It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Anthropologist Christy Turner identified two patterns, Sinodonty and Sundadonty, for East Asia, within the "Mongoloid dental complex"[1]. The latter is regarded as having a more generalised, Australoid morphology and having a longer ancestry than its offspring, Sinodonty.
Sino and Sunda refer to China and Sundaland, while 'dont' refers to teeth.
He found the Sundadont pattern in the Jōmon of Japan, Taiwanese aborigines, Filipinos, Indonesians, Thais, Borneans, Laotians, and Malaysians, and the Sinodont pattern in the inhabitants of China, Mongolia, eastern Siberia, Native Americans, and the Yayoi.
Sinodonty is a particular pattern of teeth common among Native Americans and some peoples in Asia, in particular the northern Han Chinese and some Japanese populations. The upper first two incisors are not aligned with the other teeth, but rotated a few degrees inward, and, moreover, they are shovel-shaped; the upper first premolar has one root (whereas the upper first premolar in Caucasians has normally two roots). The lower first molar in Sinodonts has three roots (whereas it has two roots in Caucasians).
In the 1990s, Turner's dental measurements were frequently mentioned as one of three new tools for studying origins and migrations of human populations. The other two were linguistic methods like Joseph Greenberg's mass comparison of vocabulary or Johanna Nichols's statistical study of language typology and its evolution, and genetic studies pioneered by Cavalli-Sforza.
Today, the largest number of references on the web to Turner's work are from discussions of the origin of Paleo-Indians and modern Native Americans, including the Kennewick Man controversy. Turner found that the dental remains of both ancient and modern Indians are more similar to each other than they are to dental complexes from other continents, but that the Sinodont patterns of the Paleoindians identify their ancestral homeland as north-east Asia. Some later studies have questioned this and found Sundadont features in some American peoples.
PW: I think that the evidence points directly to the fact that any early occupation of the americas came from the outside and not from any new world developed species.
The ‘Peopling of the Americas’ research programme
With Dr Silvia Gonzalez and Prof. David Huddart from Liverpool John Moores University, together with Dr Rhiannon Stevens, Prof. Melanie Leng (NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory and University of Nottingham), Prof. Sarah Metcalfe (University of Nottingham) and Dr Angela Lamb (NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory). Specialist dating of the Pre-Ceramic human and Pericues collection using radiocarbon dating with Drs Tom Higham and Chris Bronk Ramsey of Oxford University and Uranium series dating in collaboration with Dr Alistair Pike, Bristol University.
SC: If a date of 250,000BP is accepted then the chronology of evolution is wrong or there has to be another explanation e.g. Parallel Evolution
SC: Evolution is evolution, Kandinsky. It cares nothing for my use of words. If you accept that parallel evolution is fact then there is no reason why it hasn't always been so. You can't just accept the fact from when it suits you.
Could the Great Sphinx be a million years old?
Kandinsky: I await the theory that explains how this advanced technology wiped out it's entire record of existence. Modesty?
SC: No, much of the evidence of their existence is languishing on unseen shelves, gathering dust in university broom cupboards, hidden from view for no other reason than our current model of history cannot explain it.
SC: I have told you - I accept that evolution has been sufficiently proven. However, the current model of evolution has some shortcomings that make it problematic for me which is why I am seeking ways to resolve those issues. The concept of parallel evolution helps me in this regard. My purpose is to seek out the truth in all scientific/historical research. Nothing more, nothing less.
More on early australians.
The bradshaws paintings are evidence that there was well developed culture in northern australia.
The paintings depict people with hair styles and clothing amongst other things in a style very different from that of the later aboriginals.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Can you explain why this "picture" (below) of evolution (polyphylogenetic) isn't possible:
Originally posted by punkinworks09
reply to post by Byrd
Thank you for that link, it is all new to me. I just discovered the kow swamp people today, as well as a whole lot of australasian history.
very interesting but head binding does not acount for the whole range of differences between the kow swamp people and the modern austrailian.
One thing that caught my eye was a reference to northern and southern proto-mongoloids, and how the two populations had density maximums at different times that corresponded to different times before or after the the glacial maximun.
Anthropologist Christy Turner identified two patterns, Sinodonty and Sundadonty, for East Asia, within the "Mongoloid dental complex"[1]. The latter is regarded as having a more generalised, Australoid morphology and having a longer ancestry than its offspring, Sinodonty.
Sino and Sunda refer to China and Sundaland, while 'dont' refers to teeth.
(etc)
Africans and caucasians are all sundadonts as well which indicates that the sundadonts are the older population.
At this point my argument turns in on itself, if australasians were the fore runners of some of the people who populated the americas why is it that the native americans tend towards sinodonty, the younger dental pattern?
Another intersting foot note is that the people of the adaman islands and the small populations in tibet are closely related to the ainu and people of the rykuyus. Both of whom are linked with the early modern aboriginal people of aus.
Where was this? I think I lost track.
[quote[ Apperantly the northern proto-mongoloids reached a population density maximun before and into the glacial maximum. This correlates to a population that was adapted to a meat intensive diet of a mega fauna hunter. Conversely southern proto-mongoloids reached their zenith in the warming period after the glacial maximum and were adapted to a plant based diet.
Is there a link? This is very much at odds with what I've read, but I will admit I haven't done a lot of reading on this in the past decade or so. When I was studying it, there was no such thing as a "proto-mongoloid."
2006 study of linkage disequilibrium finds that northern populations in East Asia started to expand in number between 34 and 22 thousand years ago (KYA), before the last glacial maximum at 21–18 KYA, while southern populations started to expand between 18 and 12 KYA, but then grew faster, and suggests that the northern populations expanded earlier because they could exploit the abundant megafauna of the ‘‘Mammoth Steppe,’’ while the southern populations could increase in number only when a warmer and more stable climate led to more plentiful plant resources such as tubers.[21]
Proto Mongoloids
The physical features of the "Proto-Mongoloid" were characterized as, "a straight-haired type, medium in complexion, jaw protrusion, nose-breadth, and inclining probably to round-headedness".[34] Kanzō Umehara considers the Ainu and Ryukyuans to have "preserved their proto-Mongoloid traits". [35]
Some have speculated that the Ainu may be descendants of a prehistoric group of humans that also produced indigenous Australian peoples. In Steve Olson's book Mapping Human History, page 133, he describes the discovery of fossils dating back 10,000 years, representing the remains of the Jōmon, a group whose facial features more closely resemble those of the indigenous peoples of New Guinea and Australia. After a new wave of immigration, probably from the Korean Peninsula some 2,300 years ago, of the Yayoi people, the Jōmon were pushed into northern Japan. Genetic data suggest that modern Japanese are descended from both the Yayoi and the Jōmon.
Another intersting foot note is that the people of the adaman islands and the small populations in tibet are closely related to the ainu and people of the rykuyus. Both of whom are linked with the early modern aboriginal people of aus.
Got a link to a source? The last information I had didn't indicate a close link to the Australians, but I'm willing to look at new info.
Genetic testing of the Ainu people has shown them to belong mainly to Y-haplogroup D.[7] The only places outside of Japan in which Y-haplogroup D is common are Tibet and the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean.[8]
In the late 20th century, much speculation arose that people of the group related to the Jomon may have been one of the first to settle North America. This theory is based largely on skeletal and cultural evidence among tribes living in the western part of North America and certain parts of South America. It is possible that North America had several peoples among its early settlers – these relatives of the Jomon being one of them. The best-known evidence that may support this theory is probably Kennewick Man.[15][16]
Groundbreaking genetic mapping studies by Cavalli-Sforza have shown a sharp gradient in gene frequencies centered in the area around the Sea of Japan, and particularly in the Japanese Archipelago, that distinguishes these populations from others in the rest of eastern Asia and most of the American continent. This gradient appears as the third most important genetic movement (in other words, the third principal component of genetic variation) in Eurasia (after the "Great expansion" from the African continent, which has a cline centered in Arabia and adjacent parts of the Middle East, and a second cline that distinguishes the northern regions of Eurasia and particularly Siberia from regions to the south), which would make it consistent with the early Jōmon period, or possibly even the pre-Jōmon period.[17]
Sadly, the pre-Cambrian parallel evolutionary alternative appears unsupported in any context other than imagination
SC: Can you explain why this "picture" (below) of evolution (polyphylogenetic) isn't possible:
Byrd: For one thing, it ignores environment. We don't live in a climate and food controlled petri dish and not everything and everyone gets the same diseases at the same time. Environmental changes are one of the major pressures that drive evolution. Disease, parasites, predators are other things that drive evolution... and determine how successful something is within a particular environmental niche.
Byrd: It also ignores changes in species caused by mountain building, land subsidance, climate, local plant evolution, and continental plate crust movements (like splitting up Pangaea and the formation of the Atlantic Ocean which separated the primates into New World and Old World species.)
Byrd: For a third thing, it ignores the fact that if something appears in two places that doesn't mean they evolved there separately.
Byrd: For a fourth thing, it requires organisms to de-evolve and then re-evolve until they match the other tree in spite of the fact that this may actually cause their extinction within that niche... while ignoring the impacts of environment. That doesn't work.
Byrd: You can't (for example) evolve tree-swinging lemurs in the middle of a broad grassy plain.
The 'Lost Civilisation' - Compelling Evidence
The ancient ‘lost civilisation’ I am describing would have been masters of mathematics, astronomy, agriculture and geodesy. They would be able to navigate the globe and work massive stone blocks using ‘primitive’ techniques with an ease that continues to baffle us even today. This remarkable ‘lost civilisation’ would leave their ‘intellectual artefacts' all over the globe but I suspect many of these will have been lost to the rising seas at the end of the Younger Dryas period. The ‘artefacts’ the survivors of this once great civilisation have left us is the KNOWLEDGE they have passed down to us; knowledge that is so obviously out of time and place and of which the prevailing paradigm of historical thought struggles to find an answer to.
Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared.
Regardless, however, of the root phylo-tree each life form evolved from, each and every one would still be subject to the same normal evolutionary pressures of natural selection.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: Sorry but I fail to see how - as an example - two independent root phylo-trees developing different life forms in parallel would not be subject to the same environmental pressures you have outlined above.
If anything all you have done here is to underline the absolute importance of having as many such root-phylo trees as possible taking root and developing life forms in order for life - in whatever form - to continue; i.e. to be successful against the environmental odds.
So, once more it makes far more sense from an evolution perspective to have as many root phylo-trees developing as possible. You restrict the chances of life evolving if you have but ONE root phylo-tree "taking root". That's not good odds at all.
SC: It does not ignore changes in species at all caused by anything! Evolution will carry on as evolution does - doing its worst and its best - to the various life-forms that have evolved within the various root phylo-trees.
But what YOU are ignoring is the possibilty (IMV probability) that similar kinds of life forms HAVE indeed evolved independently in different locations around the world.
Byrd: For a fourth thing, it requires organisms to de-evolve and then re-evolve until they match the other tree in spite of the fact that this may actually cause their extinction within that niche... while ignoring the impacts of environment. That doesn't work.
SC Which is, actually, all part of the evolutionary cycle.
This will explain how some similar-appearing species found in rock strata appear "out of sequence".
Regardless, however, of the root phylo-tree each life form evolved from, each and every one would still be subject to the same normal evolutionary pressures of natural selection.
As I have highlighted before in this thread - non-flowering plants may simply have evolved from their own (separate) root-phylo tree whilst flowering plants developed from their own completely separate root phylo tree.
Originally posted by punkinworks09
From the wikki article of "the mongoloid race", I actualy dont like the term mongoloid, but its what weve got.
2006 study of linkage disequilibrium finds that northern populations in East Asia started to expand in number between 34 and 22 thousand years ago (KYA), before the last glacial maximum at 21–18 KYA, while southern populations started to expand between 18 and 12 KYA, but then grew faster, and suggests that the northern populations expanded earlier because they could exploit the abundant megafauna of the ‘‘Mammoth Steppe,’’ while the southern populations could increase in number only when a warmer and more stable climate led to more plentiful plant resources such as tubers.
MMmmkay... that still matches with the Native Americans being descendants of the Siberians.
Proto Mongoloids
The physical features of the "Proto-Mongoloid" were characterized as, "a straight-haired type, medium in complexion, jaw protrusion, nose-breadth, and inclining probably to round-headedness".[34] Kanzō Umehara considers the Ainu and Ryukyuans to have "preserved their proto-Mongoloid traits".
Okay. I see where they're going with this. But the Ainu actually don't look like Australian aborigines. There's differences in facial shape, nostrils, brow ridges, and so on and so forth.
Genetic testing of the Ainu people has shown them to belong mainly to Y-haplogroup D.[7] The only places outside of Japan in which Y-haplogroup D is common are Tibet and the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean.
Interesting. I wonder when the groups diverged and isolated themselves.
In the late 20th century, much speculation arose that people of the group related to the Jomon may have been one of the first to settle North America...
Groundbreaking genetic mapping studies by Cavalli-Sforza have shown a sharp gradient in gene frequencies centered in the area around the Sea of Japan, and particularly in the Japanese Archipelago, that distinguishes these populations from others in the rest of eastern Asia and most of the American continent...
I'll look up those papers when I am a little less sleepy and see what rebuttals exist on them (if any.) I'm sure some scientist somewhere howled with outrage and fired off a letter to an editor, even if it was a totally wrong-headed letter to the editor.
Byrd: Erm... I am not sure we're talking about the same thing. If you have something develop and it has a gene pattern of xx-yy-zz... then if it shows up somewhere else and has the same gene pattern, this isn't two phylogenic trees. It's the same species. It's not a brand new tree.