|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jul 27, 2005 17:20:22 GMT -5
Bloody Partisan, I'm also talking about Indians from India. As it so happens, though, both so-called American Indians and Indians from India are Asiatic. I mean, India is in Asia. So they're geographically Asian to start off with. Cavalli-Sforza's initial genetic study found that the closest genetic group to Hindus were Tibetans. Dravidians are merely Tibetans as they evolve into Southeast Asians and eventually into Australian aborigines. And that's the second closest group to Hindus--Australian Aborigines. {In fact, it's often hard sometimes to tell Dravidians from Aborigines--and that's no accident. They're genetically related . . . and geographically not that distant.} Interestingly, archaeological artifacts recently surfaced with Dravidian writing on it in Australia. I believe it was a language close to Tamil.
And, of course, "Indians" from North and South America entered the Western Hemisphere from the land-bridge that connects Siberia with America. Their closest genetic relatives are certain Mongolian tribes. [It surprised geneticists because they were even more closesly related to Mongolians than to Siberians--though they're close to both.]
P.S.--Several more comprehensive genetic studies have been undertaken in India and basically backed up Cavalli-Sforza's initial findings: Indians are most closely-related to Tibetans. In the north of India, they have Slavic dna from so-called Aryan invaders. But that's only the men, and only a small fraction of India's population of a billion people. The overwhelming majority of the sub-continent have purely "Asiatic" dna, with no Caucasian admixture.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Jul 27, 2005 20:47:20 GMT -5
Dravidians loos more like caucasians than mongoloids, maybe it is just superficial.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Jul 28, 2005 3:08:20 GMT -5
That's crazy. Then again, Australoids + Mongoloids do lump together.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jul 28, 2005 9:19:15 GMT -5
With the exception of Sub-Saharan Africans, all the other races smoothly gradate one into the other. So, even though some anthropologists give Austroloids their own race, they're really just a gradation away from south-east Asians. To me, Dravidians looks remarkably similar to Australian Aborigines. Coal-black skin, blunt noses, straight hair, massive frontal lobes, etc. And genetics bears it out. The surprise--to me--was that they were even closer to Tibetans. Tibetans also have very, very, very dark skins. But--other than that--they have more classically "Oriental" features. I guess that Dravidians lost the epicanthic fold since they live in crushingly-hot temperatures. [The epicanthic fold over the eyes was designed for cold climates, to keep heat in.]
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Jul 29, 2005 3:36:27 GMT -5
Wait, wait, wait, what's with this -- (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza, The History and Geography of Human Genes) Does it agree with what you're saying?
|
|
creug
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by creug on Sept 5, 2005 9:45:22 GMT -5
I'm a similar case like Johnny Depp, who doesn't seem to grow much hair on his cheeks: That probably has to do with his Native American genes. Obviously his French genes didn't override them (I'm part Fr so I can say that ;D)
|
|
|
Post by jinanren on Sept 5, 2005 12:37:39 GMT -5
Wait, wait, wait, what's with this -- (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza, The History and Geography of Human Genes) Does it agree with what you're saying? Lol i like how it how it only has S. Chinese. where would North Chinese be?
|
|