Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Australian Aboriginals ONLY 4000yrs OLD!

Eloher
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 10:11:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Genetic evidence confirms that Australian Aboriginals are descendants of 3 distinct people who displaced an older population (soon they'll find evidence of this extinct population in mtDNA in aboriginals which means they killed the men and took the women.)

A large percentage of their DNA originates from a migration from southern India 4000 years ago. Their relatives still survive throughout tamil territory but most prominently, the Veddah of Sri Lanka. The other 2 peoples are populations from Papua that came at a later stage. One lived on the tip of Carpentaria prior to the migration of the other.
The early human fossils like mungo man (40,000 bc) are of the different and extinct population, discrediting the claims that Aboriginals have to this country.

This explains why there was a sudden progression of linguistics and stone tools around 2000BC. Also the introduction of the Indian singing dog, better known as the Dingo, 'coincidentally' occurred around the same time, as it too cannot be traced before 2000BC.

My question is why isn't this general knowledge?
Why are we still being taught that Aborigines have been here for over 40,000 years and the evil white man took their land?
Why is my government apologising to them and giving them claims to our land, benefits and the right to keep archaeological artifacts and fossils locked away to prevent any further evidence from surfacing.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 11:06:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 10:11:48 AM, Eloher wrote:
Genetic evidence confirms that Australian Aboriginals are descendants of 3 distinct people who displaced an older population (soon they'll find evidence of this extinct population in mtDNA in aboriginals which means they killed the men and took the women.)

A large percentage of their DNA originates from a migration from southern India 4000 years ago. Their relatives still survive throughout tamil territory but most prominently, the Veddah of Sri Lanka. The other 2 peoples are populations from Papua that came at a later stage. One lived on the tip of Carpentaria prior to the migration of the other.
The early human fossils like mungo man (40,000 bc) are of the different and extinct population, discrediting the claims that Aboriginals have to this country.

This explains why there was a sudden progression of linguistics and stone tools around 2000BC. Also the introduction of the Indian singing dog, better known as the Dingo, 'coincidentally' occurred around the same time, as it too cannot be traced before 2000BC.

My question is why isn't this general knowledge?
Why are we still being taught that Aborigines have been here for over 40,000 years and the evil white man took their land?
Why is my government apologising to them and giving them claims to our land, benefits and the right to keep archaeological artifacts and fossils locked away to prevent any further evidence from surfacing.

Sources for this? They were there for 40,000 years using basic search of "race and genetics" on wikipedia.

It's expected that there would be forms of cross-breeding between races since you can't have 100% geographical separation (although Australia is pretty isolated). There's plenty of aboriginals that contain white genetics. African Americans tend to be about 20-30% white on average.

I'd give me views on the aboriginals, but its pretty politically incorrect, although there's really no aboriginals to get offended.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 12:52:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm gunna need a source on that one.

Besides, if the government is apologizing for taking land they (the abbos) originally lived on, then it doesn't matter if the abbos beat them to Australia by 4,000 years or 40,000 -- the point is they were there first. That's the issue.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 1:16:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wait, aren't you the person who argued that the aboriginal Australians are inferior because they squandered 40,000 years? This contradicts your original rant if that's the case.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Eloher
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 3:38:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 11:06:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/22/2013 10:11:48 AM, Eloher wrote:
Genetic evidence confirms that Australian Aboriginals are descendants of 3 distinct people who displaced an older population (soon they'll find evidence of this extinct population in mtDNA in aboriginals which means they killed the men and took the women.)

A large percentage of their DNA originates from a migration from southern India 4000 years ago. Their relatives still survive throughout tamil territory but most prominently, the Veddah of Sri Lanka. The other 2 peoples are populations from Papua that came at a later stage. One lived on the tip of Carpentaria prior to the migration of the other.
The early human fossils like mungo man (40,000 bc) are of the different and extinct population, discrediting the claims that Aboriginals have to this country.

This explains why there was a sudden progression of linguistics and stone tools around 2000BC. Also the introduction of the Indian singing dog, better known as the Dingo, 'coincidentally' occurred around the same time, as it too cannot be traced before 2000BC.

My question is why isn't this general knowledge?
Why are we still being taught that Aborigines have been here for over 40,000 years and the evil white man took their land?
Why is my government apologising to them and giving them claims to our land, benefits and the right to keep archaeological artifacts and fossils locked away to prevent any further evidence from surfacing.

Sources for this? They were there for 40,000 years using basic search of "race and genetics" on wikipedia.

It's expected that there would be forms of cross-breeding between races since you can't have 100% geographical separation (although Australia is pretty isolated). There's plenty of aboriginals that contain white genetics. African Americans tend to be about 20-30% white on average.

I'd give me views on the aboriginals, but its pretty politically incorrect, although there's really no aboriginals to get offended.

http://theconversation.com...
this is where I first came across this handy piece of info

http://www.google.com.au...
Vedda from Sri lanka. Late 19th century.

Lol you have the internet. Search the rest yourself.
Wikipedia is not a very good source of information.
Majority of the references lead nowhere.

I do realise that there has been cross breeding, which is what I was explaining.
My point is, for over 100 years Aboriginies have claimed rights to this land, despite the fact that their ancestors annexed it from a previous haplogroup. This has been happening throughout history all around the world.
I just don't believe a people should continue to recieve benefits and prevent the discovery of new scientific information, based on fabricated history.

Say what you will my friend. Won't bother me lol
Eloher
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 3:49:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 1:16:18 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Wait, aren't you the person who argued that the aboriginal Australians are inferior because they squandered 40,000 years? This contradicts your original rant if that's the case.

This is why I wrote 'supposedly' before '40,000 years', because that is the general consensus.
Whether they migrated or not, is irrelevant to that topic. Them as a people, despite the land they lived on, didn't drastically progress like the Europeans did.
Eloher
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 4:30:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 12:52:11 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
I'm gunna need a source on that one.

Besides, if the government is apologizing for taking land they (the abbos) originally lived on, then it doesn't matter if the abbos beat them to Australia by 4,000 years or 40,000 -- the point is they were there first. That's the issue.

You live in Canada and don't see the segregation and constant hate between Aboriginals and white people caused by fabricated history.
My main concern, as I posted in another reply, is that we will never be able to delve further into our past and discover where we came from if there are people finding fossils and keeping them locked away, in fear of updating a history book or offending the previous inhabitants of the country.

This makes me very frustrated as I am very curious to know the truth about where we come from. Not from a religious stance or some guys theories with a hidden agenda.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 9:30:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 3:38:32 AM, Eloher wrote:
At 3/22/2013 11:06:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/22/2013 10:11:48 AM, Eloher wrote:
Genetic evidence confirms that Australian Aboriginals are descendants of 3 distinct people who displaced an older population (soon they'll find evidence of this extinct population in mtDNA in aboriginals which means they killed the men and took the women.)

A large percentage of their DNA originates from a migration from southern India 4000 years ago. Their relatives still survive throughout tamil territory but most prominently, the Veddah of Sri Lanka. The other 2 peoples are populations from Papua that came at a later stage. One lived on the tip of Carpentaria prior to the migration of the other.
The early human fossils like mungo man (40,000 bc) are of the different and extinct population, discrediting the claims that Aboriginals have to this country.

This explains why there was a sudden progression of linguistics and stone tools around 2000BC. Also the introduction of the Indian singing dog, better known as the Dingo, 'coincidentally' occurred around the same time, as it too cannot be traced before 2000BC.

My question is why isn't this general knowledge?
Why are we still being taught that Aborigines have been here for over 40,000 years and the evil white man took their land?
Why is my government apologising to them and giving them claims to our land, benefits and the right to keep archaeological artifacts and fossils locked away to prevent any further evidence from surfacing.

Sources for this? They were there for 40,000 years using basic search of "race and genetics" on wikipedia.

It's expected that there would be forms of cross-breeding between races since you can't have 100% geographical separation (although Australia is pretty isolated). There's plenty of aboriginals that contain white genetics. African Americans tend to be about 20-30% white on average.

I'd give me views on the aboriginals, but its pretty politically incorrect, although there's really no aboriginals to get offended.

http://theconversation.com...
this is where I first came across this handy piece of info


Like I said, gene flow is inevitable.


http://www.google.com.au...
Vedda from Sri lanka. Late 19th century.

Lol you have the internet. Search the rest yourself.

When you're the one making the claim, the burden is on you to find the source.

Wikipedia is not a very good source of information.

How? Studies have confirmed that it is nearly as good as Britannia. Also, the fact that anybody can edit it means that if facts are wrong, then people are more likely to correct it. Your own source indicates aboriginals did migrate to Australia 40,000 years ago.

Majority of the references lead nowhere.


I do realise that there has been cross breeding, which is what I was explaining.
My point is, for over 100 years Aboriginies have claimed rights to this land, despite the fact that their ancestors annexed it from a previous haplogroup. This has been happening throughout history all around the world.

No, it doesn't explain that, because there ancestors still come from 40,000 years ago despite having some blood that comes from those that were there 4,000 years or so (whatever the number was)

And so what if aboriginals lay claim to the land. Its not as if the Caucasians are going to take up and leave. People will say what they want and often have philosophies that are weird. Doesn't change stuff.

I just don't believe a people should continue to recieve benefits and prevent the discovery of new scientific information, based on fabricated history.

Say what you will my friend. Won't bother me lol

Not worried about you.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 4:48:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 4:30:35 AM, Eloher wrote:
At 3/23/2013 12:52:11 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
I'm gunna need a source on that one.

Besides, if the government is apologizing for taking land they (the abbos) originally lived on, then it doesn't matter if the abbos beat them to Australia by 4,000 years or 40,000 -- the point is they were there first. That's the issue.

You live in Canada and don't see the segregation and constant hate between Aboriginals and white people caused by fabricated history.

Is it fabricated that they were massacred in large numbers? Leaving aside the question of whether or not the stories about them being used for dog food are true, do you really believe that the newspaper articles, memories, official records, were all falsified? Are the Stolen Generations lies?

My main concern, as I posted in another reply, is that we will never be able to delve further into our past and discover where we came from if there are people finding fossils and keeping them locked away, in fear of updating a history book or offending the previous inhabitants of the country.

*raises an eyebrow* There is not hiding being evidenced here. Remember, these studies were published. Not to mention that it still doesn't show that the original population was displaced--just genetic drift.
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 10:26:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 10:11:48 AM, Eloher wrote:
Genetic evidence confirms that Australian Aboriginals are descendants of 3 distinct people who displaced an older population (soon they'll find evidence of this extinct population in mtDNA in aboriginals which means they killed the men and took the women.)

A large percentage of their DNA originates from a migration from southern India 4000 years ago. Their relatives still survive throughout tamil territory but most prominently, the Veddah of Sri Lanka. The other 2 peoples are populations from Papua that came at a later stage. One lived on the tip of Carpentaria prior to the migration of the other.
The early human fossils like mungo man (40,000 bc) are of the different and extinct population, discrediting the claims that Aboriginals have to this country.

This explains why there was a sudden progression of linguistics and stone tools around 2000BC. Also the introduction of the Indian singing dog, better known as the Dingo, 'coincidentally' occurred around the same time, as it too cannot be traced before 2000BC.

My question is why isn't this general knowledge?
Why are we still being taught that Aborigines have been here for over 40,000 years and the evil white man took their land?
Why is my government apologizing to them and giving them claims to our land, benefits and the right to keep archaeological artifacts and fossils locked away to prevent any further evidence from surfacing.

I can't really say that I know anything, but do you think regardless of whether they were there for 40k years or 4k years that they still got screwed.

Either way you don't need to feel guilty about it, but at least recognize someone came in the picture and placed ownership on land they had been living on and using for thousands of years.