Why the UFC didn't have fighters from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?

[TheMaster]

I am not east asian at all ... I am a proud caucasian aryens. Why you insult me ? are you triggered I speak truth ? Of course races are related we are from the specie my lil Indy. It doesn't mean we are equal. Some go on the moon, others drink cow pee.

Pls don't have a meltdown on serdog, no need to insult me ... thousands of years is a long time on human scale ... just 2 centuries ago the average male height was 166 cm in France for example , today in france the average male height is 180 cm. 14 cm difference in just 200 years. Hence all the phenotypical differences which occurred in thousands of years.

Indian are dravidians, europeans are mostly caucasian aryens. We have common ancestors, like we have with negroid and mongoloid, but we are not the same race. I can't believe you even believe that ...

Lol, so you are an 'aryan' or believe u are. Ok that makes sense now.
Doesn't change the fact that you are basically a depigmented middle east/South Indian/north african as proven in the studies posted.
So you are reduced to conceding that the time frame we are talking is just a couple thousand years and trying to emphasize that. Fair enough, if 6000 years is a big deal to you then I can't argue.
The Egyptian civilization was still going on then, and apparently there were no 'white people' yet as Nordic 'aryans' were still brown at that time.

It's not much a big deal to me which is why I don't get defensive and can accept that Europeans are related to these other groups in fairly recent human history.

'Race' depends how broad or narrow you define it. I am sure plenty of Arabs wouldn't want to be classed with euros but they are both classed as 'caucasian' usually so whatever that means.

Like another poster said, people need to learn to get along.

 

[Beherit]

Lol, so you are an 'aryan' or believe u are. Ok that makes sense now.
Doesn't change the fact that you are basically a depigmented middle east/South Indian/north african as proven in the studies posted.
So you are reduced to conceding that the time frame we are talking is just a couple thousand years and trying to emphasize that. Fair enough, if 6000 years is abig deal to you then I can't argue. The Egyptian civilization was still going on then, and apparently there were no 'white people' yet as Nordic 'aryans' were still brown at that time.

'Race' depends how broad or narrow you define it. I am sure plenty of Arabs wouldn't want to be classed with euros but they are both classed as 'caucasian' usually so whatever that means.

Like another poster said, people need to learn to get along.

Yes I am a caucasian aryens, just like most of europeans. We are not going to change the terminology because one crazy man used the word "aryans" to commit abject crimes.

Arabs are mostly caucasian Hamites, or semites depending on what you call " arab "( either the culture, or the people of the arab peninsula ), but they are still caucasian whether they like it or not.

There were white people 6000 years ago, but there were also colored people coming from south. Just like there is now, it is migration ... btw those colored people were already caucasian, not negroid or dravidians. Skin color is just one phenotypic trait among many others to define race.

happy that you calmed yourself, and understand that race exist and the major difference between them. I wish some indians fighters will have success, but unfortunately their athletic abilities are not that high compared to others races. But with 1 billion people, i am sure we will see some good talent in the future years.

 

[TheMaster]

Yes I am a caucasian aryens, just like most of europeans. We are not going to change the terminology because one crazy man used the word "aryans" to commit abject crimes.

Arabs are mostly caucasian Hamites, or semites depending on what you call " arab "( either the culture, or the people of the arab peninsula ), but they are still caucasian whether they like it or not.

There were white people 6000 years ago, but there were also colored people coming from south. Just like there is now, it is migration ... btw those colored people were already caucasian, not negroid or dravidians. Skin color is just one phenotypic trait among many others to define race.

happy that you calmed yourself, and understand that race exist and the major difference between them. I wish some indians fighters will have success, but unfortunately their athletic abilities are not that high compared to others races. But with 1 billion people, i am sure we will see some good talent in the future years.

Good your no longer having a breakdown and can accept that 6000 years ago dark skinned skinned europeans would have been virtually indistinguishable from other dark skinned 'caucasian' groups including the founder populations from middle east and India/dravidians and north africa berbers and somalians.



So you are splitting hairs but you are entitled to identify however you want.
Since these groups share largely similar genetics in very recent history, I dont see them as having much different athletic capabilities either if training and resources were available.

 

[Beherit]

Good your no longer having a breakdown and can accept that 6000 years ago dark skinned skinned europeans would have been virtually indistinguishable from other dark skinned 'caucasian' groups including the founder populations from middle east and India/dravidians and north africa berbers and somalians.

So you are splitting hairs but you are entitled to identify however you want.
Since these groups share largely similar genetics in very recent history, I dont see them as having much different athletic capabilities either if training and resources were available.

never said that, but if you want to believe I said it, do as u please. I used the word " migration" for a reason ...

And no one is like the founder population, because every race evolves with time. You have a problem with time bro ...

lol " training and resources " much much smaller countries or much much poorer countries have produced so much more elite lvl athlete than India or pakistan united ( jamaïca, kenya, caucasus region, basil in the 60s/70s, island, cameron, cuba, morocco etc ). Talent pool is HUGE in India and Pakistan, yet no elite athlete. It is not a question of resources for india ( in the top 10 most powerful economy in the world ). It is just bad athletic abilities. India is investing massively in PEDs in the last decade, hopefully some PEDs will make a bit more competitive now.

Bro it is ok to not be an A lvl athlete, at least your country is getting really good at caucasian sciences ( informatics, western medecine etc ), every thing is not about sport ...

 

[TheMaster]

never said that, but if you want believe I said it, do as u please. I used the word " migration" for a reason ... And no one is like the founder population, because every race evolves with time. You have a problem with time bro ...

lol " training and resources " much much smaller countries or much much poorer countries have produced so much more elite lvl athlete than India or pakistan united ( jamaïca, kenya, caucasus region, basil in the 60s/70s, island, cameron, cuba, morocco etc ). It is not a question of resources for india ( in the top 10 most powerful economy in the world ). It is just bad athletic abilities. India is investing massively in PEDs in the last decade, hopefully some PEDs will make a bit more competitive now.

I believe the science. You can believe the ideology mate...

 

[Beherit]

I believe the science. You can believe the ideology mate...

I only used scientific terms, ur the one using ideology with your " race are equal ! indians = europeans ! " BS.

No ideology in my sayings, only scientific facts. Tell me what is not science in the arguments I exposed ? I bet you didn't even knew what race you were before I told you.

When i said " caucasian aryens " instead of interpreting the scientific terms, you IMMEDIATELY referred to the nazi ideology.

You re the one using ideology, not me.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black !

btw " similar genetic " is not an argument at all, we have a very similar genetic with chimp ( 99 % ), we are not chimp either. " similar genetic " means every thing and nothing at all.

The only thing it really means, is that our DNA is NOT the same.

 

[TheMaster]

I only used scientific terms, ur the one using ideology with your " race are equal ! indians = europeans ! " BS.

No ideology in my sayings, only scientific facts. Tell me what is not science in the arguments I exposed ? I bet you didn't even knew what race you were before I told you.

When i said " caucasian aryens " instead of interpreting the scientific terms, you IMMEDIATELY referred to the nazi ideology.

You re the one using ideology, not me.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black !

I never said they are the same lol. I simply said studies have shown that european fair skin has been traced to somewhere between middle East and south India and north Africa. Of course if u want to consider them a different 'race' or variations of the same 'race' it is up to you. Even early anthropologists like Coon basically did the same.

But considering that frigging Nordics (so called 'aryans') and Brits were dark brown skinned so recently and their skeletal and skull structure is otherwise almost the same as the other groups I am inclined to group them together as basically the same population that split somewhere around north Africa and moved in waves in different directions as people do. And I don't have a problem with this, whereas clearly u do so you are tying yourself in knots trying to escape this clear research.

I am not a genetics expert but I know from the research the split with east Asians was earlier (around 18 000 years) and from Africa even earlier still.
So if you are trying to fit earlier pseudo scientific theories about 'aryans' into this u will have problems.

No doubt further studies will shed more light but the basic picture is clear and supports every point I have made. I posted studies, u posted cartoons and references to 2,500 000 million year old homo habilus, not 6000 year old dark skinned 'caucasians' that had come to Europe a few thousand years earlier.
So we know who is closer to reality and what science says.

 

[Beherit]

I never said they are the same lol. I simply said studies have shown that european fair skin has been traced to somewhere between middle East and south India and north Africa. Of course if u want to consider them a different 'race' or variations of the same 'race' it is up to you. Even early anthropologists like Coon basically did the same.

But considering that frigging Nordics (so called 'aryans') and Brits were dark brown skinned so recently and their skeletal and skull structure is otherwise almost the same as the other groups I am inclined to group them together as basically the same population that split somewhere around north Africa and moved in waves in different directions as people do. And I don't have a problem with this, whereas clearly u do so you are tying yourself in knots trying to escape this clear research.

I am not a genetics expert but I know from the research the split with east Asians was earlier (around 18 000 years) and from Africa even earlier still.
So if you are trying to fit earlier pseudo scientific theories about 'aryans' into this u will have problems.

No doubt further studies will shed more light but the basic picture is clear and supports every point I have made. I posted studies, u posted cartoons and references to 2,500 000 million year old homo habilus, not 6000 year old dark skinned 'caucasians' of the eastern regions.
So we know who is closer to reality and what science says.

- lol an article is not a study young man ...

- You are always talking about skin color, i already told you that skin color is just one phenotypic trait among many others. You either have comprehension issues, or you don't want to listen.

- Other than that all this entire big paragraph you wrote is just out of subject, I never said otherwise ... The reference of the homo habiles was an hyperbole, too bad you didn't understand ...






Now that you admitted the existence of race ( basically the existence of different group of humans ), answer this question pls :

- is conor ( any today's europeans ) indian ?

- why a 2 billions pool of people wasn't able to produce any high lvl athlete in a world wide sports not named cricket ?

- " So if you are trying to fit earlier pseudo scientific theories about 'aryans' into this u will have problems."

which pseudo scientific theories are you talking about ?

- why do you try to be caucasian ? be proud of your race, the dravidian, be proud of your culture ( cow's pee drinking, shit in street, rape in street, weird ass cast system created by caucasian to rule your people btw etc ).





i answer for you, can't wait for your response :

- conor is not dravidian, he is a caucasian aryen obviously. He is likely more negroid than dravidian ( slavery, many black women raped etc ), he is not negroid either. Just a good ol caucasian aryens.

- poor athletic abilities is the most likely answer. Other answers are inconsistent ( money, resources, size of the population, culture, etc ). Other possible answer the eating habit, not eating meat can be a problem to gain proper athletic abilities, what do u think ? cow's pee doesn't help either.

- your civilization has been ruled by caucasian since the dawn of time, maybe you want be assimilated as caucasian for this reason ? A bit like the bounties ...

 

[TheMaster]

- lol an article is not a study young man ...

- You are always talking about skin color, i already told you that skin color is just one phenotypic trait among many others. You either have comprehension issues, or you don't want to listen.

- Other than that all this entire big paragraph you wrote is just out of subject, I never said otherwise ... The reference of the homo habiles was an hyperbole, too bad you didn't understand ...






Now that you admitted the existence of race ( basically the existence of different group of humans ), answer this question pls :

- is conor ( any today's europeans ) indian ?

- why a 2 billions pool of people wasn't able to produce any high lvl athlete in a world wide sports not named cricket ?

- " So if you are trying to fit earlier pseudo scientific theories about 'aryans' into this u will have problems."

which pseudo scientific theories are you talking about ?

- why do you try to be caucasian ? be proud of your race, the dravidian, be proud of your culture ( cow's pee drinking, shit in street, rape in street, weird ass cast system created by caucasian to rule your people btw etc ).





i answer for you, can't wait for your response :

- conor is not dravidian, he is a caucasian aryen obviously. He is likely more negroid than dravidian ( slavery, many black women raped etc ), he is not negroid either. Just a good ol caucasian aryens.

- poor athletic abilities is the most likely answer. Other answers are inconsistent ( money, resources, size of the population, culture, etc ). Other possible answer the eating habit, not eating meat can be a problem to gain proper athletic abilities, what do u think ? cow's pee doesn't help either.

- your civilization has been ruled by caucasian since the dawn of time, maybe you want be assimilated as caucasian for this reason ? A bit like the bounties ...

Wow, have seldom seen someone so triggered. Obviously you are unable to dig yourself out of this one, so I'll just let the reararch studies and articles speak for themselves...

In terms of sport, Middle East, north africa and India don't produce many mma fighters because it's a niche sport without access to high level training. Not hard to work this out.

I'm not going to waste too much time on your other confused ramblings but in summary.

- the term 'aryan' is not scientific it refers to a language grouping
- 'caucasian' refers roughly to a racial grouping but is also not a strictly a scientific term either and has been used to refer to different populations. You can look up a definition.
- early anthropologists classification of 'caucasians' was based mainly on skin color and skull structure. For example Carlton Coon included Euros, North Africans, Arabs, Dravidians and Somalians in this grouping while others had done different grouping.
- modern genetics now roughly supports this, showing the population of Europe derives from migrations from the regions listed above

Not rocket science as I said.

Now calm yourself son and have a cup of tea

 

[Beherit]

Wow, have seldom seen someone so triggered. Obviously you are unable to dig yourself out of this one, so I'll just let the reararch studies and articles speak for themselves...

In terms of sport, Middle East, north africa and India don't produce many mma fighters because it's a niche sport without access to high level training. Not hard to work this out.

I'm not going to waste too much time on your other confused ramblings but in summary.

- the term 'aryan' is not scientific it refers to a language grouping
- 'caucasian' refers roughly to a racial grouping but is also not a strictly a scientific term either and has been used to refer to different populations. You can look up a definition.
- early anthropologists classification of 'caucasians' was based mainly on skin color and skull structure. For example Carlton Coon included Euros, North Africans, Arabs, Dravidians and Somalians in this grouping while others had done different grouping.
- modern genetics now roughly supports this, showing the population of Europe derives from migrations from the regions listed above

Not rocket science as I said.

Now calm yourself son and have a cup of tea

lol good job not answering the question ! such a good job, I ll re ask the question then ! :

- is conor ( any today's europeans ) indian ?

- why a 2 billions pool of people wasn't able to produce any high lvl athlete in a world wide sports not named cricket ( not just MMA, but also other main sports, learn to understand a question mate ) ?

- which pseudo scientific theories are you talking about ? Caucasian aryens is a scientific terms well known, and used in the medical schools for example. Dravidians are not caucasian, I don't know why you keep saying that, they have their own race name : dravidians ... ( just with your DNA haplotypes we can know if you are caucasian or dravidians ).

- why do you try to be caucasian ?

what do you think about my answers ? " your civilization has been ruled by caucasian since the dawn of time, maybe you want be assimilated as caucasian for this reason ? A bit like the bounties ..."

- " - modern genetics now roughly supports this, showing the population of Europe derives from migrations from the regions listed above" never said otherwise ... still don't know why u repeat that, maybe you can't answer my question so you repeat that ?

 

[TheMaster]

lol good job not answering the question ! such a good job, I ll re ask the question then ! :

- is conor ( any today's europeans ) indian ?

- why a 2 billions pool of people wasn't able to produce any high lvl athlete in a world wide sports not named cricket ( not just MMA, but also other main sports, learn to understand a question mate ) ?

- which pseudo scientific theories are you talking about ? Caucasian aryens is a scientific terms well known, and used in the medical schools for example. Dravidians are not caucasian, I don't know why you keep saying that, they have their own race name : dravidians ... ( just with your DNA haplotypes we can know if you are caucasian or dravidians ).

- why do you try to be caucasian ?

what do you think about my answers ? " your civilization has been ruled by caucasian since the dawn of time, maybe you want be assimilated as caucasian for this reason ? A bit like the bounties ..."

- " - modern genetics now roughly supports this, showing the population of Europe derives from migrations from the regions listed above" never said otherwise ... still don't know why u repeat that, maybe you can't answer my question so you repeat that ?

Why are u in denial about European origins?

You have not refuted nor can you, that europeans come from middle east,north Africa and south Indian people as evidenced they share a mutated form of the same skin color gene.

So whether you want to call only Europeans 'caucasian' or classify all these groups in that category, or abandon the term altogether is irrelevant.

As to your question:
Is Conor McGregor North African/South Indian/Middle Eastern?
Well he is descended as proven by genetics from populations originating with these groups, and he looks like basically a depigmented version of a man from any of these regions.

However, Europeans had other adaptations apart from light skin, hair and eyes they got slightly larger body size (Connor missed out on this) to aclimatize to the cold.
They also have their own culture.

So obviously not, he is an Irish European.

 

[Beherit]

Why are u in denial about European origins?

You have not refuted nor can you, that europeans come from middle east,north Africa and south Indian people as evidenced they share a mutated form of the same skin color gene.

So whether you want to call only Europeans 'caucasian' or classify all these groups in that category, or abandon the term altogether is irrelevant.

As to your question:
Is Conor McGregor North African/South Indian/Middle Eastern?
Well he is descended as proven by genetics from populations originating with these groups, and he looks like basically a depigmented version of a man from any of these regions.

However, Europeans had other adaptations apart from light skin, hair and eyes they got slightly larger body size (Connor missed out on this) to aclimatize to the cold.
They also have their own culture.

So obviously not, he is an Irish European.

- how am I denying europeans origins ? pls tell me ?


Bravo ! you answered the first question ! and admitted that your first assertion : " conor is indian " is wrong.

obviously you can't answer all the others, we know why ...


- why a 2 billions pool of people wasn't able to produce any high lvl athlete in a world wide sports not named cricket ( not just MMA, but also other main sports, learn to understand a question mate ) ?

- which pseudo scientific theories are you talking about ? Caucasian aryens is a scientific terms well known, and used in the medical schools for example. Dravidians are not caucasian, I don't know why you keep saying that, they have their own race name : dravidians ... ( just with your DNA haplotypes we can know if you are caucasian or dravidians ).

- why do you try to be caucasian ?

what do you think about my answers ? " your civilization has been ruled by caucasian since the dawn of time, maybe you want be assimilated as caucasian for this reason ? A bit like the bounties ..."

 

[TheMaster]

- how am I denying europeans origins ? pls tell me ?


Bravo ! you answered the first question ! and admitted that your first assertion : " conor is indian " is wrong.

obviously you can't answer all the others, we know why ...


- why a 2 billions pool of people wasn't able to produce any high lvl athlete in a world wide sports not named cricket ( not just MMA, but also other main sports, learn to understand a question mate ) ?

- which pseudo scientific theories are you talking about ? Caucasian aryens is a scientific terms well known, and used in the medical schools for example. Dravidians are not caucasian, I don't know why you keep saying that, they have their own race name : dravidians ... ( just with your DNA haplotypes we can know if you are caucasian or dravidians ).

- why do you try to be caucasian ?

what do you think about my answers ? " your civilization has been ruled by caucasian since the dawn of time, maybe you want be assimilated as caucasian for this reason ? A bit like the bounties ..."

Ok so your not denying European origins which u can't anyway...
The study said Conors tribe is a depigmented descendent of the above mentioned groups as genetics shows.

So Europeans are basically depigmented caucasians, the earlier versions of 'caucasian' were north Africa/south India/middle east - so they were not 'ruled by caucasians' - they are more like the original 'caucasian' groups, you idiot.
They subsequently formed the first civilizations also;
Egypt, Babylonia, and Indus Valley (and for east asia it was the Chinese)

Euros look more different since the skin color loss and migration into Europe but otherwise still look almost identical to these earlier populations with small variations.
So common sense + genetics beats ideology, sorry.

I'm not going to answer the rest of your bogus claims as your questions make no sense based on the above anyway.

 

[Beherit]

Ok so your not denying European origins which u can't anyway...
The study said Conors tribe is a depigmented descendent of the above mentioned groups as genetics shows.

So Europeans are basically depigmented caucasians, the earlier versions of 'caucasian' were north Africa/south India/middle east - so they were not 'ruled by caucasians' - they are more like the original 'caucasian' groups, you idiot.
They subsequently formed the first civilizations also;
Egypt, Babylonia, and Indus Valley (and for east asia it was the Chinese)

Euros look more different since the skin color loss and migration into Europe but otherwise still look almost identical to these earlier populations with small variations.
So common sense + genetics beats ideology, sorry.

I'm not going to answer the rest of your bogus claims as your questions make no sense based on the above anyway.

" So Europeans are basically depigmented caucasians, the earlier versions of 'caucasian' were north "

bro you talk like I denied it, I am the one who talked about it the first in our conversation ... I posted this picture, you seems to have eyes issues or memory issues ...

" So Europeans are basically depigmented caucasians, the earlier versions of 'caucasian' were north Africa/south India/middle east - so they were not 'ruled by caucasians' - they are more like the original 'caucasian' groups, you idiot. "

this is just wrong :

- AGAIN south indian are not caucasian.

- Europeans do not have south indian ancestors ( at least it is not significant ). Your argument would be interesting for Middle eastern group, even then Middle eastern people also evolved from the the first caucasian ...

- It is also false for north africa. Indeed north african people come from europe and middle east. North africa was colonized by man AFTER europe. Not the other way around like you said. You clearly don't know what your talking about ...


- AGAIN genetic makes the difference between caucasian and dravidians. Some haplotypes are specific to dravidians that we can't find in any other caucasians. Whereas many haplotypes common for all caucasians are not found in dravidians.

- AGAIN, dravidians are not caucasian, that's why scientific created the name : " DRAVIDIANS " ... if they were caucasians, they would be classed as caucasian " Indus " or something but it is not the case.

- SO Dravidians were ruled by caucasian since forever. Your answer is wrong. Indian are not persian, Indian are not english. There were ruled since forever by caucasian.


- Honestly I didn't want to post it, to not hurt your feelings, but you duck questions and put things in my mouth I never said :
https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...brains-reveals-study/articleshow/71800795.cms
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3480429/

Sorry ...

- AGAIN you still can't answer for shit, I ll re ask the questions you wisely choose to duck :




- why a 2 billions pool of people wasn't able to produce any high lvl athlete in a world wide sports not named cricket ( not just MMA, but also other main sports, learn to understand a question mate ) ?

- which pseudo scientific theories are you talking about ? Caucasian aryens is a scientific terms well known, and used in the medical schools for example. Dravidians are not caucasian, I don't know why you keep saying that, they have their own race name : dravidians ... ( just with your DNA haplotypes we can know if you are caucasian or dravidians ).

- why do you try to be caucasian ?

what do you think about my answers ? " your civilization has been ruled by caucasian since the dawn of time, maybe you want be assimilated as caucasian for this reason ? A bit like the bounties ..."

 

[TheMaster]

" So Eur QUOTE="Beherit, post: 159425309, member: 571483"]" So Europeans are basically depigmented caucasians, the earlier versions of 'caucasian' were north "



bro you talk like I denied it, I am the one who talked about it the first in our conversation ... I posted this picture, you seems to have eyes issues or memory issues ...





" So Europeans are basically depigmented caucasians, the earlier versions of 'caucasian' were north Africa/south India/middle east - so they were not 'ruled by caucasians' - they are more like the original 'caucasian' groups, you idiot. "



this is just wrong :



- AGAIN south indian are not caucasian.



- Europeans do not have south indian ancestors ( at least it is not significant ). Your argument would be interesting for Middle eastern group, even then Middle eastern people also evolved from the the first caucasian ...



- It is also false for north africa. Indeed north african people come from europe and middle east. North africa was colonized by man AFTER europe. Not the other way around like you said. You clearly don't know what your talking about ...





- AGAIN genetic makes the difference between caucasian and dravidians. Some haplotypes are specific to dravidians that we can't find in any other caucasians. Whereas many haplotypes common for all caucasians are not found in dravidians.



- AGAIN, dravidians are not caucasian, that's why scientific created the name : " DRAVIDIANS " ... if they were caucasians, they would be classed as caucasian " Indus " or something but it is not the case.



- SO Dravidians were ruled by caucasian since forever. Your answer is wrong. Indian are not persian, Indian are not english. There were ruled since forever by caucasian.





- Honestly I didn't want to post it, to not hurt your feelings, but you duck questions and put things in my mouth I never said :

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...brains-reveals-study/articleshow/71800795.cms

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3480429/



Sorry ...



- AGAIN you still can't answer for shit, I ll re ask the questions you wisely choose to duck :









- why a 2 billions pool of people wasn't able to produce any high lvl athlete in a world wide sports not named cricket ( not just MMA, but also other main sports, learn to understand a question mate ) ?



- which pseudo scientific theories are you talking about ? Caucasian aryens is a scientific terms well known, and used in the medical schools for example. Dravidians are not caucasian, I don't know why you keep saying that, they have their own race name : dravidians ... ( just with your DNA haplotypes we can know if you are caucasian or dravidians ).



- why do you try to be caucasian ?



what do you think about my answers ? " your civilization has been ruled by caucasian since the dawn of time, maybe you want be assimilated as caucasian for this reason ? A bit like the bounties ..."

Let's not deviate into other areas like this which are common in racist type arguments

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/art...ians-have-bigger-brains-europeans-or-africans

I did not say east Asians are smarter than Europeans or other groups which you argued even tho it is is well recognized that east asians do have larger brains despite body size.

This is not true for middle East and Indian populations which have similar skull capacity to Central Asian and European when overall body size is controlled for. Also North and South Indian populations have been shown to have virtually identical cranial capacity and structure.

It is known the cold climate accounts for larger body size in Europeans. There is also adaptation for northern latitude, so north euro needed larger visual cortex to see in the dark compared with southern Europeans.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/jul/27/higher-latitudes-bigger-eyes-brains

Neandertals also had larger brains capacity than modern humans, but still went extinct.

Further, the issue is complicated by the fact that stone age man 28, 000 years ago had significantly larger brains than today across all regions. So while it increased in capacity for 2 million years, it has evolved to actually reduce in size in the most recent era of development of modern humans. This effect is seen in all regions of the world. So for example, 20 000 year old precursor populations ('proto caucasians') both within and before they came into europe from eastern regions, had a larger brain capacity than modern europeans. So clearly simple size correlates are not everything and other adaptations for advancement also occur unless you want to claim the 20 000 year old earlier out of Africa people's were smarter than the various populations today.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/th...ans-are-so-smart-why-are-our-brains-shrinking

It is not so simple, son.

Like I said you are triggered by fact that euros show descent from middle east,north Africa (populated before Europe) and India.

Since you are interested in this subject my friend,you can have a deep read of this quora answer by someone who has put it together well.

It shows significant genetic and other anthropological correlations between ancient Western European and eastern populations.
In fact the haplogroups U7 is found in the earliest European sites and Viking royal burial sites, as well as even in tribal Vedda people which is telling as well as most other south Indian groups.

Thus it seems it stems from a very deep and ancient substratum before the ansecstral 'caucasians'/'proto caucasians' migrated westwards and populated the western eurasia and Europe and Eastward to Mid east/India.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC516768/#!po=0.396825

The western Hunter gatherers (founding population of Europe) is related also which is why they share haplogroup U.


Very similar process and involving related groups to those that arose in Europe.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29213892

For Dravidians, they are supposed to be mainly from West Asian migrations that replaced an earlier population, similar to what happened in Europe with WHG replacing an earlier Aboriginal European group.
The middle East farmers who are one of the founding populations of Europe are related to South Asians and Dravidians speakers also.

https://www.quora.com/What-race-do-Asian-Indians-belong-to?share=1

Many sources and research cited by both these posts, good luck twisting yourself in knots trying to argue against the clear evidence.
The research is still ongoing but the picture painted is far more complex than your simplistic predjudices and views can hold up to.

 

[Viper2]

In case anyone is wondering why there is so much hate towards Indian males (either from India or with ancestry from India) on primarily white male internet forums, it's because these days many Indian guys are dating/marrying white women and the racist white guys are not happy about this. Therefore, these racist white guys turn to internet forums to bash and hate on Indian guys any chance they get. In addition to that, many Indian guys in the USA are very financially successful and that just further infuriates these racist white guys.

So now you know why there is so much anti-Indian sentiment on primarily white male internet forums.

 

[shiftyguy]

genetics


study from texas usa

Mean lean muscle mass (kg)

black males = 65.6kg
White males = 62 kg
Hispanic males = 59.9 kg
Asian males = 59.6 kg
Indian males = 53.3 kg

reference

Body mass index bias in defining obesity of diverse young adults: the Training Intervention and Genetics of Exercise Response (TIGER) Study Andrew S. Jackson,1,* Kenneth J. Ellis,2 Brian K. McFarlin,1 Mary H. Sailors,2 and Molly S. Bray2


study from canada

"At any given body fat mass value, South Asians had significantly less lean mass than each of the three other groups after adjustment for age, height, humerus breadth, smoking status, physical activity, and diet. Aboriginal, Chinese, and European men had 3.42 kg [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.55–5.29], 3.01 kg (95% CI = 1.33–4.70), and 3.57 kg (95% CI = 1.82–5.33) more lean mass than South Asian men at a given total fat mass, respectively"

Ethnic Variation in Fat and Lean Body Mass and the Association with Insulin Resistance Scott A. Lear, Simi Kohli, Gregory P. Bondy, Andre´ Tchernof, and Allan D. Sniderman



study from new zealand

"Asian Indians had more fat, both total and in the abdominal region, with less lean mass, skeletal muscle and bone mineral than all other ethnic groups"

reference
Body size, body composition and fat distribution: comparative analysis of European, Maori, Pacific Island and Asian Indian adults. Elaine C Rush 1, Ismael Freitas, Lindsay D Plank



"Compared to all ethnic groups in MESA (Whites, Chinese Americans, African Americans, and Latinos), SAs had greater intermuscular fat (pairwise comparisons to each MESA group, p < 0.01), lower hepatic attenuation (p < 0.001), and less lean mass (p < 0.001). SAs had greater visceral fat compared to Chinese Americans, African Americans and Latinos (p < 0.05) and greater pericardial fat compared to African Americans (p < 0.001). SAs had lower adiponectin levels compared to other ethnic groups (p < 0.01; except Chinese Americans) and higher resistin levels than all groups (p < 0.001), even after adjusting for differences in body composition."

reference

Less Favorable Body Composition and Adipokines in South Asians Compared to Other U.S. Ethnic Groups: Results from the MASALA and MESA Studies Arti D. Shah,1 Namratha R. Kandula,2 Feng Lin,1 Matthew A. Allison,3 Jeffrey Carr,4 David Herrington,5 Kiang Liu,2 and Alka M. Kanaya1

 

[Viper2]

genetics


study from texas usa

Mean lean muscle mass (kg)

black males = 65.6kg
White males = 62 kg
Hispanic males = 59.9 kg
Asian males = 59.6 kg
Indian males = 53.3 kg

reference

Body mass index bias in defining obesity of diverse young adults: the Training Intervention and Genetics of Exercise Response (TIGER) Study Andrew S. Jackson,1,* Kenneth J. Ellis,2 Brian K. McFarlin,1 Mary H. Sailors,2 and Molly S. Bray2


study from canada

"At any given body fat mass value, South Asians had significantly less lean mass than each of the three other groups after adjustment for age, height, humerus breadth, smoking status, physical activity, and diet. Aboriginal, Chinese, and European men had 3.42 kg [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.55–5.29], 3.01 kg (95% CI = 1.33–4.70), and 3.57 kg (95% CI = 1.82–5.33) more lean mass than South Asian men at a given total fat mass, respectively"

Ethnic Variation in Fat and Lean Body Mass and the Association with Insulin Resistance Scott A. Lear, Simi Kohli, Gregory P. Bondy, Andre´ Tchernof, and Allan D. Sniderman



study from new zealand

"Asian Indians had more fat, both total and in the abdominal region, with less lean mass, skeletal muscle and bone mineral than all other ethnic groups"

reference
Body size, body composition and fat distribution: comparative analysis of European, Maori, Pacific Island and Asian Indian adults. Elaine C Rush 1, Ismael Freitas, Lindsay D Plank



"Compared to all ethnic groups in MESA (Whites, Chinese Americans, African Americans, and Latinos), SAs had greater intermuscular fat (pairwise comparisons to each MESA group, p < 0.01), lower hepatic attenuation (p < 0.001), and less lean mass (p < 0.001). SAs had greater visceral fat compared to Chinese Americans, African Americans and Latinos (p < 0.05) and greater pericardial fat compared to African Americans (p < 0.001). SAs had lower adiponectin levels compared to other ethnic groups (p < 0.01; except Chinese Americans) and higher resistin levels than all groups (p < 0.001), even after adjusting for differences in body composition."

reference

Less Favorable Body Composition and Adipokines in South Asians Compared to Other U.S. Ethnic Groups: Results from the MASALA and MESA Studies Arti D. Shah,1 Namratha R. Kandula,2 Feng Lin,1 Matthew A. Allison,3 Jeffrey Carr,4 David Herrington,5 Kiang Liu,2 and Alka M. Kanaya1

First of all, that's probably a fake made-up internet study that was made by jealous incel virgin white racist males with an agenda to hate on Indians. Even if that study is true (which is highly unlikely), it would be because India is the only primarily vegetarian large country in the world, so of course that would have an effect on muscle mass and bone density. It has nothing to do with genetics. Indians are part of the Caucasian race (go look it up if you don't believe me). Also, North Indian, Punjabi, and Pakistani guys (like me) are, on average, heavier built, hairier, more masculine, and more ALPHA than your average white male in America. Because people in these regions of South Asia tend to eat much more non-vegetarian and dairy products than the rest of India. I'm half North Indian/half Pakistani. I'm 5 foot 9 inches tall and 240 pounds muscular naturally (no PEDs), but I was born and raised in America and have eaten non-vegetarian food my entire life. I have never met a white guy as naturally thick and muscular as me.

 

[shiftyguy]

First of all, that's probably a fake made-up internet study that was made by jealous incel virgin white racist males with an agenda to hate on Indians. Even if that study is true (which is highly unlikely), it would be because India is the only primarily vegetarian large country in the world, so of course that would have an effect on muscle mass and bone density. It has nothing to do with genetics. Indians are part of the Caucasian race (go look it up if you don't believe me). Also, North Indian, Punjabi, and Pakistani guys (like me) are, on average, heavier built, hairier, more masculine, and more ALPHA than your average white male in America. Because people in these regions of South Asia tend to eat much more non-vegetarian and dairy products than the rest of India. I'm half North Indian/half Pakistani. I'm 5 foot 9 inches tall and 240 pounds muscular naturally (no PEDs), but I was born and raised in America and have eaten non-vegetarian food my entire life. I have never met a white guy as naturally thick and muscular as me.

blah blah blah

punjabs are fat, have low lean muscle mass, have slow twitch muscles fibers with no co ordination or speed and explosiveness. punjabs and north indians are probably the least athletic of all south asians. there are hundreds of millions of punjabis and north indians yet how many fight champions have you produced? how many nfl or rugby players, how many sprinters? how many powerlifting champions? all talk and no substance unlike the west africans, polynesians and eastern europeans that can prove their athleticism


north indian punjabi "strength on display"

 

[shiftyguy]

more punjabi north indian masculinity and fighting prowess






punjabi jats get smashed by tongans