[jam]

Originally Posted by Wulff

Skull shape is the most definitive way relating to bone structure for modern anthropologists to decipher where a human's ancestry was.



We are all still Homo Sapien, primarily, just different subspecies adapted to different environments.

The problem with illustrations like this is that they show relative extremes against each other, so we can see the stereotypical differences more clearly. You can find Negroid skulls that are more similar to the Caucasoid skull in profile, but then there may be other, more subtle differences.

I don't think you can just pull out a part of the equation and claim that only this or that physical feature is the characteristic of the alleged races, it has to be more than just that. If you rely entirely on cranial measurements, you'll end up like Coon, who claimed that some East Africans were Caucasoid.
You really have to take everything into account, pigmentation, skin texture and type, how the layers of the skin are, the soft parts, how fat is distributed, bone density, hair texture etc. etc.

Not to mention genetics…

[Polako]

Bone structure is often not influenced by genetics but by the environment and also epigenetics. So it can change within a generation or two without any changes in genetics (ie. ancestry), like in Central Europe after WWII, and in Eastern Europe after the 1980s.

On the other hand, pigmentation doesn't change that quickly, even if there's a drastic change in environment. For example, Northern Europeans who settled in South Africa didn't become black in a generation or two.

So the argument provided in this thread is basically false. Many bone structure traits have no importance in tracing ancestry, only some do.

[SilverKnight]

For those who claim we're subspecies.
definition of subspecies: Subspecies
A taxonomic subdivision of a species consisting of an interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms.

Now some might say " well hey many Europeans have being isolated from SSA" as an example, but thats far from the truth in genetics, how about other groups of people in northern Africa and the mideast who have carried/brought some negroid genes with them into the Euro gene pool for hundreds if not thousands of years ? . And thats far from truth in todays society when we now have globalization, better ways of connecting with people by travelling making isolation literary a thing of the past.

I would consider Neanderthals a homonid subspecies. I am one of those who think that homo-sapiens mixed with Neanderthals thousand of years ago, and some of their genes are around even today in some of us, but as subspecies they couldn't survive as we did so they died out. We adapted better to the cold or hot, but it doesn't mean we changed completely from each other.

[Alberta]

Neanderthal genes seem to be suspicious to say. Also can you find it on your 23andme? I agree with what you stated however.

[SilverKnight]

Originally Posted by Alberta

Neanderthal genes seem to be suspicious to say. Also can you find it on your 23andme? I agree with what you stated however.

Maybe if 23andme had samples of neantherthal genes to compare there might be some results. Showing at least 1%, or less on Europeans or people with European ancestry like me.

Here's an interesting article : Team Finds up to 4% of Human Genome Comes From Extinct Species, the First Evidence It Mated With Homo Sapiens

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...902037988.html