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.
Say you went back to 2000 BC. Even though it was a very long time ago would regions that we associate with various races today be much different? Basically would the people from East Asia, Middle East, India, Europe etc. today look much different than the people that inhabit the areas today that you see if you were to travel to those areas today look much different in 2000 BC?
The "races" would look pretty much as they do today. The morphological evolution of let's say light skinned Europeans took place sometime between 7,000 to 40,000 years ago depending on which school of research you wish to believe. The 7,000 year figure comes from more recent research based upon the discovery of two men in the Cantabrian Mountains of Spain who did not possess the gene for light skin but did have the genetic markers for blue eyes, leading research by paleogeneticist Charles Lalueza-Fox, to postulate that people refer to as Caucasians appeared much later than originally thought.
But here it the problem with attempting to trace the origins of the morphological difference between humans, human migration wasn't linear meaning that once humans left Africa they didn't go to their terminal destination and stay there. There were migrations out of African and the Middle east and back again due to changes in climate.
And the clear resemblance and relation of Native Americans to northern Asians would push the evolution of that race (as well as of the Mongoloid sub-race) to well before 12,000 B.C.
I've always wondered why in almost all older western paintings i've seen, the men have very large noses. Did they *actually* have bigger noses or was it just a desirable trait that was embellished for effect?
And how could we really know since there is no "nose bones" to be found?
And the clear resemblance and relation of Native Americans to northern Asians would push the evolution of that race (as well as of the Mongoloid sub-race) to well before 12,000 B.C.
Of course that begs the question, which Native Americans, and which northern asians. According to what I am reading the morphological variations for Amerindians in the southern hemisphere is one of the highest. What that means I really don't know.
Of course that begs the question, which Native Americans, and which northern asians. According to what I am reading the morphological variations for Amerindians in the southern hemisphere is one of the highest. What that means I really don't know.
Morphological variation doesn't necessarily equate with differences in genetic ancestry. Kennewick Man was theorized to have both Caucasian and Polynesian ancestry based on morphological features, but a recent DNA study has definitively shown that he is closely related to local Native Americans, after all. Morphological differences can just as easily be explained by the "founder effect" and "genetic drift", when dealing with what was likely small bands migrating across the Bering land (or ice) bridge.
I've always wondered why in almost all older western paintings i've seen, the men have very large noses. Did they *actually* have bigger noses or was it just a desirable trait that was embellished for effect?
And how could we really know since there is no "nose bones" to be found?
Some people did have larger noses.
The super sized snouts are probably due to 'genetic drift'. Basically, most people in earlier times only married locally, and often the local population were genetically very similar to themselves. Then factor in that as travel was rarer, there was not a lot of new genes being brought into areas.
The end result is that local inherited physical characteristics tended to get exaggerated. In addition, the size of the noses can be deduced from the nasal cavity in the skulls.
There would be slight differences. Compare us to the people like us 4000 years ago would look somewhat different. Body features are usually tailored by the place and the life, and we are not exactly as our ancestors were back 4k years ago.
But the basic divergence had come and the divisions of the main segments of humaity had happened.
What's really fascinating is when you look way way back. The old idea that was believed before dna could be mapped was that the basic human form came from one variation of human. It was long scoffed at when it was suggested that the homosapiens who met the neandthals would have mated with them. But a hip bone of a neanderthal was found deep in a cave, and a full analysis of their dna was finally available. And we found that not only is a greater part of European humans neanderthal, but other body features all of the world are too. As as other parts which come from specific populations as humans migrated continuously for thoustands of years, both north and south and across land bridges.
So those 'special' characteristics found in specific populations are both universal and local. There are more neanderthal dna in Europeans than africans, but there is some of both in both.
Since we've changed our ways of living we are continuting to modify our bodies. We don't smell like an early hunter since we don't need to. We are less muscular than when strength kept you alive. We'll keep changing. But the basic form is a little bit of all of us merged into the best of all.
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.
