|
Post by eufrenio on Jul 23, 2005 7:46:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by iberomaurusian on Jul 23, 2005 8:17:10 GMT -5
That study is specific for British; Previous studies have shown that 80% of Europe's genetical stock are Paleo and the rest (20%) are Neo (possibly, aryan=IndoEuropean). From that article, one can conclude also that red hair isnt an IE property.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Jul 23, 2005 8:23:17 GMT -5
That study is specific for British; Previous studies have shown that 80% of Europe's genetical stock are Paleo and the rest (20%) are Neo (possibly, aryan=IndoEuropean). From that article, one can conclude also that red hair isnt an IE property. Some parts of Europe are more Paleo than others... And it´s far from proven that the Neo´s were the IE´s, although it´s an interesting hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jul 24, 2005 8:51:17 GMT -5
What are the parts of Europe that are more Paleo than the other parts given the time that has elapsed since the Neolithic and the internal movements within Europe. The 80:20 thing has been around for some time, it is based on haplogroups considered to be Paleolithic or Neolithic.
|
|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on Jul 24, 2005 10:21:54 GMT -5
Does the book cover whether the Ancient tribes of Britain had bad teeth, or whether that is a recent mutation?
|
|
|
Post by iberomaurusian on Jul 24, 2005 11:06:17 GMT -5
What are the parts of Europe that are more Paleo than the other parts given the time that has elapsed since the Neolithic and the internal movements within Europe. Its my belief that the Neo region of Europe is its part that lines with the indoiranian zone, that is, southeastern Europe (Latin Italy, Greece, Anatolia ---Iran). Population movements inside Europe since neolithic times could not have changed that fact, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jul 24, 2005 11:30:57 GMT -5
Well the Sicilians have changed very little if at all. in perhaps a much longer time frame then these brits..The Sicanian origins go back 10,000 years,along with all the cave drawings dating 10-15,000 years. And the oldest complete Human skull was found in Sicily,and is dated to 500,000 years... So their has been a continuous or near continous human presence for that long in Sicily.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jul 24, 2005 13:36:08 GMT -5
Berter, More than one group of geneticists have put forth the notion that the specific gene mutation for the 22nd chromosome [which causes red hair] might be a Neanderthal trait. In dating the gene mutation, it goes back beyond the age of alleged modern humans. So here's the funny part--the circumstantial evidence: Neanderthals last died out in Spain and Portugal. (They had the longest co-habitation with Homo sapiens in Iberia). The oldest race in Europe are the Basque--who live in exactly the same places that the Neanderthal did. The world's highest rates of red hair are in Northern Spain [Galicia], Ireland, Scotland and Wales. In researching the Irish, Scottish and Welsh, they discovered that they all had Basque Y-chromosomes. So this mutation of the 22nd chromosome spread up the Atlantic coast with the Basques . . . who emerged from the last-known area of habitation of the Neanderthals. So the question stands: Are redheads cavemen??? Makes you wonder if that's why most people have a natural aversion to redheads. Blondes are celebrated, brunets considered the norm. But redheads--- In America, they have a phrase of contempt, "He beat you like a redheaded stepchild". I was talking to a Scottish girl on this website. Scotland has the world's highest redheaded rate [at 8%]. She said in Scotland, where so many people carried the gene recessively, everybody was terrified of having a redheaded child. [That shocked me: Redheads are even looked down upon in a country where they have the highest rates of incidence.] And, lastly, when my wife was pregnant, my cousin said, "Yeah, I'd be nervous, too, about a kid. I mean, what if he comes out a midget . . . or a redhead." I was like: "Ouch!" --To put a redhead in the same category as a midget??? But the truth is: Redhair is the result of a gene mutation. Brown hair and blond hair aren't. So, literally, redheads are "mutants". Is the aversion to redheads a natural evolutionary result of competition between the newer Homo sapiens and the older Neanderthalers? I'm in no position to answer that question. All I can say, in conclusion, yes: In answer to your question--Red hair is far, far older than the Aryan invasion of Europe. In fact--if some scientists are to be believed--it's older than Homo sapiens.
|
|
|
Post by iberomaurusian on Jul 24, 2005 15:54:00 GMT -5
Droop, How common is red hair among Basques!? Could you provide pictures of redhaired basques!.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jul 24, 2005 15:58:37 GMT -5
Berter, Here's an article on the Neanderthal-Redhead gene. www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3adc5573604d.htmP.S.--Look at this excerpt from another article: "Haemochromatosis is a genetic disease associated with progressive iron overload. HLA-H is a recently reported candidate gene for this condition. Two mutations have been identified, a substitution of cysteine for tyrosine at amino acid 282 (C282Y, nucleotide 845) and of histidine for aspartate at amino acid 63 (H63D, nucleotide 187). Over 90% of UK haemochromatosis patients are homozygous for the C282Y mutation. We have examined 5956 chromosomes (2978 people) for the presence of HLA-H C282Y and H63D by PCR followed by restriction enzyme analysis. We have found world wide allele frequencies of 1.9% for C282Y and 8.1% for H63D. The highest frequencies were 10% for C282Y in 90 Irish chromosomes and 30.4% for H63D in 56 Basque chromosomes." www.americanhs.org/celtic.htm
|
|
|
Post by iberomaurusian on Jul 24, 2005 16:16:15 GMT -5
Does that physical description apply to some modern Iberians!?.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jul 24, 2005 16:35:39 GMT -5
I'am always found this rather amusing...No humans and Neanderthal's are not related at all..buts its amazing that some mainstream scientists have still been pushing this crap,despite all evidence of the contrary...I think cause they prefer to see assimilation rather than War/Genocide being the cause of their extinction...Talk about PC and Multi-Cultural Politics,LOL!
Whats also interesting that Red Heads in Sicily/Italy and the Mediterranean World in general are still erroneously linked to a Norman influence...but the truth is its a home grown trait that existed far longer by atleast 2-3000 years before the Normans.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jul 24, 2005 16:44:08 GMT -5
Crimson Guard, Contrary to what you may have heard, the Neanderthal-Homo sapiens thesis has not been definitively exploded. An early genetic test said that Neanderthals didn't intermix with modern man. But then a problem arose. A fully human skeleton was discovered in Africa--a modern homo sapiens specimen. It dated from around the age of the Neanderthal. When they did a dna test on the fully human skeleton, it gave a false reading. The dna was so degraded that it made the human artificially look unrelated to modern man. They took a new look at the Neanderthal dna test and realized that the reading was, likewise, artificially skewed because of degraded dna. So all those early reports that there was no interbreeding were based on corrupt samples. More recently, sites in the Czech republic have yielded human-Neanderthal mixes--skulls that showed both traits of modern man and Neanderthal. Anthopologists have gone over the skulls and admitted that--despite Out-of-Africa rhetoric--it does appear that there was some mixture between the two groups. So the debate is not as cut-and-dry as many would like you to believe. Here's an article from the Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/18/AR2005051802147.html
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jul 24, 2005 16:50:22 GMT -5
<<So the debate is not as cut-and-dry as many would like you to believe.>> It is to me Droop... Computational and Molecular Population Genetics Lab, Zoological Institute, University of Bern, Switzerland. <<The process by which the Neanderthals were replaced by modern humans between 42,000 and 30,000 before present is still intriguing. Although no Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineage is found to date among several thousands of Europeans and in seven early modern Europeans, interbreeding rates as high as 25% could not be excluded between the two subspecies. In this study, we introduce a realistic model of the range expansion of early modern humans into Europe, and of their competition and potential admixture with local Neanderthals. Under this scenario, which explicitly models the dynamics of Neanderthals' replacement, we estimate that maximum interbreeding rates between the two populations should have been smaller than 0.1%. We indeed show that the absence of Neanderthal mtDNA sequences in Europe is compatible with at most 120 admixture events between the two populations despite a likely cohabitation time of more than 12,000 y. This extremely low number strongly suggests an almost complete sterility between Neanderthal females and modern human males, implying that the two populations were probably distinct biological species.>> www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15562317Theirs a few more around, but you can accept what you like!
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jul 24, 2005 17:00:35 GMT -5
Crimson, Embrace your caveman heritage. Why do you think we whites look different from sub-Saharans and have more gene-variation? Why do you think the ages of male human dna and female human dna are different--a space of a hundred thousand years separating them? Why do you think blacks are hairless and have long-necked gazelle-like bodies and we Mediterraneans are stocky, hairy and oh so caveman-like? Ugh! Embrace your piggish, troglodyte heritage. Embrace your back-hair. Embrace your Mediterranean proclivity to wife-beating and projecting frontal lobes. Don't turn on our mixed-ancestry. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha
|
|