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

221–230 of 231 posts

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#221

Post by adolph »

bigDinosaur wrote: post #173
adolph wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok, so the boomerang isn’t quite like a hunting drone, or unscrewed aerial vehicle, but the didgeridoo makes quite a drone nonetheless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didgeridoo

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#222

Post by girvo »

riatin wrote: post #172
girvo wrote: post #107

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. 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.

It doesn’t, though. It doesn’t matter if they’re genetically intermixed with Indians at some point in the last few thousand years. They were still here before White Australia was. And where I live, we still fought wars to eradicate the local mobs. We still stole children from them, not that long ago.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#223

Post by bigDinosaur »

B1FF_PSUVM wrote: post #205
bigDinosaur wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you stun or kill the animal, it's no big deal to pick up the weapon when picking up the carcass. But I sure would like to have a near miss not being followed by a search for the weapon.

Yes, that's a good point. It's certainly a cool design.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#224

Post by defrost »

Zurrrrr wrote: post #160
boomboomsubban wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see where that person specified which claim they wanted a source for, but I'll ask for a source for both claims. I still have no idea if you grew up among Aboriginals or Native Americans, or what makes you so confident about the other race/culture's beliefs.

Just curious, but are you on the spectrum? Or an ESL speaker? Context makes it clear which claim they were asking for. In any case, I'm not providing a source. This is a somewhat commonly known thing, and I was speaking from personal experience. If you're still really unsure where I grew up, you can probably figure it out from my other comments. Feel free to search for whatever you find sufficient to corroborate my c…

> This is a somewhat commonly known thing, and I was speaking from personal experience.

Which makes you Speaker for the Religuous Beliefs of the Bulk of Aboriginal Australians?

Yeah, right .. just keep digiging that hole deeper Kartiya.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#225

Post by dawdaway »

ROTMetro wrote: post #218
dawdaway wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ahh, sweet gotcha you found there fella. I don't think I need to explain to you the difference between members of the British government declaring Australia Terra-Nulius (with approximately 0 outcry from their citizens) and some bozo deciding that all Indigenous Australians don't believe in science. If you cant see the difference it's only because you choose not to.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#226

Post by dawdaway »

Zurrrrr wrote: post #194
dawdaway wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another informative and education comment. Clever as roo shit you are.

You seem like one of those insecure types who need to have the last word, so it's all yours buddy. Enjoy, and I hope you get whatever feeling it is you're seeking by doing so. Best of luck to you in life kiddo. Cheers.

Thanks mate, I'll happily take the last word. After all, how else would I heal those insecurities your have so poignantly diagnosed?

You seem incapable of doing anything other than dismissing anyone who raises any flaws with your logic. I sincerely hope you grow as a person.

Best of luck to you in life, Ole Fella. Cheers.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#227

Post by EdwardDiego »

runsWphotons wrote: post #93
EdwardDiego wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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) I'm assuming you're referring to the Pama-Nyungan family, which predates the dingo by nearly 2000 years? I can't find any documentation of the Indian language families connection, do you have any? This reminds me of the Tamil nationalists who, like s…

both dingo and the spread of this family are around 5000 years give or take and roughly contemporaneous with this introgression in OP. None of the dates are known with that much precision afaik. It seems the theory that the languages are indian is disputed, so lets just say a lot of new stuff was happening around that time. There is disputed circumstantial evidence for other waves of migration. For example the Bradsh…

Sweet, and... Indian language families?

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#228

Post by justatdotin »

nyolfen wrote: post #213
justatdotin wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

what reasons, what legal claims, and most of all: what advantage do you imagine Indigenous Australian people might gain on the basis of the extent of their heritage?

the sustained deficit of public housing? the lack of safe drinking water? the big blue signs slandering entire communities as drunken perverts? the mass sackings to force people onto quarantined welfare? the draconian star-chamber powers granted to the ACC? the systemic theft of hard-won social infrastructure?

because all of these 'advantages' are granted to anyone living in predominantly Indigenous postcodes of the NT, regardless of how long you dare to admit their ancestors were here.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#229

Post by hulitu »

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #216
ImaCake wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> A human shares over 98% of the DNA of a pig

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." - Orwell

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#230

Post by nyolfen »

justatdotin wrote: post #228
nyolfen wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

what reasons, what legal claims, and most of all: what advantage do you imagine Indigenous Australian people might gain on the basis of the extent of their heritage? the sustained deficit of public housing? the lack of safe drinking water? the big blue signs slandering entire communities as drunken perverts? the mass sackings to force people onto quarantined welfare? the draconian star-chamber powers granted to the A…

i agree those are tragic, but those are not the people i am talking about
Post reply on HN