Australian Aborigines; Second Oldest Modern Human Population. . (light, issue)

[ovcatto]

The Aborigines are thus direct descendants of the first modern humans to leave Africa, without any genetic mixture from other races so far as can be seen at present. Their dark skin reflects an African origin and a migration and residence in latitudes near the equator, unlike Europeans and Asians whose ancestors gained the paler skin necessary for living in northern latitudes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/sc...borigines.html

That makes them the closest cousins to the San people of sub-Saharan Africa and knocks another big chuck out of the racial classification of humans idea.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

The Aborigines are thus direct descendants of the first modern humans to leave Africa, without any genetic mixture from other races so far as can be seen at present. Their dark skin reflects an African origin and a migration and residence in latitudes near the equator, unlike Europeans and Asians whose ancestors gained the paler skin necessary for living in northern latitudes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/sc...borigines.html

That makes them the closest cousins to the San people of sub-Saharan Africa and knocks another big chuck out of the racial classification of humans idea.

I do not think skin tone is something that would indicate a DIRECT out of Africa to Austrailia scenerio without any admixture on the way. Indian people are clearly more realted to Europeans than Africans yet they have dark skin.

Regarding this statement: 'Their dark skin reflects an African origin and a migration and residence in latitudes near the equator, unlike Europeans and Asians whose ancestors gained the paler skin necessary for living in northern latitudes.'

I am not sure what his point is, is he suggesting that Euoropeans and Asians aquired their light skin prior to moving to these latitudes -- that does not makes sense. And is he suggesting that Europeans and Asians are not directly from Africa - does their light skin reflect a non African origin? All people have African Origin, as far as we now know, so his statement seems confusing.

If they are directly from Africa with no admixture - how do they explain their hair? Last I checked the tight curly hair of Africans is a dominate trait.

One interesting point regarding genetic distance now that I think about it. Is it not interesting that the least genetic distance between groups is between Europeans and Africans yet the greatest visual distance between skin tone is between the same group.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I do not think skin tone is something that would indicate a DIRECT out of Africa to Austrailia scenerio without any admixture on the way. Indian people are clearly more realted to Europeans than Africans yet they have dark skin.

I'm sorry the NYT article sucked and I was too lazy to look back for the good one. The issue has nothing to do with race but rather the DNA samples from a 100 year old lock of hair.

http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/...perts-respond/

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I am not sure what his point is, is he suggesting that Euoropeans and Asians aquired their light skin prior to moving to these latitudes -- that does not makes sense.

You are right and it doesn't.