3 ms·

you really need to cite some sources for all these claims you're making spread over many different comments

by biorach 4y ago

runsWphotons 4y ago
Most of the claims Im making come straight from the nature article at the top. First paragraph: "Northern Aboriginal Australians can trace as much as 11% of their genomes to migrants who reached the island around 4,000 years ago from India, a new study suggests. Along with their genes, the migrants <may?> also have brought more advanced tool-making techniques and the ancestors of the dingo." The pama-nyungan proto-language has been estimated to be around 5,000 years old, roughly. There are sources for this claim in the wikipedia article, and also for the claim that 306/~400 aborginal languages are in this family. The "out of india" theory is more disputed than I thought (corrected this elsewhere), but is a proposed theory. There are several theories here, but the paper argues for basically what Ive said elsewhere: https://langev.com/pdf/442ac40068c1d8a67a561d0d7f0fcd95c429c265.pdf https://langev.com/pdf/442ac40068c1d8a67a561d0d7f0fcd95c429c... I talked about the bradshaw paintings somewhere else, the wikipedia article on these has good sources i also have some papers somewhere. Notnsure what else you want to get started.
- biorach 4y ago
  There's a _lot_ of speculation in there
  - runsWphotons 4y ago
    Theres a lot of speculation around all of this. It is still a source to back up this theory and leads you to others about the archeology. Here is a genetic study from 2016 that disputes the one in this article: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)00078-6?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982216000786%3Fshowall%3Dtrue https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16).... No one really knows until we sequence way more people and more bones.

3 ms·

you really need to cite some sources for all these claims you're making spread over many different comments

by biorach 4y ago

you really need to cite some sources for all these claims you're making spread over many different comments

runsWphotons 4y ago
Most of the claims Im making come straight from the nature article at the top. First paragraph: "Northern Aboriginal Australians can trace as much as 11% of their genomes to migrants who reached the island around 4,000 years ago from India, a new study suggests. Along with their genes, the migrants <may?> also have brought more advanced tool-making techniques and the ancestors of the dingo." The pama-nyungan proto-language has been estimated to be around 5,000 years old, roughly. There are sources for this claim in the wikipedia article, and also for the claim that 306/~400 aborginal languages are in this family. The "out of india" theory is more disputed than I thought (corrected this elsewhere), but is a proposed theory. There are several theories here, but the paper argues for basically what Ive said elsewhere: https://langev.com/pdf/442ac40068c1d8a67a561d0d7f0fcd95c429c265.pdf https://langev.com/pdf/442ac40068c1d8a67a561d0d7f0fcd95c429c... I talked about the bradshaw paintings somewhere else, the wikipedia article on these has good sources i also have some papers somewhere. Notnsure what else you want to get started.
- biorach 4y ago
  There's a _lot_ of speculation in there
  - runsWphotons 4y ago
    Theres a lot of speculation around all of this. It is still a source to back up this theory and leads you to others about the archeology. Here is a genetic study from 2016 that disputes the one in this article: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)00078-6?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982216000786%3Fshowall%3Dtrue https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16).... No one really knows until we sequence way more people and more bones.