Racially progressive tendencies in Homo sapiens

[Agrippa]

Racially progressive tendencies in Homo sapiens

Racially progressive tendencies in a race are typically modern sapiens features. In this context I mean neomorphic, new features, which are both balanced, versatile, under as much conditions as possible advantageous and efficient. The new feature must be generally advantageous or at least not disadvantageous, neutral, if considering as much factors as possible, to be called progressive. Usually this tendencies are on line with the general trends of Hominisation, f.e. decrease of prognathy, prominence of the upper jaw, changes in the position of the foramen magnum and the form and position of the parietal bone etc.
Knußmann said that different races have different progressive features. For the Negrids he mentioned the full lips in the Grzimek Enzyklopädie.
The dynamic of progressive types (Europids and Mongolids, with certain types being more progressive than the average of the race) replacing in prehistoric times more primitive variants was mentioned by v. Eickstedt (1963), Lundman (1952).
Rough translation:
"The other, even more progressive main race, the white race...", from Lundman, Umriß der Rassenkunde in historischer Zeit, 1952, S. 51.
"Very clear is the connection of races to the ontogenetic development: There are races, which retain the more childlike (paedomorphen) habitus (f.e. Palaemongolids, img 308 - look at the pictures posted in the phy. anthro. section from Knußmann), and such, which are more typical adult formed - or even overreaching (f.e. Nilotids, img 304).
"The protuberance of the mucous membrane (lips) of Negrids is a phylogenetically progressive, whereas the strong prognathy is an archaic (primitive) feature."
Knußmann (see below) S. 407.
"Highly specialised organisms or organs are being designated as phylogenetically progressive. Phylogenetic primitivity is the retaining of original, undifferentiated features. (very rough The (theoretical of primitivity) advantage is the potential for further specialisation in more directions..."
- means: Primitives can develop, Progressives already developed. If there new development if advantageous, there form is it. Now my point is not everything new is progressive, insofar I use it like Eickstedt and Lundman, because only advantageous and versatile features are progressive, too one sided overspecialised (took further potential).
"Original ("ancestral") features are also called plesiomorphies, specialised "derived" as apomorphies.
Knußmann, Vergleichende Biologie des Menschen, 2nd edition 1996, S. 268-269.
There are various threads in which I described what progressive should mean.
Some images which show progressive-neomorphic evolutionary trends during hominisation.
First the general developments of the skull:


2nd the development of the lower jaw - positive chin:


Deviating tendencies, a metrical comparison, tropical primitives (Weddoid: Malid) compared with progressive Europids (Indid: Nordindid):


Extreme paedomorphy of the skull and body compared with a normal development of progressive mature leptomorphic Europids:


Compare with Lundmans scheme of body racial body types and this thread about leptomorphic body form:
Lundmans racial body typology
Various links in this thread.
About prognathy I made a thread on Stirpes, attachments are lost unfortunately:
Racial Prognathy - protruding facial profile
Nasal shape:
http://forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43261
So progressive features are, from the perspective of late Hominisation and more advanced sapiens forms if compared with the more archaic, primitive strata features like orthognathy, positive chin, full lips, higher rooted nose, narrower nose, etc.
Lighter pigmentation could be considered progressive as well, but is more dependent on the climatic conditions, though lighter, but not too depigmented skin is advantageous because of a higher grade of attractiveness (sexual attractiveness can be considered generally advantageous and therefore progressive if not too disadvantageous because of other factors) and while light skin can be protected and light skinned individuals can survive in an environment which has a high UV concentration, dark skinned individuals can, without modern technology, not that easily compensate their darker skin, their UV-filter in an extreme environment with low UV concentrations. But as I said, generally speaking pigmentation is not generally progressive or not but rather directly adaptive.
Balanced Neoteny, which is progressive, means that more juvenile to paedomorphic feature are being retained, but without any reduction, loss of differentiation, potential and generally mature appearance of males in particular. So a balanced result of Neotenisation for both sexes without general reduction and loss of potential - thats of course progressive. It doesnt only lead to a more attractive appearance, but could also lead to new potential developments if looking at the braincase - so this was a general trend in Hominisation = progressive. Associated with this process are various developments (f.e. reduction of prognathy, lower face "pushed" under the braincase, headhole "migrating", development of a positive chin etc.) which point to a general progressive, propulsive character. Generally all new traits which are not generally disadvantageous, dont reduce the versatile potential, can be considered being progressive, neomorphic.
For racially progressive examples of modern mankind see here:
http://forum.skadi.net/showthread.ph...204#post348204

[Agrippa]

First about ortho-, retrognathy:
First orthognathy looks more attractive which makes it more desirable per se, but as important is that we have to look at the process of hominisation and generally higher development in our genus, even in mammals.
There were various steps of importance in hominisation which affected since Homo erectus with some exceptions mostly the skull whereas the body already reached a high standard and rather degenerated occasionally though certain advantageous adaptations of the body are younger as well:

We can see partly even degenerated, overspecialised branches of Hominids before (Australopithecus robustus) and after erectus (Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis) or in modern racial types (Bambutid, Sanid, Palaemelanesid).
Example for a one sided overspecialisation with concentration on the chewing apparatus and low energy hard vegetable foods - Australopithecus robustus (would call him "the Panda" of Hominisation...) compared with the more versatile and progressive Australopithecus africanus (note the bony crest and enormous zygomatic bones):

The developments on skull affected various areas but quite important is what was chanced at the base of the skull, especially the sphenoid bone position and angle and the positon of the formen magnum. This trend was usually associated with a decreasing grade of prognathy and a "movement of the face" under the braincase - together with a reduction of the teeth numbers and whole chewing apparatus - though the last is relative and not necessarily a main cause in my opinion.

This changes made not only a different facial form and bigger braincase possible, they also changed the centre of gravity (which moved up to the hip for the whole body and backward on the head) for which especially the changing spine and moving foramen magnum was crucial:

The Neandertal was, if compared with sapiens rather primitive in many ways, whats particulary striking, is the fact that the principle form of the braincase didnt change - just the size increased - the opposite is true if comparing with the sapiens innovation:

Even the centre of gravity of the skull was less balanced you can see that the skull-spine angle is very different:

Its important to note that even in the most progressive Homo sapiens the head is not fully balanced, in fact, an improvement would be possible - though the counterweight or muscle power necessary to keep the head straight is constantly decreased from Australopithecines to Homo sapiens with Homo neanderthalensis being still rather on the erectus level - again position of the spine and foramen magnum should be kept in mind.
The decreasing prognathy is also important during Hominisation if looking at the palatine:

But whats really important is that the features are balanced, because imbalanced orthognathy-retrognathy leads to dental and jaw-problems. We could even argue that many progressive Eurasians suffer from that, the development is in fact not optimal and balanced in every case and needs still improvement.
However, lets look what balanced retrognathy of a very progressive and fully balanced individual means if compared with primitive racial prognathy:

Prognathic female Negrid skull:


The comparison of the positive chin of the progressive individual with the primitive negative chin of the archomorphic one reveals the same pattern:


If its about the nasal shape, I explained in this thread the various advantages and almost zero disadvantages of higher rooted, bridged and rather narrow-clear cut to prominent noses.
http://forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43261
They are not just functionally advantageous and give a possible advantage if its about appearance, its also a sign for a certain constitution - in balanced cases associated again with the higher bred forms of mobile expansionary groups, groups bred for being dominant in their area - usually mobile farmers with mixed economy and herders - and in almost all cases they developed a rather warlike, disciplined, highly organised and patriarchal culture - thats on the long run true for almost all centres of development and progressive racial types - at least the majority of its members.

Usually the progressive tendencies lead to a longer facial region, though thats not always the case, its true for most progressive Eurasian forms which dominate(d) in their climatic zone crucial areas and the socioeconomic structures and ressources important for further expansion at times in which progressive tendencies were favoured.

Originally Posted by Frontiersman

I tend to think progressive could happen from any gene-pool

Sure, but thats a rather banal truth, because finally you could make up more progressive humans out of a the most primitive mammal, like a shrew if you breed it and natural evolution is finally nothing else but breeding "by chance" in environments depending on geological and climatic etc. conditions. In fact thats how humans came up finally...

*if* the right social and technological advances are made that ensure a more refined environment (ie, civilization). Progressiveness is the genetic adaptation to technology, at least as I understand the term. The 'gracile' nature of features is due both to sexual selection, and the less harsh/raw nature of life (especially food and climate) provided by high-technology civilization. Again, as I understand it.

In fact the contrary is true if looking at progressive racial types because they came up in those areas which made greater demands both because of climatic instable conditions (Ice Age, seasons, weather) and other factors of competition with other mammals, but especially competition on the individual and group level with other humans f.e. If you look at the tropical regions, you often see a low energy level, but the conditions are not particulary demanding...only certain physical adaptation were necessary, otherwise there were no big steps mainly because of the lack of impulses. Too comfortable conditions with a weak selection lead as a rule of thumb to partial or full degeneration because not the best elements but all survive and often the worst reproduce even faster. So as I said, high group selection and changing conditions are best for human biological (not always cultural) development.
Obviously there are not just differences in groups, but also in individuals - and progressive tendencies, though positively correlated with certain very important traits which have nothing to do with sheer appearance are not absolutely, but just relatively correlated obviously - statistically - to go through any selection of successful military officers, models, sportsmen, scientists (especially in certain fields) or students at the university means as a rule to see more and more pronounced progressive traits than in the average population.

[Agrippa]

Agrippa has said that proto-morphic traits (e.g. strong superciliary arches) are correlated with lower intelligence. That is rather simple and convenient way of thinking.

You know the thread on Dodona about what features might lead to a statistical correlation with more intelligent personalities in males - but, strong superciliary arches for themselves are hardly argument enough for the conclusion "primitive" (with the exception of absolute extremes) and even less so for intelligence.
F.e. more robust boned individuals which are more masculine and would be by definition versatile and otherwise very progressive might retained stronger arches than lets say a reduced, feminised, infantile dwarfish male, but that wouldnt make the later more progressive. Balanced is the key, since too robust-masculine individuals tend to be really less successful if its about learning and intellectual abilities, thats a simple and proven fact. Its not only a question of "raw intelligence" but also of the associated personality of course. Schizothymes f.e. are not necessarily more intelligent, they might have just a bigger standard deviation, but they use their intelligence and energies in a different way. But as for the body too extreme schizothymes are oftentimes not more desirable - the same is true for extreme leptomorphics, extreme chins, extreme superciliary arches, noses etc.
As for what is progressive, its primarily physical, thats obvious, the correlations are just there and the physical types are made for a certain way of living which is per se superior - expanding vs. frugal - since saving, if substantial, leads almost on all level to degradation - a group can only saving energy on a certain level by using it more efficiently or by decreasing numbers, but if there is a real need of pure saving without decreasing, even increasing numbers it leads on all levels from biological development, to social, state, cultural to a downgrading of structures as a rule of thumb.
There is a certain reality check too out there, namely that almost all areas able to support masses of people and produced finally a higher and expanding culture were dominated by progressive types.
This thread and post in particular is of some importance:
Temperature, skin color, per capita income, and IQ: An international perspective
(Answer to why the North was in a certain time culturally less developed)

Obviously some of the most important racial developments are older than the Neolithics, but with the Neolithics, certain areas were sooner "civilised" and advantageous, I will try to point to some reasons later - we are speaking about general Europid and partly Mongolid as well, characteristics.
What was good for biological-racial progression (Ice Age, instable climate, mobile life, group selection-constant small scale wars) must not be good for cultural progression - even on the contrary, its almost incompatible. Furthermore I would emphasise the food-nutrition point and the general selective pressure both if its about biological and cultural evolution. F.e. if in a warm river valley various groups would fight for controlling the area, and in this constant fights special skills and good genetic preconditions are crucial, those which finally occupy that territory, at the end, after the Ice Age, might be relatively progressive and both biologically and culturally advanced, if compared with hunters gatherers living in nowhere, without strong group selection, even if they had to be more intelligent than the ancestors of the river groups when they both were Hunters and Gatherers.
But finally, the most important developments took place before and during the Ice Age, just some, though not unimportant ones sometimes, afterwards. Climate is just one factor, an important, but not the only one.
Intraspecific selection, both individual and collective, was in my opinion more important at least from Homo erectus on - AT LEAST, probably much earlier.
So if there are important areas, for which many groups fight, we can assume that both cultural and biological evolution will be faster - at least as long as the winners win biologically (more descendents) as well. So in such cases we must look what features the people have which occupy and area, not hows the area is looking alone. And Greece was inhabited by rather progressive Europids - if the biological potential is there, to occupy more favourable areas is more important than being somewhat more evolved - because especially since state organisation came up and mass societies of farmers, sheer numbers could be crucial - just the elite HAS to be on a high level, though on the long run its more advantageous if the average is high as well.
What we have to distinguish is cultural from biological developments. The crucial, for the pure mental, intellectual developments, time was during the Ice Age - Neolithics lived biologically mostly from what was achieved during the Ice Age in Eurasia - just certain further developments, associated with the new lifestyle, new selective regime and the leptomorphisation because of the warmer climate and the two other reasons began, but the most important steps were already made.
We had often more progressive types in more unfavourable environments, finally they even lost sometimes, not because they were biologically inferior, but it was a numbers game. Those rather advanced forms which had the luck to stay in the best start positions after the Ice Age made it, at least for a certain time. F.e. we see a Mediterranoid expansion soon after Ice Age, but again a Nordid expansion after the Nordids adapted themselves to the new selective regime (leptomorphisation, farmers-combined economy-herders and warlike-group oriented). In that time of high selection, both Nordids and Mediterranids ruled in most areas, others were just "companions", in fact thats mostly true until now.
The Ice Age produced basic forms, basic types, but then something new came in, the Neolithic revolution, which changed a lot and brought up a new form of competition, more based on the ability to win in group selection and adapt culture than to survive against natural adversities. But what this new forms used, was what their ancestors mostly (not fully) achieved already during the Ice Age and before.
Crucial for the success was the ability to hold areas which were fertile, could feed masses but were at the same time demanding, had still a certain selective pressure, especially in the intraspecific selection (humans vs. humans). Groups which managed that at least for certain times in Eurasia were Nordids (partly fluvial, coastal regions, woodlands-open grasslands), Mediterranids (coastal, fluvial mostly), Orientalids (oases, plateaus), Indids (Northern valleys for herder warriors, fluvials more for farmers) Sinids (again both valleys and fluvials), Tungids (steppes, plateaus), Taurids (plateaus, hills, valleys and mountains) were at the beginning more specialised to certain environments (herders of the higher regions, urbanised forms later - especially Armenid "proper"). They were the major driving forces in history, made up the core of the most important civilisations and developments.
Crucial for their success was not only that they had certain abilities, but they managed to hold an area rich enough to feed armies, not just armies in general, but farmer and herder masses as well - sheer numbers.
Usually for herders wide spaces, steppes obviously, for farmers river valleys.
Coming back to the original question, we have to say that regions like Scandinavia had various problems:
-First, they were further away from the centre of developments, which was, especially at the beginning, the Near East - you can see that best if looking at the Bronze Age and Iron Age dates in the North. They often showed great skills, great potential by working with what they had, but they finally didnt had what they needed, that changed mainly when they adopted metals and metal production themselves, its typical that the times of the great Nordid expansion were those times, in which new skill and techniques were necessary and available for the North, but still mobile group oriented people had a significant advantage - Bronze and Iron Age.
-Secondly to use the full potential of the Northern land, further technical and social developments were necessary, some came just in the middle ages (heavy plough, horse collar, village organisation etc.). Until then the North could produce biologically advanced types, even an advanced culture in some respects, but no great city civilisation in the same way as the South. For that technological innovations were needed, as well as a state organisation, both had to come from the South rather and couldnt develop that good in situ.
-The North was more sensitive if its about climate changes. Its typical that Nordids came up (in two senses of the word, first marching North, secondly evolving) in a warmer time, but there were many fluctuations, usually we see an increasing population in the North as long as the climate was favourable, great instability and more migrations, expansions southwards from the North when the climate changed to the worse again.
Eickstedt described that very good, how long there was free space in the North and how various groups marched there, melted together, were selected and finally marched in their new form back afterwards, especially in climatically critical times.
-The Mediterranean Sea was a great transport network, the North had nothing comparable, especially not with established contacts to the centres of the early civilisation, mainly Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Greek land was probably not as fertile as the North, but the North lacked the techniques as I said and Greece was at least fertile enough - not to mention that trade and warfare were quite important for Greece from earlist times on.
Interestingly, after the North adopted metallurgy, he was quite dominant in certain areas in crucial times. Helladics bought swords in the North, got mercenaries and goods from their, but were finally conquered by Dorians. Italics themselves are people coming from the North. But like so often, the biological potential developed in one region, but spread to another and there it could use much more from its potential. Because in the Northern, rather anarchic and group fighting area - which was perfect for certain biological developments for a long time especially in late Neolithic, Bronze and early Iron Age, a higher stable state civilisations had much more problems to rise than in certain more stable farmer societies. But again if they turned into farmers, they often lost their cultural and biological quality partly decreased and other elements, tendencies increased (f.e. decadent beliefs, customs, physical reduction-infantilisation of the mass, strong "infights" with the elite killing itself etc.) if there were no measures, and usually there were none, or at least no efficient ones, something I tried to explain in various threads.

The problem with my use of the term progressive is that there are various things coming together:
1.)
-Continued Hominisation process - on line with developments of the humans past and improvements from functional perspective (f.e. balancing of the head-movement of the formamen magnum, greater braincase, orthognathy).
-Balanced and efficient physique, partly related with the first, but largely independent - leading to both physical potential from the functional side and attractiveness, advantages in the sexual selection for both sexes (!).
2.)
-Specialisation to a propulsive form associated with a certain way of living (originally) and coping with the world, important for higher cultural development and possible future developments - here psychic traits come in for the first time.
-Obviously progressive are certain psychic traits like intelligence, ability for abstraction, keeping an analytical distance to the world, being able to develop a spirit of sacrification - everything very important especially for group selection and culturally higher evolved societies.
For other people it might sometimes look like if I would totally mix the first and the last two points up, but thats not really the case, the later is my approach, backed up by facts, but still my approach, whereas the first is purely objective and deals just with anatomical matters. I know that the first and last are correlated, but just roughly since tendencies deviating from the later are still progressive anatomically obviously. Just think about the correlation of a bigger braincase and a bigger brain - statistically more intelligent, or a stronger chin, balanced masculine tendency, no reduced bone structure usually etc. Both has a value on its own, independent from the other and if I use "racially progressive" I mean only anatomically. If I mean generally progressive developments, its clear that the first and 2nd have to be seen together - because the first without the 2nd would be incomplete and vice versa - its complementary. An intelligent individual with a crippled body is still a cripple and a dumb individual with the perfect body still dumb. My answer is human Eugenic as you know - mostly operating praenatal.
Now the correlation is just a rough statistical one - but the ideal is Obviously there can be racially progressive looking people which has nothing of the other associated qualities and someone less progressive looking which has all of them - so its quite relative and I know that. Again there are evolutionary tendencies on the one side, and individual realities on the other. The evolutionary tendency is so important because its complete, but not every individual which shows signs of tendency must be complete or more developed from every perspective than someone who doesnt.
Finally all Europids and Mongolids are rather progressive and even Negrids have at least rather progressive traits, but there is a ranking obviously mostly determined by the number of progressive developments - and their balanced integration in the type. The progressive form can vary, mostly dependent on climatic zones, but in fact for most zones, with the exception of very isolated regions especially in the tropics, at least one more progressive-dominant form exists and there is inside of it still a ranking (f.e. Aethiopid-Nilotid-Sudanid-Kafrid-Palaenegrid-Bambutid) from the most evolved (Aethiopid) to a group which combined degeneration with primitive-archemorphic traits (Bambutid) - typically such forms came up in areas of retreat, in which they were pushed by more agile and propulsive forms, where they degenerated even further...like Boskopids, a tall but rather primitive form, the ancestors of Sanids, which were pushed in the poor Kalahari and became reduced and infantilised.
Its like it is in all areas, the winner takes the better areas and ressources, which helps him to spread "himself" even further and developing even higher as long as intraspecific group selection (of genetically related individuals of basically the same type and way of living) is the dominant aspect of evolution. I described the possible "habitats" of some of the most progressive forms of Homo sapiens in the quoted post - with some speculation from my side included...

[Agrippa]

Agrippa would call that a tendency towards paedomorphism and not neomorphism, and therefore not progressive.

To put it simple there is efficiency - only what is efficient and more differentiated can be considered progressive. If differentiation and efficiency is lost, its degeneration and thats the difference between balanced Neoteny and Infantilisation.
The core of the group are young males, age from lets say 18-45, those are those are primarily thrown in competition if group selection is active, in peaceful, frugal and sedentary societies, males might look just for the cheap appeal, but if group selection and "honor societies" are active, they look also for "the good family, the good breed" which means also to get good sons. Because your sons will determine your future, if your sons will lose, your cattles will be taken, your offspring slaughtered, your daughters taken. If they are not intelligent, they will lose, if they dont work together and are ready to sacrifice, they will lose, if they are not physically able to fight and have endurance and speed, they will lose, if they dont look after their women and can't make them loyal followers in times of war and chaos for what they need both a disciplined culture, intelligence and probably even attractiveness, they will lose etc...
If I speak always about herder warriors its not because I want that we all get herder again but because that selection is, especially if the biological base was already good, like it was the case in Europids, simply the most efficient both for culture and race. Thats why we saw such fantastic enhancements from the Late Neolithics to the early Iron Age - the father of that developments was war. If you look at their gods and beliefs you can really see where it was coming from.
What was if compared with that the selection of sedentary farmers, worst the unfree ones - the best died in wars as aristocrats or mercenaries or without children in a monastery, as priests and nuns or they died because of plagues and hunger...
But ok, back to the original problem: There are two ways of female attractiveness, the first is the way which is good both for her male AND female offspring, but its the more expensive one (!) and works best in small disciplined groups. That are progressive females, with balanced Neoteny and an unreduced body, strong will and socially less adapted in many cases - in chaotic societies at least.
But there is the other, the cheaper way as well, you save energy (nutrition), you save time (maturation), you save complications in socially chaotic environments (socially adaptive in changing environments) - you give them just some primary signals - that doesnt make them more efficient and for sure not their male offspring, but its enough to catch the male = thats unbalanced paedomorphy and leads to infantilisation of both sexes. Allometrically this leads to brachycephalisation as well, to shorter extremities, etc.
So the balanced Neoteny is not fundamentally different - and that was important throughout the human evolution for various reasons, but it was no superficial one, it lead to a different total structure whereas the infantilisation doesnt give more potential, it just reduces it for nothing in exchange than a fake, saving and sheer numbers (compare with tropical paedomorphic forms). In the group selection such tendencies couldnt survive on a high level on open ground, thats why you find them mostly in areas of retreat where no "melting" occured. But through melting in stabilised societies such traits could be spread and lead to new trends - oftentimes slowly - sometimes fast especially if the conditions were horrible (low energy, malnutrition, plagues, contraselection etc.).
Most of the time progressive types need longer to adapt to such conditions - so if there is a competing tendency, no matter with which percentage in the population, it can win especially at the beginning of such tendencies. Usually the mobile herder groups were less resistant to such unfavourable conditions unfortunately - and their will to sacrifice and "to achieve" - to be simply more idealist and honest lead to further losses.
Its interesting to compare the descriptions of (more progressive) Northern Chinese (Nordsinid, Mittelsinid, Tungid) with those of Southern Chinese (Suedsinid, Mittelsinid, Palaemongolid) from their own Chinese perception.
What we see in social sieving is the same, I recently read about comparisons of soldiers in areas like Afghanistan, India and Pakistan before 1950 with the surrounding population (even out of the same tribes). The results were just striking especially for facial length, nasal length, nasal index, body height. The same pattern like we see it in all progressive racial types - out of an already good standard usually the best elements are being selected for certain tasks, or better they dont need to be called - for certain profiles you will get higher percentages automatically - at least if the demands in a given social context motivate them, that can change it somewhat.

[Agrippa]

A longer skull with projecting occiput or a balanced broader skull can be quite closer to full balance, especially if being orthognathic and if the foramen magnum is put rather forward, thats the progressive condition for the skull position.
Just compare, everything from Knussmann (1996):
Body posture and body balance point of a chimp and sapiens:

Baboon-sapiens comparison if its about the skull balance. The weight for keeping the baboon skull up is much bigger:

Foramen magnum shift and change on the base of the skull and cranium capacity:

Compare again this very progressive and balanced retrognathic Nordid male:

With this Australids:

One of the most primitive skulls of modern sapiens:

Originally Posted by The Black Prince

The Pintubi skull (1800 AD.) is an Australoid skull with very archaic dimensions.

Here it is compared with a Europid skull

Compared with an H. Erectus.

This skull is a perfect example for primitive traits and they made a comparison with a progressive skull on this site too, whats really nice to show the difference between primitive and progressive traits.

[bioblitzkrieg]

agrippa, one question, im not sure why fuller lips would fall under a progressive trait, since early hominids and sapiens had fuller lips "didnt they?" wouldnt it be the retaining of a primitive trait to possess fuller lips, When one envisions a peak type progressive, smaller and less fuller lips come to mind. Like the progressive nordid you posted on this thread, his lips are thin in comparison with the negrid shown, yet according to what you stated, the negrid's lips would be progressive, even over the thin lips of the nordid?

In many UP types full lips are present, like the actress liv ullman, does this serve as something in the realm of sexual selection?

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by bioblitzkrieg

agrippa, one question, im not sure why fuller lips would fall under a progressive trait, since early hominids and sapiens had fuller lips "didnt they?"

No they didnt. Interestingly, some of the more primitive variants of Bambutids and Australids, some of the most primtive variants of modern mankind, have broader mouths with thinner lips.

Compare f.e. the extremes of East Africa, the relatively progressive Tutsis with the primitive-infantile Twa (the Twa are less extreme though than the more typical Bambutid ethnicities like the Mbuti):

(From "Rassengeschichte der Menschheit")

Note the relative unimportance of lip size and thickness in comparison to other traits for the general impression and classification as well as the combination of broad and partly thinner-drier looking mouths in the Twa group. More pronounced in more extrem Bambutid examples like this one:

wouldnt it be the retaining of a primitive trait to possess fuller lips, When one envisions a peak type progressive, smaller and less fuller lips come to mind. Like the progressive nordid you posted on this thread, his lips are thin in comparison with the negrid shown, yet according to what you stated, the negrid's lips would be progressive, even over the thin lips of the nordid?

In many UP types full lips are present, like the actress liv ullman, does this serve as something in the realm of sexual selection?

Neomorphic and progressive traits can be also those, in my definition, which are new and at least not disadvantageous for a general, versatile and active adaptation. So traits being selected by sexual selection for the purpose of being sexually attractive for other individuals are per progressive for two reasons, namely for being new and advantageous in the intraspecific competition as along as they are not disadvantageous for another, more important and longer term aspect of biological adaptation. F.e. its no option for females to get larger and larger breasts, even if they would be preferred by males for exactly this reason. Larger female breasts would be a positive development as a sign of feminity, fertility, good nutrition, health etc. in that sense only to a certain limit, namely when the larger breasts become too much of a burden for a woman in too many other areas of her adaptiveness. So there might be a conflict of trends and competitiveness in this as well as in various other regards.

Concerning fuller lips, they are of a similar kind, though the negative functional aspects are rather limited, at least in warmer climates. Additionally there is no such such strong sexual dimorphism for this trait, which means that whereas a larger breasted female can have a hypermasculine brother, a "larger lipped female" will have in most cases a brother with the same feature. This might result, like in other traits too, in a limited "sexual type conflict because of a lack of sexual dimorphism", though larger lips are hardly that disadvantageous because of sexual selection for a male - one can discuss a more socially dominant and disciplined appearance for thinner lips or similar considerations.

In the end authors like v. Eickstedt tended to regard thinner lips being more progressive, whereas one of his scholars, Knussmann, thought of fuller lips being one of "progressive traits of the Negrid race", like others as well. So there was a certain disaccord on this matter, though full lips were rarely considered primitive by the later authors of racial typologies, but if rather infantile.
Otherwise the most common explanation was indeed sexual selection. Especially in the case of the Negrid race a specific selection of this trait as a sexual signal. So the extrme lips were rather considered the result of a more recent development in the course of sexual selection inside of the Negrid race, rather than a primitive relic of a more distant past.

Its also interesting to compare our more distant relatives with modern humans. Chimpanzees f.e. have a large mouth, but almost no or very thin (everted) lips:


They have a mouth, but no human lips which serve as a communicative and especially sexual signal:


For the whole debate it would be very interesting to think about the disadvantages of larger lips, especially for various cases of social dominance under males, male attractiveness, climate related vulnerabilities etc. But I myself dont know enough about valuable studies and sources on that matter so far, just certain speculations.

One could argue however, that thinner lips must not be primitive (they are primarily in combination with a large mouth and high upper lip) in any case of course, they can be even progressive in combination with other traits, but full lips are for sure not primitive and can be in general and on their own considered progressive, from a generalised and "Eugenic" perspective at least as long as they are not out of proportions and too extreme.

[Davit H.]

Is this light-pigmented(blue eyes and light-brown hair) soviet soilder progressive?

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Davit H.

Is this light-pigmented(blue eyes and light-brown hair) soviet soilder progressive?

If going after this picture alone yes.