Genesis of ethnic groups

[kalu_miah]

There are so many misconceptions displayed in another thread about human migration and evolution, I thought a dedicated thread on this issue would be good.

- the out of Africa migration of modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) happened about 50,000-60,000 years ago, and the people that moved out, looked probably like today's Kalahari San Bushmen, at least they are genetically the closest to that original population and are probably directly descended from them:
Bushmen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- two remnants of the above migration are
1. Australian aborigines:
Australian Aborigines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. Andaman islanders:
Andamanese people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- but human cousins who are much older and have been moving out of Africa for the last 2 million years. Examples of hese earlier species (most belong to Homo Erectus group) are Neanderthal, Denisovan, Pekinensis etc.
Archaic human admixture with modern Homo sapiens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Multiregional origin of modern humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So these species actually have evolved in different parts of the world mostly in isolation for anywhere between about 2 million to at least a few hundred thousand years.

When modern human started coming out of Africa "recently" (relatively speaking) about 60,000 years ago and fanned out to different parts of the Eurasian continent, they encountered these earlier species and have admixed with these diverse regional species (according to latest genetic research) to create the genetic variations we see today in Europe (Neanderthal), East Asia (probably denisovans and pekinensis), South East Asia (probably Denisovans) etc.

So to say that all of us were same just 60,000 years ago is not correct. The differences go back much further in time and because of genetic contribution from different species that evolved in different parts of the world separately for up to about 2 million years ago. So only a few part of the human population, probably the San Bushmen, are the only ones that did not receive much admixtures and remains unmixed. The rest of the Sub-saharan Africans who also admixed with other earlier archaic species within Africa are the only ones that do not have genetic contributions from non-african species such as Neanderthal, Pekinensis, Denisovans etc., whose ancestors came out of Africa much earlier.

Secondly the Kyrgyz and other Central Asians are a mixture of ancient nomadic scythians, proto-turkic huns and post-chingis mongols. They share the mongol part of their genetics with some Northern Chinese and Manchus, Xibe etc., but they do not have much in common with the original Southern Han.

And all these populations and migrations happened in the last 10,000 years in the age of empires, while the the out of Africa migration happened about 60,000 years ago. So Chinese ancestors from those times probably looked more like San Bushmen, as it did for all other regions of the world, and they did not look like present day Central Asians, who have a wide variety of mixture in their genetics, because of the migrations in the age of empire in their region. The Han chinese probably have more recent ancestral relationship with Tibetans than other Central Asians.

To understand human genetics really well, we somehow need to understand the story of human or related species migrations before the age of empire, which in turn will tell us what really happened in different regions from 10,000 BC to 2 million BC. This will then help us create a background and foundation to build a story about what came after 10,000 BC, when the ice age ended and the age of empire started, when people built city states, kingdoms and empires and migrated much more than even today, sometimes merging or annihilating entire groups of people. These migration and mixing events became the genesis of todays "ethnic groups" that we find in different nation states in set borders.

 

[nalandapride]

Banned Topic!!!

 

[kalu_miah]

Since when science was banned?

 

[nalandapride]

Since when science was banned?

talking about races, toilets, 50 cent army, failed state are banned to be discussed on this forum because it results mostly in mudslide instead of healthy discussion.

 

[kalu_miah]

There is no reason why we cannot have a discussion on the latest findings of archeo-genetics and the latest theories of human migrations, and I don't think you are a moderator. I will let the moderators speak for themselves.

 

[Maira La]

I'm tempted to post a reply, even though it's a banned topic.

Kalu_Miah:

It's futile trying to prove we're all very genetically different. Most of our genes come from that one African tribe and the phenotypes changed a little based on environmental adaption. I think there's very little or no influx of genes from other species. Look I have proof:

hot french dude:

hot chinese dude

hot neanderthal dude

You see, Europeans are closer to Chinese than to Neanderthals.


Nalandapride: is that rahul gandhi or tendulkar getting married? (offtopic)

 

[user1]

I read somewhere that Bangla people are Mongolo-Dravidian. Can it be regarded as a correct description? Who was the ancestor group? Mongoloids or Dravids?

 

[Maira La]

I read somewhere that Bangla people are Mongolo-Dravidian. Can it be regarded as a correct description? Who was the ancestor group? Mongoloids or Dravids?

Bangla people...lol.

Here's a list of ethinicities that contributed to our DNA:

- Cro-Magnons
- Proto-Australoids
- Dravidians
- Indo-Aryans
- Arabs
- Turks
- Persians
- Afghans
- Sino-Tibetans
- Ethiopians

Hmmm.. what more can I add.. I guess that's it.

 

[kalu_miah]

I'm tempted to post a reply, even though it's a banned topic.

Kalu_Miah:

It's futile trying to prove we're all very genetically different. Most of our genes come from that one African tribe and the phenotypes changed a little based on environmental adaption. I think there's very little or no influx of genes from other species. Look I have proof:

The photo's you have posted and the statements you made prove nothing, you need to provide links to credible sources to refute the arguments made in OP.