Soy Chicano Forums

Soy Chicano Forums (http://www.soychicano.com/index.php)
-   History (http://www.soychicano.com/forumdisplay.php?f=96)
-   -   Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor! (http://www.soychicano.com/showthread.php?t=53766)

xouhcoatl 04-29-2010 02:14 PM

Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
DNA has proven
• Native Americans have no Asian DNA.
• Native American DNA is unique to Native Americans.
• Native Americans are a single founding population.
• Native American DNA and the distribution is homogeneous.
• Native Americans had no connection to other populations for at least 40,000 years.
• The gene flow in the Americas is from
- - - South to North
and from
- - - Alaska to Siberia.

DNA has proven Native Americans are “indigenous” to the Americas.

American Indians genetic characteristics distinguish them from all other world populations. A proper description of American Indian genetic characteristics begins with recognizing their autochthonous (indigenous) character.

The primary North American Indian genetic contribution identified for the Arctic region may indicate gene flow from Alaska to Siberia. This would reverse the usual scholarly presumption that North American populations have been only a recipient of Asian immigrants and not a source of American Indian emigrants to Asia

DNA Tribes® Digest October 25, 2008
http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-diges…
--------------------

Thursday, 17 July 2008

An international team of geoarchaeologists have discovered footprints in central Mexico that place the presence of early humans in the Americas further back than previous thought: around 40,000 years ago. The discovery helps to settle a long-standing debate as to when humans first came to the Western Hemisphere.

Humans walked America 40,000 years ago
http://www.itwire.com/index2.php?option=…
--------------------

Ongoing biases against America as an old continent Is the legacy of the conquest. The colonization of the Americas naturally led to the suppressed estimates of the native populations’ age. And let’s not forget that we’d decided that America was a “new” world long before scientific method has prevailed in the descriptions of nature and culture. As of now, after decades of search, there’s no scientific evidence that indicates that America is a recently populated continent.

The new dates for the Toloquilla footprints at 40,000 YBP are fully consistent with the fact that Siberia hasn’t furnished the necessary evidence to demonstrate the origin of the earliest American lithic assemblages outside of the Americas. It means that the roots of Clovis, Nenana and other incipient early American archaeological cultures are in America, all the way back to 40-50,000 YBP, unless convincingly demonstrated otherwise.

Anthropology.net
http://anthropology.net/2008/06/08/on-me…
------------------------

To put it in perspective. Native Americans were already living in the Americas when the Neanderthals where still roaming around in Europe.


Yes it is a copy and paste from one of my cuates.

Californio 04-29-2010 06:30 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
So this study proves the Out of Africa theory is BS? Hah. What a joke.

Observer 05-01-2010 02:00 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
interesting info...
this is sure to ruffle the
feathers of inbreeds...:lol:

miguelito21 05-02-2010 07:28 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
Interesting indeed, but the article deals more with intra-continental gene flows than with how and when the first humans arrived in the Americas.

On a side note, the most commonly, in fact the only source cited is "DNA Tribes® analysis", but nothing is said about the analysis' methodology, nor has the analysis in question been subject to peer-review processes.
DNA Tribes® is a for-profit company that provides a market service that analyzes people's genetic ancestry, not scientific research unit, meaning that their material, methodology and results are not subject to scientific review processes.



As for the blogpost, there are quite interesting replies below. But just something that stood out, because it is so often repeated:


"Ongoing biases against America as an old continent and the legacy of the conquest."

At the time of the Conquest, there was nothing coming close to a discussion about the "age of continents". There were discussions about the origins of Civilization (Greece, Egypt), but nothing remotely resembling archaeological debates about the peopling of the world. For all they knew, the world was about 6,000 years old, based on the Bible.

I've seen several people argue that the Bering Strait theory, or any theory that portrayed the peopling of the Americas as the result of a migration from outside, had its roots in racism and/or an effort to belittle American civilizations' achievements.

"They try to take our achievements away from us by saying we come from Asia" said Tec once - roughly, not exactly - for example.

Quite frankly I've never really understood that point.


"And let’s not forget that we’d decided that America was a “new” world long before scientific method has prevailed in the descriptions of nature and culture. America as the New World, i.e. the world not mentioned in the Bible"

Much to the contrary, at the time of the Conquest and for quite some time after, some theologians have argued that the Americas were the place of the Garden of Eden, in other words the place were Man originated. I can't remember the name, but there was one in particular that thought it was some place in the Amazonian forest, and the forbidden fruit was the banana. I'd have to check Galeano's book to get the name.


"In Transcaucasia, for example, the Azeris and the Armenians have been having land disputes for centuries; not surprisingly, the scholars on both sides have been trying to justify their respective governments’ current land claims by portraying the other party as a “recent” immigrant into the disputed area. By the same token, the colonization of the Americas naturally led to the suppressed estimates of the native populations’ age."


Wtf. :confused:
The former is a typical case of land disputes between people who claim precedence as the justification for their land claims. How that resembles the debates around the time of arrival of the first humans in the Americas is beyond me.
The colonizers didn't strip the Indigenous people from their land based on estimates of their time of arrival. wtf

HyperKinetic 05-02-2010 07:54 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miguelito21 (Post 1413306)
Interesting indeed, but the article deals more with intra-continental gene flows than with how and when the first humans arrived in the Americas.

On a side note, the most commonly, in fact the only source cited is "DNA Tribes® analysis", but nothing is said about the analysis' methodology, nor has the analysis in question been subject to peer-review processes.
DNA Tribes® is a for-profit company that provides a market service that analyzes people's genetic ancestry, not scientific research unit, meaning that their material, methodology and results are not subject to scientific review processes.



As for the blogpost, there are quite interesting replies below. But just something that stood out, because it is so often repeated:


"Ongoing biases against America as an old continent and the legacy of the conquest."

At the time of the Conquest, there was nothing coming close to a discussion about the "age of continents". There were discussions about the origins of Civilization (Greece, Egypt), but nothing remotely resembling archaeological debates about the peopling of the world. For all they knew, the world was about 6,000 years old, based on the Bible.

I've seen several people argue that the Bering Strait theory, or any theory that portrayed the peopling of the Americas as the result of a migration from outside, had its roots in racism and/or an effort to belittle American civilizations' achievements.

"They try to take our achievements away from us by saying we come from Asia" said Tec once - roughly, not exactly - for example.

Quite frankly I've never really understood that point.


"And let’s not forget that we’d decided that America was a “new” world long before scientific method has prevailed in the descriptions of nature and culture. America as the New World, i.e. the world not mentioned in the Bible"

Much to the contrary, at the time of the Conquest and for quite some time after, some theologians have argued that the Americas were the place of the Garden of Eden, in other words the place were Man originated. I can't remember the name, but there was one in particular that thought it was some place in the Amazonian forest, and the forbidden fruit was the banana. I'd have to check Galeano's book to get the name.


"In Transcaucasia, for example, the Azeris and the Armenians have been having land disputes for centuries; not surprisingly, the scholars on both sides have been trying to justify their respective governments’ current land claims by portraying the other party as a “recent” immigrant into the disputed area. By the same token, the colonization of the Americas naturally led to the suppressed estimates of the native populations’ age."


Wtf. :confused:
The former is a typical case of land disputes between people who claim precedence as the justification for their land claims. How that resembles the debates around the time of arrival of the first humans in the Americas is beyond me.
The colonizers didn't strip the Indigenous people from their land based on estimates of their time of arrival. wtf


You know how some white people (and some Mexicans here) get their panties in a twist if you tell them about humanity coming out of Africa? Yeah, it's the same way with some people who get irked if they're told they didn't spontaneously sprout out of the ground in the Americas.

The scientific method proves these people wrong, but they don't want to hear it.

Observer 05-02-2010 09:46 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
Hyper believes his honky-self to be the descendant
of a n!gg3r that sprouted out of the ground in Africa :lol:

HyperKinetic 05-02-2010 09:50 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer (Post 1413321)
Hyper believes his honky-self to be the descendant
of a n!gg3r that sprouted out of the ground in Africa :lol:

Silly Obs.

Observer 05-02-2010 09:51 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
and?

HyperKinetic 05-02-2010 09:57 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer (Post 1413323)
and?

And you're silly.

Observer 05-02-2010 09:59 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
you cant argue with science, hyper...
that's a fact, best believe.

HyperKinetic 05-02-2010 10:02 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer (Post 1413325)
you cant argue with science, hyper...
that's a fact, best believe.

Yep, I'm really broken up about it. Can I cry on your shoulder?

Observer 05-02-2010 10:03 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
crying is for women, wimps, and whites...
2/3 :D

HyperKinetic 05-02-2010 10:09 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer (Post 1413327)
crying is for women, wimps, and whites...
2/3 :D

Don't you mean 3/5? I'm black too ;P

Observer 05-02-2010 10:12 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
only 3 listed

HyperKinetic 05-02-2010 10:20 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer (Post 1413332)
only 3 listed

Did a joke I make really go over the clever Obs' head? I don't think I'd believe it.

Observer 05-02-2010 10:27 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
joke?
now that is funny

HyperKinetic 05-02-2010 10:32 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
You're no fun. :(

budda10000 02-19-2011 07:56 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
Mormons told me I was a lost jew and that my fossils are tricks by lucifer. No REALLY! Joseph Smith said it so it must be true!

Tupiniquim 06-11-2011 01:23 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
Very interesting information, but I think it would be better if there was a comparison with DNA from south American indigenous population's gene pool. Brazilian researchers' works, like these done by Niède Guidon, have suggested a human occupation of American continent going back to 45,000 B.P. (Before the Present), including an ancient negroid component, represented by skulls found in southeastern Brazil, in the Lagoa Santa Region, Minas Gerais, Brazil. It contradicts frontally the traditional vision by American anthropologists.

American academics ever sustained the Clovis Theory – A huge and unique migration of hunter-gatherers through Beringia (a dry land bridge linking Asia and America, now the Behring strait), around 12,000 years ago, following herds of big herbivores of the pleistocenic megafauna.

By other hand, Brazilian researchers, leaded by Prof. Niède Guidon, proposed the occurrence of several, successive migratory waves, presumivelly coming initially from Oceania/Melanesia, by crossing the Pacific Ocean, or even from Asia, by Beringia crossing and down to south. So, the first human arrival in American continent would go well back to 45,000 years ago.

More recent, alternative theories even point out the Solutrèan Culture (Europe, around 15,000 years ago) as the origin of Clovis Culture, due great similarities in toolmaking technology, specially the chipped stone spearheads found in both continents. Presumivelly, groups of hunter-gatherers crossed North Atlantic over, or coasting, the ice cap covering the North hemisphere by the last Ice Age. Is also proposed a posterior arriving of Polinesian exploratory and colonizing expeditions at Pacific coast of South America, less than 8,000 years ago.

After all said, I personally agree with the multi-origin theories, since they are sane and concomitant. Possibilly our beautiful continent has been a big human travel hub since very, very ancient times.

It's ever been, afterall, a big melting pot -- the real thing :-)

I'm enclosing a few links I recommend to checking out, and abstracts from papers and research activities by Brazilian anthropologists.

- Revista de Antropologia da Universidade de São Paulo (USP) - Journal of Anthropology - USP

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=...ipt=sci_serial


- On Dr. Niède Guidon:

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


- Research project of Profs. Walter Alves Neves & Paulo Eduardo Oliveira - USP

http://www.bv.fapesp.br/en/projetos-...ntrhopological

Abstracts:

NEVES, Walter A.; *and* . OKUMURA, Maria Mercedes M.BERNARDO, Danilo V A OKUMURA, Maria Mercedes M - A origem do homem americano vista a partir da América do Sul: uma ou duas migrações?. Rev. Antropol. [online]. 2007, vol.50, n.1, pp. 9-44.

Until mid 1990s the prevailing model to explain the early colonization of the Americas rested on the assumption that three different migrations were involved in the process. The first migration would have given rise to most of the modern Native Americans, and is known as "Amerind"; the second migration would have given rise only to the Na-Dene Indians of the northern pacific; while the third would have given rise to the Eskimos and Aleuts. Known as the Three Migrations Model, the model was said to rest on convergent evidences coming from dental morphology, linguistics and the gene pool of living Native Americans. By the time the model was formulated, genetic diversity of living humans was studied by means of gene products, like serum proteins, and not by means of DNA itself. From mid 1990s on, two other models to explain the origin of Native Americans started competing with the Three Migration Model. They are known today as The Two Main Biological Components Model, and The Single Migration Model. The first one rests on the analysis of the cranial morphology of extinct and extant Native Americans along time, while the second has emerged from the study of DNA polymorphisms of living populations, mainly from mitochondrial and Y chromosome DNA sequencing. In other words, evidence coming from cranial morphology and its variation along time sustains that two Northern Asian populations entered the continent: the first one exhibiting a more generalized cranial pattern, and a second one exhibiting a more specialized architecture. On the other hand, the distribution of DNA haplogroups in modern Native American populations is easily explained by the entrance of only one mother population from Northern Asia. In this study we present new evidence that two very distinct cranial morphologies are indeed found among extinct Native Americans along time: a more generalized cranial pattern typifying the first newcomers, known in the literature as Paleoindians (12 to 8 thousand years ago), and a more specialized pattern typifying latter groups, since the Archaic period (<8 thousand years). Although exceptions to this temporal logic have already been found, the chronology proposed seems to work in the vast majority of the American continent. The results obtained are discussed under the light of those generated by Molecular Biology of extant Native Americans.

Keywords : Three Migration Model; Two Main Biological Components Model; Native American DNA; Cranial Morphology; First Americans.



NEVES, Walter A. *and* . ATUI, João Paulo. - O mito da homogeneidade biológica na população paleoíndia de Lagoa Santa: implicações antropológicas. Rev. Antropol. [online]. 2004, vol.47, n.1, pp. 159-205

Since their first discovery in 1842-1843, by Peter Lund, the human skeletal remains from Lagoa Santa, Brazil, were destined to influence, substantially, the discussion about the settlement of the Americas, from a biological perspective. Until 1970 several authors have refered to these remains as a homogenous collection, implying that these individuals represented just one biological population or "race". Mello e Alvim (1977; see also Mello e Alvim et al., 1983-1984) was the first to use explicitly the term "homogeneity" as implying a very low intra-population diversity among these late paleoindians. For her, the extremely low diversity among the Lagoa Santa specimens could be explained only by a narrow bottle neck occuring during the occupation of the region, followed by geographic isolation from other contemporary groups. The idea of a extremely low diverse population in ancient Lagoa Santa led some brazilian archeologists to elaborate on the "isolation hypothesis", and to use it to explain local characteristics of material culture and social organization. In this paper we show that even very simple quantification techniques is able to demonstrate that the Lagoa Santa early inhabitants are among the most diverse populations in the planet, as it is normally the case with Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene hunter-gatherers.

Keywords : within-population variability; Paleoindians; Coeficient of Variation; genetic isolation


NEVES, Walter Alves, OLIVEIRA, Paulo Eduardo, 2009 - Origins and microevolution of man in the Americas: a paleoantrhopological approach (III) – Research project - Universidade de São Paulo, Instituto de Biociências

Two great innovations regarding the origins of the American man were generated in the last five years, and will be of paramount importance for a radical change in the current ideas about the subject. First, biological anthropologists working in Brazil and USA were able to demonstrate that the cranial morphology of the first known americans, called Paleoindians, has no similarity with that of the Mongoloid populations, including modern native americans. This discovery leads the coordinator of this project to propose a new model to explain the settlement of the americas. This model is called the "The two main biological components" and was proposed to replace the "Three migration model", and the "One migration model”, the later vehemently defended by molecular biologists over the last five years. The second innovation is that archaeologists were finally able to demonstrate the presence of man in the continent prior to the Clovis culture. The consolidation of the "Tow main biological components" will depend very much on our ability to generate new data and results about the biology of the first americans. In this context, the new version of the project rests on six well defined research topics, aiming at testing several clearly defined hypothesis regarding the Paleoindian occupation of Lagoa Santa. These six research axis are the following: "Clovis-first/Clovis-like"?, biological origins of the first americans, hunter-gatherers resilience in the neotropics, site formation and taphonomy in tropical areas, paleoclimates and paleoenvironments during the final Pleistocene and Holocene in Lagoa Santa, and man and megafauna in the Pleistocene/Holocene transition. (AU)

website: http://www.bv.fapesp.br/en/projetos-...ntrhopological

20Chicahua11 06-12-2011 10:35 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
This is so interesting to me, I love anything about history and humanity....Thank you for posting this, I think it will make for some intense conversation and posts ;-)

I like the way you said that the continent was a hub for travelers.... makes sense since so many different nations have come, gone, while others stayed and planted roots. Just like Mexica, many thousands of years ago when they found what is now called Mexico ....

Thanks again and please do keep posting Tupiniquim :D

Tzizicpandacuare 06-22-2011 12:55 AM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
Very educating thread here. Like some carnales here though I find it that there is a lot of defensiveness among our people who feel that if indeed people came from Africa or Asia, that makes us inferior for some reason...

ChicanoDan 06-22-2011 09:24 AM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
I don't know necessarily that there is a defensiveness about coming from Asia or Africa.

I do however find it a bit disconcerting that people have an aversion to believing that it is possible that the so called Bering Strait Theory is wrong and that there was human life on this continent well before any such land crossing would have been in existence.

Tzizicpandacuare 06-22-2011 09:27 AM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicanoDan (Post 1456386)
I don't know necessarily that there is a defensiveness about coming from Asia or Africa.

I do however find it a bit disconcerting that people have an aversion to believing that it is possible that the so called Bering Strait Theory is wrong and that there was human life on this continent well before any such land crossing would have been in existence.

I'm in some sort of different ground on that. I believe in the Bering Straight Theory (why is it that at a lot of Xicanos and other raza are against that theory?) but I think there is evidence that people have been here even before that.

For example, all the way down in Chile there are findings older than the clovis people!

ChicanoDan 06-22-2011 10:14 AM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
I would say it comes from the same place as arguing against the Pyramids were built By Aliens Theory .. or arguing against the theory that Mayans and Aztecs practiced Mass Human sacrifices, .. Or against the misconception of catholicism and christianity somehow being a part of Chicano culture since forever..

Why is it easier to believe that life "Sprang" from the ground in Africa when in fact there is research that shows there were humanoid life forms in Northern Europe, Far east and northern Asia, Australia and India in roughly the same time period.. And if it's not a stretch to say that life evolved in different parts of the world simultaneously .. how much more of a stretch would it be to say that while happening on eastern continents.. Western continents had their share of life springing evolutionary events as well....

There is evidence that suggests all of that.. yet our EuroEducated minds lead us to cling to the least probable of theories that says hundreds of thousands of years of migration occurred over a period of thousands?

Tzizicpandacuare 06-22-2011 06:25 PM

Re: Native Americans and Asians did NOT have a common ancestor!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicanoDan (Post 1456402)
I would say it comes from the same place as arguing against the Pyramids were built By Aliens Theory .. or arguing against the theory that Mayans and Aztecs practiced Mass Human sacrifices, .. Or against the misconception of catholicism and christianity somehow being a part of Chicano culture since forever..

Why is it easier to believe that life "Sprang" from the ground in Africa when in fact there is research that shows there were humanoid life forms in Northern Europe, Far east and northern Asia, Australia and India in roughly the same time period.. And if it's not a stretch to say that life evolved in different parts of the world simultaneously .. how much more of a stretch would it be to say that while happening on eastern continents.. Western continents had their share of life springing evolutionary events as well....

There is evidence that suggests all of that.. yet our EuroEducated minds lead us to cling to the least probable of theories that says hundreds of thousands of years of migration occurred over a period of thousands?

Would Ethnocentrics really argue humanity emerged in Africa?...


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:38 PM.


All the comments are property of their posters. Images, logo, content and design are © copyright by SoyChicano.com. All Rights Reserved.