Who is the most progressive TA member?

[Trun]

I nominate myself. Pontid stronk :D

[Mazik]

I nominate myself :cool:

[bimo]

i still have to understand what the f**k does mean "progressive"

[gregorius]

gregorius, progressive armenoid from the inside and outside

[Trun]

i still have to understand what the f**k does mean "progressive"

Nordids, Dinarids, Pontids, Atlantids, Atlanto-Meds, Iranids...and Somalis.

[Dombra]

I vote for greg and the doctor

[bimo]

Nordids, Dinarids, Pontids, Atlantids, Atlanto-Meds, Iranids...and Somalis.

ah thanks for the information , so i vote for me , tr00 uber atlanto-med/pontid

[Dombra]

Nordids, Dinarids, Pontids, Atlantids, Atlanto-Meds, Iranids...and Somalis.

Sinid and Silvids too :p

[Trun]

Sinid and Silvids too :p

And Dinaromeds, some East Meds, Armenoids, North Indids, I can't mention all :(

[gregorius]

And Dinaromeds, some East Meds, Armenoids, North Indids, I can't mention all :(

twitchoid not to forget

[Mazik]

Where's that progressive chart of different phenotypes?

[Trun]

twitchoid not to forget

It's the epitome of progressivness :D

[The King, I am]

I vote for Silverknight

[Dombra]

Where's that progressive chart of different phenotypes?

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/7203/priproinfoq9.jpg

The truth does not correspond to a two dimensional chart like this, its pretty good nonetheless

[Kalimtari]

my answer:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru2uixqA7Fk

[Übermensch]

Don't need to have '''the most primitive member'' as we all know who he is.

[rhiannon]

:runs::runs:*quickly makes a beeline for the door and slams it behind her because she clearly does not belong in this room* :runs:

[The King, I am]

Don't need to have '''the most primitive member'' as we all know who he is.

gigolo

[Übermensch]

Mazik.

[Übermensch]

gigolo

He is not primitive at all.

[The King, I am]

He is not primitive at all.

and you are?

[Smeagol]

i still have to understand what the f**k does mean "progressive"


Racially progressive tendencies in Homo sapiens

Racially progressive tendencies in a race are typically modern sapiens features. In this context I mean neomorphic, new features, which are both balanced, versatile, under as much conditions as possible advantageous and efficient. The new feature must be generally advantageous or at least not disadvantageous, neutral, if considering as much factors as possible, to be called progressive. Usually this tendencies are on line with the general trends of Hominisation, f.e. decrease of prognathy, prominence of the upper jaw, changes in the position of the foramen magnum and the form and position of the parietal bone etc.
Knußmann said that different races have different progressive features. For the Negrids he mentioned the full lips in the Grzimek Enzyklopädie.
The dynamic of progressive types (Europids and Mongolids, with certain types being more progressive than the average of the race) replacing in prehistoric times more primitive variants was mentioned by v. Eickstedt (1963), Lundman (1952).
Rough translation:
"The other, even more progressive main race, the white race...", from Lundman, Umriß der Rassenkunde in historischer Zeit, 1952, S. 51.
"Very clear is the connection of races to the ontogenetic development: There are races, which retain the more childlike (paedomorphic) habitus (f.e. Palaemongolids, img 308 - look at the pictures posted in the phy. anthro. section from Knußmann), and such, which are more typical adult formed - or even overreaching (f.e. Nilotids, img 304)".
"The protuberance of the mucous membrane (lips) of Negrids is a phylogenetically progressive, whereas the strong prognathy is an archaic (primitive) feature."
Knußmann (see below) S. 407.
"Highly specialised organisms or organs are being designated as phylogenetically progressive. Phylogenetic primitivity is the retaining of original, undifferentiated features. (very rough the (theoretical of primitivity) advantage is the potential for further specialisation in more directions..."
- means: Primitives can develop (in more directions theoretically), Progressives already developed. If there new development is advantageous, there form is in comparison. Now my point is not everything new is progressive, insofar I use it like Eickstedt and Lundman, because only advantageous and versatile features are progressive, too one sided are overspecialised (took further potential away).
"Original ("ancestral") features are also called plesiomorphies, specialised "derived" as apomorphies.
Knußmann, Vergleichende Biologie des Menschen, 2nd edition 1996, S. 268-269.

Some images which show progressive-neomorphic evolutionary trends during hominisation.

First the general developments of the skull:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3297&stc=1&d=1259939744

2nd the development of the lower jaw - positive chin:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3298&stc=1&d=1259939777

Deviating tendencies, a metrical comparison, tropical primitives (Weddoid: Malid) compared with progressive Europids (Indid: Nordindid):
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3299&stc=1&d=1259939808

Extreme paedomorphy of the skull and body compared with a normal development of progressive mature leptomorphic Europids:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3300&stc=1&d=1259939848

Compare with Lundmans scheme of body racial body types and the body types of Kretschmer/Contrad, constitutional forms. Here Lundman:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3301&stc=1&d=1259939926

The progressive trias is mature-virile-juvenile, which are the dominant body forms of all progressive Europid forms, with a strong overlap, but the tendency of Dinaroid = mature, Nordoid = virile, Mediterranoid = juvenile.

Sinids, Nordsinids in particular go fluently in the juvenile type and I dont agree with Lundman that they are generally speaking of the feminine body form, which is comparably also more progressive than those which retain strong child-like or protomorphic traits in their body proportions.

The developments on skull affected various areas but quite important is what was chanced at the base of the skull, especially the sphenoid bone position and angle and the positon of the formen magnum. This trend was usually associated with a decreasing grade of prognathy and a "movement of the face" under the braincase - together with a reduction of the teeth numbers and whole chewing apparatus - though the last is relative and not necessarily a main cause in my opinion.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3302&stc=1&d=1259940198

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3303&stc=1&d=1259940225

This changes made not only a different facial form and bigger braincase possible, they also changed the centre of gravity (which moved up to the hip for the whole body and backward on the head) for which especially the changing spine and moving foramen magnum was crucial:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3304&stc=1&d=1259940297

The Neandertal was, if compared with sapiens rather primitive in many ways, whats particulary striking, is the fact that the principle form of the braincase didnt change - just the size increased - the opposite is true if comparing with the sapiens innovation:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3305&stc=1&d=1259940334

Even the centre of gravity of the skull was less balanced you can see that the skull-spine angle is very different:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3302&stc=1&d=1259940373

Its important to note that even in the most progressive Homo sapiens the head is not fully balanced, in fact, an improvement would be possible - though the counterweight or muscle power necessary to keep the head straight is constantly decreased from Australopithecines to Homo sapiens with Homo neanderthalensis being still rather on the erectus level - again position of the spine and foramen magnum should be kept in mind.
The decreasing prognathy is also important during Hominisation if looking at the palatine:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3306&stc=1&d=1259940434

But whats really important is that the features are balanced, because imbalanced orthognathy-retrognathy leads to dental and jaw-problems. We could even argue that many progressive Eurasians suffer from that, the development is in fact not optimal and balanced in every case and needs still improvement.
However, lets look what balanced retrognathy of a very progressive and fully balanced individual means if compared with primitive racial prognathy:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3307&stc=1&d=1259940472http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3308&stc=1&d=1259940497

The comparison of the positive chin of the progressive individual with the primitive negative chin of the archomorphic one reveals the same pattern:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3310&stc=1&d=1259940671http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3309&stc=1&d=1259940627
The Pintubi skull (1800 AD.) is an Australoid skull with very archaic dimensions.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3311&stc=1&d=1259940707
Here it is compared with an Europid skull.



http://canovanograms.tripod.com/pintubi1/

This skull is a perfect example for primitive traits and they made a comparison with a progressive skull on this site too, whats really nice to show the difference between primitive and progressive traits.

Neomorphic and progressive traits can be also those, in my definition, which are new and at least not disadvantageous for a general, versatile and active adaptation. So traits being selected by sexual selection for the purpose of being sexually attractive for other individuals are per progressive for two reasons, namely for being new and advantageous in the intraspecific competition as along as they are not disadvantageous for another, more important and longer term aspect of biological adaptation. F.e. its no option for females to get larger and larger breasts, even if they would be preferred by males for exactly this reason. Larger female breasts would be a positive development as a sign of feminity, fertility, good nutrition, health etc. in that sense only to a certain limit, namely when the larger breasts become too much of a burden for a woman in too many other areas of her adaptiveness. So there might be a conflict of trends and competitiveness in this as well as in various other regards.

[Smeagol]

I think it's ButlerKing.