PDA

View Full Version : Blue Eyes Originated 10,000 Years Ago in the Black Sea Region



MikeWhalen
02-13-2014, 09:27 PM
what do we think of this article? not sure about some of the quotes like this one
...“This gene does something good for people. It makes them have more kids.”

http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/10/blue-eyes-originated-10000-years-ago-in-the-black-sea-region.html

"A team of researchers from Copenhagen University have located a single mutation that causes the mysterious phenomenon of blue eyes. And all blue eyed people are genetically related to a person who lived in the Black Sea region sometime between 6 – 10,000 years ago. The research was published in the Journal of Human Genetics. A mutation in a gene called OCA2 came into being nearly 8,000 years ago. It can be definitively traced back to an ancestor from the Black Sea. Dr. Hans Eiberg claims that before this time, every human being had brown eyes. “A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a ‘switch,’ which literally ‘turned off’ the ability to produce brown eyes,” Eiberg said. When blue-eyed peoples from Jordan, Denmark and Turkey were examined, their genetic difference was traced back to the maternal lineage according to Eiberg’s team. The brown melanin pigment is still dominant. However, following the last Ice Age, Europeans developed this rare mutation that differentiated them from the rest of the human race. Ninety-five percent of Europeans in Scandinavian countries have blue eyes. They are also found to have a greater range of hair and skin color. Comparatively, Europe has a wider variety of hair color and skin pigment than is found in any other continent in the world. These mutations are recent as Europe was colonized only a few thousand years ago, say mainstream scientists. Through interbreeding, the brunette with blue eyes was evidenced about 25,000 years ago. Researchers attribute this to ancient interbreeding with Neanderthals. Although no Neanderthal DNA has been found in modern Homo Sapien-Sapien, mainstream science clings to this theory as fact because they haven’t come up with anything better. “The question really is, ‘Why did we go from having nobody on Earth with blue eyes 10,000 years ago to having 20 or 40 percent of Europeans having blue eyes now?” John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin-Madison said. “This gene does something good for people. It makes them have more kids.”

Grossvater
02-13-2014, 09:44 PM
These mutations are recent as Europe was colonized only a few thousand years ago, say mainstream scientists. Through interbreeding, the brunette with blue eyes was evidenced about 25,000 years ago. Researchers attribute this to ancient interbreeding with Neanderthals. Although no Neanderthal DNA has been found in modern Homo Sapien-Sapien, mainstream science clings to this theory as fact because they haven’t come up with anything better. “The question really is, ‘Why did we go from having nobody on Earth with blue eyes 10,000 years ago to having 20 or 40 percent of Europeans having blue eyes now?” John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin-Madison said. “This gene does something good for people. It makes them have more kids.”

Is this author implying that blue eyes are from Neanderthals? For awhile there it was supposedly Neanderthal DNA that gave us red hair but I thought that had been disproven...oh, yeah...and white skin...now its blue eyes, too?

Ian B
02-14-2014, 01:39 AM
Mike:

An interesting post.
But it was not only Scandinavians who have blue eyes.

The Cuman people, who are said to have originated to the East of the Yellow River in Northern China, are reported to have had Caucasian phenotypes, including fair skin and blue or green eyes.

Could the spread have gone both East and West?

(Sorry about the font size, I've tried to fix it without success)

palamede
02-14-2014, 10:38 AM
what do we think of this article? not sure about some of the quotes like this one
...“This gene does something good for people. It makes them have more kids.”

http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/10/blue-eyes-originated-10000-years-ago-in-the-black-sea-region.html
".................................;
These mutations are recent as Europe was colonized only a few thousand years ago, say mainstream scientists. Through interbreeding, the brunette with blue eyes was evidenced about 25,000 years ago. Researchers attribute this to ancient interbreeding with Neanderthals. Although no Neanderthal DNA has been found in modern Homo Sapien-Sapien,............................”

I am a bad english-understanding chap, I don't understand part of this paper. Could you explain me ?
I don't understand the skip between 10,000 years and 25,000 years in the paper.

My common sense guess an origin of blue eyes less than 10,000 years is impossible compared to the present distribution of this recessive feature in Europe and Asia , present,though rare, in China (known 4,000 years ago in Takla-Makan desert) and India. When I was a teacher (2 years) in a peripherical medina of Casablanca-Maroc, at least 10 percent of my Morrocan collegian girls had blue or green eyes with frequently auburn hair and also, although rarer, slightly blonde hair.
I don't certified my common sense cannot be deceived, but sometimes, it was right against the mainstream scholar opinion, specially in human sciences..

alan
02-14-2014, 02:42 PM
That a 6 year old article that has been disproved by ancient DNA already given that Mesolithic hunter gatherers of western origin had blue eyes long before any eastern groups had made any impact west of a line from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Those hunters tested and found to have blue eyes were almost certainly descended from people who overwintered in the western refugia and started to expand in Magdallenian times. Interestingly, the Madgallenians and their myriad of offshoot groups are the only post-glacial expansion of hunters on the sort of scale that could have spread blue eyes from one end of Europe to the other. This group had descendant cultures in the late upper palaeolithic and ealry Mesolithic from Portugal to Russia and are almost certainly the origin of the WHG component. Other groups like the Epigravettians of southern Europe, the Carpathians and north Ukraine area do not seem to have geographically expanded hardly at all.

if blue eyes were spread by the Magdallenians, then the mutation would have to have occurred before their expansions or it wouldnt have both spread far to the east and also remained among western hunters who didnt move so far like La Brana. So, to me would place the origin of blue eyes in some cave in France no later than the end of the LGM.

Here is a recent paper on the Magdalenian expantion

http://www.academia.edu/1954197/Mapping_the_expansion_of_the_Northwest_Magdalenian

vettor
02-14-2014, 06:20 PM
black hair and blue eyes refers to the PONTID mix

some say the "black irish" came from this black sea area

Palisto
02-14-2014, 11:25 PM
Is this author implying that blue eyes are from Neanderthals? For awhile there it was supposedly Neanderthal DNA that gave us red hair but I thought that had been disproven...oh, yeah...and white skin...now its blue eyes, too?

Neanderthals did not have blue eyes. Denisova did not have blue eyes. Africans and East Asians don't have blue eyes.

http://kurdishdna.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-color-of-eyes-at-least-17-herc2.html

There are two closely related haplotypes (ht) of blue eyes.

ht1 is rs11636232=C
ht2 is rs11636232=T

In Europe, ht1 is "Germanic/Celtic", ht2 is "Balto-Slavic".

In West and South Asia ht1 is more frequent; in Central Asia ht2 is more frequent.

alan
02-15-2014, 01:04 AM
I always find the term black Irish weird. Its an American term not native to Ireland. In Ireland the term black Irish actually meant protestant, probably a reference to sombre dark clothes of early presbyterians in the island.

Actually black hair among the Irish is a myth. Its actually very rare in Ireland - 3%. Mid and dark brown are very common but black is very rare as are really dark eyes and darker skin. The combination of black hair and blue eyes and tanned skin is actually probably no more than one or two percent, mainly because black hair and dark skin is so rare. So I wouldnt look to the Irish as being close to the odd blue eyes, black hair, tan skin combo seen in Mesolithic Europe because that combination is incredibly rare and tan skin in Ireland is usually sprayed on.

There is really no need anyway for anecdotal observations on the Irish as there was an academic randomised study of 10000 Irish in every country in Ireland carried out by Harvard in the mid 20th century and found the following on Irish pigmenation:



SKIN
Over 90 per cent had skins of the pale pink shade... The pale Irish skin, where exposed to the sun, shows a marked inclination to freckling. Forty per cent of the entire group are freckled to some extent; in Kerry the ratio rises as high as 60 per cent...

HAIR
The hair color of the Irish is predominantly brown; black hair accounts for less than 3 per cent of the total, while the ashen series (Fischer #20-26) amounts to but one-half of one per cent. Forty per cent have dark brown hair (Fischer #4-5); 35 per cent have medium brown (Fischer #7-9); reddish brown hues total over 5 per cent (closest to Fischer #6, #10), while clear reds (Fischer #1-3) run higher than 4 per cent. The rest, some 15 per cent, fall into a light brown to golden blond category... The rufous hair color pigment reaches a world maximum here; not so much in reds as in the prevalance of golden hues in blond and brown shades...

EYES
In the proportion of pure light eyes, Ireland competes successfully with the blondest regions of Scandinavia. Over 46 per cent of the total group has pure light eyes, and of these all but 4 per cent are blue. Very light-mixed eyes (equivalent to Martin #13-14) account for another 30 per cent, while less than one-half of one per cent have pure brown. There is probably no population of equal size in the world which is lighter eyed, and blue eyed, than the Irish. The almost total absence of gray eyes corresponds to the equal paucity of ash-blond hair. Compared to eastern Norway, Sweden, and Finnic and Baltic groups, the eye color is disproportionately light in comparison to hair color.


black hair and blue eyes refers to the PONTID mix

some say the "black irish" came from this black sea area

parasar
02-15-2014, 05:59 AM
Neanderthals did not have blue eyes. Denisova did not have blue eyes. Africans and East Asians don't have blue eyes.

http://kurdishdna.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-color-of-eyes-at-least-17-herc2.html

There are two closely related haplotypes (ht) of blue eyes.

ht1 is rs3935591=C
ht2 is rs3935591=T

In Europe, ht1 is "Germanic/Celtic", ht2 is "Balto-Slavic".

In West and South Asia ht1 is more frequent; in Central Asia ht2 is more frequent.

How about the western Neanderthals, say the ones from El Sidron Spain?

Alanson
02-15-2014, 06:13 AM
Blue eyes did indeed originate there but not completely, it's success was probably due to climatic adaptation which I have read that people with blues see better in the dark and cloudy environment then those who don't. Also it seems to occur in some Middle Eastern ethnic groups who indeed lack northern European admixture, this leads that it did appear much earlier but got selected for importance in the Black sea, and then it's numbers rose even more in Europe in particular the northern one areas.

Palisto
02-15-2014, 07:15 AM
How about the western Neanderthals, say the ones from El Sidron Spain?

I cannot exclude this possibility.

The eye color defining SNP rs12913832 is only recovered from Vi33.16, Vi33.25, and Vi33.26 (all three Neanderthals were discovered in the Vindija cave in Croatia). All three had brown eyes.

Feld1 from the Neander Valley in Germany, Sid1253 from El Sidron cave in Asturias, Spain, and Mez1 from Mezmaiskaya in the Altai Mountains, Russia, do not have recovered DNA for rs12913832.


BTW, I made a mistake above, I meant rs11636232 not rs3935591. I corrected it above.

alan
02-15-2014, 02:28 PM
IF blue eyes originated one mutation then on current evidence it must have happened in the western refugia as the spread from there post-LGM pretty well reached most of Europe. There is IMO no other possible scenario for idea it all spread from a single mutation. However, I am a bit skeptical myself about this. The possibility that there are two variants, one associated with most of Europe and western Asia and another associated with eastern Europe and central Asia makes a lo of sense to me. It also seems to tally with the old physical anthropologists observation that blue eyes are most common in much of Europe while grey-blue is more eastern. If that was true then perhaps the grey-blue variation arose in the eastern refugia. Later movements of course moved this around a good bit too.

I would also say that in terms of all pigment observations in ancient DNA there are still some bad gaps. OK we have hunters probably from the western refugian origins and we have Siberians. However, do we have any ancient DNA pigmentation data for eastern Gravettians? I dont think we do at present.


Blue eyes did indeed originate there but not completely, it's success was probably due to climatic adaptation which I have read that people with blues see better in the dark and cloudy environment then those who don't. Also it seems to occur in some Middle Eastern ethnic groups who indeed lack northern European admixture, this leads that it did appear much earlier but got selected for importance in the Black sea, and then it's numbers rose even more in Europe in particular the northern one areas.

ADW_1981
02-15-2014, 03:27 PM
what do we think of this article? not sure about some of the quotes like this one
...“This gene does something good for people. It makes them have more kids.”

http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/10/blue-eyes-originated-10000-years-ago-in-the-black-sea-region.html

"A team of researchers from Copenhagen University have located a single mutation that causes the mysterious phenomenon of blue eyes. And all blue eyed people are genetically related to a person who lived in the Black Sea region sometime between 6 – 10,000 years ago. The research was published in the Journal of Human Genetics. A mutation in a gene called OCA2 came into being nearly 8,000 years ago. It can be definitively traced back to an ancestor from the Black Sea. Dr. Hans Eiberg claims that before this time, every human being had brown eyes. “A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a ‘switch,’ which literally ‘turned off’ the ability to produce brown eyes,” Eiberg said. When blue-eyed peoples from Jordan, Denmark and Turkey were examined, their genetic difference was traced back to the maternal lineage according to Eiberg’s team. The brown melanin pigment is still dominant. However, following the last Ice Age, Europeans developed this rare mutation that differentiated them from the rest of the human race. Ninety-five percent of Europeans in Scandinavian countries have blue eyes. They are also found to have a greater range of hair and skin color. Comparatively, Europe has a wider variety of hair color and skin pigment than is found in any other continent in the world. These mutations are recent as Europe was colonized only a few thousand years ago, say mainstream scientists. Through interbreeding, the brunette with blue eyes was evidenced about 25,000 years ago. Researchers attribute this to ancient interbreeding with Neanderthals. Although no Neanderthal DNA has been found in modern Homo Sapien-Sapien, mainstream science clings to this theory as fact because they haven’t come up with anything better. “The question really is, ‘Why did we go from having nobody on Earth with blue eyes 10,000 years ago to having 20 or 40 percent of Europeans having blue eyes now?” John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin-Madison said. “This gene does something good for people. It makes them have more kids.”

Probably a U5 derivative if that's what they are implying the maternal connection is. A 10,000 time frame is still possible considering what we know about the I2/I Mesolithic men who have been found in ancient Europe and undoubtedly moved across northern Europe.

avalon
02-22-2014, 09:23 PM
I always find the term black Irish weird. Its an American term not native to Ireland. In Ireland the term black Irish actually meant protestant, probably a reference to sombre dark clothes of early presbyterians in the island.

Actually black hair among the Irish is a myth. Its actually very rare in Ireland - 3%. Mid and dark brown are very common but black is very rare as are really dark eyes and darker skin. The combination of black hair and blue eyes and tanned skin is actually probably no more than one or two percent, mainly because black hair and dark skin is so rare. So I wouldnt look to the Irish as being close to the odd blue eyes, black hair, tan skin combo seen in Mesolithic Europe because that combination is incredibly rare and tan skin in Ireland is usually sprayed on.

There is really no need anyway for anecdotal observations on the Irish as there was an academic randomised study of 10000 Irish in every country in Ireland carried out by Harvard in the mid 20th century and found the following on Irish pigmenation:



SKIN
Over 90 per cent had skins of the pale pink shade... The pale Irish skin, where exposed to the sun, shows a marked inclination to freckling. Forty per cent of the entire group are freckled to some extent; in Kerry the ratio rises as high as 60 per cent...

HAIR
The hair color of the Irish is predominantly brown; black hair accounts for less than 3 per cent of the total, while the ashen series (Fischer #20-26) amounts to but one-half of one per cent. Forty per cent have dark brown hair (Fischer #4-5); 35 per cent have medium brown (Fischer #7-9); reddish brown hues total over 5 per cent (closest to Fischer #6, #10), while clear reds (Fischer #1-3) run higher than 4 per cent. The rest, some 15 per cent, fall into a light brown to golden blond category... The rufous hair color pigment reaches a world maximum here; not so much in reds as in the prevalance of golden hues in blond and brown shades...

EYES
In the proportion of pure light eyes, Ireland competes successfully with the blondest regions of Scandinavia. Over 46 per cent of the total group has pure light eyes, and of these all but 4 per cent are blue. Very light-mixed eyes (equivalent to Martin #13-14) account for another 30 per cent, while less than one-half of one per cent have pure brown. There is probably no population of equal size in the world which is lighter eyed, and blue eyed, than the Irish. The almost total absence of gray eyes corresponds to the equal paucity of ash-blond hair. Compared to eastern Norway, Sweden, and Finnic and Baltic groups, the eye color is disproportionately light in comparison to hair color.

I think the 'Black Irish' thing is easily explained by the fact, that at a casual glance, very dark brown hair can easily be mistaken for black hair. I suspect that many of the so called 'Black Irish' celebrities, often cited on the net, are actually very dark brown haired, not black haired.

We know from studies such as the Harvard one (40% dark brown hair) and a more recent one I posted in autosomalDNA (46% dark brown) that the Irish are predominantly dark haired. By way of comparison Poland was 23% dark brown hair in the same study.

I think the term "Black Irish", although technically a myth, does reflect the general observation that the Irish are darker haired than other Northern Europeans such as the English, Dutch, Germans, Polish and Scandinavians.

vettor
02-22-2014, 09:44 PM
I always find the term black Irish weird. Its an American term not native to Ireland. In Ireland the term black Irish actually meant protestant, probably a reference to sombre dark clothes of early presbyterians in the island.

Actually black hair among the Irish is a myth. Its actually very rare in Ireland - 3%. Mid and dark brown are very common but black is very rare as are really dark eyes and darker skin. The combination of black hair and blue eyes and tanned skin is actually probably no more than one or two percent, mainly because black hair and dark skin is so rare. So I wouldnt look to the Irish as being close to the odd blue eyes, black hair, tan skin combo seen in Mesolithic Europe because that combination is incredibly rare and tan skin in Ireland is usually sprayed on.

There is really no need anyway for anecdotal observations on the Irish as there was an academic randomised study of 10000 Irish in every country in Ireland carried out by Harvard in the mid 20th century and found the following on Irish pigmenation:



SKIN
Over 90 per cent had skins of the pale pink shade... The pale Irish skin, where exposed to the sun, shows a marked inclination to freckling. Forty per cent of the entire group are freckled to some extent; in Kerry the ratio rises as high as 60 per cent...

HAIR
The hair color of the Irish is predominantly brown; black hair accounts for less than 3 per cent of the total, while the ashen series (Fischer #20-26) amounts to but one-half of one per cent. Forty per cent have dark brown hair (Fischer #4-5); 35 per cent have medium brown (Fischer #7-9); reddish brown hues total over 5 per cent (closest to Fischer #6, #10), while clear reds (Fischer #1-3) run higher than 4 per cent. The rest, some 15 per cent, fall into a light brown to golden blond category... The rufous hair color pigment reaches a world maximum here; not so much in reds as in the prevalance of golden hues in blond and brown shades...

EYES
In the proportion of pure light eyes, Ireland competes successfully with the blondest regions of Scandinavia. Over 46 per cent of the total group has pure light eyes, and of these all but 4 per cent are blue. Very light-mixed eyes (equivalent to Martin #13-14) account for another 30 per cent, while less than one-half of one per cent have pure brown. There is probably no population of equal size in the world which is lighter eyed, and blue eyed, than the Irish. The almost total absence of gray eyes corresponds to the equal paucity of ash-blond hair. Compared to eastern Norway, Sweden, and Finnic and Baltic groups, the eye color is disproportionately light in comparison to hair color.

i agree , that european black hair is not as black as asian black hair.............but dark brown is what asian do not have. very Dark brown can be viewed by some as black.
Pontid race is black sea area from east-med with west-asian mix, living in atlantic sphere.

some people who are pontid, actors, Fiennes and Farrell.............although Fiennes has green eyes

alan
02-22-2014, 10:25 PM
Harvard said the Irish had 40% dark brown hair while Coon said of the Scottish that dark brown hair was 38 per cent of the population and he seems to imply it ran at about 30 percent on average in England. Even in what he called the more Anglo-Saxon areas all that Coon said was that it tended to run below 30%. Its a very common shade and very often runs 30-40% so I dont think it makes a lot of sense for a very specific name like the Black Irish to be coined by any typical isles descended population merely based on a modest increase in dark brown hair when you consider that its extremely common in the isles in general.

Its very hard to find anything concrete on the origins of the term. I dont think it seems to be any more than a new world folk term. The idea there is a group called the Black Irish is total nonsense. If there was any historical reason for coining a name like that it would seem to me to most likely relate to Irish slaves who were settled first in the West Indies and mixed with other there. The folksy use of the term in the US seems to have no consistency even among those who use it.


I think the 'Black Irish' thing is easily explained by the fact, that at a casual glance, very dark brown hair can easily be mistaken for black hair. I suspect that many of the so called 'Black Irish' celebrities, often cited on the net, are actually very dark brown haired, not black haired.

We know from studies such as the Harvard one (40% dark brown hair) and a more recent one I posted in autosomalDNA (46% dark brown) that the Irish are predominantly dark haired. By way of comparison Poland was 23% dark brown hair in the same study.

I think the term "Black Irish", although technically a myth, does reflect the general observation that the Irish are darker haired than other Northern Europeans such as the English, Dutch, Germans, Polish and Scandinavians.

Anglecynn
02-22-2014, 11:05 PM
Harvard said the Irish had 40% dark brown hair while Coon said of the Scottish that dark brown hair was 38 per cent of the population and he seems to imply it ran at about 30 percent on average in England. Even in what he called the more Anglo-Saxon areas all that Coon said was that it tended to run below 30%. Its a very common shade and very often runs 30-40% so I dont think it makes a lot of sense for a very specific name like the Black Irish to be coined by any typical isles descended population merely based on a modest increase in dark brown hair when you consider that its extremely common in the isles in general.

Its very hard to find anything concrete on the origins of the term. I dont think it seems to be any more than a new world folk term. The idea there is a group called the Black Irish is total nonsense. If there was any historical reason for coining a name like that it would seem to me to most likely relate to Irish slaves who were settled first in the West Indies and mixed with other there. The folksy use of the term in the US seems to have no consistency even among those who use it.

I agree, perhaps it's related to a coincidence of darker than average skin, hair and eyes altogether which is more unusual.

alan
02-22-2014, 11:31 PM
The Irish have a somewhat higher amount of dark hair compared to England but I still wouldnt overcook the very dark hair Irish thing. Its common but 57% of the Irish have hair that is middling neutral flat brown or lighter. Middling or lighter combined is still significantly more common that combined dark brown and black. The hair is only significantly darker when compared to north Germanics and Baltic peoples.

Colin Farell is a bad example as he is about as dark as a you ever see a full blood Irishman Its rare to see that combination of dark hair, dark eyes and olive skin he has. Although dark brown hair is common, having that combined with dark eyes and olive skin is a rare combination in when you consider that the Harvard survey puts anything other than the lightest skins at only 10% and the entire spectrum from middling to dark eyes around 20%. By definition Colin Farell would be within the darkest 10% of Irish.


i agree , that european black hair is not as black as asian black hair.............but dark brown is what asian do not have. very Dark brown can be viewed by some as black.
Pontid race is black sea area from east-med with west-asian mix, living in atlantic sphere.

some people who are pontid, actors, Fiennes and Farrell.............although Fiennes has green eyes

alan
02-22-2014, 11:56 PM
As far as I can see its basically a within-family folk term passed about. I suspect it arose as an explanation for some families who were unusually dark for Irish. I do not for a minute think it refers to your typical Irish with darker hair, pale skin and blue eyes as I have seen suggested on th web. That is so common in Ireland (and among Scots and other British to a lesser degree) that there would not have been a need to make up such a term.

If the term actually originated as a phenotypical one, the term obviously must have originated to explain a very atypical phenotype among the Irish diaspora. Whether that simply referred to the darkest say 10% of rare Colin Farrell type Irish guys or was a term that came about through mixing with other groups after migration I dont think is clear.

Traditionally in Ireland Black was used to meant 'bad' or 'evil' (kind of like the word dark can mean evil or sinister in English) and also was a sectarian term for Protestant used by Irish catholics. It still is used as a sectarian term even today in the north of Ireland. It may originate in the dark grey clothes protestant settlers may have worn in Ireland in the 17th century. There is also a group called the Black Men who are members of the protestant Royal Black Preceptory which is rather like the orange order who funny enough are called Orange men or Orange (an expletive is added when it is used in a sectarian sense). Both the black and orange men are attached to protestant orders that were founded in the late 18th century.

The reverse - protestant Irish calling the catholic Irish 'Black' doesnt exist.


I agree, perhaps it's related to a coincidence of darker than average skin, hair and eyes altogether which is more unusual.

rossa
02-23-2014, 12:40 AM
There was also old American names called Black Dutch and Black German, it was supposed to come from an attempt yo explain away Native American or slave ancestry. I think Black Irish also had the same origin, although it now seems to be tied to the Spanish Armada story. I think you were right before Alan when you said that idea is as much about making the Irish much more distant to British in relatedness.
Rootsweb had a black irish section, there wasn't even a consensus of what meant. According to some people's terminology you could be as pale as a milk bottle and still qualify.

Stephen1986
02-23-2014, 01:04 AM
My mother had almost black hair, fair skin and blue eyes and my dad used to have dark brown hair along with his blue eyes and fair skin. My siblings have myself have various shades of brown hair (mine is somewhere between dark and medium), blue eyes and fair skin.

avalon
02-23-2014, 07:57 PM
Harvard said the Irish had 40% dark brown hair while Coon said of the Scottish that dark brown hair was 38 per cent of the population and he seems to imply it ran at about 30 percent on average in England. Even in what he called the more Anglo-Saxon areas all that Coon said was that it tended to run below 30%. Its a very common shade and very often runs 30-40% so I dont think it makes a lot of sense for a very specific name like the Black Irish to be coined by any typical isles descended population merely based on a modest increase in dark brown hair when you consider that its extremely common in the isles in general.

Its very hard to find anything concrete on the origins of the term. I dont think it seems to be any more than a new world folk term. The idea there is a group called the Black Irish is total nonsense. If there was any historical reason for coining a name like that it would seem to me to most likely relate to Irish slaves who were settled first in the West Indies and mixed with other there. The folksy use of the term in the US seems to have no consistency even among those who use it.

Coon's hair colour figures for England were based on Beddoe (1860s) and his observations for Eastern parts of England such as Lincolnshire and Yorkshire were that dark brown hair ran as low as 13 to 20% which is quite a bit lower than Ireland. Generally, as you move westward in England, Beddoe observed a gradual rise in the frequency of dark brown/black hair to its British peak in Cornwall and Wales.

Despite his limitations I think Beddoe's conclusion was broadly correct - that the Celts were predominantly dark haired, mixed with a minority of red heads. And that the Anglo-Saxons, Danes and Norwegians introduced more medium/light brown and fair hair to the Isles.

I also think the modern Isles populations are a pretty mixed bunch so ancient physical differences are now less obvious. We have millions of English with Irish, Welsh and Scottish ancestry - likewise there are plenty of people living in the Celtic fringe who have English ancestry.

avalon
02-23-2014, 08:23 PM
As far as I can see its basically a within-family folk term passed about. I suspect it arose as an explanation for some families who were unusually dark for Irish. I do not for a minute think it refers to your typical Irish with darker hair, pale skin and blue eyes as I have seen suggested on th web. That is so common in Ireland (and among Scots and other British to a lesser degree) that there would not have been a need to make up such a term.

If the term actually originated as a phenotypical one, the term obviously must have originated to explain a very atypical phenotype among the Irish diaspora. Whether that simply referred to the darkest say 10% of rare Colin Farrell type Irish guys or was a term that came about through mixing with other groups after migration I dont think is clear.

Traditionally in Ireland Black was used to meant 'bad' or 'evil' (kind of like the word dark can mean evil or sinister in English) and also was a sectarian term for Protestant used by Irish catholics. It still is used as a sectarian term even today in the north of Ireland. It may originate in the dark grey clothes protestant settlers may have worn in Ireland in the 17th century. There is also a group called the Black Men who are members of the protestant Royal Black Preceptory which is rather like the orange order who funny enough are called Orange men or Orange (an expletive is added when it is used in a sectarian sense). Both the black and orange men are attached to protestant orders that were founded in the late 18th century.

The reverse - protestant Irish calling the catholic Irish 'Black' doesnt exist.

I must admit I thought Black Irish referred to hair colour. To me it makes sense from an American perspective that some Irish immigrants to the new world might be viewed as noticeably darker haired than the typical German, Swedish or Polish immigrant that was also migrating to America at the same time.

If Black Irish does refer to people with dark hair, eyes and a darker complexion then that is indeed rare in the Isles. I tend to think of someone like Welsh actress Catherine Zeta JOnes, herself 1/4 Irish. Although such a phenotype is unusual amongst native Isles people I do believe it is an ancient trait in the Isles, remember Tacitus referred to the Welsh as dark complexioned.

alan
02-23-2014, 10:11 PM
I still think the term is clearly not based on just your typical darker brown haired isles element. There may have been some fairer haired counties in the east of England but on average a bunch of random English including plenty from away from the fairest countries, Welsh, Scots, Scots-Irish settlers in America are not going to be amazed by the Irish level of dark brown hair which would be not hugely different from a random selection of folks from the remainder of the isles. Scots have almost the same level of dark brown hair as the Irish so why wouldnt the Scots-Irish (who were overwhelmingly from one of the darker haired parts of Scotland, the SW, incidentally) be similarly named.

To me a term like Black Irish is clearly referring to something out of the ordinary for average Irish or it would be almost pointless. It clearly points to something atypical than the extremely common darker brown haired, fair skin, mid to light eyed phenotype that is common in the isles in general and extremely common in Ireland and Scotland in particular.

A summary of Hooton said 'Another common belief that went by the wayside according to the records Hooton compiled was the myth of the "big Irishman with the jet black hair and snapping dark eyes." In the 10,000 people polled, the survey makers found just 33 persons fitting into this category, and they were all small and slender, like Italians'. 33 people out of 10000 is extremely low,less than 0.4%.

Now those rare guys would by their Mediterranean appearance stand out as rarities in the Irish population found by the Harvard Survey and probably are the sort of person that Armada type myths might gather round. However, their number was tiny. There is little doubt in my mind that Black Irish was a new world term, possibly self identifying by some families, to explain why they were phenotypically outside the norm as identified in Hooton and its hard not to conclude this had something to do with admixing in the new world in most cases.



I must admit I thought Black Irish referred to hair colour. To me it makes sense from an American perspective that some Irish immigrants to the new world might be viewed as noticeably darker haired than the typical German, Swedish or Polish immigrant that was also migrating to America at the same time.

If Black Irish does refer to people with dark hair, eyes and a darker complexion then that is indeed rare in the Isles. I tend to think of someone like Welsh actress Catherine Zeta JOnes, herself 1/4 Irish. Although such a phenotype is unusual amongst native Isles people I do believe it is an ancient trait in the Isles, remember Tacitus referred to the Welsh as dark complexioned.

westernisles
07-13-2014, 03:59 PM
Just as interesting if not more is the extreme rarity of "emerald" green eyes. Very light, bright green. Any theories on this phenomenon?

vettor
07-13-2014, 06:44 PM
Just as interesting if not more is the extreme rarity of "emerald" green eyes. Very light, bright green. Any theories on this phenomenon?

highest % of population of green eyes is in hungaria, they have 20%.................must be associated with the central-asian invading Huns

J Man
07-13-2014, 07:35 PM
highest % of population of green eyes is in hungaria, they have 20%.................must be associated with the central-asian invading Huns

I doubt that. The Huns were probably mainly brown eyed. Hungarians are by far overwhelmingly genetically European anyways.

jeanL
07-14-2014, 02:00 PM
...

I don't think you have any real Iberian connection, it's just the algorithm used by Ancestry given that their sample sizes are rather small. Thus any variation departing from what I observed in the reference sample is interpreted as extra admixture, it is known as the calculator effect. Just to give you the opposite idea, I know of someone of Spanish descent who gets 9% Great Britain(Not part of the trace regions) and 4% Irish(Trace Regions) without have any real British or Irish admixture.

Erik
07-14-2014, 02:07 PM
I don't think you have any real Iberian connection, it's just the algorithm used by Ancestry given that their sample sizes are rather small. Thus any variation departing from what I observed in the reference sample is interpreted as extra admixture, it is known as the calculator effect. Just to give you the opposite idea, I know of someone of Spanish descent who gets 9% Great Britain(Not part of the trace regions) and 4% Irish(Trace Regions) without have any real British or Irish admixture.
That would explain why some Polynesians appear to be part Scandinavian.

Hando
08-25-2014, 03:45 AM
IF blue eyes originated one mutation then on current evidence it must have happened in the western refugia as the spread from there post-LGM pretty well reached most of Europe. There is IMO no other possible scenario for idea it all spread from a single mutation.

Sorry when you say "There is IMO no other possible scenario for idea it all spread from a single mutation." are you saying that the blue eye mutation could have only spread from one area?
Thanks

Hando
08-25-2014, 05:41 AM
I doubt that. The Huns were probably mainly brown eyed. Hungarians are by far overwhelmingly genetically European anyways.

How do we know how the Huns looked like? I thought this was a mystery. Do we have modern examples of those who may be closely related to the Huns?

vettor
08-25-2014, 08:48 AM
according to a greek friend, the greeks say:

Persian blue, thracian green, finnic grey and levantine brown......

old wives tales:)

parasar
08-25-2014, 01:59 PM
Sorry when you say "There is IMO no other possible scenario for idea it all spread from a single mutation." are you saying that the blue eye mutation could have only spread from one area?
Thanks

It did likely happen once and spread and became dominant in some populations, but I doubt that it is only 10000 years old or did not exist in the Huns.
As Europeans had the mutation very early, we do not have to ascribe blue eyes in Europe to the Huns.
I think the mutation is at least as old as the LGM and was spread throughout Europe, Inner Asia, and the Americas even if the MA1 sample did not have it.

Jean M
08-25-2014, 03:23 PM
I think the mutation is at least as old as the LGM and was spread throughout Europe, Inner Asia, and the Americas even if the MA1 sample did not have it.

Spread through Inner Asia and to the Americas at a time when there is no evidence of people moving from Europe in that direction and no evidence of the mutation in MA1. Now why would you think that Parasar?

We already have the genome of a one-year-old boy who died in what is now Montana about 12,500 years ago. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26172174 If he had blue eyes I think we would know by now. :) Golly! That would make headlines.

Scholarly paper here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7487/full/nature13025.html

parasar
08-25-2014, 04:29 PM
Spread through Inner Asia and to the Americas at a time when there is no evidence of people moving from Europe in that direction and no evidence of the mutation in MA1. Now why would you think that Parasar?

We already have the genome of a one-year-old boy who died in what is now Montana about 12,500 years ago. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26172174 If he had blue eyes I think we would know by now. :) Golly! That would make headlines.

Scholarly paper here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7487/full/nature13025.html

Anzick-1 is 12,600 years old and therefore much more recent than the LGM time-frame.

My thinking that the connection between WHG and early Amerindians is older than MA1 who I consider admixed. An earlier population, a portion of which had the "blue eye" mutation, contributed to the WHG, Karitiana, and ANE which reached fixation only in the WHG. Now obviously for proof we would need ~30000ybp Beringian/Siberian area DNA (Ust-Ishim?), so my analysis is just based on my reading of the data available:

1. If you notice as we go up to higher Ks, a clear affinity remains between WHG types and Amerindians.
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-3.pdf


K=5 breaks the ENA component down into one maximized in the Karitiana from the Americas ... This analysis further suggests that the ENA affinity of
Hunter-Gatherers is related to the Karitiana component.

K=6 reveals a south Eurasian component maximized in Papuans, which is also represented in South
Asians. MA1 shows some affinity to this component, in contrast to more recent Eurasian hunter-gatherers who continue to mainly show ties to Native Americans


2. The above affinity is why I believe we even today continue to see the "blue eye" mutation in the Karitiana, but not in northern Amerindians.
http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/frequencies-for-blue-eyes-snp-rs12913832-in-hgdp-populations/

The G allele is present in the Karitiana at a frequency of 0.346, and 7.7% of them are homozygous for it.
http://johnhawks.net/explainer/laboratory/eye-pigmentation-allele-frequencies/
http://johnhawks.net/graphics/rs12913832-hgdp-selection-browser.png

Jean M
08-25-2014, 05:59 PM
@ Parasar. This is interesting. John Hawks (whom you cite) says that the Karitiana have fairly high frequencies (30-40%) of rs12913832(G), but a low incidence of blue eyes, which makes him wonder if rs12913832(G) is really the key cause of blue eyes.

rs12913832(G) is just part of the h-1 haplotype of 13 polymorphisms found in a homozygous state in 97% of individuals with blue eye colour. http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs12913832

Part of this haplotype - six polymorphic SNPs covering half of the 3' end of the HERC2 gene - was reported in Hans Eiberg et al., Blue eye color in humans may be caused by a perfectly associated founder mutation in a regulatory element located within the HERC2 gene inhibiting OCA2 expression, Hum Genet (2008) 123:177–187. This is the paper which is the origin of the OP on this thread, as the authors guessed:


The mutations responsible for the blue eye color most likely originate from the near east area or northwest part of the Black Sea region, where the great agriculture migration to the northern part of Europe took place in the Neolithic periods about 6–10,000 years ago (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).

They felt that:


Our association study suggests both rs1129038*A and rs12913832*G as preferable candidate mutations responsible for the blue eye color phenotype.

Association does not always mean causation.

parasar
08-25-2014, 07:10 PM
Jean,

That was reason I limited myself to just the mutation that correlates best to blue eyes, not the phenotype. If John Hawks is correct (he does not provide any citation for his statement but he's very credible), perhaps there is another trigger. I'm not well versed in the epigenetics of blue eye color, or the association Eiberg et. al. mention, but to me it appears their Black Sea origin and Neolithic migration spread has no support.

I would also add that any incidence of blue eyes in the isolated Karitiana is quite surprising.

Hando
08-25-2014, 07:14 PM
It did likely happen once and spread and became dominant in some populations, but I doubt that it is only 10000 years old or did not exist in the Huns.
As Europeans had the mutation very early, we do have to ascribe blue eyes in Europe to the Huns though!
Are you saying that the Huns introduced blue eyes into Europe? This seems highly unlikely. I think that the Europeans could have introduced blue eyes to the Huns, but I thought Huns were an East Asian people with no genetic links to Europeans.
And I am still confused about whether you are saying the blue eye gene only spread from a single mutation or from several different mutations.

parasar
08-25-2014, 11:55 PM
Are you saying that the Huns introduced blue eyes into Europe? This seems highly unlikely. I think that the Europeans could have introduced blue eyes to the Huns, but I thought Huns were an East Asian people with no genetic links to Europeans.
No.




And I am still confused about whether you are saying the blue eye gene only spread from a single mutation or from several different mutations.

Blue eyes may be caused by multiple mutations in tandem, but the key mutation - G at rs12913832 - I think has a single source.

Stephen1986
08-26-2014, 12:44 AM
Both myself and my brother are GG at rs12913832, but it's very common here in the UK according to that map.

parasar
08-26-2014, 12:46 AM
Our association study suggests both rs1129038*A and rs12913832*G as preferable candidate mutations responsible for the blue eye color phenotype.



The Karitiana have ~25% A at that locus (see also Han - 0%)
http://alfred.med.yale.edu/alfred/mvograph.asp?siteuid=SI018623U

Hando
08-26-2014, 04:49 AM
Blue eyes may be caused by multiple mutations in tandem, but the key mutation - G at rs12913832 - I think has a single source.

I see. And G at rs12913832 had a single source among WHG in the Franco-Iberian Ice age refugium. And NOT 10,000 years ago in the Black sea area?

Hando
08-26-2014, 07:24 PM
No. Blue eyes may be caused by multiple mutations in tandem, but the key mutation - G at rs12913832 - I think has a single source.

Sorry, are you saying that G at rs12913832 had a single source among WHG in the Franco-Iberian Ice age refugium, and NOT 10,000 years ago in the Black sea area?

Shaikorth
08-26-2014, 09:07 PM
The Karitiana have ~25% A at that locus (see also Han - 0%)
http://alfred.med.yale.edu/alfred/mvograph.asp?siteuid=SI018623U

I checked the study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3325407/) those results are from, and it seems to me that this might be a quality control issue in European-admixed Native American samples getting through. They have over 50 Karitiana for instance, Lazaridis et al had 14 of which 12 passed quality control (and consequently look fully native in Admixture test). All natives have a suspiciously high amount of these alleles.

Admittedly there are some possibly ANE-related results in that study that can't be explained with that, such as the AAA-CA-CA haplotype combination which occurs most often in some Native American groups and does not occur in East Asians, but appears in a few European and Middle Eastern groups, none of which were really involved in colonization - specifically Komi Zyrians, Finns and Kuwaitis. The Kuwaitis were interesting in a way since study had no Iranians and Central Asia was unrepresented in this particular test. Still, take the result with a grain of salt as the combination doesn't appear in all Native Americans and thus might not mean anything:

http://oi59.tinypic.com/2up5tas.jpg



Since the blue-eye associated alleles at all three BEHs are concordant in Europe and fall into that same high LD region in Europe, we analyzed the haplotypes of all seven SNPs together (Fig. 6). In this data set, we see that the TG allele BEH2 always occurs on chromosomes that have the CA allele of BEH3 and almost always occurs on chromosomes with the ACA allele of BEH1. The ACA allele of BEH1 and the CA allele of BEH3 also usually occur on the same chromosomes; however, outside of Northwestern and Eastern Europe they do not always occur on chromosomes with the TG allele of BEH2. Whenever one of the blue-eye associated alleles does occur on a chromosome by itself, it is most likely to be the CA allele of BEH3.

Haplotypes of the three BEHs. This figure shows the three BEHs as a single haplotyped system. The TG allele of BEH2 always occurs with the CA allele of BEH3 and usually occurs with the ACA allele of BEH1 (yellow). The CA BEH3 and ACA BEH1 alleles, however, do not always occur with the TG allele of BEH2. The ACA BEH1 allele and the CA BEH3 allele also usually occur together (pink and yellow)

parasar
08-27-2014, 12:04 AM
I checked the study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3325407/) those results are from, and it seems to me that this might be a quality control issue in European-admixed Native American samples getting through. They have over 50 Karitiana for instance, Lazaridis et al had 14 of which 12 passed quality control (and consequently look fully native in Admixture test). All natives have a suspiciously high amount of these alleles.

Admittedly there are some possibly ANE-related results in that study that can't be explained with that, such as the AAA-CA-CA haplotype combination which occurs most often in some Native American groups and does not occur in East Asians, but appears in a few European and Middle Eastern groups, none of which were really involved in colonization - specifically Komi Zyrians, Finns and Kuwaitis. The Kuwaitis were interesting in a way since study had no Iranians and Central Asia was unrepresented in this particular test. Still, take the result with a grain of salt as the combination doesn't appear in all Native Americans and thus might not mean anything:

http://oi59.tinypic.com/2up5tas.jpg



If there is any European admixture it would be disastrous to using the Karitiana for autosomal studies.
After all they are endogamous, isolated and few in number.
http://alfred.med.yale.edu/alfred/recordinfo.asp?condition=populations.pop_uid='PO00 0028K

The Karitianas make up a very small Amazonian basin population that is composed of less than 200 people (1994 est.) who live in a single village on a reservation near the Madeira River in Brazil's Rondonia Province ... Endogamy prevails among the Karitiana, and their documented family structure demonstrates that the entire group is essentially one family.


Do we have any evidence from their Y or mtDNA of any European element?

parasar
08-27-2014, 12:08 AM
Sorry, are you saying that G at rs12913832 had a single source among WHG in the Franco-Iberian Ice age refugium, and NOT 10,000 years ago in the Black sea area?

I think the origin is not in either Iberia or the Black Sea shore, and the time-frame is pre-LGM for it to be present on two extremes - La Brana and in the Karitiana.

Shaikorth
08-27-2014, 05:32 AM
If there is any European admixture it would be disastrous to using the Karitiana for autosomal studies.
After all they are endogamous, isolated and few in number.
http://alfred.med.yale.edu/alfred/recordinfo.asp?condition=populations.pop_uid='PO00 0028K


Do we have any evidence from their Y or mtDNA of any European element?

It's hard to say anything about the possible foreign elements in these Karitiana because I don't know where they came from. The HGDP panel from which Karitiana are usually picked has like 25 of them, this study has 52 and there's no included admixture run or PCA to see if they actually are similar to the HGDP sample. Maybe someone could check the HGDP dataset's Karitiana for eye color related SNP's and see if the results match?

alan
08-27-2014, 10:42 AM
I believe its virtually certain if it had a single origin. We have blue eyed ancient DNA from hunters of western origin and with a WHG signature. Only the WHG Magdallenians and their derivative cultures had the sort of spectacular post-LGM expansion through temperate Europe that could explain it. They originated in the western refugia but at the end of the LGM they settled pretty well all of Europe with the exceptions of Italy, the Balkans and south Ukraine/south Russia where Gravettian related groups hung on. If its all from a single event it pretty well has to have originated in the western refugium IMO.


Sorry, are you saying that G at rs12913832 had a single source among WHG in the Franco-Iberian Ice age refugium, and NOT 10,000 years ago in the Black sea area?

parasar
08-27-2014, 12:13 PM
It's hard to say anything about the possible foreign elements in these Karitiana because I don't know where they came from. The HGDP panel from which Karitiana are usually picked has like 25 of them, this study has 52 and there's no included admixture run or PCA to see if they actually are similar to the HGDP sample. Maybe someone could check the HGDP dataset's Karitiana for eye color related SNP's and see if the results match?

Both Genetiker and Hawks tabulations referenced in post #36 are from HGDP dataset.

Shaikorth
08-27-2014, 12:53 PM
Both Genetiker and Hawks tabulations referenced in post #36 are from HGDP dataset.

Thanks, I checked and it seems that Karitiana and Surui indeed carry the allele.

However it is also clear that Pima do not have any of these alleles, and more importantly neither do many southern natives, so there may still be something odd going on. A couple of half-Europeans absorbed into Karitiana centuries ago would not necessarily show in Admixture or especially uniparental markers but the alleles would remain and spread in the highly endogamous community.

The groups that have 0% rs12913832 in the south are Zoe, Awa-Guaja, Urubu-Kaapor, Xikrin, Katuena, Guihiba and Ticuna, most of them from Brazilian Amazon.

http://alfred.med.yale.edu/alfred/mvograph.asp?siteuid=SI007119S

I'm not sure if Karitiana and Surui have managed to preserve an old trait that is missing from these other SA Natives, some ancient DNA would be needed to back that hypothesis.

parasar
08-27-2014, 02:01 PM
... A couple of half-Europeans absorbed into Karitiana centuries ago would not necessarily show in Admixture or especially uniparental markers but the alleles would remain and spread in the highly endogamous community.

...
I think the Karitiana have indeed managed to preserve some very old allele types. I doubt that in couple of centuries the allele would spread to ~40% of the population.
The Karitiana have also managed to preserve a higher than norm of Denisovan. They must be one of the very early humans in the Amazon area.

Denisovan drops to a minima on the southern Indus, and has very low frequency in a middle Eurasian zone up to Finland.
http://johnhawks.net/graphics/skoglund-denisova-frequencies-2011.png

Papuan 0.534685512191
Yizu 0.530125345231
Melanesian 0.528999362651
Colombian 0.528149564478
Karitiana 0.527283424033
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2011/10/25/1108181108.DCSupplemental/pnas.201108181SI.pdf

Please see also Fig 1B for Amerindian closeness to the Neanderthals - http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/24/1108181108.full.pdf
http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Anthropogenesis-SkoglundPCA2.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/06/18/world/20070620_BLOOD_slideshow_2.html
"The Karitiana tribe's first sustained contact with the outside world came only in the late 1970s."
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/19/world/20blood2.jpg
"The indigenous peoples of the Amazon are ideal for certain types of genetic research because they are isolated and extremely close-knit populations, which allows geneticists to track the transmission of illnesses down generations."
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/19/world/20blood5.jpg

Shaikorth
08-27-2014, 03:06 PM
I think the Karitiana have indeed managed to preserve some very old allele types. I doubt that in couple of centuries the allele would spread to ~40% of the population.
The Karitiana have also managed to preserve a higher than norm of Denisovan. They must be one of the very early humans in the Amazon area.


Such a spread still wouldn't be impossible in a small endogamous population. Re. Denisovan-related archaicness, it does seem that Karitiana have more than northern natives and many Eurasians, but we don't know if they have more than, for example, the Amazon tribes with no derived rs12913832. Ancient DNA from Americas with derived rs12913832 would be just the thing to settle this matter.

parasar
08-27-2014, 03:35 PM
Such a spread still wouldn't be impossible in a small endogamous population. Re. Denisovan-related archaicness, it does seem that Karitiana have more than northern natives and many Eurasians, but we don't know if they have more than, for example, the Amazon tribes with no derived rs12913832. Ancient DNA from Americas with derived rs12913832 would be just the thing to settle this matter.

I agree.

The ANE type closest to the Karitiana is perhaps in ancient southern Siberia/Altai where rs12913832 was quite frequent. It has been assumed that this came from the Black Sea region, tagging along with Y-R1a1, but now I have serious doubts.


among the SNPs tested was rs12913832, a single DNA variation within a
regulatory element of HERC2 gene which is associated to
blue eye color in humans. This polymorphism, together
with the diplotypes obtained from variations of the OCA2
locus (major contributor to the human eye color variation)
showed that at least 60% of the ancient Siberian specimens
under study had blue (or green) eyes. Such color phenotype
is, according to Eiberg et al. (2008), caused by a founder
mutation which most likely originated 6-10 kya from a
region around the Black sea, near modern-day Ukraine or
Turkey and then diVused into Northern Europe.

http://www.hamagmongol.narod.ru/library/keyser_2009_e.pdf




Ancient DNA was retrieved from 63 out of 150 Eneolithic (ca.
6,500–5,000 y ago) and Bronze Age (ca. 5,000–4,000 y ago)
samples from the Pontic–Caspian steppe...

rs12913832
0.160
Ancient 47 0.766 (36 [AA]) 0.149 (7[AG]) 0.085 (4[GG])

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/03/05/1316513111.full.pdf

parasar
08-27-2014, 10:00 PM
...

Do we have any evidence from their Y or mtDNA of any European element?

biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/469/field_highwire_adjunct_files/001792-3.xlsx

parasar
09-05-2014, 05:18 PM
Such a spread still wouldn't be impossible in a small endogamous population. Re. Denisovan-related archaicness, it does seem that Karitiana have more than northern natives and many Eurasians, but we don't know if they have more than, for example, the Amazon tribes with no derived rs12913832. Ancient DNA from Americas with derived rs12913832 would be just the thing to settle this matter.

Anzick1 who is closer to South and Central Americans than Northern, could have had blue eyes.

blue eyes VS not-blue eyes

La Brana blue eyes (5/6)

Ajvide58 blue eyes (5/5)

Gokhem2 blue eyes (5/5)

Iceman blue eyes (5/7)

Australian not-blue eyes (2/2)

Anzick1 blue eyes (4/7)

MA1 not-blue eyes (3/3)

Saqqaq not-blue eyes (3/5)

Table S10
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2014/04/23/science.1253448.DC1/Skoglund.SM.pdf

apophis99942
09-07-2014, 02:47 AM
Does anyone know if the genes for canine eye color are similar to those for anthropoid eye color? I have yet to find a study about the diversity of canine eye color.

saxonlander
09-25-2014, 01:26 AM
I cannot exclude this possibility.

The eye color defining SNP rs12913832 is only recovered from Vi33.16, Vi33.25, and Vi33.26 (all three Neanderthals were discovered in the Vindija cave in Croatia). All three had brown eyes.

Feld1 from the Neander Valley in Germany, Sid1253 from El Sidron cave in Asturias, Spain, and Mez1 from Mezmaiskaya in the Altai Mountains, Russia, do not have recovered DNA for rs12913832.


BTW, I made a mistake above, I meant rs11636232 not rs3935591. I corrected it above.

Blue eyes among Homo-Sapien Sapiens are a relatively in terms of evolutionary scale are recent and were spread from a single individual living in Eastern Europe in Romania I believe., precisely the northwestern part of the Black Sea. This people progressively northwards into Europe. Sexual selection or adaptation to a cooler/colder environment might have been the cause.

saxonlander
09-25-2014, 01:31 AM
Scandinavians have the highest ratio of blue-eyed people. There must have been other Caucasoid people who have blue eyes, but never to the same extent as the Northern Europeans!! The spread started in Europe and spread elsewhere.

saxonlander
09-25-2014, 01:34 AM
Sorry but you're wrong. According to a well-researched study done on Belgians, Frenchmen, Algerians, Tunisians and Moroccans, less than 5% of Moroccans have pure blue eyes.

saxonlander
09-25-2014, 01:44 AM
There is no real scientific and genetical evidence for the "Black Irish", it is just a term invented in America for people of Irish descent who have very dark or black hair in comparison to the stereotype of the "typical Irish person" with red or mousy hair. Overall, less than 3% of Irish people have truly black hair, the darkest hair among them usually is dark brown. So the combination of truly black hair with light blue eyes is rare and not common. Yes there are Irish people who might have it, but it's not the norm. Most Irish people as the rest of Northwest Europe have brown or blonde hair and in the majority blue or green-eyed(at 80% for Ireland), hazel or brown eyes in large minority.

saxonlander
09-25-2014, 02:33 AM
The Irish are not predominantly dark-haired. Even vs the Poles it depends what study. According to the GWAS study in 2012 on four European populations from Ireland, Italy, Poland and Portugal, it was Ireland who came out the lightest in skin, hair and eye colour. This study is much more precise than the one you read, since the figures for Ireland and Greece were fused together for hair colour, which anyone who is not biased will know that is impossible. The figure for red hair for Poland was also adjusted to a higher value. So that study, I cannot consider credible.

The GWAS study on pigmentation in those four European countries is done in much more details, here male and females are compared separately. This is a much accurate study done by Candile et Al. Irish females came out even light-haired than their male counterparts. So overall Ireland is lighter than Poland.

saxonlander
09-25-2014, 02:39 AM
True Ireland is the country with the highest ratio of light green eyes, especially the county of Cork in the southeast has the highest ratio of green eyes in the world. True green eyes are usually linked to a very pale skin colour and red hair, that's why. It is also the rarest eye colour on the face of the earth among humans.

saxonlander
09-25-2014, 02:44 AM
Well according to a very recent study done by ScottishDNA Project in 2014 on the British Isles population, result found that overall 30% of the British have green eyes, with the Irish and Scottish with even higher values for green eyes. So it's not Hungarians who have the highest frequency for green eyes, rather the Irish and Scots.

saxonlander
09-26-2014, 06:00 AM
The Irish have a somewhat higher amount of dark hair compared to England but I still wouldnt overcook the very dark hair Irish thing. Its common but 57% of the Irish have hair that is middling neutral flat brown or lighter. Middling or lighter combined is still significantly more common that combined dark brown and black. The hair is only significantly darker when compared to north Germanics and Baltic peoples.

Colin Farell is a bad example as he is about as dark as a you ever see a full blood Irishman Its rare to see that combination of dark hair, dark eyes and olive skin he has. Although dark brown hair is common, having that combined with dark eyes and olive skin is a rare combination in when you consider that the Harvard survey puts anything other than the lightest skins at only 10% and the entire spectrum from middling to dark eyes around 20%. By definition Colin Farell would be within the darkest 10% of Irish.

True Colin Farrell would be well among the darkest Irishman, thus is considered attractive, and is used for movies. Ireland is not that different from England/Scotland, but is darker-haired than Scandinavian and Baltic countries. In terms of skin complexion, the Irish have a fairer complexions than other Northern Europeans. In the indigenous population of the British Isles according to a new recent study done by the ScotlandDna Project in 2014, the most common eye colour is blue, then comes green and lastly brown eyes. However the distribution of blue-eyed people is not unform but varies. The overall percentage for eye colours among the British are blue(48%), green(30%), brown(22%), giving the result of 78% for light eyes.

British Isles percentage for pure blue eyes only according to the ScotlandDNA Project study.

SOUTHEAST SCOTLAND-57%
CONNACHT (IRELAND)-53%
LEINSTER (IRELAND)-52%
ULSTER+MUNSTER (IRELAND), CENTRAL ENGLAND-50%
NORTHWEST+SOUTHWEST SCOTLAND, YORKSHIRE (ENGLAND)-49%
NORTHEAST+CENTRAL SCOTLAND-48%
NORTHEAST ENGLAND-47%
WALES-45%
SOUTHEAST ENGLAND-44%
EAST ENGLAND-41%
SOUTHWEST ENGLAND-35%

Thus those of Scottish and Irish descent are more likely to have blue eyes than those of English and Welsh descent. Regios of the British Isles from 49% and up are similar to those of Scandinavia in eye colour.
According to the study below 55% of Norwegians have blue eyes.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2006%2F10%2F31% 2Fhealth%2F31gene.html&ei=jvwkVNj8AafZ8AGOy4HgCQ&usg=AFQjCNGZJ3cHMqwjOhqqbkq9py0ySMbEng&bvm=bv.76247554,d.b2U

NORTHWEST+SOUTHWEST SCOTLAND-

Generalissimo
09-26-2014, 07:00 AM
The Irish are not predominantly dark-haired. Even vs the Poles it depends what study. According to the GWAS study in 2012 on four European populations from Ireland, Italy, Poland and Portugal, it was Ireland who came out the lightest in skin, hair and eye colour. This study is much more precise than the one you read, since the figures for Ireland and Greece were fused together for hair colour, which anyone who is not biased will know that is impossible. The figure for red hair for Poland was also adjusted to a higher value. So that study, I cannot consider credible.

The GWAS study on pigmentation in those four European countries is done in much more details, here male and females are compared separately. This is a much accurate study done by Candile et Al. Irish females came out even light-haired than their male counterparts. So overall Ireland is lighter than Poland.

There is absolutely no way that the Irish are lighter haired than Poles.

That's like writing that up is down and down is up and managing to get it into a scientific paper. It's complete rubbish.

ADW_1981
09-26-2014, 01:57 PM
True Colin Farrell would be well among the darkest Irishman, thus is considered attractive, and is used for movies. Ireland is not that different from England/Scotland, but is darker-haired than Scandinavian and Baltic countries. In terms of skin complexion, the Irish have a fairer complexions than other Northern Europeans. In the indigenous population of the British Isles according to a new recent study done by the ScotlandDna Project in 2014, the most common eye colour is blue, then comes green and lastly brown eyes. However the distribution of blue-eyed people is not unform but varies. The overall percentage for eye colours among the British are blue(48%), green(30%), brown(22%), giving the result of 78% for light eyes.

British Isles percentage for pure blue eyes only according to the ScotlandDNA Project study.

SOUTHEAST SCOTLAND-57%
CONNACHT (IRELAND)-53%
LEINSTER (IRELAND)-52%
ULSTER+MUNSTER (IRELAND), CENTRAL ENGLAND-50%
NORTHWEST+SOUTHWEST SCOTLAND, YORKSHIRE (ENGLAND)-49%
NORTHEAST+CENTRAL SCOTLAND-48%
NORTHEAST ENGLAND-47%
WALES-45%
SOUTHEAST ENGLAND-44%
EAST ENGLAND-41%
SOUTHWEST ENGLAND-35%

Thus those of Scottish and Irish descent are more likely to have blue eyes than those of English and Welsh descent. Regios of the British Isles from 49% and up are similar to those of Scandinavia in eye colour.
According to the study below 55% of Norwegians have blue eyes.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2006%2F10%2F31% 2Fhealth%2F31gene.html&ei=jvwkVNj8AafZ8AGOy4HgCQ&usg=AFQjCNGZJ3cHMqwjOhqqbkq9py0ySMbEng&bvm=bv.76247554,d.b2U

NORTHWEST+SOUTHWEST SCOTLAND-

My grandmother was from SW England, Bath to be exact and she and my father have brown eyes. There is definitely a southern look among them, despite our autosomal DNA being completely non-exotic, and a lot more north European than I was expecting when I first got tested. They're often thought to be jewish due to some stereotypical "Roman" features. Although I consider these features to be indigenous among the Mediterranean, similar to Spaniards or Italians.

vettor
09-26-2014, 07:59 PM
Well according to a very recent study done by ScottishDNA Project in 2014 on the British Isles population, result found that overall 30% of the British have green eyes, with the Irish and Scottish with even higher values for green eyes. So it's not Hungarians who have the highest frequency for green eyes, rather the Irish and Scots.

Never heard much of green eyes in ireland, I have heard about the Hungarians and there green eyes of the lands of the northern Adriatic coastal people.........lands which was the adriatic refrugium, a place where people moved from the balkans into Italy before the waters rose up.

so confuse hazel with green...and green with hazel colours

alan
09-26-2014, 09:02 PM
I have seen lots of poles and spend a month travelling through Poland and IMO overall the Poles, Irish and many British are of broadly similar colouring. They are similarly modal for various shades of middling to darkish brown haiather than very light or very dark. The main difference is the Poles have an ash blond minority which the Irish have a light minority mostly in shades of red and golden hair. Overall the two different kinds of light cancel each other out IMO. The Poles tend to have very straight hair while the Irish tend to have more waves. Most Poles I have seen are of similarly middling height but with a tall minority.

Build wise its hard to generalise but the Poles tend to be stocky and compact athletic upper body and when tall they are leggy while the Irish tend to not be leggy but have long upper bodies and long arms - why the Irish are good boxers.

Complexion wise the Poles can often take a nice golden tan similar to Germanics while the Irish and many British tend to be very pale and go red in the sun. Eyes wise both the Poles and the Irish and northern Britsih seem to be very light predominant which is definately not so true of the southern British.

Facial features are rather different with the Poles tending to have square or round young looking faces while Irishmen (as well as Scots and some other British areas)tend to have much larger skulls and more marked angular sharper features. I think the current Irish premier Enda Kenny is somewhat an archetypal Irishman in many ways

2679


I think the Irish have much stronger sexual differences with the men and women having markedly distinct facial features with the women often have soft rounded features except for the minority of unfortunates who must have taken after their dads.

Overall despite some differences I think both fall into the same general range. IMO southern Britain is more varied and has a lot more people who are truly blonde as well as a lot more people who are truly dark (dark hair, eyes, olive skin).

alan
09-26-2014, 09:11 PM
True Colin Farrell would be well among the darkest Irishman, thus is considered attractive, and is used for movies. Ireland is not that different from England/Scotland, but is darker-haired than Scandinavian and Baltic countries. In terms of skin complexion, the Irish have a fairer complexions than other Northern Europeans. In the indigenous population of the British Isles according to a new recent study done by the ScotlandDna Project in 2014, the most common eye colour is blue, then comes green and lastly brown eyes. However the distribution of blue-eyed people is not unform but varies. The overall percentage for eye colours among the British are blue(48%), green(30%), brown(22%), giving the result of 78% for light eyes.

British Isles percentage for pure blue eyes only according to the ScotlandDNA Project study.

SOUTHEAST SCOTLAND-57%
CONNACHT (IRELAND)-53%
LEINSTER (IRELAND)-52%
ULSTER+MUNSTER (IRELAND), CENTRAL ENGLAND-50%
NORTHWEST+SOUTHWEST SCOTLAND, YORKSHIRE (ENGLAND)-49%
NORTHEAST+CENTRAL SCOTLAND-48%
NORTHEAST ENGLAND-47%
WALES-45%
SOUTHEAST ENGLAND-44%
EAST ENGLAND-41%
SOUTHWEST ENGLAND-35%

Thus those of Scottish and Irish descent are more likely to have blue eyes than those of English and Welsh descent. Regios of the British Isles from 49% and up are similar to those of Scandinavia in eye colour.
According to the study below 55% of Norwegians have blue eyes.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2006%2F10%2F31% 2Fhealth%2F31gene.html&ei=jvwkVNj8AafZ8AGOy4HgCQ&usg=AFQjCNGZJ3cHMqwjOhqqbkq9py0ySMbEng&bvm=bv.76247554,d.b2U

NORTHWEST+SOUTHWEST SCOTLAND-

It seems that the 'very light mixed' is being described as green. I suppose its what would be called blue-green by many.

My father in law had very dark hair and very pale blue green eyes somewhat like a greener version of a young Ronnie Drew from the Dubliners - glow in the dark eyes lol

2680

Agamemnon
09-27-2014, 12:41 AM
Everyone in my mother's family has light features, light hair along with blue or greenish-blue eyes... It's almost as if they were all born in a Lebensborn or something lol.

Zavod34
11-04-2014, 12:00 AM
Interesting.

saxonlander
03-07-2015, 10:19 AM
Well there is way. According to the GWAS study done in 2012 by Candile et Al, the Irish came out as the lightest in all catgories (hair, eyes, skin tones). This was also supported by Universities faculties in all those countries, including others such Stanford University (U.S.), Oxford University (U.K).

saxonlander
03-07-2015, 10:38 AM
The Irish and British predominantly belong to the Northwestern European group, while the Poles, Russians, Lithuanians, etc... belong more to the Balto-Slavic group. In terms of skin tone, it is true that the British and Irish are the palest! According to the University of Kentucky studies on skin phototypes and skin cancers, have shown that those who are indigenous to the British Isles to have overall the lightest skin types.

The lightest skin have the highest sensibility to UV light.

I - British/Irish
II - Scandinavian and Northern Europe
III - Central/Southern Europe
IV - Mediterranean, Asian, Latino
V - East Asian, Latino, Native American, African
VI - African, Aboriginal ancestry
V -

Jessie
03-07-2015, 02:09 PM
The Irish have a somewhat higher amount of dark hair compared to England but I still wouldnt overcook the very dark hair Irish thing. Its common but 57% of the Irish have hair that is middling neutral flat brown or lighter. Middling or lighter combined is still significantly more common that combined dark brown and black. The hair is only significantly darker when compared to north Germanics and Baltic peoples.

Colin Farell is a bad example as he is about as dark as a you ever see a full blood Irishman Its rare to see that combination of dark hair, dark eyes and olive skin he has. Although dark brown hair is common, having that combined with dark eyes and olive skin is a rare combination in when you consider that the Harvard survey puts anything other than the lightest skins at only 10% and the entire spectrum from middling to dark eyes around 20%. By definition Colin Farell would be within the darkest 10% of Irish.

Agree with this. The most common hair colour in Ireland is what Alan has said middling neutral flat brown or lighter. Just look at all the GAA teams to get a good grasp of what Irish colouring is.

saxonlander
03-07-2015, 10:29 PM
highest % of population of green eyes is in hungaria, they have 20%.................must be associated with the central-asian invading Huns

What? 20%, that's it! Well that was wrong, it would never be the highest. According to ScottishDna Project, the overall figure for green eyes in Britain is 30%. Huns were a mixed-race European with probably distant Mongoloid genes.

saxonlander
03-07-2015, 10:45 PM
Yes I agree as well, according to the Irish Medical Journal of Science, report in 1998. 64% of the Irish population have non-dark brown hair, meaning ranging from a medium to light brown to blonde and red hair colors and at least 80% clear blue and green eyes and in skin tone over 75% have a very fair skin colour (type I/II), one that cannot tan or tans with difficulty and prone to freckling and burns (in that respect, it's higher than any Northern European population.).

vettor
03-07-2015, 10:56 PM
Yes I agree as well, according to the Irish Medical Journal of Science, report in 1998. 64% of the Irish population have non-dark brown hair, meaning ranging from a medium to light brown to blonde and red hair colors and at least 80% clear blue and green eyes and in skin tone over 75% have a very fair skin colour (type I/II), one that cannot tan or tans with difficulty and prone to freckling and burns (in that respect, it's higher than any Northern European population.).

link this fantasy of yours

saxonlander
03-08-2015, 07:35 PM
What fantasy? It is a fact that the Irish have a much higher frequency of light skin tones than even Scandinavians who tan pretty well. Though the Irish have a higher frequency of darker hair.

vettor
03-08-2015, 08:28 PM
Yes I agree as well, according to the Irish Medical Journal of Science, report in 1998. 64% of the Irish population have non-dark brown hair, meaning ranging from a medium to light brown to blonde and red hair colors and at least 80% clear blue and green eyes and in skin tone over 75% have a very fair skin colour (type I/II), one that cannot tan or tans with difficulty and prone to freckling and burns (in that respect, it's higher than any Northern European population.).

fantasy

this is from 2014
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/News/article1453358.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_08_30


green eyes
Origins of Green Eyes
Source: Courtney Rhodes
How do you inherit green eyes?

Green eyes are especially rare. In humans, the pigmentation of an iris can range from very light brown to a very dark brown, bordering on black. The darkness of the iris depends on its concentration of melanin—the greater the concentration of melanin, the darker. Green eyes posses low to moderate amounts of melanin. However, the green is actually not a pigmentation of the iris at all. What is known as Rayleigh scattering—the same scattering of light that occurs in the sky and makes it blue—occurs in the outer layer (stroma) of the iris. The blue optical effect of the Rayleigh scattering combined with the light melanin pigmentation combines to make the eye appear green.

Only 2% of the world's population have green eyes or 140 million people. Why? The answer boils down to genetics.

saxonlander
01-14-2016, 03:22 AM
Yes worldwide, only 2% have green eyes. Most people in the world are non-European in ancestry. While in Britain, 30% have green eyes. This according to the ScotlandDna Project, as well the Blue Eye Research Project.

Saetro
01-14-2016, 09:50 PM
Green eyes are a tricky assignment for ordinary humans.
My ancestors were half British, half German.
I grew up in Australia with bright sunshine, and my eyes were always brown.
Four years in UK with low UV made them green in winter, with a few brown flecks (hazel) in summer if I did get lots of sun.
While my eyes were green, I had to sort out a visa and state eye colour.
"Green" was allowed, but I went for "hazel", and was told that there was no such category, and to put "brown".
Fortunately no one at passport control checked my eye colour!
As long as the assignment is made from the genome it should be sound, but trying to establish genotype from phenotype is not always simple.

StrandLoper
01-15-2016, 06:53 PM
I have similar ancestry and my eyes where Brown when I was young but have changed to Green/Hazel over the years.

But I live in Hawaii, so I don't think its due to the UV

Arch Hades
04-11-2016, 03:12 AM
So far the earliest prescence of blue eyes are found in Western Hunter Gatherers, who have nothing to do with The Black Sea Region. Hell the Yamnaya who came into Europe from the East and spoke Proto Indo-European were 90% Black eyed.

The blue eyes come from the Black sea stuff is a myth IMO. Or if they did arise in the Black sea then they never became dominant in that region and the first area they became dominant in was pre historic Western and Northern Europe. All WHGs and SHGs we've ever discovered have had blue eyes.

parasar
04-11-2016, 02:12 PM
So far the earliest prescence of blue eyes are found in Western Hunter Gatherers, who have nothing to do with The Black Sea Region. Hell the Yamnaya who came into Europe from the East and spoke Proto Indo-European were 90% Black eyed.

The blue eyes come from the Black sea stuff is a myth IMO. Or if they did arise in the Black sea then they never became dominant in that region and the first area they became dominant in was pre historic Western and Northern Europe. All WHGs and SHGs we've ever discovered have had blue eyes.

Potentially 12600ybp Anzick-1 had dark skin and blue eyes.
Table S10 blue eyes VS not-blue eyes Anzick1 4/7
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2014/04/23/science.1253448.DC1/Skoglund.SM.pdf

Running Anzick1 F999912 on Gedmatch

https://www.gedmatch.com/c6b119_11_.jpg

Krefter
04-11-2016, 02:36 PM
Potentially 12600ybp Anzick-1 had dark skin and blue eyes.
Table S10 blue eyes VS not-blue eyes Anzick1 4/7
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2014/04/23/science.1253448.DC1/Skoglund.SM.pdf

Running Anzick1 F999912 on Gedmatch

https://www.gedmatch.com/c6b119_11_.jpg

Do they have an allele call for rs12913832?

jdean
04-11-2016, 02:53 PM
Potentially 12600ybp Anzick-1 had dark skin and blue eyes.
Table S10 blue eyes VS not-blue eyes Anzick1 4/7
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2014/04/23/science.1253448.DC1/Skoglund.SM.pdf

Running Anzick1 F999912 on Gedmatch

https://www.gedmatch.com/c6b119_11_.jpg

I think that's the baseline image, kit no. F999912 has been removed (or converted to a T number) to protect his privacy.

Kit no. 'Nobody' produces the same image.

parasar
04-11-2016, 02:55 PM
Do they have an allele call for rs12913832?

Not sure. Felix could have have that info.
It is possible that it is G since the remote isolated Karitiana have 35% G at that locus.

On the flip side some Motala HGs had EDAR, so I think there was a Arctic connection among Amerindians, Siberians, and N. Europeans.
"In three of six samples, we observe the haplotype carrying the derived allele of rs3827760 in the EDAR"
https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/2015_Nature_Mathieson_selection_concatenated.pdf

jdean
04-11-2016, 03:06 PM
Not sure. Felix could have have that info.
It is possible that it is G since the remote isolated Karitiana have 35% G at that locus.

On the flip side some Motala HGs had EDAR, so I think there was a Arctic connection among Amerindians, Siberians, and N. Europeans.
"In three of six samples, we observe the haplotype carrying the derived allele of rs3827760 in the EDAR"
https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/2015_Nature_Mathieson_selection_concatenated.pdf

I think that's the baseline image, kit no. F999912 has been removed (or converted to a T number) to protect his privacy.

Kit no. 'Nobody' produces the same image.

parasar
04-11-2016, 03:22 PM
I think that's the baseline image, kit no. F999912 has been removed (or converted to a T number) to protect his privacy.

Kit no. 'Nobody' produces the same image.

Yes it is possible that the GEDMATCH result is erroneous.

But Skoglund's analysis also lists Anzick1 with potentially blue-eyes in table S10.
[using a majority rule consensus. We caution that this approach has little power to
confidently infer pigmentation phenotypes]

jdean
04-11-2016, 03:29 PM
Yes it is possible that the GEDMATCH result is erroneous.

But Skoglund's analysis also lists Anzick1 with potentially blue-eyes in table S10.
[using a majority rule consensus. We caution that this approach has little power to
confidently infer pigmentation phenotypes]

The Gedmatch result is wrong, or not a result to be more precise, it's the baseline image you get if there are no mutations found to effect eye colour which is what happens if you get the kit number wrong or insert a joke kit number. As I said F999912 is no longer available at Gedmatch.

Skoglund's analysis OTOH is a different kettle of fish.

kevingnet
03-02-2017, 05:22 AM
I had heard about this datum being regurgitated time and again. I really have a problem with this. May be several, here they are:

1) Early Europeans, I mean those from Iberia have been genetically studied and found to have had blue eyes. These samples predate 10,000 years, if I understand the data correctly. These Iberians had lived in Europe since before the glacial era. Their origin is not known very definitively, some say that they came from west Asia, and others that they came from north Africa. However, evidence of both can be found. Additionally, these early Iberian samples are all understood to have had blue eyes. In other words all of these early hunter gatherers had blue eyes and that no samples were found where they had brown eyes. So, who's telling the truth?

2) There are other areas in the world where other unrelated peoples have a high percentage of colored eyes. Same with blond hair and fair skin.

3) There is no 'blue eye color' gene, what there are is a group of related genes that prevent melanin from accumulating in the iris.

4) What about cats and other animals with blue eyes, did they also descend from these early (well, quite modern actually) Europeans? I mean what's up with that? Ok, the point here is that, there appears to be a natural trend, some call it evolution? where changes are caused by environmental conditions and natural selection. My belief is that cold climates and low light conditions across many generations give way to the disablement of the genes that accumulate pigment around the iris. Similarly, fair skin, it is easier to demonstrate that skin tones change depending on climatic conditions. It's actually been my observation and the time frames for this is even less, it would appear, than for eye coloring. Of course, environment and selection is quite complex, part of an environmental condition would be diet, or activities, etc...

5) Then, you have the recessive nature of these gene markers. We understand that northern Europeans, those who are most likely to have blue eyes, are also a combination of Hunter Gatherer and Anatolyan Early Farmer, this is already abundantly substantiated by lots of samples. And that HG had blue eyes and dark skin, and EF had white skin and dark eyes. So, how come you have white skin and blue eyes mostly in Northern Europe. Hint: climate (low light conditions and cold weather.) This is consistently the case in other regions with colder climates.

Otoh, what's puzzling is the fact that Siberians and native Alaskans, typically do not have colored eyes, they do however have lighter skin tones. Perhaps the answer to this might be that they haven't yet evolved to those conditions, perhaps due to they not having been there in those areas long enough, or perhaps their diet somehow hasn't permitted these mutations. What sort of support my theory though, is that for instance Alaskan huskies do have very light blue or gray colored eyes.

In the event that they are telling the truth (actually, they probably are?) I believe that even if those Europeans with blue eyes (mmhh...must be only the ones which they have tested) all descend from the same parent. That datum in and of itself is not sufficient to disprove that evolution causes these genetic mutations. Perhaps mutations aren't as random as we may think.

So, to recap, I believe these are evolutive changes that occur naturally under the right conditions.

faulconer
03-02-2017, 06:36 PM
If I remember correctly, there is a haplotype, (multiple mutations, most that are not directly determining eye color) that is common to blue eyed subjects tested (from all over the world). Given the number of mutations shared in common, it would be mathematically unlikely that they occurred on separate lines of descent. I believe that is the basis for the shared common ancestor assertion and the age estimate.

ADW_1981
03-02-2017, 06:47 PM
I had heard about this datum being regurgitated time and again. I really have a problem with this. May be several, here they are:

1) Early Europeans, I mean those from Iberia have been genetically studied and found to have had blue eyes. These samples predate 10,000 years, if I understand the data correctly. These Iberians had lived in Europe since before the glacial era. Their origin is not known very definitively, some say that they came from west Asia, and others that they came from north Africa. However, evidence of both can be found. Additionally, these early Iberian samples are all understood to have had blue eyes. In other words all of these early hunter gatherers had blue eyes and that no samples were found where they had brown eyes. So, who's telling the truth?

2) There are other areas in the world where other unrelated peoples have a high percentage of colored eyes. Same with blond hair and fair skin.

3) There is no 'blue eye color' gene, what there are is a group of related genes that prevent melanin from accumulating in the iris.

4) What about cats and other animals with blue eyes, did they also descend from these early (well, quite modern actually) Europeans? I mean what's up with that? Ok, the point here is that, there appears to be a natural trend, some call it evolution? where changes are caused by environmental conditions and natural selection. My belief is that cold climates and low light conditions across many generations give way to the disablement of the genes that accumulate pigment around the iris. Similarly, fair skin, it is easier to demonstrate that skin tones change depending on climatic conditions. It's actually been my observation and the time frames for this is even less, it would appear, than for eye coloring. Of course, environment and selection is quite complex, part of an environmental condition would be diet, or activities, etc...

5) Then, you have the recessive nature of these gene markers. We understand that northern Europeans, those who are most likely to have blue eyes, are also a combination of Hunter Gatherer and Anatolyan Early Farmer, this is already abundantly substantiated by lots of samples. And that HG had blue eyes and dark skin, and EF had white skin and dark eyes. So, how come you have white skin and blue eyes mostly in Northern Europe. Hint: climate (low light conditions and cold weather.) This is consistently the case in other regions with colder climates.

Otoh, what's puzzling is the fact that Siberians and native Alaskans, typically do not have colored eyes, they do however have lighter skin tones. Perhaps the answer to this might be that they haven't yet evolved to those conditions, perhaps due to they not having been there in those areas long enough, or perhaps their diet somehow hasn't permitted these mutations. What sort of support my theory though, is that for instance Alaskan huskies do have very light blue or gray colored eyes.

In the event that they are telling the truth (actually, they probably are?) I believe that even if those Europeans with blue eyes (mmhh...must be only the ones which they have tested) all descend from the same parent. That datum in and of itself is not sufficient to disprove that evolution causes these genetic mutations. Perhaps mutations aren't as random as we may think.

So, to recap, I believe these are evolutive changes that occur naturally under the right conditions.

To the best of my knowledge La Brana is the earliest with blue eyes, and is not 10,000 years old.

Kale
03-02-2017, 08:45 PM
To the best of my knowledge La Brana is the earliest with blue eyes, and is not 10,000 years old.

According to Genetiker, Villabruna (14,000 years old) had
OCA2/HERC2, rs12913832, blue eyes

Amerijoe
03-02-2017, 10:57 PM
According to Genetiker, Villabruna (14,000 years old) had
OCA2/HERC2, rs12913832, blue eyes

An R1a GG but not quite that old. Interesting my 23andMe results have me at 0.4% Italian with a 5 to 8 g. Italian ancestor. Skeptical at best. Do blue eyes confer any advantage or was it just a throw of the DNA dice?

kevingnet
03-03-2017, 01:45 AM
If I remember correctly, there is a haplotype, (multiple mutations, most that are not directly determining eye color) that is common to blue eyed subjects tested (from all over the world). Given the number of mutations shared in common, it would be mathematically unlikely that they occurred on separate lines of descent. I believe that is the basis for the shared common ancestor assertion and the age estimate.

I'd agree, but only if those combinations were about unique. That is to say, I have no data or knowledge one way or the other that determines that that combination and only that combination is the determinant. However, the data you present is interesting nonetheless.

kevingnet
03-03-2017, 01:57 AM
@ADW_1981
"To the best of my knowledge La Brana is the earliest with blue eyes, and is not 10,000 years old." - This appears to support my point, since there had been older samples in the region which were older and were thought to all have blue eyes and dark skin.

@Kale
"According to Genetiker, Villabruna (14,000 years old) had OCA2/HERC2, rs12913832, blue eyes" - Same thing as above, it's not really all that old.

@Amerijoe
"An R1a GG but not quite that old. Interesting my 23andMe results have me at 0.4% Italian with a 5 to 8 g. Italian ancestor. Skeptical at best. Do blue eyes confer any advantage or was it just a throw of the DNA dice?" - Apparently light color eyes have better vision under low light conditions. The theory is supported by many nocturnal animal species that have light color eyes, for example cats, and in Alaska, Huskies. As far as your Italian ancestry, maybe it's not too unlikely, however, even in the event that you had zero ancestry from there, the possibility exists that your ancestors or other British would have lived in and around Italy, and that they would have mixed with the population and therefore you see that your admixture would have been 'assimilated' (I mean, weren't they like the Borg) by the Italians and when you test, because of how similarities are found, the algorithms assume that those genes (from Britain) have their origins in Italy. Sorry if I confused you even more. What I'm trying to say is that it's hard for the algorithms to determine with a good degree of certainty where exactly the mutations originated, they can only calculate the probabilities from the samples data, and often their origins are just arbitrarily assigned.

Kale
03-03-2017, 03:49 AM
Maybe whoever suggested "Blue Eyes Originated 10,000 Years Ago in the Black Sea Region" made a typo...maybe they meant to say 20,000 years ago. That way it could all line up nicely with the approximate date and location of y-hg I2 forming, and the Villabruna cluster (the only ones with blue eyes right?) :P

kevingnet
03-03-2017, 05:05 AM
Maybe whoever suggested "Blue Eyes Originated 10,000 Years Ago in the Black Sea Region" made a typo...maybe they meant to say 20,000 years ago. That way it could all line up nicely with the approximate date and location of y-hg I2 forming, and the Villabruna cluster (the only ones with blue eyes right?) :P

Seems like a good hypothesis. I think more along the lines of the mutation(s) happen via evolution and that they aren't as random as one may think. At this point my view is totally without any scientific basis that I know of, it's just sort of a hunch, based on consideration of the current data.

Pappy
08-10-2017, 07:05 PM
My Great Grandfather who was full blood Moqui Indian had Yellow Hair and Blue eyes. Our blue eyes are different than those of European decent. Kinda of a mix of greenish blue and yellow.

J Man
08-10-2017, 07:31 PM
My Great Grandfather who was full blood Moqui Indian had Yellow Hair and Blue eyes. Our blue eyes are different than those of European decent. Kinda of a mix of greenish blue and yellow.

Probably some sort of albinism or he was not as ''full blooded'' as you think.

Pappy
08-10-2017, 07:55 PM
Probably some sort of albinism or he was not as ''full blooded'' as you think.

Certainly OCA2, my whole family carries it to one degree or another