Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True, they were. The blue eyes are part of their colouring since most of the rest were dark or brown-eyed.
So what we have is an evolution from a dark-skinned early European(darker than the modern European but on a small scale like the one below:
to modern Europeans today after adapting to European climate after a change of diet and lifestyle from the hunter-gatherer to this:
Modern Europeans such as these two individuals from England with fairer complexions.
First of all, unlike the photos, the ancient blue-eyed guy is just a drawing based on what an artist thinks they looked like. So, caution...
Nor do I agree with your conclusion, as usual But we have been through that in some other thread...
First of all, unlike the photos, the ancient blue-eyed guy is just a drawing based on what an artist thinks they looked like. So, caution...
Nor do I agree with your conclusion, as usual But we have been through that in some other thread...
What you have said is actually rubbish! We know that Europeans are descendants of Homo-Sapien Sapiens and we did not get our light/pale skin from them. The fact is that Neanderthals had already acquired reddish hair and very pale skin tones much earlier than our ancestors did, and the mutations were different from any human groups today, one more thing they lack one of the most important our ancestors had language. They could have been the "missing link" for all I care. If humans were really thoroughly mixed with Neanderthals, they would have lighter-complected at a much earlier date, however they were not and were still dark-skinned.
What you have said is actually rubbish! We know that Europeans are descendants of Homo-Sapien Sapiens and we did not get our light/pale skin from them. The fact is that Neanderthals had already acquired reddish hair and very pale skin tones much earlier than our ancestors did, and the mutations were different from any human groups today, one more thing they lack one of the most important our ancestors had language. They could have been the "missing link" for all I care. If humans were really thoroughly mixed with Neanderthals, they would have lighter-complected at a much earlier date, however they were not and were still dark-skinned.
What you have said is actually rubbish! We know that Europeans are descendants of Homo-Sapien Sapiens and we did not get our light/pale skin from them. The fact is that Neanderthals had already acquired reddish hair and very pale skin tones much earlier than our ancestors did, and the mutations were different from any human groups today, one more thing they lack one of the most important our ancestors had language. They could have been the "missing link" for all I care. If humans were really thoroughly mixed with Neanderthals, they would have lighter-complected at a much earlier date, however they were not and were still dark-skinned.
Again, we ARE mixed with Neanderthals, regardless of what you like to believe. It is a fact, various geneticists totally agree on this, which is rare enough in science.
Now, when you think about the consequences of that mixing, think of it this way: What happens when a white and a black person have offspring? Right, the offspring look neither white nor black, but somewhere in the middle, some closer to the white person, some closer to the black person. Either way, the offspring will not look like "pure" white people, nor like "pure" black people. And that is just HSS races mixing. It would be naive to think there was no impact on the way people looked when HSS and Neanderthals mixed...
Genetically it must have been a bit like mixing horses and donkeys. Mules are usually not fertile (the same has been reported for HSS-Neanderthal offspring, depending on the sex of the offspring) and look neither like horses, nor like donkeys, but somewhere between the two.
Again, we ARE mixed with Neanderthals, regardless of what you like to believe. It is a fact, various geneticists totally agree on this, which is rare enough in science.
Now, when you think about the consequences of that mixing, think of it this way: What happens when a white and a black person have offspring? Right, the offspring look neither white nor black, but somewhere in the middle, some closer to the white person, some closer to the black person. Either way, the offspring will not look like "pure" white people, nor like "pure" black people. And that is just HSS races mixing. It would be naive to think there was no impact on the way people looked when HSS and Neanderthals mixed...
Genetically it must have been a bit like mixing horses and donkeys. Mules are usually not fertile (the same has been reported for HSS-Neanderthal offspring, depending on the sex of the offspring) and look neither like horses, nor like donkeys, but somewhere between the two.
Admixture with Neanderthals is only on a theoretical level and not really for sure. The so-called imagined admixture has been put between 1 and 2%, so that far from being half way. Thus most likely not to be true!
Modern Greeks are said to be different from ancient Greeks, there was quite some discussion years ago when a researcher said that modern Greeks are Slavic, unlike ancient Greeks.
The Greek vary quite a bit, just like on the Iberian peninsula one can't help but notice that despite the mixing it is unlikely for all Greeks to date back to the same genetic group.
Admixture with Neanderthals is only on a theoretical level and not really for sure. The so-called imagined admixture has been put between 1 and 2%, so that far from being half way. Thus most likely not to be true!
Wrong, it is a proven fact by now, the only thing we do not know for sure is how exactly those Neanderthal genes have shaped us. Nobody ever said we are 50% Neanderthal, still Neanderthals have of course left their marks on us. Some estimates go as high as 7% N. genes, depending on the region. In Asia there is other admixture in addition to the N. one.
Wrong, it is a proven fact by now, the only thing we do not know for sure is how exactly those Neanderthal genes have shaped us. Nobody ever said we are 50% Neanderthal, still Neanderthals have of course left their marks on us. Some estimates go as high as 7% N. genes, depending on the region. In Asia there is other admixture in addition to the N. one.
We are just recent humans who only lost our pigmentation only 6,000-5,500 years ago. Neanderthals are just like Dinosaurs are in the animal kingdom, extinct.
We are just recent humans who only lost our pigmentation only 6,000-5,500 years ago. Neanderthals are just like Dinosaurs are in the animal kingdom, extinct.
Completely wrong, Neanderthals they were not just replaced by HSS, but absorbed by them to a certain degree. This is no longer a theory, it is a fact. Geneticists/anthropologists could tell you exactly which genes of a modern HSS are from Neanderthals.
By the way, Dinosaurs as a whole are not really extinct, either, they downsized into birds...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But we have been through that in some other thread...
