science proves european dna from albino - not cold adapted

[Strange]

not true. people with oca2 have some pheomelanin present thus are able to tan. whereas people with oca1 do not.

 

So you accept the bits from your source that support your beliefs and reject the bits that you disagree with? That sort of cherry picking is not just unscientific, it is dishonest.

[wissen85]

 

OCA1 is a disease associated with mutations in the GPR143 gene, OCA 2 is a distinct form of albinism associated with mutations in the OCA2 gene.

 

There are no "stages" of Oculocutaneous albinism, there are multiple types with distinct, independent genetic causes.

i posted this picture because some of you are repeatedly asking the same quesions over agains thus i got the impression they do not understand the differences between type 1 albinism and type 2. by the way the girl with oca2 looks exactly like average german or english woman..

 

hans eiberg proved to you in vitro and in vivo, that oca2 is the root of european fair hair end blue eyes. what else do you need as proof? do you think nature would be so irrational as to select for tyrosinase defective genes which give you no advantage at all? even in cold climate whites get snowburn and cancer(scandinavia leads european statistic in skin cancer despite low uv). if you think white skin and blue eyes emegred as an adaptation with survival advantage, please explain to me what kind of evolutional advantage we whites have! if not then the only logical explanation is being derived from albinos.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5676687_Eiberg_H_Troelsen_J_Nielsen_M_Mikkelsen_A_Mengel-From_J_Kjaer_KW_et_alBlue_eye_color_in_humans_may_be_caused_by_a_perfectly_associated_founder_mutation_in_a_regulatory_element_located_within_the_HERC2

http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news66

If white skin was an adaption to cold climate then the natural sun light of Northern Europe would not be a death sentence to white people living there. We know that skin cancer among whites is highest in Northern Europe, because of the sun's magnified reflection from the ice hitting/burning your depigmented skin. If the natural climate of Northern Europe kills depigmented people then this means that white skin is not an "adaption" to any environment on Earth ...it's common sense.

 

 

the only cold adapted people on earth are inuit, eskimos and nenets..

Edited April 25, 2016 by wissen85

[Delta1212]

Again, leaving aside what the factual basis of the claim is or isn't, you keep speaking as if being derived from an albinism-related mutation and being an environmental adaptation were mutually exclusive.

 

Not only is that not accurate, the two things have nothing to do with each other.

[wissen85]

Again, leaving aside what the factual basis of the claim is or isn't, you keep speaking as if being derived from an albinism-related mutation and being an environmental adaptation were mutually exclusive.

 

Not only is that not accurate, the two things have nothing to do with each other.

still waiting for your explanation of what evolutional survival advantage white skin and blue eyes provide, so nature selected for it..

Edited April 25, 2016 by wissen85

[Arete]

hans eiberg proved to you in vitro and in vivo, that oca2 is the root of european fair hair end blue eyes. what else do you need as proof?

 

You just quoted two gwas studies that identified diagnostic SNP associations, That which is identified in Eiberg et al is in an intron upstream of OCA2 - so I'm not sure what you mean by "in vito and in vivo"... care to elaborate, given these are gwas rather than mechanistic studies? This is very different to identification of a causative polymorphism. Linkage disequilibrium and drift are plausible and possibly better explanations for fixed differences in non-coding gene regions.

 

not true. people with oca2 have some pheomelanin present thus are able to tan. whereas people with oca1 do not.

 

Are you discussing OCA2 the gene, or OCA2 the diagnosis? Everyone has the OCA2 gene, certain mutation thereof cause alibinism. Which mutation are you suggesting is fixed across the Caucasian/Hispanic/Turkish population, and causative of the phenotype? A SNP in an intron upstream of OCA2?

Edited April 25, 2016 by Arete

[Delta1212]

still waiting for your explanation of what survuval white skin and blue eyes have, so nature selected for it..

I don't need to prove that it does have a survival advantage in order to point out that the fact that it is caused by a mutation is not evidence that it doesn't, which you seem to be claiming.

[wissen85]

 

 

You just quoted two gwas studies that identified diagnostic SNP associations, That which is identified in Eiberg et al is in an intron upstream of OCA2 - so I'm not sure what you mean by "in vito and in vivo"... care to elaborate, given these are gwas rather than mechanistic studies? This is very different to identification of a causative polymorphism. Linkage disequilibrium and drift are plausible and possibly better explanations for fixed differences in non-coding gene regions.

 

 

Are you discussing OCA2 the gene, or OCA2 the diagnosis? Everyone has the OCA2 gene, certain mutation thereof cause alibinism. Which mutation are you suggesting is fixed across the Caucasian/Hispanic/Turkish population, and causative of the phenotype? A SNP in an intron upstream of OCA2?

 

oca2 is responsible for fair skin and blue eyes; oca2 is a type of albinism, logically oca2 = albinism = white people are albinos because oca2 is the cause of being white.

 

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask424

 

thus the need for sunglasses both in cold and sunny climate! sunglasses are not natural adaptation, common sense tells me that only oca2 albinos would have need to wear sunglases in cold and sunny climate and get snowburn, beause they are not born from natural selection but carry defective genes who are not able to produce tyrosinase.

 

http://unofficialnetworks.com/2012/07/goggle-tan-raddest-fken-tan-line-time

Edited April 25, 2016 by wissen85

[Strange]

Your own sources state that albinism is a rare disorder in white people. Therefore your claim that all white people are albinos is trivially falsified.

 

Posting irrelevant pictures of puppies and cherry picking quotations won't change that

[Arete]

logically oca2 = albinism = white people are albinos because oca2 is the main cause of being white

 

It's not logical, its nonsensical. OCA2 is a) a gene present on chromosome 15 in the genome of all humans, and b) A disease caused by mutations in the OCA2 gene that results in symptoms characteristic of albinism.

 

You statement, as quoted, doesn't make sense. Are you claiming that fixed mutations in OCA2 are responsible for the low relative melanin concentrations seen in light skinned human populations? If so, what mutation?

[wissen85]

 

It's not logical, its nonsensical.

now you deny that mutations in the TYR gene are responsible for light hair, skin and eyes?

Your own sources state that albinism is a rare disorder in white people. Therefore your claim that all white people are albinos is trivially falsified.

 

Posting irrelevant pictures of puppies and cherry picking quotations won't change that

you think i am still taking you for serious? you privided not single counterevidence from beginning of thread. you just troll around and always accuse me of something instead of being able to provide a single evidence which gives you status of a troll..

Edited April 25, 2016 by wissen85

[Arete]

now you deny that mutations in the TYR gene are responsible for light hair, skin and eyes?

 

No, that's not what I said, at all. Please try not to shift the goalposts. Could you please tell us what mutations in the OCA2 gene you are proposing cause light skinned phenotypes?

[Strange]

you think i am still taking you for serious? you privided not single counterevidence from beginning of thread.

 

I am using the evidence from your own sources. Those sources show you are wrong, but rather than admit it you accuse me of trolling. Sad.

[wissen85]

if fair skin and blue eyes is adaptation to low uv, then spaghetti monster rules the universe..

 

child sunburned in wales.. rickets in england.. scandinavia leading skin cancer ranking..

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014277/Schoolgirl-left-burned-teachers-ban-suncream-sports-day-practice.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-200848/The-return-rickets.html

 

solar insolation map, check briatain and scandinavia..

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/SolarGIS-Solar-map-Europe-en.png

 

and you call yourself scientific and claim to think rational??....

Edited April 26, 2016 by wissen85

[Arete]

if fair skin and blue eyes is adaptation to low uv, then spaghetti monster rules the universe..

 

Personal incredulity is not an acceptable substitute for empirical evidence - again, could you please state the mutations in OCA2 you're referencing, so we can determine if they are fixed in the Caucasian population? This forms the very foundation of your claim, so it's important to establish for the credibility of your idea.

 

and you call yourself scientific and claim to think rational??....

 

I set out an empirically sound method to test your claim. Instead of making any attempt to follow that methodology, you've obfuscated and now stooped to ad hominem attacks. This tactic tends to indicate that you lack the ability to conduct such analyses, or grasp the critique of your proposal. A person of a scientific inclination would generally want to pony up the data to satisfy not just others, but themselves.

[Moontanman]

still waiting for your explanation of what evolutional survival advantage white skin and blue eyes provide, so nature selected for it..

 

 

Let me take a stab at this totally meaningless question... wissen85 have you ever read about how evolution works? It's not always survival of the fittest, sometimes it's survival of the sexiest... Yes sexual selection is quite important and pale skin, blonde or red hair and blue eyes are unusual and the struggle of life and death often unusual traits that have no real survival advantage and maybe even a little bit of a disadvantage can still be selected if they make a person more sexually desirable than the run of the mill individual...

 

Personal incredulity is not an acceptable substitute for empirical evidence - again, could you please state the mutations in OCA2 you're referencing, so we can determine if they are fixed in the Caucasian population? This forms the very foundation of your claim, so it's important to establish for the credibility of your idea.

 

 

I set out an empirically sound method to test your claim. Instead of making any attempt to follow that methodology, you've obfuscated and now stooped to ad hominem attacks. This tactic tends to indicate that you lack the ability to conduct such analyses, or grasp the critique of your proposal. A person of a scientific inclination would generally want to pony up the data to satisfy not just others, but themselves.

 

 

arete isn't there data that indicates that dark complected people are more prone to certain birth defects when less sun exposure is experienced over their life time? I think I remember reading it someplace when investigating some other non related matter... Oh yeah, a naked woman on the beach who told me that sun exposure protects from some vitamin deficiency I lost my train of thought what were we talking about again?

[John Cuthber]

If, as Wissen seems to have done, you redefine "albino" to mean "not black as the ace of spades" then then the opening premise is true- at least in part.

Otherwise, it's not.

When I said this

"OK, lets just check on something.

By any conventional definition, I'm white. My ancestors are, at least for a few generations, almost entirely Scottish. (and, as it happens, my parents married in South Africa so a stupid legal system that was snotty about such things "declares" that I'm white).

So, according to you I am an albino.

However

I have brown eyes and dark brown hair; I tan if I go out in the sun.

So, according to any conventional definition, I am not an albino.

So, you are- at least by conventional use of the word "albino", wrong.

Are you saying that everyone else doesn't know what the word means?"

Your reply was

 

 

The most common type of albinism, is caused by mutation of the P gene. People with OCA2 generally have more pigment and better vision than those with OCA1, but cannot tan like some with OCA1b. A little pigment can develop in freckles or moles.[6] People with OCA2 usually have fair skin but often not as pale as OCA1, and pale blonde to golden, strawberry blonde, or even brown hair, and most commonly blue eyes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oculocutaneous_albinism

 

But, as I pointed out, I have dark brown hair- not red, and I tan in the sun.

So that clip from wiki is irrelevane.

Please answer my original question.

[swansont]

 

 

The most common type of albinism, is caused by mutation of the P gene. People with OCA2 generally have more pigment and better vision than those with OCA1, but cannot tan like some with OCA1b. A little pigment can develop in freckles or moles.[6] People with OCA2 usually have fair skin but often not as pale as OCA1, and pale blonde to golden, strawberry blonde, or even brown hair, and most commonly blue eyes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oculocutaneous_albinism

 

 

 

OCA1: 1 in 40,000

OCA2: 1 in 15,000

OCA3: unknown, but if it hasn't been determined, that means it's likely at an even lower rate than 1 or 2.

OCA4: "very rare outside Japan", so it's irrelevant to the discussion

 

That's around 0.01%, or less than a million people. Congratulations, you've cited material that falsifies your own hypothesis.

[wissen85]

just another set of irrational justifications and from psychological state of denial.. congratulations

 

you provided nothing to discredit the fact that white people are OCA2 tyrosinase defective (of course those real blondes and red heads with no admixture)

[Phi for All]

just another set of irrational justifications and from psychological state of denial.. congratulations

 

you provided nothing to discredit the fact that white people are OCA2 tyrosinase defective (of course those real blondes and red heads with no admixture)

 

!

Moderator Note

Ignoring the replies you don't like isn't scientific. You should have taken a stab at refuting the last few posts instead of trying to wave them away with your hands.

 

You've obviously spent a great deal of time and effort on this, but you aren't supporting the concept rigorously, and are choosing to brush off certain questions that would seem to invalidate your claim. That's not a productive methodology, especially in a discussion.

 

Unless you're prepared to answer all questions with evidence that supports your stance, don't bother bringing up this subject again. If you feel you can support yourself better, contact a staff member about starting a new thread on it.

 

There are obvious problems with this approach and it's pointless to talk about it until you're willing to address those problems. Thread closed.