Human Expansion Speculation

[Gil]

Are Man and it's subraces (types) product of Allopatric Speciation? I believe so, at least from some common logic thinking.

Let's see:

"The first image (Map 1) shows Palaeolithic Europe 18,000 years ago in the grip of the last ice age. Glacial ice 2km thick covers much of Northern Europe and the Alps. Sea levels are approx. 125m lower than today and the coastline differs slightly from the present day. For example, Britain and Ireland would have been connected to continental Europe (not shown on map).



The air would have been on average 10-12 degrees cooler and much more arid. In between the ice and the tree line, drought-tolerant grasses and dunes would have dominated the landscape.

The Neanderthals would have died out around 14,000 years ago leaving the nomadic hunter-gatherer Cro-Magnon (modern man) to pursue the animals of the time. Due to the cold and the need for food, the populations of the day waited the ice age out in the three locations shown on the map. These were the Iberian Peninsula, the Balkans and the Ukraine.

These people were skilled in flint-knapping techniques and various tools such as end-scrapers for animal skins and burins for working wood and engraving were common. Cave painting using charcoal had been around for a couple of thousand years although at this time they were now more subtle than mere outline drawings. These artistic expressions are significant as it shows that people are able to obtain some leisure time. Whether this is ‘art for art’s sake’ or objects of ritual is not known."

Back to our sub-rac context, as you can read above three main distinct groups of humans gathered in specific locations where they stayed until the end of the ice age when they started spreading northwards. I belive that during that period of time there was speciation, specifically Allopatric speciation. As you might know, allopatric speciation is especially likely to occur in small populations that have become separated from the main populations, e.g., on islands, or in small lakes. Could it be possible that some major differences appeared during this period and that it was due to this event that the major types emerged (mediterranean, nordic, alpine)? (Though I tend more to think that the alpine had a later emergence.)

Share your thoughts

[Agrippa]

The basic difference of this type was leptomorphic/Aurignacid vs. Cromagnoid if its about the morphological forms.

Later types might be somewhat more influenced by this or that form, but at this early time I dont think that the "modern subraces" were already there.

Later gracialisation, partly isolation (yes) and changes in the way of living played a big role in my opinion.

So it was neither fully allopatric nor sympatric speciation. Because herders and farmers f.e. could live in the same region and social stratification made everything more complex.

[Timo]

Yet what created blondism and even extream blondism within the Subraces of Europe? It could only be isolation of a population in a region which was cold, had a lack of sunlight, but was able to support the population (be able to support florae). How's it that we have such extreams within our European population, I ask? We have those which are so pale and with freckles, and have extream red hair or extream white-blonde hair, and then we have those which are white, but on the tan-side and can tan easy and have dark hair and eyes. I think the former type must've been isolated for a very long time to develope their inherited looks, this most likely took place (like I said) in a Northern latitude where sun was little and cold endured. Over the years the "mutations" that are dormant spread across the isolated population. The latter type was not so isolated and remained in areas which were temperate and they were not as isolated as the former type. This probably may explain the development of civilization and cities within the south types before the north types. The southerners weren't as isolated, they traded and were rather metropolitan and spread their ideas and gained new ones. The Northerners remain rather in their area and amoung their kind until they would break out and migrate to new areas. Please comment on these assumtions.



Where did the blondism in European types evolve?
Where did the "southern" types evolve?



I have heard that Alpines evolve in Central Asia (maybe Himylayans Mts.) and migrated from the east, into Europe during the Paleolithic Era. I can't remember exactly where I heard this, I think It may have been Grant, but I am not sure. It's hard for me to find Info and early Alpines, which I am so interested in.

Agrippa, you are so much more learned in this subject than I, please tell me what you think of what I've said. And/Or give me some areas where I can read up on information.

[Vitor]

My oppinion:

Nordics are not exactly the same, there are some different types of nordics, the only similarity is the skin colour.
Different mixes between the 3 Ice age refugees, I guess...

So why the southerns are darker?
simple, come to southern Portugal in the summer and try to work in a enviroment that can reach 48ºC!

The pale ones, would have lots of problems, you could say:" I can easily sustain that enviroment..."

yes...but imagine, day after day year after year, you would surely get problems with pale skin.

Pholic acid would also get destroyed, being pale might produce raquitism in this enviroments...

There is other thing in the north, lack of Sun radiation!
Now what that means?
Darker people would get raquitism (not atractive sexually I guess), because we need Vitamin D, so...
10000 years are more than enough to change the pigmentation of the skin.

I tend to think that eye pigmentation is somewhat correlated with skin pigmentation, the blue eye effect is only less brown melanine in some eye layer, our eyes have 3 layers that all can have pigmentation, different colours different pigmentation in different layers, but allways there is only brown melanine, blue pigmentation doesn't exist!

The med race doesn't exist, at least not like the earlier XX definition of Coon and others, the same could be said for the nordic race.

Look at this map, interesting...pigmentation is latitude correlated , not racial correlated!

[Awar]

Well.... it is, but race is 'latitude-corelated'

[Vitor]

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-545/001-545-C6.html

I find this funny!

6.2 Although further north, Sweden has higher incidence of and mortality rates due to CMM than England and Wales. As discussed in Chapter 7, pigmentation differences may be responsible, since the Swedish are a more homogeneous fair-skinned population than the English, who are a mixture of several European races.

I don't believe that is the case...

They adapted to a less sunny enviroment, but we now have modern turism!

[Vitor]

Originally Posted by Awar

Well.... it is, but race is 'latitude-corelated'

Yes.. but not in europe, it's longitude correlated not latitude correlated





This is only the Y haplogroups, but in the MTDNA it's the same stuff.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Vitor

My oppinion:

Nordics are not exactly the same, there are some different types of nordics, the only similarity is the skin colour.
Different mixes between the 3 Ice age refugees, I guess...

No, I disagree. I think they are have similar ancestors of one very ancient group, that later dispersed and spread across parts of Europe. The varying degrees of Nordicism in people is because of the mixture with non-nordic elements.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Timo

No, I disagree. I think they are have similar ancestors of one very ancient group, that later dispersed and spread across parts of Europe. The varying degrees of Nordicism in people is because of the mixture with non-nordic elements.

[Vitor]

Are you sure?
Absolutely not right!

look here and make your own conclusions!




Trying to give skin pigmentation the most important factor for genetic correlation, is like trying to make assumption based on the most enviroment choosen genes.
Doesn't work.

Migration from the north?


1- South was allways more populated, there was not enough "nordic" people to change the genetic background of the southern people, even if there were massive migrations.

2-there was no one in the north 12000 years ago

I could go on and on...

[Vitor]

Genneticaly speaking there are more differences if we compare eastern and western germans than with Iberians and western germans...

What are the differences?

The eastern germans have more neolithic blood (from middle east, interesting indeed...), but have also more R1a, from the balkans (the other refugee)

[Agrippa]

Look at this map, interesting...pigmentation is latitude correlated , not racial correlated!

Well, this map shows Cromagnoids in North Africa which are against that rule if its right.

Migrations do disrupt such order of course, and the way of living and other things are very important as well.

You are right about Vitamin D, but that does explain mainly the light skin tone, but the really milky-rosy skin tone, blond hair and blue eyes might be also or in combination with environmental factors sexually selected.

Dont forget, in other regions its the risk of skin cancer which prevents lighter skin, even if its seen as something attractive.

Only in the cloudy North it was possible that it was selected, or in cultures which were able to protect themselves from the sun. But that doesnt mean that the blond hair must have come up just because of the environment, probably the environment "allowed" that feature in great numbers.

I think the first blondism and red hair as well, was the feature of the oldest hunter gatherers of the North, mainly Cromagnids.
Probably out of a mixture the Nordid type came up and lighter pigmentation was selected, or the Nordid type (in the narrower sense = Skandonordid) evolved the depigmentation too.

Both is possible...

For the Alpinoids: There were many theories of how they came up, but such a distribution is best explained by what I often described here and at Skadi as Alpinisation out of the general Cromagnoid populations.

Cromagnoids lived in Central Asia as well, fully Europid ones of course, because Mongolids came there only later.

The Turanids/Pamirids show somewhat Alpinid features, but that might be rather due the same specialization than due common ancestors.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Vitor

Are you sure?
Absolutely not right!

look here and make your own conclusions!

Trying to give skin pigmentation the most important factor for genetic correlation, is like trying to make assumption based on the most enviroment choosen genes.
Doesn't work.

Migration from the north?


1- South was allways more populated, there was not enough "nordic" people to change the genetic background of the southern people, even if there were massive migrations.

2-there was no one in the north 12000 years ago

I could go on and on...

Map of Current groups has nothing to do with the situation. I am talking of isolated populations. There maybe more than one group but they happened in the same way and in similar if not same locations. Yes, there was a North 12000 years ago, the ice caps were mainly receded to scandinavia. Yet 10000 years old there was a North that was very much survivable and perhaps these people found a way to adapt and overcome the environment. It's educated guesses.
Your number "1" makes no sense and had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was saying that as groups with blondism migrated and assimilated with populations to their south, such as my ancestors (Upper Paleolithics in central europe), they mixed and the outcome of such mixing was the creating of groups different groups with varying degrees of blondism and different features depending on the mixture, etc. This is in reply to your assertion that there are varying groups of Nordids.

This was in ancient times, there have been much migration and mixing since then, and now populations aren't isolated like they were back in ancient times.

[Vitor]

Originally Posted by Timo

Map of Current groups has nothing to do with the situation. I am talking of isolated populations. There maybe more than one group but they happened in the same way and in similar if not same locations. Yes, there was a North 12000 years ago, the ice caps were mainly receded to scandinavia. Yet 10000 years old there was a North that was very much survivable and perhaps these people found a way to adapt and overcome the environment. It's educated guesses.

Your number "1" makes no sense and had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was saying that as groups with blondism migrated and assimilated with populations to their south, such as my ancestors (Upper Paleolithics in central europe), they mixed and the outcome of such mixing was the creating of groups different groups with varying degrees of blondism and different features depending on the mixture, etc. This is in reply to your assertion that there are varying groups of Nordids.

Blondism is only lack of pigmentation..nothing more, might be another "baby" feature that was sexually choosen (I was blond until I got 3 years)

This was in ancient times, there have been much migration and mixing since then, and now populations aren't isolated like they were back in ancient times.

hum, I tend to think that in ancient times the mixing was more easy to happen, because there were lower population density and even small migrations could have impact.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Vitor

Blondism is only lack of pigmentation..nothing more, might be another "baby" feature that was sexually choosen (I was blond until I got 3 years)

Yes, but there are those which are have way less pigmentation in skin, hair and eyes than any of their European counterparts. It is not a baby feature. Sexually choosen, it could be. If one goes on the selective breeding theory. In paleolithic times, the male which mated most was the alpha male, and did so by force.

hum, I tend to think that in ancient times the mixing was more easy to happen, because there were lower population density and even small migrations could have impact.

Not as easy as you think. The populations were closely-knit tribal groups which were xenophobic and many times nomadic. Thus they were on the move, seperated from other groups by a great many kilometers, and not until the neolithic age do I think that trade and mixing peoples may have come to any stage where it would have an impact. By this time Humans have already been changing and making subraces (isolated groups) for some time. People didn't just move into a region inhabbited by another people and start interbreeding, it aint that easy.

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

These words allopatric and sympatric have to do with economy, that is how a species makes a living or gets food or on a more basic level, gets energy. Two allopatric species compete for these resources and eventually one dies out (this is because one species will always be slightly better adapted than the other). Sympatric species do not compete and in some cases complement each other and so each can remain intact. This can work for races also.

For instance, in the USA, it was decided that Negroes would no longer be restricted to a sympatric relationship with Whites. Those jobs, were for instance, janitorial and agricultural. Allopatric jobs would be all the jobs from which they were previously barred. Now, the two races came in direct competition while when they were sympatric, each did seperate work.

We all know what happened. Blacks cannot compete in a White work environment, at least most Blacks. This inequity led to Affirmative Action hiring and many other down-stream social problems and conflicts which were not present in the old sympatric relationship.

The basic requirement for any division into sympatric - allopatric relationships is difference and differing abilities. Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons would have already had these differences. Any attempted allopatric relationship would have led to extinction. Usually, the weaker species or race moves into a marginal area and tries to continue life.

[QVP]

Depigmentation is caused by the de-activation of genes in the Melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R). The northern race-types lost their colour because the mutations in MC1R did not get purged by natural selection. It is a kind of non-dangerous degeneration, but it becomes a problem for them when they decide to settle in sunnier countries.

[Nadvojvoda Janez Kranjski]

Originally Posted by Timo

I have heard that Alpines evolve in Central Asia (maybe Himylayans Mts.) and migrated from the east, into Europe during the Paleolithic Era. I can't remember exactly where I heard this, I think It may have been Grant, but I am not sure. It's hard for me to find Info and early Alpines, which I am so interested in.

I've often heard of thses theorpes, but never had the chance to see any archaeological evidence of it. Perhaps some of you can help me?

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