So you can now tell skin and hair colour from bones now?

>out of asia
*Europe, obviously

So let me guess, he actually looked closer to the Arabs in skin color but BBC decided to make him look maximum black so they could push the idea that there always were black people in England.

Read the second post you dunce. They don't know what he looked like. The genetic testing doesn't posit any skin color, only that he didn't have modern genetic markers for light skin.
He could have been fucking bright blue.

This is actually exactly it. There was, from what I read, no evidence that he was genetically that dark. Just that he wasn't as light-skinned as modern Europeans. The guy in charge made him black and said literally something like, 'Britain is always changing.'

If we take the predominant theory that dark skin (not full on negroid subsaharan skin, mind) was the genetic baseline for hominids, and we take Graecopithicus as evidence that hominids were present and distinguished in Europe one millenia prior to those in Africa, logic concludes that early European hominids had darker skin.
The only other real explanation would be the the European early hominids completely deserted Europe for Africa, and that a second distinct group of hominids arose somewhere else and had diverged from a common ancestor far enough back to have evolved lighter features (again, big if true, but evidence points to disparate early hominids being of a single species with high rates of feature disparity, not individual species groups with the possible exception of Australopithicus).

>[citation needed]
It's common knowledge.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominid_dispersals_in_Europe

>Graecopithecus 7.2 million
>Although subtropical conditions returned to Europe in the Pliocene (5.33–2.58 million years ago), there are no known fossil hominids from this period
At least 3-4 million years of hiatus. Then the next one is Homo erectus georgicus from Georgia (1.8 million).

Or just look here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

Jesus, this guy has NOTHING to do with Graecopithecus. Stop being retarded.

lol this is your master race? Brits must be seething right now.

Missing links don't imply a complete lack of relation you nonce. That's not how the fossil record works. Again, you'd need to assert EVIDENCE of an injunction of distinct hominids into Europe during that period, rather than just assert from nowhere that Graecopithicus' entire population upped and moved to Africa.

I didn't say Cheddar Man had anything to do with Graecopithicus.

They probably would be if not for the well known fact that the modern British are specifically NOT descended from the original inhabitants of Britain.

Then what are they doing in Britain. Give Britain back to the British!

They're all dead.

yoan hansome a fucking jew is the scientist behind this
EVERY FUCKING TIME

kek

When will the study paper be released to the public to read? I'm quite interested in early man and want to see all the fine details that brought them to this reconstruction.
As user pointed out here There are certain alleles that correlate with lighter skin color that WHG have been found to lack, hence why every reconstruction gives it a swarthy appearance with light eyes, or brown. The alleles for lighter skin arrived sometime by the neolithic through anatolia (modern day Turkey) and also through the IE migrations.

Just look at the fossil record.

>entire population moved
Some moved (if it's true that he is our ancestor), others went extinct.
After him the next hominid in Greece appears 300-150.000 years ago and it's Homo heidelbergensis.
Meanwhile look at Africa:
Numerous fossils and stone tools. From 7 million years ago to the appearance of first homo sapiens.

The fossil record doesn't show that. It shows that we currently don't have fossils of hominids inbetween the two known points you complete airhead.
Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. You need to posit Evidence.

they are obsesed with us fuck to israel jewish scum

This is not how it works. If there are no fossils there is no evidence. If we find some fossils then we will change our theories. There is no reason to believe that Graecopithecus survived in Europe if bones of all our more modern ancestors came from Africa.

Okay? Not sure how it proves any of it wrong. This was the exact same excuse black twitter had in response to Nefertiti

>The guy in charge made him black and said literally something like, 'Britain is always changing.'

Yeah, it kinda amazed me how politicised this became
>Reconstruct a ~2,000 year old British skull on the telly with a white face
>"Oh, wow, that's kinda neat"

>Reconstruct a ~10,000 year old British skull on the telly with a black face
>"JESUS H FUCKING CHRIST, THIS LITERALLY REWRITES THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF BRITAIN AND BRITISH IDENTITY. GUESS IT ALSO PROVES YOU RACISTS WRONG ABOUT IMMIGRATION, DOESN'T IT?"

its not and excuse for being true or not is intention of divide and humilate behind every action they do is the same ,all the newspaper with race bating articles every tv and now science

He was definitely dark skinned. But it's hard to tell how dark. It's not shocking or surprising for anyone studying this shit.

>This was the exact same excuse black twitter had in response to Nefertiti
It's funny how every retard blames Jews for his insecurities.

Above average for a British girl

its a 3 rd grade scientist no other would have put their name to this inacurate article they wouldnt have pass peer review of couse but media has zero scruples to publish it.

>reconstructing literally who hunter gatherers when they could be reconstructing glorious PIEs
Actually upsetting

>A news release about the research was released Wednesday, but the study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

There was nothing glorious about PIE.

Medoid detected

and it wont its meme scientis

They were as glorious as Mongol hordes. Pure barbarians.

...

So basically, what could've been an interesting insight into prehistoric Europe has yet again been totally shat on by politics and sensationalism?

>what is DNA

you think some tipical estonian with 40% of their dna being whg could look like this if thhat reconstruction was true

aryan truly should have been something out of this world if they can change to this

da joos

...

PIEs were swarthy and dark haired

You either have a mutation or the ancestral variant. Maybe with some major genetic fuckup you might have neither but needless to say that was not the case here.

Are the Welsh native? Or did they just squat ther the longest?

pic related is the actual skull nobody wants to print, that facial reconstruction is inaccurate

here's another facial reconstruction of WHG

Yamna weren't swarthy, they were somewhat darker than modern Europeans as a whole. That means they were much lighter than your average European at the time, taller too. They weren't even the only example of PIE, they were quite specifically late-PIE and their appearance was mediated by admixture with CHG and later with EEF.

the fact that you insist on continuing to spread this misinformation belies your agenda.

AFAIK only Spain has significant amounts of pre indo European DNA, but don't quote me on that.

Sardinia.

>D-DON'T YOU DARE INSULT MY OVERLORDS

What's the point in there? They're pretty interesting to look at, but they can't
>know a precise skin colour
>know hair colour
>know hair length
>know facial hair
At best you can get the general outline of a face, and even then they'll distort that by trying to portray some kind of emotion with the finished product.

everybody on Europe does...

>know a precise skin colour
Ostensibly the skin color is derived from A: a lack of light-skin alleles found in other, later hominids and B: a presence of dark-skin alleles in other, contemporary hominids.
The contention though is that, as far as I'm aware, there's been no claim that Cheddar Man actually possesses the dark-skin alleles himself. So all we positively know is that his skin wasn't the same color as the light-skin allele-possessing hominids. Its entirely possible he possessed different alleles which code for light skin, but we don't really have the tools to determine that (and won't until we find remains of more hominids from around the same era and population group and can tie them more concretely into a better-recorded modern ethnic group).

Also, yes, the man in charge of the facial reconstruction is implicitly producing an ethnic narrative by his own statements.

that's the power of matrilineal family structures and the X/Y chromosome baby. Replacing dominant genes for millenia now.

So they couldnt find any light alleles therefore lets make him black as a nigger. Its pure propaganda.

A=B
These alleles have the same position in your DNA. Lack of light skin alleles does mean the presence of the ancestral variants.
However, you are correct that they could have had other alleles which do the same job, which are unfamiliar to us for whatever reason.
It's not a stretch to think they might not even exist anymore if they decreased fitness.
However that is all speculative. Tasmanian Aboriginals lived in fairly high latitude and were dark.

Latitude is irrelevant, light exposure is what matters
Also abbos have only gotten there relatively recently

Mixing politics and history is probably the worst thing ever. I hate it so fucking much.

Tasmanian Abos lived in Tasmania for something like 20-100 times longer than Cheddar mans people had lived in Britain.
This discussion about his skin color always deviates away from the fact that the guy was a recent arrival from Southern Europe.

>light exposure is what matters
I'm not nailed down on the timescales between Cheddar Man and the next positively identified, dark skin allele-possessing hominid, but there'd need to be a period of millennia to allow for the development of variant alleles in response to evolutionary pressures.

Varg btfo this kike propaganda already

This along with the Nerfiti stuff really shows how people react rather than actually read the details or know any prior information on these fields. Far left think "muh blacks in euro" and far right "muh jew science lies!". Anyone who actually read previous studies or had prior knowledge of such aren't surprised. We just wanna know more about prehistoric man.

sad

>This was the exact same excuse black twitter had in response to Nefertiti
It's actually not though, as no one was attempting to use the Nefertiti recreation to make a statement about modern politics and immigration policies in Egypt.

Probably a lot more accurate

two different individuals, but I'm inclined to agree.

No offense but you are the problem, as history is inherently political. By pretending that history is not political, you only end up ceding the narrative to the worst of those that understand that it is.

If you want to discuss politics

"Far right" doesn't say it's "Jew science lies" because they don't understand that light skin had to evolve at some point, we say that because the recreation was deliberately created to be as off putting and politically incendiary as possible. No one knows what the exact skin-tone of this ancient person was, so why choose to make him as dark as he is if not to make a statement?

I'm not discussing politics, I'm saying that you're a fool if you think history is not explicitly tied to politics.

This thread got more salt than Carthage, what's the problem white bois?

>Just trying to understand history and genetics, but people who know nothing about either keep trying to shove propoganda down people's throats
Holy shit this recreation is far from accurate, it's a guesstimate at best and will probably be corrected in a years time

>History is apolitical
No, it's extremely political just as any hard intellectual pursuit is? Wew lad, it's been this way since the dawn of civilization.

This thread is full of science denying and justifying it with politics. Glad that you aren't discussing politics, though. Science facts are irrelevant to you liking them or not.

See

So you'd have still made this post if it was displayed as white, right?

>Science "denying"
Explain how without using politics to justify your position. I'll wait

if

Nobody here is defending how bad the reconstruction is. I'm referring to how people see the picture and headline then form their opinion independently instead of actually looking into the current and previous studies of WHG individuals. It is a good example of both individual groups ignorant of the actual studies that led to the conclusion and react only to the headline and shitty reconstruction by a hack artist.

tldr: people just look at the reconstruction and sensational headline and go "muh (insert ideology here)".

This reconstruction and the paperwork behind it are going to get demolished by peer review.
Of course, by then the damage will have been done.
Another home run for (((them))).

>will probably be corrected
no, you'll be seeing this dude in textbooks for the next decade.

>brits will continue posting el goblino...

>history is inherently political

Explain

I don't see how applying modern politics to hunter-gatherers works

>What's the point in there? They're pretty interesting to look at, but they can't

anthropological reconstructions and genetic testing is only valid if it proves that whites are better than niggers

Here's an example.
> X people base their political identity on the idea they are the original and ancient inhabitants of Y region
>Therefore the identity of ancient hunter gatherers in Y region is very important to the modern political identity of X people
>The scientific claim that ancient hunter gatherers in that region are unrelated to X people and are in fact related to Z people is a challenge to the legitimacy of X people's modern political identity.
>This leads to political debate as X people act defensive of their modern political identity and Z people use said scientific research as legitimizing their grievances and case for iredentism against X people.

all that's going on here is innuendo to imply Britons don't have the right to secure their island because their distant ancestors were assimilated by migrants.

It's weird.

It's really just the usual suspects going crazy over some science that doesn't reinforce their worldview.

Britons are BLACK, deal with it.

I don't know what the big deal is.
The further back in time you go, the more human ancestors look like monkeys and other hominids.
That's the whole point of evolution.

the fact that anyone cares about this is a bad sign for humanity