Agriculture is what made Europeans light-skinned; new findings

[AlpsStranger]

I'm no scientist but that actually is pretty interesting.

It seems plausible on its face, I'll say that. Now I know who is to blame the next time I get a raging lobster sunburn

 

[Domen]

Haroon:

Answer provided (see previous post after my edit, or the quote below):

While East Asians -- Chinese, Japanese and Korean -- also are light skinned, these European alleles are not present, suggesting that while both groups' lighter skin color evolved to allow for better creation of vitamin D in northern climates, they did so in a different way.

=====================================

If this hypothesis is true than the Siberian and Ainu who were hunter gatherers should have more darker skin than Northern Chinese and Northern Japanese who shift to Agrarian much earlier. However the fact seems to be quite different.

Really ???

Ainu people:

Spoiler :

Japanese people:

Spoiler :

These photos might be showing slightly darker than average Ainu and slightly lighter than average Japanese.

But still, it seems to me that the Japanese are - on average - lighter-skinned than the Ainu.

BTW - do you happen to know when did the Ainu people switch to agriculture? Was it much later than the Japanese?

 

[Domen]

Now I know who is to blame the next time I get a raging lobster sunburn

The Annoying Peasant!

 

[Darkflight]

The title betrays a lack of understanding of cause and effect.

 

[Domen]

What do you mean ???

==================================

Uyghurs of western China (Xinjiang) are the easternmost population with high frequencies of European versions (red colour) of light skin gene:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2007/12/tocharians-within-the-last-6000-years/#.VJ8VDdMd8

And a map ("30" are Uyghurs):

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710.abstract?etoc

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710.full.pdf+html

Polymorphisms in 2 genes, ASIP and OCA2, may play a shared role in shaping light and dark pigmentation across the globe, whereas SLC24A5, MATP, and TYR have a predominant role in the evolution of light skin in Europeans but not in East Asians. These findings support a case for the recent convergent evolution of a lighter pigmentation phenotype in Europeans and East Asians.

From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Xinjiang#Genetic_evidence

Modern genetic analysis suggests that aboriginal inhabitants [of Xinjiang] had a high proportion of DNA of European origin.[15]

In 2009, the remains of individuals found at the Xiaohe Tomb complex were analyzed for Y-DNA and mtDNA markers. The study found that while Y-DNA corresponded to West Eurasian populations, the mtDNA haplotypes were an admixture of East Asian and European origin.[16] The geographic location of where this admixing took place is suggested to be somewhere in Southern Siberia before these people moved into the Tarim Basin. Xiaohe is the oldest archaeological site yielding human remains discovered in the Tarim Basin to date.

Some Uyghur scholars claim modern Uyghurs descent from both the Turkic Uyghurs and the pre-Turkic Tocharians (Yuezhi), and relatively fair hair and eyes, as well as other so-called 'Caucasoid' physical traits, are not uncommon among Uyghurs. Genetic analyses suggest West Eurasian ("Caucasoid") maternal contribution to Uyghurs is 42.6%. The estimation of European component in modern Uyghur population ranged from 30 to 60%.[17]

Uyghurs, as other peoples of the former Silk Road and of the Eurasian steppe in general, seem to be a blend of Western and Eastern Eurasians.

Some photos of Uyghurs: https://www.google.pl/search?q=Uygh...a=X&ei=WRqfVNmXJuPnywPn8YGICw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ

 

[Senethro]

Whereas I'm not sure its that new or even sufficiently well evidenced yet.

Mostly posted because of someones interest in a particular characteristic of Europeans.

 

[H4run]

Haroon:



But still, it seems to me that the Japanese are - on average - lighter-skinned than the Ainu.

BTW - do you happen to know when did the Ainu people switch to agriculture? Was it much later than the Japanese?

I guess you're right Domen, the Ainu that appear lighter are probably because of the mix with Japanese population during Meiji (heavily mixed), during the Meiji period they got heavily discriminated and force assimilated themselves in order to save themselves from discrimination. They do this by hiding their identity, marriage, changes of appearance, even adopting Japanese child orphan.

The Ainu switch from hunter gatherer to agriculture after Meiji, very recent.

 

[Domen]

The Ainu are also indigenous people of Japan - they had been there before the arrival of Proto-Japanese speakers from the continent.

You are right that many of the Ainu - even most of them - were gradually assimilated and absorbed by the Japanese over time.

Another Ainu guy (as long as they are of unmixed ancestry, they look quite distinctly - not like an average Japanese guy):

===============================

Edit:

According to this link modern Japanese people are actually the result of mixing between at least 3 ancestral populations:

http://www.wa-pedia.com/history/origins_japanese_people.shtml

The Origins of the Japanese people

(...)

During the last Ice Age, which ended approximately 15,000 years ago, Japan was connected to the continent through several land bridges, notably one linking the Ryukyu Islands to Taiwan and Kyushu, one linking Kyushu to the Korean peninsula, and another one connecting Hokkaido to Sakhalin and the Siberian mainland. In fact, the Philippines and Indonesia were also connected to the Asian mainland. This allowed migrations from China and Austronesia towards Japan, about 35,000 years ago. These were the ancestors of the modern Ryukyuans (Okinawans), and the first inhabitants of all Japan.

The Ainu came from Siberia and settled in Hokkaido and Honshu some 15,000 years ago, just before the water levels started rising again. Nowadays the Ryukuyans, the Ainus and the Japanese are considered three ethnically separate groups. We will see why.

It is now believed that the modern Japanese descend mostly from the interbreeding of the Jomon Era people (15,000-500 BCE), composed of the above Ice Age settlers, and a later arrival from China and/or Korea. Around 500 BCE, the Yayoi people crossed the sea from Korea to Kyushu, bringing with them a brand new culture, based on wet rice cultivation and horses.

As we will see below, DNA tests have confirmed the likelihood of this hypothesis. About 54% of paternal lineages and 66% of maternal lineages have been identified as being of Sino-Korean origin. (...)

So it seems that the third colonization - around 500 BCE - contributed the most.

Most of Japanese ancestry (50% - 70%) is from the 3rd (Yayoi) colonization, while Ryukyuan and Ainu people represent cultures of earlier settlers.

That third colonization were people who came from the continent - mostly Korea and China - around (or after) year 500 BCE.

 

[Domen]

As for this "European" mutation causing light skin - one thing needs to be added.

It seems that it existed already before agriculture - and even that it emerged outside of Europe (see links in my previous posts) - but it was very rare before the advent of agriculture, since there was enough of vitamin D from diet. The transition to agriculture and change of dietary habits made this mutation useful and it started spreading and increasing its frequency among the population through adaptation and selection. Same can be said about the mutation causing lactase persistence, which existed among hunter-gatherers but only 5% of population had it, while today majority have it (in Northern Europe).

 

[James Stuart]

Lactase persistance and lactose tolerance are equally irrelevant to this debate despite my confusing the two. I must have been laboring under the unwarranted presumption that Domen was attempting to make sense, as lactose tolerance and skin pigmentation are two areas where European populations tend to separate themselves from non-European ones. And I'm not getting into a source war with charts and graphs boy, because he can inundate the entire site with enough meaningless, off-topic charts, graphs, quotes from fringe authors, and screenshots of random people to make it impossible to wade through. His own Wiki link disagreed with him, which is enough for me.

Domen also doesn't understand cause and effect, as a previous poster mentioned; if this theory, which is forty years old, so therefore developed right around the time racial theory was debunked - which is why it came as such a surprise to the OP, no doubt - and hardly a new one, is correct, it would still be caused by genetic mutations, not bloody agriculture. Agriculture may well make such mutations more desirable, thus decreasing the numbers of people without the mutation, but it would be astonishing that this transformation only occurred in Europe, and not places like China, India, or Meso-America, which all had agricultural and hunter-gatherer societies. And of course, it is entirely reliant on the as-yet unproven theory that skin pigmentation and Vitamin D production are linked, which Wiki disputes:

Some research shows dark-skinned people living in temperate climates have lower vitamin D levels.[53][54][54] Dark-skinned people may be less efficient at making vitamin D because melanin in the skin hinders vitamin D synthesis; however, a recent study has found novel evidence that low vitamin D levels among Africans may be due to other reasons.[55] Recent evidence implicates parathyroid hormone in adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Black women have an increase in serum parathyroid hormone at a lower 25(OH)D level than white women.[56] A large-scale association study of the genetic determinants of vitamin D insufficiency in Caucasians found no links to pigmentation.[57][58]

However, the uniform occurrence of low serum 25(OH)D in Indians living in India[59] and Chinese in China,[60] does not support the hypothesis that the low levels seen in the more pigmented are due to lack of synthesis from the sun at higher latitudes. The leader of the study has urged dark-skinned immigrants to take vitamin D supplements nonetheless, saying, "I see no risk, no downside, there's only a potential benefit."[61][62]

No doubt Domen will claim that Wiki is an unreliable source, even though he uses it himself, conveniently ignoring the links to reliable sources in the two paragraphs above, and launch a pre-emptive graph attack. It doesn't make him correct. It also doesn't necessarily make him incorrect; the theory, as I stated in my earlier post and above, is disputed and as-yet unproven. So this entire thread is putting the cart before the horse, and the sensible decision would be to simply quote the January 2014 article as supportive of the forty-year old theory, assuming pigmentation and Vitamin D are related.

But that sort of sensible discussion wouldn't fit the 19th century racial theory of the day, would it? Which is the real issue here.

 

[Domen]

Jeez, re-editing my ignore list was a mistake...

as lactose tolerance and skin pigmentation are two areas where European populations tend to separate themselves from non-European ones.

Stop compromising yourself. At least four mutations leading to lactase persistence arose in the world independently from each other.

Europeans have only one of these mutations - lactase persistence is therefore by no means limited just to Europeans, contrary to what you claim.

Agriculture may well make such mutations more desirable, thus decreasing the numbers of people without the mutation, but it would be astonishing that this transformation only occurred in Europe, and not places like China, India, or Meso-America, which all had agricultural and hunter-gatherer societies.

I already wrote that Chinese people (and East Asians in general) have their own mutation causing light skin pigmentation.

Northern Indians share the European mutation. Southern Indians need dark skin for protection from sunburns.

Meso-America also has sunny climate, which means that darker skin is needed, even if there is shortage of vitamin D.

it would still be caused by genetic mutations, not bloody agriculture.

Mr Obvious, you are a genius, thanks.

I was wrong. The spread of genetic resistance to malaria among Central Africans was also caused by a mutation, not by mosquitos, swamps and malaria.

Just like the existence of houses in human societies is caused by laying bricks on top of one another, and not by the need of shelter.

You really like nitpicking.

Domen also doesn't understand cause and effect, as a previous poster mentioned

Wrong - I do understand cause and effect.

On the other hand you and that previous poster do not understand the difference between cause and mechanism.

Mutations arise either in response to environment or randomly. But even if they arise randomly, they never become so widespread randomly.

You cannot explain the increase of lactase persistence from 1/20 (or even less) to over 1/2 by some completely random drift. Selection was a factor.

If you disagree with theories explaining the spread of discussed two mutations that I quoted, then provide your own reasonable explanation.

Agriculture may well make such mutations more desirable, thus decreasing the numbers of people without the mutation

I thought you were going to claim that this mutation has spread from 5% of the population to 75% randomly. Nice that you did not claim so.

 

[Berzerker]

1) There are no real Arctic regions in Europe. 2) Apparently they will not become pale as long as they are not farmers.

I imagine ice age Europe was much more arctic-like with land or ice bridging the continents forming or allowing for a circumpolar culture. What genetic ties do Lapplanders have with other peoples? I've seen Eskimos with farmer's tans, they just brown up fast without burning.

3) Most of modern Europeans are lighter-skinned than natives of Siberia, Alaska, Canada and than Eskimos of Greenland.

Is this based on the timing of agricultural adaptation? If Arctic peoples gave up their lifestyle for agriculture would they develop a propensity for skin cancer too along with lighter skin or is that related to a specific mutation limited to ag-consuming Europeans? If they adapt to agricultural products long enough, will they also develop the same mutation?

Moreover, Japanese and Northern Chinese people also tend to be very pale-skinned, even compared to North-East Asians living in more northern latitudes than them. Which is most likely as well caused by fact that China and Japan switched to agriculture early on, while those peoples north of them didn't.

I wonder if there is a difference between peoples living on ice and snow. I'd think the decreased insolation is more than made up for by higher albedo. Nothing promotes a nice tan better than a sun-bathing ski trip.

 

[Domen]

I imagine ice age Europe was much more arctic-like

But inhabitants of those arctic-like regions were hunters who relied on killing large fauna of that time (mammoths, woolly rhinos, etc.).

I've seen Eskimos with farmer's tans, they just brown up fast without burning.

Exactly. And their diet seems to be quite similar, in some respects at least, to that of prehistoric Northern European hunters.

If Arctic peoples gave up their lifestyle for agriculture would they develop a propensity for skin cancer too along with lighter skin

Not necessarily.

North-East Asians developed lighter skin without a propensity for skin cancer. It is only the European-specific mutation that happens to cause also a propensity for skin cancer. Which is another proof that this mutation had to be important for something, because mutations which have only cons (like propensity for skin cancer) and no pros, simply do not spread. Only mutations which have more pros than cons (in given conditions) spread widely.

I wonder if there is a difference between peoples living on ice and snow. I'd think the decreased insolation is more than made up for by higher albedo. Nothing promotes a nice tan better than a sun-bathing ski trip.

Well, this sounds reasonable. Northern European farmers did not live on ice and snow (for most of the year at least).

If they adapt to agricultural products long enough, will they also develop the same mutation?

Probably not because in our modern world we have vitamin pills and you can buy all kinds of food. Diets can be balanced.

Neolithic farmers did not have such comfortable conditions. Their diet was much, much poorer and less diverse than our diet today.

What genetic ties do Lapplanders have with other peoples?

They stand out in Europe. They have more of East Asian ancestry than any other European group.

Probably the result of some westward migration from Eastern Siberia during the last few thousand years.

 

[Berzerker]

that dude in #28 is remarkable looking for japan... what ties do the ainu have with other peoples?

North-East Asians developed lighter skin without a propensity for skin cancer. It is only the European-specific mutation that happens to cause also a propensity for skin cancer. Which is another proof that this mutation had to be important for something, because mutations which have only cons (like propensity for skin cancer) and no pros, simply do not spread. Only mutations which have more pros than cons (in given conditions) spread widely.

thats too bad my ancestors couldn't mutate lighter skin along the same lines as asians kinda strange how that works...