|
Post by greatness on Jan 4, 2006 23:33:08 GMT -5
I do not agree with either nasal type being more "versatile" or adaptable. I think the main reason why certain groups exhibit different nasal forms is due more in part to genetic drift as opposed to real-time advantages. Do you honestly see that much difference between long and snub nosed ppls? Personally I think they are relatively new features as a result of genetic drift. Now if populations were separated and forced to face harsh natural conditions, yes they adapt to a more "versatile" form. But I dont think enough time during the course of human evolution has gone buy to warrant this. Also u must remember that long and short nosed populations, and narrow and wide headed populations have been mixing for quite some time. So really most of our differences are from random mutations and not adaptability to the environment. Do long nosed people really have that much of an advantage over short nosed people or vice versa to term it "versatility"? I dont think so. Just my 2 cents though.
BTW Gareth- those pics in the beggining were interesting comparatively. But I do not believe that "Aryans" cover that large an expanse. Aryans IMO are only Iranid people. In the last couple centuries many European and white nationalist have expanded the term to mean all sorts of things to suite their politics. Really the only people with historical ties to the word Aryan are Iranids, and some Nordindids in India (from Sanskrit and Old Persian Arya meaning noble, found in the Gathas: Airyanem Vaeja)
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 4, 2006 23:47:38 GMT -5
Now if populations were separated and forced to face harsh natural conditions, yes they adapt to a more "versatile" form. People forced to adapt to harsh conditions will develop extreme adaptations, not "versatile" ones. This explains the narrow noses with constricted wings of the Nordics, the broad noses of the Negroids, and other special adaptations of people from the edges of human habitation that deviate from the average.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 5, 2006 8:31:53 GMT -5
Now if populations were separated and forced to face harsh natural conditions, yes they adapt to a more "versatile" form. People forced to adapt to harsh conditions will develop extreme adaptations, not "versatile" ones. This explains the narrow noses with constricted wings of the Nordics, the broad noses of the Negroids, and other special adaptations of people from the edges of human habitation that deviate from the average. Indeed, thats what specialisation is about, its overspecialisation if its only advantageous in a very narrow context, and its progressive if its advantageous in various contexts. The Nordid nose is no overspecialisation, there are clear advantages and no clear disadvantage. Though I would agree that an extremely narrow nose (below NI 60) is not necessary under most conditions. The extremely broad nose is a very primitive feature, if the nose became over time even broader, like in Bambutids, its both because of extreme local adaptation (wet heat) and allometric reduction. Obviously the extremely hot tropical forests are one of the worst environments for human development that can be seen over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 5, 2006 23:32:20 GMT -5
The Nordid nose is no overspecialisation, there are clear advantages and no clear disadvantage. Incorrect. Something that has clear advantages and no clear disadvantages should be ubuiquitous. The Nordic nose with the compressed alae is far from ubuiquitous. It is a clear overspecialization that is restricted to a minute majority of the world's population from a very specific borderland region. Your insistence that it has no disadvantage is comical in view of the facts.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 6, 2006 13:42:41 GMT -5
The Nordid nose is no overspecialisation, there are clear advantages and no clear disadvantage. Incorrect. Something that has clear advantages and no clear disadvantages should be ubuiquitous. The Nordic nose with the compressed alae is far from ubuiquitous. It is a clear overspecialization that is restricted to a minute majority of the world's population from a very specific borderland region. Your insistence that it has no disadvantage is comical in view of the facts. I didnt said "no" but no significant disadvantage in given situations if compared with medium-narrow noses. But you are free to name theories or facts about possible disadvantage if compared with medium-narrow noses. They reach a narrowness positive for general protection without the extreme character and prominence of Taurid noses - most likely a lower tendency for nasal frostbites if compared with noses which reach a similar index because of overall size. You can find similary narrow noses - both absolute and relative, in other types too by the way and not all Nordids are that extreme anyway. What do you think is the "most progressive", highest differentiated and generally advantageous type(s)? Dont say that is an absurd question I'm pretty sure you have something in mind. Post examples if possible
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 6, 2006 16:10:41 GMT -5
But you are free to name theories or facts about possible disadvantage if compared with medium-narrow noses. I don't need to name any disadvantages. The simple fact that the Nordic-type nose is absent in the vast majority of humans proves that it is less adaptive (and hence disadvantageous) to other nasal forms in other localities. So, the simplest explanation is that it is a specialization for the ecological niche inhabited by Nordics at the edge of human habitation. When we observe a trait that is widely prevalent, we can conclude either that it is an ancestral human trait, or that it is a derived trait that was favored by selection. Nordic-type noses are not widely prevalent, so it's up to anyone who thinks that they generally had no disadvantage to provide an explanation why other nasal forms outcompeted them in almost every environment except among the few scattered hunters and fishers of the northern European forests. You missed the memo, I don't believe in "progressive" noses.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 6, 2006 16:26:08 GMT -5
Interesting even the prized and much favored Roman noses had the high bridge and fleshy tips,which is still the dominate of Italy/Sicily. Its a far cry from the Nordic type.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 7, 2006 7:15:27 GMT -5
I don't need to name any disadvantages. The simple fact that the Nordic-type nose is absent in the vast majority of humans proves that it is less adaptive (and hence disadvantageous) to other nasal forms in other localities. You find at least similar types of noses in many other populations too as I said and the average is not that extreme, just somewhat more going in a specific direction. I could post Atlantomediterranid, Pontid, Norid, Iranid, Nordindid examples with same-similar type of noses so you have to say more than that since the generally progressive types have usually medium-narrow to very narrow noses and the Nordid type is one form of it in the peak area for various reasons. Interesting comment, I have my own concepts about the process of Nordisation so please name the "ecological niche" you are thinking about and the important factors in theory or with facts. Whats the case in Europid peak types - quite widespread. Again thats not true. I didnt meant noses alone but generally progressive types with as most generally advantageous, most adaptive type. Furthermore you should consider factors like mentioned them in various posts since the distribution can change over time as you know. Considering the nasal form, so you are saying that the Australid or Bambutid primitive type of nose is no less adaptive and progressive than the Nordid and Atlantomediterranid one? Though such forms never made it naturally in the temperate or cold regions and were for various reasons together with other primitive traits selected out whereas you can find various examples of "natural" (before 1500) expansions of progressive variants, traits even in the tropical areas.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 7, 2006 7:16:50 GMT -5
Interesting even the prized and much favored Roman noses had the high bridge and fleshy tips,which is still the dominate of Italy/Sicily. Its a far cry from the Nordic type. The difference is not that big and the Greek profile or Roman nose were both very progressive too obviously. In fact many of the people posted by Gareth come close and I posted others in the respective threads on Skadi.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 8, 2006 20:09:27 GMT -5
Considering the nasal form, so you are saying that the Australid or Bambutid primitive type of nose is no less adaptive and progressive than the Nordid and Atlantomediterranid one? The Bambutid nose is probably more adaptive than the Nordic nose which is probably sub-optimal for the northern climate. In fact, the Nordic skeletal type has been almost completely wiped out from Central Europe and has declined markedly in northern Europe, a clear evidence of its maladaptiveness compared to other human types. The Germans of Tacitus are not the Germans of today, since other strains have greatly multiplied at the expense of the Nordic.
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Jan 8, 2006 20:27:13 GMT -5
Considering the nasal form, so you are saying that the Australid or Bambutid primitive type of nose is no less adaptive and progressive than the Nordid and Atlantomediterranid one? The Bambutid nose is probably more adaptive than the Nordic nose which is probably sub-optimal for the northern climate. In fact, the Nordic skeletal type has been almost completely wiped out from Central Europe and has declined markedly in northern Europe, a clear evidence of its maladaptiveness compared to other human types. The Germans of Tacitus are not the Germans of today, since other strains have greatly multiplied at the expense of the Nordic. Nordics are more common in Central Europe today than they were when most of the stuff was written that you base your opinions on (ie. 18th-19th century anthropology).
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 8, 2006 20:30:21 GMT -5
No, Nordic types form a minority even in Scandinavia, and in Central Europe they are a small minority. This contrasts greatly with the prehistoric and proto-historic material of the northern European peoples
|
|
|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Jan 8, 2006 20:32:45 GMT -5
If Nordics are a minority in Scandinavia than what subrace is the majority in Scandinavia.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 8, 2006 20:35:02 GMT -5
If Nordics are a minority in Scandinavia than what subrace is the majority in Scandinavia. Scandinavians are a mix of Nordics, Baltics, Alpines, Atlantic Mediterraneans with small Uralic admixture. The Nordic type is modal in this mix, but not the majority.
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Jan 8, 2006 20:36:16 GMT -5
No, Nordic types form a minority even in Scandinavia, and in Central Europe they are a small minority. This contrasts greatly with the prehistoric and proto-historic material of the northern European peoples Under current social/environmental conditions more and more young people of central/north Europe are exhibiting Nordic traits. That's a pretty obvious conclusion to anyone from that region, like myself.
|
|