You’ve provided no facts yourself.
Asking for a cite isn’t moving the goal posts.
But if you want to believe outdated information, go ahead.
I apologize for participating in the hijack. Your point is well taken.
I should know better. I can see the wheels on the goalpost moving, but I thought if I lead it just right, I could score. 6 out of 8 ain’t bad, on the move like that.
That’s generally true, unless you’re nitpicking the definition of “infidelity.”
And your questions still had nothing to do with what I wrote.
The objective of this forum is to post accurate factual information, not to “score.” If that’s what you’ve been doing, it’s inappropriate for GQ.
Roger, I promise to never score in GQ again.
Thank you.
From what I understand - the Andaman Islanders are part of the first wave out of Africa that spread along the coast of India and on to Indonesia and Australia. There are racial similarities that seem to bear this out. The group that accomplished this - by spreading along the coast - appears to have mastered a moderately good sea-faring culture - enough to cross appreciable gaps between parts of the Indonesian archipelago, plus spreading rapidly along the coast.
Here’s an article suggesting humans arrived in Australia 65,000 years ago. Mind you, it’s only one site, and making a date estimate with a new tool for determining the age of aritfacts. The generally accepted date is 45,000 give or take.
It’s not a stretch to suggest that the same culture may have reached the Andaman Islands.
However, my understanding of the current hostility of the islanders is that they have been the subject of slave raids and similar problems from mainlanders going back to modern ocean-going technology probably 1500 years ago. (not to mention the usual hostilities when two cultures meet and don’t understand each other). Presumably some of these interactions left foreign DNA on the islands - plus, the hostility on Sentinel Island probably did not develop in isolation. More likely, over the last millennia they have had interaction, both verbal and DNA, with the nearby island(s) and were made aware that outsiders meant serious trouble, even if no big ships approached their little island.
Plus, if the last glacial maximum 12,000 years ago meant an easy walk from New Guinea to Australia, then what does that say about the connectedness of Sentinel 12,000 years ago? At the very least, the trip to the main islands would have been significantly less.
So - up to 60,000 years ago? Maybe. Maybe not. Pure unadulterated strain since then? Probably not. But the level of dilution by ancestors from outside the original Andaman population is likely fairly low.
Let’s take a look:
Fact: Andaman Islanders do not need a “large ship” to get from their island to N. Sentinel.
Fact: N. Sentinel is “about 20 miles” from one of the main Andaman Islands
Fact: For most of the lat 26,000 years (until about maybe the last 300 years), Andaman Islanders were, and have been for as long as we can tell, Hunter Gatherers. No Hunter Gatherer society, including Andaman Islanders have had “large ships” like the one that photo that was linked to. They would not have had “large ships” with which to travel to other islands even if they wanted to.
Fact: India has not been enforcing a restricted area rule around N. Sentinal for 26,000 years.
Fact: When language groups split, it does not take thousands of years for the resulting languages to become mutually unintelligible. But the more important point is that no one has made a scholarly study of the Sentinelese language so we don’t even know how different it is from the languages of their neighbors. All we have is anecdotal information.
Nary an opinion to be found! And on that note, I think I’ll stop participating in this silly hijack. If anyone wants to start a new thread about the Sentinelese, we can continue the discussion there.
Additionally:
FACT: cultures such as the Romans, and presumably also the cultures in India and China, have had large ocean going vessels over 2000 years ago. Marco Polo got home by sailing from China to Persia with a Chinese fleet. it would be surprising if they did not know of the Andaman islands.
FACT: If you google “Andaman islands slave raids” you get this book - Warless Societies and the Origin of War by By Raymond Case Kelly - P81 it mentions that the islands appeared on Ptolomaic era maps; also the hostility is likely due to Burmese and Malay slave raids which would be in “recent” history (last millennia or two). it is extremely unlikely that this contact left no outside DNA on the islands.
**FACT: **12,000 years ago sea levels were significantly lower - so that 20-mile canoe ride would be significantly shorter if not walkable.
FACT: However the original islanders got there, between 26,000 and 60,000 years ago, it indicates a significant ocean-going capability; as the Polynesians have demonstrated, it does not take an advanced technical civilization and big ships to master long distance ocean travel. Presumably as the mainland became more hostile and fellow tribes on the mainland were overrun, they simply had less and less need to make those trips.
You mean own goals?
If you did, it would be a first.
In all honesty, I didn’t think anyone could move goalposts that fast. That was impressive.
I moved no goalposts. You made a statement you failed to provide any documented evidence for. (As I said, quoting random websites does not constitute cites. I can find hundreds of websites stating that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster are real.) You’ve failed to address any of my points explaining why your statement was outdated and inaccurate. Declaring victory when it’s apparent to everyone else that you haven’t supported your statements isn’t a tactic that’s going to fool anyone. The “moving goalposts” ploy is pretty much an admission that you can’t make your case,
No, my favorite move was the part where you put the goalpost on Sentinel Island and required a peer review. See, Sentinel Island has a problem granting visas, making your study impossible. Seems no one wants to have their researchers shot to death. Going to be hard to get DNA from them considering that.
No one goes there because all they would find is a 60,000 year old dung heap. A heap of genetically pure Sentinelese poop.
Moved goalpost. Yep.
He was only pushing you to realize that your citations were silly popular press garbage.
The question of earliest human migrations to S.E. Asia is interesting. Australia is more accessible than either the Philippines or the Andamanese Islands. When was it settled? Is there a good webpage showing the extent of land bridges 60, 50, 40, and 30,000 years ago?
Much of S.E. Asia had hominids prior to modern man and even the earliest modern men in S.E. Asia were extinguished by climate change, right? This might complicate discussion.
I also see
I’ve read a lot about Y-haplogroups where, finally, the “clock” is now rather well calibrated. What’s the straight dope on mtDNA “clock” calibration?
You were the one who put the goalpost on North Sentinel and the 60,000 year figure. You made a definitive statement about the genetics of the people there in the first post above. Later you admit yourself there is no DNA information from the island on which to base such a statement. The only cites you provided were secondary ones from websites, which do not constitute actual evidence.* At this point, you are arguing vigorously that your original statement has no (and can have no) actual basis (which I agree with). Not only have you failed to make a first down, as Ramira says you’ve made an own goal by demonstrating that your original post is not supported by direct evidence.
*There are peer-reviewed articles (no, I’m not going to find them for you) on which the 60,000 year figure is based, but as has been said that comes from data on the other Andaman Islands (not North Sentinel) and this has since been superseded by later research.
You’ve been here 10 years. I would have thought that by now you would have had some idea what information provides an acceptable cite in GQ.
Umm…back to the OP (and recalling that the idea of GQ is to answer as factually as possible the question at hand):
“But what about in Europe? How many people in the British Isles can claim 100% descent from the early Angles, Saxons, Jutes? How many people in modern France can claim 100% descent from the Gauls or Franks? How many modern Italians are 100% Eutruscan?”
There has been a lot of genetic flow within and through the geographic area now characterized as “Europe” since Bob and Joan showed up out of africa (and they showed up more than once).
The genetic makeup there for non-recent immigrants (past few hundred years) generally reflects a gene pool from populations which left africa at least 40-50K years ago, subsequently admixing with resident more ancient populations such as Neanderthals. Many local populations have been isolated enough to develop a reasonably predictable gene pool, but none (in Europe, LOL) have been so isolated that that they are “100%” anything in terms of ancestral gene pool from more than a generation or two back. Non-recent immigrant Europeans may not be very smoothly clinal, but no given population can lay claim to being a pure anything.
Let us now create a new and more interesting hijack over what a “gene pool” is, but I am generally using it as a shorthand way to describe a possible set of contributing gene variants from which any individual has a chance to draw their personal set. IOW a (non-recent immigrant European) has a better shot at having Neanderthal genes than does a non-immigrant horn-of-african who in turn has a better shot than does an Mbuti…blah blah blah).
Evolution happens every time an organism reproduces. In what sense can anybody claim 100% anything for ancestry…?
Hugely misleading. See #19 for a concise and useful starting point.
How could we know? What range of genomes defines someone as having been an Angle, a Saxon or a Jute? Or an Etruscan? And since I’ve seen estimates on the order of 1,000 years ago for the European Identical Ancestor point, it would appear that our best estimate would be: None.
According to DNA testing. The average Uk resident is 37% Anglo Saxon, 22% Celtic, 20% Western Europe, 9% Scandinavian, 3% Spanish, and 2% Italian/Greek.
Given those percentages someone 100% Anglo Saxon or Celtic would be very rare if they exist at all.