No offense, but that chart looks largely biased and a bit confusing. I don't claim to know much about genetics, but I'm fairly sure that those terms aren't even used anymore. A couple questions:
Does color (of the text) indicate "racial group"? If so, why are "Australoids" and "Negroids" the same color? Why are they grouped together? Also, why are "Fulanids" apparently so distant from these two, but considered within the same group? Imo, some of the colors look like they were picked for biased reasons. Why does J get it's own color (probably indicating that it is a separate "race"), but T, or Q does not?
Don't many of these haplogroups go beyond these racial classifications? If so, why are they designated by race? Isn't C found to a great extent in northern Asia and Siberia? Are these folks also "Australoid"?
Not saying the tree is wrong, but rather the grouping.
I agree that the chart seems to try to overlay a set of obsolete group labels onto a modern haplogroup cladogram that does not match the overlay very well.
Another problem (probably unavoidable) is that the chart oversimplifies the results of migrations back and forth among the continents for the past 40k years.
For example, looking at the chart you would never imagine that R1* (the ancestor of both R1a and R1b, at the unlabeled spot where the blue "Caucasian" line turns left) is found today only in Cameroon among people who are about as "Negroid" as you can get. (The only reason I know about R1* is that it happens to be my own haplogroup.)
I agree that the chart seems to try to overlay a set of obsolete group labels onto a modern haplogroup cladogram that does not match the overlay very well.
For example, looking at the chart you would never imagine that R1* (the ancestor of both R1a and R1b, at the unlabeled spot where the blue "Caucasian" line turns left) is found today only in Cameroon among people who are about as "Negroid" as you can get. (The only reason I know about R1* is that it happens to be my own haplogroup.)
Guys guys..please understand that Y-DNA common origin doesn't mean that they will be the same! Forget Skull clasification for a moment...Also keep in mind I can't mention every single subclade on a chart like that!...these are the main and most famous Y-DNA markers.....so please forgive me if you exclusive sublcade is not on teh chart , but you could find your closest relative in lineage or climate whatever works for you...
Y-DNA common origin means they were the same at a certain point, then they evolved in various directions, sometime they go in back migrations...etc...if you take the most Nordic I or R1b and put him in the jungle he will evolve in 10,000 years to be a somewhat Negroid subclade that reads I1xxx... R1bxxx. HE can be very dark and R1bxxx just because the subclade remained long enough in Africa. Just like the Negorid subclades in EU got watered down (acclelerated by racial mixing/absorbtion) but the climate also had a role!
Color of the lines
The Blue line indicates the lineage of the population that remained in a cold climate....alll through and after the ice age...
F Y-DNA (caucasian by name really an Ethiopian highlands evolution).....K and IJ are the split that occured in the near east.....
K went to Asia cold climate regions as P , R entered Europe as R1
IJ came passed the Peninsular highlands in the ICE age, reached teh Anatolian highlands...enetered The Blakans then headed north
All the Y-DNAs that branched off teh main Ethiopian (populary known as Caucasian F y-dna) evolved into other non cold climtes.....all are diff than the Negroid race by a highland cold weather mutation in Ethiopia....
C, E, T have similar colors because they are hot weather Y-DNAs (dark skin)....although T shares origins with P...in nature the Fulanids are Africans.
The Mongoliod cluster *Yellow) slanted eye people...do you own research....compare teh y-DNA and see the populations who carry it!!
J is an off shoot of IJ last and only Y-DNA to break off Ij Y-DNA before it headed to Europe....
Y-DNA ancestory dont trnslate into the exact same facial features, skulls...so take it easy on yourselves! Thsi si an issue that most people hate to admit too...through climate skulls can change a Negroid can become a nordic and a nordic can become negroid...if you give them 10,000years to evolve..
Regarding European evolution...maybe this map helps...below are the 3 true European Y-DNA markers.....everything else is pre-Ice age (irrelevant) or much recent migrations...
Arabid is a Caucasoid race, and evolved Mediteranean type that is adapted to desert climates. Their often dark skined.
YDNA wrote:
all are diff than the Negroid race by a highland cold weather mutation in Ethiopia
Sorry to cut this short, guys, but you both really need to define precisely what you mean by "race" in this context.
If by "race" you are talking about somatic traits (phenotype), then "race" is irrelevant to a discussion of Y lineages (or to mtDNA lineages for that matter), since genes in those loci have no effect on physical appearance.
If by "race" you are talking about the YDNA lineages themselves, then these lineages are irrelevant to a discussion of "Negroid" or "Caucasian" phenotypes. There are millions of people with sub-saharan Y haplotypes who are of northern European appearance and whose known family histories lie completely in Europe. Conversely, millions of New World inhabitants of sub-saharan appearance carry European Y haplotypes.
If by "race" you are talking about recent (within the past 10 ky) adaptations to local conditions, then stop using obsolete group-cluster terms to denote them. Each adaptation varies independently. Use explicit terms like skin tone, epicanthic eyelid fold, kinky hair, blood type, belly-button shape, nose shape, or what have you.
It is particularly confusing for you to refer to Arabs as of this "race" or that based on either craniofacial anthropometry (which is too subjective to be replicated) or upon Y haplotypes, which have zero impact on phenotype.
If you want to discuss some sort of connection between either mtDNA or Y haplotypes and "race," please feel free to do so in this thread (and not in the thread about Arabs). But I must insist, per rules 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 that you first define what you mean by the term "race" as per the following paragraph 2 of Introduction to Science-As-Process
Quote:
Define the Question Objectively – You must be able to define the issue in a way that everyone, even your most hostile but honest skeptic, accepts. This does not mean that others must agree with your data or with your conclusions. And it does not mean that they would apply the same definition to the same term, were it up to them. But they must accept that your definition is clear and consistent, both inclusively and exclusively. Imagine the following claim: "I know that races exist because I can see them." The claim includes both raw data (I can see races) and a conclusion based upon that data (races exist). The first test of whether this question falls within the realm of science is that even skeptics accept the consistency and clarity of your definition of what is a "race." Does your definition include or exclude the simplest blood types (A, B, AB, O)? Does it include variations in earlobe length or bellybutton shape? Precisely which of the thousands of geographically varying human traits are important to your definition and why? Does the word include purely voluntary cultural differences (Hispanics, Jews)?
Again, the issue is not when and how prehistoric migrations and or adaptations happened. The issue that I am concerned with here is clarity of expression. And the use of obsolete labels (like "Caucasian" or "Negroid") and of the word "race" muddies it.
Last edited by fwsweet on Fri 05 Sep 2008 14:22; edited 2 times in total
Regarding European evolution...maybe this map helps...everything else is pre-Ice age (irrelevant) ...
Irrelevant to whom? My wife is of mtDNA haplogroup H (mammoth hunters who entered Europe around 40 kya) and she does not consider her lineage "irrelevant". Even in in the context of the thread from which this one was split (Arabs), why do you say that pre-ice age migrations are "irrelevant"?
Regarding European evolution...maybe this map helps...everything else is pre-Ice age (irrelevant) ...
Irrelevant to whom? My wife is of mtDNA haplogroup H (mammoth hunters who entered Europe around 40 kya) and she does not consider her lineage "irrelevant". Even in in the context of the thread from which this one was split (Arabs), why do you say that pre-ice age migrations are "irrelevant"?
I was referring to Y-DNA
The pre-ice age migrations had minimal if any effect on who is European today....otherwise their DNA will show up in some %
The Arabids are an isolate both in Evolution and Genetics. Thats why its not correct to refer to them as White or even Caucasian.
Europe has 3 main YDNA markers (of 2 diff origins I & R1) that all evolved in Refugia and later a branch of them evolved a Nordic evoltuion (producing the Blonde hair). The So called Med race are the ones who remained in refugia and skipped the Nordic mutations.
IJ Arabid >>>>evolves to Bedouinid and Syrid
Refugia Evolution = IJ + ICe Age southern European mutations
Nordic evolution = Refugia + Nordic mutations (Blondism)
The Nordic race evolved to become the most suited race for cold weather...
South Europeans evolved to the Med climate & some Arabids moved into the East med regions evolvving into Meds....the recent Med mutations created the Med Race...The Post-Roman Nordic invasions of Southern Europe .....reversed the assimilation of Southern Europe so big portions of the population of Southern Europe today is not necessary the native Med race of the Hellenic period..hence the racial disconnect with the NearEastern Meds
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 353 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Fri 05 Sep 2008 15:14 Post subject:
Quote:
For example, looking at the chart you would never imagine that R1* (the ancestor of both R1a and R1b, at the unlabeled spot where the blue "Caucasian" line turns left) is found today only in Cameroon among people who are about as "Negroid" as you can get. (The only reason I know about R1* is that it happens to be my own haplogroup.)
I started a new thread on R1* with some additional information here:
Europe has 3 main YDNA markers (of 2 diff origins I & R1) that all evolved in Refugia...
Source, please. As far as I know, the consensus is that the R1's arrived in Europe about 33 kya, long before the glaciers drove the population of Europe into refugia. See, for example, Stephen Oppenheimer, The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey Out of Africa (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2003), page 153.
YDNA wrote:
The Nordic race evolved to become the most suited race for cold weather...
Source please. You have 24 hours. The claim is silly on the face of it. Tell that to the Inuits, the Evenks, the Sel’kups, the Yukagirs, the Chukchi, the Aleuts, the Evens, the Koryaks, the Nivkhs, or the Udegeys. All of these are stocky with short limbs as an adpatation to the cold.
I am sorry, YDNA, but that last one was such a howler that I am compelled to ask, in accordance with The Rules, paragraph 3.1.3, with which introductory textbook on on molecular anthropology or genetics you are most familiar. Please give author(s), title, publisher, and year. Again, you have 24 hours.
Also, in accordance with 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of the rules, I previously asked you to explain what you meant by your usage of the term "race" before using it again. You have continued to use the term. You have ignored my request for your explanation of what you mean by it. The next time that you use the term without explaining what you mean by it, your posting privilege will be suspended for one week.
Also, in accordance with 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of the rules, I previously asked you to explain what you meant by your usage of the term "race" before using it again. You have continued to use the term. You have ignored my request for your explanation of what you mean by it. The next time that you use the term without explaining what you mean by it, your posting privilege will be suspended for one week.
I do apologize if I caused any annoyance, most of my work is related to Y-DNA research I am involved with
FTR I am not Nordic or a WN, its just my personal opinion that the European Nordics are the most suited group for Cold climate, because they had a longer evolutionary journey that saw more mutations than the Eskimos or Inuits. The Eskimos, Inuits seem to have adapted to the cold weather in a much later period (that also included domestication of animals, tools...which made teh evolutionary impact leser than the earlier evoltuion in the Ice Age)
Coming of K Y-DNA and some obviously from outside F Y-DNA. Any human can evolve to any climate.
I am sorry if I offended anybody! Will come next week!
its just my personal opinion that the European Nordics are the most suited group for Cold climate, because they had a longer evolutionary journey that saw more mutations than the Eskimos or Inuits. The Eskimos, Inuits seem to have adapted to the cold weather in a much later period (that also included domestication of animals, tools...which made teh evolutionary impact leser than the earlier evoltuion in the Ice Age).
There are two problems with what you are saying.
First, the only difference between the people native to within 300 miles of the Baltic and everyone else is their odd depigmentation (skin, hair, eyes). As Mister Lawyer has already pointed out, this is not an adaptation to cold (stocky torso, short limbs, large sinuses). It is an adaptation to vitamin D deficiency caused by two factors: (A) subarctic lack of UV plus (B) a diet grossly deficient in vitamin D.
The second problem is that the dietary deficiency that drove the depigmentation of those people arose only after the neolithic revolution. It was caused by the switch from consuming animal flesh (rich in calciferol) to living on cultivated grain (zero calciferol). Hence, it dates only to about 7 KYA at most.
Populations at higher latitudes like the Saami, Inuits, Evenks, Sel’kups, Yukagirs, Chukchi, etc. (who are highly adapted to cold) are not depigmented because they could not switch to grains. They continue to live off animal flesh to this day. People at lower (Mediterranean) latitudes, who switched to grain, are not depigmented because their direct sunlight provides enough UV to sythesize vitamin D in their skin. There is only one spot on the globe where grain grows in dim subarctic twilight, thus forcing depigmentation. It is the region within 300 miles of the Baltic Sea.
its just my personal opinion that the European Nordics are the most suited group for Cold climate, because they had a longer evolutionary journey that saw more mutations than the Eskimos or Inuits. The Eskimos, Inuits seem to have adapted to the cold weather in a much later period (that also included domestication of animals, tools...which made teh evolutionary impact leser than the earlier evoltuion in the Ice Age).
There are two problems with what you are saying.
First, the only difference between the people native to within 300 miles of the Baltic and everyone else is their odd depigmentation (skin, hair, eyes). As Mister Lawyer has already pointed out, this is not an adaptation to cold (stocky torso, short limbs, large sinuses). It is an adaptation to vitamin D deficiency caused by two factors: (A) subarctic lack of UV plus (B) a diet grossly deficient in vitamin D.
The second problem is that the dietary deficiency that drove the depigmentation of those people arose only after the neolithic revolution. It was caused by the switch from consuming animal flesh (rich in calciferol) to living on cultivated grain (zero calciferol). Hence, it dates only to about 7 KYA at most.
Populations at higher latitudes like the Saami, Inuits, Evenks, Sel’kups, Yukagirs, Chukchi, etc. (who are highly adapted to cold) are not depigmented because they could not switch to grains. They continue to live off animal flesh to this day. People at lower (Mediterranean) latitudes, who switched to grain, are not depigmented because their direct sunlight provides enough UV to sythesize vitamin D in their skin. There is only one spot on the globe where grain grows in dim subarctic twilight, thus forcing depigmentation. It is the region within 300 miles of the Baltic Sea.
That's why not-blonde not-blue eyed people cannot be vegan in northen climate.
That's why not-blonde not-blue eyed people cannot be vegan in northen climate.
It is not that bad any more. Most bread in Europe and North America is fortified with vitamin D for that very reason. Children and pregnant women are most at risk, so milk also has vitamin D added.
Healthy adults are not as vulnerable to vitamin D definciency as kids are because their bones have already formed. And, although rickets is a valid concern for kids, the biggest impact of too much or too little UV is on fetuses.
Humans are sensitive to sunlight because humans lack fur. When UV rays hit bare skin, they produce vitamin D and reduce folate. And fetuses are terribly vulnerable to both substances in the mother. When it comes to sunlight and skin tone, pregnant human females are balanced on a knife-blade.
Too much UV penetrating the skin (too pale-skinned under intense sunlight) increases Vitamin D but reduces folate. This produces neural tube defects in the fetus, causing such congenital abnormalities as craniorachischisis, anencephalus, and spina bifida, leading to many miscarriages.
On the other hand, too little UV penetrating the skin (too dark-skinned under dim sunlight) increases folate but reduces vitamin D. And this causes skeletal abnormalities (skull, chest, and leg malformations), rickets being the best known. Again, this causes miscarriages.
This is one reason why prenatal care is so vital in the age of the 747.
No offense, but that chart looks largely biased and a bit confusing. I don't claim to know much about genetics, but I'm fairly sure that those terms aren't even used anymore.
fwsweet wrote:
I agree that the chart seems to try to overlay a set of obsolete group labels onto a modern haplogroup cladogram that does not match the overlay very well.
Upon looking further into the source of this chart, I find that it comes from a site that:
has so little traffic that it does not show up in traffic montors,
has so few links to it that it does not show up in Google (other than when searched by its domain name),
comes from a domain registered through a proxy service, making it impossible to find out who is responsible for it, and ...
labels itself on its home page as "Racialist Genealogy," thus suggesting that its effort to connect Y haplotypes with "race" is deliberate and ideologically motivated.
All in all, I get very bad vibes from this chart and its source.
That's why not-blonde not-blue eyed people cannot be vegan in northen climate.
It is not that bad any more. Most bread in Europe and North America is fortified with vitamin D for that very reason. Children and pregnant women are most at risk, so milk also has vitamin D added.
Healthy adults are not as vulnerable to vitamin D definciency as kids are because their bones have already formed. And, although rickets is a valid concern for kids, the biggest impact of too much or too little UV is on fetuses.
Humans are sensitive to sunlight because humans lack fur. When UV rays hit bare skin, they produce vitamin D and reduce folate. And fetuses are terribly vulnerable to both substances in the mother. When it comes to sunlight and skin tone, pregnant human females are balanced on a knife-blade.
Too much UV penetrating the skin (too pale-skinned under intense sunlight) increases Vitamin D but reduces folate. This produces neural tube defects in the fetus, causing such congenital abnormalities as craniorachischisis, anencephalus, and spina bifida, leading to many miscarriages.
On the other hand, too little UV penetrating the skin (too dark-skinned under dim sunlight) increases folate but reduces vitamin D. And this causes skeletal abnormalities (skull, chest, and leg malformations), rickets being the best known. Again, this causes miscarriages.
This is one reason why prenatal care is so vital in the age of the 747.
Very interesting. Do you have some other link about this argument?
And how are blond hair and blue eyes usefull?
I also have an animated presentation of the topic that I give in my lectures in Second Life (in fact, it is scheduled for next Wednesday at 2 PM PST), but you have to be in Second Life to watch it. I am working on a version for the web that will use either flash or wmv, but it will be a while before I publish it.
sir alcal wrote:
how are blond hair and blue eyes usefull?
They're not. My paper does not deal with this in depth , but people ask all the time, so my SL lecture spends a lot of time on it. In short, the only way to accomplish such a fast adaptation is by neoteny--the retention into adulthood of traits that are normally found only in infancy or childhood. Kids are lighter-skinned than adults. They also have lighter hair until puberty, and lighter eyes in infancy. The adaptation worked by delaying (or suppressing) the increased melanin production normally expected as a child matures. What forced the adaptation was skin tone, and the hair and eyes just got dragged along accidentally.
For a similar very fast neotenous adaptation, also driven by the Neolithic revolution, check out the lactose tolerance adaptation. Again, kids can digest milk with no problem while adults normally cannot. But when herdsmen began living off milk, those who could digest it (without first turning it into cheese or yogurt which eliminates the lactose) had an advantage.
I also have an animated presentation of the topic that I give in my lectures in Second Life (in fact, it is scheduled for next Wednesday at 2 PM PST), but you have to be in Second Life to watch it. I am working on a version for the web that will use either flash or wmv, but it will be a while before I publish it.
sir alcal wrote:
how are blond hair and blue eyes usefull?
They're not. My paper does not deal with this in depth , but people ask all the time, so my SL lecture spends a lot of time on it. In short, the only way to accomplish such a fast adaptation is by neoteny--the retention into adulthood of traits that are normally found only in infancy or childhood. Kids are lighter-skinned than adults. They also have lighter hair until puberty, and lighter eyes in infancy. The adaptation worked by delaying (or suppressing) the increased melanin production normally expected as a child matures. What forced the adaptation was skin tone, and the hair and eyes just got dragged along accidentally.
For a similar very fast neotenous adaptation, also driven by the Neolithic revolution, check out the lactose tolerance adaptation. Again, kids can digest milk with no problem while adults normally cannot. But when herdsmen began living off milk, those who could digest it (without first turning it into cheese or yogurt which eliminates the lactose) had an advantage.
So your opinion is low melanin in hair, skin and eyes, is just the consequenze of the same DNA mutation. But this doesn't explain why are there people with dark skin and blue eyes? If it was just the same gene mutated, then blue eyes and light skin couldn't "separate".
The general opinion, is blue eyes and blond hair became common, because blond blue eyed women were "sexier" . This theory is a bogus for me. If a blond woman marry a dark man, the sons will not have blond hair, because it's a recessive trait.
So your opinion is low melanin in hair, skin and eyes, is just the consequenze of the same DNA mutation. But this doesn't explain why are there people with dark skin and blue eyes? If it was just the same gene mutated, then blue eyes and light skin couldn't "separate".
Well, there are many genes involved in melanization. It is a typically long and complicated bio-chemical chain, with different gene-produced proteins catalyzing or participating in every step. ("Other" will probably support my saying that no one in his right mind would have designed those pathways thus.)
The best overview of the entire process is Sturm, Richard A., Neil F. Box, and Michele Ramsay. “Human Pigmentation Genetics: The Difference is Only Skin Deep.” BioEssays 20 (1998): 712-21. I thought that I had a PDF of it, but unfortunately I cannot find it. Pubmed has the abstract, but Wylie Interscience wants $30 for the PDF download. If anyone reading these words has access to a college membership in JSTOR or Wylie, I would be deeply grateful if you could send me a copy of the article so that I can make it available here. In the meantime, sir alcal might see if a local library can get a copy.
The thing is that skin, hair, and eyes are independent, and genes for these traits can often differ. Many people have blonde hair and dark brown eyes (as I did as a kid). Others have blue or green eyes with dark skin, and so forth. But all melanization increases when a child matures through puberty.
Even though hair skin and eyes remain independent, they all depend on general melanin production, which (as Sturm et al. show) is controlled by many different genes. But general melanin production also increases with puberty, apparently due to a trigger gene. And so the fastest way to evolve a fair skin was to delay (or suppress) the impact of that one trigger gene. Genes for hair, skin, and eye color remain independent of each other, but all are affected by the delayed (or suppressed) trigger gene.
If you are interested in how our understanding of skin tone and melanization has improved since the decoding of the genome, you might want to glance through the collection of articles at http://backintyme.com/skincolor and compare the strange archaic-seemng articles written before 1990 with those more recent. (Unfortunately, the Sturm article is not there.)
sir alcal wrote:
The general opinion, is blue eyes and blond hair became common, because blond blue eyed women were "sexier."
I would not say that it is a "general opinion" among molecular anthropologists, although some highly respected ones have hypothesized it (including the Old Man Himself, Cavalli-Sforza). For a short analysis of the arguments pro and con, see Sexual Selection and the Color Line.
The sexual selection hypothesis is best presented today by Peter Frost, whose argument is available at here. Nevertheless, I agree with you that the hypothesis has been shot down, specifically in March of last year by Madrigal and Kelly in “Human skin-color sexual dimorphism: a test of the sexual selection hypothesis” Am J Phys Anthropol. 2007 Mar;132(3):470-82.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
