Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
>My source is growing up there Where did you grow up that simultaneously had a large Aboriginals and Native American population?
I never claimed such a thing. What a ridiculous takeaway.
Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)
131–140 of 231 posts
Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)
#132The article has no information beyond "Indian". Which part of India? Which clan?
Apparently, dravidian-speaking groups. "Thus, the f4 statistics indicate a signal of gene flow from India to Australia and, furthermore, that the source population is more closely related to present-day Dravidian-speaking Indian groups than to Onge." https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1211927110
I wonder if India will try to grant them "diaspora" status like they did with the Romani in Europe?
Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Its not doing X to Y, its doing X to Z which is synonymous to Y is…a contradiction. IF Z is a synonym for Y, doing X to Z is doing X to Y.
Trying to map natural language statements to formal logic doesn't work well, unless you make a ton of assumptions as you have here...and then it still doesn't work well.
Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Right, so you're allowed to spout whatever idiocy you want, but others aren't allowed to call you on it. Sounds about right. You grew up in Aus apparently, but seem to have very little understand of ATSI culture and how diverse it is. Come work with my partner at IUIH and then generalise the way you have been. Generalise disparate groups of people elsewhere. And shove off with your thought terminating cliches: it's n…
[flagged]
Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's talking about the fact that Aboriginals, not unlike Native Americans, reject any attempt to explain their origin via science as they stick to the story of their origin that comes from their religion, and see the science based origin as disrespectful.
> Aboriginals, not unlike Native Americans, reject any attempt to explain their origin via science as they stick to the story of their origin that comes from their religion, and see the science based origin as disrespectful. I mean, if we are going to make these kinds of broad generalizations and comparisons, could we at least change “Native Americans” to “Christian fundamentalists”. It’s not any less true.
[flagged]
Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's talking about the fact that Aboriginals, not unlike Native Americans, reject any attempt to explain their origin via science as they stick to the story of their origin that comes from their religion, and see the science based origin as disrespectful.
[flagged]
I didn't know that, but yeah that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for sharing that, that was interesting to learn.
Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
>My source is growing up there Where did you grow up that simultaneously had a large Aboriginals and Native American population?
I never claimed such a thing. What a ridiculous takeaway.
>He's talking about the fact that Aboriginals, not unlike Native Americans...
They presumably asked for a source for both claims, your only provided one says you lived among them. Either you grew up among both populations or have provided no source for one of your claims.
Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's talking about the fact that Aboriginals, not unlike Native Americans, reject any attempt to explain their origin via science as they stick to the story of their origin that comes from their religion, and see the science based origin as disrespectful.
Got a source for this fact? Generalising opinions to a whole race is rarely wise. Perhaps like anyone else with religious beliefs, those who are offended simply want their culture respected.
some of them may not want their legal privileges backed by historical narratives compromised by scientific findings; this is very common with native american tribes, for instance the lipan apaches in texas. additional science can only hurt their position with respect to the BIA.
Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
If my statement wasn't true, there would be no way to distinguish admixture from indigenous in the first place.
Your statement was "people living in the same country are indeed more closely related to each other than to people of different countries" The first chart shows a direct counterexample with "African American", "Mexican American" and "North America" groups more separated from each other than from other groups and yet many of them live in the same country. These are also not the only groups of people you'd find in Nort…
Countries that had recent significant immigration are an exception, and their population will reflect the genetics of their geographic origins. I.e. African-Americans are closer related to Africans than to Italian-Americans. I thought this was obvious enough to not require a disclaimer.
Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)
#140It's an emotionally charged subject, which is unfortunate as it's objectively fascinating from a purely historical perspective. The simplified and (generally) commonly accepted narrative is that a cohesive group arrived here 45-60,000YA, lived peacefully and in harmony with the land right up until Europeans arrived. There's some debate about the megafauna extinctions, but no conclusive evidence either way. (I did app…
> emotionally charged subject, which is unfortunate [...] The simplified and (generally) commonly accepted narrative [...] that potentially complicates a lot of the cultural positioning. [...] it's a shame Uh... what's a shame? None of that stuff happened. You've picked a fight with a strawman here. No one is engaging like that with the linked article, or here in the HN thread, except you.
What they're talking about is a very active debate in Australia.
The simplified and (generally) commonly accepted narrative is that a cohesive group arrived here 45-60,000YA, lived peacefully and in harmony with the land right up until Europeans arrived
Is absolutely what a lot of, if not the majority of people, believe.