Look how far Cacs went to claim Kemet

Oceanicpuppy

Superstar
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
12,044
Reputation
2,330
Daps
35,919
Here's the full study that you decided to leave out.
Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 years
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/13/4832.full




No.:snoop: They're not agreeing with your theory that Africans always carried the pale skin, blonde hair and blue eyes genes. They don't even hint it. Yes the only thing that supports your argument is that they say European hair/eye is not due to environment. Neither I or anyone else on this thread concluded that it was due to that. Again nowhere does it state these genes evolved in Africa. But yet they do agree that pale is was due to environment (vitamin D) was a main factor in pale skin in Europe. Killing your claim that it was not solely due to environment... If environment doesn't play an effect on phenotype, then Africa wouldn't have the highest diversity of phenotypes in the world. And why don't you read what you post?:snoop:


"Also agrees with @@Poitier and @@Kemet_Rocky that environment/food has an effect on phenotype."
"Sure but the mutation didn't happen in Africa."
"No its not an African code and NEVER was in Africans" ( It was proven that it was )
If pale skin is a mutation than it is UNIQUE/EXCLUSIVE to that population that it evolved in and not the population prio
"Not from Africans. Look up SNP genetic event. The same thing for blonde hair."



The gist of what I got from you all was that Mutation happened outside of Africa and it was not of African origin and my claims were that it was African origin.

I stated that it light skin can come from many sources which the studies concluded. Meaning Light skin is not Unique or exclusive to Europeans.









Never said that! I said natural selection was cause for the skin color in large numbers, which is what that entire study is addressing.
Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 years. They used selective mating based on the environment.


I'm arguing about the origin, The gene was present in Africans before it exploded in Europe. I've already explained how you can have the genes yet not have the phenotype.
 

Oceanicpuppy

Superstar
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
12,044
Reputation
2,330
Daps
35,919
And one can see that this character is clearly ignorant of genetic mutation. Even going as far to dismiss that the environment plays no role in genetic mutation/phenotype. If we want to get technical evolution and environment go hand and hand; when the environment suddenly changes or people/creatures move to new environment, the changed conditions are required for a species to survive. Now what happens is that individual member of a population with a different gene than the rest (via random mutation) might be more capable of survival in these changed conditions. Why the heck do you think species like whales who are mammals are now able to be marine type animals??? ( because they fukked the ones that could swim and hold their breath underwater for one periods) aka natural selection Because they wanted to? No. IIRC the whales ancestor was a land animal. Same thing with DNA mutation. The environment the plays many factors; ultraviolet radiation, vitamins, diet, climate, diseases,smoking,etc,etc.



Tell me were I said environment played NO factor. I've been standing on natural selection this entire time.

Do you understand what natural selection means? it means that we adapt to our ENVIRONMENT by choosing mates that are better adapted to the environment.

I never dismissed environment you guys are one whom dismiss genetics.
 
Last edited:

Bawon Samedi

Good bye Coli
Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
42,413
Reputation
18,635
Daps
166,496
Reppin
Good bye Coli(2014-2020)
@Canadadry
Again if a mutation happened it can no longer be African. Especially if that mutation happened after the OOA. Every source I read on blue eyes, pale skin and blonde hair states a mutation happened outside of Africa. By your logic haplogroup M1 found in Ethiopians is still Eurasian when we know a mutation happened and that its no longer Eurasian. There's no point in arguing this. There really isn't. Again my argument was mainly about blue eyes, blonde hair and pale skin(NOT light skin). I don't know how you bought light skin into this when I specifically tried to only say pale skin because light skin is really a broad term. Again IIRC you tried to say Africans always had the gene for pale skin, blue eyes and blonde hair. I don't remember you only specifically stating only "light skin". I was only responding to what you said in this thread. The is the main theory I was responding to from you, nothing else:
Its African origin, the Pale skin white people have is just a lighter shade of brown. I'm not saying it's an African adaption but the africans had the DNA code for blonde hair, Light skin, and colored eyes within in them way before they reached the caucasus mountains. The cold climate retained that niche trait.
With the bolded we know thats not the case since a MUTATION happened in order for those three traits to even exist. Again that was the only thing I was responding to. And you use broad light skin when I specifically only said "pale skin".

As for the environmental thing. I thought you said environment played no affect on phenotype? But doesn't the environment play a role in natural selection?
 
Last edited:

Sinnerman

Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reputation
4,431
Daps
64,642
Anybody got any good links/info on black ancient north African.

Here's some info about the garamantes

https://www.temehu.com/Cities_sites/germa.htm

http://ancientpeoples.tumblr.com/post/26626441250/the-garamantes-an-ancient-tribe-that-were-located

http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/116/forgotten-garamante-kingdom

http://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Garamantes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garamantes

images
 

Oceanicpuppy

Superstar
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
12,044
Reputation
2,330
Daps
35,919
@Canadadry
Again if a mutation happened it can no longer be African. Especially if that mutation happened after the OOA. Every source I read on blue eyes, pale skin and blonde hair states a mutation happened outside of Africa. By your logic haplogroup M1 found in Ethiopians is still Eurasian when we know a mutation happened and that its no longer Eurasian. There's no point in arguing this. There really isn't. Again my argument was mainly about blue eyes, blonde hair and pale skin(NOT light skin). I don't know how you bought light skin into this when I specifically tried to only say pale skin because light skin is really a broad term. Again IIRC you tried to say Africans always had the gene for pale skin, blue eyes and blonde hair. I don't remember you only specifically stating only "light skin". I was only responding to what you said in this thread. The is the main theory I was responding to from you, nothing else:

With the bolded we know thats not the case since a MUTATION happened in order for those three traits to even exist. Again that was the only thing I was responding to. And you use broad light skin when I specifically only said "pale skin".

As for the environmental thing. I thought you said environment played no affect on phenotype? But doesn't the environment play a role in natural selection?


"Environment plays a role but to say genetics don't over power enviroment are not the strings that dictate our phenotype is crazy."

That is what I said....where do i dismiss it.

 

Oceanicpuppy

Superstar
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
12,044
Reputation
2,330
Daps
35,919
@Canadadry
Again if a mutation happened it can no longer be African. Especially if that mutation happened after the OOA. Every source I read on blue eyes, pale skin and blonde hair states a mutation happened outside of Africa. By your logic haplogroup M1 found in Ethiopians is still Eurasian when we know a mutation happened and that its no longer Eurasian. There's no point in arguing this. There really isn't. Again my argument was mainly about blue eyes, blonde hair and pale skin(NOT light skin). I don't know how you bought light skin into this when I specifically tried to only say pale skin because light skin is really a broad term. Again IIRC you tried to say Africans always had the gene for pale skin, blue eyes and blonde hair. I don't remember you only specifically stating only "light skin". I was only responding to what you said in this thread. The is the main theory I was responding to from you, nothing else:

With the bolded we know thats not the case since a MUTATION happened in order for those three traits to even exist. Again that was the only thing I was responding to. And you use broad light skin when I specifically only said "pale skin".

As for the environmental thing. I thought you said environment played no affect on phenotype? But doesn't the environment play a role in natural selection?


I've mutation happens within at random in genes.
You can have the gene and NOT the phenotype.
 

Bawon Samedi

Good bye Coli
Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
42,413
Reputation
18,635
Daps
166,496
Reppin
Good bye Coli(2014-2020)
I've mutation happens within at random in genes.
You can have the gene and NOT the phenotype.

Did you even read the bolded clearly? Again a mutation happened for those three traits, outside of Africa. If Africans had the DNA code for those three traits(blue eyes, blonde hair, pale skin), then a mutation would have NEVER been needed for the traits to have existed post-OOA. Can we give this a rest already?
 

Oceanicpuppy

Superstar
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
12,044
Reputation
2,330
Daps
35,919
Did you even read the bolded clearly? Again a mutation happened for those three traits, outside of Africa. If Africans had the DNA code for those three traits(blue eyes, blonde hair, pale skin), then a mutation would have NEVER been needed for the traits to have existed post-OOA. Can we give this a rest already?

Thats is the argument, Tishkoff/ Shriver/ Norton believe it's of african origin, it's in the papers. They are trying to place the mutations origin outside of Africa...do you understand what they are trying to do?
Blues eyes and light skin IS indigenous to African, no European, East Asian admixture needed.

If it's wasn't they would NOT have the any of the mutations that are supposedly out of africa ( SLC24A2/ SLC24A5, HERC2,APBA2 (OCA2) mutation) why do africans have them ?? why ? explain. They concluded that they were not from european admixture in the cape verdean study)

Go ahead explain?
 

Bawon Samedi

Good bye Coli
Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
42,413
Reputation
18,635
Daps
166,496
Reppin
Good bye Coli(2014-2020)
Thats is the argument, Tishkoff/ Shriver/ Norton believe it's of african origin, it's in the papers. They are trying to place the mutations origin outside of Africa...do you understand what they are trying to do?
Blues eyes and light skin IS indigenous to African, no European, East Asian admixture needed.

If it's wasn't they would NOT have the any of the mutations that are supposedly out of africa ( SLC24A2/ SLC24A5, HERC2,APBA2 (OCA2) mutation) why do africans have them ?? why ? explain. They concluded that they were not from european admixture in the cape verdean study)

Go ahead explain?

1. Where does Tishkoff and the rest state that? I read many of Tishkoff studies and she never concluded that Pale skin, blond hair and blue eyes are of African origins. Can we please stop this now?
2. Did you not read my study on blue eyes which was a recent study? Again they state the MUTATION happened RECENTLY and way after the out of Africa. Let me post this again:
New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. Scientists have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6,000-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye color of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.

3. Again if a mutation happened its no longer African. How many times do have to tell you this!????? Can we just end this?
 

Oceanicpuppy

Superstar
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
12,044
Reputation
2,330
Daps
35,919
1. Where does Tishkoff and the rest state that? I read many of Tishkoff studies and she never concluded that Pale skin, blond hair and blue eyes are of African origins. Can we please stop this now?
2. Did you not read my study on blue eyes which was a recent study? Again they state the MUTATION happened RECENTLY and way after the out of Africa. Let me post this again:


3. Again if a mutation happened its no longer African. How many times do have to tell you this!????? Can we just end this?

"Variation in human skin and eye color is substantial and especially apparent in admixed populations, yet the underlying genetic architecture is poorly understood because most genome-wide studies are based on individuals of European ancestry.( Why would Shriver say that if he agreed?) We study pigmentary variation in 699 individuals from Cape Verde, where extensive West African/European admixture has given rise to a broad range in trait values and genomic ancestry proportions. We develop and apply a new approach for measuring eye color,( New method ) and identify two major loci (HERC2[OCA2] P = 2.3610262, SLC24A5 P = 9.661029) that account for both blue versus brown eye color and varying intensities of brown eye color. We identify four major loci (SLC24A5 P = 5.4610227, TYR P = 1.161029, APBA2[OCA2] P = 1.561028, SLC45A2 P=661029) for skin color that together account for 35% of the total variance,( 4 for skin 2 for eyes) but the genetic component with the largest effect (,44%) is average genomic ancestry. Our results suggest that adjacent cis-acting regulatory loci for OCA2 explain the relationship between skin and eye color, and point to an underlying genetic architecture in which several genes of moderate effect act together with many genes of small effect to explain ,70% of the estimated heritability.."
Blond or red hair color is very rare in Cape Verde, but there is a wide spectrum of variation in both eye and skin color, and individuals with dark skin and blue eyes are not infrequent( THEY ARE THERE where did it come from?)
The strong effect of genomic ancestry on skin color is also striking in the context of eye color; there is only a weak correlation between skin and eye color in Cape Verdeans (R‘2 =0.14), and African genomic ancestry is also weakly correlated (R‘2 = 0.08) with eye color (Figure 1c, 1d). Overall, these observations point to different genetic architectures for skin and eye color. ( WEAK Correlation between the skin color and eye color they are not one in the same)
The association of HERC2 and SLC24A5 with eye color is also apparent in individuals who do not have blue or green eyes: ( PEOPLE who have brown eyes still carry the SO CALLED UNIQNE gene for BLUE eyes. )
In the subset of 592 Cape Verdeans whose T-index .0.15 (Figure 1, Figure 2), both loci remain highly significant (HERC2 rs12913832, P = 5.23610216; and SLC24A5 rs2470102, P = 1.12610210), indicating that variation at these loci affects different shades of brown eye color.
Notably absent from the four skin color loci detected in this study are ASIP and KITLG, reported previously to affect skin color in populations with African-European admixture [12,15], and IRF4, MC1R, SLC24A4, TYRP1, reported previously to affect skin color in populations of European ancestry [4,6].( They are do not have the admixture of AF/EUR populations , Why does population have blue eyes if blue eyes came out outside of Africa from EUROPE recently where are these blue eyes coming from? Wouldn't they have ASIP/KITLG like the supposed BLUE-EYED FOREFATHERS? )
The four skin color loci we identified by association analysis act in an ADDITIVE fashion( more you have, the lighter) we found no evidence of dominance at any of the loci, nor evidence of opposite-sign epistasis between loci. For eye color, the ancestral HERC2 (OCA2) allele is mostly dominant over the derived allele, consistent with the near recessive mode of inheritance of blue eye phenotype in Europeans (Figure S3). By contrast, the effects of SLC24A5 on eye color are semi-dominant, and no interaction was found between this gene and HERC2. ( eyes color behaves different than skin and saying there is no "white" gene for skin color)

To explore these ideas, we first examined worldwide allele frequency distributions for the most strongly associated SNP at each locus, using information from the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) [39] and HapMap III [19].( just testing europeans)



Previous genome-wide studies of human skin and eye color have focused on populations of European ancestry and have been based primarily on categorical and subjective assessment of pigmentary phenotype [4–7].( He thinks they are biased not enough studies on people other than Europeans, how can you say it comes from(XYZ) and only test one group of people )



The abstract from the study and article you posted.

Blue eye color in humans may be caused by a perfectly associated founder mutation in a regulatory element located within theHERC2 gene inhibiting OCA2 expression.


The human eye color is a quantitative trait displaying multifactorial inheritance. Several studies have shown that the OCA2 locus is the major contributor to the human eye color variation. By linkage analysis of a large Danish family,(European Family, we finemapped the blue eye color locus to a 166 Kbp region within the HERC2 gene. By association analyses, we identified two SNPs within this region that were perfectly associated with the blue and brown eye colors: rs12913832 and rs1129038. Of these, rs12913832 is located 21.152 bp upstream from the OCA2 promoter in a highly conserved sequence in intron 86 of HERC2. The brown eye color allele of rs12913832 is highly conserved throughout a number of species. As shown by a Luciferase assays in cell cultures, the element significantly reduces the activity of the OCA2 promoter and electrophoretic mobility shift assays demonstrate that the two alleles bind different subsets of nuclear extracts. One single haplotype, represented by six polymorphic SNPs covering half of the 3′ end of the HERC2 gene, was found in 155 blue-eyed individuals from Denmark, and in 5 and 2 blue-eyed individuals from Turkey and Jordan, respectively. Hence, our data suggest a common founder mutation in an OCA2 inhibiting regulatory element as the cause of blue eye color in humans. In addition, an LOD score of Z = 4.21 between hair color and D14S72 was obtained in the large family, indicating that RABGGTA is a candidate gene for hair color.( only tested Europeans)

Critique of the above study.

'Blue-eyed Humans' do not 'Have A Single, Common Ancestor;

ScienceDaily has a most-retarded title up for a report on some new research, Blue-eyed Humans Have A Single, Common Ancestor. I already blogged the paper at my other blog. The paper roughly longesthaplotype blocks of any appreciable frequency in the European genome, suggesting massive selection within the last 10,000 years. We need to be careful about confounding conventional genealogical and demographic descriptions with evolutionary genetic dynamics driven by selection. (can't say blue eyes came from this place just because it was selected there)The history of genes is not always the history of peoples, or, you’re ancestors. Here a Dawkinsian distinction between replicators and vehicles is probably useful.
I know it is a pedantic point, but this sort of sloppiness makes it harder to communicate at the the intersection of genetics and other fields. Genes subject to powerful selection within the last 10,000 years, such as LCT, often sweep through segregation,independent assortment and recombination a particularallele will bleed out of its ancestral genetic background proportional to the power of selection. In other words, the genetic sweep can outrun the demographic wave of advance. That’s why Indians from Uttar Pradesh and Swedes both carry the same variant of LCT which is probably derived from the Volga region of Russia and do not look similar at all, while Arabs carry a different variant. Despite the phylogeny of LCT, where Arabs are the outgroup, across most genes Indians are the outgroup. Over evolutionary time scales phenetic similarity does not necessarily entail genetic similarity, and, genetic similarity does not necessarily entail phenetic similarity.
Addendum: I do acknowledge that it is correct that the vast majority of of people who exhibit blue-eyes do share a common ancestor within the last 10,000 years.(DOES Not say all people ) But I think emphasizing this point obscures the genetic facts which underly this assertion. Genomic history and genealogy are obviously related, but they are not coterminous. I think with this story it is important to get across to the typical person that one allele subject to positive selection swept through populations and increased in frequency. Alluding to the fact that the original copy was in one individual seems a trivial point; it is much more noteworthy when the same trait is underpinned by genes not identical by descent, because that defies out expectations.
 

Bawon Samedi

Good bye Coli
Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
42,413
Reputation
18,635
Daps
166,496
Reppin
Good bye Coli(2014-2020)
What is the point in posting all of that. Again none of which you post supports even hints or concludes to your theory that the mutation happened inside Africa. All you have is just speculation. Give it a break already. And you're study on blue eyes i Cape Verda, this one:
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003372

Solely focuses on ADMIXED populations. The study touches base on the mixed ancestry of Cape Verde and how it had it effects their skin and eye color. Again you only have speculation on your part. It is very known that a person of African ancestry who has Caucasian relatives on both sides of their family who are carry that eye color gene can have blue eyes due to them having Caucasian ancestry. Because the gene still exist in both parents. This is the EXACT same thing with Cape Verdes.Show me a study on non admixed African populations. Cape Verde wasn't even founded by Africans but Europeans. Prior to the settlement the island was inhabitant. So this "THEY ARE THERE where did it come from?" is moot on your part.

And also the blog is just a blog, not a peer reviewed study that argues against that Sciencedaily study.

Again just more speculation.
 
Top