PDA

View Full Version : Unaltered Mediterranid Individuals (Spanish Military Figures)



Pro-Alpine
Tuesday, September 5th, 2006, 01:07 AM
Note: These pictures are of militants who were involved in the Spanish Civil War.

Unaltered Mediterranid individuals

Felipe Díaz Sandino.
http://i2.tinypic.com/287nm84.jpg

Enrique Lister Forján.
http://i6.tinypic.com/287noxw.jpg

Francisco Hernández Chacón.
http://i2.tinypic.com/287oe42.jpg

Ángel Pastor Velasco.
http://i2.tinypic.com/287ohes.jpg

Etelvino Vega Martínez.
http://i1.tinypic.com/287oo6f.jpg

Leocadio Mendiola Núñez
http://i3.tinypic.com/287oria.jpg

Pedro Marqués Barber
http://i6.tinypic.com/287p2zo.jpg

Amado Granell.
http://i4.tinypic.com/287pv89.jpg

Federico Angulo Vázquez.
http://i5.tinypic.com/287q1pt.jpg

Vicente Uribe.
http://i4.tinypic.com/287q5av.jpg

Baltasar Lucas Martín.
http://i3.tinypic.com/287qkg5.jpg

Manuel Cardenal Dominicis.
http://i1.tinypic.com/287zqs0.jpg

Gustavo Durán.
http://i4.tinypic.com/287ztjs.jpg

José Miguel Pérez
http://i5.tinypic.com/3zk7229.jpg

Fernando Condés Romero.
http://i4.tinypic.com/2utlu81.jpg

Nordid influenced

Ricardo Sanz García
http://i5.tinypic.com/287olg3.jpg

Luis del Río Díaz.
http://i6.tinypic.com/287ozk3.jpg

Manuel Estrada Manchón.
http://i6.tinypic.com/287p45x.jpg

Manuel Cascón Briega.
http://i8.tinypic.com/287q7tt.jpg

Agrippa
Tuesday, September 5th, 2006, 01:24 AM
A collection of very progressive European Europid individuals, very high level. Practically all range from Atlantomediterranid to Nordid and a lot have "peak type qualities". :thumbup

Glenlivet
Tuesday, September 5th, 2006, 01:32 AM
Most of them surely look fairer than most Spaniards I have seen in my life. Other than that, I don't see what is so special about them.

Could you please write what these "peak type qualities" are and from where you get such an idea?


A collection of very progressive European Europid individuals, very high level. Practically all range from Atlantomediterranid to Nordid and a lot have "peak type qualities". :thumbup

Pro-Alpine
Tuesday, September 5th, 2006, 01:35 AM
Most of them surely look fairer than most Spaniards I have seen in my life. Other than that, I don't see what is so special about them.

Could you please write what these "peak type qualities" are and from where you get such an idea?

Anyone looks more light on black&white pictures.

And for those who are wondering, The sources/websites of these pictures are several.

Glenlivet
Tuesday, September 5th, 2006, 01:46 AM
Perhaps you are right, but I'm not so sure about that. Hair usually look darker except for the very ash blond. Reddish shades look darker than they should, I have compared with one uncle of mine who is more strawberry/ginger blond and the other who is flaxen haired. The latter look lighter in most black & white pictures but it is just another spectrum. Agrippa is probably wrong on their Nordidness if none of them are depigmented to a significant degree. It is difficult to find out without colour photos though.

Do you have pictures of modern Spanish military figures?


Anyone looks more light on black&white pictures.

Agrippa
Tuesday, September 5th, 2006, 02:02 AM
Most of them surely look fairer than most Spaniards I have seen in my life. Other than that, I don't see what is so special about them.

Could you please write what these "peak type qualities" are and from where you get such an idea?

First its about racially progressive traits:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43471

They are typical representatives for the classic Europid higher specialisation (Mongolids have a somewhat different). They have no significant (imbalanced) infantile nor primitive traits.
Some of the more important traits which can be easily recognised are, that they all seem to have:
A larger and more robust cranium, marked supraorbital region without being extreme, strong facial relief and overall differentiation, deeper and closer set eyes, narrow-prominent nose, orthognathy, absense of the "broad mouth-thin lips" combination, positive chin, no coarse or disharmonious features, predominance of mature-leptomorphic growth tendencies.

A certain mimic predominates which gives, together with the overall physical type, the impression of dealing with intelligent, high level schizothymic personalities, which is, if looking at successful and effective professional officers in most armies no surprise.

In this way they represent the best what mankind has so far produced, even though they are far from being perfect - other racial types can present similar peak types, same or slightly higher level even, but they represent an average for the current upper limit of Homo sapiens.

One could compare their morphology with some of the Finnish and German peak types from this thread - the topic is important for their evaluation as well:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=38300

A German example for a peak type would be this Bavarian general, which brother was a general as well, Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb:


http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/9659/ritterwilhelmbs7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/3111/ritterwilhelmiibc2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

"Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb (September 5, 1876 - April 29, 1956) was a German field marshal during World War II. Born in Landsberg am Lech, he joined the Bavarian Army in 1895 as an officer cadet. After being commissioned in the artillery, he served in China during the Boxer Rebellion. He later attended the Bavarian War Academy in Munich (1907-1909) and served on the General Staff in Berlin (1909-1911). Promoted to captain, he performed a tour of duty as a battery commander in the Bavarian 10th Field Artillery Regiment at Erlangen (1912-1913)".

Waarnemer
Wednesday, September 6th, 2006, 06:22 PM
In this way they represent the best what mankind has so far produced, even though they are far from being perfect - other racial types can present similar peak types, same or slightly higher level even, but they represent an average for the current upper limit of Homo sapiens.
evolution isn't moving towards anything, so it can't be a progressing event. Adaptation and specialization to specific environmental conditions is not better than adaptation to previous environments, so current types are no better than the forms that they took in the past

secondly, the supposition that progressiveness equals an increase of intelligence and capacities is still not supported by any data, and is dismissed by the means of common sense and daily reality

Agrippa
Saturday, September 9th, 2006, 02:39 AM
evolution isn't moving towards anything,

Evolution is constantly moving and race is an evolutionary process.


so it can't be a progressing event.

Sure it can, because the evolutionary path can change. F.e. an animal species begins to reduce the motility of the toes and forming hoofs. Even at the beginning of this development the animal lost the former advantages but still has not all advantages of the new form. This means the further this evolution goes, the more potential the animal has for the specialisation it approaches. Its a self-strengthening process which might lead at the end to a better ability to adapt to different situations, to a higher potential and more effective lifeform or not.

In that sense a whale is for its own specialisation more progressive than a his ancestors, same goes for a horse etc. They took a certain path, and for the path they were going, they progressed, natural selection made them more perfect than they were when they started.

This is no implicit teleological approach, its a simple truth. To give you a very simple example for this simple truth, a cabinet maker and a cook which want to do this job their whole life will be just be a cabinet maker and a cook at the beginning of their career, at their peak and at the end of their life, still they progress to their peak and go down at the end of their life.

In the same way evolutionary paths, specialisations begin, at the start they are far from perfect, but just try to approach a certain effectiveness, further evolution, selective pressures from the environment and intraspecifically make them more effective. So they might reach a peak - f.e. being in their environment the best, most intelligent hunters acting in a group, best utilisers of grass and fastest fugitives etc.
But they can get one sided, losing potential, adapting to a very small niche, overspecialise until they being so dependent on a very specific environment that even very small changes can extinct the species - thats degeneration.


Adaptation and specialization to specific environmental conditions is not better than adaptation to previous environments, so current types are no better than the forms that they took in the past

They are better if they represent the same basic specialisation but are simply more effective than those which existed before. Furthermore its true that evolution has no goal, so no evaluation, for sure no moral one, but we are finally humans, we dont look at ourselves like on an insect - and if only for the purpose of analysing us and our environment. But as humans its in our interests to see us progressing in the way described and to see the future of our offspring, of our species being secured, their survival on a high level.

Hominisation is a very specific process which favours certain qualities. Progress in humans means that this qualities become more pronounced, improved. In that sense an Australid which is closer to our ancestral forms, has less pronounced typical sapiens traits which would give him a "higher human", a higher general-versatile potential is more primitive and at the same time a Nordid or Nordsinid for the same reasons more progressive.

To give a simple physical example, I might refer to bipedy and balance. If you compare with mym thread, the balance of the head being mentioned and is for humans definitely a progressive traits - the more balanced the head is on the neck, the more progressive. Thats just a single trait, not the most important for us, but its an example for a functional aspect of progressiveness.

Its in the interest of us, as a thinking lifeform which is able to use reason to recognise which traits give a general potential and which are just one sided - or still not as evolved.



secondly, the supposition that progressiveness equals an increase of intelligence and capacities is still not supported by any data, and is dismissed by the means of common sense and daily reality

Another trait which is definitely progressive is a larger cranial volume. All progressive racial types have an average and above average cranial volume in comparison to those of primitive character.

Progressive variants being more common in the social elite, in leading elements in almost every society of the world, at least if the elite being selected for effectiveness. Even in some Papua groups one can see that the typical chieftains being on average more progressive, as are officers, managers, scientists, versatile sportspeople, models, idealistic and capable political leaders etc. in the Western world.

Reduced and infantle variants have usually a lower cranial volume too, but their main disadvantages is the weaker body and general potential. They being constantly outperformed in the most important categories of sport competition by progressive variants and were subdominant in the situation of group selection for the same reasons as well as for another one, namely that progressive types, which peaks are usually lepto-mesomorphic and juvenile-mature build, are more schizothymic in character as well, which made them, together with the more effective and versatile body superior even if the reduced-infantile variants would have had the same intelligence level.

Compare with this too:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=44712

That reduction and infantilisation being mainly the result of one sided adaptation to unfavourable environments, which goal was simply saving, can be seen if looking at this thread too:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=60519

This is and was advantageous in very specific environments, but its not on line with the typical Hominisation process which meant balanced Neoteny = just certain elements change, mainly craniofacially if speaking about the physique, while the whole body, structure and the whole face-skull trait combination as such being only very limited affected by such an "infantilisation" (= balanced), but rather become even more effective. Such a generalised Hominisation is much more promising than any one sided niche adaptation.
However, there are traits which are mainly "better or worse" in a very specific context, like very light or dark skin, but thats not meant if comparing progressive-infantile-primitive. Progressive are mainly those traits which are generally Neohuman, neomorphic and advantageous or at least not disadvantageous.

In that sense progressive is objectively just one tendency out of others - there are just three basic tendencies beside more specific local adaptations in modern humans: Primitive, Infantile and Progressive. The progressive one is the typical human further development, more versatile and generalised, whereas primitive means phylogenetic and infantile ontogenetic retardation in comparison.

Waarnemer
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 03:22 PM
Evolution is constantly moving and race is an evolutionary process.

didn’t say evolution wasn’t moving, but it doesn’t have a goal in sense of perfectio, the key term of evolution is randomness



Sure it can, because the evolutionary path can change. F.e. an animal species begins to reduce the motility of the toes and forming hoofs. Even at the beginning of this development the animal lost the former advantages but still has not all advantages of the new form. This means the further this evolution goes, the more potential the animal has for the specialisation it approaches. Its a self-strengthening process which might lead at the end to a better ability to adapt to different situations, to a higher potential and more effective lifeform or not.

In that sense a whale is for its own specialisation more progressive than a his ancestors, same goes for a horse etc. They took a certain path, and for the path they were going, they progressed, natural selection made them more perfect than they were when they started.

This is no implicit teleological approach, its a simple truth. To give you a very simple example for this simple truth, a cabinet maker and a cook which want to do this job their whole life will be just be a cabinet maker and a cook at the beginning of their career, at their peak and at the end of their life, still they progress to their peak and go down at the end of their life.

In the same way evolutionary paths, specialisations begin, at the start they are far from perfect, but just try to approach a certain effectiveness, further evolution, selective pressures from the environment and intraspecifically make them more effective. So they might reach a peak - f.e. being in their environment the best, most intelligent hunters acting in a group, best utilisers of grass and fastest fugitives etc.
But they can get one sided, losing potential, adapting to a very small niche, overspecialise until they being so dependent on a very specific environment that even very small changes can extinct the species - thats degeneration.


natural selection is a process of adaptation to a changed direction, for progress the environment would have to maintain. North pole bears are pigmentation wise selected through a system of natural selection and aren’t more progressive in the sense of perfection than their darker kind in north america. Naturally natural selection isn’t progress either, it’s a change to adaptation

the principle that evolution isn't a progressing event isn't made up by me, its accepted science, proved and supported in a purely empirical manner – crucial base of science your theory lacks. Paquin and adams placed a colony of yeast into a culture and maintained it for many successive generations. Occasionally, a mutation would pop out of the woodwork that would allow its bearer to reproduce better than its compatriots. These mutant strains would push out the formerly dominant strains and take over. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken at a various times. In later competition experiments, each strain would out compete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could out compete strains that arose late in the experiment. Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing. Any organism's success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. For most traits or behaviors there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones



They are better if they represent the same basic specialisation but are simply more effective than those which existed before. Furthermore its true that evolution has no goal, so no evaluation, for sure no moral one, but we are finally humans, we dont look at ourselves like on an insect - and if only for the purpose of analysing us and our environment. But as humans its in our interests to see us progressing in the way described and to see the future of our offspring, of our species being secured, their survival on a high level.

Hominisation is a very specific process which favours certain qualities. Progress in humans means that this qualities become more pronounced, improved. In that sense an Australid which is closer to our ancestral forms, has less pronounced typical sapiens traits which would give him a "higher human", a higher general-versatile potential is more primitive and at the same time a Nordid or Nordsinid for the same reasons more progressive.

To give a simple physical example, I might refer to bipedy and balance. If you compare with mym thread, the balance of the head being mentioned and is for humans definitely a progressive traits - the more balanced the head is on the neck, the more progressive. Thats just a single trait, not the most important for us, but its an example for a functional aspect of progressiveness.

Its in the interest of us, as a thinking lifeform which is able to use reason to recognise which traits give a general potential and which are just one sided - or still not as evolved.


evolution proceeds in spite of natural selection like evolutionist george williams said, and natural selection is nothing more than adaptation to certain environments, so superiorism is out of question by definition

the decline of ape-like characteristics in favor of human-like morphology in continuation with standing up straight is the result of adaptation and adjustments to new environments and conditions


Another trait which is definitely progressive is a larger cranial volume. All progressive racial types have an average and above average cranial volume in comparison to those of primitive character.

Progressive variants being more common in the social elite, in leading elements in almost every society of the world, at least if the elite being selected for effectiveness. Even in some Papua groups one can see that the typical chieftains being on average more progressive, as are officers, managers, scientists, versatile sportspeople, models, idealistic and capable political leaders etc. in the Western world.

Reduced and infantle variants have usually a lower cranial volume too, but their main disadvantages is the weaker body and general potential. They being constantly outperformed in the most important categories of sport competition by progressive variants and were subdominant in the situation of group selection for the same reasons as well as for another one, namely that progressive types, which peaks are usually lepto-mesomorphic and juvenile-mature build, are more schizothymic in character as well, which made them, together with the more effective and versatile body superior even if the reduced-infantile variants would have had the same intelligence level.

Compare with this too:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=44712

That reduction and infantilisation being mainly the result of one sided adaptation to unfavourable environments, which goal was simply saving, can be seen if looking at this thread too:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=60519

This is and was advantageous in very specific environments, but its not on line with the typical Hominisation process which meant balanced Neoteny = just certain elements change, mainly craniofacially if speaking about the physique, while the whole body, structure and the whole face-skull trait combination as such being only very limited affected by such an "infantilisation" (= balanced), but rather become even more effective. Such a generalised Hominisation is much more promising than any one sided niche adaptation.
However, there are traits which are mainly "better or worse" in a very specific context, like very light or dark skin, but thats not meant if comparing progressive-infantile-primitive. Progressive are mainly those traits which are generally Neohuman, neomorphic and advantageous or at least not disadvantageous.

In that sense progressive is objectively just one tendency out of others - there are just three basic tendencies beside more specific local adaptations in modern humans: Primitive, Infantile and Progressive. The progressive one is the typical human further development, more versatile and generalised, whereas primitive means phylogenetic and infantile ontogenetic retardation in comparison.

are we supposed to take it just for granted? You do realize this is totally subjective and you still have failed to support it with the minimal amount of data which i asked for. As long as you don’t deliver evidence that verifies there is no need for discussion

Agrippa
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 05:18 PM
natural selection is a process of adaptation to a changed direction, for progress the environment would have to maintain. North pole bears are pigmentation wise selected through a system of natural selection and aren’t more progressive in the sense of perfection than their darker kind in north america. Naturally natural selection isn’t progress either, it’s a change to adaptation

You described an irrelevant example because what you said is just what I described as "local adaptation" without significance for progressive developments neither in animals nor in humans. Thats like exact skin color differences in humans - unimportant for the general Hominisation, mainly important for the local adaptation if including more general advantages like in sexual selection, social dominance etc.


the principle that evolution isn't a progressing event isn't made up by me, its accepted science, proved and supported in a purely empirical manner – crucial base of science your theory lacks.

Evolution just takes place, something which I said too. But you can see a progress in differentiation, organisation, you can see that there was as development from lower organised organisms to higher organised ones and the latter being just possible through the development of the antecessors. That is a factual progress. Evolution produces progress because of competition - its just a progress inside of certain parameters of course, thats true. But in a species which is distributed worldwide true progress means worldwide advantages. Exact skin color cannot be considered as one, thats obvious, a larger brain and higher intelligence can, because there are just very few situations in which this is not advantageous for a group of people.

Of course, if you would put intelligent humans on an island on which they will have just access to a very low level of energy and no matter what they do, they will constantly starve, than every higher investment and versatile potential would be again "disadvantageous" for needing more energy. But thats a situation human creativity and intelligence as well as culture should prevent. Its about the human perspective and progress not about discussing from a philosophical point of view whether there is any progress in evolution or not and if every virus has the same level as the highest developed mammal - which it hasnt.
Speaking about humans and their relatives, the denomination alone says how humans naturally saw their position and did rightfully do so: Primates.


Paquin and adams placed a colony of yeast into a culture and maintained it for many successive generations. Occasionally, a mutation would pop out of the woodwork that would allow its bearer to reproduce better than its compatriots. These mutant strains would push out the formerly dominant strains and take over. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken at a various times. In later competition experiments, each strain would out compete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could out compete strains that arose late in the experiment. Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing. Any organism's success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. For most traits or behaviors there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones

What a poor example for talking about humans. What else? Do you really think this experiment proves anything of importance for our discussion? Just because you quoted an experiment you didnt gained an argument for higher mammals and not for relatively consequent evolutions. If you comparing such neutral organisms which have just limited abilities for gaining energy, dealing with competitors, reproducing etc.

This has no significance for human development nor what I said before. I even said myself that degeneration can take place, but this would mean the extermination of truly human traits whereas progressive developments mean to strengthen them, making them even more effective. The main factor being energy in all this cases - a serious lack of energy and options leads to degeneration humans.

An excellent example for progressive developments is the comparison of old world and new world plants and animals and the fact that many old world lifeforms, which were selected for a larger area with stronger competition and less isolation, were immediately able to overtake niches of locally adapted forms of America and especially Australia. This was because they were for their niche much better adapted than those lifeforms which lived isolated, in that way protected and had not to deal with such strong competitors as in Eurasia. This fact led to the extinction or at least supersession of them.


are we supposed to take it just for granted? You do realize this is totally subjective and you still have failed to support it with the minimal amount of data which i asked for. As long as you don’t deliver evidence that verifies there is no need for discussion

Well, until you prove me wrong and can't explain certain developments, patterns of social sieving and specialisation better than me probably yes.

Furthermore just compare with this thread in which I brought some examples:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=38300

By the way, progressive in the sense v. Eickstedt or myself using it doesnt need to refer to "progress in evolution in general", but progress in humans in general. Its not about if there is any progress from one bacteria colony to the next or even from bacteria to humans, but about our current stage of evolution and what gives us a higher chance for future survival and shows a higher degree of Hominisation, of human general potential.
We know what we will need if wanting to stay on a high level in the future - at least if being honest to ourselves. Low intelligence or lower physical performance, unattractive physical traits being definitely not as promising for a human group if looking at things as they are and will be without huge catastrophies - and even in the case of such catastrophies we can still say that the more versatile-progressive forms will have much higher chances to adapt to a changing environment.

But if you really want to avoid progress in that context, speak of higher organisational levels, differentiation, which is normal biological language - and consider that the human niche, even the most general one throughout the world, is specific in a way - we have a certain position in the current ecosystem, this is something we should consider and perfection our abilities on that. There are no endless alternatives for humans if wanting to survive on a higher level anyway - and if you dont care for the level, you probably care for nothing and therefore I wonder why being interested in anything as well.

What progressive in the sense I used it could mean from a general, not human specific, evolutionary outlook I tried to explain here:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=44767

The conditions dont have to be the same for a versatile adaptation, just similar. You are right, there is no "end product" which is absolutely superior in everything nor is there an "end product" which is perfect, with no need for further adaptation, since even minor changes in the environment might change the level of adaptation to the conditions too, but there is definitely a better or worse adapted stage and a forms which are better to live as generalists, so surviving even changing environments, and there are niche specialists, which are probably overspecialised and will die out if their current habitat will change just a little bit.
A progressive development can only mean to adapt but at the same time keeping options - animals can't plan that, it happens or doesnt, we as humans can observe developments and see the imbalanced and one sidedness of certain developments, the more promising and versatile character of others. Progressive in that context means rather a specific, so far typically human and most promising, strategy out of others - currently there are just three basic tendencies: Primitive, infantile and progressive with progressive, propulsive referring to the degree of differentiation and mature character. Primitive traits are phylogenetic, infantile ontogenetically retarded in comparison to the basic, "progressive" Hominisation tendency.

If comparing Homo sapiens with Homo erectus directly, we see just progress, more potential, practically no losses - thats the point. You cant compare the relation of Homo sapiens to Homo erectus with two stages of development in colonies of bacteria with their limited variation which will in the end just repeat itself until a major advantage would occur - f.e. a true cell nucleus which is such a great advantage for a lot of monads that in some areas all other forms of life being eradicated. You can see the same patter in some other structures, especially if comparing the variation in the early times of life, with, for us, very strange and in comparison more manifold variation with that of later times - it was partly a drastical reduction to certain basic structural elements which proved to be superior, more adaptive in a changing environment.
So evolution is not progressive in itself, but progress does take place while time goes by, resulting in higher organisation, more complex, higher differentiated organisms. Of course catastrophies can let a high grade of organisation fall back to a more primitive level again, but with time the process will begin again too. Its not about constructing a teleological moment with a fix goal, this goal can be, in our case, in the case of humans, only be man-made, but about observing the "products" of evolution and the fact that one level of organisation is based on the antecessor. In that way there is progress even though evolution in itself "knows" just the basic rules of herself, like variation, selection etc. and the results are non-purposive in theory.

Waarnemer
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 04:06 PM
You described an irrelevant example because what you said is just what I described as "local adaptation" without significance for progressive developments neither in animals nor in humans. Thats like exact skin color differences in humans - unimportant for the general Hominisation, mainly important for the local adaptation if including more general advantages like in sexual selection, social dominance etc.

evolution doesn't progress towards some sort of perfection; it keeps going as dna modifies.Evolution is adaptation and specialization to environmental conditions, evolution works through natural selection. I gave a classic example of natural selection in action through adaptation towards local conditions. All of humanity belongs to the homo sapiens species, the differences on which you focus; skull morphologies like brachycephalicism, characteristics as higher rooted noses, a narrower nose etc… are all brought up by adaptations reacting on local changed directions not global, progressiveness as in from worse to better, from imperfect to more nearly perfect is not at the order and is unnecessary and superfluous. In which lies scientific objectivity to call a narrower nose more progressive, more new? Brachycephalicism is newer than dolichocephalicism. The fact alone that negroids have wider noses is a reaction on their environment differently from europids. Explain me how does a narrower nose play a positive role in cognitive abilities, give me the exact, literal link between a narrower nose of a nordid as opposition of the plumper one of alpiniods and as an example neurotransmitters like adrenaline. Fittest equals those who fit into the ecological niche best, that’s evolution, nothing more. In fact, evolution is change, regardless of the underlying causes be it mutation, migration, random drift etc.. evolution is change in population parameters, whether measured as a change in allele frequency or in a phenotype. One could say the complicated given of culture is a form of progress (one you use), but that’s subjective, temporary, time and place bound and even great apes have culture


Evolution just takes place, something which I said too. But you can see a progress in differentiation, organisation, you can see that there was as development from lower organised organisms to higher organised ones and the latter being just possible through the development of the antecessors. That is a factual progress. Evolution produces progress because of competition - its just a progress inside of certain parameters of course, thats true. But in a species which is distributed worldwide true progress means worldwide advantages. Exact skin color cannot be considered as one, thats obvious, a larger brain and higher intelligence can, because there are just very few situations in which this is not advantageous for a group of people.
Of course, if you would put intelligent humans on an island on which they will have just access to a very low level of energy and no matter what they do, they will constantly starve, than every higher investment and versatile potential would be again "disadvantageous" for needing more energy. But thats a situation human creativity and intelligence as well as culture should prevent. Its about the human perspective and progress not about discussing from a philosophical point of view whether there is any progress in evolution or not and if every virus has the same level as the highest developed mammal - which it hasnt.
Speaking about humans and their relatives, the denomination alone says how humans naturally saw their position and did rightfully do so: Primates.


There is just no real sense in which it can be said that evolution is progress. Other animals can be just as complex and "highly developed" as humans, but in different forms that are beyond our own comprehension due our limited perspective. You bringing it like the nature of evolution can equal "progress" to a higher form is errorful and unsupported, stating that evolution is a form of progress, when in fact it’s not. In biological systems, evolution is brought by random changes in genetic sequencing = mutation. The vast majority of all genetic mutations are either neutral or deleterious with respect to the overall fitness of the organism in question. Only a very small percentage of genetic mutations are advantageous. In fact, advantageous mutations appear to be exquisitely rare. Progress is not a natural part of evolution –randomness is - but a subjective view of yours by which you systematic favor your own type, even humans aren't considered the most “evolved” animals; we're generalists who can survive in many environments and can eat many different things. Other animals are as well fitted to their own circumstances and evolved that way.



What a poor example for talking about humans. What else? Do you really think this experiment proves anything of importance for our discussion? Just because you quoted an experiment you didnt gained an argument for higher mammals and not for relatively consequent evolutions. If you comparing such neutral organisms which have just limited abilities for gaining energy, dealing with competitors, reproducing etc.
This has no significance for human development nor what I said before. I even said myself that degeneration can take place, but this would mean the extermination of truly human traits whereas progressive developments mean to strengthen them, making them even more effective. The main factor being energy in all this cases - a serious lack of energy and options leads to degeneration humans.
An excellent example for progressive developments is the comparison of old world and new world plants and animals and the fact that many old world lifeforms, which were selected for a larger area with stronger competition and less isolation, were immediately able to overtake niches of locally adapted forms of America and especially Australia. This was because they were for their niche much better adapted than those lifeforms which lived isolated, in that way protected and had not to deal with such strong competitors as in Eurasia. This fact led to the extinction or at least supersession of them.


Chris colby professor of evolutionary biology who writes for talkorigins uses it as an example to discard an evolution – progress and since all living things are interrelated because of shared common descent from the first living cells on earth the system remains the same. I couldn’t care less if you don’t accept the example

and species replacing species of the same species group isn’t progress, its natural selection playing in on environment and conditions, and competitors even fall under the former, so different competitors means different adaptations but that’s imo, im planning to read variation of animals and plants under domestication by darwin so can’t give you an answer on it



Well, until you prove me wrong and can't explain certain developments, patterns of social sieving and specialisation better than me probably yes.


i don’t have to prove you anything, its you who claims, its up to you. Neither do I have to explain, certainly not on colorations between intelligence, capacities and progressiveness, since that’s my first question and since that’s what you fail to do, again

as long you don’t provide data i will not participate anymore in this discussion because its absolutely pointless


Furthermore just compare with this thread in which I brought some examples:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=38300
By the way, progressive in the sense v. Eickstedt or myself using it doesnt need to refer to "progress in evolution in general", but progress in humans in general. Its not about if there is any progress from one bacteria colony to the next or even from bacteria to humans, but about our current stage of evolution and what gives us a higher chance for future survival and shows a higher degree of Hominisation, of human general potential.
We know what we will need if wanting to stay on a high level in the future - at least if being honest to ourselves. Low intelligence or lower physical performance, unattractive physical traits being definitely not as promising for a human group if looking at things as they are and will be without huge catastrophies - and even in the case of such catastrophies we can still say that the more versatile-progressive forms will have much higher chances to adapt to a changing environment.
But if you really want to avoid progress in that context, speak of higher organisational levels, differentiation, which is normal biological language - and consider that the human niche, even the most general one throughout the world, is specific in a way - we have a certain position in the current ecosystem, this is something we should consider and perfection our abilities on that. There are no endless alternatives for humans if wanting to survive on a higher level anyway - and if you dont care for the level, you probably care for nothing and therefore I wonder why being interested in anything as well.
What progressive in the sense I used it could mean from a general, not human specific, evolutionary outlook I tried to explain here:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=44767
The conditions dont have to be the same for a versatile adaptation, just similar. You are right, there is no "end product" which is absolutely superior in everything nor is there an "end product" which is perfect, with no need for further adaptation, since even minor changes in the environment might change the level of adaptation to the conditions too, but there is definitely a better or worse adapted stage and a forms which are better to live as generalists, so surviving even changing environments, and there are niche specialists, which are probably overspecialised and will die out if their current habitat will change just a little bit.
A progressive development can only mean to adapt but at the same time keeping options - animals can't plan that, it happens or doesnt, we as humans can observe developments and see the imbalanced and one sidedness of certain developments, the more promising and versatile character of others. Progressive in that context means rather a specific, so far typically human and most promising, strategy out of others - currently there are just three basic tendencies: Primitive, infantile and progressive with progressive, propulsive referring to the degree of differentiation and mature character. Primitive traits are phylogenetic, infantile ontogenetically retarded in comparison to the basic, "progressive" Hominisation tendency.
If comparing Homo sapiens with Homo erectus directly, we see just progress, more potential, practically no losses - thats the point. You cant compare the relation of Homo sapiens to Homo erectus with two stages of development in colonies of bacteria with their limited variation which will in the end just repeat itself until a major advantage would occur - f.e. a true cell nucleus which is such a great advantage for a lot of monads that in some areas all other forms of life being eradicated. You can see the same patter in some other structures, especially if comparing the variation in the early times of life, with, for us, very strange and in comparison more manifold variation with that of later times - it was partly a drastical reduction to certain basic structural elements which proved to be superior, more adaptive in a changing environment.
So evolution is not progressive in itself, but progress does take place while time goes by, resulting in higher organisation, more complex, higher differentiated organisms. Of course catastrophies can let a high grade of organisation fall back to a more primitive level again, but with time the process will begin again too. Its not about constructing a teleological moment with a fix goal, this goal can be, in our case, in the case of humans, only be man-made, but about observing the "products" of evolution and the fact that one level of organisation is based on the antecessor. In that way there is progress even though evolution in itself "knows" just the basic rules of herself, like variation, selection etc. and the results are non-purposive in theory.

whatever



Thats false for the niche at least. And if an animal species begins to adapt to a niche, is already as much adapted to be unable to survive in another, the better adapted form being superior by definition, using the possibilities of the niche better.

evolution isn’t about superiorism it would automatically mean that evolution has a goal

Agrippa
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 05:12 PM
evolution doesn't progress towards some sort of perfection; it keeps going as dna modifies.Evolution is adaptation and specialization to environmental conditions, evolution works through natural selection.

But this means to approach perfection at least from the perspective of a certain animal group, form of specialisation. I used the example of hoofs or wings. As long as group needs one of the too, there are traits "closer to perfection" = more fit to survive and for further development - and others further away. So its a natural process with no intrinsic goal from the start, but a positive feedback which is important for the involved lifeform, for which at the current stage of their evolution at least one trait being more valuable = fitter to survive and for further development, whereas others are worse.


All of humanity belongs to the homo sapiens species, the differences on which you focus; skull morphologies like brachycephalicism, characteristics as higher rooted noses, a narrower nose etc… are all brought up by adaptations reacting on local changed directions not global, progressiveness as in from worse to better, from imperfect to more nearly perfect is not at the order and is unnecessary and superfluous. In which lies scientific objectivity to call a narrower nose more progressive, more new? Brachycephalicism is newer than dolichocephalicism. The fact alone that negroids have wider noses is a reaction on their environment differently from europids. Explain me how does a narrower nose play a positive role in cognitive abilities, give me the exact, literal link between a narrower nose of a nordid as opposition of the plumper one of alpiniods and as an example neurotransmitters like adrenaline. Fittest equals those who fit into the ecological niche best, that’s evolution, nothing more.

Not for a mobile and globally acting species like humans. The difference comes from the fact that those which specialise in an one sided way to unfavourable conditions, a rather unfavourable habitat lost general potential, abilities necessary to compete successfully with other human groups. F.e. whereas the Nordid temperate climate specialisation was natural in the way you described, it meant for the population being involved to gain more potential rather than losing one - not just for this local niche, but for other areas too.

Same goes for Africa if comparing Sudanids and Bambutids (African Pygmies). The latter were better than all other Negroid forms adapted to the unfavourable conditions of the tropical forest, but did that helped? Not really, because exactly this full physical adaptation to this environment caused the following problems:
They shrunk in size, kept primitive and got extremely infantile traits, which made them less effective physically in fights, unattractive and rather shunned by at least a lot of neighboring, in comparison more progressive, tribes. So their adaptation made sense for the environment in which they were pushed, but not for the long term development and potential for survival.

One could compare such negative aberrations in human racial development, especially in very isolated and unfavourable areas, with the fate of some animal species which were the weaker competitior in a large and favourable living space, were pushed constantly into areas which became smaller and smaller, as well as more unfavourable. In the final stage, shortly before extinction, they simply adapted to the deprivation itself and lost that way even more potential for gaining ground again or adapting to changing environments.

If there would have been natural group selection to this day, in many areas of the world certain variants would no longer exist and certain tendencies, especially the extreme infantilisation, would have never spread as much, because in the direct competition, they being practically always weaker.

There is no direct correlation between nasal shape and intelligence, but since the forms with a narrow refined nose have usually other progressive traits too, there is an indirect one which was proven in some studies I read, you might search for them.
Furthermore narrow noses signal usually dominance, attractiveness and refinement (positive for the sexual selection and social success), protect the respiratory apparatus and are advantageous in a variety of habitats. Its interesting to note that narrow-long nasal forms expanded in various cases into areas of broad nosed people and usually prevailed, whereas the opposite virtually didnt occur - if excluding infantilisation which has other reasons.
The disadvantage of a narrower nose in the tropical environment is much smaller than that of a broad nose in higher altitudes, as well drier and colder climates. Not to forget its more commonly associated with rather schizothymic personalities inside of the Eurasian spectrum, which again meansa personality trait which has certain advantages in a variety of situations.

Progressive or simply positive traits being those which gives a group or individual an advantage or are at least neutral and new. Brachycephaly in itself is neither positive nor negative, it depends on the way it influences the whole structure of the face and head, its stability, cranial capacity etc. and which other correlations it might have - f.e. with the general physique.


In fact, evolution is change, regardless of the underlying causes be it mutation, migration, random drift etc.. evolution is change in population parameters, whether measured as a change in allele frequency or in a phenotype.

Exactly. Like v. Eickstedt said: "Race is a process".

The point is, certain old forms being if looking at Hominisation and modern racial variation simply not as fit and promising for survival nor for further development, which leads to a not fully biological category like:


One could say the complicated given of culture is a form of progress (one you use), but that’s subjective, temporary, time and place bound and even great apes have culture

Its subjective only in one way, namely that we should judge and evaluate after human parameters. Again, which gives us a better life as individuals, let us survive on a higher level and mostly independent from direct and unpleasant pressures, will give us a higher chance of further development and survival even if the environmental conditions will change is progress, everything which makes us too one sided, dependent, inapt to adapt is negative or degeneration.

As I said, a group of 1000 individuals with traits I consider advantageous would have had in most situations from 100.000 years to now always had a more dominant position inside of the species, a better chance for survival and further development, would have brought up more "progress" in the way I described above.
I know its anthropocentric at least, but thats the way we should look at it, because we are no monads but humans.

The great apes and most likely other species too have some aspects of culture indeed, but this didnt gave them such a boost for versatile potential as it did for humans of course.


There is just no real sense in which it can be said that evolution is progress. Other animals can be just as complex and "highly developed" as humans, but in different forms that are beyond our own comprehension due our limited perspective. You bringing it like the nature of evolution can equal "progress" to a higher form is errorful and unsupported, stating that evolution is a form of progress, when in fact it’s not.

Well, my example was clear whether you like to reject it or not. Other animals can indeed be in their way highly developed, absolutely. My point was that the development from monads without a true cell nucleus to modern mammals can be seen as a progress in the variation of life, of its organisation and differentiation. To degrade all life on this planet to monads again would mean degeneration from that perspective. I know thats rather a philosophical question than a purely biological one, but I consider humans which dont share that view as pathological cases because they are close to such personalities which think of themselves as worthless and wouldnt care if being eradicated even if still having a chance for healthy life and development - at least if getting rid of that attitude.

What sense does it make for the human species to be that relativistic and constructivistic? Even from a purely biological point of view it would be sick because it lowers our potential for survival if the motivation to act accordingly to the needs of our species and its further development and survival.


In biological systems, evolution is brought by random changes in genetic sequencing = mutation. The vast majority of all genetic mutations are either neutral or deleterious with respect to the overall fitness of the organism in question. Only a very small percentage of genetic mutations are advantageous. In fact, advantageous mutations appear to be exquisitely rare.

Absolutely, hey, dont try to teach my basics :thumbup


Progress is not a natural part of evolution –randomness is - but a subjective view of yours by which you systematic favor your own type, even humans aren't considered the most “evolved” animals; we're generalists who can survive in many environments and can eat many different things. Other animals are as well fitted to their own circumstances and evolved that way.

Finally you got it probably if thinking about it again. This versatile and generalist human character is what progressive means for our species at least.
Australopithecus robustus f.e. was a one sided specialist which was the reason he was going extinct. Modern Pygmy groups are in their way highly specialised too, but one sided, already "overspecialised" - reduced and dependent from a very specific niche, unable to defend their own territory nor evolving on for further expansion like more progressive forms. Thats in fact the point.



Chris colby professor of evolutionary biology who writes for talkorigins uses it as an example to discard an evolution – progress and since all living things are interrelated because of shared common descent from the first living cells on earth the system remains the same. I couldn’t care less if you don’t accept the example

I accept the example, its a nice one in fact, but its rather interesting for monads and immunology rather than the evolution of greater and more complex structures.


i don’t have to prove you anything, its you who claims, its up to you. Neither do I have to explain, certainly not on colorations between intelligence, capacities and progressiveness, since that’s my first question and since that’s what you fail to do, again

I spoke about it in the past, I will just highlight some aspects.

Sports which are most important for good hunters, warriors and versatile human variants in general being absolutely dominated by more progressive physical types, they need versatile physical as well as certain psychic characteristics to be successful, at the least the dominance of the more and very progressive forms is absolutely clear.

Examples for such sports being biathlon, triathlon, pentathlon and decathlon. You can make your own studies on that or searching for the respective threads, even though I know this won't impress you too much because you are a relativist it seems.

However, next step is sexual selection and attractiveness. Most male and female models and idols being dominated by progressive variants, this was even true for non-European but higher evolved cultures with non-degenerated views on human beauty around the world. F.e. the typical Japanese physical ideal in higher art preferred the local progressive variants (Sinid and Yakonid physiognomy and physique).

Progressive physical variants dominate in the social field to a large degree, even in primitive societies the chieftains being on average more progressive mainly for the following reasons: More dominant-better looking, physically more valuable, mentally a stronger will and more harmonious psyche, better looking high-quality females for the chief which leads to a selection for the higher social strata both from a functional and aesthetic side.

For the correlation between body and psyche just compare this threads and search for others:

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=8778
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=53225

I might add this two pictures I found in this thread:
http://www.biodiversityforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=902

From C.S. Coon:
"The Alpha and Omega of Homo Sapiens: An Australian aboriginal woman with a cranial capacity of under 1000 cc (Topsy, a Tiwi); and a Chinese sage with a brain nearly twice that size (Dr. Li Chi, the renowned archaeologist and director of Academia Sinica).

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2053/lichilargecranialux5.th.jpg (http://img217.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lichilargecranialux5.jpg)ht tp://img78.imageshack.us/img78/5512/topsyatiwi1000ccsi5.th.jpg (http://img78.imageshack.us/my.php?image=topsyatiwi1000ccsi5.jpg)

Needless to mention that the professor is a, even if going after the facial traits, relatively progressive Sinid variant whereas "Topsy" is a typical primitive Australid which only progressive trait I recognised seems to be a somewhat more positive chin, which is not that common in Australids. This emphasis again that its not about single traits but the whole feature combination and certain traits, like brain size and overall physique, being more important than single traits on their own (!).
Its typical that all this primitive or extremely infantile traits being preserved or coming up mostly in isolated or unfavourable areas. As soon as more progressive types "show interest" for such areas, the less developed forms, both by race and/or culture will be pushed aside.
Now you can again say that this is relative, but oh well, thats the way for humans to go, not going back or degenerating to a saving variant. Thats the only subjective component in all of this, namely to directly evaluating it. I never denied that and its not the first time I said it, but for us humans thats the way to go and there is no "equality of developments", at least not from our own anthropocentric perspective which is the one which should matter. Whether humans gain the potential to keep up higher life forms, probably even beyond the existence of this planet, or no one will. Because the most resistent monad will go extinct once this planet will fall with the end of the sun.

As well as this threads comparison of progressive vs. primitive:
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=532603&postcount=20

What you can see immediately is that the functional aspects being present, like more balanced head as well as higher cranial volume in the far more attractive-harmonious progressive examples too.

I can show you graphs and studies about the correlation of cranial capacity with the progressive zones of development I mentioned, of cranial capacity with intelligence and the latter being on average high in progressive forms (Europids and Mongolids) than in primitive ones. But for somebody like you this should be something you knew already anyway...


whatever

Thats a great answer...


evolution isn’t about superiorism it would automatically mean that evolution has a goal

Whether evolution can have a goal or not is rather a philosophical question than a biological one, because we just know some rules of the game, not how it came up.

In any case there is one rule for sure: Life reproduces life and tries to preserve life - at least of the own kind. We can use reason and our human intelligence to distinguish for ourselves what was, is and will be more promising. Past Hominisation already showed the path and this path was successful so far, all forms which deviated from it were eliminated. Again, there is no equality of developments since some reduce, some improve human's versatile potential.

Waarnemer
Tuesday, September 19th, 2006, 10:14 PM
regarding the progressiveness and evolution debate and even your entire theory im going to contact evolutionary biologists. Possible e-mail responses and answers i will publish on skadi, to be precise in this thread

Agrippa
Tuesday, September 19th, 2006, 10:33 PM
regarding the progressiveness and evolution debate and even your entire theory im going to contact evolutionary biologists. Possible e-mail responses and answers i will publish on skadi, to be precise in this thread

Nice idea, just remember, its not necessary for progress to have a goal - higher differentiation and organisation happens because of evolutionary processes we discussed above. I simply define this as progress which is justified, especially from the anthropocentric perspective and it doesnt make sense to say that there is no "change on the level of development". Its a human evaluation, yes, but its one which is justified and reasonable from our own perspective and vital interests.

This is what racially progressive means for Hominisation, for humans in this context:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43471
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=44712

Just compare with this thread in which an author wrote about robusticity and tried to prove that the Australid traits are not primitive, its an interesting insight:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=58655

Those which have more progressive traits on a physical and psychic level are those which are generally more adaptive and have a higher value in a culturally evolved society in particular, as the social sieving processes prove.

Rafael
Monday, October 16th, 2006, 02:46 AM
Once again, I must say that what Agrippa calls "progressive" and claims is balanced, to me looks very unbalanced. I get bad energies all around just by looking at an extremely progressive person. It's as if their noses are about to separate from the nose root/base and fall off the face. Their eye sockets many times look sick, their eyes are many times not in proportion with head size (eyes too small) and the complete absence of anything robust makes them appear extremely unbalanced.

A face needs a combination of shorter, more stocky features and longer gracile to be balanced. A stretched out, long face just isn't balanced and it signals some kind of disturbance in subtle energies.

Agrippa
Monday, October 16th, 2006, 02:48 PM
Once again, I must say that what Agrippa calls "progressive" and claims is balanced, to me looks very unbalanced. I get bad energies all around just by looking at an extremely progressive person. It's as if their noses are about to separate from the nose root/base and fall off the face. Their eye sockets many times look sick, their eyes are many times not in proportion with head size (eyes too small) and the complete absence of anything robust makes them appear extremely unbalanced.

A face needs a combination of shorter, more stocky features and longer gracile to be balanced. A stretched out, long face just isn't balanced and it signals some kind of disturbance in subtle energies.

As I said extremes are not necessarily the best option either way, however, you should show examples if making such claims, so that everybody knows about which exact variants and trait combinations you are speaking about. Furthermore what you describe is partly true from the perspective of an zyklothymic-extraverted person which prefers harmless and weak before probably dangerous and strong-dominant signals. This is usually true for weakened groups and a degenerated society which prefers even in males more paedomorphic traits and compliant to indifferent behaviour.
The complete absense of anything robust is something I dont see in most of the examples - that would be only true if you mean with robust pyknomorphic to even paedomorphic whats a totally different matter.

Balanced doesnt mean to look like a Bambi, but to have a versatile body and personality, being competitive both in the individual and group selection, having the potential for high performance in various areas (by basic type at least) and generally advantageous - contrary to overspecialised and onesided, characteristics.

Uwe Jens Lornsen
Tuesday, June 5th, 2018, 08:40 PM
Since this thread is currently the only sticky one in the 'Mediterranid' section I
would suggest to unstick it, since almost all pictures in the starting post
are not available anymore and this thread derailed into a discussion about 'progressiveness' .

There is no sticky in the Mediterranid section describing anything Mediterranid .

:(