Skip to comments.
Did Australian Aborigines reach America first?
Cosmo Online ^
| 30 Sep 2010
| Jacqui Hayes
Posted on 09/30/2010 2:04:50 PM PDT by Palter
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
To: Palter
21
posted on
09/30/2010 3:32:04 PM PDT
by
muir_redwoods
(Obama. Chauncey Gardiner without the homburg.)
This is a blank form to fill in for genealogy, laboriously handcrafted by yours truly. The leftmost column is for your great-great-great-great-grandparents. There were 64 of them (give or take any cousin marriages within that span of seven generations; I've never found any, and have a reasonable expectation that the currently unknown spaces on my own tree are not duplicated in a seven-gen span).
As each of us (well, most of us) have 46 chromosomes -- 23 from each side --
at least 18 of the gggggrandparents contributed no chromosomes to my genetic constitution. That doesn't mean that they aren't my ancestors.
ggggGrand |
gggGrand |
ggGrand |
gGrand |
Grand |
parents |
YOU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22
posted on
09/30/2010 6:16:16 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(Democratic Underground... matters are worse, as their latest fund drive has come up short...)
To: Palter; muawiyah; StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; 1010RD; 21twelve; 24Karet; ...
23
posted on
09/30/2010 6:20:45 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(Democratic Underground... matters are worse, as their latest fund drive has come up short...)
To: SunkenCiv
Ah, fun with tables. That would drive me crazy!
24
posted on
09/30/2010 6:27:03 PM PDT
by
rdl6989
(January 20, 2013- The end of an error.)
To: SunkenCiv
I’d like to buy a vowel. j/k =)
To: SunkenCiv
Since most of our ancestors lived tribally or in small villages, and usually didn't go far for brides, those Great and ever so Greats should start showing up within 4 or 5 generations ~ I know ALL of mine do!
Bwahahahahahaha!
(except for some of the women ~ they get passed on to other families)
26
posted on
09/30/2010 7:05:14 PM PDT
by
muawiyah
("GIT OUT THE WAY" The Republicans are coming)
To: blam
27
posted on
09/30/2010 7:10:00 PM PDT
by
Tainan
(Cogito, ergo conservatus)
To: Palter
The original population just sort of "died out", accidentally, and their dying off has absolutely nothing to do with the arrival of the people from Northern Asia because humans never have anything to do with mass extinctions. They just sort of happy by themselves, coincidentally, just as humans show up.
To: muawiyah
Yet, the Eastern Europeans have no more ancestors from East Asian than do Western Europeans! Ever hear of the Huns?
To: Palter; SunkenCiv
Uh-huh. The currents down that-a-way run from east to west, so let's try this on: The Aborigines came from South America, and those 11,000 year old skeletons are representatives of the last remnants of the Aborigine's New World ancestors.
They need to dig deeper, but the boys with the shovels are loathe to do that, because they have convinced themselves there isn't anything down there except dirt & rocks.
The only thing that is certain is that the taxonomists really screwed up our specie's designation. It should be Homo Meanderingcuss, because that is the one thing we have always done: meander all over the place; stop and maul a locality for a while, then move elsewhere, where the mooching is easier.
30
posted on
09/30/2010 11:09:43 PM PDT
by
ApplegateRanch
(Made in America, by proud American citizens, in 1946.)
To: muawiyah
The fundamental problem of cranial analysis is that there are NO genes focused exclusively on cranial shape.
There are changes through time that literally mean nothing ~ You trying to say that the Science of Phrenology is a crock of corky cranberries? ;-)
31
posted on
09/30/2010 11:15:32 PM PDT
by
ApplegateRanch
(Made in America, by proud American citizens, in 1946.)
To: ApplegateRanch
32
posted on
10/01/2010 12:13:52 AM PDT
by
Palter
(If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it. ~ Mark Twain)
To: muawiyah
Are you doubting the science of phrenology?
33
posted on
10/01/2010 3:35:49 AM PDT
by
1010RD
(First Do No Harm)
To: Question_Assumptions
They may designate them central Asians.
But it is a weird thing to say. Especially when obvious visually.
To: muawiyah
Round-headed vs long-headed is just one of the ways skull shapes are measured, as I'm sure you know. A great book, and one that I've had since high school is Early Man in the New World (1962) by Macgowan and Hester. They mention several South American skulls which had keeled vaults and/or heavy brow ridges - features that are largely lacking in Asian populations.
It's a fascinating subject and one that I wish had pursued. It's certainly been my main area of interest all my life.
35
posted on
10/01/2010 8:13:18 AM PDT
by
ComputerGuy
(HM2/USN M/3/3 Marines RVN '66-'67)
To: Question_Assumptions
Yeah, I've heard of the Huns. Now, have you heard of the Ice Age?
East Asian migration to Europe made a full 5% impact on ALL European populations. With small populations, the migration of a few mighty hunters, or the importation of a beautiful woman could have a massive impact.
The Huns added a very negligible amount ~ same for the Mongols, etc.
36
posted on
10/01/2010 8:25:08 AM PDT
by
muawiyah
("GIT OUT THE WAY" The Republicans are coming)
To: ApplegateRanch
No, I didn't say that since there are multiple genes working together that can adjust facial identification points so that you look like your father.
But turning a long head into a round head appears to be beyond any identifiable genetic control.
37
posted on
10/01/2010 8:30:32 AM PDT
by
muawiyah
("GIT OUT THE WAY" The Republicans are coming)
To: Palter
Topper Site was just exactly what I had in mind. Have to love the last of the Wiki article, which corroborates what I said:
Until the recent challenges to the Clovis theory, it was unusual for archaeologists to dig deeper than the layer of the Clovis culture, on the grounds that no human artifacts would be found older than Clovis.We won't dig, because we won't find anything, because we believe there is nothing to find, so there is no reason to dig to try to find what we don't believe exists....
Same thing with the centuries of 'no pre-Columbus New World visitation' on the part of historians.
38
posted on
10/01/2010 12:54:31 PM PDT
by
ApplegateRanch
(Made in America, by proud American citizens, in 1946.)
To: max americana
But only Columbus actually made it count.
39
posted on
10/01/2010 1:37:58 PM PDT
by
chesley
(Eat what you want, and die like a man.)
To: muawiyah
The B blood type, the most common in China for example, is more prevalent in Poland than Germany, France, or Britain and much more prevalent in Hungary than any of those suggesting stronger Asian ties. Look also, for example, at the distributions of
haplogroup C3 as well as N, P, and Q.
And while it's true that a small migration can leave a larger genetic footprint on a small population, a relatively small group of military conquerers can leave a fairly large genetic footprint. A team of geneticists claim that 1 in 12 men in Asia carry a Y chromosome mutation that originated in Mongolia 1,000 years ago, the legacy of Genghis Khan's conquests.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson