Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

origin of R 1 b

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Eki
    If R1b reached Northern Europe before I1a, do yo have an explanation why hardly any R1b has reached Finland and has it's Scandinavian hotspot just in the southern Scandinavia, while I1a has reached even the northernmost part of Scandinavia and Finland in large numbers as seen in the maps by Paul Johnsen? If R1b started to spread in Europe first, I1a must have bypassed it sometime in the race towards north:
    Here is one explanation:

    Haplogroup R1b predominated in the southwestern refugium, while Haplogroup I predominated in the southern and southeastern refugia. Consequently, when the glaciers retreated, the populations that were heavily populated with haplogroup I were in a better geographic position to populate Scandinavia. By the time populations heavily populated with Haplogroup R1b had repopulated Western Europe, Northern Europe was already settled.

    This image from roperld.com illustrates the idea.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by paitenceofjob
      Here is one explanation:

      Haplogroup R1b predominated in the southwestern refugium, while Haplogroup I predominated in the southern and southeastern refugia. Consequently, when the glaciers retreated, the populations that were heavily populated with haplogroup I were in a better geographic position to populate Scandinavia. By the time populations heavily populated with Haplogroup R1b had repopulated Western Europe, Northern Europe was already settled.

      This image from roperld.com illustrates the idea.

      Yes, that is possible.

      But what has changed the "Cro Magnon looks" of southern and western Europeans, while those anthropological features have remained more in the north? And how did the Finns get the "Cro Magnon looks" when they don't have R1b, did it come just from the females?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Eki
        Yes, that is possible.

        But what has changed the "Cro Magnon looks" of southern and western Europeans, while those anthropological features have remained more in the north? And how did the Finns get the "Cro Magnon looks" when they don't have R1b, did it come just from the females?
        What are the anthropological traits the Finns have in common with Cro-Magnon remains that are not shared with southern or western Europeans?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by paitenceofjob
          What are the anthropological traits the Finns have in common with Cro-Magnon remains that are not shared with southern or western Europeans?
          According to Niskanen, generally the 39 craniofacial measurements he used, and specifically, for example, strong cheekbones and flaring zygomatic arches:

          http://www.mankindquarterly.org/samp...ccorrected.pdf

          Comment


          • #20
            Here you can find examples of what anthropological types are considered Cro-Magnoid:

            http://www.snpa.nordish.net/rg-main.htm

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Eki
              Here you can find examples of what anthropological types are considered Cro-Magnoid:

              http://www.snpa.nordish.net/rg-main.htm
              According to this link, I am Dalo-Falid described as basically an unreduced cro-magnon. Funny! Must be all that R1b ancestry from my west-frisian ancestors.

              It is my understanding that human morphology is largely clinal, shaped by environment and diet.

              John

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Johnserrat
                It is my understanding that human morphology is largely clinal, shaped by environment and diet.
                But only the genes that are present in a population can be enriched. That's probably why Greenland Inuits are dark-haired and dark-eyed, although climate wise it might be more beneficial to have light-hair and light-eyes. They probably didn't have the genes producing those traits among them.

                R1b only tells your paternal line. I1a is no stranger to Friesland, so you might have some I1a among your ancestors too.

                It is also said that "the border between Hallstatt Nordid and Dalo-Falid is often blurry, despite differences in lateral measures and robusticity". Hallstatt Nordid is said to be a "neolithic leptomorph" instead of "upper paleolithic survivor" like the Cro-Magnoid types.
                Last edited by Eki; 12 July 2007, 11:42 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I'm not going to get seriously involved in this as it is a hairy subject indeed but Niskanen appears to totally contradict himself in that he attributes the "strong cheekbones and flaring zygomatic arches" to environmental and not genetic factors.

                  "Most other Europeans have been farmers for so many generations (eating soft bread, porridge, etc.) that their cheek bones (which provide attachments for the masseter muscle) have reduced in size in comparison to other parts of their facial anatomy"

                  - more or less what Johnserrat says.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Ostrobothnia/Österbotten

                    Originally posted by mickm
                    My HVS-I haplotype is 192 311 (U5b*) which has a particularly high incidence in Ostrobothnia, a region I had never heard of before. Given the relatively high incidence in Finland, I assume that it arose there. I am intrigued as to how and when my female ancestor made it to Ireland.
                    Ostrobothnia, called Österbotten by Swedish-speakers, is at the top of the Gulf of Bothnia, just south of the Arctic Circle. It borders on northern Sweden and is one of the historically Swedish-speaking parts of Finland. The population would probably have more genetic links with Sweden where their ancestors came from than with Finnish Finland.

                    Harry

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Eki
                      But only the genes that are present in a population can be enriched. That's probably why Greenland Inuits are dark-haired and dark-eyed, although climate wise it might be more beneficial to have light-hair and light-eyes. They probably didn't have the genes producing those traits among them.
                      I do not have the expertice to contradict this statement. However, I do question it.
                      My understanding is that the black African ancestors of blond, blue eyed norsemen did not have genes for the blond, blue eyes, either. I believe those traits resulted from random mutations that were found favorable by natural selection and the evolutionary process was possibly accelerated by sexual selection. Those with mutations, resulting in lighter complexions were healthier in the limited sunlight regions and were possibly found more attractive as a parent for one's children.
                      I'm sure someone with more expertice than I will weigh in on this issue.
                      Floyd Oakes

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by hdw
                        Ostrobothnia, called Österbotten by Swedish-speakers, is at the top of the Gulf of Bothnia, just south of the Arctic Circle. It borders on northern Sweden and is one of the historically Swedish-speaking parts of Finland. The population would probably have more genetic links with Sweden where their ancestors came from than with Finnish Finland.

                        Harry
                        Language and genes don't go hand in hand. Language is learned, genes are inherited. If you look at this article by Lappalainen et al, you will notice that the Swedish speaking Southern Ostrobothnia is genetically closer to the "Finnish Finland" than the Finnish speaking Southern Ostrobothnia:

                        http://vetinari.sitesled.com/finns.pdf

                        The same can also be seen in the distribution maps of Finland DNA-project, where the "Finnish" N3-haplogroup is more common in the Swedish speaking west coast of Finland than in the Finnish speaking West-central Finland:

                        http://www.fidna.info/map2y.php?titl...rs=ycolors.txt

                        The mtDNA-haplogroup U is more common in the Northern and Central Finland than in Western Finland:

                        http://www.fidna.info/map2.php?title...e=mtpeople.txt
                        Last edited by Eki; 12 July 2007, 02:17 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by fmoakes
                          I do not have the expertice to contradict this statement. However, I do question it.
                          My understanding is that the black African ancestors of blond, blue eyed norsemen did not have genes for the blond, blue eyes, either. I believe those traits resulted from random mutations that were found favorable by natural selection and the evolutionary process was possibly accelerated by sexual selection. Those with mutations, resulting in lighter complexions were healthier in the limited sunlight regions and were possibly found more attractive as a parent for one's children.
                          I'm sure someone with more expertice than I will weigh in on this issue.
                          Floyd Oakes
                          It has also been suggested that red hair and fair skin come from the Neanderthals:

                          http://www.dhamurian.org.au/anthropo...nderthal1.html

                          Red hair a legacy of Neanderthal man
                          (The Sunday Mail - p.22. 22/04/2001)

                          Red hair may be the legacy of Neanderthal man. Oxford University scientists think the ginger gene, which is responsible for red hair, fair skin and freckles, could be up to 100,000 years old. They say their discovery points to the gene having originated in Neanderthal man, who lived in Europe for 260,000 years before the ancestors of modern man arrived from Africa about 40,000 years ago.

                          Research leader Dr. Rosalind Harding said: "It is certainly possible that red hair comes from the Neanderthals." The Neanderthals are generally thought to have been a less intelligent species than modern man, Homo sapiens. They were taller and stockier, but with shorter limbs, bigger faces and noses, receding chins and low foreheads. They had a basic, guttural vocabulary of about 70 words, probably at the level of today's two-year-old, and they never developed a full language, art or culture.

                          They settled in Europe about 300,000 years ago, but 40,000 years ago, a wave of immigrants - our forefathers, Cro-Magnon Man - emerged from Africa and the two species co-existed for 10,000 years. Dr Harding's research - presented at a London conference of the Human Genome Organization during the week - suggests the two species interbred for the ginger gene to survive. Dr Harding said redheads should not be offended by being to the primitive Neanderthals. "If it's possible that we had ancestry from Neanderthals, then it says that Neanderthals were more similar to us than we previously thought," she said.

                          Scientists at the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, at Oxford University, compared the human ginger gene with the equivalent in chimpanzees. They found 16 differences, or mutations, between the two genes. Since an early version of the gene developed in chimps roughly 10 million years ago, the scientists estimated there has been one mutation every 625,000 years. They used a computer to calculate how long it must have taken for the mutation responsible for the ginger hair to have passed down through the generations and become so common among Western people.

                          They concluded the mutation was older than 50,000 years and could be as old as 100,000 years. Some scientists believe Neanderthals were ultra-humans - able to adapt to extremes of climate and surviving for 272,000 years. But they became extinct about 28,000 years ago, outwitted for territory and food by the more socially advanced Cro-Magnons.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Anthropological Taxonomy isn't always good in determining origins.... It may be in general, but only 20% of that time is attributes to DNA findings....

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              trivial tidbit

                              Early explorers along the Northeast Pacific coast (SE Alaska or British Columbia) supposedly reported a few Native Americans with blue eyes. It would have been improbable that they had contact with previous Europeans at that early date. (But don't ask me to quote the source.)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by fmoakes
                                I do not have the expertice to contradict this statement. However, I do question it.
                                My understanding is that the black African ancestors of blond, blue eyed norsemen did not have genes for the blond, blue eyes, either. I believe those traits resulted from random mutations that were found favorable by natural selection and the evolutionary process was possibly accelerated by sexual selection. Those with mutations, resulting in lighter complexions were healthier in the limited sunlight regions and were possibly found more attractive as a parent for one's children.
                                I'm sure someone with more expertice than I will weigh in on this issue.
                                Floyd Oakes
                                Just a weird thought here. I've seen a few people who are albino. I know that albinoism can occur in any race. But I was wondering if, tens of thousands of years ago, or whatever, the first albinos were born in Africa, but the populace were afraid of them or something and exiled the albinos to Europe/Scandinavia. And that is why blond people are confined to that far away, tiny portion of the world. (Most of the world's population has dark hair and eyes.)
                                Sort of like being exiled to Siberia, only back then it was exile to Scandinavia.
                                I know it's a wild, silly idea. It amused me for a moment. I hope I didn't offend anyone.
                                I was on the Siberia thread a little while ago.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X