On most Pacific Islands you find two diverse populations the Australoid people usually live in the highlands thy have the broad brow ridges. The Melanoid/African people live in the lowlands.
Here is what you describe as "Melanoid/African people live in the lowlands" They still have the prominent brow ridges
And genetically, as with modern white Europeans, haplogroup frequency percentage levels they have, mtDNA and Y in common with Africans are minimal
Posts: 42978 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
On most Pacific Islands you find two diverse populations the Australoid people usually live in the highlands thy have the broad brow ridges. The Melanoid/African people live in the lowlands.
Here is what you describe as "Melanoid/African people live in the lowlands" They still have the prominent brow ridges
And genetically, as with modern white Europeans, haplogroup frequency percentage levels they have, mtDNA and Y in common with Africans are minimal
Above is an Austroloid who probably lives in the highlands. Below is a low land Melenesian
The prehistory of Vanuatu is obscure; archaeological evidence supports the theory that people speaking Austronesian languages first came to the islands some 4,000 years ago. Pottery fragments have been found dating back to 1300 BC
Posts: 42978 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Genetic evidence for the colonization of Australia
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), Y-chromosome and, more recently, genome studies from living people have produced powerful evidence for the dispersal of modern human populations. The prevailing model of global dispersion assumes an African origin in which Australia and the American continents represent some of the extreme regions of human migration, though the relative timing of dispersal events remains debatable. Here, a focus on Australia and New Guinea discusses currently available genetic evidence from the two regions, compared with that from Asia. Mt haplotypes indicate ancient ancestry for both Australia and New Guinea peoples, with evidence of some shared genetic connection and other unshared haplogroups apparently specific to both places. Migration into Sahul from south-east Asia may have been by more complex routes than only along a ‘southern coastal route’, raising the question of possible common ancestry in central or northern Asia for some Australian and American peoples for which current genetic evidence is tenuous. Although current dating methods for genetic diversity rely heavily on several assumptions, best estimates provide support for archaeological dates, indicating that, relative to the colonization of America, Australia was inhabited very early. Genetic diversity of living descendants of Australia’s founding populations is informative for dispersal within Australia and for understanding complex population histories of Asia.
On most Pacific Islands you find two diverse populations the Australoid people usually live in the highlands thy have the broad brow ridges. The Melanoid/African people live in the lowlands.
Here is what you describe as "Melanoid/African people live in the lowlands" They still have the prominent brow ridges
And genetically, as with modern white Europeans, haplogroup frequency percentage levels they have, mtDNA and Y in common with Africans are minimal
Above is an Austroloid who probably lives in the highlands. Below is a low land Melenesian
Then Keita's remark on highland Melanisians like this who look somewhat African neing an example of polytopicity is true
Posts: 42978 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: Volume 285, 8 February 2013, Pages 44–56
Genetic evidence for the colonization of Australia
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), Y-chromosome and, more recently, genome studies from living people have produced powerful evidence for the dispersal of modern human populations. The prevailing model of global dispersion assumes an African origin in which Australia and the American continents represent some of the extreme regions of human migration, though the relative timing of dispersal events remains debatable. Here, a focus on Australia and New Guinea discusses currently available genetic evidence from the two regions, compared with that from Asia. Mt haplotypes indicate ancient ancestry for both Australia and New Guinea peoples, with evidence of some shared genetic connection and other unshared haplogroups apparently specific to both places. Migration into Sahul from south-east Asia may have been by more complex routes than only along a ‘southern coastal route’, raising the question of possible common ancestry in central or northern Asia for some Australian and American peoples for which current genetic evidence is tenuous. Although current dating methods for genetic diversity rely heavily on several assumptions, best estimates provide support for archaeological dates, indicating that, relative to the colonization of America, Australia was inhabited very early. Genetic diversity of living descendants of Australia’s founding populations is informative for dispersal within Australia and for understanding complex population histories of Asia.
This is a good paper but it leads to more questions than conclusions. I was surprised that they can not really determine the y-chromosome of the ancient Australians because of the European "rape" (my interpretation) of Australian women.
The major problem with these papers is they attempt to imply that the Melanesians and Australians probably settled the Pacific around the same time--but the data clearly shows that the Melanesians are related to the expansion of the Lapita culture.
is a good article about the Melanesians and the Lapita culture. It amazes me that the archaeology indicates a recent expansion of the Melanesians, yet these researchers want to make the Melanesians a prehistoric population.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
On most Pacific Islands you find two diverse populations the Australoid people usually live in the highlands thy have the broad brow ridges. The Melanoid/African people live in the lowlands.
Here is what you describe as "Melanoid/African people live in the lowlands" They still have the prominent brow ridges
And genetically, as with modern white Europeans, haplogroup frequency percentage levels they have, mtDNA and Y in common with Africans are minimal
Above is an Austroloid who probably lives in the highlands. Below is a low land Melenesian
Then Keita's remark on highland Melanisians like this who look somewhat African neing an example of polytopicity is true
.
.
I talked about the highlanders being Australoid not Keita. I said that because he didn't know about Melanesians he couldn't use them as a example of polytopicity. Also , this Australoid person does not indicate polytopicity, because the Australoid people were pushed into the highlands by the Melanesians spreading the Lapita culture. See:
It is interesting that the Melanesians carry many genes that Dravidians carry. See: Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith. (2015). Ancient DNA and the human settlement of the Pacific: A review. Journal of Human Evolution, 79 : 93–104 . http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248414002632
This is not surprising because the South Indian Dravidians and Melanesians share the same West African places names and and culture terms.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I have never read Keita, so I had no idea what an Ass he was.
that's OK mate. The man Keita doesn't have any idea what an idiot YOU are. ha, ha, ha
Posts: 27 | From: Birmingham's Black Country | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |