Africa is a destination, not an origin point

[Prisoner Of Ice]

A new study provides important new data for African-Eurasian differences in the X-to-autosomal ratio of nucleotide diversity.

In my opinion, an explanation for this phenomenon might be found in the back-migration into Africa of Eurasian males (belonging to Y-haplogroup E). If a Eurasian man has offspring with an African woman, then the autosomal diversity of his offspring will be more than his and less than hers (*). For the pairing's daughters, 1 X chromosome will be contributed by the Eurasian man and 1 from the African woman. But, for its sons, 1 X chromosome will be contributed by the African woman only. Thus, X chromosomal diversity in descendants of such a mixed population will be higher because Africans will contribute 2/3 of the X chromosomes but only 1/2 of the autosomes.

(*) It will probably not be halfway between them, because some increase in diversity will be contributed by mutations (or equivalently archaic introgressions) that occured in the Eurasian and African lineages since their separation.

AJHG doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.04.011

Contrasting X-Linked and Autosomal Diversity across 14 Human Populations

Leonardo Arbiza et al.

Contrasting the genetic diversity of the human X chromosome (X) and autosomes has facilitated understanding historical differences between males and females and the influence of natural selection. Previous studies based on smaller data sets have left questions regarding how empirical patterns extend to additional populations and which forces can explain them. Here, we address these questions by analyzing the ratio of X-to-autosomal (X/A) nucleotide diversity with the complete genomes of 569 females from 14 populations. Results show that X/A diversity is similar within each continental group but notably lower in European (EUR) and East Asian (ASN) populations than in African (AFR) populations. X/A diversity increases in all populations with increasing distance from genes, highlighting the stronger impact of diversity-reducing selection on X than on the autosomes. However, relative X/A diversity (between two populations) is invariant with distance from genes, suggesting that selection does not drive the relative reduction in X/A diversity in non-Africans (0.842 ± 0.012 for EUR-to-AFR and 0.820 ± 0.032 for ASN-to-AFR comparisons). Finally, an array of models with varying population bottlenecks, expansions, and migration from the latest studies of human demographic history account for about half of the observed reduction in relative X/A diversity from the expected value of 1. They predict values between 0.91 and 0.94 for EUR-to-AFR comparisons and between 0.91 and 0.92 for ASN-to-AFR comparisons. Further reductions can be predicted by more extreme demographic events in excess of those captured by the latest studies but, in the absence of these, also by historical sex-biased demographic events or other processes.


So basically, X chromosome stays in one chunk (mostly) and autosomals mix all around.

If there's all different X chromosomes and higher percentage of them it means there's been lots of intrusion from eslsewhere. Europe and east asia show the opposite result, implying that there have not been a lot of intrusion from outside DNA, which is odd if out of africa is supposed to be true.

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

This is interesting. I should check on my X chromosome results and see what they are like again

[StonyArabia]

My X chromosome is from Spain ya

[Prisoner Of Ice]

My X chromosome is from Spain ya

That seems weird.

[Kale]

Interesting...are X chromosomes conveniently labeled into groups like mitochrondial and y-dna?

this is hat a sentence looked like hile rying to type this post. Half o the characters were not howing up. Whi this?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Interesting...are X chromosomes conveniently labeled into groups like mitochrondial and y-dna?

this is hat a sentence looked like hile rying to type this post. Half o the characters were not howing up. Whi this?

You can tell more or less which come from europe or east asia etc. and not just because they are more frequent there.

[Peterski]

Results show that X/A diversity is similar within each continental group but notably lower in European (EUR) and East Asian (ASN) populations than in African (AFR) populations. X/A diversity increases in all populations with increasing distance from genes, highlighting the stronger impact of diversity-reducing selection on X than on the autosomes. However, relative X/A diversity (between two populations) is invariant with distance from genes, suggesting that selection does not drive the relative reduction in X/A diversity in non-Africans (0.842 ± 0.012 for EUR-to-AFR and 0.820 ± 0.032 for ASN-to-AFR comparisons).

Africa is clearly an origin point, not a destination, but... :

"Human mtDNA Diversity Before Migration Out of Africa":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16902130/

"The Dawn of Human Matrilineal Diversity":

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/26/10699.full


Both the tree phylogeny and coalescence calculations suggest that Khoisan matrilineal ancestry diverged from the rest of the human mtDNA pool 90,000–150,000 years before present (ybp) and that at least five additional, currently extant maternal lineages existed during this period in parallel. Furthermore, we estimate that a minimum of 40 other evolutionarily successful lineages flourished in sub-Saharan Africa during the period of modern human dispersal out of Africa approximately 60,000–70,000 ybp. Only much later, at the beginning of the Late Stone Age, about 40,000 ybp, did introgression of additional lineages occur into the Khoisan mtDNA pool. This process was further accelerated during the recent Bantu expansions. Our results suggest that the early settlement of humans in Africa was already matrilineally structured and involved small, separately evolving isolated populations. (...) The proposed matrilineal sequestration of African MSA mtDNA into isolated populations does not seem to be restricted to Khoisan. A recent study showed that ancestors of contemporary Pygmies diverged from an ancestral Central African population no more than 70,000 ybp and that isolation was breached throughout the LSA.16 Moreover, this matrilineal sequestration pattern also offers a simple explanation to the surprising finding that of the more than 40 mtDNA lineages in Africa at the time modern humans left Africa3 (Figure S1), only two of the variants, (L3)M and (L3)N,4 gave rise to the entire wealth of mtDNA diversity outside of Africa.5,8 Different approaches were taken in the attempt to estimate the sub-Saharan Homo sapiens population size in different time frames.7 The understanding of the minimum number of existing maternal lineages in different time periods, as far as can be estimated from their survival to the present day, might benefit our understanding of the magnitude of Homo sapiens expansion in these periods and shed light on the frequency of the loss of mtDNA lineages in long time periods.

In summary, the study of extant genetic variation in African populations with complete mtDNA sequences provides an insight into past Homo sapiens demographics, suggesting that small groups of early humans remained in geographic and genetic isolation until migrations during the LSA. Studies of additional genomic regions, particularly of unlinked autosomal regions with their greater effective population size, may reveal additional details about these early demographic events from a genome-wide perspective.

So out of 46 - 50 matrilineal lineages which existed in Africa prior to migration out of Africa, only 2 (4%) actually migrated out of Africa.

In other words Non-Africans are not descendants of all Africans but they are descendants of just one particular group of Africans - 4% of total African genetic diversity. Not surprising that Sub-Saharan Africans are more diverse considering that they are descendants of 96% of humanity.

While Non-Africans are descendants of 4% who decided to emigrate.

====================================

And that 4% also includes other groups, not only Western Eurasians and East Asians.

There was probably one migration along the southern coast of Asia towards Australia, and one to Northern Eurasia:

http://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/human-migrations/

"Southern migration":

http://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/migration-south.jpg?w=500&h=254

That to Northern Eurasia produced Caucasoids / Europid (red) and Mongoloids (yellow):

"Northern migration":

http://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/migration-north-early.jpg?w=500&h=252

And here another map (except that Kazakhstan was subjected to Mongoloid expansion only recently, since the Iron Age):

http://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/migration-north-late.jpg?w=500&h=255

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?137904-Your-Rationalization-of-the-Origin-of-Slavs&p=2979688&viewfull=1#post2979688

http://www.scientificfund.kz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7:physical-anthropology-of-kazakh-people-and-their-genesis

http://s30.postimg.org/4idxp4rfl/Kazakhstan.png

[Peterski]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4cxOT8Kd7U

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Africa is clearly an origin point, not a destination, but... :

"Human mtDNA Diversity Before Migration Out of Africa":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16902130/

"The Dawn of Human Matrilineal Diversity":

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/26/10699.full



So out of 46 - 50 matrilineal lineages which existed in Africa prior to migration out of Africa, only 2 (4%) actually migrated out of Africa.

In other words Non-Africans are not descendants of all Africans but they are descendants of just one particular group of Africans - 4% of total African genetic diversity. Not surprising that Sub-Saharan Africans are more diverse considering that they are descendants of 96% of humanity.

While Non-Africans are descendants of 4% who decided to emigrate.

====================================

And that 4% also includes other groups, not only Western Eurasians and East Asians.

There was probably one migration along the southern coast of Asia towards Australia, and one to Northern Eurasia:

http://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/human-migrations/

"Southern migration":

http://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/migration-south.jpg?w=500&h=254

That to Northern Eurasia produced Caucasoids / Europid (red) and Mongoloids (yellow):

"Northern migration":

http://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/migration-north-early.jpg?w=500&h=252

And here another map (except that Kazakhstan was subjected to Mongoloid expansion only recently, since the Iron Age):

http://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/migration-north-late.jpg?w=500&h=255

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?137904-Your-Rationalization-of-the-Origin-of-Slavs&p=2979688&viewfull=1#post2979688

http://www.scientificfund.kz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7:physical-anthropology-of-kazakh-people-and-their-genesis

http://s30.postimg.org/4idxp4rfl/Kazakhstan.png

Nope, you are wrong. You don't understand how out of africa theory works. It doesn't say all this crap existed in africa and then moved out. This would be completely impossible because it would all mix together on the way out.

If you actually read the papers you will understand what they are saying, which is a series of founder effects. Like First they went to north africa and mutated. Then they went to arabia and mutated. On and on like that in one long serial string.

That scenario is possible but highly unlikely because of hundreds of factors not the least of which is that the migration routes would have to be extremely strange if that's the case. The scenario you are describing is completely impossible and is not what out of africa proponents claim happened.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4cxOT8Kd7U

Not going to bother to watch. Basically, for out of africa to work that means that natural selection would have to be very rare. However we now know that the opposite is the case, and that most genes are "fixed" in the world population, and that new ones are being fixed very rapidly. In europe there is extremely strong selection for light skin genes as well. If you have dark skin you don't get enough vitamin D and your brain doesn't develop properly.

So basically it's some pseudoscience bullshit that requires throwing out all of archaeology and all of science. Since you are new to the board I'll post my intro after this.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Hello!

Welcome to The Apricity Forums. This is a very fun place to learn about and exchange European culture and art, and discuss anthropology, archaeology, history, prehistoric civilizations and anything that pertains to europe, its people, its colonies, and its culture. This is a free speech forum that lets people with all different views discuss all different subjects so long as they can stop short of calling on genocide of each other, but just remember a lot of it is pure BS. Especially Out of Africa theory. That's why I greet every new member with this short list of facts that help them decide for themselves in a fair and balanced manner that this theory is a lie originating as part of the plan to disenfranchise europeans from their land and marginalize their political power.

Yet it is fairly easy to debunk, so let's take a look at the facts, shall we?

Check it out:

IDB segments in west africans show they have much greater DNA sharing with bonobo chimps than anyone outside africa. The same has been discovered for many hominid mixtures – they are localized. How is this possible in an out of africa scenario?

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/12/variance-of-ibd-sharing-carmi-et-al-2012.html

The 37k year old hofmeyr skull is completel unlike negroid skulls. It it much like eurasian skulls yet more primitive compared to concurrent skulls ineurasia. This shows that at the time an out of africa event would supposedly be happening, an into africa migration is what was really happening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofmeyr_Skull

The first cromag skulls only show up in africa about 30k years ago, much later than in Europe, and again they have smaller braincases than those in europe. This is now recognized as a 'back migration' to africa but tell me why do we have evidence of the back migration and not the initial one? And if all these 'finnish looking' people came from africa, then why don't they exist there today? Genetics also show they do not originate in africa, if you doubt the archaeology.
http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/cro-magnon-man-in-europe-and-africa/

Archaeology says there's continuity in asia and europe for a million years or more.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?126184-Out-of-africa-theory-debunked-again

In this thread I take a look at a hilarious paper that claims that modern humans invented everything while surrounded by neanderthals on every side. In spite of the fact there is no evidence these 'modern' humans were not neanderthals, and no actual fossil remains exist in the area except neanderthal ones! Obviously there is some big bias against neanderthals, which I suppose there must be if you believe they are nothing to do with people today but find evidence they actually invented everything in the ancient world from thread to makeup to short oceanic voyages.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?137420-When-exactly-did-neanderthals-disappear


Evidence that dozens of hominids contributed to human DNA. All african populations show evidence of migration into africa. No population shows evidence of migration out of africa.
"We detect likely West Eurasian gene flow into the ancestors of Yoruba West Africans within the last ten thousand years, which indirectly contributed a small amount of Neandertal ancestry to Yoruba."

"These results mean that we have not identified any sub-Saharan African sample that we are confident has no evidence of back-to-Africa migration. Our best candidate at present is the Dinka but it is possible that with a phased genome or large sample sizes we would detect evidence of non-African ancestry in this population as well."
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12/a-neandertal-from-altai-mountains.html

Eventually even the guy who came up with the idea realizes 100k+ years is really the minimum age mixing started with neanderthal to others. However he's looking at people far away from the neanderthals sequenced and the actual data shows a clear slow mixing/diffusion not some absurd single time mixing or even 2-3 times of mixing it was later changed to. The results in modern people would be impossible to replicate in such a manner.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/04/svante-paabo-talk-at-nih.html


Oldest mtdna divide for humans in EUROPE.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12/400-thousand-year-old-human-mtdna-from.html


OoA was supposed to happen 30k-50k years ago but we have genetically sequenced very modern east asians in beijing at 40k years ago.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/01/ancient-dna-from-tianyuan-cave.html
And in siberia one that's even older at 45k years old.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/03/oldest-modern-human-genome-from-siberia.html


Upper Paleolithic fossils go TO african from arabia, not the other way around. The paper's author himself talks in detail about driving around and digging and finding more modern tools towards arabia. That culture probably is influenced/spawned from aurignacian, even further off in europe or iran. That's right, cromag type originates in europe and nowhere else. This is why they stopped using this term in favor of the imaginary "anatomically modern humans" who suddenly show up - though there is absolutely no fossil record of them or any archaeological culture they might have come from!
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12/arabian-origin-of-upper-paleolithic-in.html

In same vein, nubian complex (often pointed to as african in origin to support out of africa) is obviously exotic to africa and goes into africa.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/07/nubian-complex-site-from-central-arabia.html

Dogs were domesticated in Europe. By the dates given, by neanderthals. Note that only europids really like dogs, too.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/11/european-origin-of-domesticated-dogs.html


This alone is enough to kill out of africa. Last video shows that pygmies in africa intermixed with an archaic hominid that has no genes outside of africa 100K years ago. This means that rhodiensiensis in south africa is nothing at all to do with human evolution, and it also means that modern humans did not arrive in africa until 100k years ago or so. It also shows that neanderthal are at the root for many cladal gene structures, just not the ones for y-dna and mtdna. This is impossible for any OoA scenario.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-origin-of-us.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvoiPUHfOXI


North Africans...came from Iberia.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/07/origin-of-iberomaurusian.html
And some genetic evidence to back it up.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12/recent-origin-of-north-african.html

Interestingly, data supports san coming TO africa as easily as FROM africa. Which makes perfect sense as they are asiatic in appearance.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/06/60-50-thousand-coastal-migration-to.html

And combined with this which shows lots of intermixing with eurasia, it's confirmed they had eurasian admixture before they got to africa (this is from populations with no exposure outside their little tribes until very recently, who remain pure).
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/07/west-eurasian-admixture-in-khoe-san-via.html

Forested Nkongho-Mbo pygmie region source of y-dna A00, so called oldest human y-dna. Which is also a hotspot for r1b admixture from europe. 9/13 A00 were actually found in france in seeming non-africans, but it's been labeled as african anyhow.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/07/new-a00-project.html

Modern humans have been in china have been dated to around 100k years ago, making any recent out of africa hypothesis implausible.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/07/81-100-thousand-year-old-modern-humans.html

Here is typical a OoA enthusiast. Accuses someone of racism and falsifying data, and then is caught falsifying data himself. Is not a real scientist at all, just an idiot with a political agenda.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/06/interesting-commentary-on-mortongould.html
This fraud is the one who came up with this particularly laughable bit of pseudoscience which supposedly justifies out of africa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

As well as having much bigger brains than people today, neanderthals could talk.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12/neandertals-could-talk.html

Here's another one that, all on its own, debunks out of africa. As early as 12k years ago, fossils in sub saharan africa show no signs of modernity, and are much less modern than much older fossils in east africa and outside of africa. The "failed out of africa" skulls from middle east 90k years ago also show striking similarity to upper paleolithic european skulls (and metrically are a hybrid between neanderthal and modern europeans). So the further from africa you get the more like modern humans the skulls look, in all time periods! Not to mention the brain volumes are consistently lower. If they came out of africa, this is impossible.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/12-6ka-humans-with-archaic-features.html

30-40k BC neanderthal-modern hybrid found, genetically sequenced. Since we have actually found one, obviously it happened all the time and wasn't a one time thing. This also happened in italy, destroying the silly theories that it was some one time event in levant during a mythical out of africa mass migration.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/first-love-child-human-neanderthal-believed-found-1C9127823?franchiseSlug=sciencemain

the study of modern populations has revealed evidence for both archaic African, and -more recently and surprisingly- even a little archaic Eurasian ancestry in virtually all Sub-Saharan Africans. Populations from one of the presumed cradles of H. sapiens (Eastern Africa) are now conclusively known to be recent mixtures of West Eurasians, and even the Bushmen of southern Africa, the subject of so many TV documentaries as an exemplum of the ur-Humans did not escape this admixture. That's right, archaic european DNA made it to africa while archaic african DNA never made it out at all.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/01/happy-new-year-2014.html

The only ape fossil ever found to have a human finger-to-thumbpad grip is in EUROPE. Feet were also very humanlike. Many supposed upright walkers from africa are very doubtful. Yet we never hear about finds like this in the news.
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2014/01/ancient-italian-ape-had-human-like.html

Missing link found...in Germany, 50 million years ago. This is the ONLY missing link that contains ALL the features in common between humans, gorillas and chimps.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html


Did europeans evolve directly from neanderthals? Were neanderthals really the foundation of the first cultures we consider to belong to 'modern' humans?
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?137420-When-exactly-did-neanderthals-disappear


links to some relavent threads:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?104709-Why-all-the-candidates-for-human-chimp-ancestors-aren-t-hominids-but-homidaints&p=2160679#post2160679

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?103388-Neanderthals-had-longer-childhoods-than-some-quot-modern-quot-human-populations

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?108389-San-are-not-oldest-people-in-world-Nor-do-they-originate-in-africa

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?118559-Europeans-are-genetically-the-most-diverse

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?137420-When-exactly-did-neanderthals-disappear

[Prisoner Of Ice]

So, do you believe in Out of Africa and Punctuated Equillibrium which was created by a known fraud, or actual science?

[Peterski]

I know vitamin D contributes to strong bones, but to brain? This is the first time I hear this. My skin is so light that it unfortunately turns red under sun if I don't use sunblockers. I do understand the founder effect, that's what I actually wrote if you read carefully my post (I hope you do get enough vitamin D to interpret my posts correctly). But group differences in brain size, etc., must be caused by something else, not vitamin D.

The founder effect is obvious considering that sometimes populations of entire continents are descendats of one or few small groups of migrants. For example the Americas. Native North Americans are descendants of probably 3 waves of migration, but South Americans only 1 or 2.

Each such wave could number perhaps several dozens up to few hundrends individuals, and of course not random ones, but forming tribes.

Out of Africa is not a fraud, but it is also known that both those who stayed in Africa and those who left it interbred with archaic humans - of course they interbred with different species of archaic humans. Ancestors of Europids and East Asians interbred with Neanderthals.

South-East Asians interbred with Denisovans (who themselves had interbred with Neanderthals and yet another Homo species before). Ancestors of for example Bushmen and Pygmies also interbred with archaic species of Homo who lived in Africa, as recent studies proved.

That said, your "Meta-Ethnicity" can't be Neanderthal, because on average Europids have about 4% of Neanderthal ancestry.

3% of Neanderthal ancestry would be equivalent to having a pure Neanderhal as one out of your 32 great-great-great grandparents.

But not all of Neanderthal genome survived. It is estimated that only around 20% of a complete Neanderthal genome lives in modern humans. So even if you gathered all existing Neanderthal genes from all living humans, you would rather not be able to reconstruct a "pure" Neanderthal.

Some Neanderthal genes had simply been bred out, while some others were apparently favoured in selection and those survived.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I know vitamin D contributes to strong bones, but to brain? This is the first time I hear this. My skin is so light that it turns red under sun if I don't use good sunblockers.

Then you don't read about these topics much.



I do understand the founder effects, that's what I actually wrote if you read carefully what I wrote (I hope you get enough vitamin D to interpret my posts correctly).

Well sorry, but it makes no sense. According to out of africa, those got into africa as 'back migrations'. That is the only possibility really, they went into africa and only a few mtdna and y-dna are truly native to africa (or if you don't believe in OoA, maybe none of them are). That's also what all the archaeology shows.

[Peterski]

I can post a scientific research paper or a video-lecture to back up every claim in my previous post, if you want.

Just tell me which claim do you want evidence for, and tomorrow I will post a link to source (now I go to sleep).


According to out of africa, those got into africa as 'back migrations'.

R1b-V88 in Africa is obviously a "back-migration", but suggesting that all Africans are a back-migration is wrong.

Or what exactly are you suggesting?


only a few mtdna and y-dna are truly native to africa

Evidence ??? All I have read indicates that most of them are native to Africa and only a few back-migrated.

BTW - 90% of Non-African Y-DNA haplogroups are descendants of haplogroup F.

So it is the opposite - Non-Africans are descendants of relatively small and relatively homogenous groups.


That's also what all the archaeology shows.

Not really. There were certain archaeological cultures which expanded out of Africa.

==============================

Here is a good lecture about innovations invented before migration out of Africa:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohne6LpKFKk&list=PL142715B39745054C

http://s27.postimg.org/4i8feviur/image.png

Here a lecture about Interbreeding With Archaic Humans IN AFRICA:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvoiPUHfOXI

BTW - thanks for your intro, I will read it tomorrow.

[Peterski]

When it comes to ancient migration waves to South America - it seems there were two, not one (as I previously stated).

The Andaman Association founded by George Weber ("George Weber's Lonely Islands") is researching the history of Negritos and Australoids.

It seems that they also published a book "Lonely Islands: The Andamanese Bibliography", Andaman Association, 1999.

Their website until 2013 was www.andaman.org, but now it is not active. However, it is still available through web archives, for example:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130520190644/http://www.andaman.org/index.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20130402190016/http://andaman.org/BOOK/chapter47/text47.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20130402150943/http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter6/text6.htm

Since 2014 it is under a new address, but they still did not copy everything from the old website, so it is still under construction:

http://www.andamans.org/

Here about Negritos / Pygmies in Australia - they probably were there before (?) Australoids came, or immigrated later (?):

https://web.archive.org/web/20130402175843/http://andaman.org/BOOK/chapter51/text51.htm#gillin

It seems that the first people in the of Americas were people of Australoid race.

They were later marginalized by new waves of immigrants (ancestors of Amerindians).

But some of those Australoid-like populations survived intact until the 19th century - e.g. in Terra del Fuegos and in Patagonia:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130402175843/http://andaman.org/BOOK/chapter51/text51.htm#gillin

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/150857/view

https://www.google.pl/search?q=Fuegians&client=firefox-a&hs=igc&rls=org.mozilla:pl:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=gBYiVJCzJYG07QaF5YGYCw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1525&bih=691&dpr=0.9#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=3Hg42bXnbXs9PM%253A%3B3U_ppXpD7kih4M%3Bhttp% 253A%252F%252Fwww.victory-cruises.com%252Fgraphics1%252Fjemy.jpg%3Bhttp%253A %252F%252Fwww.victory-cruises.com%252Fjemy_button.html%3B294%3B161

http://s7.postimg.org/sngjbkxjv/Fuegian.png

http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/imgs/content/workfuegain.jpg

http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/150857/350wm/C0088133-1870_Fuegians_by_the_Reverend_J.G._Wood-SPL.jpg

It seems that currently, only one full-blooded Fuegian individual - of Yagan tribe - is alive (and around 100 more of mixed blood):

http://www.mapuche-nation.org/english/html/news/n-88.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuegians#Possible_Australian.2FMelanesian_origin


The Fuegians have been thought to be physically, culturally and linguistically distinct from other Native Americans. Some proponents of this theory suggest they may be the descendants of Australian Aborigines who colonized the area prior to the arrival of mongoloid Amerindians.[27] Further credibility is lent to this idea by research suggesting the existence of an ethnically distinct population elsewhere in South America.[28][29] Both Tehuelches and Selk'nams practiced body painting and rock art similar to that of Australian Aborigines. In contrast to most Amerindian peoples, Fuegians appeared to be taller than most Europeans (this does not include...... the Yaghans, who were quite short with skinny limbs and fat bodies - a physical adaptation to the cold (...)

Yellow colour shows possible remnants of the oldest wave of colonization:
(it was followed by at least 1 more wave in South America and at least 3 more in North America):

https://web.archive.org/web/20130402212030im_/http://andaman.org/BOOK/chapter54/Ch54-intro/AmericanMigrations.jpg

Luzia woman of Brasil (she died around 11,500 years ago):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luzia_Woman#Phenotypical_analysis


Anthropologists have variously described Luzia's features as resembling those of Negroids, Indigenous Australians, Melanesians and the Negritos of Southeast Asia. Walter Neves, an anthropologist at the University of São Paulo, suggests that Luzia's features most strongly resemble those of Australian Aboriginal peoples. Richard Neave of Manchester University, who undertook a facial reconstruction of Luzia (see the photograph above), believes that it is negroid.[3]
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2XYynONmssA/Td7IZims_zI/AAAAAAAAC0Q/NB4vtysKomI/s1600/luzia-resized.jpg