NEGRITOS OF S.E ASIA

[brownbomber]

220px-Great_Andamanese_couple.jpg (15.1 KiB) Viewed 1644 times

Being among the least-known of all living human groups, the origins of the Negrito people is a much debated topic. The Malay term for them is orang asli, or original people. They are likely descendants of the indigenous Australoid populations of the Sunda landmass and New Guinea, predating the Austronesian Mongoloid peoples who later entered Southeast Asia. [5] Alternatively, some scientists claim they are merely a group of Australo -Melanesians who have undergone island dwarfing over thousands of years, reducing their food intake in order to cope with limited resources and adapt to a tropical rainforest environment. Anthropologist Jared Diamond in his bestselling book, Guns, Germs, and Steel suggests that the Negritos are possible ancestors of the Aboriginal Australians and Papuans of New Guinea, groups regarded as Australoid. A number of features would seem to suggest a common origin for the Negritos and African pygmies, especially in the Andamanese Islanders who have been isolated from incoming waves of Asiatic and Indo-Aryan peoples. No other living human population has experienced such long-lasting isolation from contact with other groups. [6] These features include short stature, very dark skin, woolly hair, scant body hair and occasional steatopygia . The claim that Andamanese pygmoids more closely resemble Africans than Asians in their cranial morphology in a 1973 study added some weight to this theory before genetic studies pointed to a closer relationship with Asians. [6] Other more recent studies have shown closer craniometric affinities to Egyptians and Europeans than to Sub Saharan populations such as that of African Pygmies. Walter Neves' study of the Lagoa Santa people had the incidental correlation of showing Andamanese as classifying closer to Egyptians and Europeans than any Sub Saharan population.

[moblife216]

Yeah I was talking about them in another thread, whites go to far to disclaim something so obvious to
the naked...Our brothers in Africa left nest early...We spread to all 4 corners first...we the first to do it all
That's why the Yankees hate us so much...they envy are place in gods creation!!!

[regpoc1]

Niggers to stupid to be in Asia

[freddiefourfingers]

negritos,
veddoids,
semangs,
ati,
etc..

many bio anthropologists don't normally categorize them as black, though.
oddly enough, the same is true for kung San groups and for pygmies!

[freddiefourfingers]

and those groups actually still live in africa!

[sonofmongol]

u again and ur afrocentric bullshit the negritos are genetically closer to east asians than black africans u getting ur info from wiki wiki is the most unreliable source ever austronesian is a linguistic group for southeast asians and pacific asians/islander just like germanic is a lingustic family for indo european countries and the word mongoloid is outdated and is considered offensive

[sonofmongol]

negritos,
veddoids,
semangs,
ati,
etc..

many bio anthropologists don't normally categorize them as black, though.
oddly enough, the same is true for kung San groups and for pygmies!

cause they aint black... they are genetically closer if not the same as other east asians

[sonofmongol]

Niggers to stupid to be in Asia

[sonofmongol]

Yeah I was talking about them in another thread, whites go to far to disclaim something so obvious to
the naked...Our brothers in Africa left nest early...We spread to all 4 corners first...we the first to do it all
That's why the Yankees hate us so much...they envy are place in gods creation!!!

they aint ur brothers... they aint even genetically close to any black africans... tell that to the DNA, haplogroup scientists and anthropologist all over the world not just americans...

[White Boy]

We can all agree that the original "humans" were more than likely black due to where we started. Every species that looses it's fur must develop dark skin to survive in hot sunny climates (all skin under fur is white, in all living things even the original primates humans evolved from).

But, original does not mean better. Evolution usually means becoming better to survive in your surroundings. So if white skin emerged again, be assured its an advancement. Like the PS went to PS2 and on to PS3.

[sonofmongol]

We can all agree that the original "humans" were more than likely black due to where we started. Every species that looses it's fur must develop dark skin to survive in hot sunny climates (all skin under fur is white, in all living things even the original primates humans evolved from).

But, original does not mean better. Evolution usually means becoming better to survive in your surroundings. So if white skin emerged again, be assured its an advancement. Like the PS went to PS2 and on to PS3.

black as in dark skin not the same people as black africans... just like the homo erectus were dark skin but not black africans since black africans didnt even exist yet... and scientists are now saying that life is said to have started in the middle east aka west asia not the africa theory...

[kontraband]

We can all agree that the original "humans" were more than likely black due to where we started. Every species that looses it's fur must develop dark skin to survive in hot sunny climates (all skin under fur is white, in all living things even the original primates humans evolved from).

But, original does not mean better. Evolution usually means becoming better to survive in your surroundings. So if white skin emerged again, be assured its an advancement. Like the PS went to PS2 and on to PS3.

MORE LIKE REGENERATIVE AND DEFECTIVE!

[kontraband]

Niggers to stupid to be in Asia

TROLL!

[RyanTheLosAngelesKid]

good post tho

[freddiefourfingers]

black as in dark skin not the same people as black africans... just like the homo erectus were dark skin but not black africans since black africans didnt even exist yet... and scientists are now saying that life is said to have started in the middle east aka west asia not the africa theory...

-white boy's comment was a bait move.. so don't even bother..

secondly, there's always been some minority cooperation on pushing the idea that humanity may have arisen outside of africa. or even in multiple places.

but rest assured, thats still not the prevailing wisdom.
most roads, still lead to east africa..
the area near Kenya. Somalia. Eritrea. All that.

[freddiefourfingers]

@son of mongol..

one more thing about the racial categorizations of these-- weird people.
pygmies and Khoisan speakers are also not unilaterally believed to be black either!!
though they clearly live well within africa.
look just like the rest of us blacks (far as complexion and hair).
but most will tell you, that are anything BUT black!

african populations is really diverse in terms of genetics.
so its hard to find one solid group and still to it, without expanding the margin of error.

i aint an anthropologist, but i'm currently siding with the theory on the negritos, being part of the ancient migratory waves that seeded australia and papau new guinea. one of the original (or close to original) groups of peoples that populated south asia before the chinese came and kicked everybody the fuck out!

those people, now inhabiting thailand, taiwan, laos, indonesia, the wastelands of north west and west china even!

[sonofmongol]

black as in dark skin not the same people as black africans... just like the homo erectus were dark skin but not black africans since black africans didnt even exist yet... and scientists are now saying that life is said to have started in the middle east aka west asia not the africa theory...

-white boy's comment was a bait move.. so don't even bother..

secondly, there's always been some minority cooperation on pushing the idea that humanity may have arisen outside of africa. or even in multiple places.

but rest assured, thats still not the prevailing wisdom.
most roads, still lead to east africa..
the area near Kenya. Somalia. Eritrea. All that.

u right about life beginning in multiple places scientists talked about that as well

and all those countries u named in east africa is right next to west asia... and also if life did start in east africa they arent the same people as the peoples today they were primitive and still "evolving" if u believe in evolution... so the changing point where they start turning into humans is when it should count... and by that point they arent in east africa no more...

[sonofmongol]

@son of mongol..

one more thing about the racial categorizations of these-- weird people.
pygmies and Khoisan speakers are also not unilaterally believed to be black either!!
though they clearly live well within africa.
look just like the rest of us blacks (far as complexion and hair).
but most will tell you, that are anything BUT black!

african populations is really diverse in terms of genetics.
so its hard to find one solid group and still to it, without expanding the margin of error.

i aint an anthropologist, but i'm currently siding with the theory on the negritos, being part of the ancient migratory waves that seeded australia and papau new guinea. one of the original (or close to original) groups of peoples that populated south asia before the chinese came and kicked everybody the fuck out!

those people, now inhabiting thailand, taiwan, laos, indonesia, the wastelands of north west and west china even!

yea... but just because they are in africa dont mean they are the same genetically... just like how indians and chinese are both in asia but they are totally different genetically they are just the same geographically same goes for the moroccans and eygptians of north africa they arent the same as the sub saharan blacks the african populations is diverse as so the asian populations...

i dont really believe in the ancient migrations i really just think people began in different parts of the world and if they did migrated there... then where did the chinese come from? where did they migrate from then?

anyways the negritos do still exist but not in taiwan those are the aboriginals and they are just the first chinese there... or ancient chinese... but thanks to the papuans(melanesian people) mixing with the chinese we now have polynesian and micronesian people

[brownbomber]

@ mongol... mongoloid is outdated term so is negroid race is an outdated term its all superficial, black is a skin color not race...like da khoishan is classified as capoids, da west africans,bantu's can't remember da other tribe of south africa, da khoi khoi r da original nhabitants of south africa...Da Negritos ancestors left Africa 50,000 yrs ago so I wouldn't xpevt their dna 2 perfectly match sum1 who never left AFRICA..Da Negritos r more closely related 2 da Australoids n da pa pauns of New Guinea.Now if u want 2 say dat their r not african I sgree, but their r black,theyall carry da genetics 4 darkskin which originated n africa..dats jus like black ppl n america 10,000 yrs from now they'll b sayn dat we wasn't black we was americanoids n where @ u talkn about n da Middle East oman da Nubian complex, cuz I've looked n2 dat qesem cave project n dat was not a modern human

[brownbomber]

Typo I meant 2 say west africans n da bantu of south africa r negroid its 3 diffrrent racial categories n africa..there was mire than 1 migration out of africa which x plain da different genetics, n da africans dat populated asia mixed wit da denisovan n those dat went north mixed wit da neanderthal

[sonofmongol]

@ mongol... mongoloid is outdated term so is negroid race is an outdated term its all superficial, black is a skin color not race...like da khoishan is classified as capoids, da west africans,bantu's can't remember da other tribe of south africa, da khoi khoi r da original nhabitants of south africa...Da Negritos ancestors left Africa 50,000 yrs ago so I wouldn't xpevt their dna 2 perfectly match sum1 who never left AFRICA..Da Negritos r more closely related 2 da Australoids n da pa pauns of New Guinea.Now if u want 2 say dat their r not african I sgree, but their r black,theyall carry da genetics 4 darkskin which originated n africa..dats jus like black ppl n america 10,000 yrs from now they'll b sayn dat we wasn't black we was americanoids n where @ u talkn about n da Middle East oman da Nubian complex, cuz I've looked n2 dat qesem cave project n dat was not a modern human

black is a skin color but lets be real nobody actually has black skin the darkest they can get is dark brown not black and we all know black is referred to black africans cause indians and other south asians are dark skin as well but nobody refers to them as black...

and like i said i dont believe in the migration theory... thats why its still just a theory and has been for years... its not a proven fact... the australoids are south asian people... and the negritos that still exist is living in countries that has been influenced by indians... and having black skin or genes dont mean u came from africa cause north chinese and scandinavian countries both have pale skin and straight hair... but yet they are no where close related genetically or geographically... and they both dont come from each other... so in other words u could have features or traits that another group of people have as well but arent related at all...

and that wasnt a modern human which gives credibility for life beginning in the mid east... there was also fossils found in east asia and in north america that wasnt modern human as well so life could have began in different places not from one...

[sonofmongol]

Typo I meant 2 say west africans n da bantu of south africa r negroid its 3 diffrrent racial categories n africa..there was mire than 1 migration out of africa which x plain da different genetics, n da africans dat populated asia mixed wit da denisovan n those dat went north mixed wit da neanderthal

so what ur saying is that humans from africa migrated to both europe and asia and mixed with the primitive people that wasnt human and created the modern day peoples u see today... i dont believe that one bit humans mating with non humans to create modern day humans...

and where did the denisovans and neanderthals come from then? did they come from africa too?

[brownbomber]

So u sayn dat da australoids didn't migrate out of africa 100,000 yrs ago....I'm not awarw of n e modern human dats older than 200,000 yrs old post da link..hono sapien, ndenisovan & da neanderthal all come from homo erectus I blieve ...ill b waitn 4 dat link

[sonofmongol]

So u sayn dat da australoids didn't migrate out of africa 100,000 yrs ago....I'm not awarw of n e modern human dats older than 200,000 yrs old post da link..hono sapien, ndenisovan & da neanderthal all come from homo erectus I blieve ...ill b waitn 4 dat link

thats exactly what im saying and thats what i been saying all this time... that migration theory is just a theory... still no actual hard evidence... and no none of them come from homo erectus the denisovans are much more older than homo erectus and heres the link... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... a-science/

[freddiefourfingers]

u right about life beginning in multiple places scientists talked about that as well

and all those countries u named in east africa is right next to west asia... and also if life did start in east africa they arent the same people as the peoples today they were primitive and still "evolving" if u believe in evolution... so the changing point where they start turning into humans is when it should count... and by that point they arent in east africa no more...

-well actually, i'm not agreeing that modern humanity has multiple origins. i still put my money on the out of africa theory. i was just pointin out that the opposing theory has been around for a while.

-regarding the "still evolving" comment, we're all still evolving. evolution never stopped, really.
modern man, is what's believed to have evolved in east africa and then spread out.
hominids had already left africa! behaviorally modern-- people (??) for lack of better terminology at the moment, have been known to have occupied large areas of europe, asia, china, and the mid east. in china for example, pre-sapiens (cuz i forgot what was before homo sapien) had created their own lives. we know that through cultural artifacts and even low level technologies that it would have taken to promote their ways of life! but homo-sapiens-- aka regular humans, me and you- evolved in africa and then continued the path of migration out of it! long after the pre-modern people had left. the pre-modern people as a term, would have included neanderthals and i think one of the other groups you had mentioned to someone else.

but yea.. modern man-- the anatomically modern sapiens, started in africa.

i don't think anybody doubts that cross sub-species FUCKING wasn't popular!

[freddiefourfingers]

So u sayn dat da australoids didn't migrate out of africa 100,000 yrs ago....I'm not awarw of n e modern human dats older than 200,000 yrs old post da link..hono sapien, ndenisovan & da neanderthal all come from homo erectus I blieve ...ill b waitn 4 dat link

thats exactly what im saying and thats what i been saying all this time... that migration theory is just a theory... still no actual hard evidence... and no none of them come from homo erectus the denisovans are much more older than homo erectus and heres the link... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... a-science/

-the link you posted, doesn't wholly agree with your assertion that out of africa migration theory is incorrect. the article just makes the issue, that the 'timeline' may now be in question. it doesnt argue against the genetic evidence (or any other evidence you claim doesn't exist) for the mainstream theory on human migration. just argues mostly against the time line.

[freddiefourfingers]

So u sayn dat da australoids didn't migrate out of africa 100,000 yrs ago....I'm not awarw of n e modern human dats older than 200,000 yrs old post da link..hono sapien, ndenisovan & da neanderthal all come from homo erectus I blieve ...ill b waitn 4 dat link

-all these different groups of proto-humans or pre modern people, have their origins on the same main evolutionary foundation as we (homo sapiens) do.

they all homo--
just not sapiens..
so its homo this and homo that!

please don't laugh.

[sonofmongol]

u right about life beginning in multiple places scientists talked about that as well

and all those countries u named in east africa is right next to west asia... and also if life did start in east africa they arent the same people as the peoples today they were primitive and still "evolving" if u believe in evolution... so the changing point where they start turning into humans is when it should count... and by that point they arent in east africa no more...

-well actually, i'm not agreeing that modern humanity has multiple origins. i still put my money on the out of africa theory. i was just pointin out that the opposing theory has been around for a while.

-regarding the "still evolving" comment, we're all still evolving. evolution never stopped, really.
modern man, is what's believed to have evolved in east africa and then spread out.
hominids had already left africa! behaviorally modern-- people (??) for lack of better terminology at the moment, have been known to have occupied large areas of europe, asia, china, and the mid east. in china for example, pre-sapiens (cuz i forgot what was before homo sapien) had created their own lives. we know that through cultural artifacts and even low level technologies that it would have taken to promote their ways of life! but homo-sapiens-- aka regular humans, me and you- evolved in africa and then continued the path of migration out of it! long after the pre-modern people had left. the pre-modern people as a term, would have included neanderthals and i think one of the other groups you had mentioned to someone else.

but yea.. modern man-- the anatomically modern sapiens, started in africa.

i don't think anybody doubts that cross sub-species FUCKING wasn't popular!

i dont believe in evolution... its really not possible that all human life came from africa... theres a lot of theories that disagrees with africa theory... theres just too many factors too many difference in not just the phenotypes but genetics as well...

and lets say human life did start and came from east africa then how come there is no trace of fossils or any living people today there that resembles europeans or asians at all? all these years and still no evolution in any populations of east africa... but yet once they left they some how just evolved...

and btw both china and mid east are in asia...

and it was denisovans... which are the pre humans of east asia... as to neanderthals is to europe...

[sonofmongol]

So u sayn dat da australoids didn't migrate out of africa 100,000 yrs ago....I'm not awarw of n e modern human dats older than 200,000 yrs old post da link..hono sapien, ndenisovan & da neanderthal all come from homo erectus I blieve ...ill b waitn 4 dat link

thats exactly what im saying and thats what i been saying all this time... that migration theory is just a theory... still no actual hard evidence... and no none of them come from homo erectus the denisovans are much more older than homo erectus and heres the link... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... a-science/

-the link you posted, doesn't wholly agree with your assertion that out of africa migration theory is incorrect. the article just makes the issue, that the 'timeline' may now be in question. it doesnt argue against the genetic evidence (or any other evidence you claim doesn't exist) for the mainstream theory on human migration. just argues mostly against the time line.

it does mean that there are older humans thats not in africa and before the so called migration and all humans are related just like all apes are so theres really no way u can find a human thats not related to any human at all but being related dont mean that they are the same just like how humans and apes are related but we arent the same...

[brownbomber]

But dats not wat u said earlier u said u saw sumthin about modern humans bn da origin of homo sapiens I'm still waitn on DAT LINK..modern hans r all da same, da fact fat we can pro create wit each other shows dat we r not a separate species...so if modern humans didn't come from africa where did dey come from? N wat about da blacks n new guinea where did dey come from?

[brownbomber]

Typo u said u saw sumthin dat said da middle east was da birthplace of modern humans

[brownbomber]

123negrito.jpg (12.37 KiB) Viewed 1482 times

my skin is lighther than da black guy n pic..yet I'm considered black but he's not

[sonofmongol]

But dats not wat u said earlier u said u saw sumthin about modern humans bn da origin of homo sapiens I'm still waitn on DAT LINK..modern hans r all da same, da fact fat we can pro create wit each other shows dat we r not a separate species...so if modern humans didn't come from africa where did dey come from? N wat about da blacks n new guinea where did dey come from?

heres the link... http://ibnlive.in.com/news/first-humans ... 19-93.html

i never said that we are a separate species... i said life didnt start in africa... it started in different parts of the world... we are all humans just different kinds of humans... just like theres different kinds of apes, cats, dogs, birds, etc and they could all mate with each other as well... a lion and tiger are both part of the cat species but are still different and they could still mate...

and for the new guineans they came from southeast asia...

[sonofmongol]

123negrito.jpg

my skin is lighther than da black guy n pic..yet I'm considered black but he's not

being darker than the person dont make u black... a lot of south asians like indians and sri lankans are darker than black americans... they arent referred to as blacks cause black typically means people of sub saharan african origins... and u are a black american which means ur mixed with european blood... which is why u look nothing like ur ancestors in africa...

[brownbomber]

Es it DOES cus like I said black is a skin color if I'm black so is he ...everybody n sub saharan africa aren't negoid da khoishan of south africa proves dis ..I remeber cn oprah winfrey dna results on pbs n she was 97% south african..I couldn't c dat link I'm on my phone but even tho I didny read it I thought dat u can show evidence of a modern human outside of africa 2000,000 yrs ago not an archaic human or homo erectus sho me evidence of a modern human...n while u at it look up da Nubian complex found in oman dat dates back 2 125,000 yrs ago I blieve ...proving dat africans migrated out of africa earlier than ppl think

[sonofmongol]

Es it DOES cus like I said black is a skin color if I'm black so is he ...everybody n sub saharan africa aren't negoid da khoishan of south africa proves dis ..I remeber cn oprah winfrey dna results on pbs n she was 97% south african..I couldn't c dat link I'm on my phone but even tho I didny read it I thought dat u can show evidence of a modern human outside of africa 2000,000 yrs ago not an archaic human or homo erectus sho me evidence of a modern human...n while u at it look up da Nubian complex found in oman dat dates back 2 125,000 yrs ago I blieve ...proving dat africans migrated out of africa earlier than ppl think

so u call indians black people too? lets be honest cause i know damn well u never once referred indians as black people... and what does negroid have to do with this? i have never once brought up that word... i just gave u the link showing a 400,000 plus year old modern human fossil in the middle east... u obviously didnt even read it...

and the nubian complex they think it dates back to 125,000 years ago... but the evidence they got only says 106,000 years old... the link i gave u shows modern day human fossils up to 400,000 years old... and btw even at the site that talks about nubian complex says out of arabia...

[brownbomber]

they may have the oldest continuous culture on the planet. Professor Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen, who led the study, says Aboriginal Australians were the first modern humans to traverse unknown territory in Asia and Australia. "It was a truly amazing journey that must have demanded exceptional survival skills and bra he says. A century -old lock of hair, given by a West Australian indigenous man to an anthropologist, has led to the discovery that ancestors of Aborigi Australians reached Asia at least 24,000 years before another wave of migration that populated Europe and Asia. Experts from the University of Western Australia (UWA) and Murdoch University were part of an international team that analysed DNA from th hair, and found no hereditary material from European immigrants to Australia. This made the man's DNA a perfect candidate for looking at t history of Aboriginal migration. Aboriginal Australians first to cross Asia Studying his DNA, the researchers found that the ancestors of Australian Aboriginals had split from the first modern human populations to le Africa, 64,000 to 75,000 years ago. Dr Joe Dortch, a scientist at UWA, says the discovery turns on its head the existing theory that Aboriginals arrived here less than 50,000 years ago. The findings are detailed today in the journal Science. "[The discovery] strongly supports the idea that Aborigines were [part of] an early and separate wave of human expansion out of Africa, befor subsequent wave that established Europeans and Asians," says Professor Alan Cooper, director of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA at th University of Adelaide. "However, while this is a major step forward, the key unresolved question remains the unique story of Aboriginal histo within Australia." "This new DNA study powerfully confirms that Aboriginal Australians are one of the oldest living populations in the world, certainly the oldest outside of Africa," agrees evolutionary biologist Professor Darren Curnoe of UNSW. "Australians are truly one of the world's great human populations and a very ancient one at that, with deep connections to the Australian continent and broader Asian region. About this now there be no dispute." Oldest living population in the world In another study, in the American Journal of Human Genetics, researchers found that when these ancestors of Aboriginals crossed through As they may have interbred with Siberian people known as the Denisovans. For that study, DNA was extracted from a finger bone excavated in the freezing temperatures of Siberia to analyse the migration of people to tropical parts of Asia and Australia more than 40,000 years ago. Examining DNA from the finger, researchers from the Harvard Medical School in the US and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthro in Germany concluded that the Denisovans -a primitive group of humans descended from Neanderthals -migrated from Siberia to tropical p of Asia. They contributed DNA to Aborigines along with present -day New Guineans and an indigenous tribe in the Philippines known as Mama Aboriginal people had Siberian ancestors To make the link between the Denisovans and indigenous Australians, the study looked at two Aboriginal populations, one of which was from Northern Territory. The researchers concluded that Denisovans interbred with modern humans in South-East Asia 44,000 years ago, before Australia separated from Papua New Guinea. "This paper helped fill in some empty pieces in the evolutionary puzzle that began after early humans left Africa, and reinforces the view that humans have intermixed throughout history," say the scientists behind the research in a summary of the findings. "The study also confirms controversial claims that the ancestors of all living Eurasians interbred with the Neandertals, while past Asians/Ocean also mated with the mysterious ancient humans from Denisova cave[s] in Siberia," comments Darren from UNSW. "This is clear and independ validation of DNA work on both these extinct humans [the Neanderthals and the Denisovans], confirming today's other big announcement ab their deep connections to Australians and oth

[sonofmongol]

they may have the oldest continuous culture on the planet. Professor Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen, who led the study, says Aboriginal Australians were the first modern humans to traverse unknown territory in Asia and Australia. "It was a truly amazing journey that must have demanded exceptional survival skills and bra he says. A century -old lock of hair, given by a West Australian indigenous man to an anthropologist, has led to the discovery that ancestors of Aborigi Australians reached Asia at least 24,000 years before another wave of migration that populated Europe and Asia. Experts from the University of Western Australia (UWA) and Murdoch University were part of an international team that analysed DNA from th hair, and found no hereditary material from European immigrants to Australia. This made the man's DNA a perfect candidate for looking at t history of Aboriginal migration. Aboriginal Australians first to cross Asia Studying his DNA, the researchers found that the ancestors of Australian Aboriginals had split from the first modern human populations to le Africa, 64,000 to 75,000 years ago. Dr Joe Dortch, a scientist at UWA, says the discovery turns on its head the existing theory that Aboriginals arrived here less than 50,000 years ago. The findings are detailed today in the journal Science. "[The discovery] strongly supports the idea that Aborigines were [part of] an early and separate wave of human expansion out of Africa, befor subsequent wave that established Europeans and Asians," says Professor Alan Cooper, director of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA at th University of Adelaide. "However, while this is a major step forward, the key unresolved question remains the unique story of Aboriginal histo within Australia." "This new DNA study powerfully confirms that Aboriginal Australians are one of the oldest living populations in the world, certainly the oldest outside of Africa," agrees evolutionary biologist Professor Darren Curnoe of UNSW. "Australians are truly one of the world's great human populations and a very ancient one at that, with deep connections to the Australian continent and broader Asian region. About this now there be no dispute." Oldest living population in the world In another study, in the American Journal of Human Genetics, researchers found that when these ancestors of Aboriginals crossed through As they may have interbred with Siberian people known as the Denisovans. For that study, DNA was extracted from a finger bone excavated in the freezing temperatures of Siberia to analyse the migration of people to tropical parts of Asia and Australia more than 40,000 years ago. Examining DNA from the finger, researchers from the Harvard Medical School in the US and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthro in Germany concluded that the Denisovans -a primitive group of humans descended from Neanderthals -migrated from Siberia to tropical p of Asia. They contributed DNA to Aborigines along with present -day New Guineans and an indigenous tribe in the Philippines known as Mama Aboriginal people had Siberian ancestors To make the link between the Denisovans and indigenous Australians, the study looked at two Aboriginal populations, one of which was from Northern Territory. The researchers concluded that Denisovans interbred with modern humans in South-East Asia 44,000 years ago, before Australia separated from Papua New Guinea. "This paper helped fill in some empty pieces in the evolutionary puzzle that began after early humans left Africa, and reinforces the view that humans have intermixed throughout history," say the scientists behind the research in a summary of the findings. "The study also confirms controversial claims that the ancestors of all living Eurasians interbred with the Neandertals, while past Asians/Ocean also mated with the mysterious ancient humans from Denisova cave[s] in Siberia," comments Darren from UNSW. "This is clear and independ validation of DNA work on both these extinct humans [the Neanderthals and the Denisovans], confirming today's other big announcement ab their deep connections to Australians and oth

dont tell me ur getting them from wiki or that unreliable website u got thinking that columbus was black... all of this are either outdated or from a unreliable source...

[brownbomber]

N e 1 who has da same complexion as me I consider 2 b black...n yes I consider da veddoids of ndia black!

[brownbomber]

Da was from austrailla geographic...if u feel dat sum of da n4 was wrong post sumthin dat dbunks wat I posted

[sonofmongol]

N e 1 who has da same complexion as me I consider 2 b black...n yes I consider da veddoids of ndia black!

ok u consider them black while the rest of the world dont, the scientists dont, the indians themselves dont...

so i guess u would consider a dark vietnamese black too then?

[sonofmongol]

Da was from austrailla geographic...if u feel dat sum of da n4 was wrong post sumthin dat dbunks wat I posted

give me the link... and i already posted everything that debunks it all... scroll up and read it...

[brownbomber]

N give me da name of dat study about da 400,000 yr old MODERN HUMAN I couldn't c ur link on my phone I want 2 look it up myself...midern human genes only go back 200,000 yrs I kno dat da archaic human is 500,000 yrs old but not a MODERN HUMAN

[sonofmongol]

N give me da name of dat study about da 400,000 yr old MODERN HUMAN I couldn't c ur link on my phone I want 2 look it up myself...midern human genes only go back 200,000 yrs I kno dat da archaic human is 500,000 yrs old but not a MODERN HUMAN

its "first humans came out of middle east"

[brownbomber]

If I was n ndia I probably woueithereant 2 b b black either ndia has a very racist history n da blacks were made 2 feel evil...even da national geographic did a show dat how black ppl went 2 ndia n austrailla dey traced every1 genes back 2 da khoishan of south africa on da sho...so let me c dey migrated from africa dey skin still is black.till dis day, but dey ain't black...so wat color r dey?

[sonofmongol]

If I was n ndia I probably woueithereant 2 b b black either ndia has a very racist history n da blacks were made 2 feel evil...even da national geographic did a show dat how black ppl went 2 ndia n austrailla dey traced every1 genes back 2 da khoishan of south africa on da sho...so let me c dey migrated from africa dey skin still is black.till dis day, but dey ain't black...so wat color r dey?

thats a lie... all DNA testing done on indians showed no traces of any african genes... they dont even have nappy hair... none of their phenotypes are the same... and being dark skin dont mean u came from africa like i said before... and they are brown...

the japanese are white and the polish are as well... does that mean they are related?? does that mean they came from one another??

and if u say all life came from africa then answer me this... so if the indians stayed dark then how come the europeans and east asians are white??

[brownbomber]

Sum japanese have australoid blood such as da ainu of japan..well u calln da national geographics not me..da dravidians left africa around 50,000 yrs ago I couldoff on da date tho

[sonofmongol]

Sum japanese have australoid blood such as da ainu of japan..well u calln da national geographics not me..da dravidians left africa around 50,000 yrs ago I couldoff on da date tho

australoid is really a vague term... and its outdated all these race terms are outdated... it has nothing to do with DNA cause the ainu and indians are nothing alike...

and for the africa theory u believe what u wanna believe... but all evidence that i have already showed u says otherwise...

[brownbomber]

Early Modern Human Sites in the Levant and North Africa. Adapted from Asia map by Curtis3250692; data from Frumkin et al.in press and Gopher et al. 2010. But --the story is complicated, so I assembled some pages and a photo essay to go over the context for Qesem Cave, why the claims for EMH are so interesting, and to describe some of the evidence for EMH in the transition period between the Middle to Lower Paleolithic in the region of the Levant. I asked Ran Barkai, director of the Qesem Cave Project , about the dating of the cave: currently, the published dates are on speleotherms, which are natural cave deposits. He said that there is a paper in preparation describing dates on burnt flint and animal bone which support the speleotherm dates of 200,000-400,000 years old. I also asked him if there were plans to submit the teeth for DNA analysis, which might resolve the question of whether the teeth were Neanderthal or EMH: he was the opinion that the teeth were probably too old to have intact DNA, but he was planning to dis is from archeology. Com....dis doesn't dbunk n e thing I posted...australoid is an outdated term, but like I said earlier so is race n general...earlier u said u didn't bliebe n evolution da qesem project actually disproves ur theory...b4 50,000 yrs ago there was only different shades of black ppl ( brown watever U want call it there was no mongoloid or caucusoid 4 da lack of a better word around 400,000 yrs ago...n lastly qesem could've been an early failed migration by archaic humans..there is no evidence dat dey evocled n2 modern humans

[freddiefourfingers]

i dont believe in evolution... its really not possible that all human life came from africa... theres a lot of theories that disagrees with africa theory... theres just too many factors too many difference in not just the phenotypes but genetics as well...

and lets say human life did start and came from east africa then how come there is no trace of fossils or any living people today there that resembles europeans or asians at all? all these years and still no evolution in any populations of east africa... but yet once they left they some how just evolved...

and btw both china and mid east are in asia...

and it was denisovans... which are the pre humans of east asia... as to neanderthals is to europe...

-well, if you don't believe in evolution then i guess thats pretty much gonna be the main obstacle preventing you from following through with whats being said.

funny you should quote nat geo, though. they're not hardly the source of anti-evolution info.

-and when i used the areas of asia, china and the mid east, i did so to geographic reasons. i was talkin bout behaviorally modern humans and their remaining artifacts. well its easier for anyone to look up, by specifying for example-- JAPAN or Taiwan!! Both in asia, right?? Rather than just say asia, i narrowed the geography down a lil. Dig?