for the last time were not australoids

[Trouble]

Anthro myth busted:


1 Australian:Average 51.2614 Open Map 100
2 German:Average 33.6123 Open Map 100
3 Han:Average 47.9363 Open Map 100
4 Htin_Mal:Average 45.6702 Open Map 100
5 Iranian_Fars:Average 24.9555 Open Map 100
6 Papuan:Average 70.7544

[Thambi]

what group outside south asia is closest to our tribals?

[Rgvgjhvv]

https://media3.giphy.com/media/dblx5BS577pFm/giphy.gif

[Trouble]

what group outside south asia is closest to our tribals?
Assuming you dont count Baloch or Pashtuns as being outside S. Asia, then:

Andamanese, then Orang Asli(indigenous SE Asian), then south Iranians, then SE Asians, then NE Asians. Thats for the pure SI ones. For AA ones it's the same but south iranians are further down the list but still before Abos. And SE Asians+Onge are way closer

Edit: forgot about Central Asians like Hazara. They come just after orang asli.

[Dr_Maul]

Who

[Trouble]

https://media3.giphy.com/media/dblx5BS577pFm/giphy.gif

Why?

[Thambi]

Assuming you dont count Baloch or Pashtuns as being outside S. Asia, then:

Andamanese, then Orang Asli(indigenous SE Asian), then south Iranians, then SE Asians, then NE Asians. Thats for the pure SI ones. For AA ones it's the same but south iranians are further down the list but still before Abos. And SE Asians+Onge are way closer

then we are part of the great australoid race bro. Onge, andmanese, negritos from SE asia have many shared aspects with australian aborigines. btw just like mongoloid doesnt exclusively mean mongolian, caucasoid doesnt necessarily mean caucasus, australoid doesnt exclusively have to mean australian aborigines. Its just a term for a larger south eurasian group.

So yes we do have australoid mix but we dont necessarily have direct relations with australian aborigines recently. but they definitely are our cousins for sure. Just like how native americans and east asians are related to each other

[Trouble]

then we are part of the great australoid race bro. Onge, andmanese, negritos from SE asia have many shared aspects with australian aborigines. btw just like mongoloid doesnt exclusively mean mongolian, caucasoid doesnt necessarily mean caucasus, australoid doesnt exclusively have to mean australian aborigines. Its just a term for a larger south eurasian group.

So yes we do have australoid mix but we dont necessarily have direct relations with australian aborigines recently. but they definitely are our cousins for sure. Just like how native americans and east asians are related to each other

So are we also east asians then? No onges only have a minor Oceanic shift.

[Thambi]

So are we also east asians then? No onges only have a minor Oceanic shift.

Well we are related to negritos who happen to be se asian by geography today. Theyre not neo mongoloid so technically not ‘east asian’ that people think of.

[Trouble]

Well we are related to negritos who happen to be se asian by geography today. Theyre not neo mongoloid so technically not ‘east asian’ that people think of.

Yeah, but still a bit closer to legit east asians than to aboriginal australians and papuans. These groups split away from each other at some point. They have high amounts of Denisovan admixture which s. asians lack and that's one of the reasons why they are as distant as they are.

BTW the concept of Australoid race as it is popularly described here is basically eurocentric and outdated. Papuans look nothing like S. Asians at all, while Australian aboriginals rarely ever do. Even then you can almost always tell the difference. Aboriginals have a high cranial index and the opposite is true for us. We have short small heads.

[Kyp]

you are

[Trouble]

you are

citation needed

[Thambi]

Yeah, but still a bit closer to legit east asians than to aboriginal australians and papuans. These groups split away from each other at some point. They have high amounts of Denisovan admixture which s. asians lack and that's one of the reasons why they are as distant as they are.

BTW the concept of Australoid race as it is popularly described here is basically eurocentric and outdated. Papuans look nothing like S. Asians at all, while Australian aboriginals rarely ever do. Even then you can almost always tell the difference. Aboriginals have a high cranial index and the opposite is true for us. We have short small heads.

Ok idk if i take some of these distances seriously. Distance to Northern amerindians is almost the same between bengalis, han chinese, and Velamas. Does that make sense?

Distance to: Velamas
0.50886704 Amerindian_North

Distance to: Bengali_Bangladesh
0.47813634 Amerindian_North

Distance to: Han
0.43195409 Amerindian_North

Australian aborigines did descend from south asia and went all the way to SE asia and then to australia. All these populations have ancestry related to them and its just named after them, since they stayed the most pure/isolated.

ok even if we look at the distances, they still dont tell the whole story. For example, turks are closer to saudis than to mongols, but turks have legit 30-40% central asian ancestry of which 15% or so is pure mongoloid so you can model them with mongola. Thats what i mean. We might be very far from australoids in general but we have mixture from population related to them, the ASI/ASE/negrito whatever we wanna call it. Even if we are closer to east asians than to australoids regardless of having almost no ancestry from the former.

Target: Turkish_Aydin
Distance: 2.2713% / 0.02271271
51.8 Armenian
34.2 Greek_Central_Macedonia
14.0 Mongola

Distance to: Turkish_Aydin
0.09519421 Armenian
0.10506694 Greek_Central_Macedonia
0.18170549 Saudi
0.49671344 Mongola

tibetans have denisovan as well, yet they're still seen as east asian.

[Trouble]

Ok idk if i take some of these distances seriously. Distance to Northern amerindians is almost the same between bengalis, han chinese, and Velamas. Does that make sense?

Distance to: Velamas
0.50886704 Amerindian_North

Distance to: Bengali_Bangladesh
0.47813634 Amerindian_North

Distance to: Han
0.43195409 Amerindian_North

Australian aborigines did descend from south asia and went all the way to SE asia and then to australia. All these populations have ancestry related to them and its just named after them, since they stayed the most pure/isolated.

ok even if we look at the distances, they still dont tell the whole story. For example, turks are closer to saudis than to mongols, but turks have legit 30-40% central asian ancestry of which 15% or so is pure mongoloid so you can model them with mongola. Thats what i mean. We might be very far from australoids in general but we have mixture from population related to them, the ASI/ASE/negrito whatever we wanna call it. Even if we are closer to east asians than to australoids regardless of having almost no ancestry from the former.

Target: Turkish_Aydin
Distance: 2.2713% / 0.02271271
51.8 Armenian
34.2 Greek_Central_Macedonia
14.0 Mongola

Distance to: Turkish_Aydin
0.09519421 Armenian
0.10506694 Greek_Central_Macedonia
0.18170549 Saudi
0.49671344 Mongola

tibetans have denisovan as well, yet they're still seen as east asian.

Well, there have been academic studies that've been done on this stuff that have more or less confirmed what I said. ASI/AASI was always described as a component of ancestry with no real equivalent and was not closely related to any population outside South Asia.

There was a guy on anthrogenica, forgot his name but he was involved in formal stats and he said that Amerindians are more or less similarly closely related to all Eurasian populations. That might be true but more importantly they're really diverged. They have lots of ANE like South Asians do, but also a lot of east asian but of a kind diverged from actual east asians like Han.

Your point about admixture deviating the real results, if you think thats the case try to model yourself with the usual west eurasian sources+australian and then west eurasian sources+east asian. It will be the same or east asian slightly better.

I will look into more academic papers to see if there is a real connection. A while ago news came out claiming that a migration took place from india to australia 4k years back but it amounted to no more than 10% of abo DNA. Not sure what developments came of that.

[lameduck]

exoticness of indians is mostly an online phenomena, india is as exotic as any other asian country, india is ex colony, it follow british common law ,largest democracy, certain circles in west see it as natural ally of west agianst china. India always has a sophisticated anglophone elite.

[Leto]

Who cares, you still ain't white :cool:

[Trouble]

I just checked the FST distances. Massive...in no way are they related to us.

"Aboriginal Australians are genetically most similar to the indigenous populations of Papua New Guinea, and more distantly related to groups from East Indonesia. They are quite distinct from the indigenous populations of Borneo and Malaysia, sharing relatively little genomic information as compared to the groups from Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. This indicates that Australia was isolated for a long time from the rest of Southeast Asia, and remained untouched by migrations and population expansions into that area."

"In a 2011 genetic study by Ramussen et al., researchers took a DNA sample from an early 20th century lock of an Aboriginal person's hair. They found that the ancestors of the Aboriginal population split off from the Eurasian population between 62,000 and 75,000 BP, whereas the European and Asian populations split only 25,000 to 38,000 years BP, indicating an extended period of Aboriginal genetic isolation. These Aboriginal ancestors migrated into South Asia and then into Australia, where they stayed, with the result that, outside of Africa, the Aboriginal peoples have occupied the same territory continuously longer than any other human populations. These findings suggest that modern Aboriginal peoples are the direct descendants of migrants who left Africa up to 75,000 years ago.[7][8] This finding is compatible with earlier archaeological finds of human remains near Lake Mungo that date to approximately 40,000 years ago."