Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
#51
Old 12-30-2017, 09:39 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
And more.

They are thought to be directly descended from the first human populations to emerge from Africa, and have probably lived in the Andaman Islands for up to 60,000 years. The fact that their language is so different even from other Andaman islanders suggests that they have had little contact with other people for thousands of years.

https://survivalinternational.or...s/mostisolated
#52
Old 12-30-2017, 09:45 PM
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 39,391
What you don't seem to understand is that the study that came up with the figure of 60,000 years also excluded the Sentinelese. The figure is based on the Andamanese in general. There is no direct evidence that the Sentinelese have been isolated for 60,000 years, regardless of how many websites repeat that figure. As we have said, the figures of 60,000 and 26,000 are based on the same kind of evidence and the same assumptions, but the latter figure is more recent and based on better data on the Andamanese. And in neither case do those figures imply that the Sentinelese have been isolated from the other Andamanese.

Once again, I'm going to ask you to provide a cite, based on published peer reviewed evidence in a scientific journal, that the Sentinelese have been isolated for 60,000 years. I don't think you understand where that figure comes from or how it was derived.

(With all due respect, I can't help be be reminded by this conversation of this cartoon on "science hell.")

Last edited by Colibri; 12-30-2017 at 09:47 PM.
#53
Old 12-30-2017, 09:52 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 83,789
I'm not sure why the Andaman Islanders would need a "large ship" to get from their island to N. Sentinal (about 20 miles away). And being primitive H/G's, they wouldn't have had "large ships" anyway, so they wouldn't have to worry about that. I also doubt that India has been enforcing its "no go" rule for 26,000 years. It also doesn't take "thousands of years" for languages to change enough to be mutually unintelligible.

Last edited by John Mace; 12-30-2017 at 09:53 PM.
#54
Old 12-30-2017, 09:57 PM
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 39,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Isn't that amazing, 2 very different societies, only a few dozen miles apart and they haven't even rowed a boat to get there. Could be because India enforces a 3 mile exclusion zone around the island.
Not for 60,000 years. Not even for a century.

Quote:
23 square miles of total isolation. It might as well be on the moon.
Which is my point. They're not on the moon. It's absurd to believe they have been isolated from the other Andamanese when they are so close.


Quote:
Here is a few reasons why they are isolated.
No natural harbors, nothing of interest.

North Sentinel has no natural harbors, so there's no ideal spot for a ship to take shelter from in a storm, and furthermore, the island is surrounded by a ring of submerged coral reefs that prevent large ships from approaching.
Canoes don't need harbors and can easily pass through coral reefs. The Sentinelese would have been of interest to the other Andamanese simply for being other people.

Agreed that the Sentinelese have been isolated for the last few hundred years from European contact. That does not mean that they have been isolated from their near neighbors.


Quote:
https://wheresmamba.com/single-p...entinel-Island

Beware though, they claim 60k for the isolation too.
Again, poorly formatted web pages do not constitute cites.

Last edited by Colibri; 12-30-2017 at 09:59 PM.
#55
Old 12-30-2017, 10:23 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Not for 60,000 years. Not even for a century.



Which is my point. They're not on the moon. It's absurd to believe they have been isolated from the other Andamanese when they are so close.




Canoes don't need harbors and can easily pass through coral reefs. The Sentinelese would have been of interest to the other Andamanese simply for being other people.

Agreed that the Sentinelese have been isolated for the last few hundred years from European contact. That does not mean that they have been isolated from their near neighbors.



Again, poorly formatted web pages do not constitute cites.

Every one of them is poorly formatted too? Well color me embarrassed.

Seems National Geographic's poorly formatted too then;

Their awareness of the ocean, earth, and the movement of animals has been accumulated over 60,000 years of inhabiting the islands. Oral history teachings and their hunter-gatherer lifestyle might have prepared them to move deeper into the forests after they felt the first trembles of the earthquake.

(Talking about how the Sentinelese survived the earthquake and tsunami in 2004.)

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...mi_island.html

And let's see, A search for Sentinel Island 60,000 years
returns About 198,000 results (0.78 seconds)
#56
Old 12-30-2017, 10:26 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I'm not sure why the Andaman Islanders would need a "large ship" to get from their island to N. Sentinal (about 20 miles away). And being primitive H/G's, they wouldn't have had "large ships" anyway, so they wouldn't have to worry about that. I also doubt that India has been enforcing its "no go" rule for 26,000 years. It also doesn't take "thousands of years" for languages to change enough to be mutually unintelligible.
A lot of opinion there John, but no facts.
#57
Old 12-30-2017, 10:50 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 83,789
Not that this actually means anything, but searching for "'Sentinel Islands' 26,000 years" returns 3,340,000 hits.
#58
Old 12-31-2017, 07:24 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,967
It's the nature of a Dope thread to sidetrack itself with some picayune sidebar that seizes upon an offhand remark intended to serve as a pithy summary of a complicated topic, and then turn outliers into ammo with which to diminish credulity for the overall point being made.

I love that but it is not useful in creating understanding. So forget about the Sentinelese, except to the extent that if they are indeed an exception, they prove a general rule that genes flow across most populations in remarkably nimble ways.

We look around us and we see fellow humans who are phenotypically different in some way; we notice also that some phenotypic traits cluster in such a way that groupings seem to emerge. We then apply an observation that members of such groups often have a common perception of the geographic location of the ancestral population from which they are descended.

Overlaid on top of the complex reason(s) for which various groupings emerge are social, political and psychological layers that collectively distract from a discussion around the biology of the human species. Some poor homie cannot even ask a question about genetic makeup without worrying that someone will take him to task for sneaking racism in by the back door. Ai yi yi.

Let me completely retract my original response and change it as follows:
Anyone can claim “100%” descent from any ancestor. (Dibs on Solomon for CP. LOL )

Were they to do so, they would demonstrate they have no idea what they are talking about. In general, the way to understand genetic ancestry is to first gain an understanding of how humans populated the world. From there, learn how various genetic markers are used as proxies from which gene flow can be approximated.
WRT the various present-day populations in Europe, anyone who thinks they are “100% descended” from any ancestral population is as wrong as the individual who thinks modern populations have somehow been so thoroughly homogenized that gene variant frequencies do not emerge for groups created by an average claim for an ancestral population defined by their geographic location.
#59
Old 12-31-2017, 08:28 AM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 38,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
I didn't say that.



I didn't say that.

Your questions don't seem to have anything to do with what I actually said.
You jumped from "biological parentage may not match believed parentage" to "infidelity".
__________________
Life ain't peaches and cream, but sometimes it's laughing your ass off when you have no ass. - WhyNot
#60
Old 12-31-2017, 08:54 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
What you don't seem to understand is that the study that came up with the figure of 60,000 years also excluded the Sentinelese. The figure is based on the Andamanese in general. There is no direct evidence that the Sentinelese have been isolated for 60,000 years, regardless of how many websites repeat that figure. As we have said, the figures of 60,000 and 26,000 are based on the same kind of evidence and the same assumptions, but the latter figure is more recent and based on better data on the Andamanese. And in neither case do those figures imply that the Sentinelese have been isolated from the other Andamanese.

Once again, I'm going to ask you to provide a cite, based on published peer reviewed evidence in a scientific journal, that the Sentinelese have been isolated for 60,000 years. I don't think you understand where that figure comes from or how it was derived.
You've been here long enough to know that moving the goal posts doesn't work. Hasn't in the past, won't now.
#61
Old 12-31-2017, 09:14 AM
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 39,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
A lot of opinion there John, but no facts.
You've provided no facts yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
You've been here long enough to know that moving the goal posts doesn't work. Hasn't in the past, won't now.
Asking for a cite isn't moving the goal posts.

But if you want to believe outdated information, go ahead.
#62
Old 12-31-2017, 09:17 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
It's the nature of a Dope thread to sidetrack itself with some picayune sidebar that seizes upon an offhand remark intended to serve as a pithy summary of a complicated topic, and then turn outliers into ammo with which to diminish credulity for the overall point being made.

...

I love that .
I apologize for participating in the hijack. Your point is well taken.

I should know better. I can see the wheels on the goalpost moving, but I thought if I lead it just right, I could score. 6 out of 8 ain't bad, on the move like that.
#63
Old 12-31-2017, 09:18 AM
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 39,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
You jumped from "biological parentage may not match believed parentage" to "infidelity".
That's generally true, unless you're nitpicking the definition of "infidelity."

And your questions still had nothing to do with what I wrote.
#64
Old 12-31-2017, 09:25 AM
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 39,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
I should know better. I can see the wheels on the goalpost moving, but I thought if I lead it just right, I could score. 6 out of 8 ain't bad, on the move like that.
The objective of this forum is to post accurate factual information, not to "score." If that's what you've been doing, it's inappropriate for GQ.
#65
Old 12-31-2017, 10:07 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Roger, I promise to never score in GQ again.

Thank you.
#66
Old 12-31-2017, 10:45 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,844
From what I understand - the Andaman Islanders are part of the first wave out of Africa that spread along the coast of India and on to Indonesia and Australia. There are racial similarities that seem to bear this out. The group that accomplished this - by spreading along the coast - appears to have mastered a moderately good sea-faring culture - enough to cross appreciable gaps between parts of the Indonesian archipelago, plus spreading rapidly along the coast.

Here's an article suggesting humans arrived in Australia 65,000 years ago. Mind you, it's only one site, and making a date estimate with a new tool for determining the age of aritfacts. The generally accepted date is 45,000 give or take.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...evolution-spd/
Quote:
The artifacts found by the archaeological team initially dated back only 10,000 years. As they dug further into the shelter, the found tools dating back 35,000, 40,000, and 65,000 years.

In order to reach Australia, Australia’s Aboriginal people would have had to undertake a nearly 60-mile voyage from surrounding regions. Clarkson also told the Sydney Morning Herald that it’s possible early Australians walked to the northern regions of the continent from Papau New Guinea when sea levels were significantly lower.
It's not a stretch to suggest that the same culture may have reached the Andaman Islands.

However, my understanding of the current hostility of the islanders is that they have been the subject of slave raids and similar problems from mainlanders going back to modern ocean-going technology probably 1500 years ago. (not to mention the usual hostilities when two cultures meet and don't understand each other). Presumably some of these interactions left foreign DNA on the islands - plus, the hostility on Sentinel Island probably did not develop in isolation. More likely, over the last millennia they have had interaction, both verbal and DNA, with the nearby island(s) and were made aware that outsiders meant serious trouble, even if no big ships approached their little island.

Plus, if the last glacial maximum 12,000 years ago meant an easy walk from New Guinea to Australia, then what does that say about the connectedness of Sentinel 12,000 years ago? At the very least, the trip to the main islands would have been significantly less.

So - up to 60,000 years ago? Maybe. Maybe not. Pure unadulterated strain since then? Probably not. But the level of dilution by ancestors from outside the original Andaman population is likely fairly low.

Last edited by md2000; 12-31-2017 at 10:47 AM.
#67
Old 12-31-2017, 10:49 AM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 83,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I'm not sure why the Andaman Islanders would need a "large ship" to get from their island to N. Sentinal (about 20 miles away). And being primitive H/G's, they wouldn't have had "large ships" anyway, so they wouldn't have to worry about that. I also doubt that India has been enforcing its "no go" rule for 26,000 years. It also doesn't take "thousands of years" for languages to change enough to be mutually unintelligible.
Let's take a look:

Fact: Andaman Islanders do not need a "large ship" to get from their island to N. Sentinel.
Fact: N. Sentinel is "about 20 miles" from one of the main Andaman Islands
Fact: For most of the lat 26,000 years (until about maybe the last 300 years), Andaman Islanders were, and have been for as long as we can tell, Hunter Gatherers. No Hunter Gatherer society, including Andaman Islanders have had "large ships" like the one that photo that was linked to. They would not have had "large ships" with which to travel to other islands even if they wanted to.
Fact: India has not been enforcing a restricted area rule around N. Sentinal for 26,000 years.
Fact: When language groups split, it does not take thousands of years for the resulting languages to become mutually unintelligible. But the more important point is that no one has made a scholarly study of the Sentinelese language so we don't even know how different it is from the languages of their neighbors. All we have is anecdotal information.

Nary an opinion to be found! And on that note, I think I'll stop participating in this silly hijack. If anyone wants to start a new thread about the Sentinelese, we can continue the discussion there.

Last edited by John Mace; 12-31-2017 at 10:51 AM.
#68
Old 12-31-2017, 11:54 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,844
Additionally:

FACT: cultures such as the Romans, and presumably also the cultures in India and China, have had large ocean going vessels over 2000 years ago. Marco Polo got home by sailing from China to Persia with a Chinese fleet. it would be surprising if they did not know of the Andaman islands.
FACT: If you google "Andaman islands slave raids" you get this book - Warless Societies and the Origin of War by By Raymond Case Kelly - P81 it mentions that the islands appeared on Ptolomaic era maps; also the hostility is likely due to Burmese and Malay slave raids which would be in "recent" history (last millennia or two). it is extremely unlikely that this contact left no outside DNA on the islands.
FACT: 12,000 years ago sea levels were significantly lower - so that 20-mile canoe ride would be significantly shorter if not walkable.
FACT: However the original islanders got there, between 26,000 and 60,000 years ago, it indicates a significant ocean-going capability; as the Polynesians have demonstrated, it does not take an advanced technical civilization and big ships to master long distance ocean travel. Presumably as the mainland became more hostile and fellow tribes on the mainland were overrun, they simply had less and less need to make those trips.
#69
Old 12-31-2017, 12:48 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Roger, I promise to never score in GQ again.

Thank you.
You mean own goals?
#70
Old 12-31-2017, 05:25 PM
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 39,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Roger, I promise to never score in GQ again.
If you did, it would be a first.
#71
Old 12-31-2017, 05:37 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
If you did, it would be a first.
In all honesty, I didn't think anyone could move goalposts that fast. That was impressive.
#72
Old 12-31-2017, 05:51 PM
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 39,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
In all honesty, I didn't think anyone could move goalposts that fast. That was impressive.
I moved no goalposts. You made a statement you failed to provide any documented evidence for. (As I said, quoting random websites does not constitute cites. I can find hundreds of websites stating that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster are real.) You've failed to address any of my points explaining why your statement was outdated and inaccurate. Declaring victory when it's apparent to everyone else that you haven't supported your statements isn't a tactic that's going to fool anyone. The "moving goalposts" ploy is pretty much an admission that you can't make your case,

Last edited by Colibri; 12-31-2017 at 05:53 PM.
#73
Old 12-31-2017, 06:26 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
No, my favorite move was the part where you put the goalpost on Sentinel Island and required a peer review. See, Sentinel Island has a problem granting visas, making your study impossible. Seems no one wants to have their researchers shot to death. Going to be hard to get DNA from them considering that.

No one goes there because all they would find is a 60,000 year old dung heap. A heap of genetically pure Sentinelese poop.

Moved goalpost. Yep.

Last edited by Morgenstern; 12-31-2017 at 06:29 PM.
#74
Old 01-01-2018, 09:58 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,319
He was only pushing you to realize that your citations were silly popular press garbage.
#75
Old 01-01-2018, 12:54 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 16,443
The question of earliest human migrations to S.E. Asia is interesting. Australia is more accessible than either the Philippines or the Andamanese Islands. When was it settled? Is there a good webpage showing the extent of land bridges 60, 50, 40, and 30,000 years ago?

Much of S.E. Asia had hominids prior to modern man and even the earliest modern men in S.E. Asia were extinguished by climate change, right? This might complicate discussion.

I also see
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Estimates of the mutation rate of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) vary greatly depending on the available data and the method used for estimation. The two main methods of estimation, phylogeny based methods and pedigree based methods, have produced mutation rates that differ by almost an order of magnitude.
I've read a lot about Y-haplogroups where, finally, the "clock" is now rather well calibrated. What's the straight dope on mtDNA "clock" calibration?
#76
Old 01-01-2018, 02:49 PM
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 39,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
You realize the North Sentinel Island is a close 60,000 year-old society, locked tighter than a vault genetically by 100% isolation from everyone else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
No, my favorite move was the part where you put the goalpost on Sentinel Island and required a peer review. See, Sentinel Island has a problem granting visas, making your study impossible. Seems no one wants to have their researchers shot to death. Going to be hard to get DNA from them considering that.
You were the one who put the goalpost on North Sentinel and the 60,000 year figure. You made a definitive statement about the genetics of the people there in the first post above. Later you admit yourself there is no DNA information from the island on which to base such a statement. The only cites you provided were secondary ones from websites, which do not constitute actual evidence.* At this point, you are arguing vigorously that your original statement has no (and can have no) actual basis (which I agree with). Not only have you failed to make a first down, as Ramira says you've made an own goal by demonstrating that your original post is not supported by direct evidence.

*There are peer-reviewed articles (no, I'm not going to find them for you) on which the 60,000 year figure is based, but as has been said that comes from data on the other Andaman Islands (not North Sentinel) and this has since been superseded by later research.

You've been here 10 years. I would have thought that by now you would have had some idea what information provides an acceptable cite in GQ.

Last edited by Colibri; 01-01-2018 at 02:55 PM.
#77
Old 01-02-2018, 07:49 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,967
Umm...back to the OP (and recalling that the idea of GQ is to answer as factually as possible the question at hand):
"But what about in Europe? How many people in the British Isles can claim 100% descent from the early Angles, Saxons, Jutes? How many people in modern France can claim 100% descent from the Gauls or Franks? How many modern Italians are 100% Eutruscan?"

There has been a lot of genetic flow within and through the geographic area now characterized as "Europe" since Bob and Joan showed up out of africa (and they showed up more than once).

The genetic makeup there for non-recent immigrants (past few hundred years) generally reflects a gene pool from populations which left africa at least 40-50K years ago, subsequently admixing with resident more ancient populations such as Neanderthals. Many local populations have been isolated enough to develop a reasonably predictable gene pool, but none (in Europe, LOL) have been so isolated that that they are "100%" anything in terms of ancestral gene pool from more than a generation or two back. Non-recent immigrant Europeans may not be very smoothly clinal, but no given population can lay claim to being a pure anything.

Let us now create a new and more interesting hijack over what a "gene pool" is, but I am generally using it as a shorthand way to describe a possible set of contributing gene variants from which any individual has a chance to draw their personal set. IOW a (non-recent immigrant European) has a better shot at having Neanderthal genes than does a non-immigrant horn-of-african who in turn has a better shot than does an Mbuti...blah blah blah).

Evolution happens every time an organism reproduces. In what sense can anybody claim 100% anything for ancestry...?
#78
Old 01-02-2018, 08:55 AM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 16,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
The genetic makeup there for non-recent immigrants (past few hundred years) generally reflects a gene pool from populations which left africa at least 40-50K years ago, subsequently admixing with resident more ancient populations such as Neanderthals.
Hugely misleading. See #19 for a concise and useful starting point.
#79
Old 01-02-2018, 09:29 AM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 83,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
Umm...back to the OP (and recalling that the idea of GQ is to answer as factually as possible the question at hand):
"But what about in Europe? How many people in the British Isles can claim 100% descent from the early Angles, Saxons, Jutes? How many people in modern France can claim 100% descent from the Gauls or Franks? How many modern Italians are 100% Eutruscan?"
How could we know? What range of genomes defines someone as having been an Angle, a Saxon or a Jute? Or an Etruscan? And since I've seen estimates on the order of 1,000 years ago for the European Identical Ancestor point, it would appear that our best estimate would be: None.
#80
Old 01-02-2018, 09:55 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 5,831
According to DNA testing. The average Uk resident is 37% Anglo Saxon, 22% Celtic, 20% Western Europe, 9% Scandinavian, 3% Spanish, and 2% Italian/Greek.
Given those percentages someone 100% Anglo Saxon or Celtic would be very rare if they exist at all.
#81
Old 01-02-2018, 10:09 AM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 83,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
According to DNA testing. The average Uk resident is 37% Anglo Saxon, 22% Celtic, 20% Western Europe, 9% Scandinavian, 3% Spanish, and 2% Italian/Greek.
Given those percentages someone 100% Anglo Saxon or Celtic would be very rare if they exist at all.
But keep in mind that when they say someone is "37% Anglo-Saxon" they are basing that on markers that match up with people who, today, are living in the areas where the Angles and the Saxon came from and are assumed to have deep ancestry there. But of course, those people are not pure Angle or Saxons, either, so the basic assumption has a certain amount of error in it.
#82
Old 01-02-2018, 11:03 AM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 16,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
How could we know? What range of genomes defines someone as having been an Angle, a Saxon or a Jute? Or an Etruscan? And since I've seen estimates on the order of 1,000 years ago for the European Identical Ancestor point, it would appear that our best estimate would be: None.
Even if your Identical Ancestor claim is valid, do you think this means there are no discernable differences today based on 1000-year old European ancestry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
But keep in mind that when they say someone is "37% Anglo-Saxon" they are basing that on markers that match up with people who, today, are living in the areas where the Angles and the Saxon came from and are assumed to have deep ancestry there. But of course, those people are not pure Angle or Saxons, either, so the basic assumption has a certain amount of error in it.
Subjects are generally asked where their grandparents are from before being used as references.

While there's been much mixing, there are still distinctive DNA signatures. And, BTW, the Anglo-Saxons probably came from coastal areas including Frisia and Denmark (and certainly not present-day Saxony ) although there's been so much mixing within Germany that the Anglo-Saxon British is itself a distinct signature, most easily compared to that of a more general Germanic region.
#83
Old 01-02-2018, 11:41 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 22,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
From what I understand - the Andaman Islanders are part of the first wave out of Africa that spread along the coast of India and on to Indonesia and Australia.
You understand wrong.
#84
Old 01-02-2018, 11:50 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 22,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Australia is more accessible than either the Philippines or the Andamanese Islands.
#85
Old 01-02-2018, 12:52 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 83,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Even if your Identical Ancestor claim is valid, do you think this means there are no discernable differences today based on 1000-year old European ancestry?
Of course not, and if you look at my earlier posts in this thread you'l see that I've said so. Even if we all have the same set of ancestors at Time T, the proportion of our DNA from each of those ancestors is going to be different. From some of those ancestors, our portion of DNA attributable to them will be 0. For instance, the claim is often made that most everyone who is European is a descendant of Charlemagne. But that doesn't mean you have any of his DNA since he is 40 - 50 generations back in your ancestry.



Quote:
Subjects are generally asked where their grandparents are from before being used as references.

While there's been much mixing, there are still distinctive DNA signatures. And, BTW, the Anglo-Saxons probably came from coastal areas including Frisia and Denmark (and certainly not present-day Saxony ) although there's been so much mixing within Germany that the Anglo-Saxon British is itself a distinct signature, most easily compared to that of a more general Germanic region.
Right. But the point being that a today's "Saxons" are the result of the population that existed 1,500 years ago (and part of which split off and went to England) + all the mixing from other Europeans that has happened during the intervening 1,500 years. No doubt there are markers that every Saxon today has that no, or few, Saxon had 1,500 years ago.

Last edited by John Mace; 01-02-2018 at 12:54 PM.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:12 PM.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: [email protected]

Send comments about this website to:

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: bull moo pavement prices violet purple remain or remains doubletree bedding what's up holmes liberators poster reddit tia melting granite pronounce taliesin lightning drain cleaner what is smoked in a peace pipe rid x liquid vs powder weight of 4x8 sheetrock frost on food in freezer who is the dancing girl in the sprint commercial how to make peanut oil temperature gauge going up and down 5 strikeouts in an inning why was the 22 amendment passed as near as i can tell what is malta good for are diuretics bad for kidneys