What race are Dravidians closest to Caucasian, Mongoloid, Australoid ?

[ButlerKing]

I previously made a thread about wether Dravidians are Caucasoid or Australoid however I know think twice about this
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?71885-Dravidians-Caucasoid-or-Australoids



My mistake: I used to think anthropology matters more than genetics but now I realized it is genetics that matters 100x more. Morphological features can always change in different enviroments but genetic always stays the same.


Dravidians people in London. Their look neither caucasian or negroid, they are what they are Dravidians. However they share similar features with Caucasian in body structure but skin color with negroid but genetically with Mongoloid.


http://tamilguardian.com/files/Image/pictures/diaspora/Uni%20Tamil%20Soc%20Nov%202011/340438_226341737430725_124424337622466_671368_9606 48443_o.jpg

The idea of them being Mongoloid is absurd however if Ainu are considered Mongoloid why not Dravidians?



" According to Bamshad et. al. (2002): To test whether samples from India could be distinguished in an analysis of samples from all three continents, we added samples from Africa and reanalyzed the data. This time, the best estimate of K was 3, and the assignment to the correct population was >98% for samples from sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, and Europe. The samples from southern India were assigned predominantly to the cluster of East Asians (84%), though some of them (16%) were assigned to the cluster containing Europeans.According to Watkins et al. "



In another study of 2009 conducted among 10 Asian countries, Dravidian peoples showed similarities with north Indians as well as peoples of Malaysia, Singapore and China.[19] "

[Dombra]

They are Australoid but not pure. There is Caucasoid, even if it is very far from real Caucasoids, and some south east Asian

[ButlerKing]

They are Australoid but not pure. There is Caucasoid, even if it is very far from real Caucasoids, and some south east Asian


But genetics say they are 84% East Asian.


Are Australoid East Asian?

[ButlerKing]

They are Australoid but not pure. There is Caucasoid, even if it is very far from real Caucasoids, and some south east Asian


READ THIS

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22406710


Indian J Dent Res. 2011 Sep-Oct;22(5):664-8. doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.93453.

A comparison of lip prints between Aryans-Dravidians and Mongols.

Prasad P1; Vanishree.



" Indians are closer to Mongoloids than to Caucasoids or Negroids as indicated by the phylogenetic tree. Most of the studies on lip prints are done in their own population. We have compared lip prints of Manipuris with other Indians (Aryans and Dravidians) who are both close to Mongoloid race and are genetically similar. "

[Dombra]

But genetics say they are 84% East Asian.


Are Australoid East Asian?

East Asian in its broadest term

[ButlerKing]

East Asian in its broadest term

What I don't get is why they claim their closest to Mongoloid race.


An Indian scienstist said they show more similarity with the Mongoloid race genetically? Insane and stupid.


The world should be destroyed because everyone are making crazy ass claims.

[ButlerKing]

Shockingly the wikipedia had mentioned them being East Asian for as long as it was created

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_peoples

[ButlerKing]

More on Dravidians...... and is getting weirder and weirder.......


" Because of admixture between Australoid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid racial groups, one cannot speak of a biologically separate "Dravidian race" distinct from non-Dravidians on the Indian subcontinent. In a 2009 study of 132 individuals, 560,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 25 different Indian groups were analysed, providing strong evidence in support of the notion that modern Indians (both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian groups) are a hybrid population descending from two post-Neolithic, genetically divergent populations referred to as the 'Ancestral North Indians' and the 'Ancestral South Indians'. According to the study, Andamanese are an ASI-related group without ANI ancestry, showing that the peopling of the islands must have occurred before ANI-ASI gene flow on the mainland.[22] "

[Kale]

Indigenous South Asians are sort of near the root of Caucasians and Mongols. There has been both Caucasian and Mongol migration into South Asia since the divergence, so it really depends which part you are in to determine which is more dominant.

[ButlerKing]

Indigenous South Asians are sort of near the root of Caucasians and Mongols. There has been both Caucasian and Mongol migration into South Asia since the divergence, so it really depends which part you are in to determine which is more dominant.

Dravidians look 0% Mongoloid especially Northwest Indian look 0.00000000000000% Mongoloid.

However I don't get how scientist claim their 84% East Asian and closer to the Mongoloid but yet have 0% physical relations with them.

I once heard a theory that South Asians have black hair texture similar to Mongoloids.


I wish there was some video explaining this crap once and for all.

[Styrian Mujo]

I've heard some say south Asians are like pre-Eurasians who didn't evolve like Europeans and Asians because reasons.

[ButlerKing]

I've heard some say south Asians are like pre-Eurasians who didn't evolve like Europeans and Asians because reasons.

I used to think they were proto-caucasoid but proto-caucasoid have Caucasian DNA where as proto-dravidians have East Asian DNA?

Something don't make sense.


An albino looks more like Caucasian yet anthropologist have kept denying they are a Caucasoid people


http://www.noopooh.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/indian8.png

[Kale]

Dravidians look 0% Mongoloid especially Northwest Indian look 0.00000000000000% Mongoloid.

However I don't get how scientist claim their 84% East Asian and closer to the Mongoloid but yet have 0% physical relations with them.

I once heard a theory that South Asians have black hair texture similar to Mongoloids.


I wish there was some video explaining this crap once and for all.

Easy...

First non-Africans separate from Africans.
Then Basal Eurasians separate from Eurasians
Then Eurasians split into West and East Eurasians (somewhere around India)

So you have the ancestors of Whites, Mongols, and Indians all in India. Mongols head out East and Mongol around for a while. Whites head out West and some populations pick up Basal Eurasian admixture. So when looking at indigenous Indians on a basis of African, Mongol, or Caucasian...they are going to mostly line up with Mongol, because Mongol would be the most direct descendents.

This would only apply to essentially the darkest of the dark though, as there has been backflow of Caucasians into India in most parts.

[ButlerKing]

Easy...

First non-Africans separate from Africans.
Then Basal Eurasians separate from Eurasians
Then Eurasians split into West and East Eurasians (somewhere around India)

So you have the ancestors of Whites, Mongols, and Indians all in India. Mongols head out East and Mongol around for a while. Whites head out West and some populations pick up Basal Eurasian admixture. So when looking at indigenous Indians on a basis of African, Mongol, or Caucasian...they are going to mostly line up with Mongol, because Mongol would be the most direct descendents.

This would only apply to essentially the darkest of the dark though, as there has been backflow of Caucasians into India in most parts.


I still don't get this crap at all. :picard2:

I understand Eurasian split like 41,000 years ago and all.


How would you define the Dravidian race.


What is more important definition of race for you. Genetics or physical appaearance?

Dravidians who are 84% East Asian and 16% European/Caucasian but look like either dark skin caucasians or australoids with hairy body/straight hair

Who are Dravidians closest cousins?

[Kale]

I still don't get this crap at all. :picard2:

I understand Eurasian split like 41,000 years ago and all.


How would you define the Dravidian race.


What is more important definition of race for you. Genetics or physical appaearance?

Dravidians who are 84% East Asian and 16% European/Caucasian but look like either dark skin caucasians or australoids with hairy body/straight hair

Who are Dravidians closest cousins?

They are not 84% East Asian. South Asians are essentially divergent enough to form their own cluster.

[ButlerKing]

They are not 84% East Asian. South Asians are essentially divergent enough to form their own cluster.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_peoples



" More recently, other geneticists, such as Lynn B. Jorde and Stephen P. Wooding, demonstrated that Southern Indians were most closely related to East Asians.[15][16][17]

Why not just say South Asian instead?

[ButlerKing]

They are not 84% East Asian. South Asians are essentially divergent enough to form their own cluster.

Is not just European scientist who make these claims.

I once e-mail a south Indian proffessor who is close friend of a scientist from North India Delhi and replied to me saying " South Indians have closest affinity and genetic relations with Mongoloids from Southeast Asia "


I bet if you tell a Indian about this they be like " what the freaking hell ???!!! "

[ButlerKing]

And I though being East Asian is something like Koreans, Chinese, Manchus, Tibetan. Japanese, Taiwanese, Mongolian, Hong Konger ect.

Yet they claimed their most closer to Southeast Asian like Malay, Singaporean

[peterselva2]

How Australoid abogrines are related to Dravidians?

Dravidians are simply Indians who speak Dravidian language with darker than average Indian skintone.

Indians basically are their own race.

Butlerking, being an INDIAN, must know this :)

[peterselva2]

I've heard some say south Asians are like pre-Eurasians who didn't evolve like Europeans and Asians because reasons.

What the fuck you exactly mean by EVOLVE?

[ButlerKing]

How Australoid abogrines are related to Dravidians?

Dravidians are simply Indians who speak Dravidian language with darker than average Indian skintone.

Butlerking, being an INDIAN, must know this :)


Dravidians are Indians but they are not the same genetically. North Indians are 3x closer to western eurasian and South Indians are 3x closer to eastern eurasian.
Being Australian aborigines does not mean Australoid. Learn your facts first, they don't have much to do with the negroid looking australoid. Dravidians look more like Veddoid which is is a different type. Australoids have many different types. Veddas/South Indians are considered by some to be Australoid although not necessarily , they aren't found anywhere apart from South Asia.


http://vedda.org/pix/dambana_veddas_2000.jpg


Anyway I still don't get this.

[Styrian Mujo]

What the fuck you exactly mean by EVOLVE?
Different human populations evolve different traits for obvious reasons. I think the proper term is micro-evolution or something of the sorts.

[ButlerKing]

Anymore explanation?

[blogen]

http://img.ie/7ando.jpg

[ButlerKing]

http://img.ie/7ando.jpg

What does this genetic chart say?

I don't understand it.

[blogen]

What does this genetic chart say?
I don't understand it.

This is the racial chart, the origin of the races based on the genetic chart. (http://www.humpopgenfudan.cn/p/A/A1.pdf) This was the short story.

[ButlerKing]

This is the racial chart, the origin of the races based on the genetic chart. (http://www.humpopgenfudan.cn/p/A/A1.pdf) This was the short story.

I don't understand it.

This is what it says though

The Dravidian race


The genetic views on race differ in their classification of Dravidians. According to population geneticist L.L. Cavalli-Sforza of Stanford, based on work done in the 1980s, Indians are genetically Caucasian, but Lewontin rejects the label Caucasian. Cavalli-Sforza found that Indians are about three times closer to West Europeans than to East Asians.[7] Dr. Eduardas Valaitis, in 2006, found that India is genetically closest to East and Southeast Asians with about 15% more genetic similarity than to Europeans; he also found that India could be considered very distinct from other regions.[8] Genetic anthropologist Stanley Marion Garn considered in the 1960s that the entirety of the Indian Subcontinent to be a "race" genetically distinct from other populations.[7][9] Others, such as Lynn B. Jorde and Stephen P. Wooding, claim South Indians are genetic intermediaries between Europeans and East Asians.[10][11][12]

[blogen]

I don't understand it.
This is what it says though
[B]The Dravidian race

The Dravidian is a language and not a race. The [Veddo-]Australoid is the race.

[ButlerKing]

The Dravidian is a language and not a race. The [Veddo-]Australoid is the race.

Yes Yes Yes. I know dravidian is a language.

Although their typical look ( like more 95% are like these )


Easily distinguishable

http://static4.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_scale_large/2100-7/photos/1372128132-uk-tamils-protest-against-sri-lanka-hosting-chogm_2190457.jpg

[Stimpy]

100% pure Dravidians are definitely closer to Australoids than any other population. The average modern one is probably a mix of Caucasoid/Australoid with some very minor mongoloid.

[ButlerKing]

100% pure Dravidians are definitely closer to Australoids than any other population. The average modern one is probably a mix of Caucasoid/Australoid with some very minor mongoloid.

I never considered Dravidians to be mixed with Mongoloid since ( real ) Mongoloid DNA itself is 0% in South Indians.

However despite all these they still cluster closest with the Mongoloid race in almost every DNA chart I've seen. That is why this whole thing is confusion.


My only explanation that Australoids are Mongoloid by DNA and genetic but not by anthropology.

[Kale]

I never considered Dravidians to be mixed with Mongoloid since ( real ) Mongoloid DNA itself is 0% in South Indians.

However despite all these they still cluster closest with the Mongoloid race in almost every DNA chart I've seen. That is why this whole thing is confusion.


My only explanation that Australoids are Mongoloid by DNA and genetic but not by anthropology.

Backwards...Mongoloids are Australoid (and by that I mean derived from indigenous South Indians) in part.

[ButlerKing]

Backwards...Mongoloids are Australoid (and by that I mean derived from indigenous South Indians) in part.



Maybe so.

Mongoloids are cold adapted australoids?

[Smeagol]

Maybe so.

Mongoloids are cold adapted australoids?

No they are a completely different Race today but their distant ancestors were Australoids partly. "Australoid" (Weddoid basically) territory extended much farther in the past. Northeast Asians have been Mongoloid since Prehistoric times, whereas Southeast Asians mostly became Mongolized in historic times by waves of Mongoloids coming from South China. Some Southeast Asians still have Autraloid/Weddoid traits though.

[ButlerKing]

No they are a completely different Race today but their distant ancestors were Australoids partly. "Australoid" (Weddoid basically) territory extended much farther in the past. Northeast Asians have been Mongoloid since Prehistoric times, whereas Southeast Asians mostly became Mongolized in historic times by waves of Mongoloids coming from South China. Some Southeast Asians still have Autraloid/Weddoid traits though.


They are completely different race physically but not genetically. That is why I said genetics is more important than anthropology.

So how did Mongoloid came out?


Mongoloid features existed around 12,000 years ago to 15,000 years ago.

[Smeagol]

They are completely different race physically but not genetically. That is why I said genetics is more important than anthropology.

So how did Mongoloid came out?


Mongoloid features existed around 12,000 to 15,000 years ago.

[Smeagol]

They are completely different race physically but not genetically. That is why I said genetics is more important than anthropology.

So how did Mongoloid came out?


Mongoloid features existed around 12,000 to 15,000 years ago.

Genetically they probably have a lot of East Eurasian admixture, but most Dravidian are closer to Caucasoid (Which is a physical Racial type, I'm not talk inning about genetically or whatever.)

[ButlerKing]

Genetically they probably have a lot of East Eurasian admixture, but most Dravidian are closer to Caucasoid (Which is a physical Racial type, I'm not talk inning about genetically or whatever.)

Um.... no way. They are not closer to Caucasoid because if they were closer to Caucasoid they would have Caucasoid skull, which they don't.

[Smeagol]

Um.... no way. They are not closer to Caucasoid because if they were closer to Caucasoid they would have Caucasoid skull, which they don't

Most are Caucasoid-Australoid mix. Just look at typical Tamils.

[ButlerKing]

Most are Caucasoid-Australoid mix. Just look at typical Tamils.

Typical Tamils don't have caucasoid skull.

Those are veddoid features.


Caucasoid admixture (or better said western Eurasian admixture) is only 14% in South Indians.


Australoid are closer to Mongoloid than Caucasoid or Negroid on genetic chart.

[Gryphon]

Palaeolithic ancestors of the Neolithic Dravidian speakers looked exactly like Australian Abos (true Australoids). Since up-to the dawn of civilization, These Australoids were living as far north as Pakistan, they started picking up Caucasian Phenotypes by way of Near Easter influence, after the advent of farming.

The Near Eastern and Western Steppe influence continued for thousands of years, introducing J and R to the dark brown population, .

Ancient Dravidian veddoids were an intermediary species Between archaic Australoids and Mongloid, with slight Caucasion phenotypic influence by way of Near Easterners and Central Asians.

[Mortimer]

Negritos are genetically close to southeastasians. But they look worlds apart etc. Im not so familiar with dravidian genetics but i think they are westerneuroasian on global map but farther apart then northindians and northindians farther apart from europe then mideasterners. also i dont know how much ancient components matter for race if they are since thousands of years stabilised thats different then biracial, actually europeans are also sardinian like, siberian like and western european like mixture etc. but they are only european really. it depends on how you define it and how distant in the past you look, we even have neanderthal and denisovan dna etc. just small amounts but still, it is a evolution and many components overlap. in my opinion indians are asians (or southasians) i wouldnt go as much into technicalities about genetic studies ancient hominids etc. or anthropological races but view it from a social point of view, in america or uk indians and pakistanis are "asians" or just "indians" "pakistanis" etc. whatever they are, now they are since thousands of years a distinct culture. you cant describe them as caucasoid, mongoloid, australoid etc. in my opinion because you would overlook that they are indians. indian genomic institution divides the sub-continent into 4 morphological types "caucasoid, mongoloid, australoid, and negrito" and dravidians i think could be australoid or caucasoid. also not all dravidians are exactly alike, i mean the people who speak a dravidian language. my two cents, do you agree?

[Gustave H]

I met one of these people and he identified himself as an "Asian". I'd say they have East Asian in them as well as some other things. They're definitely mixed.

[Sikeliot]

They are intermediate between Caucasoid and Australoid, thus related in part to people like Papuans, Australian Aborigines, etc.

[Mortimer]

also to me caucasoid is not a valid race. others may disagree but the differences are to vast, also i dont buy into the subraces defined by skull measurement, like alpinid, nordid etc. or any kinship based on that, i think a pontid and east nordid russian are much closer then a nordid english and nordid russian etc. you cant define nationalities etc. by race. ok there is obviously white, black, and asian etc. but i dont think there is really caucasoid too vast differences in phenotype and culture, what a swede and a palestinian have in common nothing. europe is a geographical region culturally and phenotypically similar with some small exceptions on the fringes from admixture (like sicily or canarian islands who might look exotic etc.) but outside of that i dont see a bond of caucasoid races etc. it is not valid in my opinion. i dont know how first humans in india looked like but also in europe the first humans looked different then now for example they had all brown eyes, and light skin mutated first in middle east etc. i wouldnt go so much into that. some indians look a bit like australian aboriginals though, thats true. there are also adamnese islanders who look like small pygmies and there are also northeast indians who look tibetan etc. it is diverse. i think most indians are skull wise and feature wise caucasoid north and south, if you think it is valid. but culturally and racially they are indians, a own world. i would never mistake a super caucasoid indian for a european, or a super caucasoid iraqui for a european, thats why i think caucasian if at all should be applied to europeans only. which is in popular speech in usa like that.

[Mortimer]

They are intermediate between Caucasoid and Australoid, thus related in part to people like Papuans, Australian Aborigines, etc.

genetically they arent. only from looks. genetically they are distinct from papuans and australian aboriginals, they might score 1% oceanian or like that, not more.

[ButlerKing]

Negritos are genetically close to southeastasians. But they look worlds apart etc. Im not so familiar with dravidian genetics but i think they are westerneuroasian on global map but farther apart then northindians and northindians farther apart from europe then mideasterners. also i dont know how much ancient components matter for race if they are since thousands of years stabilised thats different then biracial, actually europeans are also sardinian like, siberian like and western european like mixture etc. but they are only european really. it depends on how you define it and how distant in the past you look, we even have neanderthal and denisovan dna etc. just small amounts but still, it is a evolution and many components overlap. in my opinion indians are asians (or southasians) i wouldnt go as much into technicalities about genetic studies ancient hominids etc. or anthropological races but view it from a social point of view, in america or uk indians and pakistanis are "asians" or just "indians" "pakistanis" etc. whatever they are, now they are since thousands of years a distinct culture. you cant describe them as caucasoid, mongoloid, australoid etc. in my opinion because you would overlook that they are indians. indian genomic institution divides the sub-continent into 4 morphological types "caucasoid, mongoloid, australoid, and negrito" and dravidians i think could be australoid or caucasoid. also not all dravidians are exactly alike, i mean the people who speak a dravidian language. my two cents, do you agree?


Yes the Negritos are genetically close to Southeast Asian but it seems Dravidians are even closer, personally I don't get it.

I seriously doubt dravidians are western Eurasian, I mean all they have is nothing but 14-16% western Eurasian with 84-86% being South Asian.


I'm not saying Dravidians are like subset of the Mongoloid race only that they are closer to East Asian Mongoloid people genetically than to Western Eurasian, on the other hand North Indian people are 3x closer to Western Eurasian. But South Indian closer to Mongoloid.

[ButlerKing]

They are intermediate between Caucasoid and Australoid, thus related in part to people like Papuans, Australian Aborigines, etc.

All they have is 14-16% western Eurasian admixture and also their Australoid phenotypes are not similar to Black looking Australoids but to the sri Lankan's veddas. Their phenotypes are weddoids or veddoids.

[Kale]

All they have is 14-16% western Eurasian admixture and also their Australoid phenotypes are not similar to Black looking Australoids but to the sri Lankan's veddas. Their phenotypes are weddoids or veddoids.

Alright, let's try a visual format...

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=50864

[ButlerKing]

Alright, let's try a visual format...

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=50864


I don't know where you get this stupid picture from. It looks drawn and fake.

It certainly doesn't make sense and correspond with all the other genetic studies that shows Dravidians being much closer to Mongoloid.

[Kale]

I don't know where you get this stupid picture from. It looks drawn and fake.

It certainly doesn't make sense and correspond with all the other genetic studies that shows Dravidians being much closer to Mongoloid.

It looks drawn because it is drawn, I just drew it. It make perfect sense with all genetic studies (with a little fine tuning).

[ButlerKing]

It looks drawn because it is drawn, I just drew it. It make perfect sense with all genetic studies (with a little fine tuning).

Lol with all genetic studies????

Look how many quotes I made about South Indians being closer to East Asian or Mongoloid? and look how many quotes you made about them being close to Caucasian/Western Eurasian ( is like 0 )

[Mortimer]

Lol with all genetic studies????

Look how many quotes I made about South Indians being closer to East Asian or Mongoloid? and look how many quotes you made about them being close to Caucasian/Western Eurasian ( is like 0 )

people are ignorant. there are thousands of sciences from past (coon, deniker anthropology etc.) and from now (genetic studies) which say gypsies are caucasian and westerneuroasian and have never been classified as aboriginal and there are still people like aherne who claim that gypsies would pass in australia before india even etc. or who call gypsies weddoid etc. http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?140385-recent-mtdna-and-genome-wide-studies-on-romani-europeans

[ButlerKing]

people are ignorant. there are thousands of sciences from past (coon, deniker anthropology etc.) and from now (genetic studies) which say gypsies are caucasian and westerneuroasian and have never been classified as aboriginal and there are still people like aherne who claim that gypsies would pass in australia before india even etc. or who call gypsies weddoid etc. http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?140385-recent-mtdna-and-genome-wide-studies-on-romani-europeans

Gypsies do not look like Indian......

Gypsies are 40% Northwest Indian + 30% European + 30% Middle easterner.

That makes you very Caucasian, more than everyone in South Asia.

[Mortimer]

Gypsies do not look like Indian......

Gypsies are 40% Northwest Indian + 30% European + 30% Middle easterner.

That makes you very Caucasian, more than everyone in South Asia.

for some reason the indian seems to be dominant, and they are like 47% northwestindian (recent genome wide study using meghawal as a proxy), but it is diverse, many gypsies look not indian but many could pass without problems

[Kale]

Lol with all genetic studies????

Look how many quotes I made about South Indians being closer to East Asian or Mongoloid? and look how many quotes you made about them being close to Caucasian/Western Eurasian ( is like 0 )

You've been quoting the same stupid, poorly interpreted thing,repeatedly, and nothing else.

[ButlerKing]

You've been quoting the same stupid, poorly interpreted thing,repeatedly, and nothing else.

poorly interpreted? these are interpreted by South Asian and European scientist.

You have nothing else to proof other than homemade charts.

[Kale]

poorly interpreted? these are interpreted by South Asian and European scientist.

You have nothing else to proof other than homemade charts.

No, your poor interpretation of their interpretations. Tell me, what samples were involved in this supposed study that 'proved' Indians were '86% Asian'?