Studies Find Genetic Signature of Native Australians In the Americas 103
Applehu Akbar writes: Two new research papers claim to have found an Australo-Melanesian DNA signal in the genetic makeup of Native Americans, dating to about the time of the last glacial maximum. This may move the speculation around the Clovis people and Kennewick man to an entirely new level. Let's hope that it at least shakes loose some more funding for North American archaeology. Ars reports: "The exact process by which humanity introduced itself to the Americas has always been controversial. While there's general agreement on the most important migration—across the Bering land bridge at the end of the last ice age—there's a lot of arguing over the details. Now, two new papers clarify some of the bigger picture but also introduce a new wrinkle: there's DNA from the distant Pacific floating around in the genomes of Native Americans. And the two groups disagree about how it got there."
Intercourse. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm going to go out a limb and make more specific predictions: it could even have been unprotected heterosexual intercourse of the vaginal kind
Re: (Score:1)
If the Polynesians could make it to Hawaii in canoes then they could have made it to America, north or south. The distance to Mexico from Hawaii is not much farther than Hawaii to the closest Island to it.
Re:Intercourse. (Score:5, Insightful)
My understanding is not that an Austro-Melanesian population contributed to American Indian DNA, but rather that some progenitor population in Asia bequeathed their DNA to both groups. This puts a somewhat different hide on the cat, underlining that the Paleo-Indians were not a homogeneous Siberian population, but rather themselves were descended from a patchwork of groups in Asia who entered and likely interbred for centuries in Beringia.
Re: (Score:3)
The last that I read there were at least three major influxes of immigration prior to the arrival of the European barbarians, and almost certainly multiple minor ones. That the Spaniards found people with red hair in South America and black skin in Central America when they arrived would seem to confirm the latter. Some minor influxes from Europe seem inevitable, particularly prior to the Viking domination of the North Atlantic, and Thor Heyerdahl showed that one-way trips from Africa were possible and in
Re: (Score:2)
Just another talking point to bring up next time Mormons come to my door. "You found those Nephites yet?" (For a very long time they have tried to square the circle by arguing the Polynesians are the lost tribe of Israel, but obviously not the darker Melanesians because dark skin is the mark of Cain.)
Re: (Score:2)
This does not appear to be the claim. If I'm understanding the research, it's likely that this as yet unidentified progenitor population existed long before the entrance into the Americas, and may be a signal of a very early modern human population in Asia.
Re: (Score:2)
The research done on neolithic naval architecture is totally inadequate. The earliest boats we know of from the SE Pacific are already very sophisticated vessels; there must have been earlier boats that were less sophisticated but had trans-Pacific ranges (by island hopping or following coast lines).
That means that when, exactly, the austral. genetic traits were introduced into the proto Amer. gene pool probably cannot be established. It could have been somewhat later than the first Bering land bridge migr
Re: (Score:2)
For the moment, I think we need to point to the simplest hypothesis, which is these genes were present in at least of the proto-Indian populations that went over the land bridge. That's not to exclude the possibility of new evidence pointing towards some sort of trans-Pacific input into the Americas, but the evidence, as small a body as it is, simply does not support that conclusion. More studies will be needed to determine if there are other loci for these genes, in the hopes of establishing at least the r
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that is the simplest hypothesis. It is based on the rather abstract notion that large populations will expand from one place to another. But the reality during recorded history is that lots of individuals move around a lot, but do so as individuals and not as groups large enough to sustain their own cultures. For every Irish or Scandinavian enclave in the USA, there have been a larger number of earlier individuals who welcomed (or at least accepted) cultural assimilation and contributed more to
Re: (Score:2)
The Beringia hypothesis has the advantage of not invoking a paleolithic ship construction industry. I know this is all very romantic, but for the moment, there is little evidence beyond some chicken bones that even Polynesians, within the 1,300 to 1,500 years (the settlement date of Easter Island) made it in any significant numbers. The simplest explanation is that multiple groups, some with different genetic heritages, went across the land bridge, some basically settling there until the end of the glacial
Re: (Score:2)
For the moment, I think we need to point to the simplest hypothesis, which is these genes were present in at least of the proto-Indian populations that went over the land bridge. That's not to exclude the possibility of new evidence pointing towards some sort of trans-Pacific input into the Americas, but the evidence, as small a body as it is, simply does not support that conclusion.
The evidence doesn't support any conclusion, so we should make any. Choosing a single hypothesis is tantamount to drawing a conclusion. There are precious few operational decisions that rely on a having a hypothesis, so I'm personally happy maintaining a nice wide "search space" of possibilities and admitting that I just don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
An exotic adventurer from a distant land is going to leave some trace in the local gene pool.
That's a rather more flattering description than the usual "sex tourist".
Re: (Score:2)
May I venture a guess that some intercourse was involved in the DNA getting there?
Well I'm sure they will have it all figured out in the future, but..."We were unable to find any DNA trace of the race of Nerd in any descendant groups."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's a low commwnt.
Someone in America probably opened a pub... (Score:4, Funny)
...and needed some people to work there.
Re:Someone in America probably opened a pub... (Score:5, Funny)
The first H1B
The ad: "Wanted: fisherman, brewer, chicken farmer, corn farmer, weaver, arrow-point maker, haruspicist, spail chekker, and juggler. C++ a plus (no pun intended). Must not have a family to distract you, can work long hours without complaining, and at 20% below prevailing wages. And won't rat-fink on us to the local labor board."
Re: (Score:2)
...and needed some people to *drink* there.
FTFY
Oh, and some shrimp on the bar-b.
Only Americans say shrimp. Everyone else says prawns.
Re:Why should this be funded? (Score:4, Insightful)
Scientific progress thrives in a diverse climate of research projects. Also, direct utility is in genetic disposition to disease showing patterns in existing populations.
Re:Why should this be funded? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because archaeology is not a high-cost science, we could do a lot of basic research for not much money. It just takes a focusing of interest, raised by questions like this one. My local area (rural northern Arizona) contains several hundred ruin sites, both cliff dwellings and pit houses, representing a rich culture that in approximately 1200 simply vanished. No one really knows why. It established relations sufficiently distant that red macaw feathers have been found among their trade goods. We need to do more digging.
Re:Why should this be funded? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, direct utility is in genetic disposition to disease showing patterns in existing populations.
Yes, but massive understatement.
It's now possible to get your entire genome sequenced for only $1,000 - by sending (e.g. FedEx) a small tube of saliva to a sequencing facility (e.g. Macrogen in Korea). In another few years, millions of people are going to have had their genomes sequenced. And people are going to be using their genome sequences to understand everything from rare genetic disorders (i.e. inherited birth defects) to the most effective treatment for their cancer.
In most cases, you're going to want to compare your own genome to a reference genome. And this comparison will be more informative if you can choose a reference that matches your whatever ancestral population(s) you are descended from.
And you're also going to want to know about pathogenic variants that may cause disease for you or your descendants. So, let's say your have an A at position 12,143,021 on chromosome 15 where most people have a T. In fact, let's say that 10 million genomes have been sequenced at that point and only 100 people share that variant. Well, maybe all those people are a little bit sick with the same symptoms that you have. But suppose you know more about the populations. Suppose you know that all those 100 people are members of a larger population of 10 million people - and that this variant is likely to occur in most of the 10 million people in that population. In that case, you can be pretty sure that the variant is benign - that it's not the cause of your symptoms.
Clinical genome sequencing is going to be one of the biggest revolutions in the history of medicine - right up there with aseptic surgery and antibiotics. And understanding how human genetic variation is distributed across populations is going to be key to interpreting these genomes.
Re: (Score:3)
Clinical genome sequencing is going to be one of the biggest revolutions in the history of medicine - right up there with aseptic surgery and antibiotics.
Even though I sort of knew this, it wasn't until you wrote it down that it hit me. As much as it sounds like a bad time travel movie script, I think our ancestors will look back on this as a golden age. Man on the moon, the PC/Internet, Genome/DNA, AI etc. Epoch defining firsts for technology that will be remembered for Millenia
Re: (Score:2)
+ affordable oil and a non-screwep up climate.
Golden age indeed.
Re:Why should this be funded? (Score:5, Insightful)
That you're imagination is so limited should not reflect on science's need for basic research. Unless you have a crystal ball that accurately reports what basic research taking place now is going to blossom into value further down the road, all you have is a pretty goddamned mindless anti-intellectual rant.
Re: (Score:1)
The post above yours was a much better response. A lot of research like this is funded by the National Science Foundation. Whenever you apply for NSF funding, you're required to explain the "broader impacts" of the research. That's what I asked about, because the broader impacts of this work is far less obvious than many other avenues of scientific research. The justification of understanding the distribution of genetic material and its relationship to the spread of disease is a good answer to the question.
Re: (Score:2)
The /. moderation system is such a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
No he isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we can proof with archaeological studies that we are nothing more than the descendants of one and the same tribe that was lucky to survive in a post-apocalyptic world, we might offer a (scientific) alternative to the tales written by star worshipers a couple of millenniums ago that claim that one tribe is chosen above the other by some imaginary super natural being. It's partly because of digging in history through archeology that western society managed to become enlightened.
Of course the religions you rail against believe that all humans descended from one couple, and yet still believe that "one tribe is chosen above the other", so your chances of convincing anyone are well below negative infinity.
In other words, that you could even spout such nonsense shows that you don't have the brains God gave the religious fanatic.
Re: (Score:2)
Drifters (Score:3, Interesting)
It must have been fairly common that fishermen/fisherwomen in small boats occasionally got lost or caught in a storm, and eventually ended up in the Americas. They could keep themselves alive for such a long journey by fishing and capturing rain, with a little luck.
Those who settled in Australia were probably relatively skilled at boating already, or else they wouldn't have ended up in Australia. Thus, it could be the same group & niche at work in both continents.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not likely a source of a native population though. There was a study a few years ago and they came up with a number that was (from memory) around 80+ people required to start a colony and successfully grow. Also keep in mind that women tend not to be in fishing boats, especially not in equal number to men. A colony was more likely started after an accidental discovery later followed by a deliberate journey to colonize.
Related information:
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask113
Re:Drifters (Score:4, Interesting)
The existing evidence is only of DNA signatures; it says nothing about settlements or being first. A lone person who arrives into an existing population can spread their DNA that way.
Re: (Score:3)
Those who settled in Australia were probably relatively skilled at boating already, or else they wouldn't have ended up in Australia. Thus, it could be the same group & niche at work in both continents.
Or, they walked across the land bridge that existed at the time they (and dingo) first appeared in Gondwanna.
Perhaps some went towards Gondwanna and some toward Laurasia?
Re:Drifters (Score:4, Interesting)
There has never been a land connection to Australia since the continent broke off from Africa shortly after the KT Event, which is why all the mammals were marsupials. The closest islands in the South Asian Archipelago (which themselves have never been reachable by land) could barely see mountain peaks in Australia on a clear day. The only way the Aborigines could have arrived was by boat or raft.
BTW, dingos arrived only about 4000-6000 years ago, the original immigrants appear to have arrived well before dogs and humans began living together.
Re: (Score:3)
There has never been a land connection to Australia since the continent broke off from Africa shortly after the KT Event,
Oh? A land connection from where? My understanding, which is far from complete, is that there was at least two waves on settlers prior to the first Portugese. The first wave did not bring the dingo with them (~40000ya), and arrived at a time when there was still mega fauna. They either walked and/or were washed there (Mount Toba). That migration made it to Tasmania and was later isolated there from the second wave of immigration.
The second wave which displaced the first inhabitants came from India, and bro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't the aboriginal population of Tasmania get wiped out?
Only in the same sense that mainland aboriginals (and probably the first wave of settlers) got wiped out. The gene pool was mixed. Truganini [wikipedia.org] was not the last Tasmanian aborigine [wikipedia.org]. Just last "full blood [wikipedia.org]", according [wikipedia.org] to the methodology of the time [wikipedia.org] (and terra nullius [wikipedia.org]), and current politics. e.g. it's only been recently that the Dutch were credited as the first to map Tasmania, but there is evidence that Arabs [wikipedia.org] had mapped it far earlier, and the Chinese [google.com.au], who definitely had the technology to visit. Somewhere I ha
Re:Drifters (Score:5, Insightful)
More likely, there was a lot more going on during the last ice age period than is currently known because the evidence was buried by rising sea waters as well as inland glacial melt flooding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a theory of a link with asian aborigenes (not australian ones) for both the Ainu and the Jomon people that were there before the Ainu, based on the bone structure. The Ainu came from Sakhalin to the archipelago towards the end of the Jomon era. The Ainu and the Jomon may possibly be from the same genetic group or similar genetic groups, but they were very distinct cultures. The Jomon culture ran from about 10500 BCE to about 300 BCE.
Genetic analysis does point to a North-eastern Asian ancestry for
And the two groups disagree about how it got there (Score:1)
Sorry... Must have fallen out of my pocket...
Polynesians on Easter Island (Score:5, Interesting)
We know there were Polynesians on Easter Island which is closer to South America than it is to Australia. Maybe some of them made it to South America long ago.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, some study[1] shows that Mapuche's chicken fosils share dna with polynesian chickens.
Also Mapuches do some kind of pit oven called "curanto", pretty similar to Hawai's luau, albeit pit oven is a very old cooking method and this association is just my wild imagination.
[1] Radiocarbon and DNA evidence for a pre-Columbian introduction of Polynesian chickens to Chile [pnas.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. At least one type of Andean highland chicken, the 'chachara', carries the Chinese "frizzle" gene and may have been introduced by Chinese explorers in the 15th century. I hadn't realized there was evidence for the earlier presence of chickens. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
They rode on ribs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The other catch is that Polynesians tend to be
Re: (Score:3)
You're sort of right; you just have it backwards: there are South American genes (via Easter Island) among some of the Polynesians (the migration was westerly, away from South America).
No. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The study actually shows that the Americas and Australia each have inhabitants with DNA in common ... because both places were wandered to from elsewhere in Asia. It's not Aussie DNA in the Americans, it's the same Asian DNA in Australia and the Americas.
I'm wondering if what they've found is actually Denisovan DNA. The Australian aborigines and Papuans have very high proportions of Denisovan genes.
Re: (Score:3)
More samples is good, but I question your statement that the sample size in question isn't large enough. The fact is that the DNA is present, it shows a link to a previously unknown Asian progenitor population, a population that also bequeathed their DNA to some south Asian populations and to indigenous Australians. Better sampling may identify other areas of the Americas where these genes ended up, which would help understand migration patterns not only from Asia to the Americas, but also within the Americ
if people got to easter island (Score:2)
they got to south america
it's just a matter of trusting your life to the winds
Re:if people got to South America (Score:2)
they got to south america
it's just a matter of trusting your life to the winds
Are you sure you have that the correct way around? Kon Tiki [wikipedia.org] - From South America to the Pacific Islands.
Noted that journeys were made from the Pacific Islands to other countries. New Zealand is a case in point.
Re: (Score:2)
the pacific has a north and a south cyclone of prevailing wind (and also an oceanic gyre if you're just floating with no wind). it's just a matter of what latitude you use for the prevailing direction
thor's journey is awesome, and we do find native american dna at easter island, but the vast majority of the south pacific is austromelanesian. easter island's people came from the west, not from the east
Re: (Score:2)
the pacific has a north and a south cyclone of prevailing wind (and also an oceanic gyre if you're just floating with no wind). it's just a matter of what latitude you use for the prevailing direction
thor's journey is awesome, and we do find native american dna at easter island,
Agreed (to all points).
but the vast majority of the south pacific is austromelanesian.
Also agreed.
easter island's people came from the west, not from the east
Do you have a source for that please? I "suspect" they came from the North, or the East (not the West).
Re: (Score:2)
when i said the west, i meant, literally from the west of easter island, which would be what we call the eastern part of the world
sorry if that was misleading
Re: (Score:2)
when i said the west, i meant, literally from the west of easter island, which would be what we call the eastern part of the world
sorry if that was misleading
No worries.
Of course (Score:2)
Someone had to show you guys how to surf ocean waves
Re: (Score:3)
And how to box with kangaroos as shown in this documentary:
https://youtu.be/unyTcIx2760 [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
You would have to be nuts to pick a fight with one of them, sometimes not concerned with people either [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Bering land bridge migration = no consensus (Score:1)
The article says there's scholarly agreement about the most important migration being across the Bering land bridge, which is completely bogus if we're talking about the current century: see Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] for a briefing on the contemporary debate. Fuckin' amateurs.
Re: Bering land bridge migration = no consensus (Score:1)
I guess I could be misunderstanding the semantics here, but when I saw the word "across" I assumed they were referring to a land-based, not coastal, migration. Even if that's not what they were intending to say, isn't it weird that they wouldn't make reference to the fact that the two main competing theories describe very different migration patterns, the only similarity between them being that they took advantage of the proximity of the far eastern end of Asia to modern-day Alaska?
Ashley Madison DNA (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)