1) the Australians represent the OOA population that settled Asia
2) during the OOA event much of Siberia and North America was under ice from 110,000 - 10,000BC. As a result there was no way Siberians could cross Beringa before the end of the ice age
3) Ice even separated much of South America east to west .
. 4) the first Americans appear in Brazil, Chile and Argintina Latin America around 30,000 BC
5)using craniometric evidence it is clear that the first Americans look like Africans not modern Asian Native Americans
6) using craniometrics I have pointed out that Asia was dominated by the Australian population until the rise of Suhulland when the Melanesian people appear in the area, at this time the Beringa was still under Ice
7) I pointed out that the Melanesian type reach East Asian mainland by 5000 BC, long after Africans had settled Latin America
8) between 15,000-12,000 we see numerous African populations in Mexico and Brazil; and skeletons dating to this period have even been found off the Yucatan coast in the Caribbean
9) these first Americans did not look like the Australians or modern Amerinds
10) iconography of PreClassic people like the Cherla, Ocos and other groups is of Negroes not Amerinds like the Maya
11) Amerind groups not associated with African slaves carry African genes
12) Maya carried African y chromosome
13) Chontal Mayan speakers were classified as Negroes by Quatrefages. This may explain why the Maya carry African genes
14)Negrocostachicanos claim that they have never been slaves and are indigenous to Guererro and Oaxaca on the Pacific coast
15) The Dufuna boat makes it clear that Africans probably had the technology to travel to the Americas 15,000 years ago.
16) Fuegians 100-400 BP carried haplogroup A1. Hg A1 is an African haplogroup.
17) Amerinds carry haplogroup N, just like Africans.
18)The y chromosome STRs of the Fuegians include DYS434,DYS437,DYS 439, DYS 393, DYS391,DYS390,DYS19, DYS 389I, DYS389II and DYS 388 (see: Garcia-Bour et al above). Except for DYS390 and DYS388 they are characteristic of haplogroup A1 . A1 is recognized as an African haplogroup.
19)Quatrefages noted numerous African Native American tribes
20)The antiquity of these populations is supported by the ancient iconography found in these countries which are of African Native Americans.
21) Most contemporary populations are descendants of the San people not Australians.
22) Africans probably introduced haplogroup X to the Amerindians.
You have not falsified the propositions above point by point. Cite the counter evidence instead of making idle claims.
For example, you can't falsify 1)Quatrefages who was an established anthropologists by simply dismissing him without contemporary sources disputing his claim;and 2) you can just say the Dufuna boat was not possibly used by the Africans to arrive in America when the researchers claim the boat technology probably existed earlier in Africa and the culture it is associated with is dated to around 14kya and skeletons found in Mexico date to around 15kya.
You guys will do anything to win a debate.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 9-bp deletion marker is found in high frequencies among Africans. The 9-bp del is characteristic of mtDNA B. This is more evidence of the African introduction of hg B to America.
posted
Many researchers fail to recognize that there is a craniometric difference between Australoids /Australians representatives of the OOA population, Mongoloids and Melanoids; craniometric differences that indicate two migrations of the Black Variety into the Pacific and East Asia.
Tsuenehiko Hanihare discussed the phenotypic variations between these populations(1). Tsuenehiko classified these people into three major populations Southeast Asian Mongoloids (Polynesians), the Australians or Austroloid type and the Nicobar and Andaman (Melanoid) samples which he found lie between the predominately Southeast Asian and Australoid/Australian type (1).
The Australian aborigines and Melanesians show cranonical variates and represent two distinct Black populations(2).[/] The Australoids or Australians live mainly in Australia and the highland regions of Oceania, the Melanoid people on the otherhand live in the coastal regions of Near Oceania and Fiji. D.J de Laubenfels discussed the variety of Blacks found in Asia.[b] Laubenfiels explained that Negroids/Melanoids such as the Tasmanians are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair (2). Australoids or Australians on the otherhand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair. Other differences between these Black populations include Negroid / Melanoid brows being vertical and without eyebrow ridges, whereas Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges (2).
This led M. Pietrusewky to recognize two separate colonizations of the Pacific by morphologically distinct populations one Polynesian and the other Melanesian (3). Pietrusewky’s research indicates a clear separation between the Australian-Melanesian crania and the Polynesian crania (3). The findings indicate an origin for the Polynesians in Southeast Asia (3-5), and an early Australo-Melanesian presence in East Asia as discussed in the earlier comment.
Laubenfels argues that the Australians are remnants of the original African migration to the region 60kya (2). This view is supported by David Bulbeck who found that the Australian craniometrics are different from the Mongoloid (Polynesian), and Melanoid crania metrics (4). This research indicates that whereas Australian aborigine crania agree with the archaic population of Asia and first group of Africans to exit Africa, they fail to correspond to the Sahulland crania which are distinctly of Southwest Pacific or Melanoid affinity (2,4). This suggests that by the rise of Sahulland there were two distinct Black populations in Asia one Austroloid and the other Melanoid (4).
The Melanesian type does not appear in East Asia (Siberia) until after 5000 BC. This is thousands of years after Luizia and Eva Neharon had existed in Brazil and Mexico respectively.
By the Neolithic the Melanoids or Papuans are associated with millet cultivation at Yangshao and Lougshan according to Pietrusewky’s work (5). Tsang argues that the probable homeland of the Austronesian speakers was the Pearl River delta, here the Melanoid people cultivated millet (6). Sagart believes that there is a Proto-Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian family of languages based on the millet culture the Melanoids introduced to China (7). The craniometrics make it clear the Australians are not related to the Melanesians.
Reference:
1. Tsunehiko Hanihare, Interpretation of craniofacial variations and diversification of East and Southeast Asia. In Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia. (Eds.) Marc Oxenhan and Nancy Tayles (pp.91-111). Cambridge, 2005.
2. D.J. Laubenfels, Australoids, Negroids and Negroes: A suggested explanation for their distinct distributions. Annals Association of Am. Geographers, 58(1), 1968: 42-50.
3. Michael Pietrusewky, A multivariate craniometric study of the prehistoric and modern inhabitants of Southeast Asia, East Asia and surrounding regions:A human kaleidoscope. Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology, No. 43, 2006: 59-90.
5. M. Pietrusewsky, The Physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia: A multivariate craniometric analysis. . In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology,Linguistics and Genetics (pp.201-229). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
6. Tsang Cheng-Hwa, Recent discoveries at Tapenkeng culture sites in Taiwan;Implications for the problem of Austronesian origins. In The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics ,(Eds) L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (pp.63-74). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
7. L. Sagart, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian an Updated and improved argument. In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp.161-176). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
First of all the original migrants OOA population had different features than the contemporary Africans.
Here is an Australian
Here is a contemporary Africans
You can clearly see differences between the Australian and African type; while both individuals are described as Negroes you will note that the forehead of the Australian matches in many ways the cranium of earlier hominid forms dating back to the rise of homo sapiens sapiens in Africa.
Any physical anthropologists would note these changes. The coastal Melanesians usually show mixed Australian-African features or features commonly found among Africans--not Australians.\
Fijians
Australians
A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that the former population resemble Africans moreso than Aborigines--the original settlers of Asia.
The ancestors of the Melanesians and Polynesians probably lived in East Asia. The late appearance of Melanoid people from East Asia on the shore areas of Oceania would explain the differences between the genetic make up of Melanesians living in the highlands and Melanesians living along the shore [1-2].
The skeletal evidence from East Asia [3-7,12] suggests that the TMRCAs of the Polynesians and some of the coastal Melanesians may be mainland East Asia, not Taiwan. The ancestral population for the shoreline Melanesians was probably forced from East Asia by Proto-Polynesians as they were pushed into Southeast Asia by the Han or contemporary Chinese. This would explain the genetic diversity existing among shoreline Melanesians, in comparison to the genetic homogeneity among isolated inland Melanesian, like the Highland New Guineans.
There were two Shang Dynasties, one Melanoid (Qiang-Shang) and the other Proto-Polynesian (Yin-Shang). The first Shang Dynasty was founded by Proto-Melanesians or Melanoids belonging to the Yueh tribe called Qiang [7]. The Qiang lived in Qiangfeng, a country to the west of Yin-Shang, Shensi and Yunnan [7-11,13].
The archaeological evidence also indicates that the Polynesians probably originated in East Asia [4,6-7,12-13]. Consequently, the Polynesian migration probably began in East Asia, not Southeast Asia. Taiwan genetically probably belongs to the early Polynesians who settled Taiwan before they expanded into outer Oceania.
Given the archaeological record of intimate contact between Proto-Polynesians and Proto-Melanoids, neither a “slow boat” or “express train” explains the genetic relationship between the Melanesian and Polynesian populations. This record makes it clear that these populations lived in intimate contact for thousands of years and during this extended period of interactions both groups probably exchanged genes.
References 1. Manfred Kayser, Oscar Lao, Kathrin Saar, Silke Brauer, Xingyu Wang, Peter Nürnberg, Ronald J. Trent, Mark Stoneking Genome-wide Analysis Indicates More Asian than Melanesian Ancestry of Polynesians. The American Journal of Human Genetics - 10 January 2008, 82 (1); pp. 194-198.
2. J. S. Fredlaender, F.R. Friedlaender, J.A. Hodgson, M. Stoltz, G. Koki, G. Horvat,S. Zhadanov, T. G. Schurr and D.A. Merriwether, Melanesian mtDNA complexity, PLoS ONE, 2(2) 2007: e248.
3 F. Weidenreich F., Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-40): p. 163.
4. Kwang-chih Chang, Archaeology of ancient China (Yale University Press, 1986) p. 64.
5. G. H. R. von Koenigswald, A giant fossil hominoid from the pleistocene of Southern China, Anthropology Pap. Am Museum of Natural History, no.43, 1952, pp. 301-309).
6. K. C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1977): p. 76
7. Winters, Clyde Ahmad, “The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils”, Journal of Tamil Studies, no27 (June 1985), pp. 65-92.
8. K. C. Chang, Shang Civilization, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1980) pp. 227-230.
9. C. A. Winters, The Dravido-Harappa Colonization of Central Asia, Central Asiatic Journal, (1990) 34 (1-2), pp. 120-144.
10. Y. Kan, The Bronze culture of western Yunnan, Bull. Of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo), 7 (1985), pp. 47-91.
11. S. S. Ling, A study of the Raft, Outrigger, Double, and Deck canoes of ancient China, the Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. The Institute of Ethnology Academic Sinica. Nankang, Taipei Taiwan, 1970.
12. Kwang-chih Chang, “Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China”, Current Anthropology, 5 (1964): pp. 359-375: 375).
13. Winters,Clyde Ahmad, “Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia”, India Past and Present 3, no2 (1986): pp. 225-241. [/QB][/QUOTE]
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Amerindian haplogroups (hg) are descendant from the L3(M,N, & X) macrohaplogroup: ABCDN and X.The L3 (M,N,X) marcrohaplogroup converge at np 16223.
Haplogroup N is also found in Africa and the Americas. N1 spread throughout Europe by the Grimaldi-San-Khoisan people.
The 9-bp deletion marker is found in high frequencies among Africans. The 9-bp del is characteristic of mtDNA B. This is more evidence of the African introduction of hg B to America.
. Amerindians carry the X hg. Amerindians and Europeans hg X are different (Person, 2004). Haplogroup X has also been found throughout Africa (Shimada et al,2006). Shimada et al (2006) believes that X(hX) is of African origin. Amerindian X is different from European hg X, skeletons from Brazil dating between 400-7000 BP have the transition np 16223 ( Martinez-Cruzado, 2001; Ribeiro-Dos-Santos,1996). Transition np 16223 is characteristic of African haplogroups. This suggest that Africans may have taken the X hg to the Americas in ancient times.
References:
Martinez-Cruzado, J C, Toro-Labrador, G, Ho-Fung, V, Estevez-Montero, M A, Et al (2001). Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals substanial Native American ancestry in Puerto Rico,Human Biology, Aug 2001
Makoto K. Shimada*, , Karuna Panchapakesan , Sarah A. Tishkoff , Alejandro Q. Nato, Jr* and Jody HeY, Divergent Haplotypes and Human History as Revealed in a Worldwide Survey of X-Linked DNA Sequence Variation, Molecular Biology and Evolution 2007 24(3):687-698
posted
Clyde, who on earth are you posting this to? All of it has been shown to be an utterly false and misleading bunch of distortion produced BY YOU.
Haplogroups A,B,C and X are all lineages that arose OUTSIDE Africa in Asia. Of course they derive from African DNA lineages because ALL human lineages derive from African lineages.
quote: n human genetics, Haplogroup A is a human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup.
Haplogroup A is believed to have arisen in Asia some 60,000 years before present. Its ancestral haplogroup was Haplogroup N.
And of course, haplogroup X is considered to have been introduced by WHITES either from Europe or Asia to the Americas.
Again, you keep clowning by trying to distort the data to support your claims. You HAVE no evidence of any DIRECT migrations to the Americas from Africa. All you have are lies and half truths. The facts are that the first people of the Americas were Australian aboriginal type people from Asia.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
So you're claiming that Makoto K. Shimada*, , Karuna Panchapakesan , Sarah A. Tishkoff , Alejandro Q. Nato, Jr* and Jody HeY, Divergent Haplotypes and Human History as Revealed in a Worldwide Survey of X-Linked DNA Sequence Variation, Molecular Biology and Evolution 2007 24(3):687-698 , are wrong about the African origin of hg X; and Wallace et al, American Indian prehistory as written in the mitochondrial DNA... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1351474 ,is wrong about the influence of 9bp del in reltion to hg B? .
What evidence do you have disputing these findings?
.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Clyde, who on earth are you posting this to? All of it has been shown to be an utterly false and misleading bunch of distortion produced BY YOU.
Haplogroups A,B,C and X are all lineages that arose OUTSIDE Africa in Asia. Of course they derive from African DNA lineages because ALL human lineages derive from African lineages.
quote: n human genetics, Haplogroup A is a human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup.
Haplogroup A is believed to have arisen in Asia some 60,000 years before present. Its ancestral haplogroup was Haplogroup N.
And of course, haplogroup X is considered to have been introduced by WHITES either from Europe or Asia to the Americas.
Again, you keep clowning by trying to distort the data to support your claims. You HAVE no evidence of any DIRECT migrations to the Americas from Africa. All you have are lies and half truths. The facts are that the first people of the Americas were Australian aboriginal type people from Asia.
sad, 'ironic' (to say the least), and together, "funny".
Together they sum up their whole argument here. (And by 'their' I refer to those who chase any sign "negros" anywhere around the globe except for in Africa).
posted
Go 'head Marc. It's predictable. We knnow what's going to happen "Marc, make one of your fantastic photoshops about Alive".
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
So you're claiming that Makoto K. Shimada*, , Karuna Panchapakesan , Sarah A. Tishkoff , Alejandro Q. Nato, Jr* and Jody HeY, Divergent Haplotypes and Human History as Revealed in a Worldwide Survey of X-Linked DNA Sequence Variation, Molecular Biology and Evolution 2007 24(3):687-698 , are wrong about the African origin of hg X; and Wallace et al, American Indian prehistory as written in the mitochondrial DNA... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1351474 ,is wrong about the influence of 9bp del in reltion to hg B? .
What evidence do you have disputing these findings?
.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Clyde, who on earth are you posting this to? All of it has been shown to be an utterly false and misleading bunch of distortion produced BY YOU.
Haplogroups A,B,C and X are all lineages that arose OUTSIDE Africa in Asia. Of course they derive from African DNA lineages because ALL human lineages derive from African lineages.
quote: n human genetics, Haplogroup A is a human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup.
Haplogroup A is believed to have arisen in Asia some 60,000 years before present. Its ancestral haplogroup was Haplogroup N.
And of course, haplogroup X is considered to have been introduced by WHITES either from Europe or Asia to the Americas.
Again, you keep clowning by trying to distort the data to support your claims. You HAVE no evidence of any DIRECT migrations to the Americas from Africa. All you have are lies and half truths. The facts are that the first people of the Americas were Australian aboriginal type people from Asia.
Where in their study does it say that the first Amerinds were AFRICANS Clyde. Please post that EXACT QUOTE will you? Because it does not say any such thing.
What it says:
quote: American Indian mtDNAs were found to be directly descended from five founding Asian mtDNAs and to cluster into four lineages, each characterized by a different rare Asian mtDNA marker. Lineage A is defined by a HaeIII site gain at np 663, lineage B by a 9-bp deletion between the COII and tRNA(Lys) genes, lineage C by a HincII site loss at np 13259, and lineage D by an AluI site loss at np 5176. The North, Central, and South America Amerinds were found to harbor all four lineages, demonstrating that the Amerinds originated from a common ancestral genetic stock.
So again, you are exposed as a clown by making up stuff and posting citations for studies that DO NOT agree with your point of view.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why you're a moron. They don't have to say that anyone is African you look at the evidence and make an interpretation. That's what scholars do. They let the evidence tell the story Fool. You silly boy. Stop trying to debate with men.
.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
So you're claiming that Makoto K. Shimada*, , Karuna Panchapakesan , Sarah A. Tishkoff , Alejandro Q. Nato, Jr* and Jody HeY, Divergent Haplotypes and Human History as Revealed in a Worldwide Survey of X-Linked DNA Sequence Variation, Molecular Biology and Evolution 2007 24(3):687-698 , are wrong about the African origin of hg X; and Wallace et al, American Indian prehistory as written in the mitochondrial DNA... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1351474 ,is wrong about the influence of 9bp del in reltion to hg B? .
What evidence do you have disputing these findings?
.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Clyde, who on earth are you posting this to? All of it has been shown to be an utterly false and misleading bunch of distortion produced BY YOU.
Haplogroups A,B,C and X are all lineages that arose OUTSIDE Africa in Asia. Of course they derive from African DNA lineages because ALL human lineages derive from African lineages.
quote: n human genetics, Haplogroup A is a human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup.
Haplogroup A is believed to have arisen in Asia some 60,000 years before present. Its ancestral haplogroup was Haplogroup N.
And of course, haplogroup X is considered to have been introduced by WHITES either from Europe or Asia to the Americas.
Again, you keep clowning by trying to distort the data to support your claims. You HAVE no evidence of any DIRECT migrations to the Americas from Africa. All you have are lies and half truths. The facts are that the first people of the Americas were Australian aboriginal type people from Asia.
Where in their study does it say that the first Amerinds were AFRICANS Clyde. Please post that EXACT QUOTE will you? Because it does not say any such thing.
What it says:
quote: American Indian mtDNAs were found to be directly descended from five founding Asian mtDNAs and to cluster into four lineages, each characterized by a different rare Asian mtDNA marker. Lineage A is defined by a HaeIII site gain at np 663, lineage B by a 9-bp deletion between the COII and tRNA(Lys) genes, lineage C by a HincII site loss at np 13259, and lineage D by an AluI site loss at np 5176. The North, Central, and South America Amerinds were found to harbor all four lineages, demonstrating that the Amerinds originated from a common ancestral genetic stock.
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Like the above image, I find this:
sad, 'ironic' (to say the least), and together, "funny".
Together they sum up their whole argument here. (And by 'their' I refer to those who chase any sign "negros" anywhere around the globe except for in Africa).
posted
ROTFLOL @ Clyde's absurd assertions and desperate distortions! The guy at least made more sense in identifying M1 with Indian M* and its derivatives, but here the fool can't even tell the difference between y-chromosomal A & B and mitochondrial A & B!! LOL
Hey Clyde, tell us again where the Andaman Islands are located geographically and what region they comprise geologically. Is it South Asia or Southeast Asia??
While your'e at it maybe you can explain to us what the Andamanese of the Andaman Islands have to do with the Munda of central India, or better yet what either of these people have to do with San of Southern Africa! LOLPosts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: That's why you're a moron. They don't have to say that anyone is African you look at the evidence and make an interpretation. That's what scholars do. They let the evidence tell the story Fool. You silly boy. Stop trying to debate with men.
.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
So you're claiming that Makoto K. Shimada*, , Karuna Panchapakesan , Sarah A. Tishkoff , Alejandro Q. Nato, Jr* and Jody HeY, Divergent Haplotypes and Human History as Revealed in a Worldwide Survey of X-Linked DNA Sequence Variation, Molecular Biology and Evolution 2007 24(3):687-698 , are wrong about the African origin of hg X; and Wallace et al, American Indian prehistory as written in the mitochondrial DNA... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1351474 ,is wrong about the influence of 9bp del in reltion to hg B? .
What evidence do you have disputing these findings?
.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Clyde, who on earth are you posting this to? All of it has been shown to be an utterly false and misleading bunch of distortion produced BY YOU.
Haplogroups A,B,C and X are all lineages that arose OUTSIDE Africa in Asia. Of course they derive from African DNA lineages because ALL human lineages derive from African lineages.
quote: n human genetics, Haplogroup A is a human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup.
Haplogroup A is believed to have arisen in Asia some 60,000 years before present. Its ancestral haplogroup was Haplogroup N.
And of course, haplogroup X is considered to have been introduced by WHITES either from Europe or Asia to the Americas.
Again, you keep clowning by trying to distort the data to support your claims. You HAVE no evidence of any DIRECT migrations to the Americas from Africa. All you have are lies and half truths. The facts are that the first people of the Americas were Australian aboriginal type people from Asia.
Where in their study does it say that the first Amerinds were AFRICANS Clyde. Please post that EXACT QUOTE will you? Because it does not say any such thing.
What it says:
quote: American Indian mtDNAs were found to be directly descended from five founding Asian mtDNAs and to cluster into four lineages, each characterized by a different rare Asian mtDNA marker. Lineage A is defined by a HaeIII site gain at np 663, lineage B by a 9-bp deletion between the COII and tRNA(Lys) genes, lineage C by a HincII site loss at np 13259, and lineage D by an AluI site loss at np 5176. The North, Central, and South America Amerinds were found to harbor all four lineages, demonstrating that the Amerinds originated from a common ancestral genetic stock.
So again, you are exposed as a clown by making up stuff and posting citations for studies that DO NOT agree with your point of view.
No Clyde, this isn't making and interperetation as a scholar it is LYING. These people DO NOT say that the early native Americans were Africans, they DO NOT say that the lineages of the first Americans came from Africa. They say QUITE CLEARLY that these lineages originate in Asia. Therefore, for you to say that their study supports your claim of an African identity for the first Americans COMPLETELY a lie. Not to mention that they do not claim a 30,000 kya date for the first Americans either.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
If you could not cross the Beringa until 14kya and all the skeletons of ancient inhabitants are found near the Atlantic coastline the people had to have come from Africa given the fact the carniometrics indicate that they were of the African variety, and ice blocked any possible movement of people from the Pacific to Argintina and Chile where some of the evidence of early man has been found.
The first Americans did not cross the Bearing Straits to enter the Americas.The earliest sites for Negroes date between 20,000 and 40000 years ago Old Crow Basin Canada(38,000BC) Pedra Furada (45,000BC) Brazil. These people were pygmies and bushman types according to Dr. Dixon, & Dr. Marquez(p.179).
Chile: Monteverde (12,500 years), Tierra del Fuego, Cueva de Fell, Tres Arroyos and some other places.
There are older ones in the Argentinian Patagonia.
quote:
—Patagonia was the world's last place to be colonized by humans. In Arica there have been found remains of 9,000 years; the same in a place at the High Aconcagua and Huentelauquén. In Chile we have more than half of the continent's most ancient human skeletons, all well dated and documented.
Archaeologists believe they have discovered a 13,600-year-old human skeleton deep in a Caribbean underwater cave, making it the oldest ever found in the Americas. The discovery could have profound effects on theories of how humans first reached North America.
The female skeleton, called Eve of Naharon, was found with three other human skeletons in underwater caves along the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Excavation of a fourth skeleton – possibly even older than Eve – begins this month in a nearby cave.
The three other skeletons found with Eve have been radiocarbon-dated from 11,000 to 14,000 years ago.
All were found in underwater caves about 50 feet below the surface. At the time Eve and the others would have lived there, the sea level was about 200 feet lower, and the Yucatan Peninsula was a dry prairie. Melting of the polar ice caps 9,000 years ago submerged the burial ground and the subsequent growth of stalactites and stalagmites kept the skeletons from being washed out to sea.
In 1959 archaeologists found the Penon woman skeleton at Mexico City.
[/b] Penon Woman[/b]
Penon woman has been characterized as a Negro and is physically different from Native Americans. The Penon skeleton has been dated between 12,500-15,000BP. The skull of Penon woman is dolichocephalic like most Negroes, not brachysephalic (short and braod) like modern Native Americans. She is related to the Fuegians of Parana Argentina and the Luizia population of Brazil.
Here we have a comparison of ancient skulls found in the Americas.
In the picture above we have three ancient American skulls. They are a) Penon woman (12.755 Ka), b) Texcal Man (9.5ka) and c) Pericue Indian (18th Century). If you look notice Pericue man shows broad features characteristic of the mongoloid type, while both Penon and Texcul do not.
Some researchers claim that these skeletons are of Australian or Melanesian Blacks. This is highly unlikely given the fact that that have been found near the Atlantic Ocean and suggestive of a migration from Africa to Mexico, like the migration of the Olmec 11,000 years later. This view is supported by the discovery of the so-called Eva Neharon skeleton (c.13,600 ) dating to around the same period found in the Caribbean.
By 11,500 we see the appearence tall Negroes from Africa in Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil e.g.,Luiza. Negroes settled America both from the Bearing & South America. Cite an archaeological site where Amerind skeletons have been found prior to the Negro skeletons.
quote:
Oldest Skeleton in Americas Found in Underwater Cave? Eliza Barclay for National Geographic News
September 3, 2008
Deep inside an underwater cave in Mexico, archaeologists may have discovered the oldest human skeleton ever found in the Americas.
Dubbed Eva de Naharon, or Eve of Naharon, the female skeleton has been dated at 13,600 years old. If that age is accurate, the skeleton—along with three others found in underwater caves along the Caribbean coast of the Yucatán Peninsula—could provide new clues to how the Americas were first populated.
The remains have been excavated over the past four years near the town of Tulum, about 80 miles southwest of Cancún, by a team of scientists led by Arturo González, director of the Desert Museum in Saltillo, Mexico (see map of Mexico).
"We don't now how [the people whose remains were found in the caves] arrived and whether they came from the Atlantic, the jungle, or inside the continent," González said.
"But we believe these finds are the oldest yet to be found in the Americas and may influence our theories of how the first people arrived."
In addition to possibly altering the time line of human settlement in the Americas, the remains may cause experts to rethink where the first Americans came from, González added.
Clues from the skeletons' skulls hint that the people may not be of northern Asian descent, which would contradict the dominant theory of New World settlement. That theory holds that ancient humans first came to North America from northern Asia via a now submerged land bridge across the Bering Sea (see an interactive map of ancient human migration).
"The shape of the skulls has led us to believe that Eva and the others have more of an affinity with people from South Asia than North Asia," González explained.
Concepción Jiménez, director of physical anthropology at Mexico's National Institute of Anthropology and History, has viewed the finds and says they may be Mexico's oldest and most important human remains to date.
"Eva de Naharon has the Paleo-Indian characteristics that make the date seem very plausible," Jiménez said.
Ancient Floods, Giant Animals
The three other skeletons excavated in the caves have been given a date range of 11,000 to 14,000 years ago, based on radiocarbon dating.
Radiocarbon dating measures the age of organic materials based on their content of the radioactive isotope carbon 14.
According to archaeologist David Anderson of the University of Tennessee, however, minerals in seawater can sometimes alter the carbon 14 content of bones, resulting in inaccurate radiocarbon dating results.
The remains were found some 50 feet (15 meters) below sea level in the caves off Tulum. But at the time Eve of Naharon is believed to have lived there, sea levels were 200 feet (60 meters) lower, and the Yucatán Peninsula was a wide, dry prairie.
The polar ice caps melted dramatically 8,000 to 9,000 years ago, causing sea levels to rise hundreds of feet and submerging the burial grounds of the skeletons. Stalactites and stalagmites then grew around the remains, preventing them from being washed out to sea.
González has also found remains of elephants, giant sloths, and other ancient fauna in the caves.
(Learn more about how caves form.)
Human Migration Theories
If González's finds do stand up to scientific scrutiny, they will raise many interesting new questions about how the Americas were first peopled.
Many researchers once believed humans entered the New World from Asia as a single group crossing over the Bering Land Bridge no earlier than 13,500 years ago. But that theory is lately being debunked.
Remains found in Monte Verde, Chile, in 1997, for example, point to the presence of people in the Americas at least 12,500 years ago, long before migration would have been possible through the ice-covered Arctic reaches of North America.
(Related: "Clovis People Not First Americans, Study Shows" [February 23, 2007].)
Confirmation of Eve of Naharon's age could further revolutionize the thinking about the settlement of the Americas.
This September, González will begin excavating the fourth skeleton, known as Chan hol, which he says could be even older than Eve.
The Chan hol remains include more than ten teeth, which will allow researchers to date the specimen and gather information about Chan hol's diet.
"When we learn more about the [Mexican finds] we'll be able to better evaluate them," said Carlos Lorenzo, a researcher at the Universitat Rovira i Virgili in Tarragona, Spain, an expert on the subject who was not involved in the current study.
"But in any case, if it's confirmed that Eva de Naharon is 13,000 years old, it will be a fantastic and extraordinary finding for understanding the first settlers of America."
González said he and his team hope to publish the full results of their analysis after the excavation of the fourth skeleton.
"We're not yet in the phase of research of determining how they arrived," he said. "But when we have more evidence we may be able to determine that."
USA 28,000-25,000 14C y.a. This vegetation map showing the eastern USA during the period 28,000-25,000 14C y.a. has been compiled by Paul & Hazel Delcourt. An ice sheet already covered most of Canada and extended south of the Great Lakes. Boreal conifer woodlands and forests predominated in what is now the cool temperate forest zone, and the cool and warm temperate forest belts were compressed southwards.
The last ice age in North America lasted between 110,000 and 17,000BP. The ice-free corridor on the eastern flank of the Rockies did not open before 13,000 years ago. Africans were in the Americas long before the end of the last Ice Age when the “Siberians”, who also were more than likely Africans began to cross the Bearing Straits. By 12,500 BC Africans were already living in Chile.
Doug stop trying to steal the heritage of the Black people like the Olmecs, who represent the Mother Culture of Mexico.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No Clyde, this isn't making and interperetation as a scholar it is LYING. These people DO NOT say that the early native Americans were Africans, they DO NOT say that the lineages of the first Americans came from Africa. They say QUITE CLEARLY that these lineages originate in Asia. Therefore, for you to say that their study supports your claim of an African identity for the first Americans COMPLETELY a lie. Not to mention that they do not claim a 30,000 kya date for the first Americans either.
Doug, why bother arguing with the likes of Winters. The guy is no different from Dienekes in that all he's interested in is propagating lies to the ignorant (and sadly black) masses.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ROTFLOL @ Clyde's absurd assertions and desperate distortions! The guy at least made more sense in identifying M1 with Indian M* and its derivatives, but here the fool can't even tell the difference between y-chromosomal A & B and mitochondrial A & B!! LOL
Hey Clyde, tell us again where the Andaman Islands are located geographically and what region they comprise geologically. Is it South Asia or Southeast Asia??
While your'e at it maybe you can explain to us what the Andamanese of the Andaman Islands have to do with the Munda of central India, or better yet what either of these people have to do with San of Southern Africa! LOL
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marina Sardi et al, South American craniofacial morphology:Diversity and implications for Amerindian evolution, Am Jour of Physical Anthropology, 128:747-756 (2005)
quote:To summarize the evidence about the peopling of the Americas and the evolution of Amerindians, Amerindians show the closest genetic affinities with Asian populations; the peopling of Beringia occurred in the Late Pleistocene after the Last Glacial Maximum about 14,000–13,400 years BP; and South American sites are older than North American sites. If Beringia has to be considered the only route of entry, regardless of coastal or terrestrial migration route, there is an important gap between the genetic and archaeological estimations for the arrival of Amerindian ancestors. If the morphologic diversity originated outside America, a direct correlate with the diversity of Northeast Asia is absent, regardless of time of entry.
Microevolutionary mechanisms If the double-migratory event (Paleoamerican and Amerindian) is accepted, the possible representation of Paleoamerican morphology among modern Amerindians has to be considered. The morphologic divergence between Paleoamericans and Amerindians leads us to think that the first wave did not contribute genetically to the second wave (Neves and Pucciarelli, 1989, 1991; Steele and Powell, 1992, 1994; Jantz and Owsley, 2001). In contrast, Powell and Neves (1999) proposed that the divergence can be explained by one migratory event in which the founder population (Paleoamericans) underwent an extreme change by genetic drift, developing the Amerindian morphology.
However, Gonza´lez-Jose´ et al. (2003) showed that the Amerindian Pericu´ es of Baja California (Mexico) display a Paleoamerican-like morphology, and suggested that they represent a survival group of Paleoamericans who did not undergo gene flow with Amerindian groups. There is a good archaeological record during the Terminal Pleistocene of South America. The lithic technology seems not to be derived from the North American Clovis technology (Dillehay, 1999). Moreover, archaeological assemblages in South America reflect high levels of diversity, adapted to each particular environment. What factors could trigger this geographic expansion and diversity? Dillehay (1999), who assumed peopling by a rapid movement along the Pacific coast between 14,000–12,000 BP and by waterways inside America, proposed that environmental change in the Pleistocene-Holocene transition must be seen as the primary cause. The climate became cooler and drier around 12,000 and 10,000 BP, and populations would have limited their mobility and have become differentiated.
This proposition implies that the first Americans had high mobility and also extremely good adaptability, which means a high capacity to adapt culturally or biologically to new environments when empty spaces were colonized. To understand the colonization of empty regions, Surovell (2000) proposed that one must deal with three requirements: the path of the movement, the migration rate, and the reproduction rate. Surovell (2000) arrived at an important conclusion: it is possible that mobile huntergatherers have high fertility rates, which may have been the case of the first Americans. But this conclusion has one condition: that diet is held constant within a homogeneous environment, which seems not to have been the case in the initial colonization of South America (Dillehay, 1999).
\The high morphologic diversity can also be interpreted in a microevolutionary perspective by the following options: a) greater effective population size, b) greater rate of population growth, c) greater degree of temporal and spatial isolation, as proposed by the genetics-neutral models, and d) adaptative factors, giving importance to environment in shaping cranial morphology. Options a and b do not seem probable. Rogers et al. (1992) suggested that hunter-gatherers very rarely increase their population size in short periods of time, and even less during an environmentally unstable period, such as the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. Steele et al. (1998) developed a model for Paleoamerican dispersion in North America during the Pleistocene-Holocene transition. Based on modern hunter-gatherer behavior, they assumed a fast population movement and a complete adaptation to resources in the new habitat. Even if many of the assumptions made by this model are not probable, the authors estimated that Paleoamerican dispersion was not followed by a demographic increase. Option c is partially linked to small population size. The archaeological record shows evidence of occupation in many parts of South America during the Terminal Pleisto- 753 CRANIAL DIVERSITY IN SOUTH AMERINDIAN POPULATIONS cene where unstable environmental conditions would inhibit mobility to some degree (Dillehay, 2000). It is probable that a high dispersion in unstable and diverse environments would contribute to morphologic variation through genetic drift in geographically close groups. A smaller population size and greater degree of isolation was also proposed by Deka et al. (1995) to interpret the great FST values for DNA among American Indians. The genetic distances in America seem not to be correlated with linguistic or geographic distances (O’Rourke et al., 1992; Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994; Smith et al., 2000; Keyeux et al., 2002); this is more accentuated in South America.
Sardi et al, adds:
[quote]CONCLUSIONS South American native populations show a higher degree of craniometrical variation, even when compared to geographically close groups. If we accept that this high variation was due to microevolutionary processes within America, a low population size with high levels of dispersion and fragmentation of the geographic range can be invoked. If the distinction of Paleoamericans is accepted, according to the four-migrations or two-components models, the diversity among Amerindians may have increased due to the genetic contribution of ancient Paleoamericans to the most modern Amerindian groups. High variation can be also explained by a greater antiquity of the peopling of the Americas or as a result of peopling by two or more Amerindian ancestral waves displaying high morphological diversity. However, one must deal with the lack of conclusive evidence that the peopling occurred earlier than 13,000 BP or that Amerindians have more than one ancestor, i.e., a non-Asian one. None of the alternatives mentioned above can explain the high morphologic variation in South Amerindians alone, making it possible that a combination of some or all of the alternatives better explains the heterogeneity observed among South Amerindian populations. The high craniometrical variation found in this study does not solve the problem of their evolution, but contributes to the discussion. These results suggest that any theories which attempt to explain the evolution of Amerindians need to take into account the significant degree of biological variation for this group.
posted
And to debunk Clyde on his new claim/distortion of Haplogroup X. This will definitely be something better for Clyde to read, and his followers.....
Altaians
The Presence of Mitochondrial Haplogroup X in Altaians from South Siberia
Recently, the mtDNA studies have shown that both northern and southern Altaians exhibit all four Asian and American Indian–specific haplogroups (A–D) with frequencies of 57.2% (Sukernik et al. 1996) and 46.8% (Derenko et al. 2000a), respectively, exceeding those reported previously for Mongolians, Chinese, and Tibetans. Therefore, they may represent the populations which are most closely related to New World indigenous groups. Since the detection of all four haplogroups (A–D) in an Asian population is thought to be a first criterion in the identification of a possible New World founder, the candidate source population for American Indian mtDNA haplotypes therefore may include the populations originating in the regions to the southwest and southeast of Lake Baikal, including the Altai Mountain region (Derenko et al. 2000b). The presence of X mtDNAs in Altaians is generally consonant with the latter conclusion.
Because the location and identification of the population that was the source of the founding lineages for the New World is a question of considerable interest, several studies on Y-chromosomal DNA polymorphism were performed recently to investigate Pleistocene male migrations to the American continent (Underhill et al. 1996; Lell et al. 1997; Karafet et al. 1999; Santos et al. 1999). It has been shown that the major Y haplotype present in most American Indians could be traced back to recent ancestors they have in common with Siberians: namely, the Kets and Altaians, from the Yenisey River Basin and the Altai Mountains, respectively (Santos et al. 1999). Similarly, based on a comprehensive analysis of worldwide Y-chromosome variation, it has been proposed that populations occupying the general area including Lake Baikal (eastward to the Trans-Baikal and southward into Northern Mongolia), the Lena River headwaters, the Angara and Yenisey River basins, the Altai Mountain foothills, and the region south of the Sayan Mountains (including Tuva and western Mongolia) was the source for dispersals of New World Y-chromosome founders (Karafet et al. 1999). It is obvious that we have now the genetic evidence that will allow closer determination of which Siberian population was the source of the population expansion leading to modern American Indians and will allow relation of the studies of migrations from Siberia to the Americas that are based on paternally inherited genetic systems with those based on maternally inherited ones.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Posted by Clyde: and Wallace et al, American Indian prehistory as written in the mitochondrial DNA... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1351474 ,is wrong about the influence of 9bp del in reltion to hg B?
Clyde what correlation to Mtdna haplogroup B?
Clyde is this yet another one of your confusions between Mtdna and Y-dna?
In mitochondrial genetics, Haplogroup B is a human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup.
Haplogroup B is believed to have arisen in Asia some 50,000 years before present. Its ancestral haplogroup was Haplogroup R.
Haplogroup B is found more often in East Asia[1]. Its subgroup B2 is one of five haplogroups found in the indigenous peoples of the Americas, the others being A, C, D, and X.
--------
In human genetics, Haplogroup B (M60) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup. Haplogroup B (Y-DNA) was the ancestral haplogroup of modern Pygmies.
Haplogroup B is localized to sub-Saharan Africa, especially to tropical forests of West-Central Africa. After Y-haplogroup A, it is the second oldest and one of the most diverse human Y-haplogroups. It was the ancestral haplogroup of modern Pygmies like e.g. the Baka and Mbuti, but also Hadzabe from Tanzania, who are often mistakenly considered as a remnant of Khoisan people in East Africa.
quote:American Indian prehistory as written in the mitochondrial DNA: a review. Wallace DC, Torroni A.
Center for Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322.
Native Americans have been divided into three linguistic groups: the reasonably well-defined Eskaleut and Nadene of northern North America and the highly heterogeneous Amerind of North, Central, and South America. The heterogeneity of the Amerinds has been proposed to be the result of either multiple independent migrations or a single ancient migration with extensive in situ radiation. To investigate the origin and interrelationship of the American Indians, we examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation in 87 Amerinds (Pima, Maya, and Ticuna of North, Central, and South America, respectively), 80 Nadene (Dogrib and Tlingit of northwest North America and Navajo of the southwest North America), and 153 Asians from 7 diverse populations. American Indian mtDNAs were found to be directly descended from five founding Asian mtDNAs and to cluster into four lineages, each characterized by a different rare Asian mtDNA marker. Lineage A is defined by a HaeIII site gain at np 663, lineage B by a 9-bp deletion between the COII and tRNA(Lys) genes, lineage C by a HincII site loss at np 13259, and lineage D by an AluI site loss at np 5176. The North, Central, and South America Amerinds were found to harbor all four lineages, demonstrating that the Amerinds originated from a common ancestral genetic stock. The genetic variation of three of the four Amerind lineages (A, C, and D) was similar with a mean value of 0.084%, whereas the sequence variation in the fourth lineage (B) was much lower, raising the possibility of an independent arrival. By contrast, the Nadene mtDNAs were predominantly from lineage A, with 27% of them having a Nadene-specific RsaI site loss at np 16329. The accumulated Nadene variation was only 0.021%. These results demonstrate that the Amerind mtDNAs arose from one or maybe two Asian migrations that were distinct from the migration of the Nadene and that the Amerind populations are about four times older than the Nadene.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I stand by what I have written. I quoted my sources. If you disagree its with the experts--not me.
.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote: Posted by Clyde: and Wallace et al, American Indian prehistory as written in the mitochondrial DNA... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1351474 ,is wrong about the influence of 9bp del in reltion to hg B?
Clyde what correlation to Mtdna haplogroup B?
Clyde is this yet another one of your confusions between Mtdna and Y-dna?
In mitochondrial genetics, Haplogroup B is a human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup.
Haplogroup B is believed to have arisen in Asia some 50,000 years before present. Its ancestral haplogroup was Haplogroup R.
Haplogroup B is found more often in East Asia[1]. Its subgroup B2 is one of five haplogroups found in the indigenous peoples of the Americas, the others being A, C, D, and X.
--------
In human genetics, Haplogroup B (M60) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup. Haplogroup B (Y-DNA) was the ancestral haplogroup of modern Pygmies.
Haplogroup B is localized to sub-Saharan Africa, especially to tropical forests of West-Central Africa. After Y-haplogroup A, it is the second oldest and one of the most diverse human Y-haplogroups. It was the ancestral haplogroup of modern Pygmies like e.g. the Baka and Mbuti, but also Hadzabe from Tanzania, who are often mistakenly considered as a remnant of Khoisan people in East Africa.
quote:American Indian prehistory as written in the mitochondrial DNA: a review. Wallace DC, Torroni A.
Center for Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322.
Native Americans have been divided into three linguistic groups: the reasonably well-defined Eskaleut and Nadene of northern North America and the highly heterogeneous Amerind of North, Central, and South America. The heterogeneity of the Amerinds has been proposed to be the result of either multiple independent migrations or a single ancient migration with extensive in situ radiation. To investigate the origin and interrelationship of the American Indians, we examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation in 87 Amerinds (Pima, Maya, and Ticuna of North, Central, and South America, respectively), 80 Nadene (Dogrib and Tlingit of northwest North America and Navajo of the southwest North America), and 153 Asians from 7 diverse populations. American Indian mtDNAs were found to be directly descended from five founding Asian mtDNAs and to cluster into four lineages, each characterized by a different rare Asian mtDNA marker. Lineage A is defined by a HaeIII site gain at np 663, lineage B by a 9-bp deletion between the COII and tRNA(Lys) genes, lineage C by a HincII site loss at np 13259, and lineage D by an AluI site loss at np 5176. The North, Central, and South America Amerinds were found to harbor all four lineages, demonstrating that the Amerinds originated from a common ancestral genetic stock. The genetic variation of three of the four Amerind lineages (A, C, and D) was similar with a mean value of 0.084%, whereas the sequence variation in the fourth lineage (B) was much lower, raising the possibility of an independent arrival. By contrast, the Nadene mtDNAs were predominantly from lineage A, with 27% of them having a Nadene-specific RsaI site loss at np 16329. The accumulated Nadene variation was only 0.021%. These results demonstrate that the Amerind mtDNAs arose from one or maybe two Asian migrations that were distinct from the migration of the Nadene and that the Amerind populations are about four times older than the Nadene.
quote:I stand by what I have written. I quoted my sources. If you disagree its with the experts--not me.
See the thing is Clyde, the experts aren't saying what you're saying, therefore you're standing by false distortions, resulted from your long term confusion between Y-dna and Mtnda.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ For those who require yet another example of Winters quoting from studies that do not support his view, and pretending otherwise.
Hey Mike, why don't you present a translation of the above article in which the words
- Africa
and....
- Khoisan
....would actually be contained somewhere therein and so lend at least some credence to your delusion of support for your far fetched views?
i'm saying - NONE OF THE PEOPLE YOU ARE QUOTING AGREE WITH YOU.
Why is that?
quote:Charlatan writes: I stand by what I have written. I quoted my sources. If you disagree its with the experts--not me.
^ Excellent exemplifier of Dr. Winters dishonesty.
No geneticist agrees with him, he knows this, but he thinks Mike101 is stupid, or will at least play along while Winters lies thru his teeth.
posted
And the funniest thing is that he doesn't understand that the first Americans were still blacks, but they didn't come from Africa they came from Asia. But even with that I don't doubt for a second that there have been ancient migrations from Africa to the Americas. However, those migrations were small compared to the migrations from Asia and if there was a substantial amount of direct African migration it was quickly absorbed into the predominant Asian derived aboriginal population. But all of that is pure speculation. I have no proof of it and this is the difference. Until you find REAL FACTS and REAL EVIDENCE to support an idea, it is nothing but pure speculation.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Personally, it's hard to believe the earliest Paleo-Americans walked up to strait, crossed it, then walked all the way down to Patagonia. I side with an across the Pacific voyage though true to tell I don't know very much about the matter other than my surface research posted some time ago.
quote:The land route makes us wonder how much tropical adaptation would have remained after maybe 15-20ky in Central Asia, Siberia, and west Beringia. The sea route makes us rethink what we have believed about maritime skills 15-19kya. But, mtDNAs M & N as well as NRYs C-M130 & D-M174 most likely arrived in Australia by boat more than 50kya.
Of course the sea route would support the "blackness" of Luzia and her type since the Koori, Papuans, and Melanesias are doubtlessly black, i.e., ulitrichous hair (mostly), brown skin, full facial features (often including alveolar prognatism) which in most nations' racial constructs add up to qualifying a persons' blackness on sight.
Sylvia Gonzalez seems to think they may have travelled both routes if I read her statement right
quote:"They appear more similar to southern Asians, Australians and populations of the South Pacific Rim than they do to northern Asians," Dr Gonzalez, of Liverpool John Moores University, told the British Association's annual meeting in Exeter.
"We think there were several migration waves into the Americas at different times by different human groups."
She said there was very strong evidence that the first migration came from Australia via Japan and Polynesia and down the Pacific coast of America.
But where are the Oceanic skulls along the proposed Beringia route? What evidence is there for Oceanics making and wearing clothes that resist subarctic cold?
This is my spoof of an AustralAsia to Beringia to North then South America route
Oh! I see in one generation droves of Oceanics paddled north along the Asian coast invented coats and boots continued paddling along the coast of Beringia and then south along the coast of North America loosing cobbler schools to finally arrive in South America; like as if they knew it were there right from the start.
Yeah, rrrright. Snap goes Occam's Razor. The simplest scenario is Oceanics making the direct hop from Oceania to South America dribble by dribble. Obsessive Beringia enthusiasm is the allowance for that consideration.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
A searoute from Oceania is not the simplest scenario. First of all, up to 15kya there was an ice sheet which made it impossible to migrate from the Pacific side of much of South America to the Atlantic side.
Moreover, earliest skeletal remains of amh are found near the Atlantic shore. This suggest a possible migration to ancient America from Africa not Asia.
posted
I don't see any ice in the Pacific or on SA's west coast.
Anyway, here's my entire previous post invoking your response
Personally, it's hard to believe the earliest Paleo-Americans walked up to Beringia, crossed it, then walked all the way down to Patagonia. I side with an across the Pacific voyage though true to tell I don't know very much about the matter other than my surface research posted some time ago.
quote:The land route makes us wonder how much tropical adaptation would have remained after maybe 15-20ky in Central Asia, Siberia, and west Beringia. The sea route makes us rethink what we have believed about maritime skills 15-19kya. But, mtDNAs M & N as well as NRYs C-M130 & D-M174 most likely arrived in Australia by boat more than 50kya.
Of course the sea route would support the "blackness" of Luzia and her type since the Koori, Papuans, and Melanesias are doubtlessly black, i.e., ulitrichous hair (mostly), brown skin, full facial features (often including alveolar prognatism) which in most nations' racial constructs add up to qualifying a persons' blackness on sight.
Sylvia Gonzalez seems to think they may have travelled both routes if I read her statement right
quote:"They appear more similar to southern Asians, Australians and populations of the South Pacific Rim than they do to northern Asians," Dr Gonzalez, of Liverpool John Moores University, told the British Association's annual meeting in Exeter.
"We think there were several migration waves into the Americas at different times by different human groups."
She said there was very strong evidence that the first migration came from Australia via Japan and Polynesia and down the Pacific coast of America.
But where are the Oceanic skulls along the proposed Beringia route? What evidence is there for Oceanics making and wearing clothes that resist subarctic cold?
This is my spoof of an AustralAsia to Beringia to North then South America route
Oh! I see in one generation droves of Oceanics paddled north along the Asian coast invented coats and boots continued paddling along the coast of Beringia and then south along the coast of North America loosing cobbler schools to finally arrive in South America; like as if they knew it were there right from the start.
Yeah, rrrright. Snap goes Occam's Razor. The simplest scenario is Oceanics making the direct hop from Oceania to South America dribble by dribble. Obsessive Beringia enthusiasm is the allowance for that consideration. Map perusal map makes devastating logic of direct Oceania to South America voyaging all within tropical latitudes.
A=the "only via Beringia" model; ____ B=the "South Pacific Rim first" model
quote: from:Tom D. Dillehay Palaeoanthropology: Tracking the first Americans Nature 425, 23-24 (4 September 2003)
The archaeological and skeletal data have led to a new model, in which the Palaeoamericans — the proposed first arrivals in the New World — were not northeast Asians. They came instead from south Asia and the southern Pacific Rim, and they probably shared ancestry with ancient Australians and other southern populations [3, 9]. A second group of humans then arrived from northeast Asia or Mongolia, and it was this second population that adapted to the warming climate after the Ice Age and gave rise to the modern Amerindians (an ancient population of Americans whose skeletal remains make up most of the human material found in the New World) and the present-day Native Americans.
3 - Neves, W. A. & Pucciarelli, H. M. J. Hum. Evol. 21, 261−273 (1991). 9 - Neves, W. A. et al. Homo 50, 258−263 (1999)
quote: from: [url=http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/21860.html]a History News Network article (clickable link)
George Gill, a forensic anthropologist at the University of Wyoming and one of the plaintiffs in the Kennewick Man case, said evidence indicated that seafaring people from southeast Asia or Polynesia could have reached the Americas by traveling along the Pacific Rim, landing somewhere in what is now South America.
quote: from an article covering the October 1999, Clovis and Beyond Conference on early Americans
Various models on the continental scale attempt to explain, using the evidence, ways the first people entered the American continent. One theory has been proposed by CSFA director Rob Bonnichsen, another by Ruth Gruhn and Alan Bryan of the University of Alberta. Dr. Bryan's Circum-Pacific model for the colonization of the Americas, formulated in the '70s and for many years largely ignored by other authorities, was the first theory that took into account archaeological information from South America. Now his ideas, bolstered by new data coming from South America in recent years, truly challenge the Clovis-First model.
Speaking for himself and absent coauthor Gentry Steele, Dr. Bonnichsen discussed alternative routes and means that may have been used by people. "Using small boats along the Pacific Rim of Asia," he argues, the first people could have come to the Americas at the end of the last Ice Age.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Altakruri writes: * doesn't use a map and so simply ignores the devastating logic of direct Oceania to South America voyaging all within tropical latitudes; --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scene depicts groups of prehistoric, intrepid mariners moving, *not* out of Siberia as anthropologists have long assumed, but out of Southeast Asia across the Pacific into the Americas 6,000 to 12,000 years ago. If this picture is accurate, it makes many American Indians distant cousins of the Polynesians
Between A.D. 1000 and 1100 Polynesian voyagers sailing from Eastern Polynesia probably reached the west cost of South America. To their surprise, however, the researchers found that native Siberians lack one peculiar mutation that appeared in the Amerinds 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. This raises the question of where, if not from Siberia, this mtDNA originated.
It turns out, Dr. Wallace says, that this particular mutation pattern is also found in aboriginal populations in Southeast Asia and in the islands of *Melanesia and Polynesia*. This hints at what may have been "one of the most astounding migrations in human experience," he says. A group of ancient peoples moved out of China into Malaysia where they became sailors and populated the islands of the South Pacific
Thus we have Austro-Melanesian phenotype known mariners of tropical plant and seafood diet and minimal clothing island hopping across the Pacific in the epipaleolithic holocene to South America without highly hypothesized mastodon fur wearing, big game hunting pre or proto Austro-Melanesian beachcombing convulsions where there are no osteo- remains of Austro-Melanesian phenotypes past or present.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
A searoute from Oceania is not the simplest scenario. First of all, up to 15kya there was an ice sheet which made it impossible to migrate from the Pacific side of much of South America to the Atlantic side.
Moreover, earliest skeletal remains of amh are found near the Atlantic shore. This suggest a possible migration to ancient America from Africa not Asia.
.
Clyde, where is there any skeletal evidence of migrations to the Americas 30,000 years ago? The earliest evidence for people in the Americas is somewhere between 11,000 and 15,000 years ago.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Amerindian haplogroups (hg) are descendant from the L3(M,N, & X) macrohaplogroup:
^ Winters again, with remarks that are both dishonest and dumb.
He knows all non Africans mtdna derive from L3.
Chinese - Germans, Eskimo, Russian.... ALL OF THEM.
quote: Haplogroup N is also found in Africa and the Americas.
Underived haplotype N is FOUND NOWHERE in the Americas.
Derivities of N are found virtually everywhere. 90% plus of Europeans are N derived, Chinese and Native Americans are all either N or M derived, which traces back to the original OOA migration 70 thousand years ago.
N and M derivities link Native Americans most closely to modern Asians and Oceanics.... NOT TO Africans and especially not to West Africans.
This is why no geneticist agrees with you.
And this why when we ask you to name the geneticist who agrees with you - you have nothing to say.
You are just liar and a fraud.
Your target audience is Mike111 or someone you think is dumb enough to credit your claims in spite of your complete lack of sources, evidence or logic.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The glaciers exist only in the high altitude of the Andies mountains, and never cutoff pacific and atlantic south america in entiriety.
I do agree [this may surprise you], that it is interesting that some of the early findings of skeletal remains are near the atlantic, and not the pacific coasts.
But none of the genetic evidence supports a link between paleolithic atlantic coast africa, and paleolithic atlantic coast south america.
This doesn't mean that -no- ancient migrations from west africa to the america's occurred, of course.
But if they did occur then much of the genetic evidence has been swamped by later migrations.
I think there is better evidence of possible voyages to the america's in the pre-columbus historic era, of Mali and Ghana.
Winters doesn't help us to explore this serious possibility with his confused, and poorly formulated pseudo-theories.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Several types of blacks entered the Americas including the San, Anu or negrito type and the Proto-Saharan variety of blacks. Up until recently it was believed that the first humans crossed the Bering Strait 12,000 B.P., to enter the North American continent.(Begley 1991, p.15) This view was never accepted by physical anthropologists who have found skeletal remains far older than 12,000 B.P.
Today archaeologists have found sites from Argintina to Chile that range between 20,000 and 40,000 years old. There are numerous sites in South America which are over 35,000 years old (1).
Pedra Furada Engravings and pebbles
These sites are Pedra Furada (c.45,000 B.C.) (2,2a), and Serra Da Capivara 50,000 BP. The Pedra Furada site is quite old(2b).Archaeologist originally dated the site 48k-10kya (2d).
At Pedra Furada, Brazil archaeologists have found cave paintings, hearths and deliberately flaked pebbles (2b). All evidence of human occupation of the site. Charcoal samples from the campsite increased the age of the site to 65kya (2c,2d).
Given the fact that the earliest dates for habitation of the American continent occur below Canada in South America is highly suggestive of the fact that the earliest settlers on the American continents came from Africa before the Ice melted at the Bering Strait and moved northward as the ice melted.
The appearance of pebble tools at Monte verde in Chile (c.32,000 B.P), and rock paintings at Pedra Furada in Brazil (c.22,000 B.P.) and mastodont hunting in Venezuela and Colombia (c.13,000 B.P.), and Dr. Walter Neves’ discovery of a 12,000 year old skeleton of an African woman in Brazil, have led some researchers to believe that the Americas was first settled from South America (4).
C. Vance Haynes noted that:"If people have been in South America for over 30,000 years, or even 20,000 years, why are there so few sites?....One possible answer is that they were so few in number; another is that South America was somehow initially populated from directions other than north until Clovis appeared"(5).
P.S. Martin and R. G. Klein after discussing the evidence of mastodont hunting in Venezuela 13,000 years ago observed that :"The thought that the fossil record of South America is much richer in evidence of early archaeological associations than many believed is indeed provocative .Have the earliest hunters been overlooked in North America? Or did the hunters somehow reach South America first" (6)?
2. Ibid, p.107; "Man's New World arrival Pushed back", Chicago Tribune, (9 May 1991) Sec.1A, p.40;and A.L. Bryan, "Points of Order". Natural History , (June 1987) pp.7-11.
2a.Meltzer, David J., James M. Adovasio, and Tom D. Dillehay 1994 On a Pleistocene human occupation at Pedra Furada, Brazil. Antiquity 68(261):695-714.
2b.Parenti, Fabio, Michel Fontugue, and Claude Guerin 1996 Pedra Furada in Brazil and its 'presumed' evidence: limitations and potential of the available data. Antiquity 70:416-421.
2c.Santos, G. M., et al. 2003 A revised chronology of the lowest occupation layer of Pedra Furada Rock Shelter, Piauí, Brazil: the Pleistocene peopling of the Americas. Quaternary Science Reviews 22 2303–2310.
2d.Valladas, H., et al. 2003 TL age-estimates of burnt quartz pebbles from the Toca do Boqueirão da Pedra Furada (Piaui, Northeastern Brazil). Quaternary Science Reviews 22(10-13):1257-1263.
3. Bryan, p.11.
4. C.V. Haynes,Jr.,"Geofacts and Fanny". Natural History ,(February 1988)pp.4-12:12.
5. P.S. Martin and R.G.Klein (eds.),Quarternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution, (Tucson:University of Arizona Press,1989) p.111.
6. M.Ruhlen,"Voices from the Past". Natural History, (March 1987) pp.6-10:10; J.H. Greenberg,Language in the Americas. Stanford:Stanford University Press,1987.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The uncoverer, Arturo Gonzalez, says of Eva de Naharon (Eve of Naharon), "The shape of the skulls has led us to believe that Eva and the others have more of an affinity with people from South Asia ..."
A 10.3kyo tooth from Alaska yielded mtDNA found mostly in Native American populations from California to Patagonia. But the tooth's mtDNA has mutations found in Japan and northeast Asis.
posted
The uncoverer, Arturo Gonzalez, says of Eva de Naharon (Eve of Naharon), "The shape of the skulls has led us to believe that Eva and the others have more of an affinity with people from South Asia ..."
A 10.3kyo tooth from Alaska yielded mtDNA found mostly in Native American populations from California to Patagonia. But the tooth's mtDNA has mutations found in Japan and northeast Asis.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The uncoverer, Arturo Gonzalez, says of Eva de Naharon (Eve of Naharon), "The shape of the skulls has led us to believe that Eva and the others have more of an affinity with people from South Asia ..."
A 10.3kyo tooth from Alaska yielded mtDNA found mostly in Native American populations from California to Patagonia. But the tooth's mtDNA has mutations found in Japan and northeast Asis.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The uncoverer, Arturo Gonzalez, says of Eva de Naharon (Eve of Naharon), "The shape of the skulls has led us to believe that Eva and the others have more of an affinity with people from South Asia ..."
A 10.3kyo tooth from Alaska yielded mtDNA found mostly in Native American populations from California to Patagonia. But the tooth's mtDNA has mutations found in Japan and northeast Asis.
quote:The oldest Americans' Negroid traits are not very specialized, making a direct immigration from Africa or Australia unlikely. Therefore, **Neves**(the head proponent for Australia/African like populations reaching America) believes that the America's more than 12,000 years ago did not necessarily occur by sea: "The traditional path across the Bering Strait is still the most plausible explanation for the entry of this non-Mongoloid population into the New World, if we assume that it was present in Northern Asia at the end of the Pleistocene." And indeed, Japan's aborigines, of whom a few still live in Hokkaido and on the Kurile Islands, display some Australian traits, such as round eye sockets and abundant body hair. A genetic comparison might solve the mystery...
''We know that today's Amerindians have ***four main groups***,'' said Dr. Pena, who found a genetic marker common to 17 different widely dispersed Indian groups across the Americans in the course of an earlier project. ''What would constitute molecular proof of ***Walter's (NEVES)*** hypothesis is to find ***DNA sequences COMPLETELY **different** from those ***four groups***.''
Dr. Meltzer said: ''This is clearly the way to resolve the issue. The skull is intriguing morphological evidence, but in order to really nail down this issue of affinity, you need evidence, and ***DNA*** is the way to go.''
quote: Lahr (1995) has reached a conclusion similar to ours when studying the cranial morphology of modern Fuegians. She realized that the morphology of modern Indians of Tierra del Fuego could not be described as typical Mongoloid as well. Since she detected a close association between historic ****Fuegians and Polynesians**** she opted to interpret the cranial morphology of the former as generalized Mongoloid, at best. In her opinion this generalized Mongoloid morphology could be explained as a retention of characteristics of the first inhabitants of the Americas.
quote: As to the similarities with Africans, the best way to explain it in terms of historical connections, is to assume that the Asian ancestral population that gave rise to the Australians and to the first Americans had its ultimate origins in the African continent, as it is in fact the case with all modern humans (Stringer and Andrews, 1988; Stringer and McKie, 1996; Lahr, 1994, 1996), ***but which retained a very generalized morphology.***In accordance with Lahr (1996), the Australians are in fact the contemporary aboriginal population that retained the most primitive morphology when compared to the first modern humans. As she stressed "Groups like [...] Australo-Melanesians are all examples of relatively early diversifications without great amounts of gene flow from other groups..." (Lahr, 1996, p.335).
Recently, the mtDNA studies have shown that both northern and southern Altaians exhibit all four Asian and American Indian–specific haplogroups (A–D) with frequencies of 57.2% (Sukernik et al. 1996) and 46.8% (Derenko et al. 2000a), respectively, exceeding those reported previously for Mongolians, Chinese, and Tibetans. Therefore, they may represent the populations which are most closely related to New World indigenous groups. Since the detection of all four haplogroups (A–D) in an Asian population is thought to be a first criterion in the identification of a possible New World founder, the candidate source population for American Indian mtDNA haplotypes therefore may include the populations originating in the regions to the southwest and southeast of Lake Baikal, including the Altai Mountain region (Derenko et al. 2000b). The presence of X mtDNAs in Altaians is generally consonant with the latter conclusion.
Because the location and identification of the population that was the source of the founding lineages for the New World is a question of considerable interest, several studies on Y-chromosomal DNA polymorphism were performed recently to investigate Pleistocene male migrations to the American continent (Underhill et al. 1996; Lell et al. 1997; Karafet et al. 1999; Santos et al. 1999). It has been shown that the major Y haplotype present in most American Indians could be traced back to recent ancestors they have in common with Siberians: namely, the Kets and Altaians, from the Yenisey River Basin and the Altai Mountains, respectively (Santos et al. 1999). Similarly, based on a comprehensive analysis of worldwide Y-chromosome variation, it has been proposed that populations occupying the general area including Lake Baikal (eastward to the Trans-Baikal and southward into Northern Mongolia), the Lena River headwaters, the Angara and Yenisey River basins, the Altai Mountain foothills, and the region south of the Sayan Mountains (including Tuva and western Mongolia) was the source for dispersals of New World Y-chromosome founders (Karafet et al. 1999). It is obvious that we have now the genetic evidence that will allow closer determination of which Siberian population was the source of the population expansion leading to modern American Indians and will allow relation of the studies of migrations from Siberia to the Americas that are based on paternally inherited genetic systems with those based on maternally inherited ones. Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The uncoverer, Arturo Gonzalez, says of Eva de Naharon (Eve of Naharon), "The shape of the skulls has led us to believe that Eva and the others have more of an affinity with people from South Asia ..."
A 10.3kyo tooth from Alaska yielded mtDNA found mostly in Native American populations from California to Patagonia. But the tooth's mtDNA has mutations found in Japan and northeast Asis.
posted
^^^^Marc will you ever engage in an actual intellectual debate? I doubt it. It seems you love to post your junior high school photochop inventions. That's why I seriously question your age Marc.
Will you ever address the following?
quote: Int J Legal Med. 2005 Sep ;119 (5):303-5 15834734 (P,S,G,E,B) Polish population study on Y chromosome haplotypes defined by 18 STR loci.
Polymorphism of 18 STR loci specific to the human Y chromosome (DYS19, DYS388 , DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390 , DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS426, DYS437, DYS438, DYS439, DYS460, GATA H4.1, DYS385 a/b, and YCAII a/b) was evaluated by means of a multiplex (octadecaplex) PCR reaction and capillary electrophoresis in a Polish population sample of 208 unrelated males. A total of 192 different haplotypes and 183 unique haplotypes were identified. The observed haplotype diversity was 0.998, while discrimination capacity was 92.3%. DYS389 was shown to be the most valuable in discrimination of similar haplotypes, whereas DYS388, DYS393, DYS426, and DYS438 did not affect the discrimination power of the multiplex.
Marc, tell me, from your understanding of the above amplified polymorphisms of ***18 STR loci specific to the human Y chromosome*** , in this study on a Polish population Y-chromosome, does it indicate that they carry hgA1? Or that Polish are related to the Fuegians?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic