Human Expansion Speculation

[Reltih]

Originally Posted by Janez

Furthemore, Alpinids have become remarkably long-headed and tall in the last decades.

Do you have any evidence on that?
Cranium develops in all directions, hence the most accomplished shape, at least theoretically would be the round one.
And btw, your sig is ultimate nonsense. Obviously the author of it is one of those pathetic internet teenagers.

[Nadvojvoda Janez Kranjski]

Originally Posted by Bograchev Mahil

Do you have any evidence on that?

Here's a thread on this: Debrachycephalization in Europeans

I noticed that all sub-types are affected by this process, and in the younger generations, Dinarids and Alpinids have longer heads and don't possess the extreme features of their forefathers (hooked noses, foetalisation, etc). They do not look as Dinarid and Alpinid as people a few generations ago.

Cranium develops in all directions, hence the most accomplished shape, at least theoretically would be the round one.

Not really. Too broad heads wouldn't be aerodynamic.

And btw, your sig is ultimate nonsense. Obviously the author of it is one of those pathetic internet teenagers.

He's a lot older and much more mature than most of us, actually.

[Reltih]

Originally Posted by Janez

Here's a thread on this: Debrachycephalization in Europeans

I noticed that all sub-types are affected by this process, and in the younger generations, Dinarids and Alpinids have longer heads and don't possess the extreme features of their forefathers (hooked noses, foetalisation, etc). They do not look as Dinarid and Alpinid as people a few generations ago.

Degeneration caused by industrial pollution and other anthropocidal factors.

Not really. Too broad heads wouldn't be aerodynamic.

Aerodynamic creatures (birds) are known as not esspecially bright.

He's a lot older and much more mature than most of us, actually.

That doesn't make his fictions less preposterous.

[Nadvojvoda Janez Kranjski]

Originally Posted by Bograchev Mahil

That doesn't make his fictions less preposterous.

Dr. Brandt is the wisest. He is well-read and always backs up his theories with reliable sources, which are plentiful to boot. His manners are also exemplary and we all should look up to him. I am honoured to have such a great Man's personally dedicated words in my signature.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Janez

I noticed that all sub-types are affected by this process, and in the younger generations, Dinarids and Alpinids have longer heads and don't possess the extreme features of their forefathers (hooked noses, foetalisation, etc). They do not look as Dinarid and Alpinid as people a few generations ago.

That sounds like de-isolationism.

[Awar]

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Awar

Please speak and don't leave expressions. I am not mindreader.

[Awar]

Me neither.

[Nadvojvoda Janez Kranjski]

Originally Posted by Timo

That sounds like de-isolationism.

Please elaborate, so I can disprove it point by point.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Janez

Please elaborate, so I can disprove it point by point.

He means, what might be right, that because of more traffic and urbanisation etc. former isolated villages aren't that isolated any more and more mixture happens.

Therefore you will generally find less extreme, because mixed, types of any group, especially minority groups which were in older times more isolated and dominated in certain regions only.

[Gil]

Ok, the thing being pointed out here is called founder effect.
Founder effects arise when a new and isolated environment is invaded by only a few members of a species, which then multiply rapidly.
The result of the small number of founders is that there is a sharp loss of genetic variation compared with the parent population. As a result, the new population may be distinctively different, genetically and phenotypically, from the parent population it derived from.
Imagine that around 9,000 BC some sapiens settled in a forest clearing up north. There they made their village which remained a population cluster, without any genetic drift. What does this mean? That in time they developed a specific genotype/phenotype, which in time could come to be very different from other populations, even close populations.

Cheers

[Agrippa]

I wouldnt say its just founder effect, because in some villages the modern look was coming up quite late.
But anyway, this homogenous regions and pure types disappear in Europe generally speaking, at least if looking at the big cities.

[Cristoforo]

I read somewhere that multi-generational inbreeding leads to gene degeneration (for example the son would be less intelligent/weaker than his father). This of course does not include those nasty recessive genes.



Wouldn't small and isolated tribes end up in this situation over time?

[Nadvojvoda Janez Kranjski]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

He means, what might be right, that because of more traffic and urbanisation etc. former isolated villages aren't that isolated any more and more mixture happens.

Therefore you will generally find less extreme, because mixed, types of any group, especially minority groups which were in older times more isolated and dominated in certain regions only.

That's all very well, but how do you explain the rapid debrachycephalisation trend?

There are fewer extreme Dinarids and Alpinids, but the same doesn't hold true for other phenotypes, meaning that the processes of Dinaricisation and Alpinisation are being reversed - probably due to better nutrition.

[Gil]

Janez: though nutrients play an important part in the human development severe changes in genotype only occur after 400+ generations, which will take long to happen if you consider that even in the Western world only for around 100 years there have been societies where hunger is (at least) controlled and not dominant.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Manji

Janez: though nutrients play an important part in the human development severe changes in genotype only occur after 400+ generations, which will take long to happen if you consider that even in the Western world only for around 100 years there have been societies where hunger is (at least) controlled and not dominant.

I give you a simple example: Europeans coming to America and with them new diseases and especially smallpox.
The change was drastic and complete under the Indianid populations.

We had constant periods of starving in stable farmer societies in f.e. Bavaria about a time of lets say 1000 years.

You can select and breed certain features in a very short time, I can even show you a short graph if you want to illustrate it.

If group A get 3 children through every generation and get the children about 25 and a second 4 children about 20, its more than enough to seriously change a population in a very short time...

[Nadvojvoda Janez Kranjski]

Originally Posted by Manji

Janez: though nutrients play an important part in the human development severe changes in genotype only occur after 400+ generations, which will take long to happen if you consider that even in the Western world only for around 100 years there have been societies where hunger is (at least) controlled and not dominant.

Nutrition is said to be one of the key factors in the recent height explosion and debrachycephalisation phenomenon.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

I really don't know what you guys are driving at. There have been round heads in Europe since the Neolithic, at least. Alpines didn't come from the East. Alpines came from native UP people who have always had a round headed element within them. With a little overall reduction in total body size, this round headedness seems to have resulted in Central Europe.

The Founder Effect is just another form of Genetic Drift. It is a statistical sampling error which occurs in small populations.