Live data from Hacker News

Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

nature.com

211–220 of 231 posts

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#211

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…

> As we gather more data our understanding of human migration inevitably clashes with identity politics/nationalism It's funny you should mention this, as I saw the documentary and I seem to remember some North American indigenous tribes refusing to participate. Their reasoning was the Nat Geo was just trying to prove they were immigrants like everyone else.

You probably know this having watched the documentary, but I'm just adding context for others.

It's primarily because many American tribes try to maintain religious beliefs in conflict with an immigrant identity. Although, evidence points to most of the earliest American humans immigrating across the Bering Land Bridge ~20,000 years ago. The religious stories tribes tell depict that they came from American caves, soil, water sources or other nature-related points of origin.

It's religious-based denialism, no different than what other major religions do when their beliefs conflict with reality.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh! I have a locally made wood bow made from red oak and it's an absolute bastard to shoot. I think the bowyer wanted to one-up my 55# Samick sage so he made it a 56# draw weight. And even with a thick leather armguard it hurts quite a lot to shoot because the brace height is barely over 5" and it doesn't have a trigger grip being a piece of wood. I wonder where red oak ranks on the strain/mass chart. I'm used to he…

Yeah that page is a decent start. Dividing modulus of rupture by the density of the wood gives you the Joules/kg that the material will take before breaking. Yew is quite good. Osage, lemonwood, black locust, hickory etc. are all very good. Elm works but it's worse than yew. Bamboo should also be very good, but its properties vary widely and aren't really captured on that site. Australian river red gum is theoretical…

> Bamboo should also be very good, but its properties vary widely and aren't really captured on that site.

I was watching a video the other day about samurai bows which are made of laminated bamboo.

Quite comparable to the English longbow as those things go.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

no: The (only recently created) legal privileges of native title are severely limited and can be effortlessly extinguished. These limited privileges are based on (belated) recognition of prior occupation, but irrespective of how long people were here before colonisation. on the other side of the ledger, significant legal harms are imposed on predominantly Indigenous regions, including apartheid-style laws that are ap…

there are reasons to believe that some groups with legal claims have no legitimate grounds and only point to fragmentary records of prior occupants that they can provide no evidence of connection with. perhaps if you can manage to think past the scary words you can recognize that some people exploit systems to their advantage.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#214
post #33

It'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…

> 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.

I thought it was generally accepted that IVC was an outside people too, from modern middle east, who emigrated less than 10,000 years ago (But much prior to Indo-European migrations).

> That potentially complicates a lot of the cultural positioning.

It should not. Most of the today's Indian culture formed in India despite some PIE roots.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#216
post #56
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As we gather more data our understanding of human migration inevitably clashes with identity politics/nationalism and previous simplistic pre-scientific classifications based on skin color and facial features Does it? Because most studies find that people living in the same country are indeed more closely related to each other than to people of different countries, roughly according to what you would expect from ge…

Yes, ppl in the same country have more similar genomes. But modern population genetics has found that 1. There is more similarity than difference between any 2 humans on earth (there are africans and europeans who share more dna than with others of their own ancestry. And, 2. People move around, a lot! We knew this already but there are a huge number of undocumented migrations that are being revealed by these studies…

> But modern population genetics has found that 1. There is more similarity than difference between any 2 humans on earth

It's not even that modern. A human shares over 98% of the DNA of a pig, and about 50% of the DNA of a tree. Anything much closer to us than a tree has "more similarity than difference" to humans on a genetic level.

https://thednatests.com/how-much-dna-do-humans-share-with-ot...

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#217

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.

As an only child raised far away from all family I find ancestry hugely interesting. Wanting to be part of a tribe is an inherently human trait. Finding jewish ancestry and that those that didn't leave eastern Europe were wiped out GREATLY changed my motivation to protect all people. Finding out that my quite unassuming grandfather (who made a huge difference in America's 80s farm crisis at the cost of his entire career in the 70s and was blacklisted from employment forever) descended from basically every European nobile and was more royal than my ex's side (who are very proud of their silver set handed down from their nobility) was so, so gratifying.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#218
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I doubt it, either way they were here before Europeans who declared them non-human and assumed ownership of the landmass based on that declaration.

I'm sorry, did all Europeans declare them non-human? What a sweeping weak sauce generalization about an entire group of people.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#219
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As we gather more data our understanding of human migration inevitably clashes with identity politics/nationalism It's funny you should mention this, as I saw the documentary and I seem to remember some North American indigenous tribes refusing to participate. Their reasoning was the Nat Geo was just trying to prove they were immigrants like everyone else.

You probably know this having watched the documentary, but I'm just adding context for others. It's primarily because many American tribes try to maintain religious beliefs in conflict with an immigrant identity. Although, evidence points to most of the earliest American humans immigrating across the Bering Land Bridge ~20,000 years ago. The religious stories tribes tell depict that they came from American caves, soi…

> It's religious-based denialism, no different than what other major religions do when their beliefs conflict with reality.

Except it's no longer 1610.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#220

Looks like this is quite old...they will probably find even more introgression. Something like 80% of Australian languages are from Indian-derived language families and developed from around the time of the Dingo introduction (only 4000 years ago), so there basically had to be a substantial amount of gene flow as well. Only a minority of the aboriginal languages come from an earlier substrate. It would be surprising…

> Something like 80% of Australian languages are from Indian-derived language families

This is wrong. No known relationships exist between any Australian Aboriginal language and any language from India. For much of far northern Australia, no known relationships exist between even neighbouring languages! (The non Pama-Nyungan languages, to be specific.)

Post reply on HN