Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 231 posts

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#161

Post by Zurrrrr »

justatdotin wrote: post #153
Zurrrrr wrote: post #42

Earlier 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.

what I've noticed in my lifetime is that the attempted narratives of mainstream science continue to edge towards original local knowledge. if locals abandoned their knowledge and accepted the 40,000ya story told when I was a kid, they'd be out by just as much given the 80,000ya now indicated by artefacts at M2, Madjedbebe; the oldest site of continual human habitation.

If I'm understanding you correctly, there are some things revealed by science that seem to match some kinds of ancient knowledge, but that could easily just be coincidence.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#162

Post by Zurrrrr »

tjmc wrote: post #155
Zurrrrr wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

So just so I understand, your source is growing up in one of the several hundred separate Aboriginal nations of Australia, most of whom have completely different languages and are dispersed across a vast nation as big as the continental United States and he speaks for all of them. Got it.

  Got it.
Do you though? I doubt it.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#163

Post by undersuit »

stOneskull wrote: post #146
viewtransform wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India was just a waypoint on the journey of human genes from Africa to Australia.

apparently india used to be connected to australia. and it split off and hit asia. india ramming into asia may have caused the himalayas.

That was 100MYA though.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#164

Post by archsurface »

ImaCake wrote: post #127
nhchris wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are africans and europeans who share more dna than with others of their own ancestry You're probably referring to the "greater variation within than between races" argument. But it's only true when looking at single genes, not collections of genes - that is how genetic tests can accurately determine race. And most traits are polygenic, so it does not even make sense to compare using only individual genes. Tha…

Yes you are right about the greater variation being localised. But I thought it was localised at the level of linkage disequlibrium blocks which can encompass many thousands of genes at their largest. Regardless the genetic distance between any two people remains tiny compared to the distance between even closely related species or sub-species elsewhere.

That's a roundabout expression of the narrative.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#165

Post by adolph »

ChickenNugger wrote: post #44

The only interesting thing I know about Aborigines is they're the only known people who didn't invent the bow and arrow. As a hobbyist archer this is fascinating to me. They apparently didn't need it, as they're still around.

Dude, they had boomerangs and digerydoos. Who needs one-way arrows when you have been droning things since the beginning.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#166

Post by monstertank »

Zurrrrr wrote: post #111
tjmc wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

I just read your comments, and you seem to be saying your subjective experience amounts to evidence (for you, which is fine)

But the argument was that this was an emotionally charged topic and you displayed that while appearing to argue the opposite.

As a fellow Australian, I understand the over sensitivity, especially due to the Voice crap that's going on atm.

As for generalizing racially, I agree, it makes no sense. Which is why the voice thing sounds stupid to me.

I feel like there are two groups of indigenous peoples growing in Australia. What I call the 'technically aboriginals' and 'actual aboriginals' and I realize this might marginalize those with partial ancestry.

I often wonder if the voice is just being pushed by super liberal very light skinned aboriginals (that to me probably never suffered real discrimination) or outback dark skinned tribal bush aboriginals (that are discriminated against on site). I feel like the more bush you go, the more conservative you get...idk

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#167

Post by Zurrrrr »

monstertank wrote: post #166
Zurrrrr wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I just read your comments, and you seem to be saying your subjective experience amounts to evidence (for you, which is fine) But the argument was that this was an emotionally charged topic and you displayed that while appearing to argue the opposite. As a fellow Australian, I understand the over sensitivity, especially due to the Voice crap that's going on atm. As for generalizing racially, I agree, it makes no sense…

No, I'm not talking about subjective experience at all.

ALL that happened was that I made a generalization, and other people wanted to contest it because, well, they could. It's not more complicated than that.

It's basically if I said most action movies have a car chase or gun fight, and someone wanted to die on the hill claiming that that generalization is inaccurate and not all action movies have to have a gun fight or car chase.

I agree though that the discrimination of aboriginals is politicized though, and it shouldn't be.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#168

Post by riatin »

dragonwriter wrote: post #121
Zurrrrr wrote: post #42

Earlier 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.

Sure, let's change it to that. Does talking about "Christian fundamentalists" make you more comfortable than talking about "Native Americans"?

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#169

Post by riatin »

yieldcrv wrote: post #57
ajross wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'm saying the place to have that fight is with the putative Aboriginals and not here on HN where everyone is just talking about the science. I mean, I get it. People are mean. People are unreasonable. Lots of good discussion can't happen because people are mean and unreasonable. But you're not making things better by assuming bad faith and throwing shade at everyone else preemptively. That's just being mean and…

It was very insightful for me to know that its common amongst Aboriginals there to have that view. I will corroborate it elsewhere now what I know what to look for.

Suggest you look at most popular mastheads in Australia, in particular the state funded broadcaster to see the phenomenon play out in reality.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#170

Post by rippercushions »

grecy wrote: post #159
prawn wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the gap between Asia and PNG (then connected to AU) has got down to 90km. Doable with bamboo rafts? Viewing a mountainous island from an elevated position would give them reason to attempt it. Timor to PNG is suggested as the water crossing needed.

And enough people made that crossing successfully to create a stable population of 320,000 people [1] without in breeding problems? [1] https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/profile-o...

Aboriginal Australian do, in fact, suffer from a disproportionate number of hereditary diseases:

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2020/212/5/lessons-learned-ge...

While there is considerable genetic diversity between Aboriginals as a whole, the diversity of individual communities is often quite low, and in response many communities evolved elaborate kinship systems to avoid too much intermarriage.

Post reply on HN