Genes or Physical Types??

[greatness]

I was wondering about something.

The other day I was thinking about physical types. Now I am a typical Irano-Afghan (long-faced, high-headed, high cranial vault, etc).

Now my mom, she has an Iranid face but her head form is very Alpine. She has wide jaws and cheekbones, long pointy nose (mine is long, but rounded), her head is brachycephalic 89 (mine is 68), her face is short and rounded, and her limbs are short (mine are very long).

Now somebody examaining us would might say we are distant subraces. If they found our bones in a cave they may come to the conclusion that we were two distinct tribes that migrated to the same region and mixed.

Yet despite the fact my mom is very different I would share at least 50% of my genes with her, which is more than even people with her distinct physical type would have?? So is physical types a good way for determining relationships, or do we need to look solely to genetics for that? Just my thoughts.

[murphee]

Oftentimes, the phenotype of a child can differ greatly from that of parents, for example my brother does not look like either of my parents...he resembles my grandfather. His daughter looks like my mother.

[Josh]

I think that the same genes could probably yield several different physical types. For instance, I seriously doubt that a Halstatt Nordic Norwegian is closer to a Halstatt Nordic Russian than to a Borreby Norwegian in genes and ancestry.

[Polako]

That's because there's very little genetic difference when Caucasoids, of any so called sub-racial type, are compared.

In terms of the genome, they're all very similar. Only the maternal and paternal markers vary, but even here we see the difference between most European populations is in terms of frequency and not the markers present.

Now compare Caucasoids to Negroids and Mongoloids...there will by much greater differences in terms of the genome and frequency of markers...even though even here some of the markers are shared (for example, most Negroids in Cameroon carry R, which is the most common haplogorup in Caucasoids).

[foreigner]

greatness said:

I was wondering about something.

The other day I was thinking about physical types. Now I am a typical Irano-Afghan (long-faced, high-headed, high cranial vault, etc).

Now my mom, she has an Iranid face but her head form is very Alpine. She has wide jaws and cheekbones, long pointy nose (mine is long, but rounded), her head is brachycephalic 89 (mine is 68), her face is short and rounded, and her limbs are short (mine are very long).

Now somebody examaining us would might say we are distant subraces. If they found our bones in a cave they may come to the conclusion that we were two distinct tribes that migrated to the same region and mixed.

Yet despite the fact my mom is very different I would share at least 50% of my genes with her, which is more than even people with her distinct physical type would have?? So is physical types a good way for determining relationships, or do we need to look solely to genetics for that? Just my thoughts.

It is imaginable that both phenotypes have "always" been co-existing. Since Iran is close to the Caucasus, a comparison with the people there could help: e.g. among the Chechens, as well, there are both narrow-faced and broad-faced people. The former being predominately males, the latter being predominately females:

photo: img.ntv.ru/home/news/20030818/170712.jpeg

Now, it depends on you whether you tend to say it was "always" there (i.e. in the region from Middle East to Europe) or whether it's substratum admxiture. However, I know the phenomenon from a different part of the world, where narrow-faced people and broad-faced co-exist, too. And I tend to say they were originally different races or at least were isolated from each other until they mixed with each other.

[greatness]

But that is my point, u say, because they look different physically, they must be different subraces. Me and my mother likewise are different enough to be considered totally different subraces. Yet I am gonna share more genes with her, even though Im long-headed, narrow-faced, then the average round-headed round-faced person. So are phenotypes very accurate ways of determinig ancient races, their migrations, and such? Im starting to think no.

Like Josh said, I doubt that a Halstatt Norwegian would have more in common with a Halstatt Russian then he would with a Borreby or Brunn Norwegian.

[foreigner]

Yet I am gonna share more genes with her, even though Im long-headed, narrow-faced, then the average round-headed round-faced person. So are phenotypes very accurate ways of determinig ancient races, their migrations, and such? Im starting to think no.

In genetic sense you're right since the genes determining your race (or "subrace") are quite few then. Maybe they are even all on one or two chromosomes. However, there is also a certain aesthetic aspect, which makes people yet maintaining the division between narrow-faced and broad-faced people. I suppose that many people primarily become interested in race for these aesthetic reasons. (Correct me, if I'm wrong.)

I'm speaking of my own family here: In my experience narrow-faced and broad-faced people perceive each other as rather ugly. Nevertheless, they do occur in the same family because the spouses were still chosen by the parents 60 years ago. E.g. my great-grandparents determined that my grandparents married each other though the latter disliked each others' look and temperament. Because of the daily experienced contrast people of my family are often primarily perceived according to their phenotypes.

[greatness]

foreigner said:

I'm speaking of my own family here: In my experience narrow-faced and broad-faced people perceive each other as rather ugly. Nevertheless, they do occur in the same family because the spouses were still chosen by the parents 60 years ago. E.g. my great-grandparents determined that my grandparents married each other though the latter disliked each others' look and temperament.

LOL, yeah kinda. Isnt it weird? I gotta say I dont particularly like broad-faced males. No offence, my best-friend is a broad-faced male, but I dont particularly like them. Although I dont like extremely narrow-faced males either. I think square-faced looks cool, I guess cuz I am.

But in females it depends. I gotta say, I like rounded faces with smaller chins moreso (I guess cuz my mom was like that), although I can like a variety. I think we look for people that are genetically and racially similar to preserve our own genes and our own kind.

[stella22]

foreigner said:

It is imaginable that both phenotypes have "always" been co-existing. Since Iran is close to the Caucasus, a comparison with the people there could help: e.g. among the Chechens, as well, there are both narrow-faced and broad-faced people. The former being predominately males, the latter being predominately females:

In ancient ayurvedic medicine there are descriptions of the different body types with corresponding facial shapes. It seems that in India as well, you had many different skeletal/skull shapes coexisting in the same population. Perhaps in order for a population to survive over time, it needs to have variety so that it can adapt when the environment shifts.

Like others said on this thread, an alpine from eastern europe would be more genetically related to a dinaric from eastern europe than to another alpine from England.

Likewise, a blood type O Peruvian Indian would be more genetically similar to a type B Peruvian Indian than to a type O Chinese person.

[murphee]

Yes, ayurvedic medicine classifies people as Pitta, Kapha or Vata, and combinations thereof.

www.dhanvantri.com/Ayurvedic_Dosha.htm

[greatness]

stella22 said:

In ancient ayurvedic medicine there are descriptions of the different body types with corresponding facial shapes. It seems that in India as well, you had many different skeletal/skull shapes coexisting in the same population. Perhaps in order for a population to survive over time, it needs to have variety so that it can adapt when the environment shifts.

Like others said on this thread, an alpine from eastern europe would be more genetically related to a dinaric from eastern europe than to another alpine from England.

Likewise, a blood type O Peruvian Indian would be more genetically similar to a type B Peruvian Indian than to a type O Chinese person.

Which is really why I say genetics is a better tool to identify skeletons and ancient populations. The eastern European Alpine, if dug up, will bear resemblance to the English Alpine and anthropologists will label them as being more similar. But in reality, genetically and racially the East European Alpine is similar to Dinaric.

Aryuveda is interesting but IMHO there should be more than 3 types of peoples, I guess you can have mixes.

Does anyone believe that physical types correspond with personality or vice versa, does our personality and our emotions influence our physical type.

I know for sure nutrition does.

[stella22]

Genetic testing is definitely a superior tool. These classification systems were developed long before genetic testing was available.

He he, we should drop this discussion right now before it becomes apparent that these racial classification systems are totally outdated.

[Siafu X]

physical types are deffently not a good way to determin relationships because my father is pretty dark and looks veddoid while i am much lighter and look middle-eastern like my mother so i deff dont think physical types should be used to determine relationships stick with genetics