Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you're Chinese Malaysian from Borneo, I'm guessing?
Well yeah some of it is mumbo jumbo, but same the 'Caucasoid' traits. I think there are some truth to the observations. Slightly longer torsos for height, for instance, is something I've noticed among many individuals throughout Asia although there are many exceptions too, so they are generalities not ubiquitous like having black hair.
Hmmm yes, but if she told me she was Chinese I wouldn't think anything of it. It's not like Bornean natives look all that different from Chinese.
Well, they are...'pretty'? Well sure, many pretty, feminine SEA's. Have you see a lot of the Thai or Filipino ladyboys? lol. It seems Thai ladyboys are generally more convincing than European trannies.
I don't see any difference in terms of the width of the lips here, nor have I noticed it in real life. Maybe you should have said size/width of the mouth to make it clearer. It seems one feature that just varies with individuals.
Well I mean they resemble Caucasoids without having any Caucasoid ancestry (or not much).
The first genetic distance map I provided is really the only one that specify the exact distance between each group really. It shows that Northeast Asians are the closest to Arctic Northeast Asians, then almost equally distant from Southeast Asians and Non-European Caucasoids, and then almost equally distant from Amerindian, Pacific Island, Australian, then European and lastly furthest from African. The other one in square distribution is also not too bad in specifying the distance.
Time to stop rambling on about how East and Southeast Asians are supposedly very close to each other on world-level.
How close to each other? In the average face map Chinese and Vietnamese look almost the same. Then again, the Chinese example for women seems to me more representative of Southern Chinese. The original Chinese probably looked more Tibetan than her.
Well on a relative scale they are, but of course there are differences everywhere, even at a small level. Within China northern and southern Chinese, Chinese and Hmong, Koreans, with Japan there's variation, then you have Tibetans.etc. They're all different. A Chinese from Guangxi is closer to a northern Thai, Lao or Vietnamese than they are to a Korean or a Mongolian - you don't need to be an expert to see this.
So you're Chinese Malaysian from Borneo, I'm guessing?
Well yeah some of it is mumbo jumbo, but same the 'Caucasoid' traits. I think there are some truth to the observations. Slightly longer torsos for height, for instance, is something I've noticed among many individuals throughout Asia although there are many exceptions too, so they are generalities not ubiquitous like having black hair.
Hmmm yes, but if she told me she was Chinese I wouldn't think anything of it. It's not like Bornean natives look all that different from Chinese.
Well, they are...'pretty'? Well sure, many pretty, feminine SEA's. Have you see a lot of the Thai or Filipino ladyboys? lol. It seems Thai ladyboys are generally more convincing than European trannies.
I don't see any difference in terms of the width of the lips here, nor have I noticed it in real life. Maybe you should have said size/width of the mouth to make it clearer. It seems one feature that just varies with individuals.
Well I mean they resemble Caucasoids without having any Caucasoid ancestry (or not much).
Ibans don't really look like the other Borneo natives. They look as Austronesian as you can get.
Not too sure about Thai ladyboys. Most of them probably don't look pretty. The frequency is also skewed because those who're pretty are more likely to become ladyboys in the first place even if they're rare.
Yes I do think there's a difference to the lips even if not by much. Compare the one beside China with China and the one beside Vietnam with Vietnam for example. They're also more obvious if you zoom it out. Those East Asian averages also have really big lips for the "average" East Asian (ironically). There are far too many people with lips as narrow as people like Wu Chun, Jang Geun Suk, Lee Jun Ki, Kim JaeJoong, etc. Well these are the only people I know, but if you type "Asian guys" in google they'll be all over the place. It's probably less noticeable among the females as small lips are more classically feminine anyway. Not all white girls have wide lips either but I've had higher incidences of noticing it on White girls. Take a look also at Eurasians like Tiffany Xu (maybe not so much if she doesn't smile), Shirota Yuu, Eiji Wentz, etc.
Many people in that forum have also posted pure Japanese if you go through the thread.
How close to each other? In the average face map Chinese and Vietnamese look almost the same. Then again, the Chinese example for women seems to me more representative of Southern Chinese. The original Chinese probably looked more Tibetan than her.
Well on a relative scale they are, but of course there are differences everywhere, even at a small level. Within China northern and southern Chinese, Chinese and Hmong, Koreans, with Japan there's variation, then you have Tibetans.etc. They're all different. A Chinese from Guangxi is closer to a northern Thai, Lao or Vietnamese than they are to a Korean or a Mongolian - you don't need to be an expert to see this.
No one says a Chinese from Guangxi is Northeast Asian however. If you take a look at the more detailed genetic maps earlier, they have mostly used sample from Mongol, Japanese, Korean, Tibetan etc.
Totally different? Well the histories of Vietnam and Thailand are pretty closely linked with China, as is Burma, Laos.etc. Chinese have indeed influenced a lot of SEA. Of course the original people there were dark skinned negritos, different from today's South-East Asians. Mongols had black skin? Now thats getting ridiculous. Those same people probably claim Jesus had black skin too.
No one is claiming there are no differences, but the relationship is obvious.
How are dark skinned Mongoloids ridiculous? There are some dark skinned Mongols and darker skinned Central Asians. Of course you aren't going to find very many in the North. Tibetans are also Mongoloid and there are black Tibetans, especially as you get closer to Nepal and India. But the point of the genetic studies is that so-called Mongoloid features originate in the South and not the North East. Black populations with straight hair, high cheek bones, and epicanthic folds have existed in Asia since many thousands of years ago. All Aboriginal Asians aren't curly haired, just like aboriginal Australians and the aboriginal People of the Pacific aren't curly haired either.
Heck for that matter you have Africans all over Africa from East, to Central, South and West Africa with High cheekbones and squinted eyes. So again that is not "unique" to Asia.
Of course Northern Asians are lighter skinned but what I am saying is that the diversity of Asia did not originate in the North and therefore "mongoloid" features did not originate in the North either. Those features originated in the vast diversity of the South and were impacted by natural selection as populations moved north.
Unfortunately, Europeans created this nonsense of a Mongoloid race and every since then a lot of folks have been trying hard to promote it as a historical archetype for all Asian people. And according to this myth Asians or "Mongoloid Asians" are defined by a eponymous ancestor from the North East of Asia, from which the stereotypical "Mongol" or "Mongoloid" features originate, which I am saying is absolutely not true.
However, that said, it is absolutely true that many Asians today have been part of waves of Northern Asians that have swept throughout much of Asia, including Mongols, Hunnic, Turkic and other Asian populations who have moved South. But that does not mean the Southern Populations were all Negritoes waiting for Northern Mongoloids to give them their features. That is totally and absolutely absurd.
And to this day the best place to see the original diversity of South Asia from which so-called Mongoloid features originate is the Pacific. In those places there are still pockets of the original phenotype which was once common throughout South Asia. And these people are not negritoes and are not the result of recent mixture with Northern Asians, even though mixture is occurring.
How are dark skinned Mongoloids ridiculous? There are some dark skinned Mongols and darker skinned Central Asians. Of course you aren't going to find very many in the North. Tibetans are also Mongoloid and there are black Tibetans, especially as you get closer to Nepal and India. But the point of the genetic studies is that so-called Mongoloid features originate in the South and not the North East. Black populations with straight hair, high cheek bones, and epicanthic folds have existed in Asia since many thousands of years ago. All Aboriginal Asians aren't curly haired, just like aboriginal Australians and the aboriginal People of the Pacific aren't curly haired either.
Heck for that matter you have Africans all over Africa from East, to Central, South and West Africa with High cheekbones and squinted eyes. So again that is not "unique" to Asia.
Of course Northern Asians are lighter skinned but what I am saying is that the diversity of Asia did not originate in the North and therefore "mongoloid" features did not originate in the North either. Those features originated in the vast diversity of the South and were impacted by natural selection as populations moved north.
Unfortunately, Europeans created this nonsense of a Mongoloid race and every since then a lot of folks have been trying hard to promote it as a historical archetype for all Asian people. And according to this myth Asians or "Mongoloid Asians" are defined by a eponymous ancestor from the North East of Asia, from which the stereotypical "Mongol" or "Mongoloid" features originate, which I am saying is absolutely not true.
However, that said, it is absolutely true that many Asians today have been part of waves of Northern Asians that have swept throughout much of Asia, including Mongols, Hunnic, Turkic and other Asian populations who have moved South. But that does not mean the Southern Populations were all Negritoes waiting for Northern Mongoloids to give them their features. That is totally and absolutely absurd.
And to this day the best place to see the original diversity of South Asia from which so-called Mongoloid features originate is the Pacific. In those places there are still pockets of the original phenotype which was once common throughout South Asia. And these people are not negritoes and are not the result of recent mixture with Northern Asians, even though mixture is occurring.
But of course most people miseducated by European anthropology would claim these people must be mixed with something....
You said 'black Mongols'...what does that even mean?? Having skin as dark as SS Africans?? What evidence have you for that claim anyway?
Those dark skinned Tibetans are those mixed with Nepalese/Indians, or very tanned ones. Even very tanned they have more of a ruddy-brown, hardly African, skin-tone. Tibetans and Chinese probably evolved in Central Asia, actually.
All the rest is your own niche speculation. Many people have all kinds of ideas, and I don't think you can prove any of what you say...Of course there is diversity within Asia in skin, hair and other features...
I think say 2,000 years ago the phenotypical map of Asia would look very different. Smaller eyes and flatter faces are an adaptation to cold climates, which is why Tungids and Inuits have the most extreme flat faces and stocky builds compared to some tropical peoples. The people who inhabit South East Asia today, however, often have features which originated further north adapted to cold climes. Even the Khmer or something in Cambodia or the Javanese, or Iban in Borneo.
You said 'black Mongols'...what does that even mean?? Having skin as dark as SS Africans?? What evidence have you for that claim anyway?
Those dark skinned Tibetans are those mixed with Nepalese/Indians, or very tanned ones. Even very tanned they have more of a ruddy-brown, hardly African, skin-tone. Tibetans and Chinese probably evolved in Central Asia, actually.
All the rest is your own niche speculation. Many people have all kinds of ideas, and I don't think you can prove any of what you say...Of course there is diversity within Asia in skin, hair and other features...
I think say 2,000 years ago the phenotypical map of Asia would look very different. Smaller eyes and flatter faces are an adaptation to cold climates, which is why Tungids and Inuits have the most extreme flat faces and stocky builds compared to some tropical peoples. The people who inhabit South East Asia today, however, often have features which originated further north adapted to cold climes. Even the Khmer or something in Cambodia or the Javanese, or Iban in Borneo.
What I am saying is that the science is clear that the diversity in Asia started in the south. Therefore, the idea that high cheekbones, narrower eyes and straight hair is exclusively North Asian is false. The only feature that originates in colder environments in my opinion is light skin, everything else is just genetic drift and natural selection which started before people left the African continent. And that is why Africa is the diverse continent on earth. That diversity is not about language or culture, we are talking about bodily features. The range of features within African populations is huge and as you go farther away from Africa that diversity diminishes and populations become more homogenous with Northern Asia being among the least diverse. Therefore it is impossible to claim that Southern Asians get their features from the north generally, when Northern Asians are simply Southern Asians who moved north many thousands of years ago. So that is kind of a backwards statement.
I agree many central Asians are "ruddy" in appearance, but there are some who are truly dark skinned. It may be rarer the farther north you go, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't simply a case of "mixing". And historically the farther back you go in time the darker the people get.
Here is an example of a darker skinned "Mongoloid" type:
Lokhpa nomad from Tibet. Not a "mixed" Indian and it is not a coincidence that these folks look very similar to the Native Americans from the United States. Therefore this dark skinned "mongoloid" type is ancient and has nothing to do with recent "mixing" with southerners.
^ The south is more diverse but exactly how does that prove that East Asians originated from the South?
Quote:
50% of EA haplotypes were found in SEA only and 5% were found in CSA only, indicating that SEA was a major geographic source of EA populations
If 50% of EA haplotypes were found in SEA only, it could also mean these haplotypes went to SEA only, contributing to the already existing diversity in SEA.
The people who inhabit South East Asia today, however, often have features which originated further north adapted to cold climes. Even the Khmer or something in Cambodia or the Javanese, or Iban in Borneo.
All of your theories are incorrect and nothing more than absolutely bogus nonsense. The people of SEA descend from the island of Atlantis. You can clearly see this in their atlantid brow ridge, sudadonty, and genetic proclivity for fishing. The Atlantid race are direct descendants of the original humans, The Black Indians. There really isn't NEA peoples, as they are a hybrid of various stocks with the primary stock being Sibero-Steppasian. White European Man is a mixture of various races as well. They inherited their robustness from Africans, curiosity from the tan peoples of the Mediterranean, industriousness from NE Asians, and skin tone from snowmen. However, they have slowly developed a homogenous pure gene pool over time.
Unfortunately for them, the Atlantids of SEA are outmatched by North East Asians. The gene pool of North East Asians, perhaps defined on the tundric steppes of Asia have made them superior at wealth management and knowledge acquisition. Only with selective breeding with the Sibero-Steppasian stock will they be able to change the course and acquire the much needed genes to compete with the men of the north. In fact all races of man will acquiesce to the genetic dominance of the Sibero-Steppasian stock of man unless they use selective breeding to steal their superior alleles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
