Were you inspired by my last posts?
Well if so or not you wrote it down much better what I meant and said, lets say a little bit more tendencious.
Very good post, I fully agree.
The problem is that sexual selection is not "logical" in the term of being the best adapted ones.
Usually it is in regional, constant population, but not for sure not every time in post-neolithic societies.
F.e. the attraction of "hyper-boobs" in U.S. is for sure nothing adaptive.
Humans should on the one hand look on aesthetic and on the other on functional features (if thinking about Eugenic).
In fact I think the tempted climate zone makes the most beautiful humans because its equable and produces balanced humans.
This is going in two directions, people which come in extreme regions lose attractiveness (f.e. Pygmaes, Northern Siberians etc) and the other way around it works too (woodland indians, Northern Chinese) because they are less stocky build and got longer legs and finer features compared to the people living in extreme cold, but both are of the mongoloid stock.
The versatile and not extremely specialized humans with a high energy level are usually more attractive, but thats more true for men, because infantile women can look attractive to many men too. (or even more)
That explains partially why European women more often mate with blacks and European men with Mongoloids more than the other way around.
It seems that men look even attractive if they got heavy primitive features, and women look attractive if they look paedomorphic/infantile ones.
The only question is, why, if sexual selection is important, and this trend lasted already for a long time, is the sexual dimorphism so low in humans compared to Apes like the Gorilla?

Dienekes what do you think about the debate that humans are monogamic, polygamic or just promiscuitive? Or cultural just adaptable?
I read the theory that high sexual dimorphism is usually correlated with polygamy in the animal kingdom.
So do we trend to prefer more sexual dimorphism in cultures which are polygamic - promiscuitive?

How does it make sense from your model that Europeans migrated from Africa, and Asians migrated from Europe, and yet both Africans and Asians are suffering tension for not looking European? Wouldn't your model be more applicable if Europeans and Asians both found African adapted phenotypes more desirable, as they both should have more of these jerry-rigged phenotypes?

By the way, where you been Dienekes??

The main thing is that progressive types even if they not too paedomorphic have usually finer face features. (f.e. less prognathic, narrowness etc)
And if you talking about to-day Africans you have to consider that the Negroid type is not the original human basis type.
I think the today Negroids are what I would say a core race. That means they developed under extreme conditions in a limited area and then spread all over sub-saharan Africa.
So the Negroid basis type is highly specialized and not the human basis type before the human movements all over the world.
Same is true for Mongoloids. Features like the Epicanthus and the flat face or the short legs couldnt be developed (in my opinion) f.e. in South Eastern Asia.
There was core region and from this region they spread in waves and different times all over East-SE-Asia.
Both core races mixed with/assimilated other groups like the Pygmaes, the Khosainids, the Australoids, the Negritoes etc that lived in the regions in which they came when they spread.
The Europeans/Caucasoids had never just one core region after they settled in Europe and Western Asia and developed quite continuosly in different regions.
So they are not as adapted to a extreme environment as at least the core groups of the other races are (Tungide for Mongoloids and Palaenegride/Sudanide for Negroids)

I think if you want to know how the original homo sapiens before further specialization had looked like, I would think of brighter Australoids.
From these base the 3 major and successful races so far developed and spread over the world.
Not every "black" or "yellow" person is so highly specialized as their core group. F.e. the Sinids, the major Mongoloid race in China is not so extreme like the Tungid, and is much more beautiful to Europeans than the former.
Because the core races (Negroid and Mongoloid) are nothing else but evolutionary trends under extreme conditions, and this conditions are not the same in post-neolithic times, and they even were not the same when the core groups came into regions with tempted or other climate.

>> How does it make sense from your model that Europeans migrated from Africa, and Asians migrated from Europe, and yet both Africans and Asians are suffering tension for not looking European?

What do you mean by "Africans"/"Asians"? If you mean Negroids/Mongoloids, then these are obviously populations that were subjected to extreme environmental stresses. Also, please note that African Americans - whom I singled out - lived as a low status group due to slavery, and as a result may have associated more "white" phenotypes with higher status.

Also, while the aesthetic ideal is usually some mean type of a population, I don't think that this is necessarily always the case. In fact, it is quite possible that one race might find another to be most attractive, although I cannot verify this claim and "racial pride" makes objective assessment difficult.

dienekes said :
But, imagine that all of the sudden Nigeria becomes very cold, or alternatively, Nigerians move into Siberia. Now, Nigerians are no longer adapted to the environment: survival of the fittest (natural selection) will eliminate those whose constitutions are such that they cannot withstand the rigors of living in Nigeria. E.g., people with fleshy lips will perhaps suffer frostbites and resulting illnesses.
----

But won't human beings simply cover their faces or find some way to protect their lips ? They are not foxes you know. I have a hard time imagining a human population dwindling away because of frostbitten lips. That's kind of ridiculous actually ...BTW, why don't chimps and other monkeys also have huge fleshy lips ? their lips are quite muscular, but not everted at all.
One would think that evolutionary pressure would have selected for that trait in other animals living in the same area. My own opinion of everted lips is that they are a purely accidental trait. Also, there are many pure negroid nigerians (and other african negroids)who have rather thin, caucasoid like lips (not extremely thin though).

----
We may also think of the hypothetical situation of light-haired northern Europeoids relocating to Africa in a pre-technological era. As in the previous case, the attractive trait (light hair) will be maladaptive in the new environment. Natural and sexual selection will act against each other (*)
---

Maladaptive in what way ? are you talking about skin pigmentation ? In any case, there have been such populations in north-africa for a long time and, as humans, they simply found ways to protect themselves (clothing or else).

If we think that race formation is the result of migration of populations in different locations (and natural environments), we will immediately see that the scenario outlined above must have actually occurred in mankind's evolutionary past.

It is not necessary that the "beauty ideal" be a constant, or that it be universal, or any such thing. As long as it is not identical with the optimum biotype for survival in a given environment, the two will be - to some extent - acting against each other.
===================
I just have a hard time with seeing the relevance of optimum biotypicity (??) for human populations. We're not tigers or foxes. We don't care if our bodies are not perfectly adapted to a given environment , do we ? Homo sapiens came out of tropical africa and went on to colonize freezing cold siberia in record time, all thanks to its ingenuity .
I do admit that there are populations all over the world who seem perfectly matched with their environment. What i don't understand is what stopped not so physically matched humans from living there too.

"I just have a hard time with seeing the relevance of optimum biotypicity (??) for human populations. We're not tigers or foxes. We don't care if our bodies are not perfectly adapted to a given environment , do we ?"

We should. Because other animals adapted to regional extremes (just think about the Neandertaler or the Australopithecus robustus) or degenerated in some times because natural selection allowed or even forced it, but they ended in a evolutionary dead end.

Just think about arctic expeditions. It was well known that Negroids are more sensible to cold, and depigmented Nordics to sun rays. (Both is something obvious)
In fact both groups are not selected for this region and have more problems to live there even with (!) technical support than Eskimide.

Big ears, nose or lips can cause more problems in extreme cold thats the reason, maybe the only one because the Mongoloid face appears to be flat.
And short legs are not more attractive, they are not even more useful in most parts of the world, but in the North Asiatic/Arctic regions it is an advantage.
So maybe even the Mongols wanted men and women with long legs as mates, but they just couldnt survive especially in the hard winters like the people which represent now the Tungid race.
Still there are some long legged, and if there would be more technical support but hard sexual selection, maybe the Tungid race would have get longer legged than they are today in some thousands of years of such an selection.

We humans shouldnt just degenerate to something which cant survive without machines.
And if this happens its just because of contra-selective factors.
Even in modern societies you got more potential, more opportunities if you have not just a big brain but also a good, well adapted attractive body.
Humans are just intelligent animals, face it, and technological innovations cant change this.
Furthermore such thinking is important to understand evolution from the scientific point of view.
And not to forget, if we dont know how we develop, if we think like animals and dont care, we will maybe die out like some of this animals because we didnt use our knowledge or will fall back to an animal like cultural niveau.
Just think of some overpopulated regions with destroyed nature or the world wide and especially in Western civilizations important contra-selective factors.
If we would act like we should because we know it from science, this wouldnt be possible.

Chris wrote,

" ... the Negroid type is not the original human basis type. I think today's Negroids [evolved] under extreme conditions in a limited area and then spread all over sub-saharan Africa. So, the Negroid basis type is highly specialized, and not the human basis type before the human movements all over the world."

This is an extremely interesting idea. It is part of what the debate was about at the RichardPoe.com forum recently, between "Thought" and Dienekes Pontikos.

>> But won't human beings simply cover their faces or find some way to protect their lips ? They are not foxes you know. I have a hard time imagining a human population dwindling away because of frostbitten lips. That's kind of ridiculous actually

There is ample historical evidence of e.g., Negroids dying of various lung diseases when exposed to the cold. On the other hand, Europeans dying of tropical diseases. In the pre-technological past it is not at all certain that people would be able to survive in environments in which they were not adapted.

>> Also, there are many pure negroid nigerians (and other african negroids)who have rather thin, caucasoid like lips (not extremely thin though).

I doubt that.

>> We don't care if our bodies are not perfectly adapted to a given environment , do we ?

Of course we do. Sure, if we rely on air-conditioners, hats, sunscreens, etc., Europeoids may live in the tropics. Conversely, with coats, boots, etc., Negroids can live in the arctice. But, all things being equal, Negroids flourish in the tropics while Europeoids don't. Indeed, even if e.g., a Negroid manages to survive in extremely adverse conditions, the extra protective means that he must take to do so will disadvantage him and his tribe.

>> But won't human beings simply cover their faces or find some way to protect their lips ? They are not foxes you know. I have a hard time imagining a human population dwindling away because of frostbitten lips. That's kind of ridiculous actually

There is ample historical evidence of e.g., Negroids dying of various lung diseases when exposed to the cold. On the other hand, Europeans dying of tropical diseases.

-----------
But those aren't examples of negroids dying in cold climates because of large everted lips, kinky hair , long legs, yellowish sclera , small ears (one would think they'd have huge ears to dissipate the heat ??),prognathism , striated necks and big buttocks ! Can any of these traits (the incidence of which is exagerated anyways) be shown to have caused those people to fare badly in the cold ?
I shouldn't have said that humans don't adapt to their environment. They do, but visible characteristics such as the ones i mentionned earlier aren't necessarily adaptations to anything ! There is ample room for random, non adaptive traits in humans, that's what i really mean.

Also , those europeans dying in tropical climates didn't die because of their straight hair, high nasal root, heavy beards , clear eyes, flat buttocks, etc but because their immune systems weren't ready to handle the african environment .
Surely you're not saying that having,for example , thin razor lips is such a problem in the tropics ? Many chimpazees have just that and they manage fine.

In the pre-technological past it is not at all certain that people would be able to survive in environments in which they were not adapted.

>> Also, there are many pure negroid nigerians (and other african negroids)who have rather thin, caucasoid like lips (not extremely thin though).

I doubt that.
----
Not being as versed in physical anthropology as you are, i may be wrong on that one. I'm just saying that I've myself observed a non trivial number of black africans who have lips that are much thinner than the "standard" ones. But the shape might be different from that of caucasoids .
In any case, i'm just not buying the "big lips evolved because one needed to dissipate heat" . Big ears are a much better way to do this (as can be seen on countless african animals )and yet black africans aren't really well known for having huge ears .
--
>> We don't care if our bodies are not perfectly adapted to a given environment , do we ?

Of course we do. Sure, if we rely on air-conditioners, hats, sunscreens, etc., Europeoids may live in the tropics. Conversely, with coats, boots, etc., Negroids can live in the arctice. But, all things being equal, Negroids flourish in the tropics while Europeoids don't.

Not sure what you mean by florish. The jungle is a harsh environment for any human, with maybe the exception of pygmies. Even black africans "flourish" much more in the savannah.
---
Indeed, even if e.g., a Negroid manages to survive in extremely adverse conditions, the extra protective means that he must take to do so will disadvantage him and his tribe.

I think too that thick lips are something more "by chance" and is probably if not to extrem a progressive trait. In fact the one of the few the Negroids got.
If you look at Australoids they often have quite thin lips but big mouthes what is a primitive facial feature.

The main thing why Negroids have more problems in the cold is they have to long and thin extremities, usually men have (especially on the extremeties) less body fat than f.e. the Tungid type. So they got frostbites faster.
They have short hair in the typical form which is cooling the head, but it doesnt look attractive at first and it is a negative feature in the cold if you dont have the right clothes at least.
And Dienekes already spoke about the lung problem.

That Caucasoids got problems in the tropic region is more because of moisture and heat I believe.
They would be able to cope with tropical deseases under natural conditions but just after some generations of hard selection.
It would be the same like the Amerindians experienced when the first whites brought the deseases which were developed in the caucasoid populations and in the tempted climate.
But maybe if you are weaker because of sensibility to sun, heat and moisture, you die faster if you get Malaria too even if you got the right genes to cope with the desease, but even if so it would be secondary.

Such things are what I always meant when I said dont believe in genetic tests to much if they dont look for phenotypical features.
Every population has some gene pool and some genes can cope better with a desease but that has really nothing to do with "genealogic logic" or race.
Thats just the defence of every healthy population so that at least some per cents survive.
Even whites got the "Sichelzellengen" and it was quite common even in some Malaria regions in Southern Europe.
But if the desease dissappears its better not to have that gene.
Thats just one example how populations can change quite fast if necessary for their health.
It would be the same with Europeans lets say in South East Asia under natural selection, but in the first generations many, many would die.

>> Can any of these traits (the incidence of which is exagerated anyways) be shown to have caused those people to fare badly in the cold ?

For evolution to work it only takes a SMALL advantage over a generation. All things being equal, the Mongoloid body type is better at preserving heat than the Negroid one which is better at shedding it. Of course now we can't check the survival value of the two in e.g., Siberia, because we wouldn't want to throw people in Siberia with pre-technological equipment and see how many of them die.

The most interesting thing about the core Mongoloids is, that they can survive as the only race in almost all regions.
They are primarily adapted to the cold of North-East Asia, but they survive quite good in heat too even under natural selection.
I heard something about their skin structure that there is something different even if they got almost the same color like Caucasoids, their skin resists sun rays better.
Anyone especially Dienekes knows someting about these theme?
I read it in a anthropology book but I dont remember where and there was no sufficient explanation.

In responding to Jason Malloy's query which employed the terms Africans and Asians, Dienekes chose to begin his rejoinder by clarifying terms, thus:

"What do you mean by 'Africans'/'Asians'? If you mean Negroids/Mongoloids, then these are obviously populations that were ..."

What Dienekes did here is exactly the right thing in technical or scientific discussions where someone begins talking about ethnicity using terms that not only *can* cause confusion, but were *meant to do* exactly that.

The unsatisfactory terms Asian and African (unsatisfactory only for technical conversations about race and ethnicity) were deliberately selected to imply naught but geography, totally ignoring race as if race didn't exist. This was done by race-denying ideologues in the old Immigration and Naturalization Service of the federal government, in collusion with race-denying academics, likely pals of theirs since college days (it's amazing how one discovers all the time the way these leftists go through life as part of an intertwined web of individuals who know each other personally, often all the way from college to the grave). Their entire sleazy race-denying fantasy-industry is one-hundred percent neo-Marxist and should be either ignored wherever it is encountered, or laughed off the stage of history.

From now on in such discussions I'm going to begin by doing exactly the thing Dienekes did here with Jason (Jason is someone I utterly respect, btw): introduce coherent terms, then proceed.

Chris, your posts are interesting -- I always read them -- and your English is excellent. Just a reminder, if I might, that the verbs "to have" and "to get" in English ("haben" and "bekommen") aren't interchangable. You often write as if they are, and it starts to detract from your posts when it happens a lot -- it sort of starts to grate on one's ears.

"I heard something about their skin structure that there is something different even if they got almost the same color like Caucasoids, their skin resists sun rays better."

In the above, for example, "got" should be "have."

("to grate on one's ears" bedeudet, "das Ohr beleidigen")

Danke ^^
Well, I have just my poor school English to write what I'm thinking, and I was never in an English speaking country.
And in fact the most things I posted here I wrote quite fast, like I would do in German.
But with the same speed it is obviously not as eloquent as it would be in German.
But thanks for correcting me, because I want to learn.

Bitte.

What Dienekes did here is exactly the right thing in technical or scientific discussions where someone begins talking about ethnicity using terms that not only *can* cause confusion, but were *meant to do* exactly that.

I picked up the use of the simple terms black/white/asian from Arthur Jensen, hardly a Marxist propagandist. The terms are not confusing in a given context, and I prefer them.

In answer to this repeated nit-picking, I use what language suits me, and don't complain when others do the same. It would seem to me that PC is as PC does.

In my opion, the "extreme" (typical in the sense of remarkable) characteristics of northern Europeans (very pale, blue eyes, blond hair, and, in some cases, long heads) betray archaic characteristics that originated in cold-adapted pre-Indo-European populations. Such populations would have obtained these genes for highly unusual phenotypic characteristics from cold-adapted ancestors. These cold-adapted people lived in a borderline artic/subartic and partially forested climate with short summers and long, dark winters. In such a climate, genetic mutaions that expressed themselves in very pale coloring would accumulate at a far greater rate that such genotypic anomalies in southern areas where stronger UV radiation would have presented a disadvantage to people with a substantially reduced concentration of pigment.