Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 1042
    MEMBERS
  • 57456
    MESSAGES
  • 1
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Australian DNA in S. America   Australia and Oceania

Started Apr-5 by adwil; 217 views.
adwil

From: adwil

Apr-5

Interesting.

"some groups in the Amazon are somewhat more closely related to the Australasians of Australia and Papua New Guinea than other native Americans are. The genomes show this “Australasian signal” is more than 10,000 years old. So where did it come from?"

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2184840-indigenous-peoples-in-the-amazon-and-australia-share-some-ancestry/#ixzz6r9lOGQ2A

In reply toRe: msg 1

Interesting article, adwil.  Thanks.

While this finding is significant, there's much less mystery to this than the article makes out.   It's analogous to the case of populations in Australia and New Guinea having more Denisovan DNA than any other groups even though they live thousands of miles from the Altai Mountains where Denisovans lived.  The isolated and remote location of populations in Australia and New Guinea simply mean that this tracer has not diminished into insignificance from subsequent migrations and mixing the way it has elsewhere.  The same principle applies in South America.  It doesn't mean that some South Americans came from somewhere in Oceania.  It means that Australians and some South Americans record traces of their migrations from Central Asia.  

I clicked on an article linked to there:
 

In terms of various waves of migration and the replacement of one group by another this meshes well with what we see in British Columbia.   The earliest bona fide excavation of prehistoric indigenous peoples in this area were conducted about 100 years ago in what is now a fairly densely populated part of the city of Vancouver.  The 1000 year-old remains have been termed the Marpole Culture after the part of town in which they were found.  The skulls of these people are nothing like those of present-day Indians living in British Columbia.  Proper DNA testing probably won't happen, though, because our present-day Natives are adamantly opposed to this precisely because the results would erode their claims to land in the province.  

Your article ends with a brief statement about Kennewick Man and makes out like the issue of how closely they are related to present-day inhabitants of the region is settled.  This is by no means the case.

We see Wokeism creeping into usually or at least up to now respectable publications like the New Scientist and Scientific American lately.  They still have a lot of good material, but they also now push a particular political agenda and I grow increasingly wary of them.  

DNA analysis like this as well as linguistic studies have revealed without any shadow of doubt that the Americas were settled in several migrations.  In the end we'll no doubt see that it replicates what we see in the Old World:  numerous different peoples with newer arrivals mixing or replacing older ones.

adwil

From: adwil

Apr-5

Apollonius (Theocritos) said:

DNA analysis like this as well as linguistic studies have revealed without any shadow of doubt that the Americas were settled in several migrations.  In the end we'll no doubt see that it replicates what we see in the Old World:  numerous different peoples with newer arrivals mixing or replacing older ones.

Yes, I think that's a reasonable assumption. 

In reply toRe: msg 1
Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

Evidence suggests Aboriginals have been in Australia for 60,000 years.

I wonder where this common ancestry was forged.

adwil

From: adwil

Apr-9

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

Evidence suggests Aboriginals have been in Australia for 60,000 years. I wonder where this common ancestry was forged.

Probably as our ancestors moved out of Africa and across Asia, some groups traveled across the land bridge to the Americas, whilst others island hopped south to Australia. 

TOP