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.
Gwillyfromphilly, I'm not sure if this forum is the best place to ask this question. You will invariably get people talking about outward appearance which we have already seen, as well as relatively recent admixture. Most geneticist seem to say that the farther from Africa you go, the more genetically distant from Africans the population becomes. This makes sense as it took longer to get to more distant places and thus, more time for the genetics to change without further contact. With that being said, Melanesians and Australian Aborigines are supposed to be the most genetically distant groups (as well as Native Americans) despite outward appearance. Outward appearance is caused more by adaptations to local environments and Australasia tends to have climates very similar to most of sub-Saharan Africa so there was little need to change much for the environment. Remember, a black Nigerian couple gave bird to a blond haired, blue-eyed girl. If we saw that girl and never knew who her parents were, the speculation would be that she likely had some "admixture" at some point due to her facial features. But based on having blond hair and blue eyes, it wouldn't cross anyone's mind that both parents were Black Africans. While this is rare, it does happen and this is why going by outward appearance is unreliable. As we know, the original inhabitants of Europe were not white and white skin is believed to have developed suddenly around 11,000 years ago or so. This would have been a response to the ice age at the time. The climate plus the northern latitude meant vitamin D deficiencies. Lighter skin allows more sunlight to synthesize Vitamin D. Now the exception to this are people who live in the arctic. They have a lot of seafood in their diet which tends to be high in Vitamin D.
Now as far as the more recent mixing of populations go, I'll leave that to the rest of our crowd as mixing seems to be their specialty.
Just by genetics. Which European ethnic group is the closest to African people? I'm factoring both the "out of Africa" migration and racial mixing between African and Europeans that occurred more recently in human history.
this question is stupid and racist. Europeans are not Africans.
this question is stupid and racist. Europeans are not Africans.
It's not about race, it's about human beings and their genetic connection to other human beings. Please don't forget that we are all human beings, first and foremost.
Out of all the ethnic groups that exist in Europe, which one is the closest genetically to Sub-Saharan Africans?
Indigenous Europeans are white or light-skinned Caucasoids. Thus genetically there are no specific European populations close to Sub-Saharan Africans. Note that the Middle-East and North Africa is the zone in between Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa. Yes it is a fact that it was the Portuguese who were probably the first European of our era to have the first long-lasting contact with Africans. However the intemixture is still not enough to put Portuguese people genetically close to African. Portuguese are pretty white Mediterranean Europeans.
Indigenous Europeans are white or light-skinned Caucasoids. Thus genetically there are no specific European populations close to Sub-Saharan Africans. Note that the Middle-East and North Africa is the zone in between Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa. Yes it is a fact that it was the Portuguese who were probably the first European of our era to have the first long-lasting contact with Africans. However the intemixture is still not enough to put Portuguese people genetically close to African. Portuguese are pretty white Mediterranean Europeans.
Well it seems like you're in the minority with that perspective. Have you ever mistaken a Portuguese person for not being European because I have.
Well it seems like you're in the minority with that perspective. Have you ever mistaken a Portuguese person for not being European because I have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxonwold
Indigenous Europeans are white or light-skinned Caucasoids. Thus genetically there are no specific European populations close to Sub-Saharan Africans. Note that the Middle-East and North Africa is the zone in between Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa. Yes it is a fact that it was the Portuguese who were probably the first European of our era to have the first long-lasting contact with Africans. However the intemixture is still not enough to put Portuguese people genetically close to African. Portuguese are pretty white Mediterranean Europeans.
I do't know what it is with this forum and mixing. that's all anyone here ever mentions. Mixing isn't what determines genetic closeness. Geneticist can distinguish shared genes from close genetic ancestors and those of admixture. As I mentioned earlier, Melonesians are among the most distant from Africans yet if they mix, that doesn't make them closer. generally speaking, the farther from Africa a native population is, the further genetically it is from Africans.
Furthermore, as human beings are all the same species with the concept of race not accepted by most biologist, all of this is moot anyway. All genes humans carry around the world are African genes at the basic level. In other words, we are all Africans in exile.
I do't know what it is with this forum and mixing. that's all anyone here ever mentions. Mixing isn't what determines genetic closeness. Geneticist can distinguish shared genes from close genetic ancestors and those of admixture. As I mentioned earlier, Melonesians are among the most distant from Africans yet if they mix, that doesn't make them closer. generally speaking, the farther from Africa a native population is, the further genetically it is from Africans.
Furthermore, as human beings are all the same species with the concept of race not accepted by most biologist, all of this is moot anyway. All genes humans carry around the world are African genes at the basic level. In other words, we are all Africans in exile.
You are correct put you're going too far back in human history. Do you really think someone from China or Greenland should claim that they are African just like a Black American would?
this question is stupid and racist. Europeans are not Africans.
Not really in the context of other questions which are much more sensitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
It's not about race, it's about human beings and their genetic connection to other human beings. Please don't forget that we are all human beings, first and foremost.
True indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxonwold
Indigenous Europeans are white or light-skinned Caucasoids. Thus genetically there are no specific European populations close to Sub-Saharan Africans. Note that the Middle-East and North Africa is the zone in between Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa. Yes it is a fact that it was the Portuguese who were probably the first European of our era to have the first long-lasting contact with Africans. However the intemixture is still not enough to put Portuguese people genetically close to African. Portuguese are pretty white Mediterranean Europeans.
Spanish and Portuguese would be the closest indigenous that have some little Sub-Saharan African but that would only be North African or East African not West African.
Otherwise they are just dark Mediterranean Caucasoids/Caucasians but not White Europeans though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
Well it seems like you're in the minority with that perspective. Have you ever mistaken a Portuguese person for not being European because I have.
I have too mistaken a Portuguese for not being European a lot, which tends to be for Algerian or Moroccan.
Moroccans and Algerians for example are not too different in phenotype to Iberians except for some little differences.
I really confirm that Portuguese especially Spaniards are very different looking from French people (my ancestors).
Just by genetics. Which European ethnic group is the closest to African people? I'm factoring both the "out of Africa" migration and racial mixing between African and Europeans that occurred more recently in human history.
Genetics is VERY COMPLEX, IT IS ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT SCIENCES TO LEARN, far more than chemistry, physics, and such....
It is IMPOSSIBLE to know which European nation is closer to Sub-saharian Africans because we would have to look at thousands of years of history, cultural interactions, individual people's stories and so on....
I often find funny how a lot of these 20 year olds who participate in forums that talk about races, do not really understand the concept of what race is, and then consider themselves experts on the field of genetics because they go to a stupid forum!!!!
I know you're trying to be condescending but just in case you didn't know, Northern Europeans are the least likely to have African ancestry.
I was trying to be sarcastic lol
Plus, I don't see the point, are you trying to underline the fact that having African admixture (whatever this term means) is negative?
I mean, considering what people "with African admixture" accomplished I don't see how.
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.
Not so necessary to mention.
