PDA

View Full Version : Keeping Track Of Contradictions About Mongoloid Genesis



Test
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 06:11 PM
If an idea is self-contradictory, then it shouldn't be brought up for someone else to answer.. Logics 101.
This is not to keep track of contradictions in discussions on the process of Mongoloid genesis, so that we wouldn't have to waste our times with repititious, self-contradictory ideas. This is a good way in which I feel we can keep the debate (which has been way off course and impossible to discuss anything in a sequential, logic, and coherent way) on course.
Whenever an idea is discovered to be self-contradictory, we should abandon it or retool it and make a note of the contradiction in this thread.
This way, nothing is repeated and the debate is sequential and coherent.

morfrain_encilgar
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 06:38 PM
I agree, but if thats a reference to my position I wasnt making a contradictory idea, I was stating that theres not enough evidence to support anything more than an East Asian origin for Mongoloids.

I did make this the clearest here, and I dont see anything contradictory, but Id rather leave this endless discussion here.

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=240965#post240965

I wrote "Apart from his problem with my use of the term "proto-Nordic", theres three differences of opinion here.

One is wether mongoloid features are cold adapted, and I doubt this is true. Though I remember Brace objecting to this idea, my problem is comparative anatomy. The Capoids dont seem to be cold adapted, yet Bushmen do look Mongoloid.

The second disagreement is wether the extreme features of Chukchi make them the purest mongoloids. Again I would disagree with the assumption that having extreme features makes a population the purest of its race, indeed sinodontism is most extreme in the Americas where a Neomongoloid element seems to have arrived far too late.

The third disagreement we have had is about the location where Mongoloid features developed. Test says it was Siberia but I doubt this, because his argument is based on cold adaptation causing mongoloid features. I agree with him that Mongoloids are descended from both Eurasian populations showing a western affinity, and from Indotropical populations moving northwards, but because of the lack of fossil evidence, I dont want to state a time or a more specific location where the mongoloid features evolved."

Frans_Jozef
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 06:44 PM
Test, get a life! ;)

Test
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 06:59 PM
I'm just trying to have a nice, logical discussion on anthropology, since my discussion with atlanto-med has gone in circles. In fact, as long as people stop "correcting" my posts, which by low professional standards, is fairly accurate, with incorrect terminology, I don't even want to argue with them. If you check the various threads, it's not me doing the pursuing.

It's the main reason I come here, because I can discuss things with people who understand, with the nice amenities of the forum (attachment functions and sorts), in case you haven't noticed. Although I respect Nords' sentiments for preservation and attachment to their culture and phenotype, I really have no interest in the matter.

Frans_Jozef
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 07:13 PM
I'm just trying to have a nice, logical discussion on anthropology, since my discussion with atlanto-med hasn't gone in circles.

It's the main reason I come here, because I can discuss things with people who understand, with the nice amenities of the forum (attachment functions and sorts). Frans_Jozef, if discussing anthropology in a scientific, logical manner is less of a life than having a "Germanic" hobby, then please ban me.

Alas, the discussions turn in circles by your own doing, in a handful of days you created new threads with the sole purpose to make frickling, hysterical accusations and commiserate someone haughtyly, while this person proved to be your match in anthropology and a worthy, astute and erudite opponent to go into scintillating debates, where most of the members and staff of Skadi got a nice kick and acquaintated themselves with new insights and data.

Let's be frank, Test, you're attitude and bickering wouldn't be appreciated in scientific forums like DNAanthro or Palanth.com and sanctionized with a ban.

Test
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 07:27 PM
I didn't create threads to bicker. I created one so that the discussion wouldn't get off topic in the "is race a reality" thread.
Another thread was split by a mod from that thread. I didn't create anything. In fact it was atlanto-med who kept pursuing me.


I already apologized to atlanto-med for my behavior. It came from frustration at going in circles everytime she responds to my posts, which isn't an excuse. As I said, I apologized, and she accepted the apology, and it's between me and her.

I disagree with this. If you followed the posts, I tried to reply to every one of her points and I think I made more sense then her and her sources.


That Oceanians are the ancestors of Egyptian, summerian, Indus, Chinese civilization? She cites the dissenting/wacky articles in the field, which there are full of and never see the light of publishing.

As I said, I've already apologized. It wasn't even me trying to insult her. I just found it ridiculous that even various strains in Asia, including, under her logic, Chinese (and whatever mainstream Mongoloid group) with "non-stereotypically" Mongoloid features as all proto-Nords.

Let's keep moving.

Frans_Jozef
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 07:53 PM
I didn't create threads to bicker. I created one so that the discussion wouldn't get off topic in the "is race a reality" thread.
Another thread was split by a mod from that thread. I didn't create anything. In fact it was atlanto-med who kept pursuing me.

You live in denial: I edited several threads superficially meant for an intellectual arm wrestle competition, but the opening lines and titles betrayed always their true intention.

I hardly think Atlanto-Med is capable of pursuing anyone, unless to slake her thirst for knowledge and field work.



I already apologized to atlanto-med for my behavior. It came from frustration at going in circles everytime she responds to my posts, which isn't an excuse. As I said, I apologized, and she accepted the apology, and it's between me and her.

Interesting, a fight in the arena?
Someone who apologizes himself every five minutes for misbehaviour and starts beating and kicking right after his repent, has a problem.




I disagree with this. If you followed the posts, I tried to reply to every one of her points and I think I made more sense then her and her sources.

Her sources are reliable and published by and for the academic establishment:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi



That Oceanians are the ancestors of Egyptian, summerian, Indus, Chinese civilization? She cites the dissenting/wacky articles in the field, which there are full of and never see the light of publishing.

See above.



As I said, I've already apologized. It wasn't even me trying to insult her. I just found it ridiculous that even various strains in Asia, including, under her logic, Chinese (and whatever mainstream Mongoloid group) with "non-stereotypically" Mongoloid features as all proto-Nords.

Let's keep moving.

Don't victimize yourself. Pointing convergence and similarities doesn't equal nordicizing East Asian groups.

morfrain_encilgar
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 07:53 PM
I create threads to discuss anthropological matters, like others.
I didn't create threads to bicker. I created one so that the discussion wouldn't get off topic in the "is race a reality" thread.
Another thread was split by a mod from that thread. I didn't create anything. In fact it was atlanto-med who kept pursuing me.

I apologise if you thought I was persuing you, but I didnt expect you to feel harassed by my scepticism about the Upper Paleolithic Siberian theory which is just a difference of opinion.


I already apologized to atlanto-med for my behavior. It came from frustration at going in circles everytime she responds to my posts, which isn't an excuse. As I said, I apologized, and she accepted the apology, and it's between me and her.

Yes, dont worry about it Test.


I disagree with this. If you followed the posts, I tried to reply to every one of her points and I think I made more sense then her and her sources.

That is your opinion, I feel the Upper Paleolithic Siberian theory is quite possible, just inconclusive. All we can say is that there were two elements in Mongoloid ancestry, that the Mongoloids emerged where they blended in the Jomon-Pacific region of Asia, and that it happened between the Upper Paleolithic and the Neolithic. On the other hand you were forceful in your opinion that Siberia is the location, something which is speculative without paleoanthropological evidence at that time.


That Polynesians are proto-nordshttp://www.travltips.com/AR25.jpg? That Oceanians are the ancestors of Egyptian, summerian, Indus, Chinese civilization? She cites the dissenting/wacky articles in the field, which there are full of and never see the light of publishing.

And this is where I have a problem with you, twisting what I say to make it look worse.

Ive never called Polynesians proto-Nordics, and nor did C. Loring Brace et al, however they did say that an undifferentiated Eurasian did contribute to them. And I feel justified in calling this type proto-Nordic, because they were Caucasoid-like, and closer in form to Nordics than to the gracilised Mediterraneans or the reduced Alpines. Your disagreement with me on this is semantic, because you dont like the description I used. I dont think we disagree about the actual facts.

Also I never said that " Oceanians are the ancestors of Egyptian, summerian, Indus, Chinese civilization" as you know. I cited an author, and geneticist, who expressed those ideas in a seperate book, and it doesnt falsify something else he said elsewhere. I told you that I disagree with his idea anyway.

And those "wacky" articles I quoted and referred to as sources were accepted for printing in journals, and they were written by people like professors, and published after review, so as well as twisting my words, youve ridiculed these professors of physical anthropology. Well do that, but I still think their research is useful.


As I said, I've already apologized. It wasn't even me trying to insult her. I just found it ridiculous that even various strains in Asia, including, under her logic, Chinese (and whatever mainstream Mongoloid group) with "non-stereotypically" Mongoloid features as all proto-Nords.

Let's keep moving.

And heres another example of what angers me. I naturally object to you twisting my words into saying something that I wouldnt say, that everyone with what I describe as proto-Nordic descent, is proto-Nordic. Proto-Nordic is just a reference to an undifferentiated Eurasian, so the Jomon-Pacific populations are descended from both these populations and populations movinng from the south.

Test
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 08:11 PM
And the "wacky" articles are from journals, and written by people like professors, as well as being accepted and published after review by other scientists (and usually specialists on this subject). So as well as twisting my words, youve ridiculed these professors of physical anthropology.I meant that there are theories of all kinds that never get published as a book. For example, the book I cited, Prehistoric Mongoloid Dispersals, is a $146 book published by Cambridge U., while the Brace article you cited is an article published by an obscure college. Both are legitimate, but you can't give them equal weight.

And I never twisted your words. You chose to use proto-Nord yourself. To be honest, the Eurasian Steppe phenotype (which is a separate population from the Middle Eastern group ---separated by a mountain range, a desert, and a lifestyle ---citing from Spencer's book--- the two populations converged to form modern Europeans, with the neolithic type's phenotype dominating IMO)... The Eurasian steppe type, to my eyes, looks more Mongoloid than Nordic, but I never used proto-Mongoloid because that would be laying claiming retroactively.

Let's not turn this thread into an endless debate. You can debate me in another thread. This thread is to keep track of contradictions, by whoever, so that we can move on without repeating anything not worth repeating.

morfrain_encilgar
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 08:15 PM
I meant that there are theories of all kinds that never get published as a book. For example, the book I cited, Prehistoric Mongoloid Dispersals, is a 146$ book published by Cambridge U., while the Brace article you cited is an article published by an obscure college. Both are legitimate, but you can't give them equal weight.

Brace publishes in anthro journals, though I dont see why its relevent wether or not he wrote a book, if he writes for suitable journals.

Frans_Jozef
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 08:20 PM
I meant that there are theories of all kinds that never get published as a book. For example, the book I cited, Prehistoric Mongoloid Dispersals, is a 146$ book published by Cambridge U., while the Brace article you cited is an article published by an obscure college. Both are legitimate, but you can't give them equal weight.


Count yourself lucky you can afford not just a book of that honourable weight and credentials, but also that you have the financial means to buy such an expensive book.

morfrain_encilgar
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 08:30 PM
Count yourself lucky you can afford not just a book of that honourable weight and credentials, but also that you have the financial means to buy such an expensive book.

I also dont get why the price of a book has anything to do with the scientific value of its contents. Im not dismissing it, but theres other opinions on Mongoloid origins, and theres no paleoanthropological evidence to prove anything.

morfrain_encilgar
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 08:53 PM
And I never twisted your words. You chose to use proto-Nord yourself. To be honest, the Eurasian Steppe phenotype (which is a separate population from the Middle Eastern group ---separated by a mountain range, a desert, and a lifestyle ---citing from Spencer's book--- the two populations converged to form modern Europeans, with the neolithic type's phenotype dominating IMO)... The Eurasian steppe type, to my eyes, looks more Mongoloid than Nordic, but I never used proto-Mongoloid because that would be laying claiming retroactively.

Ive explained why I used the term proto-Nordic, because they resemble modern Western Eurasian populations more than modern Mongoloids, and more like the Nordics in particular than like the Mediterraneans or the Alpines. Without knowing it, youve justified me by mentioning the difference between the northern Eurasian and the Middle Eastern groups that were to bbecome modern Caucasoids.

But by twisting my words I mean that you turned my mentioning of this ancestral element, to make it look like I said Jomon-Pacific populations in Polynesia and Taiwan are still proto-Nordic.

In one of the sources I cited which was the one by Kozintsev et al, Caucasoids were found to be seperated from Mongoloids along one integral principal component. though the Uralians (Western Siberia) were found to group with the Mongoloids (Central, Southern and Eastern Siberia as well as Mongolia) and closest to the Neolithic to Chalcolithic Baikalians. Many of arlier populations from the Upper Ob and the Ob-Irtysh watershed, Upper Yenisei, Altai, Southern Siberia and Kazakhstan were found in this study to be closer to Caucasoids. So, they strongly support a later mongolisation of northern Eurasia.

Test
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 10:42 PM
You have to turn every thread into an endless argument, even though I never mentioned your name in this thread, and I repeatedly said not to debate in this thread.

I stayed out of the whole Caucasian Med and Nord thing, for obvious reasons, but since you mentioned it... (BTW, I happen to find Med men and women very beautiful so if the bottom examples are you to anyone's liking, I'm not trying to show Meds in a bad light. I justed typed in "Lebanese" and found these two quickly.)
You want to know what the two strains that formed Caucasians and the two strains that formed Mongoloids? These three strains (3 not 4 since the Eurasian Steppe strain is common to both) can be still seen in the respective populations, under the layers.

Caucasians:
Eurasian Steppe Strain: Middle Eastern Neolithic Strain: (Lebanese)
(usually in the north) (usually in the south)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/third0eye/anthropology/Spencer_Wells.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/third0eye/anthropology/Lebanese_1.jpg

Mongoloid:
Eurasian steppe strain: Southern Strain: (the man on left)
(+common in north) (+common in south)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/third0eye/anthropology/Ming_Tsai.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/third0eye/anthropology/JinPops.jpg

The southern Mongoloid strain is characterized by a prognosis/protrusing of the jaw and lower face, protrusion of the browage (often more pronounced than Europeans) a sinking in of the middle part of the face (sinking in of the nasal root area as in Australoids and Veddoid and sometimes in Africans and negritos), and sometimes a wider/flatter/fleshier nose, fleshier lips, and generally a fleshier look. Also, cheek bones are often not as pronounced (face less flat), then even certain Caucasians (mainly northern Europe).

This southern Mongoloid type is found throught eastern Eurasia and the Americas, though it seems to be southern predominant, atleast in Asia. The Americas is more mixed up. Basically, every phenotype in Asia can be explained by the mixed and match of the paleo, classic, neo forms of these two strains.

If you want more pictures, just ask.

morfrain_encilgar
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 11:32 PM
You have to turn every thread into an endless argument, even though I never mentioned your name in this thread, and I repeatedly said not to debate in this thread.

I feel it was obvious who you were referring to, and I dont particularly wish to debate here, however I do wish that you wouldnt have said I think things which I dont, like Nordic Aborigines, or Oceanians in West Asia.

And Im not sure what you posted those pictures to prove, because I know the differences between different Caucasoid and Mongoloid populations, and that both major races appeared by admixture between populations that looked different.

Ihe "northern steppe" Mongoloid type, without the more recent Mongoloid features, would look more like a European so this confirms what Im saying that the eastern steppe, like the Americas, only had Mongoloid admixture recently.

Test
Saturday, December 11th, 2004, 01:49 AM
I feel it was obvious who you were referring to, and I dont particularly wish to debate here, however I do wish that you wouldnt have said I think things which I dont, like Nordic Aborigines, or Oceanians in West Asia.


And Im not sure what you posted those pictures to prove, because I know the differences between different Caucasoid and Mongoloid populations, and that both major races appeared by admixture between populations that looked different.Firstly, I don't know how you can see a "European" in that picture.
Secondly, I showed those pics hoping you'd see the childishness of arguing over who the Eurasian Steppe people looked like. I really don't care and it's beside the point, which is semantic propriety. None of the modern groups are Eurasian Steppe people, so why even retroactively lay claims to them as if they were hot property.

I don't care what you think, as long as you don't try to force me to use your "classification" system, by which I have to call Mongoloids "proto-Nords", like you did in the "is race a reality" thread that was split into the "Mongoloids, Malays" thread. And I hope you would just use Eurasian Steppe people to refer to Eurasian Steppe people and refer to paleo-Europids as paleo-Europids and let me refer to paleo people in Asia as paleo-Mongoloids, because that's what they are.

Edit: I've edited this post and taken out my answer to your other contentions because I don't want to argue with you here and now.

morfrain_encilgar
Saturday, December 11th, 2004, 03:34 AM
Firstly, I don't know how you can see a "European" in that picture.

I dont see a European, but I know that of the descendants of the Palearctic steppe populations of the Upper Paleolithic, the Europeans are the most conservative.


Secondly, I don't care what you think, as long as you don't try to force me to use your "classification" system, by which I have to call Mongoloids "proto-Nords", like you did in the "is race a reality" thread that was split into the "Mongoloids, Malays" thread.

Then call them what you want, but the reality of their affinities remains the same.


And I hope you would just use Eurasian Steppe people to refer to Eurasian Steppe people and refer to paleo-Europids as paleo-Europids and let me refer to paleo people in Asia as paleo-Mongoloids, because that's what they are.

I dont object if you do that, because I respect youre view that Mongoloids are predominantly descended from them. And I do agree with you, that they partly are.


And that's a contradiction right there. You said that Northern Amerinds are a mixture of Mongoloids and Europeans, which introduced Sinodonty into America, but also said that Sinodonty is the most extreme and specialized in the Americas. How can that be? How can a hybrid population be more extreme in dental morphology?

American populations have less dental variation than north-east Asians according to Turner, and they appear as a specialised, extreme set within the Sinodonts according to Rayner and Bulbeck who found them to be the most dentally divergent of all moderns.

According to Turner, the characters of Sinodonty are shoveling (and double shoveling) and winging of upper I1, upper P1 with one root and a lower molar 1 with three roots, enamel extension in upper M1, and agenesis of M3. In particular the character of double shovelling is associated with American populations.


You're arguments are always full of inaccuracies that I can't even begin to address them all, so I just ignore some of them until I have the time. The earliest Native Americans were not European like people but intermediate types between the Australoid and northeastern Eurasian type as was the population of north China at that time, which just reaffirms my point that Mongoloid phenotype developed gradually in the north over time.

The Jomon-Pacific north-east Asians at that time were intermediate between Eurasian (European-like) and Indotropical (Australoid) elements, so this is how I feel the European-like element in America was introduced.


Abstract: "Several studies concerning the extra-continental morphological affinities of Paleo-Indian skeletons, carried out independently in South and North America, have indicated that the Americas were first occupied by non-Mongoloids that made their way to the New World through the Bering Strait in ancient times. The first South Americans show a clear resemblance to modern South Pacific and African populations, while the first North Americans seem to be at an unresolved morphological position between modern South Pacific and Europeans. In none of these analyses the first Americans show any resemblance to either northeast Asians or modern native Americans. So far, these studies have included affirmed and putative early skeletons thought to date between 8,000 and 10,000 years B.P. In this work the extra-continental morphological affinities of a Paleo-Indian skeleton well dated between 11,000 and 11,500 years B.P. (Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1, or “Luzia”) is investigated, using as comparative samples Howells’ (1989) world-wide modern series and Habgood’s (1985) Old World Late Pleistocene fossil hominids. The comparison between Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1 and Howells’ series was based on canonical variate analysis, including 45 size-corrected craniometric variables, while the comparison with fossil hominids was based on principal component analysis, including 16 size-corrected variables. In the first case, Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1 exhibited an undisputed morphological affinity firstly with Africans and secondly with South Pacific populations. In the second comparison, the earliest known American skeleton had its closest similarities with early Australians, Zhoukoudian Upper Cave 103, and Taforalt 18.The results obtained clearly confirm the idea that the Americas were first colonized by a generalized Homo sapiens population which inhabited East Asia in the Late Pleistocene, before the definition of the classic Mongoloid morphology."

There was more than one element in the Americas before the Sinodonts, and the Lapa Vermelha type is seperate from the Ainu-like type seen at Kennewick and Spirit Cave.


(These south pacific Polynesians actually clustered with Africans, not Europeans. It certainly counters Brace's interpretation, and I already explained her flawed methodology.)

The above study doesnt refer to Polynesians but to the Australians, Tasmanians and Melanesians as South Pacific populations, and you'll remember that Brace et al found an affinity between these populations and Africans.


I remember bringing this up during an earlier debate, that the Upper Cave specimens, with Sinodonty, were clustered all over the place (Australoid, Easter Island, Egypt/Blackfoot Indian), showing either a population of divergent sources and or a population that clustered all over because it had no modern affinities.

And I disagree with you that these results disprove what Im saying. The modern Blackfoot are of the Planid type with Caucasoid-like Eurasian as well as Neomongoloid affinities, Indotropial types were moving into north-east Asia, and Polynesians are a mix of both Eurasian and Sahul types, which are of Indotropical descent. I also feel like I should remind you that the presence of sinodontism in Upper Cave cant be checked, and has been questioned.

Test
Monday, December 13th, 2004, 05:00 PM
(I'll try to reply to your points in another thread. Let's not make every thread into Chaos 101. I can't keep track.)
As I said, from my first post on the matter, people of the temperate regions all over the world were moving out of the African look. This generic look (intermediate between an austro form and a more "gracilized" form) is described as "Caucasian-like", but it's not associated with any particular region. This is a description of the fossil moderns in various sites in China:

From Etler:
For instance, Skull 101 from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian has been shown by multivariate, morphometric analysis to be an outlier when compared with modern Asian populations and most similar to early Holocene crania from Kenya, and crania such as Huanglong are said to show closer metric affinities to early moderns in Europe than to living Chinese. This is, however, also the case among late-Pleistocene moderns in other parts of the world. Border Cave, an early modern specimen from South Africa, and the late-Pleistocene Omo 1 cranium from Ethiopia, when compared multivariately with modern Africans, likewise appear to be outliers, showing no demonstrable affinities to any extant African population, while late-Pleistocene Australians ally with contemporaries from Europe and North Africa. This phenomenon is almost certainly a function of the general robusticity of the specimens under consideration and their retention of plesiomorphic traits lost in their more derived descendants. The studies mentioned above certainly demonstrate that early moderns in China show overall "grade" affinities to early moderns in Europe and Africa, as should be expected.

morfrain_encilgar
Monday, December 13th, 2004, 05:42 PM
As I said, from my first post on the matter, people of the temperate regions all over the world were moving out of the African look. This generic look (intermediate between an austro form and a more "gracilized" form) is described as "Caucasian-like", but it's not associated with any particular region.

The only regions youre referring to are northern Palearctic ones, and therefore associated with a region.


For instance, Skull 101 from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian has been shown by multivariate, morphometric analysis to be an outlier when compared with modern Asian populations and most similar to early Holocene crania from Kenya, and crania such as Huanglong are said to show closer metric affinities to early moderns in Europe than to living Chinese. This is, however, also the case among late-Pleistocene moderns in other parts of the world. Border Cave, an early modern specimen from South Africa, and the late-Pleistocene Omo 1 cranium from Ethiopia, when compared multivariately with modern Africans, likewise appear to be outliers, showing no demonstrable affinities to any extant African population, while late-Pleistocene Australians ally with contemporaries from Europe and North Africa. This phenomenon is almost certainly a function of the general robusticity of the specimens under consideration and their retention of plesiomorphic traits lost in their more derived descendants. The studies mentioned above certainly demonstrate that early moderns in China show overall "grade" affinities to early moderns in Europe and Africa, as should be expected.

Right, so if anything that makes Upper Cave more instead of less Eurasian by explaining the Australoid-like features as due to robustisticity and retained characters.

Also the Mesolithic Kenyans mentioned here, according to Howells, were found to have a Caucasoid affinity, so if 101 is "most similar to early Holocene crania from Kenya" that fits what Im saying.

Test
Wednesday, December 15th, 2004, 10:16 PM
If you can answer me these contradictions, then I'll be more satisfied. Just keep to these issues please.

1. Your argument is that "Mongoloid" features developed in SE Asia, when this is against the genetic evidence, the archeological evidence, and the fossil evidence. Modern negrito and Veddoid admixed SE Asians generally don't have the epicanthic fold, or broad faces, or wide cheek bones. These features are the most prolific in Siberia. Even more pure southern Mongoloids don't have these traits, at least not to the extreme, so all of the data we have available points to a diffusion from the north, which is consistence with Holocene expansion.

You keep saying that I wish for Mongoloids to be associated with the north :lol, when the reason I say that Mongoloid features are from the north is that it's predominant there. You don't make sense. It's like saying dark skin developed in Scandanavia.

2.
My point in mentioning Sinodontism isnt to suggest a New World origin, but to argue against the idea that the regions with the most extreme dental or facial features, dont have to be where they first appeared. They could have been developed further, in location, afterwards.True, but then you're either presupposing that Amerinds developed the look after migration or that "classical" Mongoloids developed the "trademark" look afterwards. You keep saying that Amerinds are a admixed population of "proto-Nords" and "Mongoloids" from the south, but how can an admixed population be more extreme in dentition? This is a contradiction you have to resolve before you want me to answer it, which you have repeatedly done.
How can I answer your contradiction? It's not even my problem but yours.

3. And another seemingly contradiction: How did these southern Mongoloids http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/third0eye/anthropology/Yaklom_Hill.jpg mix with proto-Nords (a Sci-Fi race in your head that I don't even know what it looks like) to become the phenotypically extreme/specialized Siberians?

4. How did Mongoloid features develope in the south when most of the male lineages are genetically shown to be a separate event that later expanded south?