Help me understand the origin of the different races.
I recently read a theory which says that there are esentially three different branches of homo sapiens: Asian Homo Erectus, European Homo Erectus and African Homo Erectus.
If that's so, then how do South Asians like Indians, Middle Easterners and Pakis fall into place? I don't understand if they are basically racemixing or a different branch of early homos. They look so different from North Europeans, its hard to believe they come from the same segment of homos.
A few couple dozen thousand years can do wonders to evolution, specially considering the principle of accumulative genetic mutations. Even among East Asians you can spot differences, like skin color and height. See: Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc.
The same could be said to Europeans, but because of far different envorinments have they developed more different features. Also, time. They were in Europe for longer than they were in E Asia.
So in a nutshell they're closer to Europeans than anyone else but its not *that* close.
founder effect- when a small number of people leave a place to migrate, they can't, probabalistically bring all the diversity with them, being a smaller group and not a random sample anyway, so a branch is formed of a different group
bottleneck is very similar
genetic drift - basically luck, some guy carrying some allele and his family burn in a house so the allele is forever gone because the guy and his family were sole bearers
selection, mutations - you know these ones
and finally for example with indians you get migrants coming in and mixing with local populace, so mixing is also part of it
all of this + low initial human population has resulted in a very high number of races, but 'populations' is a better word, because when you say race people think of blacks, whites and asians, which grossly underrates diversity
Dylan Evans
I'm pretty sure homo erectus got genocided by sapian at some point and the Neanderthals just died out naturally with some interbreeding.
Brandon Wood
>South Asians like Indians...pakis They are indoEuropean, hence caucasians that split off along with Iranians and mixed with Asiatic and negroid populations. >Middle easterners Arabs are semetic- hence AfroAsiastic
Jose Williams
First thing, Homo erectus isnt the same species as Homo sapiens, it's our predecessor
What you're referring to is the Multi-regional origin of modern human model, which is pretty much debunk and is really a cheap way to explain race. It's also very unlikely.
The modern and more acceptable model is the Out of Africa model, which states that modern anatomically correct human first originated in Africa and migrated out.
But this might not explain race right? That's because human races aren't define the same as biological races (unless you're an old skool forensic anthropologist). "Race" originated in the human species slowly through microevolution(changes in the frequency of allele in the gene pool), but does not appear in a cline. What cause these changes? Geographic isolation, gene bottlenecking, adaptation and culture. Certain trait are beneficial and lead to healthy babies, and longevity such as darker skin in sunnier areas which protects from melanoma and blah blah, while white skin is more beneficial is less sunnier area due to it's sensitivity to UV rays, which allows for easier production of Vitamin D, something some african american were deficient on until they started adding it to milk and other food items.
Now going back to H. erectus migration, so for the multiregional origin hypothesis to be correct we need to assume that H. erectus from Asia was the same as H. erectus from africa and europe.. which it might have not have been... Some fossil differ enough that archaeology actual argue if they're the same species, which is why the name H. ergaster(africa version), and H. habilus (asian version). So you need to assume that all these different predecessors were able to breed together, and that they all gave rise to similar anatomically correct human around the same time and that they were all able to breed together.
Brandon Garcia
Homo erectus didn't get genocide, they just died out because they were pretty shitty beta mammals, especially since H. erectus had such a far reach geography for example by the time humans got to the indonesia both H. erectus and H. florensiences were far gone. but just because you can make stone tools doesn't mean you're a alpha hunter, such as the peking man, they literary got their face rip apart by giant hyenas. and Neanderthals, did die off naturally, they weren't as good at hunting as we were, H. sapiens built seasonal camps following the migrational pattern of big game animals, while Neaderthals just set up camp were there was food probably not realizing seasonal availability and population decline.
Owen Richardson
...
Kevin Reyes
...
Cooper Wilson
...
Sebastian Jackson
...
Carson Ward
...
Wyatt Cruz
North Indians are mostly Indo-Euros, warrior mentality, not very smart
"pure" South Indians are the Dravidians, incredibly intelligent people,
Many other South Indians are however mixed with the Australoid people, who are actually the first people to inhabit India, they look almsot exactly like Australian abbos, and are just as intelligent.
Justin Moore
Semitic and Indo-European are language not racial groups you fucking mong.
Ryder Miller
They correlate pretty closely with racial groups though. Because believe it or not, for the vast majority of human history people didn't study foreign languages in their spare time.
Colton Gomez
>pure" South Indians are the Dravidians, incredibly intelligent people, But what is pure? Are Nairs, Bunts and Kodagus pure?
Christian James
No they don't, Pajeet. A French speaking nigger is still a nigger and not Caucasian.
Nolan Gonzalez
First of all, I wasn't him. Second of all you missed
>history
You stupid fucking nigger, you think niggers spoke french before colonialism? KILL YOURSELF.
Jacob White
The niggers were linguistically assimilated, you know, that process that happens all around the fucking world.
How come Hungarians look like their Slav neighbors and not like Asians? How come Turks look like Greeks and Armenians and not like Kazakhs?
Language =/= race you dumb shit.
Thomas Young
>The niggers were linguistically assimilated, you know, that process that happens all around the fucking world. Not before the globalization of the 19th/20th centuries you dumb fucking retard.
>How come Hungarians look like their Slav neighbors and not like Asians? >How come Turks look like Greeks and Armenians and not like Kazakhs? Because they mongrelized, faggot.
Grayson Williams
It literally happened since the dawn of time you stupid fuck, like when Akkadian upper caste originally spoke Sumerian or how post-Alexander cities in the Levant and Egypt spoke Greek despite not being ethnically Greek. Faggot.
they are essentially papuans, some mixed with various invaders
Jace Martin
looks like this is a good thread to ask this... my skin looks like pic related, but my hair is shittier and darker. what group am I? how close am i to le superior aryan mustard race? how close am i to arabs and south asians?
Adrian Bell
can anyone explain me how those human tribes survived trekking across massive lengths of ice caps?
Michael Cruz
they followed migrating animals and the ice sheath was very thick
Christian Carter
>close am i to le superior aryan mustard race Be thankful you're not snownigger
Jack Anderson
East Asians and Europeans are more gentically similar than West Africans and East Africans.
Thomas Martin
WE
Brayden Anderson
>Even among East Asians you can spot differences, like skin color and height. See: Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc. East Asians can't tell each other apart.
t.Chink
Jason Ortiz
This, Europeans and, hell, even nignogs (though to a lesser degree) are much more diverse looking.
Telling female chinks apart is especially difficult, this is why I dropped Marco Polo.
Parker Garcia
you know britain and usa sent their biggest lads for that pic, right (probably russia too).
Levi Russell
...
John Edwards
> can anyone explain me how those human tribes survived trekking across massive lengths of ice caps?
The prevailing (and obviously most sensible) theory is that they _didn’t_ trek across massive lengths of ice caps but traveled along the edge of the ice sheet and the coast in canoes/kayaks, which is why the earliest habitation sites are all lost; they’re now underwater.
And while the politically correct anti-Solutrean academics propose this theory as being a perfectly valid explanation for ancient Asian immigration in the Americas, it’s of course completely impossible for ancient Europeans do have done the same thing…
Bentley Nguyen
>This, Europeans and, hell, even nignogs (though to a lesser degree) are much more diverse looking.
Nope only if you've lived near theming enough and bother to notice the difference can you really tell differences.
Jaxon Taylor
>Nope only if you've lived near theming enough and bother to notice the difference can you really tell differences. No,as long as you look East Eurasian the locals will address you by their native language.
Genetically,Koreans/Japanese/Northern Chinese aren't that far apart.
Christian Murphy
>And while the politically correct anti-Solutrean academics propose this theory as being a perfectly valid explanation for ancient Asian immigration in the Americas, it’s of course completely impossible for ancient Europeans do have done the same thing… I don't get why political correct people would have any specific interest in working against that theory, or why any white-pride fellows would want to advocate it for that matter. The Solutreans should have been quite different to the modern average European with most of its genes from Anatolian farmers and Indo Europeans.
Matthew Bell
Where would the Maori fit into these three?
Asher Powell
>That one spot in Africa What?
Aiden Russell
Not him, but because "You can't do that, the Indians are the native people of this country! Only natives can do [x thing I don't like]!" argument will go right out the window of Anglo-Americans are, at least in some capacity, the natives of the land. It will force people to accept that either A) Anglo-Americans are the natives of the United States as they (Europeans, at least in some dilute capacity) got there first, or that nativitiy is fluid and Anglo-Americans have been on the land long enough to be native to it.
Pic related. It goes right out the window if Anglo-Americans are not, in fact, immigrants (They aren't of course, they're settlers and colonists, but in the eyes of the uneducated masses there's no difference).
I'd of course say there is no real force working against the Solutrean hypothesis and that any reluctance to accept it is based on a lack of evidence rather than politics, but anyone who isn't willing to let someone waste their time searching for evidence of it is clearly politically biased.
Michael Butler
Homo erectus wasn't a modern human species. They died out 70,000 years ago and probably didn't breed much with Homo sapiens. They were also behaviorally nothing like even the most out-there cultures of Homo sapiens.
Jacob Martinez
First language correlated with racial groupings to a large degree, but believe it or not, ancient peoples were often multilingual. This phenomenon continues today in places like New Guinea.
Camden Rodriguez
There were definitely Greeks in the region. Cleopatra's family was Greek.
William Lee
They're Polynesians, also known as Austronesians. They're related to most other peoples of the Pacific Islands (not New Guinea though), insular Southeast Asia, and Taiwanese Aborigines.
Luis Watson
> I don't get why political correct people would have any specific interest in working against that theory
Because political correctness dictates that Europeans (particularly Euro-Americans) are inherently evil and responsible for all the world’s ills and that ancient immigration to the Americas came from Asia and ONLY from Asia.
If it were shown that ancient Europeans had also immigrated to the Americas and had done so before the ancient Asians, this would throw a wrench into the official narrative.
