Statehood for Australia's Aboriginees?

However in the 1967 referendum the vote was 99.7 in favor of giving them the vote

 

Considering there is scientific mtDNA evidence to indicate Aboriginals are more related to Neanderthals and Chimpanzee than modern humans; maybe declaring them human was a scientific error.

I don't think the scientific DNA evidence is lying, because they do look more like a cross between chimps & Neanderthals in that photograph, than humans. Maybe we should have just kept a few breeding pairs for the zoo's.

 

I'm still trying to figure what your related too. Must be a lower ;life, because most Kooris I know would run rings around you on intelligence. But nice to see your racism is still alive

 

If we had of kept a few breeding pairs for the zoo's; Imagine all the time, problems and $hundreds of billions we would have saved ourselves? Maybe the Government could legislate Aboriginal problems over into the RSPCA.

A shame we cannot bring back the pre mid-60's flora and fauna act.

 

Trouble is you are wrong

 

No, CD wrong, wash your mouth out, he knows everything.

 

**Hangs head** sorry

 

http://www.australiangeographic.com...l-Australians-the-oldest-culture-on-Earth.htm


http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.551.html


http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/prehistory.htm


I’m not asking you to believe me. Read and examine all the information with an open mind yourself., and come to your own decision.


I did some reading on Aborigines in Wikipedia and they say they've been genetically isolated for at least 50,000 years. To put that into context, Cro-Magnon i.e. European man emerged ~35,000 years ago, and Neanderthal was either driven out of Europe, driven to extinction, or absorbed by Cro-Magnon. (Cro-Magnon by the way had a 4% larger brain case than the average human today.)

On Wikipedia they say of Aborigines: "There is no clear or accepted racial origin of the indigenous people of Australia. Although they migrated to Australia through Southeast Asia they are not related to any known Asian population. Nor are they related to the nearby peoples of Melanesia or Polynesia." "In view of the very long time they have been in Australia, almost entirely isolated from other human populations, it is unlikely that they will be found to be closely related to any identifiable racial group."

The dominant features of Aborigines are:
- prominent brow ridge
- short bowed shoulder blades
- weak chin
- large nose

For obvious reasons, I compared them to Neanderthal:
- prominent brow ridge
- short bowed shoulder blades
- weak chin
- large nose.

There are differences too, such as Neanderthal had a 20% larger brain case than modern humans, while the Aboriginal brain case is smaller than the average human (even smaller than African blacks). Aborigines also have the lowest IQ on the planet, which possibly indicates they belong to a more distant racial group than other races.

So far this sort of evidence is circumstantial and easily denied, so I started searching for DNA evidence and hit the jackpot. Apparently they did a DNA analysis of a Neanderthal bone fragment in 1998 from a 30,000 year old specimen. To validate their results, in 2001 they did a second bone fragment from a different site thousands of miles away, and the DNA matched, meaning they truly did extract Neanderthal DNA. A bit more background: apparently DNA can last about 100,000 years as it slowly disintegrates, so there are gaps in the Neanderthal DNA sequence, but much is intact.

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: You can also see the unmistakable DNA matches between Australian Aboriginals and chimpanzees and Neanderthals, but no DNA matches with modern human and chimpanzees and Neanderthals.

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

 

Found a match for you CD, 97% it even has your picture. Good drawing CD
CD's mDNA

 

Back in the day there was a very compelling theory that the rise of humans occurred in Asia and that the orangutans where the probable ancestor

 

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/5/547.full
for a molecular biologist

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=neandertal-genome-study-r

 

Probably not an ancestor, but evolved from the same ancester

 

One scientific group studying a compression genome between one group of humans & Orangutans is all fine & dandy, but there NO evidence in the link DV provided to indicate there is any Neanderthal genome in Orangutans. Where is the DNA graph showing this link between orangutans and humans - the same graph I produced to support my claim that modern Australian Aborigines are DNA linked to Neanderthals and chimps?

One thing we know for sure. Modern Australian Aborigines HAVE Neanderthal and chimp DNA, but modern humans DON’T. One thing we also know, is that Neanderthals, chimps and Humans are a separate species.

If current scientific mtDNA testing is correct, modern Australian Aborigines are not even human, as classified by DNA

 

[h=3]Miracle In The Desert[/h] Series 1 | Episode 2 Alaskan fireman Robert Bogucki missing in WA's Great Sandy Desert survived 43 days before a TV news helicopter found him 400km from his departure point in one of the world's most inhospitable wildernesses. CAST: Don Hany

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/miracles/

The episode shows police video of their search for Bogucki. There's a European police sergeant and probably his offsider taking the video and there are a couple of aboriginal men who are tracking Bogucki. They all look human to me.

 

Neanderthals and humans have a similar appearance, but they are two seperate species. Chipmanzees and Gorillas have a similar appearance, but they are two seperate species.

 

We don't give Statehood to cats, dogs or camels; so why give Statehood to a bunch of Neanderthal x chimps?

 

Personhood. Simple.

I honestly can't understand why you are making such a big fuss over their genome.

 

There is an underlying racism here, not funny mate.
If you don't like it living in their land/country, why stay????

 

Underlying? I think he is just flamebaiting, IMHO. Just treat him with the ignorance he shows.

 

I think Culldav has provided some rather interesting material concerning the history of Australian aborigines. Purely academic interest I mean. I am going to look further into it.

 

Have you ever considered for one moment that we only have their word for it, that this is their country, because they refuse to release the remains of Lake Mungo 1 -3 for independent mtDNA testing?

I didn’t think you were the type of person that was so easily convinced of something by word of mouth alone, without some factual evidence to support the words.

Fairly easy for anyone to say this is their country and they are the first Australians without producing one scrap of evidence to support it. Considering there is scientific evidence to support Lake Mungo 1 -3 pre dates modern Australian Aborigines, and are a different species.

Would not this scientific evidence suggest that Australian Aborigines are not the first Australians, and they just took this land from Mungo man, like we took it from them?

 

It was intellectually curious also, but every time someone asks the hard questions about Aborigines, the do-gooders on this forum jump on a crusade and start calling people racist.

I don’t care if they call me a racist or not, if they are scared and confronted by the questions and facts, then they can go and burry their heads in the sand.

The history of Modern Australian Aboriginals is not as black & white as everyone wants us to believe.

White Australians were stupid enough to hand over the discovered remains of Lake Mungo 1 - 3 to Aboriginal custodians, because Aborigines conned them into believing Mungo man was their distant ancestor. Preliminary DNA testing (before the hand over) supported the idea that the remains of Lake Mungo 1 -3 were not related to modern day Australian Aborigines, and were and completely different species, and they were in Australia tens of thousands of years before Aborigines.

At this point in time, politicians would have given Aborigines anything without really questioning the recourse to future events.

To this day, Australian Aborigines refuse to offer any fragments for independent mtDNA testing. Why? Because they are scared they will be discovered as the con artists they really are in not being the first Australians or being the original owners of Australia. Wouldn’t that be something; being forced to give back all the land they were given through false pretences.

You only hide something, when you have something to hide.

 

I suppose it depends on whether you want to be educated; and have Australian children educate in the truth based on facts, or lies based on convenience?

Lake Mungo 1 -3 pre date modern Australian Aborigines, and preliminary scientific DNA testing suggests they were two different species that did interbreed, but more testing needed to be done.

Therefore, relying on this scientific data, suggests that modern day Australian Aborigines are not the first Australian, and Australia is not their land.

To date, Australia Aborigine custodians of Lake Mungo 1 - 3 refuse to offer the smallest fragments for independent mtDNA testing that would an accurate scientific result to the identity of Lake Mungo 1 & 3.

This is a important issue that effects the history for all Australians, and the Aboriginal custodians should come clean, and offer up samples of Mungo 1 -3 for testing if they have nothing to hide.

 

Its not about racism. Its about a group of people running around the place claiming they were the first Australians, and white people stole this land from them without a scrap of scientific evidence to back up their claims. When scientists request deceased fragments to either support a fundamentally important theory one way or the other, the Aborigines refuse to release the fragments for testing. You might think I have a strange way of thinking, but to me, their attitudes regarding this process seem sneaky and deceitful.

Aborigines are making, and have been making outrageous claims about white settlement in Australia, but will not allow anyone to test or question evidence that can prove the facts.

This scenario is similar to someone trying to convince me an object is square without producing any evidence to support it, and hiding evidence that can determine what the object really is.

If you want to live under a rock with your hands over your ears, eyes, mouth and nose, then be my guest, but I don’t live in a world like that.

 

Mate,
I always saw myself as a bit of a nutter, but you top me any time.
Maybe the Abo's brain is just not as fricking weird as your thoughts are.
The ideas/thoughts you express are typical of a white redneck, who cannot accept, that they have been long enough around, to call it theirs.

If all the nations which gained land through violence/wars etc. return that land, where would it leave us?

regards