The Origin of Race
Where do racial distinctions come from? Due to the complexity of man, we insist that such can only come about as a result of the subset of the planet which would have been permuted through the maximal number of microstates. That is: the exposed rock of Canada is not a likely candidate for the origin of mankind as it’s too cold and unchanging there.
The Origins of Humans
The most volatile and potent (to manifest sufficient microstates to later give rise to humans) region is either modern day India or Africa. Both land masses migrated north, allowing a more more influx from oceanic waters (both through physical boring as well as rains), the primary source of all microstate variation. Africa has a larger landmass while India moved throughout a larger physical arc, so the true origin of mankind may lie beyond perception. All this variation eventually selected for our common ancestor, who may have first dwelled in India, maybe Africa but eventually both.
(Above) Simulation of the Break Up of Pangea
The Primary Bifurcation
The first event able to be discerned is that the populations in India and Africa would have separated at some point in the distant past. This divergence appears to be the largest. The separation between the landmasses and the changing landscapes of the African and Indian land masses would have evolved different traits in the respective groups. Thus this supports the hypothesis that the populations were separated for a long time. For instance, the larger and more rugged Africans are optimized for a thinner & drier atmosphere while the smaller more delicate Indians reflect their moist & tropical climate.
The Secondary Bifurcation
Early on, it was easiest to migrate between India and Africa. As the Arabian Desert grew however, the journey became more perilous. Thus this route became dis-incentivized over time.
As the Indian subcontinent continued to move Northward, the great rivers between it and the main Asiatic continent would eventually dry up. This would gradually incentivize population displacement in search of arable land. As the Westward route became increasingly unlikely, populations would have surged Eastward in greater numbers.
Evidence of a common origin comes from the wide range of Asiatic eyes all bearing the same quality of thinness (to various extents). This quality appears to be caused by variations in the Earth’s localized magnetic field (over many lifetimes of course). That is, ancient populations migrated Eastward and settled in isolated groups, evolving different eyes over time, based on the location they settled in.
Northward migration was dis-incentivized both by increasingly treacherous Himalayan mountains and colder northern climates. These journeys would be undertaken by groups for which the risk of travel was sufficiently incentivized.
Westward migration never really stopped, it only changed form as populations increasingly adapted to harsh desert conditions & individual groups colonized the continent. Eastward migration out of the Indian subcontinent would slow down as the trip became more dangerous (as the Himalayas got bigger). Settlements soon reached as far as the Americas via the land bridge (or approximately land bridge) in what is now the Bering Strait.
Update 2016-12-26: /pol/ post
Apparently someone at /pol/ has an opinion on what I said. I’m just not sure what it is.