User Tag List

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Thread: ASI (ancestral south indian) is not related to Onge/negritos/australoids2442 days old

  1. #1
    Established Member
    Evolutionary Biologist Subzero's Avatar
    Last Online
    2013-01-13 @ 15:56
    Join Date
    2012-07-08
    Posts
    241
    Gender

    Default ASI (ancestral south indian) is not related to Onge/negritos/australoids

    Some people still believe in that false theory, as they associate ASI with andamanse negritos because of that one study that only used them as a proxy. The genetic distance between ASI and negrito populations such as andamanese/Onge is gigantic and they would never be considered even distantly related if not for the fact that Andamanese negritos have been isolated for 25.000+ years and most of their true relatives outside the islands have gone extinct. (The ASI would have killed most if not all of the earlier negritos and australoids living in south asia once they arrived in the region)

    In some small isolated tribal groups you can see that some australoid and negrito ancestry has survived, and in the munda speaking austro-asiatic tribes, but this old admixture is completely different and unrelated to ASI.

    ASI people did not have negrito or australoid features, so the claims that indians and south asians are mixed with them are completely false, but despite of this thread I assume we will need another better study to convince those who are in denial. Indians are not Caucasoid/australoid hybrids, they are not Caucasoid/negrito hybrids either, as most indians/south asians completely lack australoid and negrito admixture/ancestry. Thats just how it is.

    Im gonna bump this thread as new studies becomes available, anything new from the Harappa ancestry project can also be highly relevant to this topic.

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  3. #2
    Established Member
    Junior Member But Cool
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:40
    Join Date
    2012-05-31
    Posts
    3,327
    Location
    Somewhere in England
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Y-DNA
    E-U174/P252
    mtDNA
    U6a3f
    Race
    Sub-Saharan African
    Metaethnos
    Akan/Bakongo/Igbo
    Ethnicity
    Jamaican
    Phenotype
    West African looking
    Politics
    Monarchy over Republic
    Religion
    Nunya
    England Jamaica Skull and crossbones

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subzero View Post
    Some people still believe in that false theory, as they associate ASI with andamanse negritos because of that one study that only used them as a proxy. The genetic distance between ASI and negrito populations such as andamanese/Onge is gigantic and they would never be considered even distantly related if not for the fact that Andamanese negritos have been isolated for 25.000+ years and most of their true relatives outside the islands have gone extinct. (The ASI would have killed most if not all of the earlier negritos and australoids living in south asia once they arrived in the region)

    In some small isolated tribal groups you can see that some australoid and negrito ancestry has survived, and in the munda speaking austro-asiatic tribes, but this old admixture is completely different and unrelated to ASI.

    ASI people did not have negrito or australoid features, so the claims that indians and south asians are mixed with them are completely false, but despite of this thread I assume we will need another better study to convince those who are in denial. Indians are not Caucasoid/australoid hybrids, they are not Caucasoid/negrito hybrids either, as most indians/south asians completely lack australoid and negrito admixture/ancestry. Thats just how it is.

    Im gonna bump this thread as new studies becomes available, anything new from the Harappa ancestry project can also be highly relevant to this topic.
    Any proof of your assertions or are you just chatting shit like you usually do on this forum and on Anthroscape?

  4. #3
    Established Member
    Evolutionary Biologist
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-12-30
    Posts
    3,483
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    E1b1b1a1a2
    mtDNA
    T1a8b

    Default

    Thanks for sharing your great wisdom with us yet again, Subzero.

  5. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Lol_Race For This Useful Post:

    Alaron (2012-12-11), chicken (2012-12-11), pgbk87 (2012-12-11), Zeus1986 (2012-12-18)

  6. #4
    Established Member
    1 word awesome Fact-Finder's Avatar
    Last Online
    2016-07-11 @ 02:12
    Join Date
    2012-07-16
    Posts
    1,038
    Gender
    Race
    Amerind

    Default

    Wow how interesting do you have link to a study related to this subject?

    An actual peer reviewed scientific paper perhaps?

  7. #5
    Established Member
    Evolutionary Biologist Subzero's Avatar
    Last Online
    2013-01-13 @ 15:56
    Join Date
    2012-07-08
    Posts
    241
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Hand View Post
    Any proof of your assertions or are you just chatting shit like you usually do on this forum and on Anthroscape?
    I simply speak the truth like I always do. If all you are gonna do is cry like a baby like usual then you can gtfo of this thread already.

    Anyway here is some evidence for starters, even though this should be common sense.

    http://www.harappadna.org/2011/06/of...tics/#comments

    I believe it is important to create some accurate non-generic terms for these groups because it isn't useful for us to continue to impute ethno-linguistic identities to these abstract ancestral components. The ASI/PSE were not Andaman Islanders, anymore that Japanese and Siberians are the same because they share ancestors ~20-30,000 years before the present. And we don't know if the ANI/NWE were Dravidians or Indo-Aryans, or something altogether different. My own assessment is that they probably predated the Dravidians and Indo-Aryans, but my confidence is low in that claim, and I believe they are more likely to have been Dravidians than Indo-Aryans.

  8. #6
    Established Member
    Junior Member But Cool
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:40
    Join Date
    2012-05-31
    Posts
    3,327
    Location
    Somewhere in England
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Y-DNA
    E-U174/P252
    mtDNA
    U6a3f
    Race
    Sub-Saharan African
    Metaethnos
    Akan/Bakongo/Igbo
    Ethnicity
    Jamaican
    Phenotype
    West African looking
    Politics
    Monarchy over Republic
    Religion
    Nunya
    England Jamaica Skull and crossbones

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subzero View Post
    I simply speak the truth like I always do. If all you are gonna do is cry like a baby like usual then you can gtfo of this thread already.

    Anyway here is some evidence for starters, even though this should be common sense.

    http://www.harappadna.org/2011/06/of...tics/#comments
    You are compulsive liar and fucktard. I have no reason to believe anything you say. So I'll rephrase the question. Have you got any evidence from peer reviewed anthropologists and geneticists about ASI?

    Subzero in intelligence indeed!

  9. #7
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    2017-12-16 @ 05:25
    Join Date
    2009-12-27
    Posts
    404
    Gender

    Default


    "2,000 gens ago Split of ANI and ASI ancestors
    1,700 gens ago Split of Asian populations (‘proto-East Asia’, ASI, and Onge)"


    I think Subzero means that the distance between the Onge and ASI split is almost the same as between CEU and Onge-ASI split.
    The branch separations are so remote that there is hardly any point in saying that the ASI and Onge are related when they split 42,500ybp (@25yrs per gen.).

    Subzero is also correct that the Onge are a proxy as they are seen as an isolated population, which is not difficult to imagine why - they are isolated, there are only 54 of them living, and have all the problematic issues associated with drift - that is they will assume ownership of a component ("the Onge cluster tightly").

    Admixture analysis will always try to force into at least two components whether or not they are really ancestral. For example if we modeled Africans, Southasians (sourced from Africans), and East Asians (sourced from Southasians), it would model South Asians as a combination of African and East Asian.

    If the Onge were not there, Papuans would have served the purpose. "To explore the robustness of our ancestry estimates, we repeated the entirely analysis substituting Papuans for Onge, and encouragingly obtained similar estimates (not shown)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842210/
    Last edited by saran; 2012-12-14 at 17:53.

  10. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to saran For This Useful Post:

    asingh (2012-12-14), filrabat (2012-12-22), Iron Hand (2012-12-14), mac (2012-12-14), meranaam (2012-12-24), Multilingual (2012-12-22), pgbk87 (2012-12-19), Subzero (2012-12-18)

  11. #8
    Established Member
    Junior Member But Cool
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:40
    Join Date
    2012-05-31
    Posts
    3,327
    Location
    Somewhere in England
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Y-DNA
    E-U174/P252
    mtDNA
    U6a3f
    Race
    Sub-Saharan African
    Metaethnos
    Akan/Bakongo/Igbo
    Ethnicity
    Jamaican
    Phenotype
    West African looking
    Politics
    Monarchy over Republic
    Religion
    Nunya
    England Jamaica Skull and crossbones

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saran View Post

    "2,000 gens ago Split of ANI and ASI ancestors
    1,700 gens ago Split of Asian populations (‘proto-East Asia’, ASI, and Onge)"


    I think Subzero means that the distance between the Onge and ASI split is almost the same as between CEU and Onge-ASI split.
    The branch separations are so remote that there is hardly any point in saying that the ASI and Onge are related when they split 42,500ybp (@25yrs per gen.).

    Subzero is also correct that the Onge are a proxy as they are seen as an isolated population, which is not difficult to imagine why - they are isolated, there are only 54 of them living, and have all the problematic issues associated with drift - that is they will assume ownership of a component ("the Onge cluster tightly").

    Admixture analysis will always try to force into at least two components whether or not they are really ancestral. For example if we modeled Africans, Southasians (sourced from Africans), and East Asians (sourced from Southasians), it would model South Asians as a combination of African and East Asian.

    If the Onge were not there, Papuans would have served the purpose. "To explore the robustness of our ancestry estimates, we repeated the entirely analysis substituting Papuans for Onge, and encouragingly obtained similar estimates (not shown)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842210/
    I see. Thanks for the info. All I wanted to see was some evidence from a reliable source. Subzero is a constant liar and fucktard. He never backs up anything he says because he can't.

  12. #9
    QBS Banned
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2013-12-07 @ 02:19
    Join Date
    2012-10-21
    Posts
    39
    Gender
    Age
    29
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Phenotype
    Indid
    Metaethnos
    Desi
    Ethnicity
    Tamil
    Politics
    Libertarian
    United States India

    Default

    Australoid and negrito genes still remain in 60% of Indias population however only in minor concentrations

  13. #10
    Established Member
    Evolutionary Biologist Subzero's Avatar
    Last Online
    2013-01-13 @ 15:56
    Join Date
    2012-07-08
    Posts
    241
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Hand View Post
    You are compulsive liar and fucktard. I have no reason to believe anything you say. So I'll rephrase the question. Have you got any evidence from peer reviewed anthropologists and geneticists about ASI?

    Subzero in intelligence indeed!
    Go cry in a corner then faggot. I dont care about what you believe in or not, as you are an imbecile with single digit IQ. Im simply making this thread for those who actually has the ability to understand these types of things and want to know the actual truth. You are just pissed off and insecure as you take this thread as another insult to black people, while its true that i dont like blacks, this thread has very little if anything to do with them. This thread is simply about correctly understanding the data available.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Hand View Post
    I see. Thanks for the info. All I wanted to see was some evidence from a reliable source. Subzero is a constant liar and fucktard. He never backs up anything he says because he can't.
    I back up everything I say with data and common sense, unlike you who just whines like a woman. And now that you see that you where mistaken you can finally get the hell out of this thread.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tamilgangster View Post
    Australoid and negrito genes still remain in 60% of Indias population however only in minor concentrations
    No that is incorrect. ASI is not australoid and not negrito either. Australoid and/or negrito genes is restricted to some of the isolated tribal groups and they are way less than 1% of the total south asian population.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New Study On South Indian Y-chromosomes
    By JAX in forum Asia & Oceania
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2012-12-07, 20:15
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2012-05-27, 06:53
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-05-23, 03:26
  4. South Indian Tamil Brahmins
    By mohyal in forum Personal Taxonomy
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 2012-03-09, 08:35
  5. Darkskinned South Indian man
    By pakistani in forum Classification Requests
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 2011-10-17, 17:54

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<