Well now I don't know what to believe

Oh come on. The propaganda of the cheddar man was so laughable, it would be like the natives in america pushing the book of Mormonism.

Yeah, you would think they would be sucking Indian cock instead.

He was very likely dark-skinned. How dark-skinned he was we don't know. If he wasn't dark-skinned then it means that all our knowledge about genes causing light skin is wrong, and that's unlikely.

>homo sapiens lived in Europe for like 45k years
>brits went from MENA to albino tier in less than 10k years
Riiight

Old Europeans were shitskins similar to Australoids and Negroids, it is thanks to MENA genes that Modern Europeans are barely Semitic(White) looking.

And we are the ones who must finance this shit though the TV licences. I really want to move out of this shithole after I graduate.

But this is exactly what happened. Before the arrival of farmers (some 7000-6000 BC) everyone in Western Europe was quite In North Europe - Sweden, Latvia. Estonia hunter gatherers were lighter, probably due to EHG/ANE genes.

Old Europe is Neolithic Europe. Farmers were lighter than African blacks.

The Nefertiti recreation was clearly west eurasian

>i don't know
It shows.
Cheddar man was DARK.

Funny how you still post this everyday in hopes someday science will change reality for you.

This was obvious political nonsense from the get-go.

From what I understand, the WHG folks don't seem to have any genes that imply light or dark skin. This means that while they probably were darker than the average white person today, they most definitely weren't "black" either. That itself requires a specific set of genes too. A bunch of ideologically driven morons decided to conveniently forget about the second bit.

Light skin always was an advantage in the north because of the whole vitamin D thing, no matter the diet, so what we can most likely rule out is very dark skin even for hunter-gatherers.
It also opens up the possibility that some WHGs already had the genes for light skin as there was definitely no downside to it. When agriculture and pastoralism took over, the evolutionary pressure for light skin increased because these diets no longer provided enough vitamin D.
The people who brought farming to Europe already had pale skin. That trait probably propagated itself massively because pale skin helped farmers with getting enough vitamin D, plus the fact that agricultural societies simply have more kids than hunter-gatherers.

Nope. Cheddar man lacked pale skin genes, so they were dark.

It's easy to spot politically driven fags with their text lacking substance or actual meaning. lol

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5487854/
So there's >30 SNPs which result in lighter skin and some of these aren't necessarily found in Europe.
Cheddar didn't have the number one in power ranking, SLC24A5 nor did he have number five SLC45A2 which are the most well known because of extremely high frequency among modern Europeans.
But from what I've heard he may have had IRF4 rs12203592 which is number two in the rankings.
Lochsbour, another WHG closely related to Cheddar was T/T which is the derived allele so lighter hair, eyes and skin.
Unless it's proven Cheddar was C/C I'm gonna think he was not nearly as dark as some think given the higher power of the SNP in question.
He may even have had relatively light skin although not pale.

Okay did some googling, Cheddar man was indeed derived for rs12203592 and hetero for rs11547464 which is number nine in the rankings and also makes hair more red.
Also he had rs6119471 in ASIP which is only number 26 in rankings but carried by virtually all non-Africans while only a quarter of Africans.
I'm starting to think this guy had reddish-brown hair and slightly tan complexion complementing his blue eyes. Lighter skin than Native Americans seem even a certainty as they have nothing as strong as rs12203592 but naturally share rs6119471 as non-Africans.

Youre letting your hatred of stormfags over ride your ability to notice very obvious propaganda from the British government concerning refugees

people think propaganda means 'outright lying', yet most of the bbc's is much more subtle than that

you cannot deny that they are very clever in the way they manipulate people

>t. anglo

What's the big deal though? Didn't everyone already know Celtic Britons were niggers that needed Anglo-Saxon rule?

Attached: 1494359122036.png (1486x164, 17K)

YOOOUU MEAN OT TELL ME WE WUZNT KANGS?!?!?!?!

Attached: mFZRSgff.jpg (1252x1252, 143K)

no dude, the fact that he doesn't have the modern alleles for depigmentation is good evidence he was swarthy AF like most WHG. Blue eyes likely originated in this population, so that's not surprising either.

this isn't a a revelation whatsoever to anyone read on the subject, but MMS hyped the everliving shit out of this and called him unironically a Briton which is false because they're desperate to justify modern policies replacement migration

he probably wasn't that black though, and I feel as if that reconstruction is inaccurate in other ways. Just look at that jawline/chin and compare it to pic related. Wasn't WHG also nasally progressive?

Attached: Cheddar_Man_scull.jpg (662x939, 88K)

>jaw meme
The reconstruction is accurate, user.

I don't get it. It was already known that WHG were quite dark skinned. Why the butthurt?

maybe an idiot would fall for it but no one else would. it's not in the curriculum

>To continue reading this premium article, subscribe for unlimited access.

So did anyone actually READ the fucking thing?

Attached: 1378777268831.jpg (297x308, 13K)

Just put the skull or whatever there is left in a closet and open it in 100-200 years or so when this can be settled peacefully.

>sensationalist pop science turned out to not be true
Oh what not way

Attached: 243578108026212.png (251x240, 94K)

>Caucasoid Europeans 10,000+ years ago may have had darker skin because they didn't develop gene yet
>Lets let Africans and Muslims immigrate en mass because the only difference is skin color
Humans evolved from lesser primates, it doesn't mean chimpanzees should become British citizens.

not really, nice try though

Attached: WHG, Cheddar Man and La Brana.jpg (4376x2016, 1.93M)

>not really
How so?

you're the one claiming it's accurate. I'm just saying it doesn't look like an accurate facial reconstruction of the skull seen and here and the spin surrounding it is completely suspicious.

>you are the one
Forensic science vs (You).
Except the jaw there is fucked up.

Exactly, DARK, not black...

He was Cro-Magnid/Paleo-Atlantid individual and that's all.

And racially 100% Caucasian with elongated nasal bridge.

in that sense he might actually be "whiter" than most Americans

I'm not insane. I'm also not right-wing, let alone a stormfag.

That still doesn't change the fact that it's obvious British media and academia has an absolutely massive boner for black people right now. Not minorities in general mind you, as some kind of effort to increase diversity. Just, specifically, exclusively black people. They're 2% of the population but the BBC goes waayyyy out of its way to make it look like they're at least a third. You'll never see an Indian or a Middle Easterner despite there being way more of them. The memes write themselves what with the name of the network.

hey, whiter than you Flintstone

And its almost entirely in England, the black population of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are all well below 1%

No one cares about the facts, it's all about the narrative.
And that includes YOU fuckers, because while we can't state anything with certainty from these findings alone, the cheese guy is still more likely than not to have been dark skinned.
Not that any part of this even carries any meaningful implications for today. It's all just like a stupid fucking game where either side keeps trying to turn meaningless things into a meaningful political advantage.
No one here even bothered to check the link, which requires a subscription to some shit to read.

Then again, i guess no one but paleontologists would actually honestly care about this.

Attached: angery.jpg (255x255, 15K)

Believe the first truth. Second truth a lie.

Basically this*, and what's funny is that ancient European Negritos/Australoids were probably the pinnacle of Negrito/Australoid society. Abos, indigenous Andaman Islanders, various Melanesians, etc. are remnant populations.

*still worth bearing in mind that they were as genetically distinct from Africans as current (e.g.) indigenous Taiwanese are, they just had duskier skin. Other morphology will vary...

Negritos/Australoids have 3-5% Denisovan DNA. They were pretty distinct from the Neolithic Europeans.

heres the pdf:
emagazinepdf.com/2018/03/new-scientist-03-03-2018/

Attached: cheddarman.png (615x710, 310K)

>To continue reading this premium article, subscribe for unlimited access.

Fucking retards. Cheddar is yellowish orange. So much for "researchers".

you might not think you're right wing or identify as such, but you still are

huh, this seems accurate

what kind of shit cheddar have you been eating?

Only the best

Attached: 41CbbH1zZOL.jpg (500x270, 31K)

>Forensic science vs (You).
Forensic science is only valid if it proves that niggers are inferior to white people.

Sure, but considering Denisovans probably had a "heartland" in or around the Altai mountains, it's not hard to see where this Denisovan admixture came from.

Andamanese have 0% Denisovan and they look the most Negrito

I don't think Caucasoid or Mongoloid populations have any real Denisovan admixture. Except those that live near Austaloid populations (Indians, Indonesians etc)
For example mainland Asians and Ameindians on average only have 0.2% Denisovan DNA.

Their heartland was probably in India and SE Asia, they were just first found in Denisova. But never existed in Europe.

Attached: Spread_and_evolution_of_Denisovans.jpg (1280x720, 303K)

huh, pretty weird.

...

Admixture probably occured somewhere in peninsular SEAsia or Insular SEAsia not in India

these guys are forensic scientists now?

>At school we all were good at was drawing. We never read; we only looked at the pictures in the books. Human evolution was what interested us. We made clay models of drawings or we copied drawings of fossils and skulls. We still do. We're identical twins and always sat opposite of each other to draw, which means you've always got your main competitor breathing down your neck.
>But the advantage is that you keep each other on your toes. No one spots any stylistic difference in our work, because the mix of our two styles forms one complex whole. But we only create animals and humans that really existed and they have to be scientifically accurate.

how did they forensically reconstruct the face, what was their scientific methodology?

Attached: Untitled6.png (1036x580, 1.06M)

I wonder if Negritos in general aren't Denisovan, and the ones that are have it just because of their proximity to Australoids.
Negritos usually have afros, while Austrloids have straighter brown to black hair.

>quotes "cool" introduction of their work
lol
>"Dutch artists Alfons and Adrie Kennis, specialists in palaeontological model-making, took the genetic findings and combined them with physical measurements from scans of the skull. The result was a strikingly lifelike reconstruction of a face from our distant past."
That's forensic science.

The reconstruction is accurate, user. Maybe you can't deal with it due to your political bias... Aww

Attached: IMG-20180310-WA0005.jpg (960x822, 118K)

>British smiles

He obviously wasn't a Briton, they arrived as part of the Indo-European migrations.

Attached: 1470941833651.jpg (473x480, 95K)

oh so how did they model the nose, genetic info? I think it's strange you feel the need to drag political orientation into this.
I'm aware they 3d scanned the skull, that just means they were working digitally. Here's another version of Cheddar Man, thought at the time to be accurate.
I don't see why you seem to think skepticism is somehow unwarranted in this case.

>reconstruction is accurate
the burden of proof is on you, can you substantiate your assertion?
>There's no way to know that the first Briton had ‘dark to black skin’ says scientist who helped reconstruct his 10,000-year-old face

Attached: 49BAED7A00000578-5453665-A_previous_reconstruction_of_Cheddar_Man_made_by_the_University_-a-5_151999 (634x368, 44K)

>pic
Cheddar man had dark skin. So, the OP's reconstruction is more accurate.
>there is no way
Except Cheddar man lacked pale skin genes. So he was dark.

See It's forensic science method.
>burden of proof
Forensic science vs (You)

>bring politics
You can't separate politics from history, user. Avoiding your political bias to blind you is the trick, though.

God bless NewScientist
They're doing their best in these trying times

This board is fucking ruined by /pol/ shitters. I really don't get what is so controversial about the pale skin genes being a relatively new development in the history of human evolution.

Do they realise that the British Isles were invaded constantly throughout their history and Europe itself was subjected to lots of mass migrations?

Even 1000 years ago wherever you're from in the world unless you're something like a Papua New Guinean would be completely foreign and different.

All we really know at this point is that he most likely didn't have either pale or African black skin.

>Forensic science
this was based on forensic science too.
you can't explain shit and appeal to authority to cover your paucity, cry more nerds.

>Even 1000 years ago more
1018? I think you should consider some degree of restraint in future pseudo-arguments.

>this too
Except Cheddar man was dark, so OP's pic is more accurate.

But Walsh et al aren't claiming he had skin that dark

The way they really ran with the propaganda of it spoke volumes to ideological interest being more at play than historicity. And "he probably had swarthy skin" becoming "He was dark as a bantu" really shows stretching.

I don't understand why they don't just fellatio the arabs and Pakis, at least you can stretch credibility for that since the British Raj, the primacy of the Sepoys in the British Indian army in WW1 and Ww2,british closeness with gulf emirates or for that british-rome business you'd have Syrian auxiliaries or Arabs representing Mediterranean swarthy Romans.

But nah, let's just make everyone nigerian.

: Pale skin
: Dark skin
OP's Cheddar man reconstruction is more accurate.

And what if he was 1% closer to the pale skin in complexion?

Neither is accurate.

Cheddar had swarthy/brown skin, but not as dark as OP's reconstruction.

He was generally of pic related anthropological type.

Attached: Paleo_Atlantid.png (921x613, 600K)

>if
NiBBa, are you even tryin'?

Stop posting.
poorly sourced jpegs of outdated anthropological groupings aren't proof of anything
You're an idiot

Why do you believe he had black skin when it doesn't change antyhing (as he was still Caucasoid and race is not a skin colour), and it is extremely unlikely? Most people sharing his looks have swarthy skin.

>he has
That's false, though. Pale skin genes were introduced after the neolithic revolution, and it was a slow change over time of social selection for pale skin genes.
Cheddar man lack light skin genes.
Your pic's people have light skin genes.

Cheddar man was dark.

This is a farmer phenotype if anything.
Veeky Forums has discussed Cheddars skin color in 20 threads but never has it come up that the paper is actually about his people being replaced by Anatolians who looked something like this.
It's even called Population Replacement in Early Neolithic Britain.

>outdated anthropological groupings
Nobody has ever debunked them in the first place (except American Anthropologists who said it's wrong because it hurts their feelings).

So it is still right :)

>I don't have to listen to you if I label you
that's convenient

Walsh et al say they don't know what his tone was. No one else has a valid opinion on this.

>caucasoid
Define this.
>race
He was literally a mongrel between cromagnon and early neolithic farmers.

We know he had dark skin. So OP's pic is more accurate than yours.

"accurate"

Attached: a facial reconstruction of a 20th century mexican and an actually photo after finding the identity.j (465x319, 19K)

Dark, not black like in OP's image. Berber tier at best, but probably lighter...
>Pale skin genes were introduced after the neolithic revolution
By who? Mediterreneans who invented neolithic revolution? Lol, none of these leftist bullshit "theories" make sence...

People who invented agriculture, are actually much darker than people who had it for the least.

No, farmers were gracile because they didn't need to hunt, and had no problems with finding food (as they were farmers...).

Pic related is the farmer type.

Attached: med gracile.jpg (500x360, 28K)

Who is we? Walsh wrote the paper which was used to predict Cheddar mans skin color, and Walsh says their understanding is not sufficient to make a prediction. No other opinions are valid.

Forensic science reconstructions are the most accurate.

>You may remember the research was announced by press release and reported by many news outlets, including us.
>there is now some backpedalling going on
>turns out it was just a publicity stunt for a television show
>but even so, for YOU to have dismissed the questionable announcement even now is to do a disservice to science
>on the other hand its perfectly fine for US to dismiss the announcement in this very issue
>even worse, the alt-right had jumped on the questionable 'science' as evidence of liberal propaganda by the media
>that conclusion is blatant and hysterical nonsense, even though we literally just admitted it was a stunt that was designed to change people's perceptions of what it means to be briton

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-15 at 09.54.13.png (546x619, 321K)

>Define this.
Nose prominent, leg to body proportion somewhat moderate, orthognathic or mesognathic, cheek bones not too outstanding.

>who
The people who know he lacked pale skin genes, so he was dark.
>mediterranean
OP's pic is the most accurate reconstruction, lad.
Show me data comparisons please.

Dark and light are subjective. You're not black if you're not pale.
I'm gonna trust the scientists on this one. They know better.