posted
Why would anyone think that Caucasoid features only occurred in one location and no where else? What evidence supports this kind of concept?
Doesn't Convergent Evolution teach us that people living in a similar climate and on somewhat the same diet should over time converge in terms of features?
From my point of view, a lot of civilizations would appear to be Caucasoid only because certain climates are more advantageous to high population density and yield a similar diet and result in some common adaptive features. It has nothing to do with organic relatedness.
The weak minded simply see a mixed race people when looking at Horn Africans such as the Borana. But in reality, the Semitic people that are part of their population are no more Caucasoid than the Borana people themselves.
The simple fact is that Horn Africans look the way they do due to natural selection and not because they have been superimposed by invading Caucasoids.
This is simple to show. The Amahara who are a Semitic-Cushitic people are often more Negroid in appearance than the more indigenous East Africans the Borana.
Amhara:
Borana:
If the Borana are a mixed Semitic-Cushitic people and the Caucasoid element is from the Semitic side, then how did the Borana get their features which actually have a nasal index more narrow than the average Palestinian?
---------------------------------------
Keita, S. O. Y., and Rick Kittles. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence. American Anthropologist September, 1997 Vol. 99(3):534-545.
The authors analyze the popular theories of race and racial divergence. They point out the many inconsistencies in the attempt to classify races based on physical diversities and geography. Race, for the purpose of this article, is defined in classical terms as the "collection of uniform individuals who comprise relatively distinct units." Classical terms describing race, such as Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid, among others, are found to be too broad or too narrow to be of any use in terms of describing human diversity. One of the major issues analyzed here are ideas about when, where, and under what circumstances human divergences took place. Keita ands Kittles point out that until recently it was thought that the most important divergence was between Africans and non-Africans. It was discovered recently, however, that Africa displays the most genetic variation, even though, due to phenotypic similarities, Africans had been previously regarded as largely homogenous. While the extent of this diversity was previously thought to be the result of the constant migrations of non-African groups into Africa over the millennia, this assumption has been found to be incorrect.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:then how did the Borana get their features which actually have a nasal index more narrow than the average Palestinian?
According to nasal breadth, the noses of the ladies in the OP would be narrow, yes, but not according to index. Their Nasal height is much too sbort to yield a very low (narrow) index.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
The French actually have broader nasal index at an average of 69.4.
So in this one particular so called Caucasoid feature we find that Oromo actually have thinner noses. How can that be if they are mixed with Negroid?
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting, so Oromo are not at all among the Africans with the most narrow nasal index, and they are preceded by Bantu speakers such as the Teita, according to the Oromo sample of your source.
Can you post it?
For those who don't know, it should be noted though, that Oromo and french indices obviously hide the internal profile of the dimensions of the two variables that make up each index. Meaning: while their index is similar, it is highly unlikely that both indices are caused by similar dimensions in Nasal height and Nasal breadth.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: [QB] Why would anyone think that Caucasoid features only occurred in one location and no where else?
Get out of here already with your incessant use of defunked terms, seriously...you do this all the time just stop it.
They're not carcass-oid aka 'Caucasoid' features in the first place so stop promoting it. Get it?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
People here often erroneously claim that the similarity in facial features between Caucasoids and Aethiopids is merely due to convergent evolution and adaptation to dry environments.
This does not make any sense whatsoever, most of Ethiopia is as green and wet as it can get in Africa. Dry climates are also no guarantee for slender Caucasoid features, just look at the Australian aborigines in the Australian desert (their features are very robust and broad) or the Khoisan in the Kalahari desert.
Caucasoid facial features originated in the Fertile Crescent region of the Middle East. Expansions from this region brought Caucasoid features in Europe/North Africa/East Africa/South Central Asia.
Any African with Caucasoid features (narrow facial features) has ancient ancestry from the Near East.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri says Caucasoids have narrower slit shaped nostrils, a cold adpatation, while black people have rounder nostril openings. The Explorer has also indicated that there are particular nose shapes that are distinct to the Caucasoid.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: People here often erroneously claim that the similarity in facial features between Caucasoids and Aethiopids is merely due to convergent evolution and adaptation to dry environments.
This does not make any sense whatsoever, most of Ethiopia is as green and wet as it can get in Africa. Dry climates are also no guarantee for slender Caucasoid features, just look at the Australian aborigines in the Australian desert (their features are very robust and broad) or the Khoisan in the Kalahari desert.
Caucasoid facial features originated in the Fertile Crescent region of the Middle East. Expansions from this region brought Caucasoid features in Europe/North Africa/East Africa/South Central Asia.
Any African with Caucasoid features (narrow facial features) has ancient ancestry from the Near East.
^ a religious diffusionist? Or would you be able to actually make an argument?
How do you support your claim besides simply preaching your faith?
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: alTakruri says Caucasoids have narrower slit shaped nostrils, a cold adpatation, while black people have rounder nostril openings. The Explorer has also indicated that there are particular nose shapes that are distinct to the Caucasoid.
cold adaptation causes narrow noses? What about dry adaptation?
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: [QB] Why would anyone think that Caucasoid features only occurred in one location and no where else?
Get out of here already with your incessant use of defunked terms, seriously...you do this all the time just stop it.
They're not carcass-oid aka 'Caucasoid' features in the first place so stop promoting it. Get it?
Caucasoid is just a word. What has been debunked is its use in defining racial groups.
Still waiting for someone to prove that convergent evolution isn't the best explaination for people with the same some of the same facial features found in locations where there is little evidence of significant Caucasian migration.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with the Categorization of correlating Narrow features with Caucasoid features.
Categorizing Caucasoid features as "Narrow" would eventually yield inconsistent results in determining appropriate taxonomic classification. In addition, it is also interesting to note that this Caucasoid appellation has become too expansive to the point it attempts to title the monotypic variation belonging to other differing taxonomic classifications into its own taxonomic system.
Osirion, what determines the physiognomy of Mongoloids within the taxonomic system if you believe Negroids are defined by their broadness and Caucasoids are defined by their Narrowness?
Mongoloids?:
Where do they fit within such a classification system?
Posts: 535 | From: From the Darkest of the Abyss | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Caucasoid is just a word. What has been debunked is its use in defining racial groups.
What the heck? The sole purpose of the word in the first place is defining racial groups based on exterior anatomical traits not based on any biological relationship because race has no place in biology. What has to be discarded is use as the word altogether. It's not the use of the word, but the definition of the word and ultimately the word itself
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:just look at the Australian aborigines in the Australian desert (their features are very robust and broad) or the Khoisan in the Kalahari desert.
Do you define Australian Aborigines as Negroid by the Broadness of their features? If not, why not?
quote:Any African with Caucasoid features (narrow facial features) has ancient ancestry from the Near East.
If you follow this premise, are you willing to accept the opposing following premise vice versa?
quote:Any European with Caucasoid features (broad facial features) has ancient ancestry from Africa.
If not, why not?
If you are arguing for the existence in biological race then shouldn't consistent and accurate arguments be formulated for better results?
If not then how can you argue race from your perspective without any formulation of consistency and accuracy? To deny/reject this approach would only prove the psychological belief in biological race as rather political and nonsensical, not factual.
Posts: 535 | From: From the Darkest of the Abyss | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I prefer "narrow" to "Caucasoid" when describing the facial features of Northeast Africans. Using "Caucasoid" implies that these features have something to do with Occidental gene flow into Africa, since "Caucasoid" has traditionally been used as synonymous with Occidental populations. Why use the C-word at all when "narrow" does just fine?
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Dry climates are also no guarantee for slender Caucasoid features, just look at the Australian aborigines in the Australian desert (their features are very robust and broad) or the Khoisan in the Kalahari desert.
Are you sure these populations have always lived in the desert? Because I recall from Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel that most Australian aborigines originally lived along the coast until European invaders drove them further inland. I wouldn't be surprised if Bushmen living in the Kalahari today were also driven there by Bantu and European settlers.
Posts: 7094 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Siptah: I disagree with the Categorization of correlating Narrow features with Caucasoid features.
Categorizing Caucasoid features as "Narrow" would eventually yield inconsistent results in determining appropriate taxonomic classification. In addition, it is also interesting to note that this Caucasoid appellation has become too expansive to the point it attempts to title the monotypic variation belonging to other differing taxonomic classifications into its own taxonomic system.
Osirion, what determines the physiognomy of Mongoloids within the taxonomic system if you believe Negroids are defined by their broadness and Caucasoids are defined by their Narrowness?
Mongoloids?:
Where do they fit within such a classification system?
Very attractive is where the first girl fits in my definition book. OMG! She is cute.
I think Orientals in general are a very good reason why you cannot use Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid to classify people into racial groups. Though if you just look at Caucasoid based on facial feature description - as in - narrow elongated features - I can see how it can be still valid.
My wife is Korean and personally she is more Negroid in appearance than I am.
Words are just used to communicate an idea. In this case, it gives you an idea of how people look. What is wrong is to say that they look that way because of diffusionistic principals.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Caucasoid is just a word. What has been debunked is its use in defining racial groups.
What the heck? The sole purpose of the word in the first place is defining racial groups based on exterior anatomical traits not based on any biological relationship because race has no place in biology. What has to be discarded is use as the word altogether. It's not the use of the word, but the definition of the word and ultimately the word itself
The original purpose was to define racial groups. It is now only useful for describing appearance but cannot tell you anything about the persons genetic history or lineage.
Example: dig up the skull of this Ainu man and you may get Caucasoid. Check his DNA and you will get Malonesian/Negrid.
Is it just me or do many people here is this forum simply not understand evolution? It RANDOM mutation that is happening ALL THE TIME. It doesn't just happen once it is constantly happening. We are all mutants of one sort or another. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM!
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Dry climates are also no guarantee for slender Caucasoid features, just look at the Australian aborigines in the Australian desert (their features are very robust and broad) or the Khoisan in the Kalahari desert.
Are you sure these populations have always lived in the desert? Because I recall from Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel that most Australian aborigines originally lived along the coast until European invaders drove them further inland. I wouldn't be surprised if Bushmen living in the Kalahari today were also driven there by Bantu and European settlers.
Don't fall into Perahu's trap of Bushman uniformity. Khoison peoples are just as diverse phenotypically as well as in cranium size as the climates they inhabit, and they have often clustered with Somali's, Egyptians and other northeast Africans morphologically. In fact, Cavalli Sforza called them Caucasoid in the pre genetic era, and many Northeast African crania have been misidentified as Khoisan, even the Egyptian E series, see Tobias.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Explorer had posted the following examples of Caucasian noses:
quote:Originally posted by the Explorer:
___^^^^^^^
The Explorer, alTakruri as well, have also pointed out that one the key characteristics of the Caucasian nose is the narrower nostril openings:
quote:Originally posted by the Explorer:
Of course there is such a thing as features that are not African, granted that African diversity encompasses much of that found outside of the continent. The Pinocchio-like tip of the nose that is frequently found in northern west Eurasians is generally rare, if not absent, in autochthonous African populations.
Likewise, certain hair textures found in Europe are rare to absent in Africa.
....the opening of the nostrils are relatively narrower....
.....long nostril openings, which appear as though someone is pressing on the nostrils.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I wouldn't mock the concept of "Caucasoid" just yet. As mentioned in a recent thread of mine, there does exist a larger genetic cluster which corresponds to "Caucasoid", so I think Caucasoids are real.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Race is determined by skin colour, hair type, and facial features.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic