Slashdot Mirror
Australian Aboriginal DNA Suggests 70,000-Year History
brindafella writes with a link to an abstract at the journal Science that says "Scientists have obtained a DNA genomic sequence from a 100-year-old, voluntarily donated hair sample from a full-blood Australian Aboriginal man. [Analysis of the hair] shows 'Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians 25,000 to 38,000 years ago. ... [Their] findings support the hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the oldest continuous populations outside Africa.' A news story gives more detail."
out of africa!
I sent this post over to some Creation Scientists and they corrected the obvious errors. Here's their story:
'Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 6,000 to 6,000 years ago. This dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians 6,000 to 6,000 years ago'
It's interesting that 75ky is not enough time for a species to diverge into incompatible branches; successful mating between individuals from these branches creates perfectly normal offspring.
I wonder what would have happened if the above was not true; probably even worse extermination, just like the bushmeat thing in Africa.
60,000-75,000 years is well before when many anthropologists believe we started using language and symbolic thought. Either they're wrong, or these developments were made independently across different isolated populations.
those guys got to see jumping dinosaurs, that must have been awesome!
lucm, indeed.
Great! Now if us Australians can stop treating them like second class citizens...
I write professional videogame reviews! http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/
Yeah, they had much more intermarriage with the Neanderthals and Denisovans than the rest of us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon
Given the fact in the article, shouldn't we conclude the Australian aboriginals are, for instance, neanderthals by origin?
Why is it that the populations of humanity with the earliest head start (in terms of population establishment) ended up as the most primitive? I'm looking at you, Africa and now apparently Australia. This is absolutely not politically correct, but I'm sure you can agree that the Bantu and Aboriginal cultures shy in comparison to... well everyone else, who are at least capable of conquering their environment.
There's been a lot of recent news that modern humans in Europe and Asia interbred with Neandertals after they left Africa enough to show up in modern human genes (and some Asians interbred with other pre-modern humans over there), but that Africans who stayed in Africa didn't.
So did these genetic studies look for Neandertal markers, and if so, what did they find?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I hope you get a particularly slow painful and incurable cancer.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Those features are at best described as pseudo-archaic, and Australian natives are certainly not the only ones to possess the heavier brows, and by no means are they as pronounced as they are in Neandertals, and what's more in most other respects, Aborigine skull structure is within the general confines of Modern skulls.
Boy, there's a lot of pure rubbish by some incredibly ignorant fucktards being posted tonight.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What is 100 years old? The Aborigine? the hair sample?
The scientists were given a DNA genomic sequence from a 100-year-old...?
The simple fact is that human evolution and that of our near relatives is a science that is undergoing rapid development. A lot of changes are bound to occur as new evidence forces a rethink of existing theory. That is good, stick to the same theory for to long and you are no better then a religious person.
There are skeletons being discovered all the time that shows the old theories to be hopelessly wrong with a high probability that humans are not only much older but more cross linked then we thought.
A recent discovery showed what might be a mother son pair who had features that should belong to more modern man but the bones are older then the neanderthal. Where the hell do they fit on the old timeline? A seperate species?
As for your claims about cave art, well, the above pair was found only because what was once a closed cave (it is believed they somehow fell in and drowned) became exposed by erosion. But in reverse, how many open caves back then have become exposed? Or maybe people didn't like to draw in caves for a period of time. Or they didn't live on caves and carved on wood instead?
To many unknowns, the theory of human evolution itself is evolving and so far we are getting older and older and more complex all the time.
But if evolution is true, saying we had symbolic thought 50.000 years ago is bull, we would have evolved over time, SLOWLY getting better and better at it. And then only some individuals of the species who passed on their genes. Believing intelligence just burst on the scene and all of a sudden everyone was smart that is creationist thinking.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I'm not an evolutionary scientist but based on my understanding, the lines between different species aren't drawn at which ones can't mate with each other but rather at which ones don't mate with each other when interacting in natural environment. For example, I remember reading about a species of birds that are currently in the process of diverging: There are two major color patterns and the birds of each have began treating members of the other color pattern as members of a different species (chasing them away during nesting seasons, etc.).
If that's the case, it could well be argued that humans already evolved into incompatible species: Many cultures all around the world used to consider people from other ethnic groups as lesser humans and certainly something that no respectable human should mate with. I would be willing to bet that 17th century Europeans or Africans, when seeing an Aborginal, would not have stated "Ah, there is my fellow human!".
Of course, then came the age of enlightenment and humans decided "Wait a minute. We could try not basing our world views on our first instincts and what 'feels' right or wrong. While we're at it, we could dismiss the notion that just because someone is weaker or different, they should be shunned!". At that point, we effectively distanced ourselves from the kind of evolution and survival of the fittest that animals go through and chose to define humanity ourselves. We still have natural selection but for the most part, we define the criteria ourselves (i.e., we make conscious decisions such as "that man's verbal skills mean more to me than his tendency for certain genetic illnesses").
This thing - observing where natural evolution took us and saying "No, this will not do" - is IMHO the greatest accomplishment that humans have achieved. It's what, in the 18th century, made humans special instead of just being crafty animals. Of course, some people (usually fans of "Idiocracy") see this progress as undesirable and desperately hope that we would return to a state where humanity in itself held little value and those with highest chances of survival (be that due to intelligence or physical prowess) were the most desirable partners.
There is. What you wrote just there, would qualify. Well done. Nice language too. Must have taken a lot of thought. And you wrote it at 3:23am. Not really 'night' so much as morning is it?
Many aboriginals have VERY pronounced eyebrows, and one 'might' argue (as everyone is guessing including scientists) that they are far more closely related to Neanderthals then for example, European white people. Interestingly, they recently announced black Africans are not related and have no neanderthal DNA.
I find it all very interesting, and do not claim to be an anthropologist.
As science uncovers more layers, it realises it actually knows less and what it thought it knew was wrong.
This is supposed to be a site requiring a reasonable level of intellect, and your response to my remark is abuse a foul language, reply however you like, you are obviously not a very bright individual.
And you wrote it at 3:23am. Not really 'night' so much as morning is it?
Welcome to the concept of "time zones"
This is supposed to be a site requiring a reasonable level of intellect
By your standards, maybe, but that's not saying much.
How's this for a worse alternative theory: he's fully aware of reality but thinks he needs to pander to fundamentalists.
No, sorry, that's not worse. At least it would mean he's rational. A lying politician, like all of them, but rational.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
To get (somewhat) back on topic, is this a form of genetic degeneration due to lack of selective forces?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Watching this year's Republican debates makes me feel like we're living in the world of the Starship Troopers movie. Crowds cheering at things like the count of convicts put to death in Texas...what disgusting savagery.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Fascinating. So assuming they migrated to Australia 50,000 years or so ago, HOW did they get there? What kind of technology could they have used? Did they build rafts or boats and sail across the Indian Ocean? Once upon a time were they a maritime culture, that turned their back on the sea as the moved inland? Are there any discoveries ready to be found on beaches in the north east of Australia (cave paintings and the like) showing pictures or sharks, whales, rafts, or sails)?
against any bet that presupposes 'people 200 years ago were stupid! not like us smarties! with our holocaust and gulags and labor camps,,, look how tolerant we are!'
To think they survived so long without Centrelink or welfare. I'd like to see a race of boongas survive that long now days!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
If it was 70,000 years ago, Toba drove them to leave ...
-Stuart Fischbach
What stood out to me was that they found about 5% Denisovan DNA. The latter being an early human that evolved independently from Homo erectus. This genome can also be found in some other Asian aboriginal populations but not modern day dominating populations such as the Han Chinese.
This supports the theory of an early first migration wave out of Africa into Asia about 70,000 years ago that then encountered Denisovans and interbred. Thus there are two implications: Denisovan probably settled far further south than Siberia (were the original fragment was found). And they were no longer around when a second wave of modern humans arrived in Asia some ten thousand years later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
I've seen several observations that point to a common lineage for humans that goes back to only a few handful of mating pairs in Africa around 70k years ago. Probably explains why there is only a single species of human at this point in time.
Why this might be the case is still undecided but a catastrophe on a global scale seems plausible.
I don't have a Science subscription. Nature gives open access to human genome papers but unfortunately Science does not.
In a world where we actually hold televised events to find out who's the "baby's daddy", it's kind of cool that people can still trace back their linage like this.
...see 50,000 Years of Nativism Down Under at iSteve...
Out of Africa onward to Wallacea and The Australian Aborigines may not be just descendants of first settlers at Razib Khan's GNXP.
About the same as everyone else, including you.
Everyone outside of Africa is descended from the dispersal out of Africa around 70,000 years ago.
The oldest aboriginal remains and artifacts in Australia date from around 40,000 years ago in Victoria. So we know that the Aborigines had arrived and spread across the continent by then. Looking at sea levels and signs of human habitation in Eastern Asia the current theory is that people left Asia some time around 50,000 years ago and moved into Australia. It was always held that Aborigines predate the later migrations into Asia of between 25-38,000 years ago.
There have been claims that Aborigines are much older 60,000 years and radical academics have long tried to claim there were inhabitants of Australia for up to 120,000 to 150,000 due to land use changes and dodgie thorium dating based on the Chinese theory that Asians are a separate race descended directly from Homo errectus. That has all been proved false and the agreed oldest dated evidence is 40k +/- 3k years ago.
What is new about this paper is that the individual is claimed not to have interbred with other populations since 62-74,000 years ago, so did not come from the population that was in Asia 50,000 years ago. Either his ancestors crossed into Australia 12-24k years earlier that we currently believe, and have archaeology for, or they were descended from a population from the first migration into Eastern Asia that remained isolated somewhere, e.g. an island like Flores, and whose descendants then moved into Australia.
This is of course one study of 100 year old reconstructed DNA. But DNA technology and data is improving all the time and it will be interesting to see how it develops. The Aboriginies do share some physical characteristics with the Clovis people, believed to be the first migration in the Americas before later migrations from Asia.
Unalienable rights are self-evident. How many Louis Armstrongs existed before slavery ended? Remember that the reason for the economic collapse was (white?) Wall Street traders making $2 billion bets against the toxic assets they sold you while telling you "it's okay, we have a $6 million stake in it too!"
Contrast the Dayaks of Borneo, of whom Kropotkin writes in Chapter 3 of Mutual Aid :
Consider also that money is kept artificially scarce by bankers who fear they can't get attention otherwise.
The oldest bones found in Australia share no genetic markers with ancient or modern aboriginals. If anything that are closer to 'Asian' Indians.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2001/01/01/2813404.htm
So either they died out and the aboriginals were second or the aboriginals killed them. Either way the aboriginals have little claim to being first as un-PC as that is. No wonder they insisted on having a key to the remains... after all... you don't want people running around with evidence that your not the sacred guardians of Australia. Although the willingness to sell land to mining companies would suggest you don't see it as particularly sacred anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Mungo_remains
On another note foxes are closer to felines... and could not produce offspring with dogs or wolves.
Given that mount Toba nearly wiped out all humans 74,000 years ago it is interesting that a single group would go that far back. With only 5,000 to 10,000 humans to survive in total world wide it is very interesting indeed. Did they become refugees to Australia from SE Asia and then become isolated for the next 60k+ years. Cool stuff.
The science MUST be flawed. Every bible thumper knows the earth is only 6000 years old! LOL
It occurs to me that since there is firm evidence of repeated repeated near extinction level events occuring to the earth (variously attributed to polar shifts, sunspots etc.. occuring in cycles of anywhere fron 3600, 6500, ort 16000 years (take your pick), that Australia has repeatedly ridden them out.. it may well be the safest place on earth then ( if you believe in such things.. which I do due to the incontestable geological evidence)
There is evidence in the DNA record of some regional tribes of Australian Aborigines that there was interbreeding with:
* Malacca / Macassa (modern day Indonesian) fishermen who frequented the fishing grounds of the north-west of the continent from probably by the mid-1,500s and arguably earlier;
* Portuguese discovery of the Australian landmass in the early 1500s, and contact of Portuguese sailors stranded by ship-wreck from the early 1,600s with local tribes;
* disputed but arguable Portuguese 'discovery' of the east coast of Australia, including ship wrecks and habitation, and contact with Aborigines in various areas;
* documented contact between early British settlers and Aborigines in eastern Australia, after 1788 into the late 1800s, included many 'tolerated' inter-marriages due to the lack of suitable female partners in the early convict/colonial days.
Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.
Descendents of... ie. they arrived later and interbred with the earlier inhabitants who had been there that long.
I has already been established that "Mungo Man", the source of the much-touted "50,000 years" or Aborigine habitation, is morphologically distinct from the current line of Aboriginals; ie, they're not directly related, and the current race of Aboriginals are not the 'original' inhabitants.