Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Study finds ancient genetic link between India and Australia

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   

A STUDY of Aboriginal genes has credited Indians for the introduction of dingos, food processing and tool technology to Australia more than 4000 years ago.The study, published in US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found genetic links between Aborigines from the Northern Territory and Indians that pre-dated European arrival in Australia – going back between 4000 and 5000 years.


Source Document

News Source

So they scientists believe there is a link the India somewhere in Aboriginal Genes. As a local I do not find this surprising however the mystery in this is : How did they get here?

Suggested this link dates back to some 4000 years, well that is way later than Pangea, so they must have (a) travelled halfway around the world and island hopped through Indonesia and made they way down to Australia, or ,(b) they had boats and sailed their way over.

My personal thought is the time line is all wrong and in actual fact the genes go back a million years.

Thoughts?




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
But people "were" landing on this country long before the poms came.

there are traditional aboriginal who actually have segments of islam in them, from when arabs landed on the shores and brought camels with their ceremony.

Hardly millions of years, not sure what the point of thinking that way is.

Gotta build a boat before you can float it, and we were quite capable of building boats 4000 years ago.

Oh PS - good article, find, s&f etc.. you were beaten by DAAS tho, by about 40 mins




edit on 14-1-2013 by winofiend because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


I can't see 4000 years though. Why not a million?

mods delete, beaten to the scoop by someone else. pesky search engine....



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by magma
 


My personal thought is the time line is all wrong and in actual fact the genes go back a million years.

Many if not most genes are older than the genomes that carry them. Some go back all the way to the Cambrian.

Homo erectus remains have been found at various points along the coasts of the northern Indian Ocean and on the Indonesian archipelago, and it may well be true that some representatives of that species found their way to Australasia. Aboriginal Australians, though, are not genetically connected to these populations, which must have died out if they ever existed.

Representatives of Homo Sapiens are known to have first found their way to Australia 40-50,000 years ago. Modern aborigines are descended from these pioneers. I've no doubt there were later migrations too, and it seems that some migrants from India successfully interbred with existing residents of Australia about four thousand years ago and left their signature behind in the genes of the current aboriginal population.

We are all mongrels.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Egyptians were here long ago...
There is a cave in the Hunter Valley that has Egyptian Hieroglyphs and had Egyptian artifacts.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by magma
 


Good Find


We should merge our threads (as we both use different sources)

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Pretty interesting i must say. This report opens up the argument that Australia has had many visits from other cultures too.

Evidence has been floating around for a while in regards to other visitations. Ancient Egyptian jewelery has been found all up in Queensland, while there have been other things found down in NSW...like the Gosford Glyphs.

Phoenician tablets have been found all up and down the East Coast. Some even talk of little settlements and mines...

Very intriguing indeed!
edit on 15-1-2013 by daaskapital because: sp



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by winofiend
 


I can't see 4000 years though. Why not a million?

mods delete, beaten to the scoop by someone else. pesky search engine....


They based the 4000+ years on the way genetic changes occur in humans. They found similar genetic traits that were introduced around 141 generations ago that are consistent with people from India at the same time.

As it says in a different article-


However, analysis of genome-wide data gave a "significant signature of gene flow from India to Australia which we date to about 4,230 years ago," or 141 generations back.


A Million years ago, who knows what was going on but I doubt you'd find any humans that considered themselves sea faring or technically minded beyond fire.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by magma

A STUDY of Aboriginal genes has credited Indians for the introduction of dingos, food processing and tool technology to Australia more than 4000 years ago.The study, published in US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found genetic links between Aborigines from the Northern Territory and Indians that pre-dated European arrival in Australia – going back between 4000 and 5000 years.


Source Document

News Source

So they scientists believe there is a link the India somewhere in Aboriginal Genes. As a local I do not find this surprising however the mystery in this is : How did they get here?

Suggested this link dates back to some 4000 years, well that is way later than Pangea, so they must have (a) travelled halfway around the world and island hopped through Indonesia and made they way down to Australia, or ,(b) they had boats and sailed their way over.

My personal thought is the time line is all wrong and in actual fact the genes go back a million years.



Thoughts?

First off, pangea broke up hundreds of millions of years ago.
The study in no way implies Indians were in Australia 4000, years ago, what it does imply is that there was gene flow from India to southeast Asia to to Indonesia to new guinea and then to Australia.
The timing falls in line with an austronesian expansion into melanesia, and then a melanesian expansion into Papua new guinea, then to northern Australia.
This area of Australia is also where one finds languages not related to the main Australian language family.
Indian genes could get to Australia another way, via dravidian traders from the indus valley, whom were know to trade with Indonesia.
And dingo genetics clearly show an east Asian origin for the dingo, and it has no relation to ancient domestic dogs from India.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
There used to be a landmass in the Pacific Ocean. It was known as Lemuria. The Native Americans, Indians, and Aborigionals all come from this place. It dissapeared beneath the waves long ago.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Oannes
There used to be a landmass in the Pacific Ocean. It was known as Lemuria. The Native Americans, Indians, and Aborigionals all come from this place. It dissapeared beneath the waves long ago.

No there was not any such land mass. It was an invention by 19th century biologist Phillip Sclater.

In 1864 the zoologist and biogeographer Philip Sclater wrote an article on "The Mammals of Madagascar" in The Quarterly Journal of Science. Using a classification he referred to as lemurs but which included related primate groups, [3]

and puzzled by the presence of their fossils in both Madagascar and India but not in Africa or the Middle East, Sclater proposed that Madagascar and India had once been part of a larger continent. He wrote:

Sclater's theory was hardly unusual for his time: "land bridges", real and imagined, fascinated several of Sclater's contemporaries. Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, also looking at the relationship between animals in India and Madagascar, had suggested a southern continent about two decades before Sclater, but did not give it a name. [4] The acceptance of Darwinism led scientists to seek to trace the diffusion of species from their points of evolutionary origin. Prior to the acceptance of continental drift, biologists frequently postulated submerged land masses in order to account for populations of land-based species now separated by barriers of water. Similarly, geologists tried to account for striking resemblances of rock formations on different continents. The first systematic attempt was made by Melchior Neumayr in his book Erdgeschichte in 1887. Many hypothetical submerged land bridges and continents were proposed during the 19th century, in order to account for the present distribution of species.

After gaining some acceptance within the scientific community, the concept of Lemuria began to appear in the works of other scholars. Ernst Haeckel, a German Darwinian taxonomist, proposed Lemuria as an explanation for the absence of "missing link" fossil records. According to another source, Haeckel put forward this thesis prior to Sclater (but without using the name "Lemuria"). [5] Locating the origins of the human species on this lost continent, he claimed the fossil record could not be found because it sunk beneath the sea.

Other scientists hypothesized that Lemuria had extended across parts of the Pacific oceans, seeking to explain the distribution of various species across Asia and the Americas.

J. H Moore writing in his book Savage Survivals (1933) wrote:

Superseded

The Lemuria theory disappeared completely from conventional scientific consideration after the theories of plate tectonics and continental drift were accepted by the larger scientific community. According to the theory of plate tectonics (the current accepted paradigm in geology), Madagascar and India were indeed once part of the same landmass (thus accounting for geological resemblances), but plate movement caused India to break away millions of years ago, and move to its present location. The original landmass broke apart – it did not sink beneath sea level.

In 1999, drilling by the JOIDES Resolution research vessel in the Indian Ocean discovered evidence [7] that a large island, the Kerguelen Plateau, was submerged about 20 million years ago by rising sea levels. Samples showed pollen and fragments of wood in a 90-million-year-old sediment. Although this discovery might encourage scholars to expect similarities in dinosaur fossil evidence, and may contribute to understanding the breakup of the Indian and Australian land masses, it does not support the concept of Lemuria as a land bridge for mammals.

The anomalies of the Mammal fauna of Madagascar can best be explained by supposing that ... a large continent occupied parts of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans ... that this continent was broken up into islands, of which some have become amalgamated with ... Africa, some ... with what is now Asia; and that in Madagascar and the Mascarene Islands we have existing relics of this great continent, for which ... I should propose the name Lemuria! [3]


en.m.wikipedia.org...(continent)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
This is NEW? They had reports on India being aryan dna and the australia aboriginals being aryan/white, way way back in the 70's and 80's when they at least had some real news and real science being discussed.

By aryan, that is also ancient term, for it not just germanic, but nordic and Irish. The phonecians, and various people of the ancient middle east and east were blonds and red heads. Google the red head mummies, found throughout the world.

www.burlingtonnews.net...

www.burlingtonnews.net...

That site has tons of links.


Michael Tsarion - The Irish Origins of Civilization - 1/6



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


This is NEW? They had reports on India being aryan dna and the australia aboriginals being aryan/white, way way back in the 70's and 80's when they at least had some real news and real science being discussed.

  1. Genetic anthropology (which uses DNA) only came of age in the present century.

  2. There is no such thing as 'Aryan DNA'.


By aryan, that is also ancient term, for it not just germanic, but nordic and Irish. The phonecians, and various people of the ancient middle east and east were blonds and red heads. Google the red head mummies, found throughout the world.

'Arya' just means 'noble' in Sanskrit. There never was a genetically distinct Aryan race. It's time this Nazi claptrap was put to rest once and for all.

edit on 17/1/13 by Astyanax because: of landfill.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Strangely this study is no big news to me at all. In my country I was taught and read in the books already in the 80's, that native Australians are either a separate race or in the three race system a relative of Mongoloids and South-Indians or Dravidians, who would be just very dark Caucasoids. So generally speaking something between white and yellow, but definately far away from black - despite the skin color, which is a very poor indicator of race anyway.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
reply to post by magma
 


Good Find


We should merge our threads (as we both use different sources)

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Pretty interesting i must say. This report opens up the argument that Australia has had many visits from other cultures too.

Evidence has been floating around for a while in regards to other visitations. Ancient Egyptian jewelery has been found all up in Queensland, while there have been other things found down in NSW...like the Gosford Glyphs.

Phoenician tablets have been found all up and down the East Coast. Some even talk of little settlements and mines...

Very intriguing indeed!
edit on 15-1-2013 by daaskapital because: sp

Let's do.
The premise is to throw the current theories out to the dingoes.
This adds weight.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by McWill
Strangely this study is no big news to me at all. In my country I was taught and read in the books already in the 80's, that native Australians are either a separate race or in the three race system a relative of Mongoloids and South-Indians or Dravidians, who would be just very dark Caucasoids. So generally speaking something between white and yellow, but definately far away from black - despite the skin color, which is a very poor indicator of race anyway.


You may have never met a full blood aborigine.

Then you would see the relationship to the genes.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by magma
 


Yup, haven't seen myself one. But from the pictures they really do remind me of a darker, more hairy and rough version of somebody from South-India. Including their eyes and noses. But what do you mean exactly? Just interesting to know.
edit on 23-1-2013 by McWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Aryans are generally referred to North Indian with light skin... possibly early indo-iranian roots.

But the aboriginals in Australia are more likely from the Dravidian, the darker skinned south Indians.

Dravidians seems to have lived in India far longer before the northern Indians settled.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
Aryans are generally referred to North Indian with light skin... possibly early indo-iranian roots.

But the aboriginals in Australia are more likely from the Dravidian, the darker skinned south Indians.

Dravidians seems to have lived in India far longer before the northern Indians settled.


You are correct the dravidians are the original Indians, the arayan people were indo Iranian from central Asia. They have only been in the subcontinent for about 4000 years.
It is through dravidian traders of the indus civilizations that Indian genes ended up in far north Australia.





new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join