Statehood for Australia's Aboriginees?

Anthropologists have now discovered a DNA link between modern day Australian Aborigines and that of prehistoric Denisovans. Anthropological scientists discovered a DNA link in the genomes between prehistoric Denisovan’s with Neanderthals and chimpanzees. DNA results indicate that Modern day Australian Aborigines are genetically linked to Neanderthals and Chimpanzees, and have little to no DNA connection to modern day humans.

When you think about it. There is striking, and undisputable physical characteristics between Neanderthals, Chimpanzees and Modern day Australian Aborigines. Skull configuration; deep receding chin; physical size; short wide squat nose; very thick elongated pronounced brows and slanted fore-heads - all DNA characteristics identical to the same three species.

It’s a fascinating subject, and the more we discover the more interesting it becomes. One day soon we might have to re-evaluate what it means to be “human” as there might be different species of humanoids still residing on the planet.

I found a file on the web with mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) comparison between Modern Humans, Modern Aborigines and Neanderthal. The Authors omitted the "common" DNA that we share with other animals, trees, etc.. (we are like 98% similar in DNA to apes). The Neanderthal DNA is fragmented as expected, but the available parts match the Australian DNA much more closely than modern human DNA. I looked at only the markers where there was an available marker for all three samples: 129, 189, 209, 223, 256, 258, 299 (possibly more after)

Modern Human: G, T, T, C, C, A, A

Modern Australian Aborigine: A, C, C, T, T, C, G

30,000 yr Neanderthal: A, C, C, T, A, G, G

In other words, in this sample Australian Aborigine DNA is a 0% match with modern human DNA, but it is a 71% match with Neanderthal DNA. Only 256 and 258 were mismatches, and yet the Aborigine still did not match the modern human DNA. If that isn't compelling evidence, I don't know what is. Apparently the Aborigines had some limited mixing with Polynesian people, so that could account for the differences (i.e. the Aborigines are Neanderthal hybrids).

You can see the original DNA evidence for yourself here in PDF format:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/98/2/537.pdf

Or there is an easier chart of the same data here, including a comparison to chimpanzee DNA (which is more similar to Neanderthal/Aborigine):

http://www.godandscience.org/evoluti...iregional.html

 

Interesting CD. Knowledge of DNA is moving along now. I`d expect future discoveries to be very interesting. Likewise, Aboriginal history, distant, and recent, is distorted by some parties with emotional agendas.

 

Thanks Aussies. Not thrilled using godandscience as a reference, but the science and facts all come from credible scientific published journals, and it was the only table I could find to showing the DNA differences between the four species without months of searching.

It will/could be very interesting, if the Australian indigenous custodians of Lake Mungo 1 & 3 pluck up enough courage, and release samples of the remains for independent scientific mtDNA testing.

I suspect they will never release samples for testing, because they are terrified of the world discovering they are not the “first” Australians.

I personally think its all rather petty, when you consider we are talking about finding the truth and facts surrounding the historical events our country.

I suppose it all depends on whether Australians want their children educated on lies or the truth.

 

Quite true. The problem is that the Brits conveniently ignored their own laws when Cook reported back from his mission to sus out the South Pacific vis-a-vis the French presence using the pretence of observing the Transit of Venus from Tahiti, that there was this dirty great big piece of land that could be used as a base.

 

The oversimplified, emotive PC, version of "history", dosen`t take human nature into account. All of human history, has been brutal, kill or be killed, survival of the fittest. Aborigines weren`t stone age hippies, they were highly skilled fighters, but there are those of a pampered disposition, who are unable to deal with anything that wouldn`t fit into "Home and Away".

Please don`t tell them that "Home & Away" isn`t real, it would devastate them.

 

If we follow the scientific path of migration and scientific evolution, then there is a high probability to indicate that modern day Aboriginal ancestors would have fought and killed Mungo man for new hunter gathering territory.

Deluding yourself into believing prehistoric Aborigines were benign and passive, is a ridiculous theory that a preschooler would reject as nonsense.

With some of these pc idiots, it’s a case of lets close our eyes, and skip-hop-skip-hop their way into mindless oblivion.

I won’t shatter their delusion by telling them Home & Away is not real, if you don’t

 

There is no shortage of documented evidence, that Aboriginal tribes were in an almost constant state of tribal warfare, only the strongest survived. They were top quality warriors, their weapons lethal. In reality, they weren`t immune to this, or other of the human conditions. Only in the "minds" of the shallowest of thinkers, were they soft, kiss throwing sooks.

 

I don't know if anyone really holds the "noble savage" view nowadays. I'd be interested to read any historical or anthropological material that argues that view. It might be held among some of the most uninformed and unrealistic types but I would think among academics, at least, there would be an acceptance that life was pretty grim back then. It's pretty bloody grim today for many people and that's what should be the focus of attention.

 

I agree 100%. However, if we are going to benefit from the lessons of the past, we need history to be true, not massaged to suit suburban sensibilities. For example, I`ve got a mate from Badu, up in the Torres straits, once he mentioned the head hunting his people used to do. He was a bit surprised when I told him, that just a few hundred years ago, the poms who killed an enemy, would parade their head around on pikes etc..

I don`t think many people realise how brutal traditional Aboriginal life was. The truth has been distorted.

 

Have you watched 10 canoes, or even Redfern Now and to some extent Bran Nu Da. I don't think many don't admit life was brutal before we came.

 

Movies & reality are 99.99% of the time, completely divorced from reality. The truth is, tribal warfare, and tribal life was brutal. I`m not passing blame, as I keep saying, we are all products of our environment, but BSing is a WOFTAM.

By the way. Did you know why the English navy was originally formed ?

 

Evidence?

 

Common aussie, you can't make statements and not provide any proof to back up claims. I'm guessing you've been searching the net frantically.

 

Why wouldn`t it be surprising that you would believe works of fiction? "Dingo Fence", "Mr Squiggle", "10 Canoes", are all works of fiction, each as historically significant as any of the others, but you go on believing, if it`s easier for you than facing facts.

 

Is it child abuse to tell children that Santa Claus dosen`t exist, before they`re mature enough to deal with it?

 

Just answer the question! Is it it just propaganda? I'm guessing it is just decisive propaganda!

 

I always have a giggle at the forum nit-wit (TV) demanding proof of statements that were made, when its never provided a single scrap of evidence to prove to any of its own hair-brained fantasies - besides the ones concocted in its own delusions mind.

 

This coming from the forums whinging wally!

Here we go again with an attempt to try and avert a simple question with insults! Where is the evidence Aussie? Don't go hiding or dodging the thread now behind numbskulls. It's an emotive issue that has captured the attention of some on here but we want fact not propaganda!

 

I don`t waste too much time on the silly little dumbing down tactics. If I was running a day care center for for very small children, I`d probably be expected to explain how works of fiction like, "Dingo Fence", "Ten Canoes", and "Mr Squiggle", are pretend, fantasy, not real. Fortunately. I`m not in such a miserably boring position, so I`m not obligated to waste my precious time on under developed minds. Did you see the live cattle export ban thread? Some people are so dumb, so self absorbed, that nothing sinks in.

I think the sooky button is in for a hiding.lol

- - - Updated - - -

I don`t waste too much time on the silly little dumbing down tactics. If I was running a day care center for for very small children, I`d probably be expected to explain how works of fiction like, "Dingo Fence", "Ten Canoes", and "Mr Squiggle", are pretend, fantasy, not real. Fortunately. I`m not in such a miserably boring position, so I`m not obligated to waste my precious time on under developed minds. Did you see the live cattle export ban thread? Some people are so dumb, so self absorbed, that nothing sinks in.

I think the sooky button is in for a hiding.lol

 

Obviously got nothing again!


Aborigines were a relatively peaceful race, structured by a strict and complex social order that I doubt you and I could completely understand! Tribal warfare was structured without senseless killings! Warfare has always driven technology and possibly one of the reasons technology was stagnate in Aboriginal culture. Necessity is the mother of all inventions, I say!

 

Stone age gentility, dream on.

 

What are wars generally about? I'd suggest they're about resources. From the inter-tribal level to the international level I do think they're about resources. Traditional indigenous people were no different from the technologically advanced us of today. If parley didn't work then it's pick up the spears or missiles and get into it.

 

What are you all talking about? Didn't Aborigines use to send each other roses and gift baskets to settle terrirtorial disputes?

 

I hit the button twice about 4 months ago, as I couldn't be bothered reading what those pair of air-heads had too write.

 

Despite what wally whinger and the stain in his jocks has to say, we still haven't been given any evidence but just heresay that would prick the ear of a racist! Consequences for breaking the law were strict, such as those surrounding eloping! Blood lines were pure without any record of deformity and illness due to the strict relationship lines from any archival witness. Eloping would have weakened genetics therefore strict laws around marriage along appropriate moiety lines. Nations were connected and obligated to land. Battles that did occur were due to inadvertent trespassing, which weren't settled via all out war, bloodshed and senseless killing, but orderly manner.
Of course we want to justify our violent past! Well not ours but those of our ancestors. We can't use excuses or fabricate stories for justification, it is a load of rot.

Even in modern history Aboriginal people hadn't gathered in all out senseless violence while living on reserves and missions, there is absolutely nothing that suggest this massive supposed historical division and warfare. Seemingly since citizenship rights and the emergence of lands councils etc, there have notable disputes between families who have been caught up in the hustle and bustle of the western world and all that comes with it. The Dodson brothers acknowledge some of these factors in addressing current Indigenous issues.

Unless whinging wally and his stain in the jocks can provide evidence of their claims, it is simply nasty senseless propaganda!