light skin. I say "ancestral" here because many, like Jablonski and Chaplin or Rogers and Iltis would argue that humans evolved from a creature that had lightly pigmented skin under a coat of dark hair or fur. The question of whether light pigmentation in humans is derived is a bit more tricky. As I just mentioned, many assume that the ancestor of modern humans had light pigmentation under a dark coat of fur or hair, and that as you note dark pigmentation evolved when that fur was lost in response to the high UVR pressures of an African environment. In that sense, some would consider light pigmentation to be ancestral and darker pigmentation to be a derived state (with the lighter pigmentation observed in European and East Asian populations re-evolving much later in human history, most likely due to new, unique mutations such as the ones in SLC24A5 and MATP). Other people are of the opinion that dark pigmentation evolved so long ago in human history that it's acceptable to consider dark pigmentation the ancestral state. Personally I really don't think it matters as long as one is clear about which you consider to be ancestral and why. As for the environment of southern Africa influencing the pigmentation of the San, I could not say. I assume that by environment you are referring to the UVR intensity there, which is surely not as intense as it would be further north and closer to the equator. It is certainly a plausible idea, but much depends on how long the San have resided in that region and how strong selection for lighter pigmentation would have been (very strong selection could lead to a rapid change in pigmentation). If I have misunderstood your question please let me know and I'll do my best to (re)answer it. best,
~Heather Norton
Heather L. Norton Ph.D.
ARL-Biotechnology
1041 East Lowell Street
Bioscience West, Room 246
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
quote:Chimu you can now disappear for a year again...
On Jan 11, 2010, at 2:36 PM, (name withheld) wrote:
Greetings, Dr, Norton.
I was recently engaged in a debate with my peers regarding your study re; "Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians". We began discussing the alleles associated with darker pigmentation vs. lighter pigmentation. As you allude to in the study there are derived alleles associated with lighterskin, and an ancestral allele associated with darker skin, the ancestral allele of which dominates in Sub-Saharan Africa and Island Melanesia. Of course this dark pigmentation arose as a consequence due to loss of fur and the need to protect the skin against harmful UV rays, while also helping to preserve the folate reserves in order to produce successful offsprings in a tropical environment. The exception came when the south African San hunter gatherers were brought into play. Your study notes that the derived allele is heavily present in the San (93%), this is interesting as it specifically notes that the San of southern Africa's lighter complexion is indeed a derived state, and not the ancestral. Would I be correct in making this assessment? Also, perhaps the subtropical environment of southern Africa (which mimics temperature somewhat similar to the Mediterranean) had something to do with this lighterskin pigmentation of the San hunter gatherers? Can you please elaborate on this further, it would be most highly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Here's two snippets from the study so you can get an idea quickly of what I mean....
Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians Heather L. Norton,*1 Rick A. Kittles
quote:and if you will note...
In contrast, the **ancestral allele** associated with **dark pigmentation** has a shared high frequency in **sub- Saharan African and Island Melanesians**.A notable exception is the relatively lightly pigmented San population of Southern Africa where the **derived allele** predominates (93%), although this may be simply due to small sample size (n514). The distributions of the **derived and ancestral alleles** at TYR A192C, MATP C374G, and SLC24A5 A111G are consistent with the FST results suggesting strong Europeans pecific divergence at these loci. The *derived allele* at TYR, 192*A (previously linked with lighter
pigmentation [Shriver et al. 2003]), has a frequency of 38% among European populations but a frequency of only 14% among non-Europeans. The differences between Europeans and non-Europeans for the MATP 374*G and SLC24A5 111*A alleles (both derived alleles associated with lighter pigmentation) were even more striking (MATP European 5 87%; MATP non-European 5 17%; SLC24A5 European 5 100%; SLC24A5 non-European 5 46%). The frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%).
"The lightly pigmented hunter-gatherer San populations of Southern Africa is exceptional in having a high frequency of the derived allele relative to geographically proximate and more darkly pigmented African populations (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000), further supporting the importance of OCA2 in regulating normal variation in pigmentation. The widespread distribution of the derived allele in the CEPH-Diversity Panel suggests that it is not necessarily a new mutation, nor has it been restricted to a specific geographic area. - Norton, Kittles et al."
Sincerely yours,
(name withheld).
quote:So the San carry one mutation in the OCA2 that is not in chimpanzees that other Africans have (And chimpanzees are light skinned). But Dr. Tishkoff doesn't know, overall which populations have the most mutations on the OCA2 gene, and which ones are closer to the ancestral one shared with chimpanzees. The derived genes specified in the OOA populations are known because they are different to African populations.
----- Original Message -----
From: Heather Norton
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians
Dear Jaime,
In the 2006 paper we said that in the San the light allele at a particular SNP in the OCA2 gene (rs1800404) was most often found in the derived state--that is, most individuals carried one or two "A" alleles as opposed to the "G" allele which predominated in the other African populations surveyed. We determine whether a SNP is ancestral or derived based on which allele is found in other primate species--usually chimpanzee. In this case chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques all carry the G allele at this site--the A allele has not been observed (to my knowledge) in these species. However, remember that pigmentation is controlled by multiple loci, and although we know that OCA2 plays an important role in skin pigmentation, I would be very surprised to learn that the derived allele at this particular SNP can explain all of the variation in pigmentation between the San and other, more darkly pigmented African populations. So, while the San carry a derived allele at rs1800404, it's possible that at other SNPs they carry an allele common in other primates with light skin underneath their fur. At those loci (should they ever be identified), the San would be considered to carry the ancestral allele, while other, more darkly pigmented populations would carry the derived allele (which would presumably cause a greater amount of eumelanin to be produced). It's [u]entirely possible[/u] that the San's pigmentation can be explained by a mix of derived alelles (like the one at rs1800404) and ancestral alleles shared with other primates but not with their neighboring populations.
Remember, we are talking about one mutation in OCA2--there are many, many other mutations in this gene that could (and do) affect pigmentation (most notably eye pigmentation). So, I would say that this particular mutation (rs1800404) plays *some* role in the lighter pigmentation of the San, but that there are probably other mutations (either in OCA2 or in other genes) that contribute to the phenotype as well. I actually don't know if the # of differences between chimp and San at OCA2 is greater than the # of differences between chimp and other African populations--it would be interesting to find out (it would also be interesting to find this out for other pigmentation genes as well). The mutations that we believe are responsible for lighter pigmentation in European and East Asian populations are derived both relative to chimpanzees as well as to what is observed in most African populations (sometimes, when the chimpanzee sequence is not available we assume that the allele most common in African populations is the ancestral allele). Also, we know that at least some of those mutations (like rs1426654 in SLC24A5) alter the protein that is produced--another sign that they play an important role in influencing phenotype.
Best,
~Heather
quote:Actually, I have never changed my position. You guys brought up the derived gene claim to claim that San and Sandawe with their light skin were derived looks. I just addressed their claims. At first, it seemed Dr. Norton was saying they didn't know if the allele was derived or not, but now she has clarified and stated she is speaking about the entire OCA2. She doesn't know if, overall, that gene is closer to San or darker skinned populations. Of course, this is a sideline issue now, as my original premise still stands, and, as Dr. Norton has clarified, even if the entire OCA2 gene was derived in the San, it would not fully explain their lightness. And this derivative which can't even fully explain the San, isn't even attributed to the Bisa Sandawe.
Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
Could it be that "creole" soldier-boy that looks like a white militia wacko has you all chasing an irrelevant straw here? He has already modified his 2008 youtube "KhoiSan aren't black" position and the evidence, even if Norton is cautious at this time, is not going in his favor regarding derived gene. Just a thought.
quote:FU Beetlejuice, I clearly stated that they were not Black because they were light skinned and not identified as Black. And I was correct. But trends change. And now some San have been identifying as Black. Much like many light skinned people of mixed ancestry identify as Black in the US. As self identity is what I respect, then THOSE San are Black.
Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
Private Pyle, you did argue back then on youtube that they are not black because they are light skinned. You came on ES with this same line and rasol et al. reacted by arguing the tone was derived, hence this "debate", resurrected by your email to Norton because you clearly didn't like her published conclusions. Now STFU.
quote:If you now admit that black is a subjective sociopolitical term and not a literal description how the f!ck are you going to argue the above? Unless you are some deranged agent provocateur?
I clearly stated that they were not Black because they were light skinned
quote:How on earth could you be arguing that "they" are not black because "they" are "not identified as" such when there are San that do in fact identify as such?
I clearly stated that they were not Black because they ... not identified as Black
quote:WTF?! Some have identified as such well before 2008 pyle, that's my point, you failed to take this tiny part into account on your youtube page when you were busy arguing "they were not Black because they were light skinned and not identified as Black." This means you were/are a fraud and an agent provocateur who clearly has a problem with black folks.
But trends change. And now some San have been identifying as Black.
quote:You can take up this straw with rasol et al. Whether derived or not their "light skin" isn't result of "admixture" in the conventional sense. Sorry, your favorite Africans the San aren't "Creoles".
Sorry you didn't like the outcome.
quote:Lol chimu, its not inconclusive as Norton specifically notes that the San do carry the derived allele A, and not ancestral G on the OCA2 allele. G which is shared by non human primates so its ancestral and dominate in other neighboring populations. This was the whole point whether or not the San carried this derived allele at high frequencies and as shown they really do. Sorry chimu but you're done with.
Originally posted by Chimu:
Got similar response.
quote:So the San carry one mutation in the OCA2 that is not in chimpanzees that other Africans have (And chimpanzees are light skinned). But Dr. Tishkoff doesn't know, overall which populations have the most mutations on the OCA2 gene, and which ones are closer to the ancestral one shared with chimpanzees. The derived genes specified in the OOA populations are known because they are different to African populations.
----- Original Message -----
From: Heather Norton
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians
Dear Jaime,
In the 2006 paper we said that in the San the light allele at a particular SNP in the OCA2 gene (rs1800404) was most often found in the derived state--that is, most individuals carried one or two "A" alleles as opposed to the "G" allele which predominated in the other African populations surveyed. We determine whether a SNP is ancestral or derived based on which allele is found in other primate species--usually chimpanzee. In this case chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques all carry the G allele at this site--the A allele has not been observed (to my knowledge) in these species. However, remember that pigmentation is controlled by multiple loci, and although we know that OCA2 plays an important role in skin pigmentation, I would be very surprised to learn that the derived allele at this particular SNP can explain all of the variation in pigmentation between the San and other, more darkly pigmented African populations. So, while the San carry a derived allele at rs1800404, it's possible that at other SNPs they carry an allele common in other primates with light skin underneath their fur. At those loci (should they ever be identified), the San would be considered to carry the ancestral allele, while other, more darkly pigmented populations would carry the derived allele (which would presumably cause a greater amount of eumelanin to be produced). It's [u]entirely possible[/u] that the San's pigmentation can be explained by a mix of derived alelles (like the one at rs1800404) and ancestral alleles shared with other primates but not with their neighboring populations.
Remember, we are talking about one mutation in OCA2--there are many, many other mutations in this gene that could (and do) affect pigmentation (most notably eye pigmentation). So, I would say that this particular mutation (rs1800404) plays *some* role in the lighter pigmentation of the San, but that there are probably other mutations (either in OCA2 or in other genes) that contribute to the phenotype as well. I actually don't know if the # of differences between chimp and San at OCA2 is greater than the # of differences between chimp and other African populations--it would be interesting to find out (it would also be interesting to find this out for other pigmentation genes as well). The mutations that we believe are responsible for lighter pigmentation in European and East Asian populations are derived both relative to chimpanzees as well as to what is observed in most African populations (sometimes, when the chimpanzee sequence is not available we assume that the allele most common in African populations is the ancestral allele). Also, we know that at least some of those mutations (like rs1426654 in SLC24A5) alter the protein that is produced--another sign that they play an important role in influencing phenotype.
Best,
~Heather
Again, she is basically saying she doesn't know which skin tone is the derived state because other parts in the OCA2 play a role, and other genes play a role. So still inconclusive.
And any claims of derivation of the San (in ONE mutation on the OCA2, does not fully explain the lighter skin of the San, nor the lighter skin of the Bisa Sandawe in equatorial Tanzania.
quote:Dream on. It is a subjective sociopolitical term. But it arose from the usage of hyperbolic terms to describe human populations based on skin color.
Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
If you now admit that black is a subjective sociopolitical term and not a literal description how the f!ck are you going to argue the above? Unless you are some deranged agent provocateur?
quote:The only one presenting strawmans is yourself. Both Coloured (Mixed) and Black (Bantu) have been imposed identities on the San. Neither was freely embraced by them, but adopted by necessity. They are not mixed, and they are not dark skinned Bantu. But some have chosen to identify as Black, and that is their right. If it helps them in their struggles, good for them. Others still choose not to identify as Coloured or Black.
You can take up this straw with rasol et al. Whether derived or not their "light skin" isn't result of "admixture" in the conventional sense. Sorry, your favorite Africans the San aren't "Creoles".
quote:Wrong again. The whole point was if the San had a derived state of lighter skin color, not if they just carried a derivative mutation. Dr. Norton has clarified that there is a derivative mutation, not carried by primates, but has also clearly stated that this is not proof that lighter San are derived from darker skinned populations. Nice try.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
[Lol chimu, its not inconclusive as Norton specifically notes that the San do carry the derived allele A, and not G on the OCA2 allele. G which is shared by non human primates so its ancestral and dominate in other neighboring populations. This was the whole point whther or not the San carried this derived allele at high frequencies and as shown they really do. Sorry chimu but you're done with.
quote:No problem, and yes it does seem to confirm what you said before.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Thanks MindoverMatter for sharing this. It seems to confirm what I said in reply to your last post, don't you think?
quote:Straw. Nothing here takes away from the fact that, when all is said and done, "black" is a subjective term based on a combination of societal convention and also personal individual identity politics. Get over it you color obsession weirdo.
Dream on. It is a subjective sociopolitical term. But it arose from the usage of hyperbolic terms to describe human populations based on skin color.First you had Blacks (Bantu) and Coloureds (San and people of mixed ancestry). Then you had Blacks (Bantu and some San) and Coloureds (other San and people of mixed ancestry).In fact, most San really want their own identity, not Coloured, not Black. Coloured delegitimized them as the original population of South Africa. And Black became the adopted term for Native in South Africa. These terms effectively erased the legitimacy of claims of San as the original inhabitants, first removing it from them by claiming the were just mixed foreigners (Bantu and European) and then later with the Black movement claiming African indigenuousness, again denied the San of the right to be called first peoples and present their grievances.
quote:LOL you projecting imbecile; you really can't help yourself can you? All the above is nothing but useless straw again; has no bearing on the fact that before on youtube you deceitfully left out this important part "some have chosen to identify as Black" and therefore "Those that identify as Black are Black"; of course that would have exposed your presumptuous white ass arguing that they are in fact not Black because they are light skinned and not identify as Black. Dismissed private pyle!
The only one presenting strawmans is yourself. Both Coloured (Mixed) and Black (Bantu) have been imposed identities on the San. Neither was freely embraced by them, but adopted by necessity. They are not mixed, and they are not dark skinned Bantu
quote:There is not "but" here; you were denying that the published journal which says so point blank was making an informed judgment and non-accidental description about that one locus. You had been DEBUNKED without delay. Not even your "sympathy" e-mail correspondence would save the day.
Originally posted by Chimu:
So the San carry one mutation in the OCA2 that is not in chimpanzees that other Africans have (And chimpanzees are light skinned). But
quote:I think you meant to say Norton, rather than Tishkoff? In any case, are you implying there are other OCA2 derivatives that did not come to Norton et al.'s attention across the diverse geographical samples?
Dr. Tishkoff doesn't know, overall which populations have the most mutations on the OCA2 gene
quote:You were just told that the San don't share the said OCA2 allele with furry primates. That right there; what does it tell you? Of course, the derived alleles are identified with comparison to predominating tropical African patterns. That is how it is done. Is there any other way to make a valid and informed comparison?
and which ones are closer to the ancestral one shared with chimpanzees. The derived genes specified in the OOA populations are known because they are different to African populations.
quote:That is an outright lie. There is a general agreement, even according to your first correspondence, that dark skin would have been the default condition of anatomically modern humans, and lighter skin would have been the "derived" condition. Norton is by no means implying that "white" anatomically modern firsts is even a consideration. Yes, it doesn't take a genius to figure that a single locus could NOT be responsible for skin tone continuum amongst the San, but I guess, you just figured that out. Fact is, definitive DNA patterns have been seen between tropical Africans, Eurpeans and East Asians [who had the most divergent patterns in the bunch] and other groups. These patterns make it quite clear which are the likely upstream molecular alleles for modern humans and which one's likely were not.
Again, she is basically saying she doesn't know which skin tone is the derived state because other parts in the OCA2 play a role, and other genes play a role. So still inconclusive.
quote:And here I was, thinking that this was your mentality, and hence, your insistence that it must be THE allele in the Sandawe, even though you offer no proof for such a supposition and even though the Sandawe is not the centre of anyone's talking point but your's. Yet as strange as it is, you are now implying others were thinking that way...like you were.
And any claims of derivation of the San (in ONE mutation on the OCA2, does not fully explain the lighter skin of the San, nor the lighter skin of the Bisa Sandawe in equatorial Tanzania.
quote:The Bantu are not dark as the Dinka, yet that doesn't stop them from being considered "black", nor is the San. Your mentality is bankrupt. Your subjective political opinions don't hold any more water than those you reject. LOL
Originally posted by Chimu:
The only one presenting strawmans is yourself. Both Coloured (Mixed) and Black (Bantu) have been imposed identities on the San. Neither was freely embraced by them, but adopted by necessity. They are not mixed, and they are not dark skinned Bantu. But some have chosen to identify as Black, and that is their right. If it helps them in their struggles, good for them. Others still choose not to identify as Coloured or Black.
quote:In your case, your whole point was to deny that the example found in high frequencies in the San sample [even though it could be a matter of sample size] was the derived counterpart, and backfired.
Wrong again. The whole point was if the San had a derived state of lighter skin color, not if they just carried a derivative mutation.
quote:You have to consider where much of San territory is, limb-trunk and limb proportions and other anatomy to make an informed assessment of whether some adaptation could have taken place since their residence in sub-tropical regions. Granted, the San are not that light to begin with...at least, it pales in comparison to some coastal northwest Africans, whose' in turn pale in comparison to northern Europeans. It is logical to assume that some modification indeed took place since their arrival to the sub-tropical environment of Africa; why could some lax in skin tone pigmentation not be one aspect of this? OCA2 may just be one locus, but its distribution pattern, along with other loci, are instructive. How do you explain the patterns observed between tropical Africans and other groups, if one is to assume the position that San did not undergo some modification in skin pigmentation?
Dr. Norton has clarified that there is a derivative mutation, not carried by primates, but has also clearly stated that this is not proof that lighter San are derived from darker skinned populations. Nice try.
quote:Lol Chimu is either slow at learning or blatantly being ignorant, because it's stated clearly, and hence he should know full and well that the San carry a high frequency of the derived "A" allele on the OCA2 gene, which is NOT shared with earlier primates, whereas the "G" allele on the OCA2 gene is shared between these early primates and other Africans which then indicates the "G" allele is ancestral.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:You were just told that the San don't share the said OCA2 allele with furry primates. That right there; what does it tell you? Of course, the derived alleles are identified with comparison to predominating tropical African patterns. That is how it is done. Is there any other way to make a valid and informed comparison?
and which ones are closer to the ancestral one shared with chimpanzees. The derived genes specified in the OOA populations are known because they are different to African populations.
quote:
Originally posted by Chimu:
Dear Jaime,
In the 2006 paper we said that in the San the light allele at a particular SNP in the OCA2 gene (rs1800404) was most often found in the derived state--that is, most individuals carried one or two "A" alleles as opposed to the "G" allele which predominated in the other African populations surveyed. We determine whether a SNP is ancestral or derived based on which allele is found in other primate species--usually chimpanzee. In this case chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques all carry the G allele at this site--the A allele has not been observed (to my knowledge) in these species.
quote:I'm willing to bet that like the OCA2 allele, the San may show some variation with the predominating examples in tropical Africa at some other loci, but that they share a good deal of other ancestral variants with tropical African groups. The derived OCA2 allele is found amongst tropical African groups, but at fairly modest frequencies, compared to the ancestral allele. Hence, its function in those groups is nothing more than normal variation within the populations involved. However, the issue here with the San, though more than likely independent from the episodes involving Europeans and East Asians, is that the marker could have been selected for, and hence, maintained in fairly visible frequencies, if not high frequencies. The allele variant would not be selected for, until later on in Europeans and East Asians.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Lol Chimu is either slow at learning or blatantly being ignorant, because it's stated clearly, and hence he should know full and well that the San carry a high frequency of the derived "A" allele on the OCA2 gene, which is NOT shared with earlier primates, whereas the "G" allele on the OCA2 gene is shared between these early primates and other Africans which then indicates the "G" allele is ancestral.
I mean seriously, who does this guy think he's fooling? Lol
quote:and Dr Norton notes to be a plausible idea..
You have to consider where much of San territory is, limb-trunk and limb proportions and other anatomy to make an informed assessment of whether some adaptation could have taken place since their residence in sub-tropical regions
quote:
As for the environment of southern Africa influencing the pigmentation of the San, I could not say. I assume that by environment you are referring to the UVR intensity there, which is surely not as intense as it would be further north and closer to the equator. It is certainly a plausible idea, but much depends on how long the San have resided in that region and how strong selection for lighter pigmentation would have been (very strong selection could lead to a rapid change in pigmentation).---Norton
quote:I think it is simple really. The San had undergone some selection for lax in skin pigmentation, as much of their territory spans the areas with less intense UV radiation than those near the equatorial regions. That they carry deep root uniparental clades, which are implicated in other African groups in any case, has little bearing on this response to environment. Skin tones vary amongst even the San; some more darker than others. Still, nowhere near the coastal northwestern Africans or those lighter thereof.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
hence it's not rocket science to note this derived state on the OCA2 gene to be a quick no-brainer as to why the San might be lighter, but why, was it the sub-tropical environment that could account for some variation? This is what really needs to be further investigated.
Or perhaps e-mailing Norton once again.
quote:A no-brainer indeed.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:I think it is simple really. The San had undergone some selection for lax in skin pigmentation, as much of their territory spans the areas with less intense UV radiation than those near the equatorial regions.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
hence it's not rocket science to note this derived state on the OCA2 gene to be a quick no-brainer as to why the San might be lighter, but why, was it the sub-tropical environment that could account for some variation? This is what really needs to be further investigated.
quote:Lol, what exactly was Chimu trying to pull off here?
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:Lol indeed, it looks as if he tried to color this man in by using photoshop to fit one of the colors on the scale he posted alongside it...
Originally posted by The Explorer:
^Presumably that the man is not "black", because he is not literally black.
The same photo was posted earlier in black and white, and now in this form, which looks like doctored work.
quote:Not even for a penny...
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Others like MOM718
don't buy it.
