...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Palo-Americans and their descendants
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] 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. [b]The greatest distinctions are among the isolated groups in large island interiors, which are also the most internally homogeneous.[/b] 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. [b]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.[/b] 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.[b] 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.[/b] [/QUOTE]. . [QUOTE]Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: [qb] [QUOTE] Posted by Clyde Fraud: [b]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. [/b] [/QUOTE]New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution (May 10, 2007) — [b]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.[/b] [b]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.[/b] [b]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.[/b] [b]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.[/b] [b]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.[/b] 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. [b]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.[/b] Geneticist Dr Peter Forster, who led the research, said: [b]“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.”[/b] 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. [b]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.[/b] [b]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.[/b] [b]“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.”[/b] [/qb][/QUOTE] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3