|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Oct 30, 2013 15:38:34 GMT -5
 Nice Pic! So I come across one of the pictures of an African child with blue eyes and I get this: Africa | 'Theuns ~ The Boy with the Sapphire Eyes'. Maramani Communal Area, Southwest Zimbabwe | ©Vanessa Bristow, March 2010 | No this has NOT been photoshopped ~ it is genuine and he is likely to represent a case for Ocular Albinism or Nettleship-Falls albinism, or Juvenile uveitis. Both conditions cause the pigment of the iris to be less dense. Of course it is just as likely that he has Caucasian relatives somewhere back in his family tree.
I guess this logic is on the same level as the "Waardenburg" syndrome, no? Anybody have any legit info on Nettleship and Juevenile uveitis? I would look on my own but I doubt I'll get the truth. I knew a guy from West Africa with blue eyes and he could see just fine and had no European ancestry. |
|
|
|
Post by anastasiaescrava on Oct 31, 2013 12:21:17 GMT -5
I knew a guy from West Africa with blue eyes and he could see just fine and had no European ancestry. I believe you 100% It's tiring that white folks think they own "features". |
|
|
|
Post by herodotus on Nov 1, 2013 11:34:50 GMT -5
I knew a guy from West Africa with blue eyes and he could see just fine and had no European ancestry. I believe you 100% It's tiring that white folks think they own "features". You are wrong.  The derived HERC2 mutation that led to blue eye depigmentation occurred outside Africa (see map). The mutation occurred around the Black Sea, and spread into mainland Europe with agricultural expansion by the Neolithic: "Blue eye colour most likely originated from the 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 six–10,000 years ago." "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." (Eiberg, 2008) 6,000 years ago there were no blue eyed peoples in Africa. Blue eyes only appeared with the spread of Europeans or north-west Asians into Africa recently. |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Nov 1, 2013 16:33:27 GMT -5
I am picking up an emotional outburst. If you are capable of discussing the issue I will oblige. Most of what you said is wishful thinking. Now.
Let's get one thing out the way then we will move on to the next.
1. Do you understand the chart? The Chart shows the gene for white skin originated IN Africa. Do you see that? Do you agree? This what the researchers conluded(2013) NOT 2008. BEFORE leaving Africa.
2. Next we will get on to blue eyes......
|
|
|
|
Post by anastasiaescrava on Nov 1, 2013 16:43:21 GMT -5
I believe you 100% It's tiring that white folks think they own "features". You are wrong. The derived HERC2 mutation that led to blue eye depigmentation occurred outside Africa (see map). The mutation occurred around the Black Sea, and spread into mainland Europe with agricultural expansion by the Neolithic: "Blue eye colour most likely originated from the 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 six–10,000 years ago." "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." (Eiberg, 2008) 6,000 years ago there were no blue eyed peoples in Africa. Blue eyes only appeared with the spread of Europeans or north-west Asians into Africa recently. your article says "most likely". Second, the people I posted are from countries with little to no admixture. Third, explain why I have seen people globally with blue eyes. Nobody has a monopoly on features. For example Blonde hair. That was consider a "European" trait until the Melanesians and other similar groups were discovered to have that with no admixture. Also, did you see the info posted by djoser on page 3? One last thing, what's up with the "Genetics of skin and eye color in Cape verde" in the top corner? |
|
|
|
Post by anastasiaescrava on Nov 1, 2013 16:50:53 GMT -5
I am picking up an emotional outburst. If you are capable of discussing the issue I will oblige. Most of what you said is wishful thinking. Now. Let's get one thing out the way then we will move on to the next. 1. Do you understand the chart? The Chart shows the gene for white skin originated IN Africa. Do you see that? Do you agree? This what the researchers conluded(2013) NOT 2008. BEFORE leaving Africa. 2. Next we will get on to blue eyes...... See that's what I mean. Always undermining African diversity. That's why you always got to stay sharp in the info department.  Go ahead and break it down for him! |
|
|
|
Post by herodotus on Nov 1, 2013 17:45:01 GMT -5
I already showed that your claim white skin originated in Africa is erroneous. Ala111Thr (SLC24A5) is associated with white skin in Europeans. KITLG and APBA2 (OCA2) however is associated with light brown or tawny shades ( not white). Is it really news there are lighter brown skinned Africans? Those shades have been noted by anthropologists for example in San Bushmen for over a century. |
|
|
|
Post by herodotus on Nov 1, 2013 18:03:26 GMT -5
You are wrong. The derived HERC2 mutation that led to blue eye depigmentation occurred outside Africa (see map). The mutation occurred around the Black Sea, and spread into mainland Europe with agricultural expansion by the Neolithic: "Blue eye colour most likely originated from the 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 six–10,000 years ago." "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." (Eiberg, 2008) 6,000 years ago there were no blue eyed peoples in Africa. Blue eyes only appeared with the spread of Europeans or north-west Asians into Africa recently. Welp, your article says "most likely". Second, the people I posted are from countries with little to no admixture. Third, explain why I have seen people globally with blue eyes. Nobody has a monopoly on features. For example Blonde hair. That was consider a "European" trait until the Melanesians and other similar groups were discovered to have that with no admixture. Also, did you see the info posted by djoser on page 3? One last thing, what's up with the "Genetics of skin and eye color in Cape verde" in the top corner? The map is from a recent study posted in another thread by djoser. Like I said, the derived HERC2 mutation that led to blue eye depigmentation occurred outside Africa. All blue eyed humans share a single common ancestor with whom the mutation originated. This mutation is non-African. I fail to understand why this is "undermining African diversity" - its simply scientific reality. Europeans have the most diversity in eye pigmentation, not Africans, who are among those who actually display the least - "People of European descent display the widest variation in pigmentation traits, such as iris (eye) and hair colouration, in the world." (Walsh et al. 2012) |
|
|
|
Post by anastasiaescrava on Nov 1, 2013 18:21:07 GMT -5
your article says "most likely". Second, the people I posted are from countries with little to no admixture. Third, explain why I have seen people globally with blue eyes. Nobody has a monopoly on features. For example Blonde hair. That was consider a "European" trait until the Melanesians and other similar groups were discovered to have that with no admixture. Also, did you see the info posted by djoser on page 3? One last thing, what's up with the "Genetics of skin and eye color in Cape verde" in the top corner? The map is from a recent study posted in another thread by djoser. Like I said, the derived HERC2 mutation that led to blue eye depigmentation occurred outside Africa. All blue eyed humans share a single common ancestor with whom the mutation originated. This mutation is non-African. I fail to understand why this is "undermining African diversity" - its simply scientific reality. Europeans have the most diversity in eye pigmentation, not Africans, who are among those who actually display the least - "People of European descent display the widest variation in pigmentation traits, such as iris (eye) and hair colouration, in the world." (Walsh et al. 2012) So let's go with your idea that it occurred outside of Africa. That still means the original unmutated gene is still present in Africa. What's making it impossible for it to occasionally pop up in Africans? And when I say pop up, the frequency is so low they don't really pick it up. Widest Variation in eye color? Do not agree with that. However, I do acknowledge Europeans have an occurrence of different hair and eye color MORE OFTEN than any other group.They could have phrased the last sentence better. |
|
|
|
Post by herodotus on Nov 1, 2013 18:30:31 GMT -5
SLC24A5 (Ala111Thr) which is associated with white skin only entered a small number of Africans by recent gene flow: "The non-African component, which includes the SLC24A5 allele associated with light skin pigmentation in Europeans, may represent gene flow into Africa, which we estimate to have occurred ∼3 thousand years ago (kya)." (Pagini et al. 2012) www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(12)00271-6However as I mentioned in the other thread there may be pleiotropism involved which accounts for its high frequency in south India. Regardless, I don't know why these studies are being distorted to assert white skin originated in Africa. This is like saying a French surname adopted by a West African during colonialism is actually African. |
|
|
|
Post by herodotus on Nov 1, 2013 19:24:45 GMT -5
There is no dispute among geneticists that the derived HERC2 mutation is non-African.
Only the mutation led to blue eyes. This mutation occurred outside Africa. While mutations are random, a derived allele associated with either white skin or light eyes in Africa will be negatively selected since neither are beneficial, but disadvantageous in regards to climate.
Europeans have the most diversity in eye pigmentation. The whole "light" spectrum is found in Europeans, and absent in Africans.
Its not only frequency. Europeans have the most eye pigmentation diversity. Africans have the least.
|
|
|
|
Post by anastasiaescrava on Nov 1, 2013 20:54:11 GMT -5
There is no dispute among geneticists that the derived HERC2 mutation is non-African. Only the mutation led to blue eyes. This mutation occurred outside Africa. While mutations are random, a derived allele associated with either white skin or light eyes in Africa will be negatively selected since neither are beneficial, but disadvantageous in regards to climate. Europeans have the most diversity in eye pigmentation. The whole "light" spectrum is found in Europeans, and absent in Africans. Its not only frequency. Europeans have the most eye pigmentation diversity. Africans have the least. For the second answer about disadvantageous alleles, then what about albinism? Albinism is least advantageous in hotter climates but why is it the highest in Africa? Just because it's a disadvantage doesn't mean it can't happen. What about other countries with hotter climates and have people with fair skin and light eyes? Again did you see the chart on page 3? The groups mentioned have little to no admixture and it also includes those not of European or West Asian stock. |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Nov 2, 2013 18:24:40 GMT -5
Quote by Shriver ****May 2013**** "The FOUR skin color loci we identified by association analysis act in an ADDITIVE fashion: we found no evidence of dominance at any of the loci, nor " And "These results suggest that an APBA2 (OCA2) mutation conferring light skin arose BEFORE the spread of humans out of Africa," You do know why he focused on APBA2(OCA)? This is 2013. Plus the chart was put up. Yet you insist on BSing. Emotion outburst aside try to understand the chart. If we can't get past this then let us end the discussion. You are wasting my time. You MAY have an argument on blue eyes but if you can't get past light skin locus...we are done. Discuss this with someone who is into delusional beliefs. I base my argument on hard data. I don't rely on pictures nor erroneous perceptions on Africans. Using meaningless words such as "associated", "close", "Affinity" does nothing for me or to me. The issue is ORIGIN, DERIVED, UNDERIVED. etc. so PLEASE!!!! Read some more and get back to me. YAAAAAWN!!!!! try ES or another thread. You may have some takers there. I already showed that your claim white skin originated in Africa is erroneous. Ala111Thr (SLC24A5) is associated with white skin in Europeans. KITLG and APBA2 (OCA2) however is associated with light brown or tawny shades ( not white). Is it really news there are lighter brown skinned Africans? Those shades have been noted by anthropologists for example in San Bushmen for over a century. |
|
|
|
Post by anastasiaescrava on Nov 3, 2013 8:01:00 GMT -5
Quote by Shriver ****May 2013**** "The FOUR skin color loci we identified by association analysis act in an ADDITIVE fashion: we found no evidence of dominance at any of the loci, nor " And "These results suggest that an APBA2 (OCA2) mutation conferring light skin arose BEFORE the spread of humans out of Africa," You do know why he focused on APBA2(OCA)? This is 2013. Plus the chart was put up. Yet you insist on BSing. Emotion outburst aside try to understand the chart. If we can't get past this then let us end the discussion. You are wasting my time. You MAY have an argument on blue eyes but if you can't get past light skin locus...we are done. Discuss this with someone who is into delusional beliefs. I base my argument on hard data. I don't rely on pictures nor erroneous perceptions on Africans. Using meaningless words such as "associated", "close", "Affinity" does nothing for me or to me. The issue is ORIGIN, DERIVED, UNDERIVED. etc. so PLEASE!!!! Read some more and get back to me. YAAAAAWN!!!!! try ES or another thread. You may have some takers there. I already showed that your claim white skin originated in Africa is erroneous. Ala111Thr (SLC24A5) is associated with white skin in Europeans. KITLG and APBA2 (OCA2) however is associated with light brown or tawny shades ( not white). Is it really news there are lighter brown skinned Africans? Those shades have been noted by anthropologists for example in San Bushmen for over a century. Are you agreeing with him on the blue eyes assertion? I found some pics of a Nepali and Malaysian girl. To be honest I have seen peeps all over with blue eyes.   |
|
|
|
Post by herodotus on Nov 3, 2013 10:30:10 GMT -5
You haven't read the paper properly, or rather you don't understand it. The paper says nothing about white skin and your claim there were "white Africans" is sheer fantasy. Read Beleza et al. (2012). Ala111Thr (SLC24A5) played the key role in whiteness in Europeans. AlalllThr only entered Africans 3,000 years ago by gene flow.
"The non-African component, which includes the SLC24A5 allele associated with light skin pigmentation in Europeans, may represent gene flow into Africa, which we estimate to have occurred ∼3 thousand years ago (kya)." (Pagini et al. 2012)
The APBA2 (OCA2) mutation never led to white skin, only lighter brown shades in Africans. Shriver, Beleza etc are not saying white skin arose in humans before the out of africa dispersal. White skin only appeared in Europeans. Your own sources don't even support your claims.
|
|
