>Yamnaya "Aryans" were were "genetically tall (phenotypic height is determined by both genetics and environmental factors), overwhelmingly dark-eyed (brown), dark-haired and had a skin colour that was moderately light, though somewhat darker than that of the average modern European."
Nazis really are autistic, huh?
Other urls found in this thread:
nature.com
twitter.com
>Nazis
Germans
Is it true germans still use Indo Germanic instead of indo European?
kek
>tfw you'll never be an Indo-European conquering swathes of land and bedding qt indigenous Euros
why even live
>Indo-European
Is a language more than a race nimrod.
Of course. Light eyes and light hair was already present in the native European hunter gatherers. Scandis have the most admix from them and they're the most light haired and light eyed people in the world.
Genetic Stocks deriving from Yamnaya - Indo-Aryans, Indo-Iranians, Bactrians, Scythians
The light-eyed, light-hair, fairer stock already existed before the migrations of Yamnaya to South, South-east and West
What people don't get is that race is not an essence. Races are BRED. Light eyes, hair and skin are selected for their beauty and become predominant in populations that is capable of having them. In mixed societies like Mexico and Brazil, they are highly valued, and people with these features tend to rise to the top of society quickly.
are* capable
Naturally the darker races envy those who have them.
they were virtually the lightest-complected people of their time. alleles for light hair, skin, and eyes have been strongly selected for during the historical era, and are substantially more common today than even 1000 years ago.
Hitler recognized that many middle easterners had Aryan blood as well but most of them were raped or killed off by Mongols, Dravidians, Arabs, or Turkics
> Light eyes and light hair was already present in the native European hunter gatherers
I hope you aren't implying they all had it. Ancient Northern Europeans don't equal all of Europe back then after all. West, Central, and Southern Europeans had either light or dark (mainly dark) eyes, dark hair, and dark skin, though not as dark as me.
>Light eyes, hair and skin are selected for their beauty
no you fucking idiot. Those traits were selected for because of environmental pressures relating to lack of sunlight in northern latitudes necessitating improved vitamin D synthesis, among other things.
>beautiful
Ever wonder why some traits are considered beautiful? It's because they're adaptive.
>they were virtually the lightest-complected people of their time.
North Euros, Near East farmers lacking in vitamin D, and half of Asia were all lighter.
t. darkies
Light eyes/hair are like 6k-10k years old
>Balkan people are tall and have darker eyes
Take the Balkanpill.
Well I did admit myself to being dark skinned, being Jamaican and all. So no shit. Doesn't make it less accurate user, most Europeans were not pale in the beginning.
I've read that light eyes evolved first in Europeans. Imagine seeing a guy as dark as a Native American or a modern Arab with bright blue eyes.
Pic related
>facial reconstruction meme
How is that a facial reconstruction? It's just showing a brown guy with blue eyes.
Genetic tests reveal that a hunter-gatherer who lived 7,000 years ago had the unusual combination of dark skin and hair and blue eyes.
It has surprised scientists, who thought that the early inhabitants of Europe were fair.
The research, led by the Institute of Evolutionary Biology in Barcelona, Spain, is published in the journal Nature.
The lead author, Dr Carles Lalueza-Fox, said: "One explanation is that the lighter skin colour evolved much later than was previously assumed."
Most south europeans are in the same boat as those "darker races"
>a hunter-gatherer who lived 7,000 years ago had the unusual combination of dark skin and hair and blue eyes
>therefore all of them did
this kind of bullshit is why I don't trust any of the centrally disseminated media images like the one you posted. I'm well aware of where it came from.
>One explanation is
oh, so there are other possible explanations for why a single dude had blue eyes and a tan too? Please, go on.
>this kind of bullshit is why I don't trust any of the centrally disseminated media images like the one you posted
Do you have any such studies to show the contrary?
Two hunter-gatherer skeletons were discovered in a cave in the mountains of north-west Spain in 2006.
The cool, dark conditions meant the remains (called La Brana 1 and 2) were remarkably well preserved. Scientists were able to extract DNA from a tooth of one of the ancient men and sequence his genome.
The team found that the early European was most closely genetically related to people in Sweden and Finland.
But while his eyes were blue, his genes reveal that his hair was black or brown and his skin was dark.
>able to extract DNA from a tooth of one of the ancient men
>from this we are able to make sweeping statements about entire population groups
pls
>do you even have any such studies to show the contrary
pls
>pls
So, that's a no?
You don't need a study to criticize a study you Caribbean inbred.
>you don't need a study to criticize when you can just talk out of your ass
this is what it looks like when you fail hard
That guy you're talking to actually wasn't me. If you notice here , I said that they had mainly dark eyes.
Right, talking out of your ass is failing hard.
>they had mainly dark eyes
with about as much justification I presume.
>everyone in Central Asia looks like one guy
Why don't you have any critical thinking skills? Is it because of your shit island education system?
You're welcome to use your vast critical thinking skills take it up with the journal. Good luck.
Seriously? It's the most reasonable thing to estimate, as most humans, even in Europe, have brown eyes. Why wouldn't ancient Europeans also have predominantly brown eyes?
OP here
nerds
>The La Brana individual carries ancestral alleles in several skin pigmentation genes, suggesting that the light skin of modern Europeans was not yet ubiquitous in Mesolithic times.
>not yet ubiquitous
wow
Dude, I already told you I'm , the guy you're mostly (keyword here: mostly) responding to is someone else. What, do I have to become a namefag or a tripfag now?
By the way, I meant Jamaican as in Jamaican American, so if you're going to make fun of anyone's education system, let it be America.
Isn't the point that user is trying to make here concluding that the majority of Europeans weren't light skinned yet?
>most humans, even in Europe, have brown eyes
depends on where in Europe you are. In Northern Europe people with blue eyes are usually a majority.
I'm saying you can't conclude anything meaningful about the majority of people in a given population from a single sample.
>depends on where in Europe you are. In Northern Europe people with blue eyes are usually a majority.
While this is true, they are not the majority in Europe, only in their section of Europe. That's why I said most people, even in Europe, because the average eye color for a Greek is usually different form a Finn.
> I'm saying you can't conclude anything meaningful about the majority of people in a given population from a single sample.
Okay, I understand where you're coming from now. It is possible though, based on the most obvious physical examples there are (like the average black person has darker skin than most people), but once you start digging deeper, like prehistory, things get a little tricky. We could very well find an ancient population of extinct Middle Easterners with striking red hair, but their hair color would most likely have nothing to do with the vast majority of their population both then and now.