Does Taxonomy have any Scientific Basis?

[Learning_Genetics]

Races are a Social Construct™. But the main logic in them is that in the ancient times there were some isolated populations who evolutionarily changed in diffrent ways, and then mixed with eachother. There isn't one genetic gene saying "Hallstatt Nordid", or "East Baltid", or whatever, but when you have high correlation of several genes, you can be claimed to be an individual of some race. Always. But races as a one genetic gene don't exist, and the SJWs are right about it, it's rather just having multiple similiar phenotypic genes, and the names like "Nordid" or whatever else is just simplification to use for people who happen to look in some way.

The core races undoubtedly exist. All I am wondering is why anthropologists have made conclusions that large portions of Slavic and Baltic countries have phenotypes that are Mongoloid influenced.

Some phenotypic genes were developed by some population, and we know that because of archaelogy, genetics, et cetera. The problem is that many anthropologists call populations by diffrent names and this is a maing reason of diffrent classifications. But most of them find out similiar conclusions. For an example both Coon (American) and Czekanowski (Pole) came to a conclusion that Slavs are Lapponoid-Nordid mixed, but they called this "Slavic" race by diffrent names. Coon used name "East Baltic", and Czekanowski used name "Subnordid".

It may just be that I do not undertsand, but their conclusion seems to imply that Slavs are Eurasian. The Lapponoid type is ultimately Asiatic. How is it possible that the core of Europe could be so heavily influenced by Asiatic phenotypes?

But phenotypic genes can be also tricky, because they are selected randomly. Imagine that there are two families combined of one White-Nordic parent and one Negroid parent. One family has Nordic-Negroid mixed son, and other has Nordic-Negroid mixed daughter. Even the SJWs screeching about "race doesn't exist" would say that both of these children are mulatoes. And now imagine that this mulllatto male marries mullatto woman and they have two children - there is a small chance that one of their children will inherit almost only White genes, and the other only Black genes. But genetically they would be mixed and have some specified African/European genes such as haplogroups.

But in this instance it is obvious that there is inter-marriage. I am talking about cases where someone is born from parents of the same ethnicity but their phenotype is declared to somehow be Mongoloid or Lappoid influenced, but based on what criteria? You have described to me the criteria and I thank you for doing so. But what is the implication of such findings?

So as you can see they work in the way: If you have 100% for an example European phenotypic genes, then you have certainly European admixture, but it's not certain if you don't have also some other admixture.

What about cases where a person looks to have admixture from a non-European source, but doesn't? For example, you often hear in English speaking countries, especially in America, Australia or New Zealand, that anyone with high cheek bones must have Native American or Maori ancestry. Why can these not be European features?

Lapponoids are generally very transistional from White to Yellow race. It means that this Swede could have have some slight "Mongoloid" genes which are impossible to inherit if your parents don't have even slight Mongoloid admixture. For an example: flat face/nose, median fold, yellowish skin. Those would be impossible to inherit if this Swede was not part Lapponoid.

It seems that half of Northern and Eastern Europe is Lappanoid because the Baltid type is very common.

We are certain that some genes are being inherited because of some admixture. As I said before, it's impossible to not have even slight Mongoloid/Lapponoid admixture and have epicanthic/median fold, because this gene was not developed by non-Lapponoid/Mongoloid populations, or to have Blond hair and not be admixed with Nordids or Cro-Magnons. Those are empirical facts.

So then most of Europe is influenced by Asiatic DNA?

[Lucas]

It seems that half of Northern and Eastern Europe is Lappanoid because the Baltid type is very common.

So then most of Europe is influenced by Asiatic DNA?

There aren't contradict each other. Because I think this sort of traits (call it Baltid, Lapponoid, Ost-Europid) is probably connected with EHG / ANE.
So those traits aren't derived from East Asian Mongloids but from some transitional population from NE-Europe / north Eurasia.
We can imagine that those guys aren't convex nosed, narrow faced, big eyed, lanky types, but the opposite. Isn't it? Their pigmentation isn't really important. Later were mixed in EHG. But till today ranges from brunet in pure Lapps to very blond in many Baltids.

[Veslan]

The core races undoubtedly exist. All I am wondering is why anthropologists have made conclusions that large portions of Slavic and Baltic countries have phenotypes that are Mongoloid influenced.

They have just assumed that if Slavs have some pseudo-Mongoloid traits like median fold then they are probably mixed with Mongols to a high degree.

It may just be that I do not undertsand, but their conclusion seems to imply that Slavs are Eurasian. The Lapponoid type is ultimately Asiatic. How is it possible that the core of Europe could be so heavily influenced by Asiatic phenotypes?

Early migration of N1c and Q y-DNA haplogroup (probably) populations to Europe from Siberia, who later formed Eastern Hunter Gatherers. But remember that they migrated here in UP, and evolutionarily (or due to mixing with already existing Cro-Magnons) started to differ from East Asians.

I am talking about cases where someone is born from parents of the same ethnicity but their phenotype is declared to somehow be Mongoloid or Lappoid influenced, but based on what criteria?

I said it in previous posts. Mongoloid/Lapponoid traits are: "Roundish" face, flat face, flat nose, high cheek bones, yellowish skin, epicanthic or median fold... Such traits were never developed by Mediterrenean derivates, but were indeed developed by Lapponoids and Mongoloids.

What about cases where a person looks to have admixture from a non-European source, but doesn't? For example, you often hear in English speaking countries, especially in America, Australia or New Zealand, that anyone with high cheek bones must have Native American or Maori ancestry. Why can these not be European features?

Lapponoid admixed Europeans tend to look mostly European, and Native American admixed Americans tend to look much more influenced by Mongoloids. That's because Lapponoids by itself are very European admixed. So my guess is that an American with Indian ancestry will look less White overall than European with Lappid admixture. Compare random Latino to random Neo-Danubian/East Baltic - random Latino would most likely look more Mongoloid admixed than a Neo-Danubian/East Baltic.

It seems that half of Northern and Eastern Europe is Lappanoid because the Baltid type is very common.

Yes. Eastern Europeans are mostly Nordids mixed with Lapponoids ("Neo-Danubians"/"East Baltids"). Some Scandinavians (especially Finns if you even count them as "Scandinavian") are probably Lapponoid admixed as well because of close connections to Lapps.

So then most of Europe is influenced by Asiatic DNA?

Well, Lapponoids were for so long in Europe that it's safer to count them as transistional between Asian and European. Much of Europeans have some percent of Denisovan DNA, which implies they had some "asian-looking" ancestors as well. I think that some race-mixing might have had occured between Indo-Europeans (who were Eastern European) and Lapponoids, but I can't be sure about it.

We can be certain that Eastern Europe is Lapponoid admixed, because the most of Slavs, Balts and Finns have typical Lapponoid traits. Also much of Germans/Austrians and some Scandinavians are most likely Lapponoid admixed, but in places like the British Isles or Iberia Lapponoid element is generally weak or absent.

[Heather Duval]

Science says race doesnt exist, so no.

[Puritan Benedict]

Science says race doesnt exist, so no.

Science no, MODERN and cucked science. Anyone who is brave enough to simply imply the existence of races in the scientific background nowdays will then lose their licenses for supposedly commiting hate crimes. Remember, scientists don't work under their own resources, they are financed. Say anything that contradicts the post modern logic and as an scientist, you won't be financed anymore.

[blogen]

Science says race doesnt exist, so no.

Liberal political thought suggests...

[blogen]

I can clearly see the median fold and yellowish skin.

Your problem, since everybody see here the defiency of the flat cheekbone, so this girl is clear Europid, without any Mongoloid ancestors. This is the problem with the superficial guessing!

[Smeagol]

Your problem, since everybody see here the defiency of the flat cheekbone, so this girl is clear Europid, without any Mongoloid ancestors. This is the problem with the superficial guessing!

How about this skull? how would you classify it?

[Veslan]

Your problem, since everybody see here the defiency of the flat cheekbone, so this girl is clear Europid, without any Mongoloid ancestors. This is the problem with the superficial guessing!

If you are referring to skull shape as the supposed only thing which can be used to determine race - then this girl has smaller and shorter skull than full Europids, and the photo might be perhaps not ideal but i think she has forward projected cheek bones a bit.

Also your first picture with Caucasoid, Cro-Magnon and Mongoloid skulls is very simplified. Skull shape varies a lot within those races.

[Veslan]

How about this skull? how would you classify it?

I know you didn't ask me, but in my opinion it's Caucasoid, and probably Middle-Eastern/North African (Arabid?), or Indian, because the nose is quite too big for a European, while face seems to be very narrow so it's clearly a Mediterrenean derivate.

Where is this skull from?