DNA analysis: 7000 Year old Mesolithic Hunter-gatherer European had blue eyes and dark skin

reject
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

 

Could the fairer skin have come from ancient Chinese?

I had wondered that too, the source of faired skin but what I had assumed originally came back as the more possible answer.

Found that it's probably not Neanderthal,

The people who built Stonehenge 5000 years ago probably had the same pallid complexion of many modern inhabitants of the UK. Now it seems that the humans occupying Britain and mainland Europe only lost the darker skins of their African ancestors perhaps just 6000 years earlier, long after Neanderthals had died out.

- Source

Perhaps skin started to lighten in the Mid East, then the migration came to Europe: migration map or if not then it began to be lightened due to the more overcast skies of Europe influencing human skin to lighten to better adsorb Vitamin D.

reply to post by dreamingawake


New studies suggest humanity perhaps started in the Middle East instead of Africa and seeing as the 'out of Africa' theory is based on scant information, it could be true that human life started elsewhere.

There could be so many more 'finds' that are far older than anything found in Africa that are just waiting to be found. As I always say, science evolves and so do it's theories.

To afrocentrists, refrain from turning this thread into a debate on it, accept the possibilities.

The new discovery of pre-historic human remains by Israeli university explorers in a cave near Ben-Gurion airport could force scientists to re-think earlier theories.

Archeologists from Tel Aviv University say eight human-like teeth found in the Qesem cave near Rosh Ha’Ayin - 10 miles from Israel’s international airport - are 400,000 years old, from the Middle Pleistocene Age, making them the earliest remains of homo sapiens yet discovered anywhere in the world.

The size and shape of the teeth are very similar to those of modern man. Until now, the earliest examples found were in Africa, dating back only 200,000 years.

Other scientists have argued that human beings originated in Africa before moving to other regions 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Homo sapiens discovered in Middle Awash, Ethiopia, from 160,000 years ago were believed to be the oldest 'modern' human beings.

Other remains previously found in Israeli caves are thought to have been more recent and 80,000 to 100,000 years old.
A group of international and Israeli researchers have discovered pre-historic artefacts and human remains at the site that may prove the earliest existence of modern man was about 400,000 years ago+4

A group of international and Israeli researchers have discovered pre-historic artefacts and human remains at the site that may prove the earliest existence of modern man was about 400,000 years ago
The findings of Professor Avi Gopher and Dr Ran Barkai of the Institute of Archeology at Tel Aviv University, published last week in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, suggest that modern man did not originate in Africa as previously believed, but in the Middle East.

The Qesem cave was discovered in 2000 and has been the focus of intense study ever since.
Along with the teeth – the parts of the human skeleton that survive the longest – the researchers found evidence of a sophisticated early human society that used sharpened flakes of stone to cut meat and other impressive prehistoric tools.

Locator map - The Qesem cave near Rosh Ha Ayin, 10 miles from Israel's international airport, and Ethiopia, where man was thought to have originated+4


The Israeli scientists said the remains found in the cave suggested the systematic production of flint blades, the habitual use of fire, evidence of hunting, cutting and sharing of animal meat, and mining raw materials to produce flint tools from rocks below ground.

'A diversified assemblage of flint blades was manufactured and used,' the Tel Aviv scientists wrote, describing the tools they found in the cave.

'Thick-edged blades, shaped through retouch, were used for scraping semi-hard materials such as wood or hide, whereas
blades with straight, sharp working edges were used to cut soft tissues.'
The explorers said they were continuing to investigate the cave and its contents, expecting to make more discoveries that would shed further light on human evolution in prehistoric times.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... G6h

reply to post by cormac mac airt


The thread is about a particular find, I posted about Tut as an example of other finds, if you have an issue with the title, perhaps call them. Perhaps Tut's DNA shares the European prevalent haplotype, it's a possibility, get over it!

Some people need to stop basing all their beliefs on scant theory of migrations based on little information.

Turning it into accusations of racism is ridiculous, it's about facts and the truth.

Every find, including the one of the thread title, adds more to the picture, some finds totally throw the 'out of africa' theory and it's theorised migrations. Fact.

Face the Truth, deny ignorance!

"The bones of the 7,000-year-old man were discovered in a cave in Spain "


Spain was occupied by Moors for half the medieval period - bones in Spain dont tell us much about northern Europeans.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


And yet your qualifiers of "Perhaps" and "possibilities" don't remotely support your previous claim that "reports suggest otherwise", as again, they do no such thing.

It would also help if you'd stop basing your claims on faulty news releases and outdated information, since in the former case even one of the co-authors (Avi Gopher) of the actual paper involved titled "Middle pleistocene dental remains from Qesem Cave (Israel)" is asked the following and responds thusly:

Question: Do the teeth that you found in Qesem Cave really provide evidence that Homo sapiens did not evolve in Africa?

Answer: We don't know. What I can say is that they definitely leave all options open.

And here's his response to the media's presentation of the actual paper:

I told all the reporters I spoke to, to be very cautious what they wrote. But that's what happens.

In the latter case the Herto remains haven't been seen as the oldest anatomically modern human remains for quite some time as that distinction belongs to the Omo 1 and Omo 2 remains dating to c.200,000 BP.

And since Avi Gopher himself says the following, concerning the tooth remains...

There is a range of variation and no single unique trait that identifies a tooth unambiguously as modern or archaic or Neanderthal.

...then he's speculating beyond the available evidence, which he can do, but then he's already said that he and his colleagues have made no such claim as to which line of humans the teeth belong. That you apparently have taken the story as presented by the media at face value and not researched what the actual persons responsible for the paper have said says alot about your arguments validity or lack thereof.

cormac

theabsolutetruth
reply to post by Antigod

 

Early migrations of human are all theories, as are the emergence of haplotypes. No scientist knows for certain nor can claim to. There are too many variants and factors that could have influenced so many possible scenarios.

Science and scientific theories evolve and often alters from that which was previously theorised, it's always good to remember that truth.

Theories formed from observing the evidence, and occasionally tested with ancient DNA samples, which matches the archaelogical record of the expanding Neolithic populaitons. Unless you can come up with a decent theory based on other evidence, this is the one we are stuck with.

As to pale skin coming from the middle East, there was a DNA study on some ancient Neolithic people in Germany that showed up negative for the pale skin mutation, so it's unlikley to have originated in the Middle East and spread to Europe.

Shiloh7 Anyone living an outside life which people did 7000 years ago would have had a tanned or dark skin so that to me would have been what I expected.

Darker skin due to heavy exposure to sun is completely different from being genetically dark skinned...it's the difference between a black person and a white person who is in the sun a lot.

TheJourney

Shiloh7 Anyone living an outside life which people did 7000 years ago would have had a tanned or dark skin so that to me would have been what I expected.

Darker skin due to heavy exposure to sun is completely different from being genetically dark skinned...it's the difference between a black person and a white person who is in the sun a lot.

edit on 29-1-2014 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)

Ther's a world of shades between balck and white. the dark skin on these samples would be olive/tanned. You know, the shade Northern Europeans frantically try to go every summer.

reply to post by cormac mac airt


Again, basing the entire human race's origins and migrations on a few archaeological finds is not good science, no matter how many theories can be tied to it.

There could be infinite as yet unfound archaeological finds that prove a whole other story.

So, whilst you might stick to some theory as it's the most recent, I will decide to prefer that there are other possibilities as my truth of the matter.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


One can't, or at least shouldn't, base a position on evidence that doesn't currently exist. But at least now I know not to take you seriously. Thanks.

cormac

reply to post by cormac mac airt


I didn't but you did.

Your opinion is based on very little information.

My opinion is that there are many possibilities.

I wouldn't take the opinion seriously of a person that bases their opinion on very little information.

Now can we keep the thread on track.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


My understanding is based on the evidence provided by the discovery of more than 3500 currently known haplogroups, including haplotypes, of mitochondrial DNA both ancient and modern and their location not to mention the rather large numbers of Y chromosome DNA haplogroups/haplotypes as well. Yours is thusfar based on smoke and mirrors.

Yes, we can get back to the topic. Preferably with you sticking to the actual facts and not your unevidenced interpretation of same which is the way it should have been.

cormac

reply to post by cormac mac airt


Wrong.

You presumed my opinion.

I didn't give an opinion on THE PLACE/S OF ORIGIN OF HUMANS AND MIGRATION PATTERNS, apart from THERE ARE MANY POSSIBILITES, because each find adds more to the picture and there are statistically likely to be more unfound finds than found.

I didn't give an opinion of studied haplotypes apart from that R1B1 is prevalent in Europe and originated in the area of the Caucasus.

Stop using straw man arguments as thread derailment.

Note of disclaimer: Genetics was never my field, I find it very interesting but haven't kept up with the research.
However, in some of the posted "reports" the statements made seem a bit dicey to me.

From the first one: "Scientists had thought the first Europeans became fair soon after they left Africa and moved to the continent about 45,000 years ago.

"It has been assumed that it is something that happens in response to going from Africa to higher latitudes where the UV radiation is very low and you need to synthesise vitamin D in your skin. Your skin becomes lighter quite soon," explained Dr Lalueza-Fox.
"It is obvious that this is not the case, because this guy has been in Europe for 40,000 years and he still has dark skin."

How is it that the researcher knows that "this guy" has been in Europe for 40k years? Did they find a diary outlining his life and ancestry?

And then the media report: "Aug 1 (Reuters Life!) - Up to 70 percent of British men and half of all Western European men are related to the Egyptian Pharaoh Tutankhamun, geneticists in Switzerland said."

They are actually asserting knowledge of the genetics of 100% of the population of British men and Western European men? When were all these genetics tests done? I had no clue that the genome mapping project included every British and Western European male.

Maybe I've gotten it all wrong and new research proves this but I was led to believe that genetic testing shows what genes are in one person---the person being tested----not all his neighbors.
Who knows where "this guy" and his friend came from? He is described as a hunter/gatherer. They roamed and how far they roamed is anyone's guess.

My mind is open on the issue but I urge everyone to realize that what the anthropologists are putting forth are theories. This science is very new and sometimes it skids sideways in progress so it's not good to invest too much ego and reputation in any single "find" of this sort lest one end up looking very sheepish in a few years.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


There are a lot of studies showing gene mapping but it's true that there is only a small part of the picture now and theories are theories that evolve and sometimes new theories replace them.

Some interesting studies here.

Of course there's always the possibility of some agenda being put forward regarding genetic mapping that suits some group or groups but here's hoping the truth of the matter will be known soon.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Adding to increasing evidence of a tangled human family tree, the new Neanderthal genome study released by the journal Nature also suggests that another previously unknown archaic human species shared its genes with some of our ancestors. The study authors suggest that it was Homo erectus, one of the earliest human species, which first arose around 1.8 million years ago. (See also "Why Am I a Neanderthal?")

The report, led by Germany's Kay Prüfer of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, builds on recent prehistoric genetics results that argue against theories that modern humans arose completely from one "out of Africa" migration more than 60,000 years ago that spread worldwide without mating with other early humans.

Instead, it looks like early modern humans sometimes mated with archaic human cousins they met along the way. People of non-African origin broadly have genes that are 1.5 percent to 2.1 percent Neanderthal, according to the study, with proportions higher among Asians and Native Americans. Similarly, 5 percent of the genome of people of Australian and Papua New Guinea descent looks Denisovan, as does 0.2 percent of the genes of people from Asia.

"We don't have one ancestral group, but proportions of ancestral groups," says computational biologist Rasmus Nielsen of the University of California, Berkeley, who was not part of the study team. "I think they make a convincing argument."

"In my view, this paper heralds the completion of the Neanderthal genome project in terms of mapping an entire genome," says paleontologist and human origins expert Richard Potts of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. "That's pretty cool science."

The findings suggest that Neanderthals and Denisovans split off from earlier human species around 600,000 years ago and split from each other perhaps 400,000 years ago.

The accuracy of the Neanderthal genome actually allows the researchers to proclaim that the Neanderthal found in Denisova Cave is less closely related to modern people than to a Neanderthal found at a site in the Caucasus.

Only 96 genes responsible for making proteins in cells are different between modern humans and Neanderthals. Intriguingly, some of the gene differences involve ones involved in both immune responses and the development of brain cells in people.

More Ancient Ancestor

"The suggestion of gene flow from Homo erectus to Denisovans is also interesting," says Potts. "I think the evidence of this event is mounting."

In the study, the authors report their evidence from a deep comparison of the new Neanderthal genome and the Denisovan one.

While Denisovans are more closely related to Neanderthals than modern humans are, as much as eight percent of their total genome comes from a "super archaic" (in Prüfer's words) early human species at least 900,000 years old, most likely Homo erectus.

www.newscientist.com...

IT WAS the discovery that challenged what it is to be human. The Neanderthal genome revealed that our extinct cousin's genes live on in many modern humans, implying that the two species interbred. But a controversial new study casts doubt on those claims of interspecies hanky-panky.

In 2010, Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and his colleagues sequenced the Neanderthal genome. Their analysis concluded that many modern humans carry a few Neanderthal genes. Only native Africans lack the Neanderthal genes, because Neanderthals did not live in Africa.

Right from the start, there was a problem. Neanderthals and modern humans ultimately evolved from the same ancestral population, so any genes shared by the two species might simply have been inherited from this common ancestor.

"We were very upfront in our papers that this was a possibility," says Pääbo's colleague David Reich of the Harvard Medical School in Boston.

Andrea Manica and Anders Eriksson at the University of Cambridge have now built a model to demonstrate a non-interbreeding explanation for the 2010 result.

They began with ancestral hominin populations throughout Africa and Europe (see diagram). Because of their regional proximity, the hominins in Europe had more genes in common with those of northern Africa than those of southern Africa.

Africa and Europe then became genetically isolated from one another, perhaps triggered by changing climates, says Manica. The Europeans evolved into Neanderthals and the Africans evolved into modern humans. Crucially, though, the modern humans in northern Africa retained genetic similarities with Neanderthals that the southern Africans lacked. Northern Africans ultimately moved into Europe - but they didn't need to interbreed with Neanderthals to share some genes with them (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1200567109).

I recommend this site, it has lots of information on R1b Haplogroup, subclades, illustrated maps and reports on the genetic origins of light skin, it also mentions blue eyes were already present in Mesolithic populations.

www.eupedia.com...

reply to post by diggindirt

How is it that the researcher knows that "this guy" has been in Europe for 40k years? Did they find a diary outlining his life and ancestry?

And then the media report: "Aug 1 (Reuters Life!) - Up to 70 percent of British men and half of all Western European men are related to the Egyptian Pharaoh Tutankhamun, geneticists in Switzerland said."

To the first item I'd put it down to a possible language disparity since it should be quite obvious that "this guy" didn't exist for the entire 40,000 years and Fox is talking about his lineage instead. Not that that has any bearing on all of Europe as you've noticed, it doesn't. There likely IMO would have been a transition period of sorts for such hair/skin/eye color changes to become representative in any group. Considering that such changes didn't happen "soon after" mankind's migration out of Africa*, which is apparent from genetic studies on such changes done within the last 10 years, it should also be obvious that the question is a bit more complicated than represented.

As to the media it's unfortunate but they DO have a propensity for sensationalizing scientific finds and studies, as I showed in an earlier post.

* unless one were to consider 30,000+ years later as "soon after".

cormac

World precolonial haplogroup map showing possible migrations based on haplogroup studies.

Antigod

TheJourney

Shiloh7 Anyone living an outside life which people did 7000 years ago would have had a tanned or dark skin so that to me would have been what I expected.

Darker skin due to heavy exposure to sun is completely different from being genetically dark skinned...it's the difference between a black person and a white person who is in the sun a lot.

edit on 29-1-2014 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)

Ther's a world of shades between balck and white. the dark skin on these samples would be olive/tanned. You know, the shade Northern Europeans frantically try to go every summer.

What I'm saying, is that having a genetic marker that indicates dark skin is fundamentally different from being in the sun a lot. That's what makes the discovery intriguing.

TheJourney

Antigod

TheJourney

Shiloh7 Anyone living an outside life which people did 7000 years ago would have had a tanned or dark skin so that to me would have been what I expected.

Darker skin due to heavy exposure to sun is completely different from being genetically dark skinned...it's the difference between a black person and a white person who is in the sun a lot.

edit on 29-1-2014 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)

Ther's a world of shades between balck and white. the dark skin on these samples would be olive/tanned. You know, the shade Northern Europeans frantically try to go every summer.

What I'm saying, is that having a genetic marker that indicates dark skin is fundamentally different from being in the sun a lot. That's what makes the discovery intriguing.

Not really, his skin tone wouldn't be that much different to modern.