John Wilkes Booth

I thought that type of classification was outdated. Either way, those groups are arbitrary at best.

You're assuming they 'lost' the other traits due to interbreeding. It's just as likely that they never had them.

When you're dealing with people migrating to vastly different environments (arctic vs desert vs jungle etc) then there's no reason why basic facial features and skin tones couldn't diverge in 10,000 years. The short flat nose depicted would correspond perfectly with the hot, tropical environment the Olmecs lived in. It's not even really a 'negroid' feature, as there are black populations that don't live in the tropics which have longer noses.

As for making contact, I am perfectly open to the idea that Polynesians did make contact before Columbus. This was when... like 500 AD? Like 1500 years too late to have seeded the Olmec civilization?

Lord Larehip

But if we do away with the concepts, how do classify a large group of people who share the same genetic traits that set them off from another group? It's like saying the grouping of dogs into terriers and hounds is arbitrary since they are all just wolf genes. Okay, so what? It's still a useful grouping. It's silly to classify grey hounds, dachschunds and basset hounds each as a group unto itself when, in fact, they share similar characteristics that makes them all hounds and sets them apart from dogs we classify as terriers. Even if hounds and terriers could say they find the classifications offensive, oh well, it's still useful and they shouldn't be offended. If they are--tough tittie. Grow a pair and get used to it.

Even then, what does that mean? Genes are either dominant or recessive. Even within a racial group or genotype, certain genes become recessive or dominant due to contact with a different environment (what we call phenotype) that produces variations not seen in other members sharing that genotype. And this happens without interbreeding. In fact, you will often see greater differences in them than in people who are a product of interbreeding.





















But that doesn't hold across the board. It's a general rule not absolute. Other Indians in Mexico that lived in the same region and climate had far different facial features. When blood-type studies were done on African tribes, there was no correlation between neighboring tribes as we would have thought. Instead, the blood-type correlations were found in tribes that lived far apart and often outside of Africa. Neighboring tribes show different origins.

We don't know that. It's just as silly to think contact only happened once. Polynesian are called "Poly-" for a reason. They are a mixture of people so different groups of them made contact at different times in different regions. We know this for certain as Kennewick Man and Spirit Cave Man have already proven--Polynesians were living in North America but they bore no resemblance to Samoans or Melanesians. In fact, since they showed some genetic similarities to the Ainu of Japan, these two examples would have been more Caucasoid than Negroid.

John Wilkes Booth

I meant I thought it was outdated because it doesn't actually represent 3 distinct genetic subgroups and is determined rather by superficial markers that don't necessarily point to a common origin. Thus maybe not all that useful.
Not really sure what your point here is. Or rather, I get your point but I'm not sure how it helps your argument that the pictures I posted are members of the 'negroid' group. Groups are diverse and can vary. Great. So why do they have to be a part of the diverse 'negroid' group with certain features that are atypical of that group as opposed to members of one of the other 2 diverse groups with certain features that are atypical of those groups.
It's not an absolute, but it's a general rule for sound evolutionary reasons. So how far fetched is it that different populations living in different regions developed different features over that time span? Even if it was just selection for different traits that were already present in their gene pool.
To me, it's silly to assume that contact happened at whatever point in time we want it to based on the facial features of a statue. It's reasonable to think the Polynesians made contact in the first millennium AD because there's actual evidence for that.

Dr_Rez

Lord Larehip you are a negroid mongoloid.

__________________
*Best chance of losing virginity is in prison crew*
*Always Checks Credentials Crew*
*nba > nfl crew*
*Shave one of my legs to pretend its a girl in my bed crew*

Lord Larehip

In complete honesty, you're not far off.

The Batlord

And I suspect he wears a hat and has a job. He may even bring home the bacon as well.

__________________

Lord Larehip

And my friends are unaware.

Sansa Stark

Yeah but are you happier than him and me?

anticipation

The term "Indian" does not mean the same thing as indigenous. There is no such thing as "Mexican Indian", "American Indian", those are hilariously false and antiquated beyond banality. I'm sorry but don't expect educated people to believe your racist blanket statements disguised as pseudoscience if you don't at least try to fool them with rhetoric.

Lord Larehip

Hmm. Okay, let's test that:

"northern Mexican Indian, member of any of the aboriginal peoples inhabiting northern Mexico."

northern Mexican Indian (people) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Mexican Indian Tribes and Languages
The above site is called "Mexican Indian Tribes and Languages. One of the books it recommends is called:

Mexico Indian Folk Designs: 252 Motifs from Textiles:
"Art book presenting illustrations of traditional designs from indigenous Mexican tribes."

Indigenous Peoples of Mexico
This site is belongs to Indians.org and is titled "Indigenous Peoples of Mexico."

So, yes, there are Mexican Indians and they themselves consider themselves both Indians and indigenous.

Now, let's look for American Indian:

American Indian College
Here is a website for the American Indian College.

American Indian Center of Chicago
Here's one for the American Indian Center - Chicago

The history of American Indians of North America
Another Indians.org site called "American Indians."

I think we can lay your canards to rest at this point, don't you? Wonderful thing--the internet. Know what's great about it? You can do research BEFORE you run your mouth and then you can keep your big, flat foot out of it. Makes it a lot easier to talk and eat.

Yeah.