Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 1:48 pm

Jan. 26, 2014 at 1:01 PM ET
Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European 2D11430827-140126-coslog-skull4.blocks_desktop_large

A 7,000-year-old man whose bones were left behind in a Spanish cave had the dark skin of an African, but the blue eyes of a Scandinavian. He was a hunter-gatherer who ate a low-starch diet and couldn't digest milk well — which meshes with the lifestyle that predated the rise of agriculture. But his immune system was already starting to adapt to a new lifestyle.
Researchers found all this out not from medical records, or from a study of the man's actual skin or eyes, but from an analysis of the DNA extracted from his tooth.
The study, published online Sunday by the journal Nature, lays out what's said to be the first recovered genome of a European hunter-gatherer from a transitional time known as the Mesolithic Period, which lasted from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. It's a time when the hunter-gatherer lifestyle was starting to give way to a more settled existence, with farms, livestock and urban settlements.
The remains of the Mesolithic male, dubbed La Braña 1, were found in 2006 in the La Braña-Arintero cave complex in northwest Spain. In the Nature paper, the researchers describe how they isolated the ancient DNA, sequenced the genome and looked at key regions linked to physical traits — including lactose intolerance, starch digestion and immune response.
The biggest surprise was that the genes linked to skin pigmentation reflected African rather than modern European variations. That indicates that the man had dark skin, "although we cannot know the exact shade," Carles Lalueza-Fox, a member of the research team from the Spanish National Research Council, said in a news release. At the same time, the man possessed the genetic variations that produce blue eyes in current Europeans.
That combination makes for a rare genetic profile, but perhaps it was more typical of the Mesolithic Period. To find out, the researchers say they'll need to analyze more genomes from that time — starting with La Braña 2, another male whose skeleton was found in the Spanish cave.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/dark-skin-blue-eyes-genes-paint-picture-7-000-year-2D11996418

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:20 pm

So far.

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:30 pm

Really, is that what it says?

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:34 pm

A few years back Scientists said that we all came from Scandinavia, another group claimed that our origins stem from Eskimos. As I said... so far.

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:36 pm

Warren Moon wrote:A few years back Scientists said that we all came from Scandinavia, another group claimed that our origins stem from Eskimos. As I said... so far.

No the vast majority of experts conclude we come from Africa.
In the big scheme of things what does it matter?

Why are you so scared your ancestors had once darker skin because of the climate they lived in?
What is the big deal?

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:39 pm

I'm not, I knew I was more advanced than nognigs.

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:41 pm

Warren Moon wrote:I'm not, I knew I was more advanced than nognigs.

Dear me, you seem to be by the above, because you are thus calling your own ancestors that.

What are you so afraid here over something so trivial, the colour of skin?

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:41 pm

More than that even though I like KFC.

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:43 pm

Warren Moon wrote:More than that even though I like KFC.

very strange, so when did you start supporting Kidderminster FC?

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:47 pm

Do you support Darwin's ideas Didge?

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:50 pm

Warren Moon wrote:Do you support Darwin's ideas Didge?

His are basic early views of evolution, much has since changed

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:52 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Warren Moon wrote:Do you support Darwin's ideas Didge?

His are basic early views of evolution, much has since changed

But the current scientific ideas are solid and will not.

Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European Slide218

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:52 pm

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:53 pm

Warren Moon wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

His are basic early views of evolution, much has since changed

But the current scientific ideas are solid and will not.

Dear me, so is that your response now, silliness, again much has changed since Darwin first wrote origin of species

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:02 pm

and theres didge saying that race isnt genetic.....

and here a group of scientists saying they can profile this guys racial characteristics from his genes.

perhaps during that argument when digi poo reconed he was "schooling me" he would have actually done better to properly read what I was saying...

I agreed with those scientists who said that genetics is a poor indicator of race per se, since we are all actually "shades of the same", there is no "clear cut distiction" no "cut off point" whereby you suddenly become one race or another...

however

racial characteristics ARE determined by your genetic code...

what ELSE determines what colour your eyes are....what else determines the colour of your skin... what else defined the facial characteristics?......and passes those characteristics down generations

the fairy bloody godmother??????????????????

that was my point...but oh no dodgy didge reconed he/she knew better......

never got a direct answer to that question tho.....

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 28, 2014 9:39 pm

Warren Moon wrote:A few years back Scientists said that we all came from Scandinavia, another group claimed that our origins stem from Eskimos. As I said... so far.

Please show peer reviewed paper that supports what you claim about scientists.

You are full of shit No accredited Anthropologist has ever said made either of those claims.

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 9:44 pm

grumpy old git wrote:and theres didge saying that race isnt genetic.....

and here a group of scientists saying they can profile this guys racial characteristics from his genes.

perhaps during that argument when digi poo reconed he was "schooling me" he would have actually done better to properly read what I was saying...

I agreed with those scientists who said that genetics is a poor indicator of race per se, since we are all actually "shades of the same", there is no "clear cut distiction" no "cut off point" whereby you suddenly become one race or another...

however

racial characteristics ARE determined by your genetic code...

what ELSE determines what colour your eyes are....what else determines the colour of your skin... what else defined the facial characteristics?......and passes those characteristics down generations

the fairy bloody godmother??????????????????

that was my point...but oh no dodgy didge reconed he/she knew better......

never got a direct answer to that question tho.....

Dear me you are not very bright by where they can genetically show where he lived on the earth.

Do you understand that points, not any race, oh my, you do realise it is based upon where people lived do you not Victor

All it said was rare genetic profile, you do understand what profile means do you Victor?

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 9:51 pm

I know a lot more than you clearly

what determines the level pf pigment in your skin
what determines your eye colour
what determines your facial characteristics

and just WHAT is it that passes thoes characteristics to the next generation

the fairy godmother?????

or genes

by Ben Reilly Tue Jan 28, 2014 9:51 pm

Sorry, Warren, we're all Africans originally. Here's a song I'm sure you'll hate:

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 28, 2014 9:52 pm

Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European 26271801-1

This Map explains what we know, based on mapping genes and archaeological discoveries.
This is not contested; this is based on the culmination of thousands of peoples work.

Not One Random Lunatic in the National Enquirer saying people came from Sweden that is not science. Even if Warren thinks that it is.

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:04 pm

grumpy old git wrote:I know a lot more than you clearly

what determines the level pf pigment in your skin
what determines your eye colour
what determines your facial characteristics

and just WHAT is it that passes thoes characteristics to the next generation

the fairy godmother?????

or genes

Hilarious, and you do realise how little these variances are in humans do you victor?

Again this goes to the point of the thread of gentic profile.

Please read:

The visual differences we are attuned to don't tell us anything about what's beneath the skin. This is because human variation is highly non-concordant. Most traits are influenced by different genes, so they're inherited independently, not grouped into the few packages we call races. In other words, the presence of one trait doesn't guarantee the presence of another. Can you tell a person's eye color from their height? What about their blood type from the size of their head? What about subtler things like a person's ability to play sports or their mathematical skills? It doesn't make sense to talk about group racial characteristics, whether external or internal.

Genetic differences do exist between people, but it is more accurate to speak of ancestry, rather than race, as the root of inherited diseases or conditions. Not everyone who looks alike or lives in the same region shares a common ancestry, so using "race" as a shorthand for ancestry can be misleading. Sickle cell, for example, often thought of as a "racial" disease afflicting Africans, is actually a gene that confers resistance to malaria, so it occurs in areas such as central and western Africa, the Mediterranean, and Arabia, but not in southern Africa. In medicine, a simplistic view can lead to misdiagnoses, with fatal consequences. Racial "profiling" isn't appropriate on the New Jersey Turnpike or in the doctor's office. As evolutionary biologist Joseph Graves reminds us, medicine should treat individuals, not groups.

On the other hand, the social reality of race can have biological effects. Native Americans have the highest rates of diabetes and African American men die of heart disease five times more often than white men. But is this a product of biology or social conditions? How do you measure this relationship or even determine who is Native American or African American on a genetic level? Access to medical care, health insurance, and safe living conditions can certainly affect medical outcomes. So can the stress of racism. But the reasons aren't innate or genetic.

Believing in race as biology allows us to overlook the social factors that contribute to inequality. Understanding that race is socially constructed is the first step in addressing those factors and giving everyone a fair chance in life.

by ALLAKAKA Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:08 pm

As I've said before if you go by we are all Africans , then the Black argument of the Whiteman plundering Africa is a NO, they were just popping back HOME to pickup a few things, that were rightfully theirs.

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:12 pm

ALLAKAKA wrote: As I've said before if you go by we are all Africans , then the Black argument of the Whiteman plundering Africa is a NO, they were just popping back HOME to pickup a few things, that were rightfully theirs.

No it was the Europeans, we can define people from nationalities and areas can we not?
We are biologically all one race, but nations or tribes do have conflict with each other or some who wish to take over a nation
So they were not popping back home, as the people living at the time were not then living in Africa, but Europe, their ancestors may have done thousands of years back, that does not mean they can then come and take another land

Once again you come out with some classics that are just so illogical.

by ALLAKAKA Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:20 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
ALLAKAKA wrote: As I've said before if you go by we are all Africans , then the Black argument of the Whiteman plundering Africa is a NO, they were just popping back HOME to pickup a few things, that were rightfully theirs.

No it was the Europeans, we can define people from nationalities and areas can we not?
We are biologically all one race, but nations or tribes do have conflict with each other or some who wish to take over a nation
So they were not popping back home, as the people living at the time were not then living in Africa, but Europe, their ancestors may have done thousands of years back, that does not mean they can then come and take another land

Once again you come out with some classics that are just so illogical.

But your own argument is that there are no indigenous rights to countries , now make up your mind.

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:24 pm

ALLAKAKA wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

No it was the Europeans, we can define people from nationalities and areas can we not?
We are biologically all one race, but nations or tribes do have conflict with each other or some who wish to take over a nation
So they were not popping back home, as the people living at the time were not then living in Africa, but Europe, their ancestors may have done thousands of years back, that does not mean they can then come and take another land

Once again you come out with some classics that are just so illogical.

But your own argument is that there are no indigenous rights to countries , now make up your mind.

My ideal world is there would not be and people could live together in peace, yes that is my ideal world, does not happen that way though, but people born onto a land become part of that land, as has gone on for thousands of years and people migrate and become part of other nations do they not. So to me it is wrong for people to take things by force no matter if I believe in a world without hate

Something for you to ponder in the famous words of Lennon:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one.

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:24 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:I know a lot more than you clearly

what determines the level pf pigment in your skin
what determines your eye colour
what determines your facial characteristics

and just WHAT is it that passes thoes characteristics to the next generation

the fairy godmother?????

or genes

Hilarious, and you do realise how little these variances are in humans do you victor?

of course i do..hence my point "we are all shades of the same" and 2there is no "cut off point" when you change from one "race" to another....

Again this goes to the point of the thread of gentic profile.

Please read:

The visual differences we are attuned to don't tell us anything about what's beneath the skin. This is because human variation is highly non-concordant. Most traits are influenced by different genes, so they're inherited independently, not grouped into the few packages we call races. In other words, the presence of one trait doesn't guarantee the presence of another. Can you tell a person's eye color from their height? What about their blood type from the size of their head? What about subtler things like a person's ability to play sports or their mathematical skills? It doesn't make sense to talk about group racial characteristics, whether external or internal.

agreed

Genetic differences do exist between people, but it is more accurate to speak of ancestry, rather than race, as the root of inherited diseases or conditions. Not everyone who looks alike or lives in the same region shares a common ancestry, so using "race" as a shorthand for ancestry can be misleading. Sickle cell, for example, often thought of as a "racial" disease afflicting Africans, is actually a gene that confers resistance to malaria, so it occurs in areas such as central and western Africa, the Mediterranean, and Arabia, but not in southern Africa. In medicine, a simplistic view can lead to misdiagnoses, with fatal consequences. Racial "profiling" isn't appropriate on the New Jersey Turnpike or in the doctor's office. As evolutionary biologist Joseph Graves reminds us, medicine should treat individuals, not groups.

ancestry........ race.....this is merely playing the "new speak propaganda game" the word "race" has become a "dirty word" so we will call the same thing by a different name...pish

On the other hand, the social reality of race can have biological effects. Native Americans have the highest rates of diabetes and African American men die of heart disease five times more often than white men. But is this a product of biology or social conditions? How do you measure this relationship or even determine who is Native American or African American on a genetic level? Access to medical care, health insurance, and safe living conditions can certainly affect medical outcomes. So can the stress of racism. But the reasons aren't innate or genetic.

however the same can have other non social effects....some african groups have resistance to sleeping sickness...the same genetic trait causes sickle cell anaemia

Believing in race as biology allows us to overlook the social factors that contribute to inequality. Understanding that race is socially constructed is the first step in addressing those factors and giving everyone a fair chance in life.

and ignoring it causes a whole host of other problems....

would you also KINDLY answer my simple question...or are you just going to avoid it

what determines the level pf pigment in your skin
what determines your eye colour
what determines your facial characteristics

and just WHAT is it that passes thoes characteristics to the next generation

the fairy godmother?????

or genes

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:24 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
ALLAKAKA wrote: As I've said before if you go by we are all Africans , then the Black argument of the Whiteman plundering Africa is a NO, they were just popping back HOME to pickup a few things, that were rightfully theirs.

No it was the Europeans, we can define people from nationalities and areas can we not?
We are biologically all one race, but nations or tribes do have conflict with each other or some who wish to take over a nation
So they were not popping back home, as the people living at the time were not then living in Africa, but Europe, their ancestors may have done thousands of years back, that does not mean they can then come and take another land

why not ...the Jews did???????

Once again you come out with some classics that are just so illogical.

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:27 pm

I already said genes but these genes make no bearing on races, did you not read already, dear me, thus human variation is highly non-concordant. That means your view on race placing a person is based more on where they did live and who they descend from individually as is the case here not any race, what is different here is the first example of early humans maybe even the case of where what we class white today were still dark skinned showing it was the environment which helped change the skin colour in the European climate.

Seriously, do you not see that?

Thus your first post was way off the mark

Until tomorrow, nght

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:28 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

No it was the Europeans, we can define people from nationalities and areas can we not?
We are biologically all one race, but nations or tribes do have conflict with each other or some who wish to take over a nation
So they were not popping back home, as the people living at the time were not then living in Africa, but Europe, their ancestors may have done thousands of years back, that does not mean they can then come and take another land

why not ...the Jews did???????

Once again you come out with some classics that are just so illogical.

OMG! After his remarks on the Palestine threads, thats hilarious.

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:29 pm

Sassy wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

OMG! After his remarks on the Palestine threads, thats hilarious.

That was victor that said the Jew remark, oh my, whoopsy again sassy not reading the thread

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:29 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

No it was the Europeans, we can define people from nationalities and areas can we not?
We are biologically all one race, but nations or tribes do have conflict with each other or some who wish to take over a nation
So they were not popping back home, as the people living at the time were not then living in Africa, but Europe, their ancestors may have done thousands of years back, that does not mean they can then come and take another land

why not ...the Jews did???????

Once again you come out with some classics that are just so illogical.

Did they I thought the UN gave them a home by creating a new nation?

of which I already said both sides do wrong did I not, talk about taking the debate off track

by ALLAKAKA Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:30 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Hilarious, and you do realise how little these variances are in humans do you victor?

of course i do..hence my point "we are all shades of the same" and 2there is no "cut off point" when you change from one "race" to another....

Again this goes to the point of the thread of gentic profile.

Please read:

The visual differences we are attuned to don't tell us anything about what's beneath the skin. This is because human variation is highly non-concordant. Most traits are influenced by different genes, so they're inherited independently, not grouped into the few packages we call races. In other words, the presence of one trait doesn't guarantee the presence of another. Can you tell a person's eye color from their height? What about their blood type from the size of their head? What about subtler things like a person's ability to play sports or their mathematical skills? It doesn't make sense to talk about group racial characteristics, whether external or internal.

agreed

Genetic differences do exist between people, but it is more accurate to speak of ancestry, rather than race, as the root of inherited diseases or conditions. Not everyone who looks alike or lives in the same region shares a common ancestry, so using "race" as a shorthand for ancestry can be misleading. Sickle cell, for example, often thought of as a "racial" disease afflicting Africans, is actually a gene that confers resistance to malaria, so it occurs in areas such as central and western Africa, the Mediterranean, and Arabia, but not in southern Africa. In medicine, a simplistic view can lead to misdiagnoses, with fatal consequences. Racial "profiling" isn't appropriate on the New Jersey Turnpike or in the doctor's office. As evolutionary biologist Joseph Graves reminds us, medicine should treat individuals, not groups.

ancestry........ race.....this is merely playing the "new speak propaganda game" the word "race" has become a "dirty word" so we will call the same thing by a different name...pish

On the other hand, the social reality of race can have biological effects. Native Americans have the highest rates of diabetes and African American men die of heart disease five times more often than white men. But is this a product of biology or social conditions? How do you measure this relationship or even determine who is Native American or African American on a genetic level? Access to medical care, health insurance, and safe living conditions can certainly affect medical outcomes. So can the stress of racism. But the reasons aren't innate or genetic.

however the same can have other non social effects....some african groups have resistance to sleeping sickness...the same genetic trait causes sickle cell anaemia

Believing in race as biology allows us to overlook the social factors that contribute to inequality. Understanding that race is socially constructed is the first step in addressing those factors and giving everyone a fair chance in life.

and ignoring it causes a whole host of other problems....

would you also KINDLY answer my simple question...or are you just going to avoid it

what determines the level pf pigment in your skin
what determines your eye colour
what determines your facial characteristics

and just WHAT is it that passes thoes characteristics to the next generation

the fairy godmother?????

or genes

Your wasting your time with Didge , he's a fucking Psycho.

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:32 pm

Bless the usual reply from allakaka, just post gobbldygook and stir by sniffing around posters fro friends, so funny.

Why don;t you put a sign up allakaka, saying please be my friend

:D

Night lonely man have to go, you make me laugh you are so silly

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:33 pm

grumpy old git wrote:and theres didge saying that race isnt genetic.....

.

Didge is right it is not genetic, thus your first post was wrong, correct victor

I shall leave you to read your first post again.

lol

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:36 pm

ALLAKAKA wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

would you also KINDLY answer my simple question...or are you just going to avoid it

what determines the level pf pigment in your skin
what determines your eye colour
what determines your facial characteristics

and just WHAT is it that passes thoes characteristics to the next generation

the fairy godmother?????

or genes

Your wasting your time with Didge , he's a fucking Psycho.

i know....he would put 70,000 people out of work and laugh at them. all because they do something he doesnt like

by ALLAKAKA Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:49 pm

PhilDidge wrote:Bless the usual reply from allakaka, just post gobbldygook and stir by sniffing around posters fro friends, so funny.

Why don;t you put a sign up allakaka, saying please be my friend

:D

Night lonely man have to go, you make me laugh you are so silly

Something for you to sleep on , in any Civil war it's the Traitors , collaborators and the fifth columnists that hang first. Along with the enemy of course.

Sweet Dreams IMPORT.

by Guest Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:54 pm

hmmmm...in a civil war, i take it you mean here....wouldnt that imply revolution???

now, strictly speaking ...wouldnt THAT make the revolutionaries the "5th columnists"???

just askin like :D

by Sponsored content

Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European

Re: Dark skin, blue eyes: Genes paint a picture of 7,000-year-old European