http://www.racialcompact.com/averageisdestiny.html
Why do you suppose Australoids rank higher than negroids? Do they have more recessive genes, or is it the interest in preserving hair blondism?![]()
http://www.racialcompact.com/averageisdestiny.html
Why do you suppose Australoids rank higher than negroids? Do they have more recessive genes, or is it the interest in preserving hair blondism?![]()
I suppose you'll have to ask McCulloch himself.Originally Posted by ladygoeth33
![]()
Maybe Australoids have normal hair?? I mean, not the screw-in peppercorns of Negroids. Maybe he made his judgement on that.... who knowsOriginally Posted by ladygoeth33
![]()
I'm surprised the scale goes that far down.
I mean, is a 'Nordish' individual actually going to deliberate with himself in a manner such as this:
" If I procreate with Australoid, with myself being a 3 on the scale, my kids will be approximately 25-29 on the scale. However, I mate with an American black my kids will be 33.5 on the scale. So hard to choose..."
![]()
Originally Posted by Loki
Actually, some of them do.
Australids have hair like nobody else. Not that that's bad, of course, but 40,000 years of isolation will do that to an entire continent of people.
Maybe he was influenced by reading Coon, who wrote something like, "It's not hard to see an archaic Caucasian in an Australoid."Originally Posted by ladygoeth33
Australoids are closer to Europeans genetically and phenotypically than Negroids.,,,
Surely they are very dark and different from Europeans, but ultimately Negroids are even more different.
Genetic studies also support this, as Negroids are the most archaic and different from other groups.
Bookmarks