Homo Insapiens
10-29-2023, 03:04 PM
First of all, there’s a lot of woke people nowadays who may take some offense in this kind of question, so I just want to say that, in case it strikes anyone this way, there really shouldn’t be anything remotely offensive about this topic. It doesn’t imply that anyone is inferior/superior or that anyone looks better/worse than another. We are merely discussing which group of people most likely has the oldest looks. We simply want to understand the human story better, & Australian Aboriginals are a major part of that story.
That being said, let’s get on to our topic.
Within contemporary humanity, do (unmixed) Australian Aboriginals look the most like what original Homo Sapiens, & by extension humans before them, would’ve probably looked like?
Anthropologists have long noted that (unmixed) Australian Aboriginals as a group have the most archaic physical features & are the least neotenous within contemporary humans, & anthropologists have also long noted that Australian Aboriginals tend to have traits in common with & thus sometimes sort of resemble Caucasoids, notably with large brow ridges, angular faces & hairiness, which they lack in common with negroids, which means that negroids probably lost those traits while Australoids & Caucasoids retained them.
Australian Aboriginals have the most archaic & least neotenous physical features. Within contemporary humanity, they have the largest brow ridges, the thickest bones, the largest teeth, are the hairiest, are relatively broad nosed & prognathic. All these traits are present in prehistoric human skulls. Negroids also have some of these features, but lack some of these traits as well, notably large brow ridges, angular faces & hairiness.
Do prehistoric human skulls tend to resemble those of Australian Aboriginals the most within contemporary humans, more so than those of other groups, including Africans, despite Africa being the cradle of humanity? If so, does that mean that Africans, along with everyone else, would have descended from people who looked more like Australian Aboriginals, more so than the other way around?
That being said, let’s get on to our topic.
Within contemporary humanity, do (unmixed) Australian Aboriginals look the most like what original Homo Sapiens, & by extension humans before them, would’ve probably looked like?
Anthropologists have long noted that (unmixed) Australian Aboriginals as a group have the most archaic physical features & are the least neotenous within contemporary humans, & anthropologists have also long noted that Australian Aboriginals tend to have traits in common with & thus sometimes sort of resemble Caucasoids, notably with large brow ridges, angular faces & hairiness, which they lack in common with negroids, which means that negroids probably lost those traits while Australoids & Caucasoids retained them.
Australian Aboriginals have the most archaic & least neotenous physical features. Within contemporary humanity, they have the largest brow ridges, the thickest bones, the largest teeth, are the hairiest, are relatively broad nosed & prognathic. All these traits are present in prehistoric human skulls. Negroids also have some of these features, but lack some of these traits as well, notably large brow ridges, angular faces & hairiness.
Do prehistoric human skulls tend to resemble those of Australian Aboriginals the most within contemporary humans, more so than those of other groups, including Africans, despite Africa being the cradle of humanity? If so, does that mean that Africans, along with everyone else, would have descended from people who looked more like Australian Aboriginals, more so than the other way around?