PDA

View Full Version : Aboriginal DNA dates Australian arrival



panopticon
24th September 2011, 05:36
G'day All,

Came across an interesting article that I thought I'd share with the class:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/09/23/3323640.htm

States:

Sequencing of a West Australian Aboriginal man's hair shows he was directly descended from a migration out of Africa into Asia that took place about 70,000 years ago.
The finding, published today in Science, rewrites the history of the human species by confirming humans moved out of Africa in waves of migrations rather than one single out-of-Africa diaspora.

This is in alignment with a linguistics study I was reading the other day (I'll see if I can find it if anyone's interested) that showed how indigenous language use varies in relation to length of time in locale. It made mention that Australian Aborigines refer to the place by name and not description as is the more common use.
This is very complicated but essentially the basics that I understood were that the Australian Aborigines describe everything in their tribal area by name whereas tribes in North America (can't remember which one the study referred to) used description more. So the Australian Aboriginals might call a place "Bob" whereas the North American Tribe might call it "big rock on steep hill past running water" (remember this is if they lived in the same place for the length of the tribes existence and that I'm being a bit funny aswell). I've simplified it a lot as I didn't understand it all but found it really interesting.

So from my understanding the two studies possibly reinforce each other to some extent.

Just thought I'd share.

Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

Addendum:

Here's a paper on the difference between the traditional Aboriginal people (Yindjibarndi) and the English usage (not the same but a good intro):
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.88.6266&rep=rep1&type=pdf

jackovesk
24th September 2011, 08:04
I am still not convinced that the earliest record of 'Man' was bourne out of Africa...

For whatever reason. it still doesn't make any sense to me...

I tend to believe the 'Australian Aboriginals' were one of the earliest tribes known to man after the Neanderthals were upgraded by Alien DNA...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3f/Australian_Aboriginal_Flag.svg/92px-Australian_Aboriginal_Flag.svg.png

It has been proven Time & Time again that the ancient Aboriginal rock paintings/carvings are the oldest known to mankind..!

One thing I do know for sure is Humanity has been ROBBED of OUR TRUE HISTORY..!

...and that Truely Pisses Me Off..!

Anno
24th September 2011, 14:11
[...]after the Neanderthals were upgraded by Alien DNA...[...]

What makes you think they were upgraded? They lived in harmony with Nature for far longer than we've been on the planet. We 'survive' at war with Nature. If anything it seems more like a downgrade.

jackovesk
24th September 2011, 15:33
[...]after the Neanderthals were upgraded by Alien DNA...[...]

What makes you think they were upgraded? They lived in harmony with Nature for far longer than we've been on the planet. We 'survive' at war with Nature. If anything it seems more like a downgrade.

I totally hear what your saying Anno,

However IMHO I don't think the Neanderthals had any choice in the matter...

Anno
24th September 2011, 20:29
[...]after the Neanderthals were upgraded by Alien DNA...[...]

What makes you think they were upgraded? They lived in harmony with Nature for far longer than we've been on the planet. We 'survive' at war with Nature. If anything it seems more like a downgrade.

I totally hear what your saying Anno,

However IMHO I don't think the Neanderthals had any choice in the matter...

Me neither, nor any of the other 'proto-human' species that lived here before us. I say 'us', we could be the same spirits just in a different 'suit'. That doesn't really answer my question though.

What do you believe has been upgraded in us by the aliens?

jcocks
25th September 2011, 01:17
I think it might have been better had jackovesk said "upgraded" rather than upgraded :) We all know it wasn't really an upgrade more than a deliberate dumbing-down.

We've been robbed of far more than just our history.....

Anno
25th September 2011, 13:06
From our perspective it's a downgrade, but to whoever did it, it must be an upgrade. By identifying what can be seen as an 'upgrade' gives us a clue as to the intention of whoever did it and maybe takes us one step closer to figuring out who they are. I think it's important to examine both the 'upgrade' and 'downgrade' views. =]