Gene Study Supports Single Bering Strait Migration 289
Invisible Pink Unicorn writes "One of the most comprehensive analyses of genetic variation ever undertaken supports the theory that the ancestors of modern native peoples throughout the Americas came from a single source in East Asia across a northwest land bridge some 12,000 years ago. One particular discovery is of a 'unique genetic variant widespread in natives across both continents — suggesting that the first humans in the Americas came in a single migration or multiple waves from a single source, not in waves of migrations from different sources.' The full article is available online from PLoS."
Article abstract (Score:2)
Journey of Man (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Journey_of_Man:_A_Genetic_Odyssey [wikipedia.org]
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html [nationalgeographic.com]
It provides a great grounding in the science and methodology, and the documentary is narrated by the scientist who did much of the research (a rare treat).
Re: (Score:2)
The author (and the scientist) also touches on the imigration of Native Americans from Asia.
Interesting (Score:2)
Mexicans (Score:2, Funny)
Hmmm... we might want to reconsider building that wall along the Mexican boarder. Didn't seem to work too well on the Mongolians.
It doesn't mean they were the only people here (Score:5, Funny)
can't cite sources only do this from memory. (Maybe somebody else
can provide links/references.)
But, as I recall, there is evidence that there was a signicantly
different ethnic group (race?) of people here who were possibly
wiped out by the invading ancestors of present day Native Americans.
There was a fossil human found in the Pacific Northwest, whose
face was reconstructed and found to resemble Patrick Stewart.
There's been a lot of controversy as it's a very sensitive subject
for some modern day Native Americans.
If an earlier group of people were wiped out, the only genetic
signatures you'd find for them would be in fossils, right?
Picard (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they exterminated the entire population, then yes. However, you often see e
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
the jist of the show is they followed the ice cap to north america, much in the same way the inuit do today when hunting in the arctic. they landed on the east coast and lived there and migrated around a bit.
the cool part about the show was they showed an
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here (Score:5, Interesting)
It has the amazing ability to make anyone associated with it act like an asshole, as represented by white supremacist groups claiming that white people colonized the continent before the Native Americans; and Native American groups attempting to prevent research on the skull by asserting tribal affiliation despite the fact that it doesn't look like any modern Indian, and could not possibly be a former member of any existing tribe. They object to research possibly in part in fright of an invalidation of their origination claim to the continent, but also because of a general (and somewhat justified, based on Native American history) distrust of the impartiality of white man science. I am going to go out on a trollish limb here, but their passed-down "history" is unfalsifiable mythological fiction, and just because science has screwed over Indians doesn't mean they have the right to have their fake history uncritically accepted by the scientific community when it comes to Native American origins. they don't know where the skull came from, but at least scientists have the tools to find out, unlike someone just waving their hands and saying "discussion over, it's a Blackfoot and we were still here first" (or whatever.) By all accounts it was NOT a white man, but it wasn't a modern Indian either, it seems.
If I am wrong about any of this, please correct me. But I highly recommend reading the book "Skull Wars" regarding this skull and the historical reasons for Native American distrust of scientific method with regards to Native American anthropology and history. It will likely make you angry, but you will understand more the Native American position on this even if you don't entirely agree with it. This is the position I am in now.
Re: (Score:2)
Wiki says that the Thule referred to the Dorset as 'giants' although technically inferior to the Thule (they had no dogsleds, for example). The Thule had completely replaced the Dorset by the 15th century. It also goes on to say there were other pre-Dorset cultures but there is little information available.
IANAGNA (I am not a geneticist nor anthropologist)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sailing across the Pacific (Score:3)
Re:Sailing across the Pacific (Score:4, Insightful)
This doesn't explain the cultural aspects of how the move occurred or how they were culturally linked to each other and to groups outside of the Americas. This mostly reinforces what was already known: that around 15,000 years ago, there was a dramatic population increase in the Americas starting in the Pacific Northwest and moving down to South America.
This information doesn't say anything about a land bridge or existing populations of people except to say that if there were existing populations that their genetics didn't survive to modern times in significant amounts which is suggestive of small populations which did not integrate into the new-coming population; if they existed at all.
Land bridge vs ? (Score:2, Offtopic)
What I find interesting about this article isn't in the science -- it's in the data as reported. So they gathered Native American folks together and performed some very advanced genetic analysis -- which in essence leads to the conclusion that "all folks in the group have certain genetic markers", and the closer you get to the so called "Bering land bridge" (heck, coulda been ice and canoes too....), the more genetically alike the people
Land bridge vs Land shark (Score:2)
Sorry, I've been stuck in the server room for two hours watching the HVAC guys and the fan noise has obviously driven me insane.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
An "testable" reason, for example might be a "working with DNA from Mayan mummy #abc (IIRC the Mayans are considered a lost civilization, right?) that has been dated to X hundred years b.c. was found to have the same markers as related to the steppe people from Siberia etc." combined with "these markers are unique because...." where the "because" is fairl
Re: (Score:2)
What about those French Native Americans? (Score:5, Interesting)
So I guess this study conflicts with the OP....
Re: (Score:2)
Bollocks... (Score:2)
"a consensus became so established that dissenters felt uneasy challenging it."
Good thing our scientists have grown beyond such close-mindedness!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
12 is too young (Score:2, Informative)
Folks have been here so long it is hard to calibrate their radiocarbon dates.
Genes can be killed off. We have artifacts older than genes. I guess the Old Ones got killed off. Was Kennewick Man (portrayed by Patrick Stewart) an Old One?
Anyone with specialist knowledge, please comment.
Not a theory? (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse me, could someone explain to me how "the theory that the ancestors of modern native peoples throughout the Americas came from a single source in East Asia" is not a theory, as the !atheory tag seems to point out?
Re: (Score:2)
At a glance (Score:2)
Mormon's story of how the America's were populated (Score:2)
Re:Mormon's story of how the America's were popula (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Mormon's story of how the America's were popula (Score:2, Insightful)
That was just one small population, not all "native" Americans. IIRC, that group eventually was killed off, as well.
Truth be told ... (Score:2, Informative)
Unfounded Conclusions (Score:2, Interesting)
IMHO, it is a stretch to use the analysis they did for making conclusions about migration routes and so forth. We're talking about an analysis of general DNA diversity after over 10,000 years of empires, wars, and extinctions of many lineages.
1) We know there existed in the south, especially the extreme south, morphological diversit
only surviving populations (Score:4, Interesting)
People that are hypothesizing previous migrations (and there is some archaeological evidence) generally also assume that those populations died out, were killed, or were absorbed by the "native Americans".
Bering Land Bridge (Score:2)
I wonder how the Mormons will spin this... (Score:2)
Problem is that all of the evidence, including this, disprove that conjecture. Not that Mormons look at evidence that might challenge their beliefs. (They are taught to look the other way when faced with proof that their beliefs are total fantasy.)
Of course the history of The Pearl of Great Price's translation should have shown them that the Church is not true, no matter how many ti
Two problems with the study (Score:2)
This Assumes the Survivors are Representative... (Score:3, Insightful)
That disclaimer aside, there is a chance that this study's base assumption belies a fatal flaw. The exact percentage of Indigenous peoples to the Americas that survived the epidemics unleashed upon them by the Early Europeans is unknown. The percentage of the survivors may be lower than 10% of the general population after 1492 than existed before that time.
Testing a population after a **massive** cull brought on by an epidemic centuries ago is a very slippery genetic slope.
By way of a poor analogy, Cystic fibrosis is a mutation traceable to Scandanavia in the middle ages where the mutation - as horrible as its longterm effects may be - played a significant role in the carriers of the mutation having a genetic advantage to survive infection by bubonic plague. What means miserable death now meant life, then.
If (and that's a BIG if) the genetic marker they are tracing played a role in the survival of the current population from the epidemic unleashed upon them by the Europeans (believed to be primarily small pox) then what is being studied as a representative sample of an entire population may, in fact, be an isolated view of a trait that the survivors of the smallpox epidemic all shared. As a consequence, this result may have nothing to do with the vastly larger genetic base of the those who died and the migration patterns THEIR genes would have shown.
We simply don't know. I suppose that DNA samples from those frozen Mayan children (whose genes were not selected in any way by epidemiology) could be illuminating on this issue.
If you are, in fact, examining a control group, but believe that biased control group to be a representative sample of a much larger general population, your data may well be fatally flawed.
Re:Native? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Have I ever felt the scorn of a woman more then when I thought that you couldn't be "more late" (hint, you can). So your answer is probably going to involve creative interpretation.
Re: (Score:2)
More native: Been here a longer time than you.
Do you feel threatened when people point out that their ancestors have been here longer than yours, and that your ancestors killed them and stole their land?
Re:Native? (Score:4, Insightful)
I am however annoyed that people attempt to use it to claim I have some responsibility in the actions of people that was never alive near a time I was. Even the direct decedents were dead before anyone I know or knew was alive. I'm also annoyed that because I am white, I am included in this little hidden racist agenda. My ancestors came across the pond well after the cowboys and indians games were played. They were also late to the entire slavery issue to.
Automatically suggesting that somehow I am at fault or a lesser person because of it is like saying that all muslims are terrorist because they look the same or practice the same religions. And despite the pop-rap hollywood typed culture, not all black people are dumb, drug dealing, thieving, gang banging thugs either.
As for more native, we have come to a point that the stock definition is appropriate for all Americans. It isn't like the whiteman didn't do something that wasn't already happening. They just did it better. At this point, there is no body alive who was here first. They are all dead now.
Re: (Score:2)
Automatically suggesting that somehow I am at fau
Re: (Score:2)
That's a rather racist comment. I'm sorry, but being white does not mean "advantaged". If you want to give people a break because they are poor or "less advantaged", then look at their bank statements and their high school's rating and NOT the color of their skin.
I've seen minorities that come from wealthier families with less qualifications than me get promoted above me because o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What really makes it sad is that in my community, I am the minority. White people are no longer the majority in many areas of the country.
I was going to leave you alone until I read this last sentence, and it speaks volumes about you. If that makes you sad, I can't possibly imagine the blubbery mess you become when some serious shit hits you, you sad little wanker.
I never said it makes ME sad. You know, I'm sure they offer literacy courses at your local community college. You may want to look into them. Of course, I'm assuming that you CAN'T read. I wouldn't want to insult you by assuming that you were just too lazy to. There is not crime in ignorance, but sloth is a sin. Of course, it is wrong to insult someone based on false information. You just make yourself look not only hat
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm genuinely curious because I find it hard to believe that you can come up with a list that would apply to every single white person in the country, including 3-year-old orphans, prison inmates, and the guy down at the local rehab center who
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
native
-adjective 1. being the place or environment in which a person was born or a thing came into being: one's native land.
2. belonging to a person by birth or to a thing by nature; inherent: native ability; native grace.
3. belonging by birth to a people regarded as indige
Re: (Score:2)
Humans only evolved on one continent, so it all depends on how long you have to be somewhere before you can be called Native. If the Criteria is having evolved there (as is often the case with most species), then Humans are native to a small region of Africa, and exotic everywhere else.
As for the Land Route only thing, is this just another attempt to bury the slight Clovis point problem?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Just like how someone can be Native New Jersey if they were born and raised there, though we don't like to talk about those types.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They also did not live in peace and harmony with each other.
And they were a great aid in hunting other tribes when the 'white man' arrived.
Sorry, but the last month I have had a bunch of "native American heritage". Interesting paint all native American as some sort of hand holding pride race in perfect harmony with all others.
For the record, MY ancestors had nothing to do with it.
Don't paint an entire continent with one brush (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. in America there were frequent meetings between Iroquois and colonial representatives, as they were
Re:Native? (Score:5, Interesting)
As for China's attitude towards other "less developed" cultures, I think you've quite a bit of reading to do. China's relations with other states in the 15th century was varied, and assimilation/domination of other cultures was definitely within their repertoire.
Re: (Score:2)
And hasn't changed, either: Taiwan, Tibet etc.
Re:Native? (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, but history in the US is so full of shit, and it's tragic that this is NOT being taught to inspire respect, humility, and more in modern US citizens who will have to deal with the morass we and our so-called leaders have gotten this country into time after time.
Ps. I'm proudly Chinese, this isn't china bashing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The funny part is that most of the people that would consider it bashing, don't realize that in another 500 years, morals will likely change again, and things that are just taken for granted today, will be considered horrific at that time. We may find the idea that people were allowed to breed out of control ev
Re: (Score:2)
That is something that most people don't get. It does not have to be bashing of a culture to discuss the attributes that a culture had 500 years ago, that don't match with the ones we have today.
The funny part is that most of the people that would consider it bashing, don't realize that in another 500 years, morals will likely change again, and things that are just taken for granted today, will be considered horrific at that time. We may find the idea that people were allowed to breed out of control even though we have the technology to prevent it. We may find that the idea of people having to trade their time just to get enough to eat to be horrific. Or, we may find that, much like the Indians trading land for beads, we will find it horrific that people could sell and hoard ideas for money. Of course, we might also find it horrific that ANY ideas could be used without someone getting paid for them.
Never mind 500 years, people outside of the US find the indefinite imprisonment or people without a trial horrific. Heck people inside the US do too.
Re:Native? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. America is named for Amerigo Vespucci, and its earliest use to refer to the continent is in a German map from the very early 1500's. It's pretty certain it's not of Chinese origin.
2. Because of the way the winds blow in the (very large) Pacific Ocean, it's much harder to set up trade routes to the Americas than it is across the Atlantic. I'm not sure I'd credit any particular enlightenment with the reason the Chinese didn't aggressively populate California until after the Spanish.
3. Few can argue that Columbus is the first non-native person to set foot on the Americas since the original migration. There is extensive evidence of both nordic and African sporadic contact. But similar to the argument over whether the Wright brothers were the first to ever lift off the ground in something resembling a plane, it's quite clear that Columbus opened the way for everyone coming after him.
4. The origin of Columbus' maps (which he refers to having in his log books) is a matter of extensive debate. Some say they were nordic, some say Chinese. Lots of theories... but the charts did not survive history, and no one really knows.
5. The exploits of ancient Chinese seafarers, from Zheng He on, is often cited as some kind of precedent to later explorers. In its history China has gone through many cycles of technology and exploration. It's interesting to note that China had invented everything from the printing press to rocketry to large seafaring vessels, but by the time Columbus arrived at the new world they pretty much had lost all of that. Zheng He's flotilla had been long ago disassembled, and the printing press forgotten until Gutenberg re-invented it and re-introduced it to China.
The bottom line, though, is that China appears to have set up no regular trade routes with the rest of the world that survived to Columbus' day. It was left to the Europeans to unite the world in trade and colonization, for better and worse.
Re: (Score:2)
It's plausible, but is there any actual Archeological evidence of Norsemen getting to the US?
FYI The Word Viking was made up a lot later, They were Norsemen, a Germanic Tribe, and they never *ever* wore horned Helmets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's plausible, but is there any actual Archeological evidence of Norsemen getting to the US?
Pretty solid evidence. Archaelolgical evidence as well as recorded documents by Icelanders and others. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
OP: "Few can argue that Columbus is the first non-native person to set foot on the Americas since the original migration"
English, motherfucker. Do you speak it? Your point agrees with his.
I realize that now, thanks Samuel L Jackson. His post was long and vague so I zoned out when I read the above, grammatically-vague gem.
Oh, and give me my wallet out of that bag. You know which one it is.
Chinese Explorers: Motives? (Score:3, Insightful)
What evidence do we have for these assertions?
Given the scant archaeological evidence -- very interesting evidence, yes, but scant -- how can we say anything more than "Chinese ships arrived at an early date, carrying glass beads" and "some tombstones and obelisks appear to be Chinese"
I submit t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But any reasonable mind knows that the historical definition of 'native American' is one who's family lived there before the 15th century, when some serious immigration issues began.
Re:Native? (Score:5, Funny)
Speak for yourself. My ancestors are all pure-blooded Pangaeans.
Re: (Score:2)
So that makes us meteorite-aminoacid-derived-dna-carrying people aliens?
Re: (Score:2)
typical pangaean lower class thinking (Score:2)
Insightful? Bah! (Score:2)
People can't really help where they're born.
Re: (Score:2)
Oblig. Simpsons (Score:5, Funny)
Homer: "Yeah, Native Americans like us".
Lisa: "No, I mean American Indians."
Apu: "Like me!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only knowledge I have of a non-Mongoloid migration to the Americas is the hypothesis raised by ancient Europoid skulls that arguably were there before the NA. Not sure if the origin is Iberia though.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you are referring to this [bbc.co.uk]. And no, this gene study does not prove it wrong. RTFA, and you will see that there were no gene samples from the eastern seaboard, where the Solutreans would have landed, and only one group from eastern north america - in canada no less. In other words, if there is Solutrean DNA in native americans, this study would almost certainly have missed it. That the bulk of native americans came from Siberia is common to both theories/studies.
T
Re: (Score:2)
Most interpretations disagree. St. Augustine being the most notable.
The real question is "Can God kill himself?"
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:If only... (Score:5, Insightful)
No. If you'd actually been paying attention, by looking at the evidence over the last SEVERAL Ice Ages, we have determined that our climate is way outside the norms.
Everyone, even Al Gore, understands that the world gets warmer after an Ice Age then peaks, and then gets cooler as we head into another Ice Age. And everyone gets that we will experience 'global warming' until we peak, and the cycle turns the other way.
The issue here is that the evidence shows that we're FAR FAR beyond where we usually peak between Ice Ages.
Its like gravity and the mantra "Whatever goes up must come down!" And everything we through into the air until the 20th century complied with that rule.
But if you've go up high enough fast enough you don't come back down naturally.
Now at this stage with 'global warming' we don't KNOW we can't come back down naturally, but we don't have any evidence that we will, either. We are NOT within the normal climate parameters for the 'warming periods' between Ice Ages. We are FAR beyond that.
You'd be the guy sitting on Voyager-1 going, "I don't see what all the fuss is about the potential for leaving the solar system never to return. We throw things up, they peak, and then they fall back down! And everything that we have ever launched upwards has always had a stage where it was 'going up'. The people raising this issue forget that part."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That is totally wrong. Even the IPCC report correctly state that the peak temperature during the last interglacial was significantly higher than present temperatures. (It blames a difference in orbital factors, which is unfounded.) T
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I misspoke. I started out by simply saying 'norms' which is what I meant, but yeah, I followed up by talking about 'warmer', and then followed that
And so... (Score:2)
I rather enjoy short, mild winters and warm summers. You've pretty much convinced me NOT to worry about global warming, cause it's good for us!
If "normal" is having long-term periods of global freezing, then to hell with what is "normal"! It's a lovely day out! Let's keep it that way.
Of course, all of this is predicated on the unlikely event that you're assertion is correct.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably because the absolute truth about that absolute truth is that it is irrelevant.
With or without the minute contribution to the ocean levels by climate change, the peoples who are relocating because their lands were within inches of sea level would have to do so in future decades anyway, because sea levels will continue to rise with or without man's contribution.
Again, No. The oceans have
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It happens when you say something just out-and-out stupid too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It had nothing to do with you. I'm just sick of AC's who blame everything the mods do on 'groupthink'.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Even the christians on slashdot are generally too intelligent to buy into that young-earth crap. Try digg.