Speeder 2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 2,391
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
Thanks for citing those papers. The first 1999 paper is the key, the famous root of “South-to-North migration” theory.
However, all of these papers admit that: it’s still “controversial”, “been debating for debates”, this is only “1 out of total 3 models”... This shows that it is a proposed model, but not conclusive and generally accepted fact yet.
Any model, this one included, could be wrong because it is inevitably based on 1. some assumptions , and 2. Data, both of which could be wrong or inaccurate.
One of the leading assumption of this “South-to-north” model is “Out of Africa”which in itself is again another very controversial model (against “multi-origin-model”) . Moreover, many problems could arise in its data, which is based on 1) EXISTING anthropology discoveries and 2) different ways/models of how to interpretate and calculate Y-Chromosome age, for instance, as they admit in those papers.
So there you have it, even I respect your opinion and position on this model, the model is NOT conclusive yet as you can see.
Moreover, as I explained earlier that this model has a huge loophole that it can not and dare not explain, due to the their PC stance that IQ doesn’t exist and everyone is the same – just another hidden political assumption in their essays.
So, if you believes there is a thing called IQ, then IQ theory blows this model off the balance, namely:
How can a non-cold-selected group from the South low altitude regions have about 105 avg IQ? It’s non-existent in the world’s history, let alone East Asia.
IQ theory dictates that if a group has avg IQ of >100, then its origin must be from the Northern high altitude regions (if “out of Africa”, then their ancestors must first migrated there thru the Northern route. If “multi-origin”, then their ancestors were there in the first place).
Above is the whole logic.
In practice, I am struggling to find ANY major south-origin ethnic group successfully conquered a major North-origin ethnic group for territory-control in history. Won battles? Perhaps occasionally yes. If the Northern group is uninterested in flighting? Maybe. But when the two go eye-to-eye with all their powers, the north one wins in the end, always.
History shows that high altitude-based higher IQ groups have overwhelming chances of winning if going full strength against low altitude-based lower IQ groups:
-- Europe: Southern Greeks/Romans were ultimately conquered by the Northern Germanic groups.
-- Indian subcontinent: it was conquered always by northern invaders being Aryans, Turks, Persians, Mongols or the Brits. Always! Never heard of Southern Dravidians successfully conquered their Northern neighbour say China or Arabia or even Afghanistan.
-- China: If China the only one? China lost twice in history, both to further-Northern groups: Mongols and Manchus, never to , say, Baiyue from the South or Pinoys or Indonesians from the SE Asia. The cradle of Chinese civilisation is in the Northern China after all called Yellow River, not Pearl Delta River in Guangdong, which would have been the case logically if “South-to-North” were true, wouldn’t it? Higher IQ Southern Cantonese (and/or higher IQ SE Asians) would have easily overrun lower IQ Northern Barbarians from the Yellow River and brought Chinese, or Pinoy, Civilisation to them instead.
Baiyue in history could then have been the name for indigenous people of the Northern China instead of the Southern…etc etc 
Gee, surely you are stubborn.
Many reasons for that, but why those ancient capitals of Han Chinese civilisation were based in the Northern China, not Taiwan, or Shanghai, or HK, or any place in the South after all, if the South were the original starting base for the Han Chinese?
BTW, I visited your blog several times. Good stuff!
Last edited:
