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

171–180 of 231 posts

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#171

Post by bigDinosaur »

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.

It doesn't seem difficult to find groups that reject science when it conflicts with their beliefs. Doesn't this make a stronger case for the person to whom you're replying? Humans are far from avoiding appeals to emotion, and that's doubly true for politically charged topics, which this very much is.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#172

Post by riatin »

girvo wrote: post #107
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. No, they do not all do this, and I'd caution you on speaking for a people that aren't a monolith within their mobs in the first place.

Would assume you're of or closely affiliated with Aboriginal heritage given the phrasing. My assessment of this is that if this were to become part of the established history of indigenous Australians, quite a bit of the narrative around 'ownership' changes dramatically.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#173

Post by bigDinosaur »

adolph wrote: post #165
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.

As others have commented, boomerangs didn't work for hunting like the way they're culturally depicted. Thinking about it I have no idea how it'd even be possible to kill an animal and have the missile return given the necessary collision.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#174

Post by golemiprague »

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.

[dead]

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#175

Post by riatin »

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…

Based on my (very) subjective experience, a lot of the noise around the Voice + Invasion Day is being created by people with extremely tenuous links to indigenous heritage - which I think is maybe shifting away from what could be much more positive outcomes for truly marginalised Aboriginals.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#176

Post by yesenadam »

Zurrrrr wrote: post #135
dragonwriter wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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]

Ok, I give up. That's about the 20th mocking, insulting comment of yours I've read on this page, while you pretend to occupy the high ground. Sickening stuff. HN deserves way better.

Please refresh on the guidelines. There aren't many in the first 10 paragraphs of the "In comments" guidelines you haven't broken on this page, multiple times. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#177

Post by int_19h »

coderenegade wrote: post #52
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.

It's the wood. You can rank woods by the amount of strain energy per unit of mass that they can take before breaking. The higher this figure, the better the bow, because it'll store more energy for a lower mass in the limbs before it breaks, and the differences can be fairly significant. The best bow woods are all at the top of this list, along with a few that should be good in theory but aren't used likely for other…

What's more intriguing is that we know for sure that Polynesians did know about the bow, and at least some of them even knew how to make it - but, for whatever reason, it wasn't used for anything "serious" like warfare.

It's tempting to chalk it down to some kind of strong cultural taboo, e.g. to keep the wars at a "manageable" level of destruction. But then why did Maori eagerly adopt firearms once they got access to them, and used them in warfare between themselves?

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#178

Post by zen_1 »

dankwizard wrote: post #62
viewtransform wrote: post #30

More than a decade ago I submitted my DNA to the National Genographic Project [1] which was an attempt to trace ancient human migration using Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA from a sampling of people around the world. My paternal Y-chromosome line showed an ancient mutation (>50K year ago) carried by humans who had likely spread through a coastal migration from Africa around coasts of the Arabian Sea down to South…

The only thing more boring than hearing about peoples' dreams is hearing about their ancestral history.

You should try talking to people with interesting ancestors (or views of their ancestors).

I won't go into too much detail here to avoid doxing myself, but I've had a few decent discussions about some of my and my friends' ancestors/likely ancestors as historical figures.

Depending on who you're (un)fortunate enough to be descended from, you might find yourself viewing certain historical events in a different light.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#179

Post by Zurrrrr »

yesenadam wrote: post #176
Zurrrrr wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Ok, I give up. That's about the 20th mocking, insulting comment of yours I've read on this page, while you pretend to occupy the high ground. Sickening stuff. HN deserves way better. Please refresh on the guidelines. There aren't many in the first 10 paragraphs of the "In comments" guidelines you haven't broken on this page, multiple times. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Thanks for your input.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#180

Post by Zurrrrr »

zen_1 wrote: post #178
dankwizard wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing more boring than hearing about peoples' dreams is hearing about their ancestral history.

You should try talking to people with interesting ancestors (or views of their ancestors). I won't go into too much detail here to avoid doxing myself, but I've had a few decent discussions about some of my and my friends' ancestors/likely ancestors as historical figures. Depending on who you're (un)fortunate enough to be descended from, you might find yourself viewing certain historical events in a different light.

Why would finding out you were related to a figure from history at all change how you would view that history?
Post reply on HN