Post: #151

(12-04-2018 07:13 PM)Thot Leader Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:15 AM)Pride male Wrote:  I thought that the 50 thousand years Europeans spent in the ice age made them intelligent.

You weren't wrong.

https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/statu...6535936000

This sounds like the plot of the next Star Trek movie.

Also, why is he assuming that Europeans were "driven out" and how can that possibly be proven? How about just having a natural urge to explore, seizing new opportunities, expanding, etc?

Post: #152

Jaxon,

Do you care prove your wildly inaccurate claim that none of writing, metallurgy or the wheel were invented by europeans.

Blatantly wrong to a degree you must have read it in some marxist propaganda piece.

Vinca script predates Sumerian iconscript by 1000 years. The first bronze age alloy is from Serbie (Vinca again). The wheel was invented by ancient caucasians (pre-cursor to Aryans).

Post: #153

(12-05-2018 12:20 AM)Jaxon Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 06:19 AM)Horus Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 02:28 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  Europeans just get hated on for our land grabs because we did it so damn well. And yes - I am rather proud of it (a long with a multitude of other accomplishments). If we were to think of history as a football match, my team won.

That's not even remotely true, unless you believe the match began in 1492 and the final whistle was blown a few decades ago. There's a long history before the era of European world domination, in which groups from all areas of the world subjugated vast territories. And history certainly isn't over yet.

Very true. It's easy to fall into "presentism", where you look at the present state of affairs and extrapolate that across all of history. People forget that ancient Egypt (which was not a European civilization, as a basic look at Egyptian art would show you), ancient Mesopotamia, ancient India, and ancient China all had civilization for thousands of years while most of Europe was a wilderness. To be fair the Greeks were civilized since 2000 B.C.E as well (the Minoan civilization), but everything else was essentially tribal and barbaric.

People also forget that African Muslims ruled all of modern-day Spain and Portugal for over three hundred years -- longer than the U.S has existed. They maintained a presence there for four hundred years longer. The Muslim Turks colonized almost all of Eastern Europe for four centuries. The Mongol Golden Horde also ruled Russia, Ukraine, Poland (northeastern Europe) for a period of hundreds of years. Eastern Europe especially was essentially under foreign non-European domination for a very long time.

Even after 1492, China and India were each 25% of world GDP and the Turks and Persians were still a force to be reckoned with. Legitimate European domination lasted from about 1800 to now and is in the process of breaking down.

The guys saying that white dominance comes from genetic superiority would have a point if white Europeans had created, led and dominated other civilizations from the beginning. Problem is, writing, irrigation, city building, gunpowder, the compass, the wheel, iron working, bronze working, mathematics, and other foundational inventions were not invented by Europeans, which essentially proves this argument to be wishful bullshit. I have a hard time believing that genetically superior people in Iberia would get ruled by black and brown Muslims for hundreds of years and genetically superior people in Eastern Europe would get raped and enslaved by Muslims and Mongols, also for hundreds of years.

Reality is that different groups are powerful at different times. Scandinavians for example were seen as being complete savages for most of history and now have some of the best countries on the planet, it's not inconcievable that other groups will replicate this later on.

Cant talk much about the rest, but Spain and Portugal were invaded because the Visigothic kingdom had several inner fights and allowed for the moors to get in the Guadalquivir river.

Even with that, a big percentage (majority) of them were Berbers which are closer to Europeans, not Arabs or blacks.

But if you want to talk about the real birth of civilization you have to go to Egypt and Sumeria mostly because there was were the climate allowed for the civilization to appear. Europe was in a state of constant tribal wars at the time.

Overall if you look at history the truth is that Europeans do appear to be on top a big percentage of the time, but other people also managed to advance civilization as well.

The Arabs had their Golden age which ended with the Mongolic siege of Baghdad or with the teachings of Al-Ghazali, but they developed physics, math, navigation etc... The Semitic peoples like Phoenicians also made a long lasting contribution for the development of European countries.
The Chinese managed to develop a lot of technology before being subjugated by the Mongol horde.
The ancient Indians developed some of the first writing systems and religions in the world.


But all this cultures and places have way more population than Europe had or has, so thats why people look at Europe with awe.

Post: #154

(12-05-2018 06:40 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Also, why is he assuming that Europeans were "driven out" and how can that possibly be proven? How about just having a natural urge to explore, seizing new opportunities, expanding, etc?

I think he's making that assumption because during the last ice age, why would a group of people leave warm and fertile Africa for frozen-ass Eurasia? Doesn't seem like a choice anyone would make voluntarily. I can't imagine they saw anything under all that ice they figured was worth risking their lives over.

Post: #155

(12-05-2018 07:44 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Jaxon,

Do you care prove your wildly inaccurate claim that none of writing, metallurgy or the wheel were invented by europeans.

Blatantly wrong to a degree you must have read it in some marxist propaganda piece.

Vinca script predates Sumerian iconscript by 1000 years. The first bronze age alloy is from Serbie (Vinca again). The wheel was invented by ancient caucasians (pre-cursor to Aryans).

Writing -- earliest known script was the Jiahe script in China in 6000 B.C which predated Vinca script. Neither of these are considered legitimate writing scripts, more Neolithic chicken scratches. The earliest legitimate writing systems were created in Mesopotamia and Egypt, neither of which were European civilizations.

Bronze working -- discovered in ancient Iran in 5000 B.C -- again not European. This date even predates the Aryan invasions.

The Wheel - invented in Mesopotamia in 3500 B.C.

Reality is that most of the fundamentals of civilization were not invented by Europeans, they were invented by people in Mesopotamia and Egypt. And no, these weren't white civilizations -- realistically they looked pretty similar to how they look now. The ancient Egyptians unilaterally depicted themselves as brown people. I'm pretty sure that when drawing themselves, they'd do so with relative accuracy. If a white guy wanted a painting of himself made, the painter probably wouldn't paint him as a short, obese black woman.

Even Hitler openly admitted that the Chinese and Japanese had drastically superior and longer histories than the Germans.

Post: #156

(12-05-2018 10:27 AM)Thot Leader Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 06:40 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Also, why is he assuming that Europeans were "driven out" and how can that possibly be proven? How about just having a natural urge to explore, seizing new opportunities, expanding, etc?

I think he's making that assumption because during the last ice age, why would a group of people leave warm and fertile Africa for frozen-ass Eurasia? Doesn't seem like a choice anyone would make voluntarily. I can't imagine they saw anything under all that ice they figured was worth risking their lives over.

There would have been ample reason for the Sapiens horde to move North during the interglacial periods when Europe was not a frozen wasteland.

Neanderthal populations were naturally small because they had to survive off of the limited food supplies that exist during an ice age. So when Sapiens arrived, they would have vastly outnumbered the Neanderthals.

Contrary to the pretty ridiculous mainstream, Neanderthals had far more gracile features than modern science wants to admit. Here is a pretty realistic depiction of a neanderthal child:



"Scientists" like to cover their neanderthal face reconstructions with dirt smears, large wrinkles, and stupid looking expressions. When you look at a more honest reconstruction without that nonsense, you see an obviously intelligent, contemplative race of humans:



So neanderthals were vastly outnumbered and disadvantaged, yet their genes ended up in the homosapiens gene pool. What likely happened to cause that? Did neanderthals start pimping their ladies out voluntarily, or was it a less consensual, war bride type situation?

Post: #157

Why are Europeans so monogamous? You never hear of whites with 300 wives but every other race it is the norm.

Post: #158

(12-05-2018 12:56 PM)Pride male Wrote:  Why are Europeans so monogamous? You never hear of whites with 300 wives but every other race it is the norm.

I think the stock explanation is r. vs. K breeding strategies, but then East Asians tend to be pretty K. selected and Chinese and Mongolian kings and warlords were known for having large harems. Good question.

Post: #159

(12-05-2018 12:56 PM)Pride male Wrote:  Why are Europeans so monogamous? You never hear of whites with 300 wives but every other race it is the norm.

The are plenty of prolific white men who have maintain harems, or situations that closely resemble harems.

That said, a population's tendency towards monogamous behavior is going to reflect the pressures of the environment around them.

There were very regular famines in Europe. A man's failure to operate conservatively and think ahead could mean death for his entire family. In fact, a lot of reproductive selection would have happened on this basis- men who planned ahead and had lots of resources could have selected mates during this hard time just by having food when other people did not, or feeding his children when other men could not.

Hence European men would not have been selected more for their ability to dance or engage in social presentations, but by their impulse control and abstract thinking.

Post: #160

(12-05-2018 12:37 PM)Jaxon Wrote:  realistically they looked pretty similar to how they look now.

Fortunately, we don't have to speculate anymore about the Egyptians:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien...63866.html

Quote:Scientists who managed to obtain full genome sequences of Ancient Egyptians for the first time have concluded the people of the pharaohs were more closely related to modern Europeans and inhabitants of the Near East rather than present-day Egyptians.

Post: #161

(12-05-2018 01:33 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 12:37 PM)Jaxon Wrote:  realistically they looked pretty similar to how they look now.

Fortunately, we don't have to speculate anymore about the Egyptians:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien...63866.html

Quote:Scientists who managed to obtain full genome sequences of Ancient Egyptians for the first time have concluded the people of the pharaohs were more closely related to modern Europeans and inhabitants of the Near East rather than present-day Egyptians.

I agree.

More Nordic Aryan white men:





What's more convincing in your opinion? Actual contemporary portraits of the ancient Egyptians or an article in the Independent? Pretty obvious that the Egyptians weren't white Europeans. I don't know of any white Europeans with dark brown skin and hair who live in Africa.

Also there was the post about how the Muslims who conquered Spain were essentially white. The Almoravid dynasty which conquered and colonized Spain originated in modern-day Mauritania. The average person there looks like this:



These people ruled Spain for hundreds of years. There are white looking Berbers, but the rulers of those dynasties were from further south.

I can break down world dominance further:

3000-1000 B.C.E: Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Indus Valley lead the world in development/innovation.
1000 - 400 B.C.E: Mesopotamians and Persians lead the world
400 B.C.E - 400 A.D: Greece, Rome, and China lead the world. India also does fairly well for itself.
500 A.D - 1200 A.D: Islamic caliphates/empires dominate the world in most regards
1200 A.D - 1500 A.D: Mongols lead the world, Europe starts to do better.
1500 A.D - 1750 A.D: Europe and China lead the world in science and tech, Ottomans and India are very powerful in this period too
1750 A.D - present day: Essential European dominance.

The world was pretty multipolar for most of history. Prior to the last two to three hundred years Europeans were never completely dominant and frequently got conquered or defeated by others. Even in the age of exploration Europeans stood no chance against Ming China, Mughal India, or even Japan. Legitimate European world supremacy only occurred in the last three hundred years and is steadily eroding. Even then, the colonial empires only reached their max extent in the late-mid 1800s, so not that long of a period at all.

Post: #162

(12-05-2018 10:27 AM)Thot Leader Wrote:  I think he's making that assumption because during the last ice age, why would a group of people leave warm and fertile Africa for frozen-ass Eurasia? Doesn't seem like a choice anyone would make voluntarily. I can't imagine they saw anything under all that ice they figured was worth risking their lives over.

During exceptionally warm periods during the inter-glacial periods (last one about 8,500 years ago) the Sahara would retreat, turning into lakes and grasslands. Humans migrated into the Levant and later into Europe chasing game. Hunter-gathers needs lots of room.

When the climate cooled, the desert returned, the Levant became almost uninhabitable, and population groups became isolated. People in Europe couldn't go back to warm Africa because you had a massive desert in between. Sub_Saharan Africa became a disease belt that pretty much kept out Europeans well into the late 17th century. If you didn't die, your life sustaining cattle did.

Below is a link that shows what is believed to have been the history of human migrations (interactive Flash video).

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

Again.. what is presented is subject to debate and revisions based on new discoveries.

Post: #163

DNA is not subjective, it's objective. I guess you don't believe in DNA science?

If the Egyptians are brown because of a few paintings the Sumerians were blue eyed nordics right?



Besides, the Egyptian empire stretches 2500 years. It's very possible that it got browner with time.

We see the exact same thing happening right now in Europe.

Here is Ramses II, he had red hair:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_II

Quote:Hair, astonishingly preserved, showed some complementary data - especially about pigmentation: Ramses II was a ginger haired 'cymnotriche leucoderma'." The description given here refers to a fair-skinned person with wavy ginger hair.

Post: #164

(12-05-2018 01:59 PM)Jaxon Wrote:  What's more convincing in your opinion? Actual contemporary portraits of the ancient Egyptians or an article in the Independent? Pretty obvious that the Egyptians weren't white Europeans. I don't know of any white Europeans with dark brown skin and hair who live in Africa.

The great thing about hard evidence like genetics is that no amount of posturing or pretense can really refute it. As for the depiction of skin tone, have a look at Northern European actor Adrian Grenier:



^He is not even Italian or Greek, whose populations can have even darker complexions.

I don't know if anyone was arguing the Pharoahs were alabaster white Europeans, in any case. But they did share genes with modern Europeans:

"Ancient Egyptians were closely related to people who lived along the eastern Mediterranean, the analysis showed. They also shared genetic material with residents of the Turkish peninsula at the time and Europe.
.....
The scientists compared these ancient genetics with those of 100 modern Egyptians and 125 modern Ethiopians that had been previously analyzed. If you ask Egyptians, they'll say that they have become more European recently, Krause said. “We see exactly the opposite,” he said.

It was not until relatively recently in Egypt's long history that sub-Saharan genetic influences became more pronounced. “In the last 1,500 years, Egypt became more African, if you want,” Krause said.
.....
“The other big question is, 'Where did the ancient Egyptians come from?' ” Krause said. To answer that, scientists will have to find genomes “back further in time, in prehistory."

washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/05/30/dna-from-ancient-egyptian-mummies-reveals-their-ancestry

Post: #165

To cut to the chase, I don't buy white supremacy because when put under scrutiny there's too much rationalization needed to support it. At each juncture in the explanation, it seems the most convenient direction is chosen. As an example white supremacists embrace Nordic fanboy-ism when it suits, and run away from it at other junctures. The definitions of white, intelligence, and dominance all dance around as needed to pin the opponent at a choke point.

I'm talking white supremacy as taken literally, not in the cultural context of "Orange Man Bad".

I think the reason(s) white people currently rule the world include timing, technology, culture, systems of organization and religion. I think there's an iterative interplay between those things and measurable genetic traits.

Post: #166

(12-05-2018 03:12 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  DNA is not subjective, it's objective. I guess you don't believe in DNA science?

If the Egyptians are brown because of a few paintings the Sumerians were blue eyed nordics right?



Besides, the Egyptian empire stretches 2500 years. It's very possible that it got browner with time.

We see the exact same thing happening right now in Europe.

Here is Ramses II, he had red hair:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_II

Quote:Hair, astonishingly preserved, showed some complementary data - especially about pigmentation: Ramses II was a ginger haired 'cymnotriche leucoderma'." The description given here refers to a fair-skinned person with wavy ginger hair.

No, I don't believe in calling obviously brown people white.

I looked up "ancient Egyptian portraits of themselves" on Google. There are hundreds of pictures of Egyptian wall art. In literally every single picture, the Egyptians are portrayed as being dark brown.

There could have been blue eyed Sumerians, still doesn't make them white or European. Not any more than this kid



Sharing DNA with Europeans means very little. Indians from India are probably genetically closer to Europeans than they are to black people, doesn't stop them from being extremely dark non-Europeans. Same with many Mexicans or other Latinos.

It's like saying that humans are basically gorillas or chimpanzees because we're closer to them DNA wise than we are to flies or lizards.

Also this is Ramesses the second fighting clearly black people -- if they could depict black people relatively accurately they would do the same for the pharoah.



Sure DNA doesn't lie. Neither do precise pictures of people.

I agree with Grodin completely, the genetic basis for European success doesn't make sense, the arguments surrounding it are not exactly convincing (ginger Genghis Khan especially).

Also Built to Fade went hard in this thread, he smashed that like button out of existence

Post: #167

(12-05-2018 12:56 PM)Pride male Wrote:  Why are Europeans so monogamous? You never hear of whites with 300 wives but every other race it is the norm.

Religion. Before Christianity, pagan Europeans were polygamous. Even after conversion, kings and powerful men kept unofficial wives and concubines when they could get away with it.

Post: #168

(12-05-2018 03:34 PM)Jaxon Wrote:  Also this is Ramesses the second fighting clearly black people -- if they could depict black people relatively accurately they would do the same for the pharoah.



Sure DNA doesn't lie. Neither do precise pictures of people.

If the Pharoahs were genetically Eastern Mediterranean and European, we would expect them to have a dark complexion on average, with some recessive looking individuals thrown in.

Would this guy fit the depiction of the Pharoah above? He's from Sicily.



Without getting into some extended argument, the neanderthal gene theory seems highly plausible.

Not all populations with neanderthal genes can have advanced societies. But all advanced societies have/had a large amount of neanderthal genes.

The less neanderthal genes, the less opportunity for any group of people to meaningfully advance.

Post: #169

(12-05-2018 12:20 AM)Jaxon Wrote:  Very true. It's easy to fall into "presentism", where you look at the present state of affairs and extrapolate that across all of history.

Prior to the age of discovery Europeans didn't even know sub-saharan Africa existed. Wealthy Europeans may have heard some stories about where Moors got their even darker Moors but that was about it.

We extrapolate from data on IQ that was collected in modern times. I'd like to see that data when western Europeans (one definition of white) were still illiterate and incest was widely practiced compared to today. Now iterate those personal choices over many generations.

Literacy is not just a personal choice or skill, I believe it creates a new environmental condition for the process of evolution to leverage. Here is another dimension to present-ism, many people imagine evolution occurring on a linear, constant trajectory. It does not. It can occur quite quickly when environmental conditions change.

Post: #170

(12-05-2018 03:34 PM)Jaxon Wrote:  There could have been blue eyed Sumerians, still doesn't make them white or European. Not any more than this kid

That kid has a genetic disease called Waardenburg syndrome. Blue eyes do not exist unless there's significant European heritage. Not even Southern Europeans have blue eyes in large quantities today.

(12-05-2018 03:34 PM)Jaxon Wrote:  Sharing DNA with Europeans means very little. Indians from India are probably genetically closer to Europeans than they are to black people, doesn't stop them from being extremely dark non-Europeans. Same with many Mexicans or other Latinos.

No, that's not how genetics work.

They do these analysis precisely to estimate the genetic distance between populations. Haplogroups trace lineages.

(12-05-2018 03:34 PM)Jaxon Wrote:  Also this is Ramesses the second fighting clearly black people -- if they could depict black people relatively accurately they would do the same for the pharoah.

Take a look at these paintings of Minoans, who were 100% ethnic european:





Do you notice something?



The men are painted as brown.

The women are painted as white.

It's like this on ALL minoan depictions.

The Minoans were close culturally to Egypt. They were in many ways the successor to the Egyptian empire as it crumbled under old age. It lasted until it was raided by Ionians (indo-european greeks) in 1100bc. Minoans were not dark, they were white, like modern greeks. They painted men dark as an artistic representation.

Proof that Minoans were European:

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-civilizati...ience.html

Quote:The ancient Minoan DNA was most similar to populations from western and northern Europe. The population showed particular genetic affinities with Bronze Age populations from Sardinia and Iberia and Neolithic samples from[b] Scandinavia and France.[/b]

If you want to know what Minoans look like, go to Sardinia, if you want to know what Egyptians look like, go to the Christian part of Lebanon.

Post: #171

(12-03-2018 11:39 AM)chrisblackbeard Wrote:  



Now see Jewish skulls sharing similar features

(12-05-2018 03:12 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Here is Ramses II, he had red hair:

It all comes together now. The infamous mummy was a "red jew"? The descendents of ((Ramses II)) kept the truth



buried.

Post: #172

It's funny that when the theme of civilization starts in any forum, it will eventually lead to ancient Egypt, just how awesome were they.

Post: #173

(12-05-2018 04:12 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 03:34 PM)Jaxon Wrote:  There could have been blue eyed Sumerians, still doesn't make them white or European. Not any more than this kid

That kid has a genetic disease called Waardenburg syndrome. Blue eyes do not exist unless there's significant European heritage. Not even Southern Europeans have blue eyes in large quantities today.

(12-05-2018 03:34 PM)Jaxon Wrote:  Sharing DNA with Europeans means very little. Indians from India are probably genetically closer to Europeans than they are to black people, doesn't stop them from being extremely dark non-Europeans. Same with many Mexicans or other Latinos.

No, that's not how genetics work.

They do these analysis precisely to estimate the genetic distance between populations. Haplogroups trace lineages.

(12-05-2018 03:34 PM)Jaxon Wrote:  Also this is Ramesses the second fighting clearly black people -- if they could depict black people relatively accurately they would do the same for the pharoah.

Take a look at these paintings of Minoans, who were 100% ethnic european:





Do you notice something?



The men are painted as brown.

The women are painted as white.

It's like this on ALL minoan depictions.

The Minoans were close culturally to Egypt. They were in many ways the successor to the Egyptian empire as it crumbled under old age. It lasted until it was raided by Ionians (indo-european greeks) in 1100bc. Minoans were not dark, they were white, like modern greeks. They painted men dark as an artistic representation.

Proof that Minoans were European:

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-civilizati...ience.html

Quote:The ancient Minoan DNA was most similar to populations from western and northern Europe. The population showed particular genetic affinities with Bronze Age populations from Sardinia and Iberia and Neolithic samples from[b] Scandinavia and France.[/b]

If you want to know what Minoans look like, go to Sardinia, if you want to know what Egyptians look like, go to the Christian part of Lebanon.

No, not really, that's a pretty good representation of what Greeks and southern Europeans can look like even today.

Similarly the Egyptian phenotype depicted in the wall paintings is pretty common across the Middle East and North Africa. Mediterranean people (Sicilians, Greeks, Turks, Lebanese) can range in looks from being white to being dark brown. All the more reason it makes no sense to call the Egyptians "European", sure they may well have had some common genetic traits, but that doesn't mean that white Europeans today have any claim or connection to that civilization's accomplishments.

The Sicilian dude posted by Jeffrey could pass for an Egyptian for sure. There are Mexicans, South Americans, Indians, and Middle Eastern people who look like that too, doesn't make any of them white or European.

Blue eyes and blonde hair occur all over the world, you even see blonde haired australian aboriginals and Melanesians...again, this doesn't really prove any connection with Europe.

Trying to say that all these ancient civilizations were built in Europeans is a stretch, they definitely had massive cultural and physical differences from ancient Europeans, not to mention a huge technological superiority. Minoan Greece was an exception to the rule at the time. It was also pretty insignificant compared to Egypt or Mesopotamia.

Chimps are genetically closer to humans than flies are. That still doesn't prove that humans and chimpanzees are the same thing or even have that much in common.

The Egyptians could accurately depict different ethnicities -- they drew themselves as being lighter than Nubian blacks and darker than Levantine Phoenicians. Definitely not white at all. This how the ancient Egyptians saw race: for all their genetic links to lighter-skinned Near Easterners, they still looked pretty different:



I feel like some guys on this thread are trying to make the white genetic superiority work for them by claiming that early civilizational achievements were done by whites. These arguments are essentially just grasping for straws, it's patently obvious that white Europeans were not really responsible for these civilizations. Slight genetic links definitely don't prove that whites built these civilizations, nor do they explain why unquestionably white European people in Britain and France were 3000 years behind Egypt/India/Mesopotamia/China when it came to building civilization.

Post: #174

(12-05-2018 01:33 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 12:37 PM)Jaxon Wrote:  realistically they looked pretty similar to how they look now.

Fortunately, we don't have to speculate anymore about the Egyptians:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien...63866.html

Quote:Scientists who managed to obtain full genome sequences of Ancient Egyptians for the first time have concluded the people of the pharaohs were more closely related to modern Europeans and inhabitants of the Near East rather than present-day Egyptians.

And your Independent article has this to say:

“When comparing this pattern with modern Egyptians, we find that the ancient Egyptians are more closely related to all modern and ancient European populations that we tested, likely due to the additional African component in the modern population.”

Post: #175

(12-05-2018 04:52 PM)Jaxon Wrote:  Blue eyes and blonde hair occur all over the world, you even see blonde haired australian aboriginals and Melanesians

Blue eyes and blonde hair do NOT occur all over the world, that's preposterous nonsense.

Unless of course from european heritage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color#Blue

Quote:As of 2016, the earliest light-pigmented and blue-eyed remains of Homo Sapiens were found in 7,700 years old Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Motala, Sweden.[56]

There are no blue eyes anywhere that are not of European origin. If they are, then it's Waardenburg syndrome, which is a genetic disease causing retardation among other things.

Some aboriginals do have blonde hair, but it's not the same gene that causes it:

Quote: This has been traced to an allele of TYRP1 unique to these people, and is not the same gene that causes blond hair in Caucasians.

There are no other populations with blonde hair in the world. If they have it, then they got it from a European population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond#Evol...blond_hair

Quote: the date of the genetic mutation that resulted in blond hair in Europe has been isolated to about 11,000 years ago during the last ice age.[29]

Quote: Light pigmentation traits had thus already existed in pre-Indo-European Europeans, since at least the later Mesolithic