quote:Posted by Clyde Fraud: I will address this issue now. As noted previously the anthropological literature make it clear the ancient Europeans are related to the San not Australians.
Also as has been previously explained. UP Europeans most closely resembled Oceanic populations and not Khoisan, sorry kid.
Late Pleistocene Human Skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, and Modern Human Origins
Thus, Hofmeyr is seemingly primitive in comparison to recent African crania in a number of features, including a prominent glabella; moderately thick, continuous supraorbital tori; a tall, flat, and straight malar; a broad frontal process of the maxilla; and comparatively large molar crowns. Hofmeyr is contemporaneous with later Eurasian Neandertals, but it clearly does not evince the cranial and mandibular apomorphies that define that clade (28). This is not surprising, given its geographic location. Although Hofmeyr is similar in size to Eurasian UP crania, it differs from them in other respects (such as its broad nose and continuous supraorbital tori).In order to assess the phenetic affinities of Hofmeyr to penecontemporaneous Eurasian UP and recent humans, we conducted multivariate morphometric analyses of 3D landmark coordinates and linear measurements of crania representing these populations. We digitized 19 3D coordinates of landmarks that represent as fully as possible the currently preserved anatomy of the Hofmeyr skull (table S4). These were compared with homologous data for recent human samples from five broad geographic areas (North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, Western Eurasia, Oceania, and Eastern Asia/New World). The sub-Saharan sample was divided into Bantuspeaking (Mali and Kenya) and South AfricanKhoe-San samples. The latter are represented in the Holocene archaeological record of the subcontinent, and inasmuch as they are the oldest historic indigenes of southern Africa, they might be expected to have the closest affinity to Hofmeyr (12). The North African sample consists of Epipaleolithic (Mesolithic) individuals that provide a temporal depth of approximately 10,000 years. The 3D data were also compared for two Neandertal, four Eurasian UP, and one Levantine early modern human fossils (table S5). The landmark coordinate configurations for each specimen were superimposed with the use of generalized Procrustes analysis and analyzed with a series of multivariate statistical techniques (29). Hofmeyr falls at the upper ends of the recent sub-Saharan African sample ranges and within the upper parts of all other recent human sample ranges in terms of centroid size (fig. S6). In a canonical variates analysis of these landmarks (Fig. 2), axis 1 separates the sub-Saharan African samples from the others, and axis 4 tends to differentiate the UP specimens from recent homologs. Hofmeyr clusters with the UP sample, and although it falls within the recent human range on both axes, it is outside the 95% confidence ellipse for the Khoe-San sample and barely within the limits of the other sub-Saharan African sample. These canonical axes are weakly correlated with centroid size, which emphasizes that the similarity between Hofmeyr and the UP sample is due only in small part to similarity in size.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:Posted by Clyde Fraud: You attempt to make it appear that anthropologists claim the earliest skeletal remains found in the Americas such as Luzia are definitely Australian. This is not true Neves made it clear that the anatomy of her skull and teeth - including a narrow, oval cranium, projecting face and pronounced chin - likens Luzia to Africans and Australasians.
Clyde, here is what Neves proposes, maybe you know something he doesn't know.
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.''
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: [qb] [QUOTE] Most native American populations are descended from people like Australian Aborigines Clyde.
Actually, like all modern humans, **ALL** Native Americans are descended from Australian like populations, this is the point Clyde doesn't understand. Clyde thinks all non Africans who don't look African are a result of space aliens, or some crazy deranged theory like Meninarmer or Marc.
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). Clyde you do understand that you didn't address the above, or discuss your claim of A2 and B2 being African in origin, carried by Khoisan and Pygmies respectively. Obviously you were confused -as always- about these genetic markers, which is why you made a delirious conclusion, based on your confusion of Mtdna and Y-dna. I hope you'll understand one day....
I understand this perfectly. You are the one who pretends to be blind to the facts.
Nope, not an answer to your claim of A2 and B2 being African in origin, carried by Khoisan and Pygmies respectively. Obviously you were confused -as always- about these genetic markers, which is why you made a delirious conclusion, based on your confusion of Mtdna and Y-dna. I hope you'll understand one day....
^^^^^I wonder when Clyde will address his Mtdna claim....???
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
**Y-chromosome STRs** (DYS434, DYS437, DYS439, DYS393, DYS391, DYS390, DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, and DYS388) and the **biallelic system** DYS199 ***were also AMPLIFIED***, Y-STR alleles could be characterized in nine cases, with an average of 4.1 loci per sample correctly typed. In two samples of the same ethnic group (Aonikenk), an identical and complete eight-loci haplotype was recovered. The DYS199 biallelic system was used as a control of contamination by modern DNA and, along with DYS19, as a marker of American origin. The analysis of both mtDNA and Y-STRs revealed DNA from ***Amerindian*** ancestry. The observed polymorphisms are consistent with the hypothesis that the ancient Fuegians are close to populations from south-central ***Chile and Argentina*** , but their high nucleotide diversity and the frequency of single lineages strongly support early genetic differentiation of the Fuegians through combined processes of population bottleneck, isolation, and/or migration, followed by strong genetic drift. This suggests an early genetic diversification of the Fuegians right after their arrival at the southernmost extreme of South America. Revue / Journal Title American journal of physical anthropology ISSN 0002-9483 Source / Source 2004, vol. 123, no4, pp. 361-370 [10 page(s) (article)] (47 ref.)
Mapuche (Chile)
Pehuenche (Argentina)
Aonikenk-Man (Argentina)
Mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms in Chilean aboriginal populations: implications for the peopling of the southern cone of the continent.
The mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) from individuals belonging to three Chilean tribes, the Mapuche, the Pehuenche, and the Yaghan, were studied both by RFLP analysis and D-loop (control region) sequencing. RFLP analysis showed that 3 individuals (1.3%) belonged to haplogroup A, 19 (8%) to haplogroup B, 102 (43%) to haplogroup C, and 113 (47.7%) to haplogroup D. Among the 73 individuals analyzed by D-loop sequencing, we observed 37 different haplotypes defined by 52 polymorphic sites. Joint analysis of data obtained by RFLP and sequencing methods demonstrated that, regardless of the method of analysis, the mtDNA haplotypes of these three contemporary South American aborigine groups clustered into four main haplogroups, in a way similar to those previously described for other Amerindians. These results further revealed the absence of haplogroup A in both the Mapuche and Yaghan as well as the absence of haplogroup B in the Yaghan. These results suggest that the people of Tierra del Fuego are related to tribes from south-central South America.
----------------
quote:Y-chromosome STRs (DYS434, DYS437, DYS439, DYS393, DYS391, DYS390, DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, and DYS388) and the biallelic system DYS199 were also amplified, Y-STR alleles could be characterized in nine cases, with an average of 4.1 loci per sample correctly typed.
The analysis of both mtDNA and Y-STRs **revealed** DNA from ***Amerindian*** ancestry. The observed polymorphisms are consistent with the hypothesis that the ancient Fuegians are close to populations from south-central ***Chile and Argentina***
Note Clyde, the Y STRs you're attributing to Fuegians, are actually STR's in which were amplified in the study, but the analysis clearly reveals Mtda and Y-STRs of Native American ancestry, not recent post OOA. Sorry Clyde, just more misinterpretations of genetics on your part.
quote: Y Chromosome-Specific STRs By Leonor Gusmão1 and Angel Carracedo2 1Instituto de Patologia e Imunologia, Molecular da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal and 2Institute of Legal Medicine, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Y-STRs are the most used Y chromosome markers in the forensic field due to their typing simplicity and high level of diversity. STR typing involves simple and reliable polymerase chain reaction (PCR)(a) techniques and is tolerant of very degraded samples. Of all Y chromosome polymorphic STRs described to date, DYS19, DYS385, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393 and YCAII have more data accumulated, being the most used in population and forensic genetics. Because of collaborative efforts to construct large databases (see www.ystr.org,www.ystr.org/usa and www.ystr.org/asia), these markers are the best characterized for amplification performance and specificity, multiplex amplification strategies, sequence structure and nomenclature, as well as worldwide allele frequency distributions.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Posted by Clyde Fraud: You know nothing about anthropology. Current physical anthropological research makes it clear there are 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.
New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution
(May 10, 2007) — Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry. The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.
The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them.
Academics analysed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome DNA of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians from New Guinea. This data was compared with the various DNA patterns associated with early humans. The research was an international effort, with researchers from Tartu in Estonia, Oxford, and Stanford in California all contributing key data and expertise.
The results showed that both the Aborigines and Melanesians share the genetic features that have been linked to the exodus of modern humans from Africa 50,000 years ago.
Until now, one of the main reasons for doubting the “Out Of Africa” theory was the existence of inconsistent evidence in Australia. The skeletal and tool remains that have been found there are strikingly different from those elsewhere on the “coastal expressway” – the route through South Asia taken by the early settlers.
Some scholars argue that these discrepancies exist either because the early colonists interbred with the local Homo erectus population, or because there was a subsequent, secondary migration from Africa. Both explanations would undermine the theory of a single, common origin for modern-day humans.
But in the latest research there was no evidence of a genetic inheritance from Homo erectus, indicating that the settlers did not mix and that these people therefore share the same direct ancestry as the other Eurasian peoples.
Geneticist Dr Peter Forster, who led the research, said: “Although it has been speculated that the populations of Australia and New Guinea came from the same ancestors, the fossil record differs so significantly it has been difficult to prove. For the first time, this evidence gives us a genetic link showing that the Australian Aboriginal and New Guinean populations are descended directly from the same specific group of people who emerged from the African migration.”
At the time of the migration, 50,000 years ago, Australia and New Guinea were joined by a land bridge and the region was also only separated from the main Eurasian land mass by narrow straits such as Wallace's Line in Indonesia. The land bridge was submerged about 8,000 years ago.
The new study also explains why the fossil and archaeological record in Australia is so different to that found elsewhere even though the genetic record shows no evidence of interbreeding with Homo erectus, and indicates a single Palaeolithic colonisation event.
The DNA patterns of the Australian and Melanesian populations show that the population evolved in relative isolation. The two groups also share certain genetic characteristics that are not found beyond Melanesia. This would suggest that there was very little gene flow into Australia after the original migration.
Dr Toomas Kivisild, from the Cambridge University Department of Biological Anthropology, who co-authored the report, said: “The evidence points to relative isolation after the initial arrival, which would mean any significant developments in skeletal form and tool use were not influenced by outside sources.
“There was probably a minor secondary gene flow into Australia while the land bridge from New Guinea was still open, but once it was submerged the population was apparently isolated for thousands of years. The differences in the archaeological record are probably the result of this, rather than any secondary migration or interbreeding.”Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Winters you need not show me to the pages. Yourself couldn't find it again until after I posted the url for you. What you need to do is these two things:
2 - check out the ports of call for the Challenger's 1872 - 1876 voyage.
Until you do that you live up to my previous assessment of the 3 of you. And what's worse, to throw your own words back at you, it's you now prefering "the white man's word" instead of a black researcher.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: You say he is a Kru. The museum list him as a Fuegian.
I am going to list him as Fuegian until the museum changes its designation in the image section of its catalogue.
Here is the picture along with the other Fuegian photographs
I do not doubt the high probability of the above photos being taken in the 19th century on the 1872 - 1876 voyage of the Challenger and being that of a Kru on board as one of the shipmates though the photo technology seems more early to mid 20th century to my eye.
These Fuegians do not look alike. The Fuegian on the left has classic African features. The Fugean on the right has the broad face characteristics of Asians. This person fits the type associated with the original--first Americans.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote: The Fuegian on the left clearly resembles contemporary Africans and the first African Americans in Mexico and South America.
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: [QUOTE]What image do you have in mind of the Indians before Columbus?
Depends of what region of America you speak about, because Amerindians were diverse.
quote:Those African in m phenotype are in that population. I believe you will rarely find such an abundance of "pure{r}" Africans in those lands today.
Whites came (and Monguls, too) admixing with the original African population creating today's population; but causing a "disappearance" and "amnesia" of the original folks in the process
If what you siad were true, America would be of a predominantly mixed Amerindian/African population, which is not.Nobody cazres about your phenotype.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
PMeast writes: If what you siad were true, America would be of a predominantly mixed Amerindian/African population, which is not.Nobody cazres about your phenotype.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri - My own investigation reveals that not only is the picture of the Black Fuegian missing, but so are the other pictures - like below, missing from the Darwin site. As a matter of fact, the ONLY photos on the site are of a few birds, Darwin and Europeans. All else is sketches, which of course, could have been done anytime and by anyone - we learned that from Egyptian material.
It strikes me as strange, that after thinking to bring along a Camera, they return with only a few pictures of birds. The ONLY explanation, is that the site chose to cleanse itself of any controversial material. Meaning that as far as any scientific value relating to race - It is just as B.S. as most others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You will recall that I started this thread warning of the racism inherent in using ONLY mtDNA results. An abject lesson is below: I guess they expect us to believe that the Iceman just dropped from the sky.
Iceman Mummy Leaves No Ancestors
Jeanna Bryner Senior Writer LiveScience.com jeanna Bryner senior Writer livescience.com – Thu Oct 30, 12:10 pm ET
The Neolithic mummy dubbed the Iceman likely has no relatives alive today on his mom's side of the family, finds a new study of the ancient guy's genes.
The remains of the Iceman (also called Ötzi, Frozen Fritz and Similaun Man) were discovered accidentally in 1991 by German tourists in the Eastern Alps. Since then, a suite of tests has opened a window into the guy's life and death. For instance, the Iceman was about 45 years old when he died; he was probably a hunter-gatherer while alive; he sustained a shoulder injury from an arrow and might have died from head trauma; and his last meal included unleavened bread and meat.
Now, researchers have fast-forwarded genetically from 5,300 years ago when Ötzi died to the present to look at whether his maternal lineage is alive and kicking. It's probably not.
Mom's genes
The research team, led by Franco Rollo of the University of Camerino and Luca Ermini working at Camerino and the University of Leeds, extracted DNA from Iceman's rectum. They analyzed the genome of the cells' energy-making structures, called mitochondria.
"You only get mitochondrial DNA from your mother, and she gets it from her mother and so on, so it forms an unbroken link all the way back to the common maternal ancestor of all of us," said researcher Martin Richards of the University of Leeds.
The results showed that Ötzi fits in genetically with a particular group of living individuals who share a common ancestral DNA sequence. Over time, different individuals and groups can branch off from the main group, genetically speaking. Ötzi's DNA belonged to a cluster of lineages whose members are still common throughout Europe today.
However, nearly all members of this cluster belong to one of three sub-lineages, or sub-clusters. And Ötzi didn't. His DNA placed him on a completely distinct, fourth sub-lineage, for which there are no other members alive today - at least none have been found so far. His lineage branched away from his nearest modern relatives about 20,000 years ago.
That means Ötzi's maternal lineage is either extremely rare or has died out.
The finding is detailed in this month's issue of the journal Current Biology.
Finding ancestors
The results run counter to past research by Richards and his colleagues, which suggested Ötzi's relatives still exist today in Europe. But the past studied relied on just a short segment of the mitochondrial DNA, unlike the recent study in which the entire mitochondrial genome was analyzed.
With less genetic material, as in the first study, fewer mutations show up. It's these mutations that scientists match up across the genomes of a group of individuals to say whether the group has a common maternal ancestor.
With more genetic material, as in the recent study, more mutations show up. And if scientists do find a match between different individuals based on those mutations, there is more certainty that the match-up is real and not some artifact of sampling or just due to chance, Richards said.
While the mitochondrial DNA findings suggest no modern-day Iceman relatives along his maternal line, the results say nothing about whether the Iceman had children, which would only have mitochondrial DNA from their mom.
In addition, the number of individuals with sequenced mitochondrial DNA is limited. That means there's a possibility individuals not in the database could hold mitochondrial DNA that matches up with that of the Iceman. Next, the researchers hope to continue their search for modern-day relatives of the Iceman.
"It would be nice to go and look in the areas where he might have grown up and see whether maybe there is some valley which has lots of related lineages to him," Richards told LiveScience. "That would be very interesting, because it would pin down where he or his family and his ancestors lived in much more detail than we can do at the moment."
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^To clarify - In some texts they refer to all of the tribes - including those with horses, as Fuegians - note also the caption on the pictures. But in others, they clarify that those with horses and with clothing are "PATAGONIAN'S" who inhabit the area BETWEEN Rio Negro and Terra del fuego. Names for these Patagonians are: In the West; Molu-che (war people), In the East; Tehuel-het (horse people) and Puel-Che (east people). All else is totally confused and of little value - people wise. Which is another oddity about these archives: How could a scientific expedition of discovery, spend so little time investigating and describing the most important creature on the planet - MAN. Something STINKS here! But in any case, true Fuegians did NOT wear clothing. Which means that these people are disqualified.
posted
I don't understand why you are upset. The museum identified him as a Fuegian so why not accept him.
Kroomen were not unknown in England. In fact many of the crewmen (Kroomen) on British ships were members of the Kru nationality.
.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Dr. Winters you need not show me to the pages. Yourself couldn't find it again until after I posted the url for you. What you need to do is these two things:
2 - check out the ports of call for the Challenger's 1872 - 1876 voyage.
Until you do that you live up to my previous assessment of the 3 of you. And what's worse, to throw your own words back at you, it's you now prefering "the white man's word" instead of a black researcher.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: You say he is a Kru. The museum list him as a Fuegian.
I am going to list him as Fuegian until the museum changes its designation in the image section of its catalogue.
Here is the picture along with the other Fuegian photographs
I do not doubt the high probability of the above photos being taken in the 19th century on the 1872 - 1876 voyage of the Challenger and being that of a Kru on board as one of the shipmates though the photo technology seems more early to mid 20th century to my eye.
These Fuegians do not look alike. The Fuegian on the left has classic African features. The Fugean on the right has the broad face characteristics of Asians. This person fits the type associated with the original--first Americans.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote: The Fuegian on the left clearly resembles contemporary Africans and the first African Americans in Mexico and South America.
posted
Great points. The fact that the contemporary Fuegians cremated their dead while the ancient Fuegians buried ther dead is also evidence for a difference between the former and present Fuegians.
.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^To clarify - In some texts they refer to all of the tribes - including those with horses, as Fuegians - note also the caption on the pictures. But in others, they clarify that those with horses and with clothing are "PATAGONIAN'S" who inhabit the area BETWEEN Rio Negro and Terra del fuego. Names for these Patagonians are: In the West; Molu-che (war people), In the East; Tehuel-het (horse people) and Puel-Che (east people). All else is totally confused and of little value - people wise. Which is another oddity about these archives: How could a scientific expedition of discovery, spend so little time investigating and describing the most important creature on the planet - MAN. Something STINKS here! But in any case, true Fuegians did NOT wear clothing. Which means that these people are disqualified.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I draw the conclusion that the first Americans were Africans based on the evidence. I am not like you waiting for Europeans to tell me what to think. I look at the evidence and reach my own conclusions based on that evidence.
This is how science operates . You make a theory hypothesis, collect the data and confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis.
Let me show you how this operates. First you make the research questions, and form your hypotheses.
Research Questions.
Q1. How did AMH reach America when the Beringa was covered with ice between 110kya and 13kya? This ice sheet made it impossible for AMH to cross into the American continent.
Q2.If people crossed the Beringa when the ice melted why are artifacts and skeletal remains relating to the colonization of America by AMH date back 32k BP?
Q3.Why are ancient skeletal remains found on the eastern side of the Americas near the Atlantic ocean currents, instead of the West coast which is nearest Asia?
Hypothesis 1 (H1) The first Anatomically modern humans (AMH) to settle the New World probably came from Africa.
H2. If the first AMH were from Africa, the skeletons of the ancient Americas would be similar to Africans.
H3. Since the earliest Americans date back 32kya they may have been related to the San who took civilization to Europe around this time.
H4. If the San were the first settlers of America they probably left genetic evidence of their former presence.
These hypothesis were confirmed.
H1 & H2. Neves et al make it clear the ancient skeletons resemble Melanesians and Africans. Since they could be either one, I choose African.
I chose Africans because they are the closest to the sites where AMH have been found plus they had the naval technology as indicated by the Dufuna canoe to make the voyage.
H3.The craniometrics indicate that the first inhabitants appear to resemble San, as does some of the reconstructions of faces based on the craniometrics.
H4. The identical STRs of Fuegians and San show a genetic relationship. There are reports of pygmies in various parts of South America especially Brazil. This suggest that the San and the pygmies introduced haplogroups A and B to the Americas. These genes are found in contemporary Amerind groups.
These findings confirm my hypothesis. I must accept that the first inhabitants of the Americas came from Africa, and that they were probably San, not Australians who represent the OOA population.
Now I hope you understand how researchers reach their own conclusions instead of waiting for someone to tell them how to think.
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.
posted
Melanesians and Australians although living in the Pacific have different haplogroups. We find that in the unterior of the Islands the many people carry Australian haplogroups while along the coast the Melanesians have different genes.
quote:The Genetic Structure of Pacific Islanders Jonathan S. Friedlaender 1 *, Françoise R. Friedlaender 2 , Floyd A. Reed 3 , Kenneth K. Kidd 4 , Judith R. Kidd 4 , Geoffrey K. Chambers 5 , Rodney A. Lea 5 , Jun-Hun Loo 6 , George Koki 7 , Jason A. Hodgson 8 ¤, D. Andrew Merriwether 8 , James L. Weber 9 1 Anthropology Department, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America, 2 Independent Researcher, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America, 3 Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, United States of America, 4 Department of Genetics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, 5 School of Biological Sciences, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, 6 Transfusion Medicine Laboratory, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, 7 Institute for Medical Research, Goroka, Eastern Highlands Province, Papua New Guinea, 8 Department of Anthropology, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York, United States of America, 9 Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, Wisconsin, United States of America Abstract 1Human genetic diversity in the Pacific has not been adequately sampled, particularly in Melanesia. As a result, population relationships there have been open to debate. A genome scan of autosomal markers (687 microsatellites and 203 insertions/deletions) on 952 individuals from 41 Pacific populations now provides the basis for understanding the remarkable nature of Melanesian variation, and for a more accurate comparison of these Pacific populations with previously studied groups from other regions. It also shows how textured human population variation can be in particular circumstances. Genetic diversity within individual Pacific populations is shown to be very low, while differentiation among Melanesian groups is high. Melanesian differentiation varies not only between islands, but also by island size and topographical complexity. The greatest distinctions are among the isolated groups in large island interiors, which are also the most internally homogeneous. The pattern loosely tracks language distinctions. Papuan-speaking groups are the most differentiated, and Austronesian or Oceanic-speaking groups, which tend to live along the coastlines, are more intermixed. A small “Austronesian” genetic signature (always <20%) was detected in less than half the Melanesian groups that speak Austronesian languages, and is entirely lacking in Papuan-speaking groups. Although the Polynesians are also distinctive, they tend to cluster with Micronesians, Taiwan Aborigines, and East Asians, and not Melanesians. These findings contribute to a resolution to the debates over Polynesian origins and their past interactions with Melanesians. With regard to genetics, the earlier studies had heavily relied on the evidence from single locus mitochondrial DNA or Y chromosome variation. Neither of these provided an unequivocal signal of phylogenetic relations or population intermixture proportions in the Pacific. Our analysis indicates the ancestors of Polynesians moved through Melanesia relatively rapidly and only intermixed to a very modest degree with the indigenous populations there. Author Summary The origins and current genetic relationships of Pacific Islanders have been the subjects of interest and controversy for many decades. By analyzing the variation of a large number (687) of genetic markers in almost 1,000 individuals from 41 Pacific populations, and comparing these with East Asians and others, we contribute to the clarification and resolution of many of these issues. To judge by the populations in our survey, we find that Polynesians and Micronesians have almost no genetic relation to Melanesians, but instead are strongly related to East Asians, and particularly Taiwan Aborigines. A minority of Island Melanesian populations have indications of a small shared genetic ancestry with Polynesians and Micronesians (the ones that have this tie all speak related Austronesian languages). Inland groups who speak Papuan languages are particularly divergent and internally homogeneous. The genetic divergence among Island Melanesian populations, which is neatly organized by island, island size/topography, as well as their coastal or inland locations, is remarkable for such a small region, and enlarges our understanding of the texture of contemporary human variation.
.
.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote: Posted by Clyde Fraud: You know nothing about anthropology. Current physical anthropological research makes it clear there are 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.
New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution
(May 10, 2007) — Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry. The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.
The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them.
Academics analysed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome DNA of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians from New Guinea. This data was compared with the various DNA patterns associated with early humans. The research was an international effort, with researchers from Tartu in Estonia, Oxford, and Stanford in California all contributing key data and expertise.
The results showed that both the Aborigines and Melanesians share the genetic features that have been linked to the exodus of modern humans from Africa 50,000 years ago.
Until now, one of the main reasons for doubting the “Out Of Africa” theory was the existence of inconsistent evidence in Australia. The skeletal and tool remains that have been found there are strikingly different from those elsewhere on the “coastal expressway” – the route through South Asia taken by the early settlers.
Some scholars argue that these discrepancies exist either because the early colonists interbred with the local Homo erectus population, or because there was a subsequent, secondary migration from Africa. Both explanations would undermine the theory of a single, common origin for modern-day humans.
But in the latest research there was no evidence of a genetic inheritance from Homo erectus, indicating that the settlers did not mix and that these people therefore share the same direct ancestry as the other Eurasian peoples.
Geneticist Dr Peter Forster, who led the research, said: “Although it has been speculated that the populations of Australia and New Guinea came from the same ancestors, the fossil record differs so significantly it has been difficult to prove. For the first time, this evidence gives us a genetic link showing that the Australian Aboriginal and New Guinean populations are descended directly from the same specific group of people who emerged from the African migration.”
At the time of the migration, 50,000 years ago, Australia and New Guinea were joined by a land bridge and the region was also only separated from the main Eurasian land mass by narrow straits such as Wallace's Line in Indonesia. The land bridge was submerged about 8,000 years ago.
The new study also explains why the fossil and archaeological record in Australia is so different to that found elsewhere even though the genetic record shows no evidence of interbreeding with Homo erectus, and indicates a single Palaeolithic colonisation event.
The DNA patterns of the Australian and Melanesian populations show that the population evolved in relative isolation. The two groups also share certain genetic characteristics that are not found beyond Melanesia. This would suggest that there was very little gene flow into Australia after the original migration.
Dr Toomas Kivisild, from the Cambridge University Department of Biological Anthropology, who co-authored the report, said: “The evidence points to relative isolation after the initial arrival, which would mean any significant developments in skeletal form and tool use were not influenced by outside sources.
“There was probably a minor secondary gene flow into Australia while the land bridge from New Guinea was still open, but once it was submerged the population was apparently isolated for thousands of years. The differences in the archaeological record are probably the result of this, rather than any secondary migration or interbreeding.”
You know nothing about anthropology. Current physical anthropological research makes it clear there are 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. 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 ancient Americans 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.
These papers are all written within the past 2-3 years and highlight the fact you know nothing about contemporary anthropology and the peopling of Asia.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
There is no clear link between the Melanesians and Australians as you claim. Redd and Stoneking (1999) observed that:
quote:
Peopling of Sahul: mtDNA variation in aboriginal Australian and Papua New Guinean populations. A J Redd and M Stoneking Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA. aredd@dakotacom.net This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract We examined genetic affinities of Aboriginal Australian and New Guinean populations by using nucleotide variation in the two hypervariable segments of the mtDNA control region (CR). A total of 318 individuals from highland Papua New Guinea (PNG), coastal PNG, and Aboriginal Australian populations were typed with a panel of 29 sequence-specific oligonucleotide (SSO) probes. The SSO-probe panel included five new probes that were used to type an additional 1,037 individuals from several Asian populations. The SSO-type data guided the selection of 78 individuals from Australia and east Indonesia for CR sequencing. A gene tree of these CR sequences, combined with published sequences from worldwide populations, contains two previously identified highland PNG clusters that do not include any Aboriginal Australians; the highland PNG clusters have coalescent time estimates of approximately 80,000 and 122,000 years ago, suggesting ancient isolation and genetic drift. SSO-type data indicate that 84% of the sample of PNG highlander mtDNA belong to these two clusters. In contrast, the Aboriginal Australian sequences are intermingled throughout the tree and cluster with sequences from multiple populations. Phylogenetic and multidimensional-scaling analyses of CR sequences and SSO types split PNG highland and Aboriginal Australian populations and link Aboriginal Australian populations with populations from the subcontinent of India. These mtDNA results do not support a close relationship between Aboriginal Australian and PNG populations but instead suggest multiple migrations in the peopling of Sahul.
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.\
San
Fijians
Australians
Commenting on the Melanesian and Australian connections Friedlaender et al noted that:
quote: Melanesian mtDNA Complexity Jonathan S. Friedlaender,1* Françoise R. Friedlaender,2 Jason A. Hodgson,3¤ Matthew Stoltz,3 George Koki,4 Gisele Horvat,2 Sergey Zhadanov,5 Theodore G. Schurr,5 and D. Andrew Merriwether3
ABSTRACT Melanesian populations are known for their diversity, but it has been hard to grasp the pattern of the variation or its underlying dynamic. Using 1,223 mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from hypervariable regions 1 and 2 (HVR1 and HVR2) from 32 populations, we found the among-group variation is structured by island, island size, and also by language affiliation. The more isolated inland Papuan-speaking groups on the largest islands have the greatest distinctions, while shore dwelling populations are considerably less diverse (at the same time, within-group haplotype diversity is less in the most isolated groups). Persistent differences between shore and inland groups in effective population sizes and marital migration rates probably cause these differences. We also add 16 whole sequences to the Melanesian mtDNA phylogenies. We identify the likely origins of a number of the haplogroups and ancient branches in specific islands, point to some ancient mtDNA connections between Near Oceania and Australia, and show additional Holocene connections between Island Southeast Asia/Taiwan and Island Melanesia with branches of haplogroup E. Coalescence estimates based on synonymous transitions in the coding region suggest an initial settlement and expansion in the region at ~30–50,000 years before present (YBP), and a second important expansion from Island Southeast Asia/Taiwan during the interval ~3,500–8,000 YBP. However, there are some important variance components in molecular dating that have been overlooked, and the specific nature of ancestral (maternal) Austronesian influence in this region remains unresolved.
Friedlaender et al (2007) make it clear that the major Melanesian mtDNA belong to the M haplogroup.
quote:
Macrohaplogroup M. Many deep branches of M have been found throughout Asia,especially India [26]–[32]. Pierson et al. [33] showed that all known branches of M diverged separately from the base, with the possible exception of Melanesian M29 and Q which may be somewhat more closely related. Figure 2 shows the main branches of macrohaplogroup M that occur in Near Oceania, including new branches of M28 and M29 identified in this study. To date, there are no established links between Aboriginal Australia and Near Oceania within any M haplogroup. As with P, the Near Oceanic branches of M apparently developed around the time of initial settlement beginning before ~30,000 years ago [current study, 17,19,34–37]. The TMRCAs in table 1 for these Near Oceanic M haplogroups and their branches suggest many are as old as those for P.
A number of mtDNA haplogroups common in Near Oceania have not been found west of New Guinea (i.e., macrohaplogroups M27 and M29, and with some rare exceptions, P, Q, and M28 [15], [16]). On the other hand, many haplogroups present in Southeast Asia are missing east of the Wallace Line (most branches of M, as well as B4c, B5, C, D, G, and U). This pattern reflects the long isolation of the populations that entered Near Oceania. Two younger mtDNA lineages do occur in appreciable frequencies in both regions, namely B4a1a1 and branches of E.
The Australians carry certain ancient clades, but they are primarially P.
quote:
Haplogroup P. Haplogroup P is the oldest branch of macrohaplogroup R in the region. Figure 1 shows the different known branches of P in Melanesia and their defining mutations (table S1 gives further details). Source references for the different branches, including the current study, are at the top of the figure. The branching of P1 is abbreviated since it has been detailed elsewhere [17]. The branching pattern at the base of P4 is ambiguous due to the apparent occurrence of back mutations at nucleotide sites (nts) 1719 and 5460. We have identified new branches of P2, P3 and P4. P3 and probably P4 retain old connections between Near Oceania and Australia, but branch P4a appears to be specific to Near Oceania, and branch P4b appears to be limited to Aboriginal Australia.
Haplogroup P in Oceania is primarially found in the Highland regions.
quote:
Table S2 gives the distribution of the major haplogroups in our series. P has its highest frequency in New Guinea and P1, its most common branch, has its highest concentration and greatest diversity in the highlands. P2 and P4 are also more common in New Guinea than elsewhere.
There is no clear link between the Melanesians and Australians as you claim. Redd and Stoneking (1999) observed that:
quote:
Peopling of Sahul: mtDNA variation in aboriginal Australian and Papua New Guinean populations. A J Redd and M Stoneking Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA. aredd@dakotacom.net This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract We examined genetic affinities of Aboriginal Australian and New Guinean populations by using nucleotide variation in the two hypervariable segments of the mtDNA control region (CR). A total of 318 individuals from highland Papua New Guinea (PNG), coastal PNG, and Aboriginal Australian populations were typed with a panel of 29 sequence-specific oligonucleotide (SSO) probes. The SSO-probe panel included five new probes that were used to type an additional 1,037 individuals from several Asian populations. The SSO-type data guided the selection of 78 individuals from Australia and east Indonesia for CR sequencing. A gene tree of these CR sequences, combined with published sequences from worldwide populations, contains two previously identified highland PNG clusters that do not include any Aboriginal Australians; the highland PNG clusters have coalescent time estimates of approximately 80,000 and 122,000 years ago, suggesting ancient isolation and genetic drift. SSO-type data indicate that 84% of the sample of PNG highlander mtDNA belong to these two clusters. In contrast, the Aboriginal Australian sequences are intermingled throughout the tree and cluster with sequences from multiple populations. Phylogenetic and multidimensional-scaling analyses of CR sequences and SSO types split PNG highland and Aboriginal Australian populations and link Aboriginal Australian populations with populations from the subcontinent of India. These mtDNA results do not support a close relationship between Aboriginal Australian and PNG populations but instead suggest multiple migrations in the peopling of Sahul.
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.\
San
Fijians
Australians
Commenting on the Melanesian and Australian connections Friedlaender et al noted that:
quote: Melanesian mtDNA Complexity Jonathan S. Friedlaender,1* Françoise R. Friedlaender,2 Jason A. Hodgson,3¤ Matthew Stoltz,3 George Koki,4 Gisele Horvat,2 Sergey Zhadanov,5 Theodore G. Schurr,5 and D. Andrew Merriwether3
ABSTRACT Melanesian populations are known for their diversity, but it has been hard to grasp the pattern of the variation or its underlying dynamic. Using 1,223 mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from hypervariable regions 1 and 2 (HVR1 and HVR2) from 32 populations, we found the among-group variation is structured by island, island size, and also by language affiliation. The more isolated inland Papuan-speaking groups on the largest islands have the greatest distinctions, while shore dwelling populations are considerably less diverse (at the same time, within-group haplotype diversity is less in the most isolated groups). Persistent differences between shore and inland groups in effective population sizes and marital migration rates probably cause these differences. We also add 16 whole sequences to the Melanesian mtDNA phylogenies. We identify the likely origins of a number of the haplogroups and ancient branches in specific islands, point to some ancient mtDNA connections between Near Oceania and Australia, and show additional Holocene connections between Island Southeast Asia/Taiwan and Island Melanesia with branches of haplogroup E. Coalescence estimates based on synonymous transitions in the coding region suggest an initial settlement and expansion in the region at ~30–50,000 years before present (YBP), and a second important expansion from Island Southeast Asia/Taiwan during the interval ~3,500–8,000 YBP. However, there are some important variance components in molecular dating that have been overlooked, and the specific nature of ancestral (maternal) Austronesian influence in this region remains unresolved.
Friedlaender et al (2007) make it clear that the major Melanesian mtDNA belong to the M haplogroup.
quote:
Macrohaplogroup M. Many deep branches of M have been found throughout Asia,especially India [26]–[32]. Pierson et al. [33] showed that all known branches of M diverged separately from the base, with the possible exception of Melanesian M29 and Q which may be somewhat more closely related. Figure 2 shows the main branches of macrohaplogroup M that occur in Near Oceania, including new branches of M28 and M29 identified in this study. To date, there are no established links between Aboriginal Australia and Near Oceania within any M haplogroup. As with P, the Near Oceanic branches of M apparently developed around the time of initial settlement beginning before ~30,000 years ago [current study, 17,19,34–37]. The TMRCAs in table 1 for these Near Oceanic M haplogroups and their branches suggest many are as old as those for P.
A number of mtDNA haplogroups common in Near Oceania have not been found west of New Guinea (i.e., macrohaplogroups M27 and M29, and with some rare exceptions, P, Q, and M28 [15], [16]). On the other hand, many haplogroups present in Southeast Asia are missing east of the Wallace Line (most branches of M, as well as B4c, B5, C, D, G, and U). This pattern reflects the long isolation of the populations that entered Near Oceania. Two younger mtDNA lineages do occur in appreciable frequencies in both regions, namely B4a1a1 and branches of E.
The Australians carry certain ancient clades, but they are primarially P.
quote:
Haplogroup P. Haplogroup P is the oldest branch of macrohaplogroup R in the region. Figure 1 shows the different known branches of P in Melanesia and their defining mutations (table S1 gives further details). Source references for the different branches, including the current study, are at the top of the figure. The branching of P1 is abbreviated since it has been detailed elsewhere [17]. The branching pattern at the base of P4 is ambiguous due to the apparent occurrence of back mutations at nucleotide sites (nts) 1719 and 5460. We have identified new branches of P2, P3 and P4. P3 and probably P4 retain old connections between Near Oceania and Australia, but branch P4a appears to be specific to Near Oceania, and branch P4b appears to be limited to Aboriginal Australia.
Haplogroup P in Oceania is primarially found in the Highland regions.
quote:
Table S2 gives the distribution of the major haplogroups in our series. P has its highest frequency in New Guinea and P1, its most common branch, has its highest concentration and greatest diversity in the highlands. P2 and P4 are also more common in New Guinea than elsewhere.
Clyde, you are so ridiculous it is funny. Did YOU not post the following:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I draw the conclusion that the first Americans were Africans based on the evidence. I am not like you waiting for Europeans to tell me what to think. I look at the evidence and reach my own conclusions based on that evidence.
This is how science operates . You make a theory hypothesis, collect the data and confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis.
Let me show you how this operates. First you make the research questions, and form your hypotheses.
Research Questions.
Q1. How did AMH reach America when the Beringa was covered with ice between 110kya and 13kya? This ice sheet made it impossible for AMH to cross into the American continent.
Q2.If people crossed the Beringa when the ice melted why are artifacts and skeletal remains relating to the colonization of America by AMH date back 32k BP?
Q3.Why are ancient skeletal remains found on the eastern side of the Americas near the Atlantic ocean currents, instead of the West coast which is nearest Asia?
Hypothesis 1 (H1) The first Anatomically modern humans (AMH) to settle the New World probably came from Africa.
H2. If the first AMH were from Africa, the skeletons of the ancient Americas would be similar to Africans.
H3. Since the earliest Americans date back 32kya they may have been related to the San who took civilization to Europe around this time.
H4. If the San were the first settlers of America they probably left genetic evidence of their former presence.
These hypothesis were confirmed. H1 & H2. Neves et al make it clear the ancient skeletons resemble Melanesians and Africans. Since they could be either one, I choose African.
.
YOU yourself post citations of research that says the first Americans were closer to Melanesians and Africans or Australians, but YOU turn around and DECIDE on your own to simply call them Africans. WHY? Sounds like to me you are jumping around and playing games with words. One one hand Melanesians aren't African enough for you or early enough, but on the other hand they are AFRICAN and old enough to represent the first OOA populations. You state that Melanesians are distinct from "Africans" and Australians, but yet turn around and say that they could be "one or the other" and therefore call them Africans as if there is no meaningful distinction. Which are they Clyde? Not to mention your flip flopping about which "features" represent most closely the OOA type, which YOU claim was like the san. But Australian Aborigines DON'T resemble the san AT ALL.
So like I said. You are simply confused and making up stuff to suit your whims, which are based on an absurd understanding of the facts.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug stop putting words in my mouth. I never said the San were part of the OOA event. The San were the CroMagnon/Grimaldi people who replaced the Neanderthals in much of Eurasia 40kya. This was 20k years after the Australians left Africa.
The Venus Figures represent the first Europeans. They are representative of the San people and are therefore Africans.
This is a bushman or San.
Hottentot
As I mentioned earlier the Bushman created much of the early civilization of Eurasia. They left us numerous figurines showing their type.
Venus Figurines
The Bushman continue to carry this ancient form.
Doug you are simply a weak fool. You have presented no evidence in support of your contention. You are a fraud and Coconut.
Above are genetic papers which demonstrate that the Melanesians are not members of the OOA event. Yet you continue to make moronic statements like a child that they are. I have consistently said that the Australians represent the OOA population 60kya.
I have never said that Melanesians and Africans are distinct. In fact I made it clear that the Melanesians are probably a recent migration of Africans to the Pacific. This would explain the West African placenames in Oceania and Japan.
.
Stop trying to steal the African heritage of the first Americans.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Doug stop putting words in my mouth. I never said the San were part of the OOA event. The San were the CroMagnon/Grimaldi people who replaced the Neanderthals in much of Eurasia 40kya.
I see Winters is indulging himself again, with ridiculous claims.
San is properly a reference to Native South African peoples.
Even when distorted into a phenotype, SAN do not match cro-magnon - who were a tall people often 6 ft or more, and the earliest of whom had limb ratios more like Masai than Khoisan.
And when 'further' reduced to 'steatopygia' which Winters profers as 'evidence', then this charactersistic is found also amongst some tropically adapted people of South Asia, who are also not SAN.
Winters just waste his time with dumb nonsense, for brain dead losers like Marc Washington. He feeds them their idiot stew. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:YOU yourself post citations of research that says the first Americans were closer to Melanesians and Africans or Australians, but YOU turn around and DECIDE on your own to simply call them Africans. WHY?
^ Because he's a charleton and a bad liar of course.
Real question: Why would anyone take this intelligent man, who by choice, reduces himself to a parody of looney-Afrocentrism, seriously?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Doug stop putting words in my mouth. I never said the San were part of the OOA event. The San were the CroMagnon/Grimaldi people who replaced the Neanderthals in much of Eurasia 40kya. This was 20k years after the Australians left Africa.
The Venus Figures represent the first Europeans. They are representative of the San people and are therefore Africans.
This is a bushman or San.
Hottentot
As I mentioned earlier the Bushman created much of the early civilization of Eurasia. They left us numerous figurines showing their type.
Venus Figurines
The Bushman continue to carry this ancient form.
Doug you are simply a weak fool. You have presented no evidence in support of your contention. You are a fraud and Coconut.
Above are genetic papers which demonstrate that the Melanesians are not members of the OOA event. Yet you continue to make moronic statements like a child that they are. I have consistently said that the Australians represent the OOA population 60kya.
I have never said that Melanesians and Africans are distinct. In fact I made it clear that the Melanesians are probably a recent migration of Africans to the Pacific. This would explain the West African placenames in Oceania and Japan.
.
Stop trying to steal the African heritage of the first Americans.
.
Stop backtracking Clyde.
You did post the following did you not?
quote: H3. Since the earliest Americans date back 32kya they may have been related to the San who took civilization to Europe around this time.
H4. If the San were the first settlers of America they probably left genetic evidence of their former presence.
These hypothesis were confirmed.
H1 & H2. Neves et al make it clear the ancient skeletons resemble Melanesians and Africans. Since they could be either one, I choose African.
I chose Africans because they are the closest to the sites where AMH have been found plus they had the naval technology as indicated by the Dufuna canoe to make the voyage.
Clyde not only don't you make any sense, but you are a liar. Does the above not say that YOU think the first Americans were like the San?
Stick to the point. YOU keep claiming that the ancient Americans were DIRECT migrants from Africa, with no evidence and going so far as to take OTHER peoples research out of context in order to support YOUR OWN nonsense point of view. Which they don't.
Neves said that the ancient skeletons in the Americas represented Melanesians and Africans. NONE of the skeletons of the first Americans resemble the San. They resemble early aboriginal migrants to America from Asia who retained some of their original African features, like the Aborigines of Australia and the people of New Guinea. PERIOD. YOU are disagreeing with YOUR OWN cited references. No wonder you are confused. You have provided NO evidence that the first migrants to the Americas were like the San or that they were direct migrants from Africa. All you do is talk yourself into circles, with lies and half truths that deceive those who don't know better, including YOURSELF.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
[rASHOL writes] Dr. Winters, your discourse may be suitable for confusing the likes of Marc Washington, but to any serious scholar, it consists of and utterly broken logic.
[rASHOL writes] Dr. Winters, your discourse may be suitable for confusing the likes of Marc Washington, but to any serious scholar, it consists of and utterly broken logic.
[Marc writes] Broken logic? Don’t make me laugh. You can’t even spell.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Doug stop putting words in my mouth. I never said the San were part of the OOA event. The San were the CroMagnon/Grimaldi people who replaced the Neanderthals in much of Eurasia 40kya. This was 20k years after the Australians left Africa.
The Venus Figures represent the first Europeans. They are representative of the San people and are therefore Africans.
This is a bushman or San.
Hottentot
As I mentioned earlier the Bushman created much of the early civilization of Eurasia. They left us numerous figurines showing their type.
Venus Figurines
The Bushman continue to carry this ancient form.
Doug you are simply a weak fool. You have presented no evidence in support of your contention. You are a fraud and Coconut.
Above are genetic papers which demonstrate that the Melanesians are not members of the OOA event. Yet you continue to make moronic statements like a child that they are. I have consistently said that the Australians represent the OOA population 60kya.
I have never said that Melanesians and Africans are distinct. In fact I made it clear that the Melanesians are probably a recent migration of Africans to the Pacific. This would explain the West African placenames in Oceania and Japan.
.
Stop trying to steal the African heritage of the first Americans.
.
Stop backtracking Clyde.
You did post the following did you not?
quote: H3. Since the earliest Americans date back 32kya they may have been related to the San who took civilization to Europe around this time.
H4. If the San were the first settlers of America they probably left genetic evidence of their former presence.
These hypothesis were confirmed.
H1 & H2. Neves et al make it clear the ancient skeletons resemble Melanesians and Africans. Since they could be either one, I choose African.
I chose Africans because they are the closest to the sites where AMH have been found plus they had the naval technology as indicated by the Dufuna canoe to make the voyage.
Clyde not only don't you make any sense, but you are a liar. Does the above not say that YOU think the first Americans were like the San?
Stick to the point. YOU keep claiming that the ancient Americans were DIRECT migrants from Africa, with no evidence and going so far as to take OTHER peoples research out of context in order to support YOUR OWN nonsense point of view. Which they don't.
Neves said that the ancient skeletons in the Americas represented Melanesians and Africans. NONE of the skeletons of the first Americans resemble the San. They resemble early aboriginal migrants to America from Asia who retained some of their original African features, like the Aborigines of Australia and the people of New Guinea. PERIOD. YOU are disagreeing with YOUR OWN cited references. No wonder you are confused. You have provided NO evidence that the first migrants to the Americas were like the San or that they were direct migrants from Africa. All you do is talk yourself into circles, with lies and half truths that deceive those who don't know better, including YOURSELF.
No members of the OOA population made their way to the New World.
There is clear evidence that the OOA population settled Asia. But lets not forget that if the OOA population who took the eastern route out of Africa left the Continent around 60kya this would have been during the last Ice Age.
The Ice Age latsed from from 110kya to around 12kya. As a result the OOA populartion would have found it impossible to take a land route to the Americas across Beringa. As a result, your insistence that the OOA population made their way to the Americas does not correlate with the environmental and archaeological evidence.
.
.
The ancient Americans looked more like the Khoisan then Australians, because they came from Africa not Asia.
The San in South Africa are called the "Little Chinese," because of the oval eyes, high cheekbones, broad forehead.
Yet, the Chinese are nothing more than the San who when in Mongolia and I say with woolly hair were inundated with whites from the Steppes. This was likely from near 1200 BC (perhaps) up until the time of the Khans who lived during the European Middle Ages.
This influx of whites mixing with San changed the hair from straight to woolly and lightened the color of San skin. It is these people who would become the Koreans, Chinese, Japanese. And this population would enter the South Pacific and eventually the Americas changing the morphology of the original African peoples who'd get Mongul features from incoming Monguls and white features from incoming Europeans.
Oversimplified (as there were population movements all over the place, that, in a nutshell, is the history of the peopling of the world and why people look the way they do.
. .
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Doug stop putting words in my mouth. I never said the San were part of the OOA event. The San were the CroMagnon/Grimaldi people who replaced the Neanderthals in much of Eurasia 40kya. This was 20k years after the Australians left Africa.
The Venus Figures represent the first Europeans. They are representative of the San people and are therefore Africans.
This is a bushman or San.
Hottentot
As I mentioned earlier the Bushman created much of the early civilization of Eurasia. They left us numerous figurines showing their type.
Venus Figurines
The Bushman continue to carry this ancient form.
Doug you are simply a weak fool. You have presented no evidence in support of your contention. You are a fraud and Coconut.
Above are genetic papers which demonstrate that the Melanesians are not members of the OOA event. Yet you continue to make moronic statements like a child that they are. I have consistently said that the Australians represent the OOA population 60kya.
I have never said that Melanesians and Africans are distinct. In fact I made it clear that the Melanesians are probably a recent migration of Africans to the Pacific. This would explain the West African placenames in Oceania and Japan.
.
Stop trying to steal the African heritage of the first Americans.
.
Stop backtracking Clyde.
You did post the following did you not?
quote: H3. Since the earliest Americans date back 32kya they may have been related to the San who took civilization to Europe around this time.
H4. If the San were the first settlers of America they probably left genetic evidence of their former presence.
These hypothesis were confirmed.
H1 & H2. Neves et al make it clear the ancient skeletons resemble Melanesians and Africans. Since they could be either one, I choose African.
I chose Africans because they are the closest to the sites where AMH have been found plus they had the naval technology as indicated by the Dufuna canoe to make the voyage.
Clyde not only don't you make any sense, but you are a liar. Does the above not say that YOU think the first Americans were like the San?
Stick to the point. YOU keep claiming that the ancient Americans were DIRECT migrants from Africa, with no evidence and going so far as to take OTHER peoples research out of context in order to support YOUR OWN nonsense point of view. Which they don't.
Neves said that the ancient skeletons in the Americas represented Melanesians and Africans. NONE of the skeletons of the first Americans resemble the San. They resemble early aboriginal migrants to America from Asia who retained some of their original African features, like the Aborigines of Australia and the people of New Guinea. PERIOD. YOU are disagreeing with YOUR OWN cited references. No wonder you are confused. You have provided NO evidence that the first migrants to the Americas were like the San or that they were direct migrants from Africa. All you do is talk yourself into circles, with lies and half truths that deceive those who don't know better, including YOURSELF.
No members of the OOA population made their way to the New World.
There is clear evidence that the OOA population settled Asia. But lets not forget that if the OOA population who took the eastern route out of Africa left the Continent around 60kya this would have been during the last Ice Age.
The Ice Age latsed from from 110kya to around 12kya. As a result the OOA populartion would have found it impossible to take a land route to the Americas across Beringa. As a result, your insistence that the OOA population made their way to the Americas does not correlate with the environmental and archaeological evidence.
.
.
The ancient Americans looked more like the Khoisan then Australians, because they came from Africa not Asia.
.
Clyde, first and foremost, ALL first populations world wide are the result of OOA migrations. ALL of them. This includes the first Americans. The question is whether the first Americans came DIRECTLY OOA from Africa or indirectly through Asia. Furthermore, you don't know what the first Americans in Luzia looked like. That model is only an artistic and educational guess. Like I said, you have NO evidence that the first Americans looked like San. NONE. The one citation YOU referenced said they looked like Melanesians and Africans. Other published research said they looked like Australians and Africans. The photos of aboriginal populations in the Americas show clearly that many were indeed black and had features similar to Australian aborigines.
As usual, against this tide of facts, you still maintain something that is unproven and without evidence. Except now, instead of trying to distort published research to suit your agenda, you try and use a facial reconstruction. But the fact is that the man who made the reconstruction Dr. Neaves and the man who did the cranial analysis Dr. Neves (odd coincidence), BOTH say that this skull is closer to Australians and Melanesians than recent migrants to the Americas from Asia. So you are STILL making up claims and distorting research to suit your agenda.
Here is what Dr. Neves says about the earliest skulls:
quote: Comparative morphological studies of the earliest human skeletons of the New World have shown that, whereas late prehistoric, recent, and present Native Americans tend to exhibit a cranial morphology similar to late and modern Northern Asians (short and wide neurocrania; high, orthognatic and broad faces; and relatively high and narrow orbits and noses), the earliest South Americans tend to be more similar to present Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses). However, most of the previous studies of early American human remains were based on small cranial samples. Herein we compare the largest sample of early American skulls ever studied (81 skulls of the Lagoa Santa region) with worldwide data sets representing global morphological variation in humans, through three different multivariate analyses. The results obtained from all multivariate analyses confirm a close morphological affinity between SouthAmerican Paleoindians and extant Australo-Melanesians groups, supporting the hypothesis that two distinct biological populations could have colonized the New World in the Pleistocene/Holocene transition.
They looked similar to Australians, Melanesians AND Africans.
The issue for me isn't whether there were migrations from Africa directly to America. I have almost no doubt that over the last 100,000 years that some Africans may have made the journey directly to the Americas from Africa. However, I don't believe that such migrations were enough to populate the entire continent and that most of the populations in the Americas came from Asia, either on foot or more likely by boat. I also personally do not believe that the sites in South America are the result of people walking to the Americas. I believe many of them came by boat from the South. But that is only my personal opinion.
Bottom line, the facts make it clear that the first Americans were closer to Africans, Melanesians and Australians than modern native Americans. How they got here initially and where is something that we may never know for sure. But ANY theory supporting some form of population in America from Africa has to be based on FACTS and the problem with Clyde is he provides no facts or even worse MAKES UP facts to suit his theories.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Doug writes Clyde, you don't know what the first Americans in Luzia looked like. That model is only an artistic and educational guess.
Marc writes When anthropologists made an African King Tut look white, I heard of no outcrys that their reconstruction was wrong. But, you have an anthropologist trained in facial reconstruction portray an ancient skull as African and you scream out like a cat that had a whisker pulled from its face.
First of all, Morales is, I daresay, better qualified than you, Doug, to determine what an accurate reconstruction is or not.
Second, you are the only person on earth I’ve heard question the accuracy of the reconstruction. No one in the professional community did.
You also accuse Dr. Obenga of being jealous of you remember (?) as he ignored your ludicrous claims of an Indo European origin of Meroitic script.
Is it the jealousy of others that prevents you from understanding the difference between X and Y chromosome, and so not confusing the two?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug you are simply a weak fool. You have presented no evidence in support of your contention. You are a fraud and Coconut.
^ tsk tsk, such anger and hate.
The reason you rage at Doug is that he is and unpretentious student of African history, who is out debating you.
You lose all of your debates because your understanding of the anthropology is either outdated or twisted.
Then you get angry at people like Doug, and start name calling, which just makes you, and not Doug, appear to be weak. lol.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
[rASHOL writes] Dr. Winters, your discourse may be suitable for confusing the likes of Marc Washington, but to any serious scholar, it consists of and utterly broken logic.
posted
Doug lays down the facts, which puts the 'smack' down on Dr. Faker.....
quote:Clyde, first and foremost, ALL first populations world wide are the result of OOA migrations. ALL of them. This includes the first Americans.
^ truth.
quote:Like I said, you have NO evidence that the first Americans looked like San. NONE.
^ nor does 'any' anthropologist claim they did.
Winters is race-myth maker who uses race-noises to cover for his actual lack of scientific knowledge.
The feature he wants to assign to san, is called steatopygia.
This means retention of sub-cutaneous fat in the hips, as opposed to the limbs and torso.
Steatopygia is a form of tropical adaptation.
It does two things.
1) It allows the body to store fat accumulated in the tropical wet season, for use during the tropical dry season.
2)It prevents the body from overheating, by storing fat in one concentrated area, and not on the exposed limbs, which are then free to dissipate heat.
For example: Eskimo also store fat, for the actic winter - but they store it all over the body, including underneath their arms. This allows fat to also insulate their bodies against frostbite.
3) San are not the only people in Africa who sometimes have steatopygia.
4) There are non Africans who also have steatopygia, including some Melanesians who do not otherwise look like the San, and more importanly - ARE NOT ANYMORE RELATED TO THE SAN, than they are to any other people.
5) Most SAN do not have the extreme steatopygia, shown in Winters drawings. Even his paleolithic art examples, contrast, in this respect with some of his photos of actual modern Khoisan.
6) Some African, non SAN women and even some current European have this trait.
7) Some modern Khoisan do not have this trait at all.
Winters is indeed confused.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
[rASHOL writes] Dr. Winters, your discourse may be suitable for confusing the likes of Marc Washington, but to any serious scholar, it consists of and utterly broken logic.
Here is what Dr. Neves says about the earliest skulls:
quote: Comparative morphological studies of the earliest human skeletons of the New World have shown that, whereas late prehistoric, recent, and present Native Americans tend to exhibit a cranial morphology similar to late and modern Northern Asians (short and wide neurocrania; high, orthognatic and broad faces; and relatively high and narrow orbits and noses), the earliest South Americans tend to be more similar to present Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses). However, most of the previous studies of early American human remains were based on small cranial samples. Herein we compare the largest sample of early American skulls ever studied (81 skulls of the Lagoa Santa region) with worldwide data sets representing global morphological variation in humans, through three different multivariate analyses. The results obtained from all multivariate analyses confirm a close morphological affinity between SouthAmerican Paleoindians and extant Australo-Melanesians groups, supporting the hypothesis that two distinct biological populations could have colonized the New World in the Pleistocene/Holocene transition.
They looked similar to Australians, Melanesians AND Africans.
The issue for me isn't whether there were migrations from Africa directly to America. I have almost no doubt that over the last 100,000 years that some Africans may have made the journey directly to the Americas from Africa. However, I don't believe that such migrations were enough to populate the entire continent and that most of the populations in the Americas came from Asia, either on foot or more likely by boat. I also personally do not believe that the sites in South America are the result of people walking to the Americas. I believe many of them came by boat from the South. But that is only my personal opinion.
Bottom line, the facts make it clear that the first Americans were closer to Africans, Melanesians and Australians than modern native Americans. How they got here initially and where is something that we may never know for sure. But ANY theory supporting some form of population in America from Africa has to be based on FACTS and the problem with Clyde is he provides no facts or even worse MAKES UP facts to suit his theories.
Fool. Neves said exactly what I said he said that the people looked like Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Bottom line, the facts make it clear that the first Americans were closer to Africans, Melanesians and Australians than modern native Americans. How they got here initially and where is something that we may never know for sure. But ANY theory supporting some form of population in America from Africa has to be based on FACTS and the problem with Clyde is he provides no facts or even worse MAKES UP facts to suit his theories.
Here's my facts Stupid where are yours?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Let's look at the facts:
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.
quote: 1. Sub-Saharan Africa. The first population in the ordering are the San, who are hunter gatherers that live in Southern Africa. Before the Bantu expansion over the last 3,000 years, the ancestors of the San occupied most of Southern Africa, but they have been progressively displaced and currently are restricted to a few pockets [17]. The San contributed ancestry to the next four populations (the Biaka Pygmies, Bantu from South Africa and Kenya, and Mbuti Pygmies) but none subsequent to that. The Bantu are inferred to have contributed to each subsequent African population.
This article suggest that the spread many populations in the world may have began with the San. The San do not represent the original OOA population.
The San carry the A haplogroup. The fact that many Americans carry this gene point the early expansion of this group or related populations into the New World.
quote:The San carry the A haplogroup. The fact that many Americans carry this gene point the early expansion of this group or related populations into the New World.
^ Name Native Americans who carry Y chromosome haplotype A, found mostly in East and South Africa?
How many times must we tell you to STOP confusing Y chromsome and mtdna???
What is the point of making such stupid remarks when you know you are going to get debunked?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Honestly Dr. Winters, sometimes I think you're just getting senile.
This is mtdna: [female] In 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.
This is Y chromosome: [male] In human genetics, Haplogroup A (M91) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup.
Haplogroup A is common among Bushmen.Haplogroup A is localized mainly to Southern Africa with a small to notable presence among a few populations in East Africa.
Do not confuse these two again.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
[rASHOL writes] Dr. Winters, your discourse may be suitable for confusing the likes of Marc Washington, but to any serious scholar, it consists of and utterly broken logic.
quote:Winters: Here's my facts Stupid where are yours?
quote:rasol writes: [Winters] How many times must we tell you to STOP confusing Y chromsome and mtdna???
What is the point of making such stupid remarks when you know you are going to get debunked?
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
This is mtdna: [female] In 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.
This is Y chromosome: [male] In human genetics, Haplogroup A (M91) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup.
Haplogroup A is common among Bushmen.Haplogroup A is localized mainly to Southern Africa with a small to notable presence among a few populations in East Africa.
Do not confuse these two again.
Fact is, you're getting senile and appear to have difficulty retaining facts. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
[rASHOL writes] Dr. Winters, your discourse may be suitable for confusing the likes of Marc Washington, but to any serious scholar, it consists of and utterly broken logic.
[Marc writes] Serious scholar? You? ROFLMAO.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic