| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Clovis were Amerindians! (not Solutreans)
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Clovis were Amerindians! (not Solutreans)

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 May 2014 at 16:30
Getting back to the post on yDNA R1, yDNA Hpg R is believed to have originated on the Pontic/Caspian Steppe, which encompasses predominantly Caucasian people.

Native Americans have a high incidence of R1a, ergo, Native Americans share some East European admixture. 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 May 2014 at 21:07
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

OK. I got it.

Well, I will answer just one problem above. It is not necessary to fill a whole hemisphere to put people all over the places. For instance, when the first men arrived to Land of Fire I doubt the rest of the continent was fully populated. They could be perhaps a hundred bands of some 50 individuals each the full population in South America at that time (which would make 5.000 people!). But because they moved at random, certainly they would reach the southern edge sooner or later. The only point is that this happened 12000 ybp and probably crossing started perhaps no more than 3.000 years before that date.

Now, even at the time of contact, the density of the New World was lower than in the rest of the world, and that's why it could be invaded with relative easy.

Why should I live in Tierra del Fuego, if there is enough space somewhere else?
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 May 2014 at 21:12
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Getting back to the post on yDNA R1, yDNA Hpg R is believed to have originated on the Pontic/Caspian Steppe, which encompasses predominantly Caucasian people.

Native Americans have a high incidence of R1a, ergo, Native Americans share some East European admixture. 

It is R1a? AFAIK it is R1b. So it may have been come with people from France or britain or Spain in the colombian era and later. The problem with solutreen is, that the culture extinct long before the clovis culture appeared in North america. I think it is more likely, that the solutreen people and the clovis people shared similar habitates, similar hunting customs and therefore used similar spear-heads.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 May 2014 at 23:12
beorna wrote:
"So a small founding group has nothing else to do than to rush from the north of North America to the south of South America? They leave the rich fishing and hunting areas to look for others? These fisher-men had nothing else to do than to leave the rich fishing and hunting regions along the pacific coast to hunt horses, camels and bisons in the prairies or rabbits in the deserts?
The oldest human findings in Australia are only 40,000 years old, allthough the last(!) human wave out of Africa left already 70,000 years before. Modern human finding out of Africa exist already 120,000 years BP. So humans needed 30-80,000 years or if we take 60,000 as oldest date for a possible modern human migration into Australia at least 10-60,000 years to move from the Sinai to Australia, but North America was populated from the North Pole to Cape Horn within 1-2,000 years? 
Who shall believe this?"

More recent developments suggest that:

a. Yes, there were humans in the Americas before Clovis;
b. The Australian Aborigines could have arrived in Australia up to 130,000ybp;
c. Skeletal remains found in Ba'ja California in Mexico show a very strong relationship to Australian Aborigines-the current thought being that a small group migrated to the Ba'ja Peninsula, and either died out or were absorbed into the "new incomers" from Siberia.

To suggest that the Siberian incomers raced from Beringia to the south of South America holds no water. Obviously they would have stopped at times, possibly for decades or even centuries.

Like you, I like to see the science behind some of the claims made.

Incidentally, to refute the OP, at least in part, it has now been shown the the incomers travelled both down the West Coast and also through the midlands of America.

All of the sources from which I've quoted have been provided in another thread, but I can get them back if you wish.


It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2014 at 01:40
Pinguin:

I was wrong to attack you personally, it won't happen again.

However, I don't resile from the position that your posts, in response to anything about the Americas, amount to garbage.

1. You never provide scientific sources with which to corroborate whatever point you are trying to make;

2. You refuse to accept scientific evidence presented to you;

3. You never answer questions put to you properly;and

4. What you do write in your posts is invariably wrong and reflect a very limited knowledge on whatever topic you espouse.

Could you please, in future, provide some source for your contentions, and confine yourself to addressing what has been put to you.

If you address the matters I've put to you in this post, we could have some interesting debate/discussion on matters of fact.

Thank you in anticipation.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2014 at 01:43
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

penguin:
 
Is it possible that your obsession with South America could be clouding your judgement?
 
Some of your comments are so far off base that it would take a bloke two weeks to walk back to centre.
 
Why can't you accept that the world did not/does not revolve around South America?


Sir. You don't comply with some basic rules of etiquette necessary when arguing something. 

(1) You are attacking me, and not my arguments. That's a fault of rhetoric and also of courtesy.

(2) It is your opinion that I make comments "far off base", simply because, I believe, you don't know enough about the topic I am talking about. Please excuse, but you sir know very little about the history of the Americas, as shown in your commentary on potatoes, tomatoes and rubber

(3) And it is true the world doesn't revolve around South America, the matter of fact is that "THIS SECTION OF THE FORUM" revolves around the history of the Americas; and South America is part of it. Got it?




Edited by toyomotor - 03 May 2014 at 01:44
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2014 at 02:29
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:


More recent developments suggest that:

a. Yes, there were humans in the Americas before Clovis;

Of course.

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

b. The Australian Aborigines could have arrived in Australia up to 130,000ybp;
Not Australian Aboriginals, but first groups of modern humans.


Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

c. Skeletal remains found in Ba'ja California in Mexico show a very strong relationship to Australian Aborigines-the current thought being that a small group migrated to the Ba'ja Peninsula, and either died out or were absorbed into the "new incomers" from Siberia.

The relationship between Aboriginies and some archaic American populations are the result of a common group of ancestors, probably in SE-Asia.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2014 at 13:31
beorna:

"Not Australian Aboriginals, but first groups of modern humans."

Are we playing semantics here? 

Surely the first AMH to arrive in Australia were what we now know as Australian Aborigines?

Yes, I agree, when the Ba'ja California research is concluded and confirmed, if in fact it is, I would expect it to show that they were a small group from the "Out of Africa Coastal Migration" which didn't make a right hand turn and in fact progressed to Siberia and eventually to the Ba'ja Peninsula. This could mean that they arrived as long ago as 120,000 ybp, or thereabouts, if it's confirmed that the Australians reached their destination ~130,000ybp.

That would make them considerably earlier than Clovis, which would make the Ameroindians arrival a later arrival but still earlier than Clovis.





Edited by toyomotor - 03 May 2014 at 13:31
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2014 at 15:03
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Pinguin:

I was wrong to attack you personally, it won't happen again.

However, I don't resile from the position that your posts, in response to anything about the Americas, amount to garbage.

1. You never provide scientific sources with which to corroborate whatever point you are trying to make;

2. You refuse to accept scientific evidence presented to you;

3. You never answer questions put to you properly;and

4. What you do write in your posts is invariably wrong and reflect a very limited knowledge on whatever topic you espouse.

Could you please, in future, provide some source for your contentions, and confine yourself to addressing what has been put to you.

If you address the matters I've put to you in this post, we could have some interesting debate/discussion on matters of fact.

Thank you in anticipation.


Toyomayor. I have provided the links. You very well know I defend the standard knowledge that American Indians descend from people that crossed the straight of Bering. If you want the references, why don't you read the common scientific literature?
I just don't believe in phony theories, like those of Brazilians claiming ancient Australoid people in the Americas because evidence is not reliable. And, of course, that other theory about the Polynesians reaching the Americas that was sustained by the discovery of supposedly Polynesian chicken bones, was also proved false.
And with respect to this particular thread I put the link in the first post. Just look at there.

 

Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2014 at 16:18
Pinguin


Toyomayor. I have provided the links. 

No you haven't. All you've provided is your own views.


You very well know I defend the standard knowledge that American Indians descend from people that crossed the straight of Bering.

That's also misleading-you support the theory that only Asians(Siberians) could have crossed the Beringia Land Bridge.


 If you want the references, why don't you read the common scientific literature?

You are being rediculous. I've provided you with many references which support my theories.

I just don't believe in phony theories, like those of Brazilians claiming ancient Australoid people in the Americas because evidence is not reliable. 

That's a very closed minded view. I'm just waiting to see if further research corroborates that report or not. You don't even provide any insight into the claims that you say are phony.


And, of course, that other theory about the Polynesians reaching the Americas that was sustained by the discovery of supposedly Polynesian chicken bones, was also proved false.

I've never said that-ever!

And with respect to this particular thread I put the link in the first post. Just look at there.

But you haven't provided any scientific references which could rebut the references which I've provided to you.

If you wish to continue in this vein, I can see no point in trying to discuss issues with you as you will not support your claims with any evidence whatsoever.


It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2014 at 16:44
Pinguin:

 The OP URL is not a scientific reference, it's a television media report, which has been overtaken by several scientific reports claiming that there were people in the Americas, before the Clovis people.

Also, check out the following web site about the early Siberians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Siberia#Prehistory_and_antiquity

Also, please note that the Scythians were not Asian, they were Turkic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians

The Scythians (/ˈsɪθi.ən/ or /ˈsɪði.ən/; from Greek Σκύθης, Σκύθοι) were Iranianequestrian tribes who were mentioned as inhabiting large areas in the central Eurasian steppes starting with the 7th century BC up until the 4th century AD.[1][2][3] Their territories during the Iron Age were known to classical Greek sources as "Scythia". Their historical appearance coincided with the rise of equestrian semi-nomadism from the Carpathian Mountains of Europe to Mongolia in the Far East during the 1st millennium BC.[4][5] The "classical Scythians" known to ancient Greek historians were located in the northern Black Sea and fore-Caucasus region. However, other Scythian groups encountered in Near Eastern and Achaemenid sources existed in Central Asia.[6] Moreover, the term "Scythian" is also used by modern scholars in an archaeological context, i.e. any region perceived to display attributes of the "Scytho-Siberian" culture.[5]


So, what this means is that the earliest Siberians were Caucasians. Therefore, there's every chance that Caucasians formed part of the migration to the Americas.


It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2014 at 17:08
PLEASE READ THESE


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Siberia#Prehistory_and_antiquity

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12736.html

http://www.amren.com/news/2013/05/migration-mystery-who-were-the-first-americans/

http://csfa.tamu.edu/who.php

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-did-humans-come-to-the-americas-4209273/?page=1

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-first-americans-889302/
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2014 at 20:37
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

beorna:

"Not Australian Aboriginals, but first groups of modern humans."

Are we playing semantics here? 

Surely the first AMH to arrive in Australia were what we now know as Australian Aborigines?

A bit, maybe. But what you called Australian Aboriginals were just some groups of modern humans. We don't know, if these groups survived or if recent Aboriginals are not in majority the descendents of populations who came e.g. only 30,000 years ago.

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Yes, I agree, when the Ba'ja California research is concluded and confirmed, if in fact it is, I would expect it to show that they were a small group from the "Out of Africa Coastal Migration" which didn't make a right hand turn and in fact progressed to Siberia and eventually to the Ba'ja Peninsula. This could mean that they arrived as long ago as 120,000 ybp, or thereabouts, if it's confirmed that the Australians reached their destination ~130,000ybp.

Research has dated the body louse to a date of 75ky BP. Therefore I would, in the moment, reject dates for an occupation of northern regions, that goes far beyond these date.

[QUOTE=toyomotor]That would make them considerably earlier than Clovis, which would make the Ameroindians arrival a later arrival but still earlier than Clovis.
[/QUOTE]
I think it is meanwhile sure, that Clovis is not the result of immigrants from the north, but of a native population, that lived there long before the glaciers melted.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2014 at 22:13
beorna wrote:
"A bit, maybe. But what you called Australian Aboriginals were just some groups of modern humans. We don't know, if these groups survived or if recent Aboriginals are not in majority the descendants of populations who came e.g. only 30,000 years ago."

No, that's not correct. The Australian Aborigines (modern) are direct descendants of those who originally reached Australia as the result of the "Out of Africa Coastal Migration". There may or may not have been several migrations, that has not been established yet.

Research has dated the body louse to a date of 75ky BP. Therefore I would, in the moment, reject dates for an occupation of northern regions, that goes far beyond these date.

Even this is ~ 30,000 to 40,000 years later than it was believed that AMH arrived in the Americas, wasn't it?

I think it is meanwhile sure, that Clovis is not the result of immigrants from the north, but of a native population, that lived there long before the glaciers melted.

I'm not sure what you mean here. What science is saying is that Clovis were not of the original migration, but arrived or developed ~3000 years later. Clovis may have been of a later migration.

The reference to the Ba'ja California skeletal remains, I think, has yet to be proven. But having said that, there are Austronesian people, genetically related to the Australian Aborigines, all along the South East Asian coast and as far as China-so it's possible that some of the original OoA people made it to the Americas, imo.


 

It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 00:36
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Native Americans have a high incidence of R1a, ergo, Native Americans share some East European admixture. 


That argument is not solid, but rather an interpretation. Sure you can conclude that Native Americans have some East European admixture if you wish, but also you can conclude that Europeans had some Eurasian admixture. The latter makes sense historically given the numerous incursions of Turk and Mongolian people into Europe during thousand of years. So the mongrels would be the Europeans rather than the Native Americans... LOL


Edited by pinguin - 04 May 2014 at 00:37
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 01:04
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Native Americans have a high incidence of R1a, ergo, Native Americans share some East European admixture. 


That argument is not solid, but rather an interpretation. Sure you can conclude that Native Americans have some East European admixture if you wish, but also you can conclude that Europeans had some Eurasian admixture. The latter makes sense historically given the numerous incursions of Turk and Mongolian people into Europe during thousand of years. So the mongrels would be the Europeans rather than the Native Americans... LOL

Nope!

The science is clear, there are genetic links (DNA) between Ameroindians and early Europeans.

yDNA Haplogroup R originated on the Pontic/Caspian Steppe-in Europe.

R1a is found in northern Mongolia and in the Indigenous American community.

R1b is spread throughout Europe and the Western world.

It is clear, therefore, that Indigenous Americans are genetically related to people from the Caucasus.

No ifs.

No buts.

No maybes.

It's fact!

Comprendes?


Edited by toyomotor - 04 May 2014 at 01:22
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 07:05
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

beorna wrote:
"A bit, maybe. But what you called Australian Aboriginals were just some groups of modern humans. We don't know, if these groups survived or if recent Aboriginals are not in majority the descendants of populations who came e.g. only 30,000 years ago."

No, that's not correct. The Australian Aborigines (modern) are direct descendants of those who originally reached Australia as the result of the "Out of Africa Coastal Migration". There may or may not have been several migrations, that has not been established yet.

E.g. http://www.nature.com/news/genomes-link-aboriginal-australians-to-indians-1.12219

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

 
Even this is ~ 30,000 to 40,000 years later than it was believed that AMH arrived in the Americas, wasn't it?

I am convinced, that 75ky is the date modern humans left the tropical and subtropical regions. So it needed some time to arrive in America. When the first Amerindians entered America is unknown, but it may date back to 40-35ky.

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:


I'm not sure what you mean here. What science is saying is that Clovis were not of the original migration, but arrived or developed ~3000 years later. Clovis may have been of a later migration.
There was no Clovis found in Alaska. of course it is possible, that the first immigrants developed Clovis. But I think, that it was developed by populations which already lived in America.

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

The reference to the Ba'ja California skeletal remains, I think, has yet to be proven. But having said that, there are Austronesian people, genetically related to the Australian Aborigines, all along the South East Asian coast and as far as China-so it's possible that some of the original OoA people made it to the Americas, imo.

Modern humans went thru SE-Asia to go to Indonesia and papua and Australia, but as well to southern china. I think these "aboriginal-like" amerindians are more likely closer to the ancestors of the ainu, than to aboriginies.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 09:29
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:


Nope!

The science is clear, there are genetic links (DNA) between Ameroindians and early Europeans.

yDNA Haplogroup R originated on the Pontic/Caspian Steppe-in Europe.

R1a is found in northern Mongolia and in the Indigenous American community.

R1b is spread throughout Europe and the Western world.

It is clear, therefore, that Indigenous Americans are genetically related to people from the Caucasus.

No ifs.

No buts.

No maybes.

It's fact!

Comprendes?


I believe you is the guy that "no comprende" or "no cacha una" (don't get anything, as chileans would say). I'll explain you.

R1a is not European only. Look at the map. It shows clearly that it is Central Asian, too. If you find natives with R1a, it is more likely the marker comes from Central Asia. Don't you see it?




R1b is found mainly in Europe, but also in Nigeria Confused. But it is not absent today in Mongolia, China and India! So, it is not exclusively European either.



In short, without complementary evidency, the haplogroup shows prove nothing.
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 14:49
Beorna:
Some people of Southern India are Austronesian and are genetically related to the Australian Aborigines. No dispute there.

Pinguin:

I didn't say that R1b was exclusively European. I said that it originated on the Pontic Steppe, and spread into Asia and Europe.

R1a is also present in ancient Ameroindians. That shows a genetic link back to the original European home of R1a, but I agree that it also links to Asia, which is where I said it spread to.

ORIGINALLY a European haplogroup.


It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 15:03
R1b could also have originated in Nigeria. Why not?
R1a is said to be European because it reaches a frequency of 50% in Central Europe... but it also reaches 50% in Central Asia! So, how to discern where did it originated? I believe more studies are needed to prove that.

Now, if we could prove the genes for blond hair, blue eyes or other exclusive European features were among the people crossing the Land Bridge I would surrender to evidence. But I really doubt it.




A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 15:25
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

R1b could also have originated in Nigeria. Why not?
R1a is said to be European because it reaches a frequency of 50% in Central Europe... but it also reaches 50% in Central Asia! So, how to discern where did it originated? I believe more studies are needed to prove that.


Mate, you can be bloody frustrating!

Do you research what you want to post?

Read up on "The Origins of yDNA Hpg R" or R1a.


It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 15:57
I wonder why pseudoscience comes back so often covered with the aspect of science. The "science" of haplogrouping is not a hard science as yet. You know very well not much can be proved with it, because all the talk is about RELATIVE frequencies, which change with time!

Who knows who were the first to carry the mutations of R1a or R1b 25.000 years ago??  It could be anywhere in Europe, Asia or even Africa. The current frequencies of R1a or R1b aren't any proof of origins at all.

For instance, if you see the billion of people living in the Americas, you will see high frequencies of R1a and R1b, but everybody knows those markers are foreign to the New World. People moves. People migrate!! So frequency doesn't correlate with origin. Got it? I hope.





Edited by pinguin - 04 May 2014 at 15:59
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 18:56
The sccience of Genetics, driven by a rise in public interest, has progressed a very long way in a short time.
 
R1a has been found in the Tarim Basin of China and in Xiongzhui.
 
There is evidence of early Siberians having come from China, where they probably picked up R1a.
 
We can only judge by what skeletal remains have found and analysed to date.
 
The picture may well change at some future time with the finding of more remains and the development of technology.
 
I don't agree with your general stance on issues like this as you completely disregard science in favour of your own views.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 19:55
To look where R1b or other haplotypes evloved, you need zto go more into detail and have to make some kind of "family tree". That makes it very unklikely, that R1b evolved in Nigeria. It makes it then very likely, that R1b evolved like R1a somewhere in Eurasia or South Asia some tens of thousands of years ago.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 22:21
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

If they migrated from north to south in 2-3000 years they had plenty of time!That is an average of a few kilometres pr.year (or a small fraction of a degree).
But why would they?
 
They weren't being pursued.
 
It wasn't a race.
 
What do you the imperitive was for them to walk, virtually non-stop, to Terra del Fuego?
 
Its a nonsense!
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 22:24
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

To look where R1b or other haplotypes evloved, you need zto go more into detail and have to make some kind of "family tree". That makes it very unklikely, that R1b evolved in Nigeria. It makes it then very likely, that R1b evolved like R1a somewhere in Eurasia or South Asia some tens of thousands of years ago.
 
No I don't!
 
I've quoted the results of quite intensive research.
 
There's an old Rule of Law-He who asserts must prove.
 
So, if you wish to maintain that R1a originated in Nigeria, prove it.
 
You're getting almost as bad as pinguin.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 22:47
beorna:
 
For the origins of R1a- and R1b- see the following.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2014 at 00:03
So, in the end, R1a and R1b could have entered the Americas trough Beringia. But that isn't the same that believing "Europeans" or even "Caucasians" went to the Americas in the same group.


A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.