Gene Study Supports Single Bering Strait Migration

Invisible Pink Unicorn writes "One of the most comprehensive analyses of genetic variation ever undertaken supports the theory that the ancestors of modern native peoples throughout the Americas came from a single source in East Asia across a northwest land bridge some 12,000 years ago. One particular discovery is of a 'unique genetic variant widespread in natives across both continents — suggesting that the first humans in the Americas came in a single migration or multiple waves from a single source, not in waves of migrations from different sources.' The full article is available online from PLoS."

Comments

Native?

[Major Blud]

Does this mean that Native Americans really aren't "native"?

Re:Native?

[nharmon]

Perhaps. Though they are still "more native" than the rest of the inhabitants.

Re:Native?

[Joe the Lesser]

Under that reasoning, we are all Africans.

But any reasonable mind knows that the historical definition of 'native American' is one who's family lived there before the 15th century, when some serious immigration issues began.

Re:Native?

[samkass]

Some points:
1. America is named for Amerigo Vespucci, and its earliest use to refer to the continent is in a German map from the very early 1500's. It's pretty certain it's not of Chinese origin.
2. Because of the way the winds blow in the (very large) Pacific Ocean, it's much harder to set up trade routes to the Americas than it is across the Atlantic. I'm not sure I'd credit any particular enlightenment with the reason the Chinese didn't aggressively populate California until after the Spanish.
3. Few can argue that Columbus is the first non-native person to set foot on the Americas since the original migration. There is extensive evidence of both nordic and African sporadic contact. But similar to the argument over whether the Wright brothers were the first to ever lift off the ground in something resembling a plane, it's quite clear that Columbus opened the way for everyone coming after him.
4. The origin of Columbus' maps (which he refers to having in his log books) is a matter of extensive debate. Some say they were nordic, some say Chinese. Lots of theories... but the charts did not survive history, and no one really knows.
5. The exploits of ancient Chinese seafarers, from Zheng He on, is often cited as some kind of precedent to later explorers. In its history China has gone through many cycles of technology and exploration. It's interesting to note that China had invented everything from the printing press to rocketry to large seafaring vessels, but by the time Columbus arrived at the new world they pretty much had lost all of that. Zheng He's flotilla had been long ago disassembled, and the printing press forgotten until Gutenberg re-invented it and re-introduced it to China.

The bottom line, though, is that China appears to have set up no regular trade routes with the rest of the world that survived to Columbus' day. It was left to the Europeans to unite the world in trade and colonization, for better and worse.

Re:Native?

[Belial6]

That is something that most people don't get. It does not have to be bashing of a culture to discuss the attributes that a culture had 500 years ago, that don't match with the ones we have today.

The funny part is that most of the people that would consider it bashing, don't realize that in another 500 years, morals will likely change again, and things that are just taken for granted today, will be considered horrific at that time. We may find the idea that people were allowed to breed out of control even though we have the technology to prevent it. We may find that the idea of people having to trade their time just to get enough to eat to be horrific. Or, we may find that, much like the Indians trading land for beads, we will find it horrific that people could sell and hoard ideas for money. Of course, we might also find it horrific that ANY ideas could be used without someone getting paid for them.

Re:Native?

[sumdumass]

Native: been here a long time.
More native: Been here a longer time than you.

Gotcha, But wouldn't after a period of time, would we be both be beyond a point where it wouldn't/shouldn't matter?

Do you feel threatened when people point out that their ancestors have been here longer than yours, and that your ancestors killed them and stole their land?

No, I'm not threatened by that in the least.

I am however annoyed that people attempt to use it to claim I have some responsibility in the actions of people that was never alive near a time I was. Even the direct decedents were dead before anyone I know or knew was alive. I'm also annoyed that because I am white, I am included in this little hidden racist agenda. My ancestors came across the pond well after the cowboys and indians games were played. They were also late to the entire slavery issue to.

Automatically suggesting that somehow I am at fault or a lesser person because of it is like saying that all muslims are terrorist because they look the same or practice the same religions. And despite the pop-rap hollywood typed culture, not all black people are dumb, drug dealing, thieving, gang banging thugs either.

As for more native, we have come to a point that the stock definition is appropriate for all Americans. It isn't like the whiteman didn't do something that wasn't already happening. They just did it better. At this point, there is no body alive who was here first. They are all dead now.

Re:Native?

[ArcherB]

Wow. Such hatred and bigotry in a single post. You should really pace yourself.

What really makes it sad is that in my community, I am the minority. White people are no longer the majority in many areas of the country.

I was going to leave you alone until I read this last sentence, and it speaks volumes about you. If that makes you sad, I can't possibly imagine the blubbery mess you become when some serious shit hits you, you sad little wanker.

I never said it makes ME sad. You know, I'm sure they offer literacy courses at your local community college. You may want to look into them. Of course, I'm assuming that you CAN'T read. I wouldn't want to insult you by assuming that you were just too lazy to. There is not crime in ignorance, but sloth is a sin. Of course, it is wrong to insult someone based on false information. You just make yourself look not only hateful, but quite foolish.

And since I doubt you can understand my original point, I'll explain it. It is sad when the government, in order to elevate "minorities", mandates breaks to a race of people over the other, especially when the minority race gets the short end of the stick.

but being white does not mean "advantaged"

Depends what country you're in. In the US, that's a big fat yes, if only because whites are the majority.

Ever been to McAllen Texas? How about Laredo or San Antonio? Miami Florida or Ruidoso or Yuma New Mexico? Sorry, but white people are not the majority in these communities.

I don't care how many laws have been passed, or how many times some politician or pundit has stood up and said there is no racism in America, normative ethics and homogeneity will always be there.

Racism is not prejudiced. It affects all peoples, regardless of their race. So yes, there is racism in America and everywhere else in the world. The way to stop it by treating all people equally, blind to their race.

This is, of course, before we even get mired in the way the US has handled its slavery and segregation issues.

And how am I responsible for that? I have never owned a slave. My ancestors never owned a slave. I come from a long line of poor farmers.

If you want to give people a break because they are poor or "less advantaged", then look at their bank statements and their high school's rating and NOT the color of their skin.

What penetrating insight! Shame you stopped digging after only a couple of inches. The way you talk about it, all jobs, schools and neighborhoods are created equal, huh? Thanks for wasting my time with such a shallow and useless argument.

Actually, the argument is not mine. It is from a guy called Martin Luther King Jr. The original goes like this:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Mine is the first generation to graduate from college in my family. My mother worked several jobs to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table. My brother and I both joined the US Army to help pay for school and worked multiple jobs to pay for living expenses. What advantage did my "whiteness" give me?
Could we have used the help? Sure! Was it available? Nope. Even though I have held a job since I was 13, that was not a consideration when it came to college admission. The color of my skin was.

So, quotas suck, got a better idea to help undo hundreds of years of intolerance and abuse?

More intolerance and abuse is not the answer. Two wrongs don't make a right. How about leveling the playing field? How about considering people based on their abilities and their character and stop playing favorites based on race or gender? It was not right when it was done in the '60s and it's not right now.

Al

Re:Native?

[reboot246]

You can't win with these people. Your arguments are good and valid, but slashdot is a not a good place to change hearts and minds.

My family (the white portion) came here in the 1600s, just poor white farmers. The other half of my family, "Native Americans", came here thousands of years before that. Neither is any better or worse than the other. Throughout history there have been injustices perpetrated on every group of every color. We can't remedy what happened to them; we can only make it better from now on. That would be the best way to honor our ancestors.

If we're going to demand reparations for past wrongs no matter how long ago, then Egypt (because I'm also a small part Jewish) and Rome (because I'm Christian) owe me a bunch. :)

Amerigo Vespucci

[Anonymous Coward]

Cartographer, largely regarded as the source of the name "America" from his maps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerigo_Vespucci

Chinese Explorers: Motives?

[handy_vandal]

However, the difference is the Chinese didn't come here to STAY, invade, expurgate, demolish, or hijack an existing, thriving human ecosystem (competitive and warring, true), nor to subject the Natives.

What evidence do we have for these assertions?

Given the scant archaeological evidence -- very interesting evidence, yes, but scant -- how can we say anything more than "Chinese ships arrived at an early date, carrying glass beads" and "some tombstones and obelisks appear to be Chinese" ...?

I submit that these archaeological evidences tell us more or less nothing about Chinese motives. Perhaps the Chinese attempted to conquer the native peoples, and failed. Or, maybe the Chinese were noble non-invasive explorers. No way to tell.

-kgj

Re:If only...

[vux984]

the oceans have been rising since the last ice age, Al Gore forgets that part

No. If you'd actually been paying attention, by looking at the evidence over the last SEVERAL Ice Ages, we have determined that our climate is way outside the norms.

Everyone, even Al Gore, understands that the world gets warmer after an Ice Age then peaks, and then gets cooler as we head into another Ice Age. And everyone gets that we will experience 'global warming' until we peak, and the cycle turns the other way.

The issue here is that the evidence shows that we're FAR FAR beyond where we usually peak between Ice Ages.

Its like gravity and the mantra "Whatever goes up must come down!" And everything we through into the air until the 20th century complied with that rule.

But if you've go up high enough fast enough you don't come back down naturally.

Now at this stage with 'global warming' we don't KNOW we can't come back down naturally, but we don't have any evidence that we will, either. We are NOT within the normal climate parameters for the 'warming periods' between Ice Ages. We are FAR beyond that.

You'd be the guy sitting on Voyager-1 going, "I don't see what all the fuss is about the potential for leaving the solar system never to return. We throw things up, they peak, and then they fall back down! And everything that we have ever launched upwards has always had a stage where it was 'going up'. The people raising this issue forget that part."

Not a theory?

[4D6963]

Excuse me, could someone explain to me how "the theory that the ancestors of modern native peoples throughout the Americas came from a single source in East Asia" is not a theory, as the !atheory tag seems to point out?

Re:Sailing across the Pacific

[mothlos]

No, but it does suggest that the genetic evidence for this was not found in this study. Small genetic populations can easily be lost in a larger population. All this says is that the populations which survive today have markers and appropriate genetic variation to be descendants of descendants of populations in Asia.

This doesn't explain the cultural aspects of how the move occurred or how they were culturally linked to each other and to groups outside of the Americas. This mostly reinforces what was already known: that around 15,000 years ago, there was a dramatic population increase in the Americas starting in the Pacific Northwest and moving down to South America.

This information doesn't say anything about a land bridge or existing populations of people except to say that if there were existing populations that their genetics didn't survive to modern times in significant amounts which is suggestive of small populations which did not integrate into the new-coming population; if they existed at all.

Re:Vikings

[Eternauta3k]

English, motherfucker. Do you speak it? Your point agrees with his.

Re:If only...

[E 99]

No. If you'd actually been paying attention, by looking at the evidence over the last SEVERAL Ice Ages, we have determined that our climate is way outside the norms. ...
The issue here is that the evidence shows that we're FAR FAR beyond where we usually peak between Ice Ages.

That is totally wrong. Even the IPCC report correctly state that the peak temperature during the last interglacial was significantly higher than present temperatures. (It blames a difference in orbital factors, which is unfounded.) There is nothing climatic that is outside the normas at all, certainly not temperature. The only thing that is outside the norms is CO2 concentration.

Re:Mormon's story of how the America's were popula

[dwye]

This totally ruin's their theory that ships came across from northern Africa to South America. Sort of blows all sorts of holes in their religion.

That was just one small population, not all "native" Americans. IIRC, that group eventually was killed off, as well.

Re:Don't paint an entire continent with one brush

[umbra_dweller]

I researched this matter a bit for a native american history class I had. Frankly, there are a lot of differences between our system and theirs. Their system was a loose confederacy of independent tribes/states, closer to the U.S. under the articles of confederation than to the U.S. since the constitution. The more interesting evidence is in the letters and dialogues among intellectuals at the time -
1. in America there were frequent meetings between Iroquois and colonial representatives, as they were a strong political force at the time, and people such as Franklin and Jefferson conversed about the confederacy with interest.
2. At one such meeting in 1744 an Iroquois representative named Canassantego suggested that the colonies should join into a confederacy. as one source quoted him - "We heartily recommend union...between you your brethren...We [The Iroquois] are a powerful confederacy; and, by your observing the same methods our wise forefathers have taken, you will acquire fresh strength and power."
3. Several european intellectuals wrote and pondered on the government of the Iroquois, and offered them up as proof that democratic societies could work.

I personally don't think it is fair to say that we "got the idea of a republic" from the Iroquois, because ultimately we modeled our system after European theories and examples. However I do think having a functioning republic on the border of the colonies might have served as a source of inspiration because it took abstract and academic European theory and made it into something tangible for the colonists.

This Assumes the Survivors are Representative...

[rtrifts]

This study may well be entirely supported and its sample group representative. I have no expertise in this matter at all.

That disclaimer aside, there is a chance that this study's base assumption belies a fatal flaw. The exact percentage of Indigenous peoples to the Americas that survived the epidemics unleashed upon them by the Early Europeans is unknown. The percentage of the survivors may be lower than 10% of the general population after 1492 than existed before that time.

Testing a population after a **massive** cull brought on by an epidemic centuries ago is a very slippery genetic slope.

By way of a poor analogy, Cystic fibrosis is a mutation traceable to Scandanavia in the middle ages where the mutation - as horrible as its longterm effects may be - played a significant role in the carriers of the mutation having a genetic advantage to survive infection by bubonic plague. What means miserable death now meant life, then.

If (and that's a BIG if) the genetic marker they are tracing played a role in the survival of the current population from the epidemic unleashed upon them by the Europeans (believed to be primarily small pox) then what is being studied as a representative sample of an entire population may, in fact, be an isolated view of a trait that the survivors of the smallpox epidemic all shared. As a consequence, this result may have nothing to do with the vastly larger genetic base of the those who died and the migration patterns THEIR genes would have shown.

We simply don't know. I suppose that DNA samples from those frozen Mayan children (whose genes were not selected in any way by epidemiology) could be illuminating on this issue.

If you are, in fact, examining a control group, but believe that biased control group to be a representative sample of a much larger general population, your data may well be fatally flawed.