Social Do you realize your ancestors were black?

[ocfightfan]

N-bombs for all

That's right, we all get a hood pass because of this. I'm planning on wearing a sandwich board with the N word on it in Harlem to celebrate.

 

[I Am Legion]

I always knew it. I always keep it real up in the field, aight?!

 

[Snubnoze707]

It depends on what you mean by black. The people I am referring to are morphologically indistinguishable from Africans, and you wouldn't be able to distinguish them from Africans visually. Their DNA is removed from Africans some, and is closer to some sapiens with lighter skin, but you wouldn't know that by looking at them.

Wait, is it your argument that Anatolian Farmers and Western/Eastern Hunter Gatherers would be indistinguishable from modern Black Africans?

 

[Big Tuppy Hole]

You have to remember how complex this story is. You are talking about a group that gradually lost their protective hair and evolved to be protected from the sun without fur. It wasn't a case of being born white and adapting by getting melanin; we would have died out from skin cancer if that were true. Homo habilis was the first human (first in the homo genus), and they were super hairy; this was a bridge species that was smarter and more functionally bipedal than the previous species (Australopithecus which were like a bipedal chimp) but habilis still had many archaic features. So yeah, to the extent that you want to say that apes under their fur were white, but that wouldn't make a lot of sense.

Hunter gatherers seldom needed sunscreen with any skin tone because they seldom did what causes a sunburn- being out in the glaring sun after being out of it for a long time. They were always out hunting so they always had to be adapted- the closer to the equator, the more solar radiation, and the darker your skin needs to be.

Thanks for the reply

 

[Levi_]

Wait, is it your argument that Anatolian Farmers and Western/Eastern Hunter Gatherers would be indistinguishable from modern Black Africans?

I don't even know what you are talking about. Western/Eastern hunter gatherers take a huge pot to fit into as they have massive diversity. I wouldn't say they look like anything.

If you want an example of what I was talking about where a group that leaves Africa and separates genetically, but through convergent evolution looks incredibly similar, that would be the Negrito of southeast Asia which I was talking about earlier in this thread.

Timestamped

 

[MichiganMMA1978]

I'm not trying to speak for him but that's just plain silly. He conceded to using but said he also vets the output against other sources. What's wrong with that, exactly?

He said it provides a link to a source. Maybe I missed where he said he checks all sources?(which I very well could have, as I was at work and very busy today)
I shared the video because in that case, it cited sources and cases... that didn't even exist.

Edit- yes, I see where I replied and mistook what I read. No more having sherdog discussions on busy days.

 

[Hdfi]

My great-great....great-grandmother looks like a rat.
Now give me free stuff.

 

[Hog-train]

Exactly.

There's this whole mythology popular with white nationalists and far righties about how the cold, dark weather of northern Europe made people from there more industrious, smarter, more inventive, etc., and warm weather made people there (aka, nonwhites) the opposite.

But Germany and northern Europe only started becoming "developed" in the last few hundred years. For most of human history, it's been warm weather civilizations that have led the way. Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Persia, China, India...

The question of why some peoples developed into large agricultural civilizations and some stayed as sparsely populated hunter gatherer societies has already been answered. Pulitzer prize winning book, "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

Basically, it's a matter of geography and what native fauna and animals are indigenous to an area. Nothing to do with cold or hot climate.

There's a reason complex societies first started in ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, etc.

Eurasia’s unique geography gave it a historic head start.​

Spoiler

Food surpluses make complex human societies possible. Civilization is calorific – it’s what happens when you grow enough food to feed people who don’t work the land.

In other words, it all starts with a warehouse full of grain. That’s how you feed an urban settlement – the civitas as it’s called in Latin, a language in which the word for “city” is etymologically related to “civilization.” Crowding lots of people together in cities is a recipe for disease, but that’s a good thing (evolutionarily speaking, anyway). Exposing populations to germs is how they develop immunity against diseases like smallpox. The city is also a hothouse for innovation. For one, it’s home to artisans and tinkerers as well as the wealthy patrons who sponsor their work. Then there’s the political factor. Cities compete with one another, and few things drive technological development like an arms race with a geopolitical rival.

Add all that together and you get a technologically advanced, disease-resistant society that’s armed to the teeth. It’s a lethal combination – and a good description of the Spanish conquistadors who colonized the Americas. Guns and steel gave them an advantage on the battlefield; the diseases they brought with them decimated indigenous societies off it.
Why, though, did Europeans like the Spanish have guns, germs, and steel while, say, the Incas of Peru didn’t? To answer that question, we need to turn to the origins of agriculture.

The heartland of human agriculture is the Fertile Crescent – a curve of valleys and floodplains that arcs through eastern Turkey into the Levant and down the Euphrates river into Iraq.

Some 12,000 years ago, foragers in this area began deliberately planting wild grasses with large, nutritious seed heads – the ancestors of wheat and barley. Without knowing it, they had sown humanity’s first crops. Lentils, olives, figs, almonds, and chickpeas followed. Next up were animals. Wild cattle, sheep, pigs, and goats were all domesticated in the Fertile Crescent. When the first cities began popping up after 7,500 BCE, their inhabitants relied on these foods.

There were other centers of agricultural innovation and other bases for cuisines and cultures. China, for example, had rice and soy; Mexico had maize, beans, tomatoes, and squash. Other parts of the world weren’t blessed with such abundance. Sub-Saharan Africa had millet, sorghum, yams, and groundnuts – but these plants didn’t grow in the same places. Large African mammals, meanwhile, resisted domestication. The real problem, though, were geographical barriers preventing the diffusion of crops. Let’s break that down.

The Eurasian landmass falls along an east-west axis. Pretty much every fertile region lies at roughly the same latitude, meaning there are few seasonal differences and the days are similarly long or short. The upshot is that crops which thrive in one region tend to also do well in others. Buckwheat, for instance, grows just as happily on the Breton coast as it does in the Alpine foothills of northern Italy and on the plains of Ukraine or the islands of Japan. This geographical quirk meant that Eurasian societies could rapidly exchange crops, enlarge their food supplies, and accelerate the growth of large and complex civilizations.

The Americas and Africa, by contrast, fall on north-south axes that cover many different degrees of latitude. Exchanging crops between fertile regions in, say, Mexico and Peru is tricky since these areas have significantly different day lengths and seasonal patterns. The diffusion of agricultural practices along this axis is thus much slower than it is along the east-west axis. A plant that thrives in Mexico – maize is a good historical example – has to undergo a huge amount of genetic adaptation before it’s of any use to farmers in the Andes.

The speed at which societies developed toward ever greater complexity was largely determined by agricultural capacities. The emergence of farming in Eurasia around 8,000 BCE led to a series of breakthroughs that other societies simply didn’t have the food surpluses to support. Metal tools, centralized states, and writing were well established in the Fertile Crescent by 2,500 BCE. In Africa and the Americas, such developments came much, much later.

So Eurasia had a multi-millennium head start on other regions, and that advantage compounded down the centuries. By the time agricultural revolutions were reshaping societies in Africa and the Americas, Eurasian states had already developed ships capable of circumnavigating continents – not to mention muskets and cannons. That’s ultimately why Eurasians were able to conquer Australians, Americans, and Africans.

Video below. Second video is the entire audiobook.

 

[MichiganMMA1978]

I try to be polite to people and sometimes lose track of who is a dick and who isn't; I wouldn't have said that if I realized who he was. Yeah, populism victims aren't too bright, or they wouldn't fall for the populist ideas that cause so many problems right now. It kind of explains itself. It cracks me up the way they say it is us who are the sheep.

I will admit, I didn't throughly read some of your replies. And I don't disagree with the OP. We kind derailed on the chatgpt part, so my apologies there. But no, I don't find it reliable if I have to check if the sources even exist lol.

But, "realized who I was", wtf is that supposed to mean? I don't believe I've ever had a discussion with you? And I don't see how I was being a dick? Please elaborate

 

[Spam On Rye]

Weird race fantasies TS

 

[Anewt]

If dark pigmentation evolved under the African sun, does that mean they where originally white. As the Palm of hand and soles of the feet are white and not prone to sun exposure.


I'm not trying to be racist it's a legit question I ponder.

OK, here you go pal:
1) the reason we LOST (and became bipedal) our hair is because the forest was turning into savannah. Awfully hot out there.

2) We have DNA for Neanderthals and Denisovans, that tells us they are light skinned, which makes a lot of sense given they evolved in Europe and Asia (we know from genetics and the fossil record).

3) No lol don't get your science from artistic representation, not good science.

4) Of course, we are a fleshy pink, but that is irrelevant.

I actually got a bit curious. As my theory doesn't particularly work, not only that. Is completely backwards in regards to chimp skin tone [ hands and feet as well ]


Chimpanzee
Skin colour is generally white except for the face, hands, and feet, which are black. The faces of younger animals may be pinkish or whitish.

Comparisons between known skin pigmentation genes in chimpanzees and modern Africans show that dark skin evolved along with the loss of body hair about 1.2 million years ago.


So white and furry. To black and hairless [ relatively in comparison] .. way different when we go far back than I thought.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis is an extinct species of the hominid dated to about 7 million years ago, during the Miocene epoch.

Since many consider bipedalism the major milestone that put our own lineage on a different evolutionary path than the apes, Sahelanthropus could be the very oldest known hominin—the group consisting of modern humans, extinct human species and all of our immediate ancestors

From his DNA scientists have discovered that 5% of the species had red hair. The other 95% were not red, but probably not blonde either, because this is a rather more recent physical characteristic. His skin is probably light in colour.


Ditto the Australopithecus..


Most people associate Africans with dark skin. But different groups of people in Africa have almost every skin color on the planet, from deepest black in the Dinka of South Sudan to beige in the San of South Africa. Now, researchers have discovered a handful of new gene variants responsible for this palette of tones.

The study, published online this week in Science, traces the evolution of these genes and how they traveled around the world. While the dark skin of some Pacific Islanders can be traced to Africa, gene variants from Eurasia also seem to have made their way back to Africa. And surprisingly, some of the mutations responsible for lighter skin in Europeans turn out to have an ancient African origin.

Researchers agree that our early australopithecine ancestors in Africa probably had light skin beneath hairy pelts. “If you shave a chimpanzee, its skin is light,” says evolutionary geneticist Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania, the lead author of the new study. “If you have body hair, you don’t need dark skin to protect you from ultraviolet [UV] radiation.”


Neanderthal - also light skinned to tanned

Denisovans - dark


It seems just like modern humans there appears to have been a vast diversity of skin tones. Throughout all of history actually... including africa itself . That includes for homo sapiens


Have a read. Quire a interesting article

Gene study shows human skin tone has varied for 900,000 years

An analysis of genetic variation and skin pigmentation suggests that some particularly dark skin tones evolved relatively recently from paler genetic variants

www.newscientist.com

Skin tone has varied greatly among humans for at least the last 900,000 years. So concludes an analysis of the genetic variants associated with skin pigmentation in people from several regions of Africa. The latest findings suggest that some particularly dark skin tones evolved relatively recently from paler genetic variants, underlining how deeply flawed the racist concept of people with whiter skin being “more advanced” really is.


The latest thinking is that Homo sapiens emerged in Africa about 300,000 years ago. The new findings mean that relatively pale skin tone variants predate the appearance of our species and have been retained in some parts of Africa ever since.

This might surprise some geneticists, says Tishkoff. Previous studies of a skin pigmentation gene called MC1R had led many geneticists to think that dark skin colour – which is thought to protect against UV damage – is a fixed and consistent trait in all people of African descent.
“They thought [MC1R] shows that there has been selection for dark skin in Africa and therefore there’s no variation,” says Tishkoff.
But in retrospect, it’s obvious that the story of skin pigmentation in sub-Saharan Africa is more complicated than that, as there is huge variation in skin colour across the continent today. The San hunter-gatherer populations of southern Africa often have lightly pigmented skin, and belong to one of the most ancient branches of the Homo sapiens family tree.


“I think the most interesting observation is that some ancestral light skin alleles are shared between the San and archaic hominins such as Neanderthals and Denisovans,” says Carles Lalueza-Fox at the Institute of Evolutionary Biology in Barcelona, Spain. “This suggests a shared, common ancestry for this trait before the split of these three hominin lineages.”



Of the darker-skin gene variants, three appear to have evolved from less pigmented variants. This means that some people with particularly dark skin – such as the Nilo-Saharan pastoralists of East Africa – gained the trait relatively recently, from paler-skinned ancestors. “People have thought it was just light skin that has been evolving,” says Tishkoff. “I think dark skin continues to evolve as well


No single “African race”
Research into the genetics of skin tone and other traits has a significance beyond understanding our species’ evolutionary history. “There are racists who want to associate skin pigmentation with intellectual traits or traits dealing with moral behaviour,” says Nina Jablonski at Pennsylvania State University.

But there is no justification for white supremacist arguments that people of European descent with typically paler skin are inherently superior or more evolved. “We see these variants associated with whiter skin actually came from Africa,” says Tishkoff.

 

[Levi_]

I actually got a bit curious. As my theory doesn't particularly work, not only that. Is completely backwards in regards to chimp skin tone [ hands and feet as well ]


Chimpanzee
Skin colour is generally white except for the face, hands, and feet, which are black. The faces of younger animals may be pinkish or whitish.

Comparisons between known skin pigmentation genes in chimpanzees and modern Africans show that dark skin evolved along with the loss of body hair about 1.2 million years ago.


So white and furry. To black and hairless [ relatively in comparison] .. way different when we go far back than I thought.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis is an extinct species of the hominid dated to about 7 million years ago, during the Miocene epoch.

Since many consider bipedalism the major milestone that put our own lineage on a different evolutionary path than the apes, Sahelanthropus could be the very oldest known hominin—the group consisting of modern humans, extinct human species and all of our immediate ancestors

From his DNA scientists have discovered that 5% of the species had red hair. The other 95% were not red, but probably not blonde either, because this is a rather more recent physical characteristic. His skin is probably light in colour.


Ditto the Australopithecus..


Most people associate Africans with dark skin. But different groups of people in Africa have almost every skin color on the planet, from deepest black in the Dinka of South Sudan to beige in the San of South Africa. Now, researchers have discovered a handful of new gene variants responsible for this palette of tones.

The study, published online this week in Science, traces the evolution of these genes and how they traveled around the world. While the dark skin of some Pacific Islanders can be traced to Africa, gene variants from Eurasia also seem to have made their way back to Africa. And surprisingly, some of the mutations responsible for lighter skin in Europeans turn out to have an ancient African origin.

Researchers agree that our early australopithecine ancestors in Africa probably had light skin beneath hairy pelts. “If you shave a chimpanzee, its skin is light,” says evolutionary geneticist Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania, the lead author of the new study. “If you have body hair, you don’t need dark skin to protect you from ultraviolet [UV] radiation.”


Neanderthal - also light skinned to tanned

Denisovans - dark


It seems just like modern humans there appears to have been a vast diversity of skin tones. Throughout all of history actually... including africa itself . That includes for homo sapiens


Have a read. Quire a interesting article

Gene study shows human skin tone has varied for 900,000 years

An analysis of genetic variation and skin pigmentation suggests that some particularly dark skin tones evolved relatively recently from paler genetic variants

www.newscientist.com

Skin tone has varied greatly among humans for at least the last 900,000 years. So concludes an analysis of the genetic variants associated with skin pigmentation in people from several regions of Africa. The latest findings suggest that some particularly dark skin tones evolved relatively recently from paler genetic variants, underlining how deeply flawed the racist concept of people with whiter skin being “more advanced” really is.


The latest thinking is that Homo sapiens emerged in Africa about 300,000 years ago. The new findings mean that relatively pale skin tone variants predate the appearance of our species and have been retained in some parts of Africa ever since.

This might surprise some geneticists, says Tishkoff. Previous studies of a skin pigmentation gene called MC1R had led many geneticists to think that dark skin colour – which is thought to protect against UV damage – is a fixed and consistent trait in all people of African descent.
“They thought [MC1R] shows that there has been selection for dark skin in Africa and therefore there’s no variation,” says Tishkoff.
But in retrospect, it’s obvious that the story of skin pigmentation in sub-Saharan Africa is more complicated than that, as there is huge variation in skin colour across the continent today. The San hunter-gatherer populations of southern Africa often have lightly pigmented skin, and belong to one of the most ancient branches of the Homo sapiens family tree.


“I think the most interesting observation is that some ancestral light skin alleles are shared between the San and archaic hominins such as Neanderthals and Denisovans,” says Carles Lalueza-Fox at the Institute of Evolutionary Biology in Barcelona, Spain. “This suggests a shared, common ancestry for this trait before the split of these three hominin lineages.”



Of the darker-skin gene variants, three appear to have evolved from less pigmented variants. This means that some people with particularly dark skin – such as the Nilo-Saharan pastoralists of East Africa – gained the trait relatively recently, from paler-skinned ancestors. “People have thought it was just light skin that has been evolving,” says Tishkoff. “I think dark skin continues to evolve as well


No single “African race”
Research into the genetics of skin tone and other traits has a significance beyond understanding our species’ evolutionary history. “There are racists who want to associate skin pigmentation with intellectual traits or traits dealing with moral behaviour,” says Nina Jablonski at Pennsylvania State University.

But there is no justification for white supremacist arguments that people of European descent with typically paler skin are inherently superior or more evolved. “We see these variants associated with whiter skin actually came from Africa,” says Tishkoff.

This information is very mixed in terms of accuracy, as I was saying about getting things from Wikipedia, which is the only place that would say a lot of this. I just skimmed it and saw the bit about the first hominin species and the DNA sample from it- DNA in the best conditions last 1.5 million years, so no, we do not have DNA from a 7-million-year-old species.

Some of it could be interesting. If you could clean it up and get the wiki stuff out I'll read through it and tell you what I think.

 

[Anewt]

This information is very mixed in terms of accuracy, as I was saying about getting things from Wikipedia, which is the only place that would say a lot of this. I just skimmed it and saw the bit about the first hominin species and the DNA sample from it- DNA in the best conditions last 1.5 million years, so no, we do not have DNA from a 7-million-year-old species.

Some of it could be interesting. If you could clean it up and get the wiki stuff out I'll read through it and tell you what I think.

Just read the bottom article from the new scientist. It's the most interesting theory

 

[Levi_]

Just read the bottom article from the new scientist. It's the most interesting theory

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised that there was variation in skin tone and melanin levels; you see that today even in black people that aren't mixed. In fact, we were just talking about that earlier in this thread- the Berbers live in a high elevation (less solar radiation and thus have lighter skin than other Africans). The fact that a pre-Sapien archaic species may have had lighter skin doesn't really mean anything in terms of what this thread is about; they were just in an exceptional environment like the Berbers.

There are different genes that caused light skin in those situations than what caused us to have light skin (assuming your lineage is European). Same in Asia- it wasn't the same gene that gave them light skin, so they wouldn't be 'white people' in the sense that they evolved into Asians (East Asians, Chinese, Japanese, etc.) and we evolved our Caucasian traits.

White Skin Developed in Europe Only As Recently as 8,000 Years Ago Say Anthropologists

The myriad of skin tones and eye colors that humans express around the world are interesting and wonderful in their variety.

www.ancient-origins.net

 

[djacobox372]

You know these 'possible' things you mention have been researched and have answers, right? I'll give you the brief version.

We lost hair between the bridge species and the first true human 2-3 million years ago (homo erectus). Erectus was also the first human to leave Africa and spread all over Europe and Asia. They were most definitely dark (some would develop light skin outside of Africa, but not those in our lineage). The big story is when our direct ancestor homo heidelbergensis left Africa (8-9 hundred K years ago); this species partially left and partially stayed. Those who left evolved into Neanderthals and Denisovans (who were white because they evolved in Europe and Asia); those who stayed evolved into homo sapiens, who had several migrations out of Africa starting about 100K years ago, and going wild in Europe about 40K years ago. They would eventually evolve white skin, but not for a while. They traveled from the Mediterranean, so it would have been super hot until they moved out of that (would take1000s of years).

Yes, I know that explanation, and it fits the evidence we have. But the case isn't closed, in fact we are STILL finding new human ancestors and some of those finds have destroyed what we thought was true years ago.

Recent genetic analysis shows that human ancestors arose multiple times out of Africa.. so you are presenting just one of many stories. We can't check the DNA fossils that are 1.5+ million years old, so all we have is physical morphology to go off of, and that can be the result of convergent evolution.

 

[RoñaCastroJr]

Nah, Im just a big jacked white boi
deal with it

 

[Levi_]

Yes, I know that explanation, and it fits the evidence we have. But the case isn't closed, in fact we are STILL finding new human ancestors and some of those finds have destroyed what we thought was true years ago.

Recent genetic analysis shows that human ancestors arose multiple times out of Africa.. so you are presenting just one of many stories. We can't check the DNA fossils that are 1.5+ million years old, so all we have is physical morphology to go off of, and that can be the result of convergent evolution.

Of course the case isn't closed in anthropology, it never is. Of course human ancestors left on multiple occasions, did I not say that? Literally no story denies that, so not sure what you mean. Even homo sapiens themselves left in multiple waves.

 

[Anewt]

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised that there was variation in skin tone and melanin levels; you see that today even in black people that aren't mixed. In fact, we were just talking about that earlier in this thread- the Berbers live in a high elevation (less solar radiation and thus have lighter skin than other Africans). The fact that a pre-Sapien archaic species may have had lighter skin doesn't really mean anything in terms of what this thread is about; they were just have in an exceptional environment like the Berbers.

There are different genes that caused light skin in those situations than what caused us to have light skin (assuming your lineage is European). Same in Asia- it wasn't the same gene that gave them light skin, so they wouldn't be 'white people' in the sense that they evolved into Asians (East Asians, Chinese, Japanese, etc.) and we evolved our Caucasian traits.

White Skin Developed in Europe Only As Recently as 8,000 Years Ago Say Anthropologists

The myriad of skin tones and eye colors that humans express around the world are interesting and wonderful in their variety.

www.ancient-origins.net

Indeed .

Once again . Tho like I said that article is creating its conclusions as are all the others.

They base " only recently " on the Hunter gatherer with dark skin in spain.

The very headline

White Skin Developed in Europe Only As Recently as 8,000 Years Ago Say Anthropologists


yet in the same article

This differed from the situation farther north. Ancient remains from southern Sweden 7,700 years ago were found to have the gene variants indicating light skin and blonde hair, and another gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes. This indicated to researchers that ancient hunter-gatherers of northern Europe were already pale and blue-eyed. This light skin trait would have been advantageous in the regions of less sunlight.


Seems a bit clickbaity in a way to say developed only as recently as 8000 years ago.. from one skeleton in spain.

Yet a skeleton futher north in a similar time period indicates light skin and blue eyes were already established.

Scandinavia is quite interesting as it has quite a interesting genetic diversity.

Ancient DNA sheds light on the mysterious origins of the first Scandinavians

Scandinavia was populated by two main migrations, making its first inhabitants more genetically diverse and adapted to harsh climates than those in the rest of Europe.

theconversation.com

Blue eyes, blonde hair
Knowing the genomes of these hunter gatherer groups also allowed us to look deeper into the population dynamics in stone age Scandinavia. One consequence of the two groups mixing was a surprisingly large number of genetic variants in Scandinavian hunter gatherers. These groups were genetically more diverse than the groups that lived in central, western and southern Europe at the same time. That is in stark contrast to the pattern we see today where more genetic variation is found in southern Europe and less in the north

.The two groups that came to Scandinavia were originally genetically quite different, and displayed distinct physical appearances. The people from the south had blue eyes and relatively dark skin. The people from the northeast, on the other hand, had a variation of eye colours and pale skin.



By the way I'm not arguing or dismissing your points hope you know that , I just find a interesting topic . Nor am I any kind of expert. Just curious like always



On a side note I definitely have European descendants I'd guess. Probably some indigenous judging how dark me and my brother are compared to most....


But that just could be generations of being in Australia and a lifetime of a sun a water heh.


I've never really cared about my ancestry/ genetics. I'm human that's always been enough for me. I Despise group identities

 

[Levi_]

Indeed .

Once again . Tho like I said that article is creating its conclusions as are all the others.

They base " only recently " on the Hunter gatherer with dark skin in spain.

The very headline

White Skin Developed in Europe Only As Recently as 8,000 Years Ago Say Anthropologists


yet in the same article

This differed from the situation farther north. Ancient remains from southern Sweden 7,700 years ago were found to have the gene variants indicating light skin and blonde hair, and another gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes. This indicated to researchers that ancient hunter-gatherers of northern Europe were already pale and blue-eyed. This light skin trait would have been advantageous in the regions of less sunlight.


Seems a bit clickbaity in a way to say developed only as recently as 8000 years ago.. from one skeleton in spain.

Yet a skeleton futher north in a similar time period indicates light skin and blue eyes were already established.

Scandinavia is quite interesting as it has quite a interesting genetic diversity.

Ancient DNA sheds light on the mysterious origins of the first Scandinavians

Scandinavia was populated by two main migrations, making its first inhabitants more genetically diverse and adapted to harsh climates than those in the rest of Europe.

theconversation.com

Blue eyes, blonde hair
Knowing the genomes of these hunter gatherer groups also allowed us to look deeper into the population dynamics in stone age Scandinavia. One consequence of the two groups mixing was a surprisingly large number of genetic variants in Scandinavian hunter gatherers. These groups were genetically more diverse than the groups that lived in central, western and southern Europe at the same time. That is in stark contrast to the pattern we see today where more genetic variation is found in southern Europe and less in the north

.The two groups that came to Scandinavia were originally genetically quite different, and displayed distinct physical appearances. The people from the south had blue eyes and relatively dark skin. The people from the northeast, on the other hand, had a variation of eye colours and pale skin.



By the way I'm not arguing or dismissing your points hope you know that , I just find a interesting topic . Nor am I any kind of expert. Just curious like always



On a side note I definitely have European descendants I'd guess. Probably some indigenous judging how dark me and my brother are compared to most....


But that just could be generations of being in Australia and a lifetime of a sun a water heh.


I've never really cared about my ancestry/ genetics. I'm human that's always been enough for me. I Despise group identities

You are not understanding this my man.

 

[Anewt]

You are not understanding this my man.

I dispute the headline is all my man