Where did caucasians originate from?

What a retard, for once I have ti agree with the tripfag, skull shape varies WIDLY within the same COUNTRY in some cases, see Italy

>skull shape varies WIDLY within the same COUNTRY in some cases, see Italy
You're retarded, skull shape is the same between populations that are racially the same.

...

What a retarded fuck, Google skull lenght in Europe and you'll see that or varies a lot, even within the same country in some cases

But they still share caucasian features

>even within the same country in some cases

Although the other poster is an idiot, you're not right.

That skullshapes vary within the same country means nothing, since countries are not racially uniform, not even ethnically uniform. A country is a geopolitical entity, not a racial one.

You are a willfully ignorant moron.

Why does everyone on Veeky Forums pretend to be so fucking smart? All it is is you guys calling each other morons without presenting a single argument. Am I on fucking reddit?

Clearly Caucasians descend mostly from Neanderthals.

The tripfag brought an end to the actual discussion by providing the truth. Everything after that point is just squabbling.

Yakub

What truth? He just babbles some shit aboutva so calle aryan race.

We're talking about Italy and they're all Caucasians according ti racist definition

>racist definition

...

I mislabeled the skulls can you tell which is which?

Which skull do you think is the most racist?

...

Right could be a nigger you stupid fuck

No, this is a negroid skull.

This is the skull of blacks.

>2017 and people still believe that the Caucasian race comes from the caucuses, because a white-supremacist scientist in the 19th century said that people from the caucuses were beautiful and so were Caucasians.
>Funnily enough, the same scientist was only referring to white Europeans, and did not include any other Caucasoids as being from the caucuses.

>white europeans
To be specific, northern/western europe.

Hyperborea

Is this about attractiveness?

Don't know.

So from this chart, Iran is more Indo-European than Poland?

How is this possible? Or am I reading it wrong?

Its not white. Its just distance. They tested shared SNP's. Polish and Iranians are equidistant from Arabs. Iranians more towards Caucasus HG, and Poles obviously to other European pops.

But the fact that they're really close to Ossetians, the undoubted descendants of Alan's (Scythian tribe) I guess means that they're not memeing about their ethnogenesis.

But you won't ever hear me saying that because they're mudslimes now.

top is nigger
you can see by the giant donkey teeth

Iran and ossetia are the only indo-euros on their cluster, my dude.

Northeast Africa if you go by the caucasoid skull category

So egypt?

Ebin

whites/caucasians are cromagnons

caucasoid is the most flexible and convenient phenotypical grouping that is extended to include superficial "caucasoids" (that actually belong to other races)

mixed groups such as north africans, middle easterners, indians, hispanics (mestizos), amerindians, ainus, east africans, central asian turkics, have all been labelled caucasoid due to weak superficial similarities.

it is ignorant and supremacist to favor the caucasoid grouping over non-caucasoid when labelling mixed groups

truth is:
north africans are a mix of west africans, east africans, mediterraneans and arabs

middle easterners are a mix of west africans, east africans, mediterraneans, iranians and indians

hispanics (mestizos) are a mix of africans, amerindians, europeans, arabs

indians are a mix of native veddoids, elamites, arabs, mongoloids, iranians

central asians are a mix of mongoloids, iranians, indians

caucasoid is misapplied as the default race for anyone that exhibits superficial traits as: straight hair, non-snub nose, non-everted lips, round eyes

So east europeans arent mixed with uralic mongoloids? And what south europeans?

*whats with southern europeans

The latter are mixed with the children of Ham.

they are, eastern euros are basically central asians

this

southern euros got haplogroup e which is african so they mixed

I think kurds would have similiar results too

Indians are usually about 60% "Caucasoid" which is a phenotypic construct to describe a category of West Eurasian populations, particularly those from climates similar to Middle East but with some threshold for cold adaptation.
The other 40% is composed of something genetically akin to East Asians but phenotypically more like Negroids.

they are superficial caucasoids

they are really Australoid, specifically Veddoid
the Australoid is the proto-race of Caucasoids and Mongoloids

the "causasoid" features are superificial and misidentified (ie:straight hair is not unique to caucasoids, indian abo nose misidentified as a special type of caucasoid nose)

pic related is a superficial caucasoid from australian abo tribe

> the caucuses

If you're not american (US, not the others), kill yourself, for you have brought great shame and upon your people.

Genetically South Asians are no more similar to Australian Aboriginals than they are to Vietnamese.
It's just the original phenotype of Eastern Non-Africans. Also the original phenotype of West Eurasians as well with few differences(Kostenki man).

People are so afraid to play the White Race card that they have to invent pseudo-categories like this just to include more melanin.

All Asians are the exact same

>BIOGENETICS
>RACE ARISES FROM THE FOLK
>ROOTRACES, FROM WHICH ALL ETHNICITIES DERIVE

shut up retard

And going by the chart, Indians are the exact same as Germans.

Fuck this.

Modern studies indicate that the mtDNA lineages in India belong to the Australoid M haplogroup, whose Indian variety (T at np16223) probably originated around 48000 +/- 1500 years before present (i.e. about 46000 BC), and more than 98% of the M individuals carry this variety. This haplogroup is reaches 96.7% amongst the Kotas of the South.

Among its lineages M2 is the most diverse and occurs in significantly higher frequency among the Austro-asiatic tribals. The M3 (frequent among Dravidian tribals), M4, and M5 are also found in significant numbers.

in india there still exists veddoids who speak the original australoid language related to austro-aboriginal lang

Haplogroup M2 [2] - found in South Asia
Haplogroup M3 [3] - found mainly in South Asia
Haplogroup M29'Q found among Papuans, Australian Aborigines
Haplogroup M31 [24] - found among the Onge, in the Andaman Islands[15]
Haplogroup M32 [25] - found in Andaman Islands
Haplogroup M33 [26] - found in South Asia
Haplogroup M33a - found in India
Haplogroup M34 [27] - found in South Asia
Haplogroup M40 [30] - found in South Asia[15]
Haplogroup M41 - found in South Asia
Haplogroup M42 [31] - found among Australian Aborigines
Haplogroup M5 [5] - found in South Asia
Haplogroup M6 [6] - found mainly in South Asia

Its based on actual similiarities which set the apart from other races. But keep whining becausE "NOOO I DONT WANT TO BE RELATED TO BROWN PEOPLE(or any other people) WAHH"

>mitochondrial DNA

These mitochondrial links go back so far in time they are meaningless.
The Andaman islanders like Onge are ever so slightly more closely related to South Asian Aboriginals but this doesn't extend to Australian Aboriginals or Papuans.

East Asians are nothing but phenotypically drifted/cold adapted "Australoids".

>Equating phenotypes with genetics
East Asians,Australasians and Andaman islanders(putatively similar to the original inhabitants of India) are the result of a trifurcation tens of thousands of years ago amongst the Eastern non African branch of humanity.

academic.oup.com/mbe/article/doi/10.1093/molbev/msw293/2838774/A-Working-Model-of-the-Deep-Relationships-of

Modern Indians are a complex mix of Onge like natives,East Asians of Austroasiatic/Tibeto Burman affinity,neolithic farmers from Iran and bronze age Indo European steppe invaders.

pnas.org/content/113/6/1594.full.pdf

>he thinks original Aryans were European white people and is shocked to learn they weren't

>somalians are caucasoid

Their traits are less gross than other nigs, but they're still far from as handsome as whites

population bottlenecks plus genetic drift does separate brothers, but the share familial origins

india/australia can be grouped under greater papua, cuz thats what they are

besides phetotypic/genetic continuity they also share linguistic continuity as mentioned earlier (though many such cases extinct)

>in india there still exists veddoids who speak the original australoid language related to austro-aboriginal lang

lexical similarities between the Great Andamanese language and the West Papuan languages. Wurm noted that the lexical similarities "are quite striking and amount to virtual formal identity [...] in a number of instances."

>india/australia can be grouped under greater papua, cuz thats what they are
Australasians and Andaman islanders are genetically distinct and separated by tens of thousands of years.

Onge is used as a proxy for ancestral south Indians who(with ancient dna) may prove to basal to modern Andaman Islanders.

No one in the right mind would equate Ust'Ishim with Kostenski 14 and Mal'ta 1 despite their common origins.

the concept of "caucasoid" pretty much revolves around the pointedness of the face
a caucasian is fundamentally identified by:
- high nasal root
- narrow tear shaped nasal cavity
- little to no prognathism
- compressed cheekbones
- zygomatic retreat
secondary traits like lip/ear shape as well as pigmentation are less important and are more useful for sub-racial classifications at best

truth is, most caucasoids do not posses all these features to the same degree, even in Europe, especially in the east, pseudo-mongoloid traits often appear(Putin is a good example)

in any case, I think the home of caucasoids is fundamentally the near east, all things considered, especially the very ancient near east, before west asian and african introgression

u wot neegir
the australoid race is 50+k yrs old
the indians, andamans, onge, papuans, australians all were one but moved to various territories

separated by distance and time for 50k yrs, they drifted with bottlenecks n shit

geez read a fuckin book

Maybe

>So striking is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland.

You're hopeless.

academic.oup.com/mbe/article/doi/10.1093/molbev/msw293/2838774/A-Working-Model-of-the-Deep-Relationships-of

Well now you are just cherrypicking

A mixture of various indigenous European pre-Agricultural Revolution humans, and 'Middle Easten' agricultural immigrants who spread into Europe over thousands of years. Different genetic drifts and selective traits emerged over thousands of years.

Worth noting that these ancient 'middle eastern' agriculturalists basically don't exist anymore. They are unrelated to modern Middle Easterners, who overwhelmingly belong to different haplogroups.

Only Lapps/Saami are 'pure indigenous Europeans', but they are of course a Siberian/Finnic branch. Basques are the next closest thing, but they do have some admixture from Roman times.

>Worth noting that these ancient 'middle eastern' agriculturalists basically don't exist anymore. They are unrelated to modern Middle Easterners, who overwhelmingly belong to different haplogroups.

They absolutely do. There is no population that could have replaced such a big indigenous population (inb4 le ebic arap rape mem). Iraqis are genetically still mostly same as ancient mesopotamians. They just speak a different language.

All good and fine until the last part.
Saami people are mostly just a mixture of modern day Europeans and Siberians with some elevated HG admixture.
Basques are mostly derived from Neolithic farmers.

>snazzy infografix

Mitochondrial DNA evidence supports northeast Indian origin of the aboriginal Andamanese in the Late Palaeolithic
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21477783

the Indian population is attributed to incessant, historical waves of migrations into India, the earliest, by the Australoid speakers around 70,000 years ago
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1513393/

Microsatellite diversity reveals the interplay of language and geography in shaping genetic differentiation of diverse Proto-Australoid populations of west-central India.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16323197

A common genetic substratum (Proto-Australoid stock) of the Oraon and Munda was evident
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21486165

Microsatellite diversity reveals the interplay of language and geography in shaping genetic differentiation of diverse Proto-Australoid populations of west-central India.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16323197

Peter Underhill, in a more recent study, showed genetic connections between the Andamanese and people from the Kusunda area of Nepal.
people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/ESCA-9-background.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Australoid
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopling_of_India

Are you mentally defective?
Australoid is just the phenotype. The ancestral genotype is called ENA(Eastern Non-African).

Japanese are ~100% ENA. ~Koreans 99%

Your image is extremely homoerotic

How so?

>cant into reading scientific research
>calls established scientific research mentally defective
The projection is unbelievable by this loser.

So in your view, is the ENA genotype itself Australoid or is some derivative of it Australoid?

Why are Horner Africans and South Indians here? Horner Africans are mixed race with some being mostly West Asian and the others winding up being Nilo-Saharan looking, with a lot of variation inbetween. and Indians are closer to Australian Aborigines the further south you get.

Whoever made this might as well add about 25% of African Americans and who knows how many non-white but "Caucasoid skull" having Hispanics.

>Clearly Caucasians descend mostly from Neanderthals.

Having 2% of your DNA come from Neanderthals doesn't make you a fucking Neanderthal. Hell, Asians have slightly more Neanderthal than Europeans.

Aborigine skull and Caucasian skull. The Aborigine skull looks robust compared to the Caucasian, but both are gracile compared to earlier human species, hell, even Homo sapiens idaltu and older members of our own species.

Neither are black.

Do people really think today that the "Aryans" were actually as white as modern Europeans? That's crazy.

They didn't replace them 1 for 1. Certainly not 'en masse' or suddenly.

As I said, populations interbred over the span of thousands of years, so that neither founder populations still exist in 'pure' form. The techniques of agriculture and sedentary culture would've also spread on the fringes, a vanguard of the actual 'middle eastern' settlers. Indo-Europeans spread into Europe via Crimean and then Anatolian cradles, not directly from Mesopotamia. Most likely it was the Anatolian IE branches that brought agriculture into Europe. They absorbed indigenous Anatolian (Urartians, Hattian) languages/cultures, mixed it up, and later these groups wandered into modern Greece, Romania, etc.

As you say, Mesopotamians largely stayed put. Most modern Iraqis are 'Semiticized'/Arabized mixtures from over the centuries. Assyrians are basically pretty distinct decedents of their ancient namesakes. Marsh Arabs are also fairly distinct genetically, probably representing the indigenous populations. Nonetheless, it is not they who came by ox-cart into Europe planting barley and shit.

>Horner Africans are mixed race with some being mostly West Asian and the others winding up being Nilo-Saharan looking

No there are plenty that are dark skinned and have low if any admixture of West Asian and have caucasian features

They literally made an entire study recently where they showed how the African component (ethiopic) is quite different from Nilo-Saharah and Niger-Congo. As much distance as between Europeans and South Asians

2% is a lower bound at best, the estimation is done with the Altai ""Neanderthal""(supposedly) DNA, which isn't exactly from a very important Neanderthal area
if human forager groups give us any clue, Neanderthals would've been as diverse if not much more, thus that 2% might just be shared drift common among Neanderthaloid populations but hardly representative of local Neanderthals
what's needed is some European Neanderthal DNA

but in any case, there are some morphological similarities with late Neanderthals, that's what's interesting

It implies 8 young attractive men of various cultures are standing naked in a line

The Altai neanderthals are basically Denisovans. Denisova cave IS literally the Altai group you talk about. Denisovans were an early split from 'European' neanderthal lineage. I don't think we know enough about them to say much more though.

We do know that Neanderthals and Denisovans also occasionally interbred. I believe one skull fragment has been found with the trifecta, a Human-Neanderthal parent and a Denisovan parent.

Also, we have no idea how numerous neanderthals were in their day. They were certainly apex predators, and good hunters, but total human populations were also relatively low until medicine and industrialization. Neanderthals had neither. Way before these, they already lost the evolutionary race with humans, becoming out-competed and/or out-gunned. They weren't total idiots, but until further proof, it's probably a fair guess that they were never that numerous either, especially after the ice age which would have certainly thinned their numbers.

European Neanderthals aren't relevant.
Europe was a genetic sink back in the day.

well they are relevant by virtue of Europe being the area where Neanderthal presence is most documented, thus that should be the area of focus
even the middle east is far more important in this regard compared to the Altai region

Not necessarily.
Europeans and Asians descend from an ancestral Central Asian population that existed over 45000 years ago and less than 60000 years ago.

Not unreasonable to think Central Asia may have been where most of the Neanderthal admixture happened. Just speculating here though but it's consistent with the facts.

At least a few different neanderthal 'lineages' are known for sure, though. European humans mixed with European neanderthals.

Melanesians are the population with the highest Denisovan admixture, fwiw. This is believed to have happened in central Asia or on either side of the Himalayas, before Melenesian ancestors were in Melanesia. They have some overlapping genes for brown hair, eyes and skin. Tibetans also have a gene that basically adapts them to high altitude lower-oxygen biomes, which has also been found in Denisovans.

>it is believed

People can believe anything they want but it's speculation until there's hard evidence.
Geneticists have been making up shit for decades and then been proven wrong when hard data came to play. Best to stick with the facts.

Andamanese don't have Denisovan and that means something, in my opinion.
SE Asia could very well be where the admixture happened. Tibetans are a minor detail.

What's the similarities between them and older races like the Khoisan and the Pygmies?

There's this archaic human set of skulls found in China that are around 120,000 years old that don't belong to modern humans. There's a chance that it may belong to Denisovans too, but only genetic research will tell.

not much pretty far apart

Those are the most far apart ethnicities to everyone on the map from what I've seen

Genetics has a lot to do with geography believe it or not.

It's Ukraine. Look at the borders of Ukrainian Scythia and Cimmeria. Khazaria also fits somewhat.

You do have the Indo-European tribal confederation appearing in Ukraine and the North Capsian area around five to six thousand years ago. It's not hard to think they travelled from further east. Countless nomadic peoples have travelled from Manchuria to the Carpathians via the steppe. It's a natural highway.

Someone post the unedited version.

Talking about the Red Deer Cave People in China?

I believe the current most subscribed speculation is that they were a successful (for a while) self-contained hybrid of homo sapiens and possibly Denisovans who lived until about 11 thousand years ago.

Homo erectus was in Asia and thrived for hundreds of thousands of years, so I wouldn't be totally surprised if an as yet unknown hominid emerged there from them, too. Still others say that the Red Deer Cave people are well within ranges of 'modern' homo sapiens morphology, just showing more 'primitive' physical features.

Asian hominid research is relatively unexplored.

...