>>11235216>This really only matters if such red hair genes are regularly found in European Hunter GatherersMaybe it's time to tak a step back;
1: If red hair is 80,000 years old,
2: And ancient Europeans didn't have red hair,
maybe ancient Europeans were't white, on any level? Maybe proto-whites lived somewhere else?
>And what would that matter?It would mean that humans had pale skin tens of thousands or years before modern Europeans.
Some neanderthals had red hair, and split from humans over 300,000 years ago. Humans in Africa evolved red hair. For some reason, hominids evolve red hair over and over again, even in tropical settings.
>and therefore just as non-white as if they had darker skinTrue - they would be an entirely different race of pale people, who just happened to also be ancestral to white people.
But that mass media and science act like these pale people didn't exist is motivated by politics - a desire to present dark humans as ancestral and somehow also oppressed by the pale humans and in need of gibs.
Maybe the reason red hair alleles aren't found in most populations is because pale red heads have, historically, been cut up and eaten as medicine like albinos still are today in Africa. Maybe the pale people fled Africa to avoid being eaten.
>The exact skin color they had might be guesswork, but they were probably darker than most modern EuropeansI have skin which would be intermediate in the hirisplex model. Being a heterozygote for the two derived MC1R allele will give you intermediate skin color and red hair, without any other derived pigmentation alleles.
They wouldn't have been pale like a modern ginger, but they'd have a skin color today only seen in whites.
Motala man - the first blue eyed blond - was a heterozygote for one derived SLC gene allele, yet also a carrier of he derived EDAR allele associated with Asian hair texture and sinodonty/sundadonty.
