Here we have a duck and a goose they have many similarities in color. They both live near water and swim, but they are different.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first population to leave Africa was the Australians. They represent the population who participated in the OOA event.
The archaic nature of this population led to the OOA population having different features than the contemporary Africans.
Here is an Australian
Here is a contemporary Africans
You can clearly see differences between the Australian and African type; while both individuals are described as Negroes you will note that the forehead of the Australian matches in many ways the cranium of earlier hominid forms dating back to the rise of homo sapiens sapiens in Africa.
Any physical anthropologists would note these changes. The coastal Melanesians usually show mixed Australian-African features or features commonly found among Africans--not Australians.\
San
Pygmies
Fijians
Australians
A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that they resemble Africans moreso than Aborigines--the original settlers of Asia.
Yet Doug says they are the same because of his racism and belief like Europeans that all Blacks look alike.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: [QB] [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: [qb] [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: 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.
Clyde you don't understand anthropology or genetics, as they confirm the fact that Australians and Melanesia's are representative of OOA and carry pristine OOA lineages.
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 |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I have posted references to Negroes, i.e., Africans in East Asia please post the references to the Mongoloid people who originated from the former Blacks in the area.
I accept the fact there were ancient Blacks in Asia. These Blacks were the Australian type people who mainly live in Australia and the Hill regions of Oceania. The coastal Melanesians on the otherhand, are descendants of recent Africans who settled the area after being forced from Asia.
Since the Australians are the original settlers of Asia (around 60kybp), and may represent members of the first out of Africa migrants. I never refer to these people as Africans, although I do recognize them as Blacks.
The Anu or Black pygmies probably represent the second African migration of homo sapien sapiens out of Africa. I would class these people with the CroMagnon/Grimaldi group who entered Iberia after 34kybp. Remnants of this great people were found on every continent when Europeans first explored the world.
The Bushman(/Proto-Bantu) type may represent the Natufians who began to migrate out of Africa after 20,000 and settled in the Levant which was first settled by Cro Magnon people who early replaced the Neanderthal folk. The Natufians would represent the fourth African migration into Eurasia.
By the time the Bushmen entered Eurasia the Classical mongoloid people who are the ancestors of the Indonesians/Vietnamese/Filipinos and etc. were probably already settled in Anatolia. The classical mongoloids probably constructed Catal Huyuk. The close relationship between Sumerian and the AustroAsiatic languages suggest that the classical Mongoloid people may have also inhabited Mesopotamia by the time the Sumerians entered the area.
It appears to have been a natural catastrophe which caused the classical mongoloids to migrate eastward. We know this because many of the former sites of the Classical mongoloids in Anatolia were occupied by the Kushites (Kaska) people after 2500 BC.
By 1200 BC the clasical mongoloids had become well established in India. Around this time they conquered the Dravidian people who founded the first Shang empire, and set up a new Shang Empire at Anyang.
By 1000 BC the Hau/Han tribes came down from the mountains and pushed the classical mongoloids southward into Yunnan and eventually Southeast Asia. The Han began to make the Yueh and li min people their slaves. The Han often used the Qiang (another Black tribe) as sacrifice victims. The Han killed off as many Black tribes as they could. The only thing that saved the pygmies in East Asia, was the fact that they moved into the mountains in areas they could easily defend from Han attacks.
This movement of Han and classical mongoloid people southward forced the Kushite/African (Qiang, li min and other African) tribes onto the Pacific Islands. It is these Africans who represent the coastal Melanesians.
The Sumerians, Elamites, Xia (of China), Harappans of the Indus Valley and coastal Melanoids are the Proto-Saharan people known in History as the Kushites.These people originated in the Highland regions of Middle Africa, and began to occupy the former trade centers of the Anu in Eurasia and the Americas. It is for this reason that we find West African placenames in the Pacific and India.
Given the origin of the classical mongoloids in Anatolia, and the Han Chinese somewhere in North China or Central Asia,the Southeast Asians are not descendants of the first African migration to Eurasia. This is why the Chinese and Classical mongoloid people share few if any genes with the Australians. The Classical mongoloids share genes mainly with the coastal Melanesians who are of African origin, but few genes with the Chinese of East Asia.
.
Clyde, you are nothing but someone who has no understanding of facts and continues to push nonsense in order to justify your interperetation of history. First off, being black does not mean NEGROID. Negroid is an outdated, no longer used term referring to RACE. BLACK is skin color, not lip shape, eye shape, nose shape or skull shape. BLACKS have ALL combinations of eye shape, lip shape, nose shape and so forth, EVEN IN AFRICA. THEREFORE, to be black does not mean being NEGROID. THAT is why you are CONFUSING YOURSELF. Yes, many blacks in Asia had the stereotypical "negroid" features of curly hair, big lips, round eyes and so forth. HOWEVER, many BLACKS in Asia DO NOT have such features and NEVER DID but they are STILL BLACK.
As for calling oneself black, MOST blacks dont CALL themselves black. Why should they? Africans in West Africa did not CALL THEMSELVES black as a term of self identity. It is only the DESCENDENTS of the West Africans in America who have been FORCED to identify with the word BLACK who call themselves by a term that is ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS. Most Europeans don't call themselves WHITES as a term of self identity. It is only in situations where there are populations of DIFFERENT backgrounds that WHITE becomes a meaningful term for Europeans. The terms people use for themselves, especially prior to the times of the RACIAL dominated ideologies of Europeans and some others, had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with culture and ethnicity. Therefore, saying that the people of the Philippines did not call themselves blacks, does not mean that they were NOT black. ALL people of Asia were ORIGINALLY black and not just NEGROID. The FIRST EVOLUTION of Asian features, meaning slanted eyes, high cheek bones and thin lips took place AMONG BLACKS before there was a WHITE ASIAN. Such features can STILL be found in South Asia and the Pacific and these people are NOT called negritoes. Negritoes are ONE TYPE of black population of Asia. But ALL blacks in Asia are NOT Negrito and the Philippines is a perfect example. But many MODERN populations in South East Asia are descended from migrants from NORTHERN Asia and China, mixed with the original populations of the South. Many of these people identify more with their northern Asian ancestry than the ORIGINAL INDIGENOUS black ancestry. The remnants of these original black Asians are a minority group within a minority and you really have to look hard to find them in many places in Asia and they are NOT called negritoes.
Black Asians in Burma a very small minority within a minority, even though they were once the majority:
Most modern Burmese are mixed with populations from Southern China that have arrived in the region over the last 1500 years. The original black populations of these areas are a distinct minority, even though they can still be found in some remote areas. But they are NOT called negritoes.
Burmese showing the so-called "classic Mongoloid" features Mr. Winters loves to talk about so much.
But the fact is that Mongolians invaded Burma in the thirteenth century.
Then you have the light brown or tan types who are retain more of the features from their black ancestors than that of the Mongolian and Chinese invaders of the last thousand years.
But ALL of these people descend from blacks and ALL of these features were found among the BLACKS of Asia going back over 3,000 years. Such features can STILL be found in parts of Asia, but like I said you have to look really hard in certain areas to find them and they are a distinct minority within a minority in most of these places.
posted
Instead of reading newspaper articles you need to check out books and articles on the topic.
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.
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.
Clyde you don't understand anthropology or genetics, as they confirm the fact tat Australians and Melanesia's are representative of OOA and carry pristine OOA lineages.
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.”
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: [QB] [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. This is anthropology Clyde, address it.
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: [qb] [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 |
posted
Doug calls these Asians Black. But they don’t call themselves Black.
Dark Skinned Asians
It appears that the Filipinos themselves never saw themselves as "blacks". Eventhough some of the Spanish called the mountain tribes 'negritos' 'little negroes'. The fair skinned Filipinos were called "Indios" or Indian.
Some researchers claim that the precolonial Filipinos beleieved that the Creator overbaked the black people, underbaked the white people and made Filipinos "brown beauties".
Under colonial rule the Mestizo ideal, became the symbol of beauty. Under American leadership the Filipinos began to refer to themselves as kayunianggi 'brown skinned' and maputi 'fair skinned'.
web page
Given these terms it would appear that the Filipinos, like DJ, have never recognized themselves as 'Blacks", they saw themselves as "brown skinned beauties".
Doug thinks these people are Black due to his racim.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^^Nobody is saying all OOA populations resemble eachother, but Clyde do you even understand genetics. I am pretty sure you have a hard time understanding genetics, as you proposed a Y-chromosome, and correlated it with an Mtdna marker.
quote: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.
This is called genetics Clyde, this is called OOA Clyde. This proves that Australian and Melanesians are descended from the same group of Africans OOA.
quote: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.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Dr. Winters Are the two sitting on the stairs slaves? They appear to have shackles on their ankles.
The group picture could have been taken in the South of The USA. Only difference appear to be the characters replacing Africans with Filipinos and White Americans with the English, although I guess they are the same.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Dr. Winters Are the two sitting on the stairs slaves? They appear to have shackles on their ankles.
The group picture could have been taken in the South of The USA. Only difference appear to be the characters replacing Africans with Filipinos and White Americans with the English, although I guess they are the same.
No they were captured fighters against U.S. troops.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: ^^^^^Nobody is saying all OOA populations resemble eachother, but Clyde do you even understand genetics. I am pretty sure you have a hard time understanding genetics, as you proposed a Y-chromosome, and correlated it with an Mtdna marker.
quote: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.
This is called genetics Clyde, this is called OOA Clyde. This proves that Australian and Melanesians are descended from the same group of Africans OOA.
quote: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.
The Aborigines left 60kya. Since then other Blacks evolved in Africa who do not look like the OOA population. As a result you cannot say that contemporary populations and the OOA population are the same.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: ^^^^^Nobody is saying all OOA populations resemble eachother, but Clyde do you even understand genetics. I am pretty sure you have a hard time understanding genetics, as you proposed a Y-chromosome, and correlated it with an Mtdna marker.
quote: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.
This is called genetics Clyde, this is called OOA Clyde. This proves that Australian and Melanesians are descended from the same group of Africans OOA.
quote: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.
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.
.
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.
quote: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.
Lol Clyde, this DOES NOT negate OOA in which Australians and Melanesians are decended from the same group of OOA populations Clyde. Basically what you're telling me Clyde is you're re-writing OOA to suit your own purposes, but then you look at genetics and barely understand it, so you rely on distortion.
quote: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.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde, for the umpteenth thousandth time, here are the ABORIGINAL black Asians that ALL scientists consider the closest living representatives of the ORIGINAL OOA populations in Asia and they ARE BLACK.
AETA Aborigines Philippines
Melanesians
Cambodians
Bushmen
Cambodian
Melanesian
Just from the images above there is NO VISIBLE difference between those Asians and that SAN gentleman you posted.
Don't try and come at me with nonsense Clyde. The simple point is that you have NO IDEA what on earth you are talking about. Just like Marc you are making DUMB STATEMENTS when I am SHOWING you what the original OOA populations of Asia looked like. And the australian aborigines do NOT look like ANY population of African I know of. They have straight and sometimes blond hair and their features are UNLIKE any African I have ever seen. According to YOU and MARC and your 4 year old understanding of anthropology, they MUST have curly hair and look like the San. They don't. So which one is it Clyde, do the ORIGINAL OOA populations have to have curly hair and "true" African features, or do they not. Sounds like to me you are flip flopping again as usual.
What Africans look like this Clyde:
If you admit that the Australians are representative of OOA populations, then why do they not look like any African population Clyde? And if this is OK for australian aborigines, then why ISN'T it true for the OTHER aboriginal groups of Asia that I posted. The same reason the Aborigines of Australia don't look like any African group is the same reason other ASIAN ABORIGINES do not look like any other African group: they are NOT AFRICANS and their features have developed over the thousands of years since they left Africa. This is true for the aborigines of Asia, America and everywhere else. It is THAT diversity in features among the OOA black populations that GAVE RISE to the features found on all humans today.
But some people are to STUPID to see that.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Clyde when will you address the following?
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 Doug M: Clyde, for the umpteenth thousandth time, here are the ABORIGINAL black Asians that ALL scientists consider the closest living representatives of the ORIGINAL OOA populations in Asia and they ARE BLACK.
AETA Aborigines Philippines
Melanesians
Cambodians
Bushmen
Cambodian
Melanesian
Just from the images above there is NO VISIBLE difference between those Asians and that SAN gentleman you posted.
Don't try and come at me with nonsense Clyde. The simple point is that you have NO IDEA what on earth you are talking about. Just like Marc you are making DUMB STATEMENTS when I am SHOWING you what the original OOA populations of Asia looked like. And the australian aborigines do NOT look like ANY population of African I know of. They have straight and sometimes blond hair and their features are UNLIKE any African I have ever seen. According to YOU and MARC and your 4 year old understanding of anthropology, they MUST have curly hair and look like the San. They don't. So which one is it Clyde, do the ORIGINAL OOA populations have to have curly hair and "true" African features, or do they not. Sounds like to me you are flip flopping again as usual.
What Africans look like this Clyde:
If you admit that the Australians are representative of OOA populations, then why do they not look like any African population Clyde? And if this is OK for australian aborigines, then why ISN'T it true for the OTHER aboriginal groups of Asia that I posted. The same reason the Aborigines of Australia don't look like any African group is the same reason other ASIAN ABORIGINES do not look like any other African group: they are NOT AFRICANS and their features have developed over the thousands of years since they left Africa. This is true for the aborigines of Asia, America and everywhere else. It is THAT diversity in features among the OOA black populations that GAVE RISE to the features found on all humans today.
But some people are to STUPID to see that.
Yea Doug. You da Man. What ever you says is right.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Printer-friendly view of this topic