Re: AUSTRALOIDS

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Matt Beckwith: "Re: how many bastards are there, anyway?"
• Previous message: Bryant: "Re: Evolution, "adaptation", and what's currently adaptive"
• Maybe in reply to: E.G. Land: "AUSTRALOIDS"

bard@smarty.smart.net (E.G. Land) wrote:

> AUSTRALOIDS

> _The New American Desk Encyclopedia_ says this: ""...Recent
>researches have suggested that they may be the result of interbreeding
>between between an original population of "Homo erectus" and the earliest
>membrs of "Homo sapiens."

> What is being said here -- that Australian Aborigines are some
> sort of sub Homo sapien species?

> EG Land

There are a couple of things notably wrong with this statement, one is
of definition and the other is of genetics. By definition once the
species Homo sapiens segregated from homo-erectus there should have
been no further interbreeding otherwise the HS/HE species boudary is
invalid and the nomenclature inappropriate. Secondarily genetic
studies indicate that australian aborigonies resulted from
transeurasion migrations initiated in mediterranian/middle east
region, other evidence indicating that the migrations began about 100
to 70 KYA and first reach australia about 50 to 45 KYA, accroding to
some subsequent waves of immigrants followed. Genetic studies
indicate that austalo aborigines are a subset of Asians and in
particular related to some southeast asian, micronesians and and some
south pacific islanders. To put all of this in context the latest
dates for a common small anscestral population for human is about 150
KYA and many believe that the date is much earlier with a consensus
arising for about 170 KYA to 230 KYA. In addition the genetic sutides
indicate the the most genetically distinguishable group(s) of people
in the world are in africa, and that all groups of people outside of
africa might be considered relatively closely related, and that even
within africa regional populations may be rather distatnly related to
one another.
So the response to the above suggestion is that this hypothesis
cannot be supported by any of the genetic studies to date and better
theories have been forth which explain the origin of this population.

Philip

• Next message: Matt Beckwith: "Re: how many bastards are there, anyway?"
• Previous message: Bryant: "Re: Evolution, "adaptation", and what's currently adaptive"
• Maybe in reply to: E.G. Land: "AUSTRALOIDS"