By: saturday4th
22/07/2009
10:59 am Yahoo! Profile:
saturday4th Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
NEW clues about how the first Aborigines arrived in Australia have been unveiled by Indian scientists.
Based on a series of genetic tests, they believe Aborigines travelled from Africa to Australia via India.
Dr *** avendra Rao and researchers from the Indian-government backed Anthropological Survey of India project found unique genetic mutations were shared between modern-day Indians and Aborigines, suggesting Australia's indigenous people had once spent time on the sub-continent.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25818953-2310 9,00.html
Well that puts Steve theory that humans started in Australia to rest once and for all. |
|
By: steve_ropa
22/07/2009
12:39 pm |
Message deleted. Reason: Breach of terms of service |
|
By: dallone.ranger
22/07/2009
1:49 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dallone.ranger Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Look, Ropes made a joke.
After a few more years he might even be able to sort out some fact from fiction. But I'm not counting on it. |
|
By: taverna_kopyto
22/07/2009
2:01 pm Yahoo! Profile:
taverna_kopyto Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Mungo Man? Mungo Man? Does he live down Drury Lane?
Oh no.. Haha.. Sorry, that is the Muffin Man! |
|
By: dallone.ranger
22/07/2009
3:34 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dallone.ranger Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Mungo man.
In a study conducted by Australian National University graduate student Greg Adc o c k and others in 1995[1], mitochondrial DNA was collected from bone fragments from Mungo Man's skeleton and analysed. The mtDNA was compared with samples taken from several other ancient Australian human skeletons, a Neanderthal mtDNA sequence, modern day living Australian Aborigines, and other living humans. The results showed that despite being anatomically within the range of fully-modern humans, Mungo Man was descended from a different direct maternal ancestor than the most recent common ancestor in the female line of all living humans, the so-called "Mitochondrial Eve". His mtDNA is not entirely extinct, however, as a segment of it is found inserted in nuclear chromosome 11 of many people today.
~~~~
It seems quite clear that Mungo man was descended from a different human line than the Ab's who live here today. This latter lot either wiped out the Mungo lot, along with the giant mega-fauna which was around when they arrived, or they interbred, stole women and killed the males.
Either way, Mungo appears to be different and more work needs to be done. However Ab's do not want this to happen and the following explains why.
~~
In the long run uncertainty over the role of contamination in the reported mtDNA from LM3 and Kow Swamp will only be clarified through independent testing. Unfortunately, this may prove impossible as the Kow Swamp skeletons were all supposed to have been returned for reburial in 1986, and it is unlikely that Aboriginal communities will be sympathetic to further testing of the LM3 skeleton. |
|
By: saturday4th
22/07/2009
3:41 pm Yahoo! Profile:
saturday4th Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Look, Ropes made a joke.
You call that a joke ? More like a child trying to join in an adult conversation |
|
By: steve_ropa
22/07/2009
10:15 pm |
Message deleted. Reason: Breach of terms of service |
|
By: daveontheboards
23/07/2009
8:47 am Yahoo! Profile:
daveontheboards Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
After reading what passes as debating on here I have to admit I'm happy to be going back OS.
Ropa I don't necessary agree with the way Sat behaved but I certainly agree with the intent of his comments.
Anyone who has to lower themselves to making inappropriate accusations like you did really needs to take a good hard look at themselves. That is not the way for an adult to behave especially someone who is supposed to be in charge of a team of Aboriginals in a community. If this is your normal mode of behaviour I hate to think how you treat the Aboriginals. |
|
By: steve_ropa
23/07/2009
1:11 pm Yahoo! Profile:
steve_ropa Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
****Anyone who has to lower themselves to making inappropriate accusations like you did really needs to take a good hard look at themselves.****
read my post again and tell me where the accusation is.
as i told the ignoramus, i was trying to advise not accuse the lone ranger that some people of dubious nature could see it differently. by the response of the ignoramus sat4th i was right. |
|
By: daveontheboards
23/07/2009
2:09 pm Yahoo! Profile:
daveontheboards Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| It was quite obvious what you were trying to do. There are limits even on Yahoo. At least be enough of a man to admit your mistake. |
|
By: dallone.ranger
23/07/2009
4:50 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dallone.ranger Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Most of Ropes earlier posts have been removed, so discussion on the topic he brought up will presumably cease.
It concerned me and mine so I believe I have a right to have my 2/- worth as well. And it will be brief.
I don't know why Ropes brought up what he did. We have a bit of history as he mentioned, and I don't think we have visited that area previously.
I honestly do not think he wrote what he did with any other intention than what he has stated, advise, not accuse.
Why it would even enter his head that there might be another view taken I don't know, however it seems he thought there might.
This man has some strange views about different subjects and until one or the other of us leaves these boards I expect we shall always be at loggerheads. My experience with him though suggests to me he pointed out something which did not really need pointing out. And that's about it. |
|
By: steve_ropa
23/07/2009
4:51 pm Yahoo! Profile:
steve_ropa Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
****It was quite obvious what you were trying to do. There are limits even on Yahoo. At least be enough of a man to admit your mistake.****
a johnny-come-lately with $2 opinions.
show me where the accusation is in my post
another ignoramus |
|
By: steve_ropa
23/07/2009
5:01 pm Yahoo! Profile:
steve_ropa Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
****I honestly do not think he wrote what he did with any other intention than what he has stated, advise, not accuse.****
well, that was a surprise but at least one person took my message as i intended it.
****Most of Ropes earlier posts have been removed, so discussion on the topic he brought up will presumably cease.****
yes i agree.
and although it pains me to humble myself, an apology is offered |
|
By: dallone.ranger
23/07/2009
5:39 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dallone.ranger Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
yes i agree.
and although it pains me to humble myself, an apology is offered
~~
Wasn't necessary, but accepted all the same. Finis.
Now back to the coal face. |
|
By: steve_ropa
23/07/2009
7:33 pm Yahoo! Profile:
steve_ropa Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"In Australia, it is a very common belief that Aborigines have the longest continuous culture in the world. Both the Out-of-Africa and Multiple-Regions Theory undermine the claim. If Out-of-Africa were true, then Africans have occupied their respective piece of land for up to 7 million years. This is far longer than the 60,000 years of occupation in Australia.
One group of these Africans left the continent sometime in the last 200,000 years and arrived in Australia around 60,000 years ago. If they were no longer considered to be culturally continous because they occupied different land, then their cultures were much younger than the Africans they left behind.
If Multiple Regions is to be believed, then the whole concept of âContinuous Cultureâ becomes a silly one. The theory proposes that humans have always been on the move, have always being mixing up their genetics with other groups, and have always been exchanging ideas. Such mixing is a strength, and naturally, trying to say one culture is continuous and old, while another culture is discontinuous and young, is really quite irrational.
Furthermore, if culture is merely defined on genetics alone, then again, the Aborigines are not necessarily 60,000 years old. If h0m0e r e c t us made it to Australia from Flores and became human, then potentially Aboriginal culture is around 850,000 years old, which is about the same age as Chinese culture if it too evolved from Peking Man, who died in Beijing 850,000 years ago."
source, Mungo Man files |
|
By: steve_ropa
24/07/2009
4:47 pm Yahoo! Profile:
steve_ropa Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| "Which is the correct age for Mungo Manâ40,000 or 62,000? The criticismsâby evolutionists!âjust show that all âdatingâ methods, like all claims about the past, have problems because scientists who werenât there have to make certain assumptions." |
|
By: taverna_kopyto
24/07/2009
5:21 pm Yahoo! Profile:
taverna_kopyto Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| So you are saying, that the "Mungo Man" isn't the Muffin Man? |
|
By: kangaroo_ted@y7mail.com
24/07/2009
7:43 pm Yahoo! Profile:
kangaroo_ted@y7mail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
So you are saying, that the "Mungo Man" isn't the Muffin Man?
From Muffin Man to petrol sniffing freeloader. Can't see that myself |
|
By: steve_ropa
26/07/2009
5:52 pm Yahoo! Profile:
steve_ropa Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
****So you are saying, that the "Mungo Man" isn't the Muffin Man?****
your id can be broken down to "rooted" and that's exactly what you are |
|
By: jackobirdofprey
26/07/2009
6:04 pm Yahoo! Profile:
jackobirdofprey Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Mungo Man should be re-named Tandori Man. |
|
By: francisthetalkingmule@y7mail.com
26/07/2009
8:21 pm |
Message deleted. Reason: Breach of terms of service |
|
By: dallone.ranger
26/07/2009
8:56 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dallone.ranger Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
You know Ropes, I just can't figure out how you can believe that humans could have evolved in OZ, parallel to the evolution in Africa.
There is no pre human evidence at all as far as I know. |
|
By: steve_ropa
28/07/2009
12:44 pm Yahoo! Profile:
steve_ropa Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
****You know Ropes, I just can't figure out how you can believe that humans could have evolved in OZ, parallel to the evolution in Africa.
There is no pre human evidence at all as far as I know.****
i dont believe it to be a proven fact but it warrants more investigation, it's an interesting theory and some unbiased thought should be put into idea. |
|
By: dallone.ranger
28/07/2009
2:35 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dallone.ranger Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
It is certainly nothing at all like a proven fact, or even an unproven one, if there is such a thing.
The 'fact' that no primates exist here, or ever have, should be a bit of a clue. |
|
By: steve_ropa
29/07/2009
12:51 pm Yahoo! Profile:
steve_ropa Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
****The 'fact' that no primates exist here, or ever have, should be a bit of a clue.****
you see, their the type of comments that get my attention.
just because the evidence does not exist doesn't mean its not possible.
the so called experts have to stand by their findings because most depend on the research grant's they recieve |
|
