Australian Aboriginal DNA Suggests 70,000-Year History 228
brindafella writes with a link to an abstract at the journal Science that says "Scientists have obtained a DNA genomic sequence from a 100-year-old, voluntarily donated hair sample from a full-blood Australian Aboriginal man. [Analysis of the hair] shows 'Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians 25,000 to 38,000 years ago. ... [Their] findings support the hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the oldest continuous populations outside Africa.' A news story gives more detail."
first... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:first... (Score:5, Funny)
That's a bummer. When do you think you'll have some in?
evolution (Score:3)
It's interesting that 75ky is not enough time for a species to diverge into incompatible branches; successful mating between individuals from these branches creates perfectly normal offspring.
I wonder what would have happened if the above was not true; probably even worse extermination, just like the bushmeat thing in Africa.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it was about 45-50k years of isolation before other moderns got into Asia and you start to see an inflow of genes from other modern populations.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if real speciation happened there, how would we have handled it? Would make for a great SF story. If only I could write..
It's been done to death; just a few examples, off the top of my head: van Vogt's "Slan"; Sturgeon's "More Than Human"; more recently, Nancy Kress's "Beggars in Spain". Not to mention the whole X-Men thing...
Re:evolution (Score:4, Interesting)
However, your point is well taken -- as far as I know the aboriginal genome isn't sufficiently divergent to count as a separate species, any more than the pigmy genome. Or if they are, it's so uber-politically incorrect to point it out that nobody is doing so. OTOH, there was the recent discovery that one single bay in Australia is home to a unique species of porpoise that is genetically divergent enough to be considered separate (although I'd bet it is smoothly crossfertile with other Tursiops).
rgb
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like dogs can mate with wolves and foxes and create perfectly normal offspring? Or the way lions can mate with tigers?
Actually, this is quite wrong. While (to my understanding), dogs and wolves can create normal offspring, lions and tigers cannot. They do create offspring, called tigons and ligers, but they are anything but "normal", and are actually infertile. Ligers are giant animals, much larger than their parents, but IIRC have a lot of health problems as a result.
It's sorta like donkeys and
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary - the record shows that when two groups of humans meet, mating tends to start within weeks or even days. This is regardless of loudly expressed disapproval from "authorities". There were many and widely bruited condemnations of the tendency of young white men to mate with their black slaves - but it didn't stop them. And recent evidence is that early Europeans interbred with Neandethals, from which they had been separated for hundreds rather than tens of thousands of years. After all, if men
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. A simple test is: take a male and female of the two different groups, and stick them on a deserted island for a few months or years together. (with supplies of course) If they're the same species, they'll hit it eventually and she'll get pregnant. If they're not the same species, they'll stay apart. This eliminates the social factors.
i would be willing to bet (Score:2)
against any bet that presupposes 'people 200 years ago were stupid! not like us smarties! with our holocaust and gulags and labor camps,,, look how tolerant we are!'
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? The Holocaust was about 70 years ago now, and the GULAGs are all shut down now too. I can't really think of any labor camps still operating either. Yes, the 20th Century was a pretty horrific time for certain groups of people, and the 21st Century isn't exactly a panacea, but it does seem that while there's some real dangers of large-scale financial problems in developed countries, that overall things are a little better from a human-rights point-of-view because there aren't s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given human nature the de facto line will be the one where we can't mate with other humanoids.
Wow (Score:2)
60,000-75,000 years is well before when many anthropologists believe we started using language and symbolic thought. Either they're wrong, or these developments were made independently across different isolated populations.
Re: (Score:2)
60,000-75,000 years is well before when many anthropologists believe we started using language and symbolic thought. Either they're wrong, or these developments were made independently across different isolated populations.
Personally I find those arguments specious. First, I'm not so sure language depends on "symbolic thought" -- or whether the concept is even well defined. Second, people have been saying since forever that the Neandertals were incapable of symbolic thought because of a lack of artwork and ritualistic elements with their funerals, but stuff has been turning up here and there for the last few decades, so much so that I don't see how anyone can hold that view anymore.
I think there's a general tendency to see
Re: (Score:2)
If the people of this city can manage not to swallow their own tongues, I'm sure a Neanderthal had some measure of vocal communication.
Re: (Score:2)
Dogs are apparently capable of learning roughly 300 words (maybe "differentiating between" would be better).
Which, coincidentally, is about how many the average ape is able to learn. That's one of the reasons you don't hear much about chimps or other apes learning sign language anymore - it turns out they're more limited in that regard than was initially hoped.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not any credible anthropologists. There's way too much data showing symbolic thought to be older than that (to the extent it is present in other species, and thus likely dates back to a common ancestor). As for language itself, there is no good data on when that started--some have tried to estimate it based on approximate rates of phonemic change and how far back you'd have to go for all known languages to coalesce, but that approach is based on extremely specious assumptions (among them that language was
Re: (Score:2)
You can't fault the Anthropologists for being extremely conservative with their view of human development and diaspora -- the sheer lack of information allows too much room for wild speculation and crack-pottery. Just look at those "Ancient Aliens" shows on the History Channel for a prime example.
Re: (Score:2)
There's at least some limited evidence of modern behaviors in Africa something around 70,000 years ago. You're a few decades out of date here. In particular see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klasies_River_Caves [wikipedia.org]
I think timelines are still fuzzy enough to suggest that modern behaviors evolved in Africa itself.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Funny)
There's at least some limited evidence of modern behaviors in Africa something around 70,000 years ago. You're a few decades out of date here. In particular see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klasies_River_Caves [wikipedia.org]
I think timelines are still fuzzy enough to suggest that modern behaviors evolved in Africa itself.
Well surely you need _some_ kind of language to be able to say to a bunch of your friends : "Hey! Fancy going on a beach trip ... to Australia?".
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I think they only need to say just one world and that word could take them to Austrialia.
The word being "Walkabout"
Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
They're probably wrong. The evolutionary tree of Homo sapiens has four major branches: Aborigines, Eurasians, Africans, and Khoisan. The Aborigines and Eurasians are each other's closest relatives, Africans are more distantly related, and the Khoisan (bushmen) are the most ancient branch of our evolutionary tree. All four groups have the mental hardware to do things like use language, create artwork, and make sophisticated stone tools. While it's concievable that they each evolved that capability independently, Occam's razor says it's simpler to assume that it evolved once, than to assume it happened four separate times. And since Aborigines were around 70,000 years ago, this hardware package- what we'd called the "behaviorally modern" human- would have appeared by that time.
Consistent with this idea, you get cave paintings in Australia around 50,000 years ago, as soon as the Aborigines show up there. And you get cave paintings and sophisticated stone tools in Europe around 30,000 years ago, when the Eurasians move out of Africa. In this scenario, the reason sophisticated stone tools and cave art don't show up earlier is that advanced humans were restricted to Africa. If so, then we would expect evidence for similar behavioral complexity- cave paintings, Neolithic-quality stone tools- in Africa prior to 70,000 years. My guess is that it almost certainly exists, but we just haven't looked in the right places (because it's a lot easier to do fieldwork in Europe than in Africa) or we've found it but haven't recognized it for what it is because the artifacts haven't been dated yet.
Re: (Score:2)
If so, then we would expect evidence for similar behavioral complexity- cave paintings, Neolithic-quality stone tools- in Africa prior to 70,000 years. My guess is that it almost certainly exists, but we just haven't looked in the right places (because it's a lot easier to do fieldwork in Europe than in Africa) or we've found it but haven't recognized it for what it is because the artifacts haven't been dated yet.
Makes me wonder if the stress resulting from migration out of Africa prompted humans to develop new ways of communicating their condition. Painting may have been invented along the way because populations which had been confined to a small area in Africa now found themselves spread across the world. In a similar way modern humans who have migrated away from their home countries use the Internet to communicate with people with whom they share their condition.
Re: (Score:2)
Except we see the beginnings of symbolic thinking and other aspects of modern cognition in Africa first.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe they were just too busy surviving in Africa to take the time to paint lots of pictures?
Well, that was yesterday (Score:2)
The simple fact is that human evolution and that of our near relatives is a science that is undergoing rapid development. A lot of changes are bound to occur as new evidence forces a rethink of existing theory. That is good, stick to the same theory for to long and you are no better then a religious person.
There are skeletons being discovered all the time that shows the old theories to be hopelessly wrong with a high probability that humans are not only much older but more cross linked then we thought.
A rec
Re: (Score:2)
these developments were made independently across different isolated populations.
Given how frequently parallel evolution has occured [wikipedia.org] in other areas, even in species vastly more diverse, why would that be surprising?
Re: (Score:2)
Mainly because there's a reasonable amount of evidence that the first signs of "modern" cognition are in southern Africa, and then seems to have been moved elsewhere as modern populations began spreading. This does not suggest a kind of multi-regional modern cognition hypothesis, but rather a singular point of genesis of such behaviors.
Re: (Score:2)
Mainly because there's a reasonable amount of evidence that the first signs of "modern" cognition are in southern Africa
Wouldn't that, by its very nature, be simply evidence that shows signs of cognition and happens to be only found in southern Africa so far, rather than conclusively shown that cognition was only developed in Africa (and how would you even do that)? i.e. new evidence could easily disprove the theory -which may happen in this case, if other findings are correct?
Re: (Score:2)
There are other reasons that southern Africa is an attractive point of origin for modern H. sapiens. For one thing, it is the highest level of genetic diversity and certainly has the descendants of the oldest known modern H. sapiens populations. You are right that further discoveries could point to some other point of origin, and it's always possible that because there was always some gene flow that if the "modern cognition" genes evolved elsewhere, they could have made their way to southern Africa.
That b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> 60,000-75,000 years is well before when many anthropologists believe we started using language and symbolic thought. Either they're wrong ..
They're wrong. There are tribes in Australia that have an ORAL HISTORY of 70,000+ years.
Only stupid close-minded scientists/historians/anthropologists can't accept these developments of "human history" because it doesn't fit with preconceived ideas of what they THINK history _was. The hold onto their dogma because it means everything they "know" is WRONG.
Science
Lucky ancestors (Score:2)
those guys got to see jumping dinosaurs, that must have been awesome!
Re: (Score:2)
> Sorry, the dinosaurs died 65 million years ago
Not the jumping ones
Lineage (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You might treat them as second class citizens. Your friends might. Your parents might. Our ancestors certainly did.
I do not. Stop speaking for all of "us"; you just might find yourself in the minority.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I should add that not all of our "ancestors" treated them as "second class" citizens. Many did in fact treat the indigenous peoples with respect And, for those who did not, I suspect their actions were maybe a response to fear (FUD) rather than any true dislike or feeling of superiority. Cheers
FUD???? White Australians treated killing aboriginals as a national sport well into the 1930s. In the history of Australia there have been dozens if not hundreds of massacres of Aboriginals, mass rapes and burnings where wounded people and babies were thrown onto body piles and roasted alive. Only once, after the Myall Creek massacre in 1838 were white Australians actually hanged for their crimes. As late as 1928 a white guy named Murray confessed to shooting 17 aboriginals in the Northern Territory, histor
Re: (Score:2)
What you say is true. What you say also does not contradict anything that Psychotria said. People like John Green [scottvawser.com] and Anne Bon [anu.edu.au] were outnumbered, but they did exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pffft! 70,000 years and what did they do with the place? Fuck-all.
Didn't even get out of the stone age - and it's not for lack of resources in Australia, that's for sure.
Now they're all, "respect our culture!". Sorry. Your culture was a dead-end and it was dead as a dodo as soon as Cook decided to claim Australia. I could possibly give some respect for their culture in the past tense, but the 'culture' I see day to day in my outback town - a never ending cycle of booze, disease and spouse/child abuse - is
Re: (Score:3)
How delightful. The Europeans come along, shove the Aborigines to the margins, systematically abuse them for decades, then, when many groups are now basically shadows of what they once were, blame them for what they are and insist the only solution is restart the old policies that lead them to where they are.
I know there are some decent, humane Australians, I've met them. But there sure seem to be a lot of bastards like you.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you an Iraqi? Yours probably didn't either.
Re: (Score:2)
And what do they have in common? Both environments where wheels are quite useless, except as used on modern offroad vehicles developed in the 20th century.
Re: (Score:2)
Do we have to merge, or could we just respect each others differences ?
Re: (Score:2)
could we just respect each others differences ?
I think thats what we are trying now, but the interface between the two is too traumatic. Lets say that infant mortality in normal aboriginal culture is much higher than in western culture. Should we tolerate that in the name of respecting their differences?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could be right but one possibility I can see is that Aboriginals are culturally and biologically biased towards consumption. Their system assumes that the environment will limit consumption so they are at risk of over consumption when exposed to western society.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...without imposing cultural imperialism.
Great Britain increased Australian diversification through an extended cultural outreach program headed by their best and brightest.
Re: (Score:2)
In order to provide decent access to medical care you must either translate everything into abo, which is impossible, or force them to learn english, which comes with a predisposition in the way you think. So no, you can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this isn't that easy. I saw a program on PBS recently about childbirth in Bangladesh, and it was quite horrific. There are a lot of groups trying to provide access to decent medical care, setting up clinics, training natives to be midwives and go out and convince pregnant young women to use their services, but their parents are totally against it, and want to use "dhais" to deliver the children instead. These dhais tell the pregnant women to eat very little while they're pregnant to make the de
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble with your challenge is the word "deliberately", which could be used as a way out of any example of disadvantage.
There are a large number of indigenous Australians who live in very remote areas, and have far less access to medicine, decent housing, basic sanitation and so on. You could argue that this disadvantage is not deliberate. You may even be right; a lot of the infrastructure gap is indeed due to incompetence and ignorance rather than deliberate racism. You could argue that anyone who live
are they modern humans then? (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon [wikipedia.org]
Given the fact in the article, shouldn't we conclude the Australian aboriginals are, for instance, neanderthals by origin?
Re: (Score:2)
The Cro Magnon man, aka the modern human, is considered to have appeared abotu 35 000 years ago.
Given the fact in the article, shouldn't we conclude the Australian aboriginals are, for instance, neanderthals by origin?
Not really. The other option is to revise Cro-Magnon's "appearance".
Re: (Score:2)
Neanderthals were a separate branch, not a preceding one.
Re:are they modern humans then? (Score:5, Interesting)
No. The evolution of the hominid family is WAY more complex than that. Basically you have a set of inter-breeding semi-distinct populations from 4 million years ago all the way to circa 30,000 years ago (maybe even as late as 20,000 years ago based on some finds of neanderthal tools). All the way through most of the populations would have been genetically similar enough to interbreed successfully (especially after H. ergaster and H. erectus 2 million years ago). H. heidelbergensis, neanderthalensis, and sapiens likely all interbred. Neanderthals were Europeans descendants of an earlier H. ergaster or H. heidelbergensis exodus from Africa. Australian aboriginals, like all modern humans, would be predominantly H. sapiens, with differing traces from the interbreeding with earlier populations.
Moreover, you've misunderstood the data on the Cro Magnon man. Modern humans arrived in EUROPE (Cro-Magnon is the place in France where skeletons were found) 35,000 years ago (as best as we can tell). They appear in Africa almost 200,000 years ago, and in the Middle East before 60,000 years ago.
So did they interbreed with Neandertals? (Score:2)
There's been a lot of recent news that modern humans in Europe and Asia interbred with Neandertals after they left Africa enough to show up in modern human genes (and some Asians interbred with other pre-modern humans over there), but that Africans who stayed in Africa didn't.
So did these genetic studies look for Neandertal markers, and if so, what did they find?
Re: (Score:2)
and further down:
"Anatomically modern humans first emerged in East Africa, some 100 000 to 200 000 years ago."
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? No, they are morphologically modern humans. Anyone the least bit familiar with Neandertal and Modern skeletal structures can see where Aborigines fall.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you need to be an archaeologist or anthropologist to stand outside a pub?
Read the Science article yesterday (Score:2)
What stood out to me was that they found about 5% Denisovan [wikipedia.org] DNA. The latter being an early human that evolved independently from Homo erectus. This genome can also be found in some other Asian aboriginal populations but not modern day dominating populations such as the Han Chinese.
This supports the theory of an early first migration wave out of Africa into Asia about 70,000 years ago that then encountered Denisovans and interbred. Thus there are two implications: Denisovan probably settled far further south
Talk about tracing your roots. (Score:2)
In a world where we actually hold televised events to find out who's the "baby's daddy", it's kind of cool that people can still trace back their linage like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it less advanced to live in sustainable balance with your environment than to rape and conquer i
Re:Head Start? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it less advanced to live in sustainable balance with your environment than to rape and conquer it (and other cultures)?
Let's see how our "advanced" culture looks 75.000 years from now.
What an utterly stupid comment. I've read a lot of dumb comments on slashdot, but ... wow, yours might just be the stupidest thing I've read on the Internet.
First, yes, a culture that never invented writing or the wheel is not advanced, and is markedly less advanced than ones that discovered electricity, writing, forms of societal representation beyond "tribe," compasses, sextants, printing presses, base 10, windmills, aqueducts, gunpowder (I'm trying to pick a wide range of innovations from around the globe here, in case it wasn't obvious) or ones that built pyramids, dams, palaces, walls, houses, etc. I honestly can't see how any remotely rational person would even try to claim otherwise.
Secondly, and what really makes your post stupid, what on earth makes you believe that the Australian aborigines "live[d] in sustainable balance with [their] enviromnent [and didn't] rape and conquered...other cultures"? It's widely believed that aborigines caused the extinction of many species! http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/990/aborigines-blamed-big-mammal-extinction [cosmosmagazine.com]! So much for sustainability! Likewise, not only was warfare between aboriginal peoples very common, so was cannibalism.
But really, why let facts stand in the way of your Green Religion that makes being an allegedly noble savage with a small carbon footprint the ideal human life?
Re: (Score:3)
Let me guess: you are European, which means you come from a culture that never invented the wheel, writing, civilization, base 10, gunpowder. But European cultures were close enough to other massive cultures that were able to invent them. And you are going to use that fact to judge an isolated culture trapped in a desert the size of the US that even today with modern technology still only maintains a population of a few million. How many hunters and gatherers did it support. Less than 1 million? A hund
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess: you are European, which means you come from a culture that never invented the wheel, writing, civilization, base 10, gunpowder.
You know, when I specifically went out of my way to point out that I picked a selection of advancements from across the globe, it means you're not particularly clever for picking that point out! You're also wrong about writing and the wheel as well. (if not absolutely wrong, both are disputed)
And you are going to use that fact to judge an isolated culture trapped in a desert the size of the US that even today with modern technology still only maintains a population of a few million. How many hunters and gatherers did it support. Less than 1 million? A hundred thousand?
Ok, first let's clear up your misunderstandings. The population of Australia today is just shy of 22 million. That's hardly "a few million." We obviously don't know how many aborigines there were before European arriva
Re: (Score:2)
And wine, don't forget the wine. Plus, it's safe to walk the streets at night.
Similarly for the Native Americans. Perhaps if horses had survived they'd have
Re: (Score:2)
The wheel tends to be more useful when you have domesticatable animals suitable for pulling your vehicle.
Have you ever tried to harness a cart to a kangaroo?
BTW the Incas never developed the wheel either in spite of being very advanced in agriculture, irrigation and building stone structures.
(they didn't have horses or cattle either.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to say anything in support of this "Aborigines suck" thread, but you don't need large beast-of-burden animals to make wheeled carts useful. You can use another beast-of-burden, called a human. For instance, in southeast Asia and India, "rickshaws" are quite common as cheap taxis. Instead of being pulled by animals, they're pulled by humans. We have something like this here in Tempe, Arizona on game nights: people will hire guys with bicycles pulling little trailers with seats to transport them fr
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It may not be politically correct, but you also have to be a rather simple-minded fool to not be able to figure it out.
It's all about location, location, location.
Settled, agrarian, and technological civilizations arise in regions where farming is advantageous over hunter-gatherer lifestyles. Civilizations only progress as far as their environments encourage them to--if developing new technology costs more than the increase in production, it isn't done.
It's not a racial, or even a "head start" thing. Over
Re: (Score:3)
Actually Africa was ahead in some key respects. The Iron Age began in East Africa, for instance.
But ultimately it's pure geography. Good chunks of the land area of the planet simply are not capable of supporting dense populations, which are a basic requirement for kick starting advanced civilizations. Those technologies can certainly be imported to less desirable areas (ie. the Great Plains) but obviously have to be developed in more favorable areas first.
While I recommend Jered Diamond cautiously, Guns,
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Africa was ahead in some key respects. The Iron Age began in East Africa, for instance.
That's highly speculative. It does seem that parts of sub-Saharan Africa (for "civilizational" usages, North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa are totally different) had iron smelting early on, but that's also an uncertain point. Secondly, when you say the "Iron Age began" I take it to mean that you belive iron technology spread from an initial invention in Africa to elsewhere? I don't think I've ever seen that claimed before? Where in East Africa are you talking about?
Most importantly, for the Eurocentric racist crowd, all the key technological developments that put Europe at the top of the heap came from elsewhere
I've always thought that the most importan
Re: (Score:2)
It's a very good theory (I assume you're alluding to the 19th century Hydraulic Empires theory?) and one that imho goes a long way to explaining things, but are you really saying that sub-Saharan Africa doesn't have any great rivers akin to the other "cradles"? Any suitable areas for large-scale agriculture? Any areas where agriculture isn't more affective than being a hunter-gatherer? I don't think that's true at all and it also doesn't jibe with African history.
We know, for instance, that say 7000+ years
Re: (Score:2)
Settled, agrarian, and technological civilizations arise in regions where farming is advantageous over hunter-gatherer lifestyles.
Actually, I don't think this is quite right, because it seems to assume that farming is a better way of life. In fact, according to what I've read, the development of agriculture was a giant leap backwards for the people who did it, in terms of health. The fossil record shows that Europeans who switched to agriculture lost a full foot in height over their hunter-gatherer ancest
Re: (Score:2)
You might have noticed they brought their technologies with them. Where there technologies weren't up to snuff, they died (the Franklin expedition to find the Northwest Passage, the early Roanoke colony). And guess what, the populations they overwhelmed can still use those technologies. It's not like your average American Indian can't use a fucking cell phone or your average Australian Aborigine can't drive a car.
Oh, and I'd like to see a racist piece of crap like you dropped into the Kalahari with a San t
Re: (Score:2)
In every one of these supposedly "inferior geographies" that somehow stunted their native populations Europeans and Asians (including the middle east) have thrived.
But only for a few hundred years, and sustained in the last hundred years by using fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this theory necessary? And what does it explain. Urban civilizations developed first in temperate zones. The key factor seems to have been population density. Agriculture allowed humans to exist in far greater numbers in a geographical area, and in general could produce calories far in excess of basic nutritional requirements, meaning not everyone had to dedicate vast portions of their waking hours to the acquisition of calories. Out of that grows everything; urban civilization, specialization i
Re: (Score:2)
The AC is probably referring to something like the "Hydraulic Empires" theory.
Mesopotamia. The Indus valley. Ancient Egypt. Andean civilizations.
These are places that aren't exactly temperate -- in fact, they're deserts!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Mesopotomia was considerable wetter when the first urban civilization developed, and at least in part the destruction of key agricultural areas in that region came about from very crappy farming techniques that caused salination of the soils. The early Indus River civilization seems to have also developed during a much wetter period, and I've read some theories that suggest that a climactic shift towards drying conditions saw that civilization collapse, or at least very much weakened, and perhaps the
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly possible that human agriculture helped lead to environmental shifts that made those areas less habitable... Having said that, all of those areas remain extremely fertile today. Sure, go 5 miles from the Nile and you'll be in the desert (in some places--some places it's a lot less than 5 miles!) but the banks are still very fertile and Egypt is very densely populated.
Salination of soil has been a problem as long as people have farmed, and will remain a problem as long people keep farming. It's a bi
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly things can change over the time spans we're talking about, but the Australian aborigines came from a culture that just wasn't as ag
Re: (Score:3)
Just read Guns, Germs and Steel and then shut the fuck up, please.
Re: (Score:2)
The Aborigines suffered well over a century of institutionalized abuse and cultural destruction by the Australian government. That might explain the circumstances many live in now, and it is mirrored in other indigenous populations around the world, where governments essentially made it policy to wipe out the cultures. For reference, see other indigenous groups like the Ainu of Japan, the indigenous peoples of Taiwan, and New World Indians (in particular those who suffered the particular delights of the S
Re: (Score:2)
and New World Indians (in particular those who suffered the particular delights of the Spanish, but even American Indians and Canadian indigenous peoples).
Yes, there seems to be something really wrong with Spanish people, genetically or culturally. The new world aborigines who were colonized by the Spanish seem to have turned into a really screwed-up bunch of people, compared to the ones who made contact with the British or other northern Europeans. The latter have their problems, but overall seem to be a
Re: (Score:2)
That we know of. The fact of the matter is that without some sort of historical tradition, we have no damned clue whether they regularly killed each other or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those features are at best described as pseudo-archaic, and Australian natives are certainly not the only ones to possess the heavier brows, and by no means are they as pronounced as they are in Neandertals, and what's more in most other respects, Aborigine skull structure is within the general confines of Modern skulls.
Boy, there's a lot of pure rubbish by some incredibly ignorant fucktards being posted tonight.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it's separate - one was from Cain, the other one from Seth. ~
Re: (Score:2)
What are you smoting? I'm completely unabel to understand what you mean.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good thing, don't worry about it.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you smoting? I'm completely unabel to understand what you mean.
What are you smiting? I'm completely unabel to understand what you mean.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
The sample was 100 years old (from a period when there was less admixture with non-Aboriginal populations).
Re: (Score:2)
How's this for a worse alternative theory: he's fully aware of reality but thinks he needs to pander to fundamentalists.
No, sorry, that's not worse. At least it would mean he's rational. A lying politician, like all of them, but rational.
Re: (Score:2)
To get (somewhat) back on topic, is this a form of genetic degeneration due to lack of selective forces?
Re: (Score:3)
Watching this year's Republican debates makes me feel like we're living in the world of the Starship Troopers movie. Crowds cheering at things like the count of convicts put to death in Texas...what disgusting savagery.