Divergence of races

[Mortimer]

More like "Australoid minus Denisovan". Australoids have Denisovan. Veddoids do not have it.

Andamanese Negritos (such as Onge) also don't have Denisovan. But they have Neanderthal.

Denisovan is only 5% I doubt its the major factor. Different Australoids look very different to me. They are traditionally grouped as australoid but I think they are different. To me mongoloid admixture or denisovan admixture cant explain the vast difference in look between negrito and aboriginal and papuan etc. even papuans look different then aborginals plus there are alot of pacific islander populations who are 50%+ oceanian like maori or samoans and look totally different, whether to group them as australoid or not. Probably they did hat at one time the same out of africa ancestor but so did mongoloids and caucasians had at one time the same ancestor or mongoloids and australoids.

[Peterski]

Denisovan is only 5% I doubt its the major factor. Different Australoids look very different to me.

Another facto is probably adaptation to desert environment (that was the case in Australia).

Polynesians

Polynesians are mixed-race (that mixing probably took place ca. 3,000 - 2,000 years ago):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture19844.html

See Figure 3 from the link above:

[Mortimer]

Polynesians = Mongoloid-Australoid mix (mixing took place ca. 3,000 - 2,000 years ago):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture19844.html

See Figure 3 from the link above:

If the mixture took place 3000 years ago I dont think we can still call them mixed race. And probably they went through experiences which seperates them from other populations. If you look at it european mixing between european forefathers took also about 3000 years ago, about the same time when metal age invaders, mixed with indigenous europeans.

[Peterski]

If you look at it european mixing between european forefathers took also about 3000 years ago, about the same time when metal age invaders, mixed with indigenous europeans.

That was actually 5000 years ago (3000 years BC, but you must add 2000 of Common Era). Another difference is that PIE were the same race as indigenous Europeans, they were also Caucasoid. I made a map:



And before that, there was expansion of Anatolian farmers into Europe. That was 8000 years ago.

But Anatolian farmers were also Caucasoid. They just had more of "Basal Eurasian".

I guess we can divide Caucasoids into Northern and Southern Caucasoids.

[Sacrificed Ram]

So do you consider Veddoids a race? They seem to be just a mix of Australoid and Caucasoid. I guess the term 'pure Veddoid' that I used in my original post was stupid since Veddoid is a mixed race, but I was referring to ASI.

if is pure "Veddoid", the correct nomenclature is "Veddid". Pure "Australoid" is "Australid". Suffix "id" for pure and full types, suffix "oid" for dominant but not full type.

[Mortimer]

That was actually 5000 years ago (3000 years BC, but you must add 2000 of Common Era). Another difference is that PIE were the same race as indigenous Europeans, they were also Caucasoid. I made a map:



And before that, there was expansion of Anatolian farmers into Europe. That was 8000 years ago.

But Anatolian farmers were also Caucasoid. They just had more of "Basal Eurasian".

I guess we can divide Caucasoids into Northern and Southern Caucasoids.

They were probably significantly different in look even if you label them all as caucasoid, but nevertheless, lets compare it with amerindians, amerindians have westeuroasian and australoid admixture and mongoloid. And they dont count as "mixed race". Also weddoids and negritos seem to be older then aboriginals in your timeline but people still think that aboriginals are the represantives of the australoid look and papuans also look different then aboriginals, papuans are to me on a similar level as negroes while aboriginals have a totally different look.

[Peterski]

And they dont count as "mixed race".

But that was like 20,000 years ago. And Polynesian mixing was only +/- 2,000 years ago.

So there is a huge time difference between these two events.

In case of Latinos, mixing has been taking place from ~500 years ago to the present-day.

[Mortimer]

But that was like 20,000 years ago. And Polynesian mixing was only +/- 2,000 years ago.

So there is still a huge difference between these two events.

In case of Latinos, mixing has been taking place from ~500 years ago to the present-day.

3000 years is still old enough to me. Well Latinos I count as mixed race because it was in modernity, new age. But polynesians are a old world population 3000 years ago was before most populations had a script.

[Peterski]

IMO this is a mixed population (proportions of admixtures are very different from individual to individual):

There are large differences, some people close to 99% European, some people over 80% Native American:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...=1#post4172318



And when proportions of admixtures become more evenly distributed and stabilized, it is no longer mixed.

[Mortimer]

IMO this is a mixed population (proportions of admixtures are very different from individual to individual):



And when proportions of admixture become more evenly distributed and "stabilized", it is no longer mixed.

well europeans have different levels of admixtures (but you say they are all caucasoid etc.)