Austrailian DNA found in Native Americans

[Razumov]

Ancient DNA suggests people settled South America in at least 3 waves

DNA from a 9,000-year-old baby tooth from Alaska, the oldest natural mummy in North America and remains of ancient Brazilians is helping researchers trace the steps of ancient people as they settled the Americas. Two new studies give a more detailed and complicated picture of the peopling of the Americas than ever before presented.

...

People who settled the Americas were also much more genetically diverse than previously thought. At least one group of ancient Brazilians shared DNA with modern indigenous Australians, a different group of researchers reports online November 8 in Science.

...

How that genetic signature got to Brazil in the first place is still a mystery, though.  Researchers don’t think early Australians paddled across the Pacific Ocean to South America. “None of us really think there was some sort of Pacific migration going on here,” Skoglund says.

That leaves an overland route through Beringia. There’s only one problem: Researchers didn’t find the Australian signature in any of the ancient remains tested from North or Central America. And no modern-day indigenous North or Central Americans tested have the signature either.

 

 

[Piney]

Neither article shows we share DNA with Australian and one article actually misrepresents because Algonquians are descendants of Clovis.

[Razumov]

Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas

Genetic studies have consistently indicated a single common origin of Native American groups from Central and South America^1,2,3,4. However, some morphological studies have suggested a more complex picture, whereby the northeast Asian affinities of present-day Native Americans contrast with a distinctive morphology seen in some of the earliest American skeletons, which share traits with present-day Australasians (indigenous groups in Australia, Melanesia, and island Southeast Asia)^5,6,7,8. Here we analyse genome-wide data to show that some Amazonian Native Americans descend partly from a Native American founding population that carried ancestry more closely related to indigenous Australians, New Guineans and Andaman Islanders than to any present-day Eurasians or Native Americans. This signature is not present to the same extent, or at all, in present-day Northern and Central Americans or in a ∼12,600-year-old Clovis-associated genome, suggesting a more diverse set of founding populations of the Americas than previously accepted.

 

Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans

How and when the Americas were populated remains contentious. Using ancient and modern genome-wide data, we found that the ancestors of all present-day Native Americans, including Athabascans and Amerindians, entered the Americas as a single migration wave from Siberia no earlier than 23 thousand years ago (ka) and after no more than an 8000-year isolation period in Beringia. After their arrival to the Americas, ancestral Native Americans diversified into two basal genetic branches around 13 ka, one that is now dispersed across North and South America and the other restricted to North America. Subsequent gene flow resulted in some Native Americans sharing ancestry with present-day East Asians (including Siberians) and, more distantly, Australo-Melanesians. Putative “Paleoamerican” relict populations, including the historical Mexican Pericúes and South American Fuego-Patagonians, are not directly related to modern Australo-Melanesians as suggested by the Paleoamerican Model.

 

Early human dispersals within the Americas

All genomes are most closely related to NAs, including those of two morphologically distinct Paleoamericans and an AB individual. However, we also found that the previous model is just a rough outline of the peopling process: NA dispersal gave rise to more complex serial splitting and early population structure—including that of a population that diverged before the NNA-SNA split—as well as admixture with an earlier unsampled population, which is neither AB nor NNA or SNA. Once in the Americas, SNAs spread widely and rapidly, as evidenced by genetic similarity, despite differences in material cultural, between >10-ka-old genomes from North and South America. Soon after arrival in South America, groups diverged along multiple geographic paths, and before 10.4 ka ago, these groups admixed with a population that harbored Australasian ancestry, which may have been widespread among early South Americans. Later, Mesoamerican-related population(s) expanded north and south, possibly marking the movement of relatively small groups that did not necessarily swamp local populations genetically or culturally.

 

Reconstructing the Deep Population History of Central and South America

Recent analyses have also shown that some groups in Brazil share more alleles with Australasians (indigenous New Guineans, Australians, and Andaman Islanders) (Raghavan et al., 2015,Skoglund et al., 2015) and an ∼40,000 BP individual from northern China (Yang et al., 2017) than do other Central and South Americans. Such patterns suggest that these groups do not entirely descend from a single homogeneous population and instead derive from a mixture of populations, one of which, Population Y, bore a distinctive affinity to Australasians. Notably, our study includes data from individuals such as those from the Lapa do Santo site who have a cranial morphology known as “Paleoamerican,” argued to indicate two distinct New-World-founding populations (von Cramon-Taubadel et al., 2017). Here, we test directly the hypothesis that a Paleoamerican cranial morphology was associated with a lineage distinct from the one that contributed to other Native Americans (whether the proposed Population Y or another).

[Piney]

10 minutes ago, Razumov said:

Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas

Genetic studies have consistently indicated a single common origin of Native American groups from Central and South America^1,2,3,4. However, some morphological studies have suggested a more complex picture, whereby the northeast Asian affinities of present-day Native Americans contrast with a distinctive morphology seen in some of the earliest American skeletons, which share traits with present-day Australasians (indigenous groups in Australia, Melanesia, and island Southeast Asia)^5,6,7,8. Here we analyse genome-wide data to show that some Amazonian Native Americans descend partly from a Native American founding population that carried ancestry more closely related to indigenous Australians, New Guineans and Andaman Islanders than to any present-day Eurasians or Native Americans. This signature is not present to the same extent, or at all, in present-day Northern and Central Americans or in a ∼12,600-year-old Clovis-associated genome, suggesting a more diverse set of founding populations of the Americas than previously accepted.

The skull morphology theory has been debunked by genetic studies. This article is misleading. Everybody came out of Northern Asia. 

There were actually 4 migrations but Dine' revisionist history accepted by Smithsonian denies the Southwestern genocide of the Ancestral Puebloans 

Edited March 11, 2019 by Piney

[Razumov]

12 minutes ago, Piney said:

The skull morphology theory has been debunked by genetic studies. This article is misleading. Everybody came out of Northern Asia. 

There were actually 4 migrations but Dine' revisionist history accepted by Smithsonian denies the Southwestern genocide of the Ancestral Puebloans 

There is evidence of an ancient Australian lineage in some modern inhabitants of the Amazon, whatever that means.

[Razumov]

South American Natives also have elevated levels of Denisovan ancestry:

Denisovan Ancestry in East Eurasian and Native American Populations

Our analyses demonstrate that, in addition to being prevalent in Oceanian populations, Denisovan introgression is present in East Eurasian and Native American populations, even though the amount of Denisovan alleles in these latter populations is relatively small. These results thus confirm and extend previous studies suggesting Denisovan ancestry outside of Oceania (4-6). In particular, as found previously (2), Denisovan ancestry in Oceania is highly correlated with New Guinea ancestry. This suggests that these populations have either shared ancestry or contact with New Guinea that is more recent than the Denisovan admixture event. However, previous studies did not exclude the possibility that more ancient shared ancestry with New Guinean (after the Denisovan admixture event but before the divergence between New Guinean and Australian) explains the correlated signals of Denisovan and New Guinean ancestry in Oceania. Another potential explanation would be migrations from Australian rather than New Guinean, which could still produce a significant correlation between Denisovan and New Guinean ancestry as a consequence of the genetic relationship of Australians and New Guineans. To test these other possibilities, we compared amounts of Denisovan and Australian ancestry in Oceanian populations, and found that New Guinean ancestry does indeed provide a better explanation for the Denisovan ancestry in these Oceanian populations than does Australian ancestry.

 

[Piney]

33 minutes ago, Razumov said:

There is evidence of an ancient Australian lineage in some modern inhabitants of the Amazon, whatever that means.

It's all based on skull morphology which was disproven. My people have the same skull morphology in certain groups but we have no Austronesian DNA. 

[Piney]

23 minutes ago, Razumov said:

South American Natives also have elevated levels of Denisovan ancestry:

So do I but the genes originated in Siberia. 

[Razumov]

5 minutes ago, Piney said:

It's all based on skull morphology which was disproven. My people have the same skull morphology in certain groups but we have no Austronesian DNA. 

No it isn't. Read the paper.

[Piney]

3 minutes ago, Razumov said:

No it isn't. Read the paper.

Could you quote it? Because I don't see it. 

[Razumov]

From same:

 

[Piney]

6 minutes ago, Razumov said:

From same:

 

It's using admixtures that happened before either group left Asia. The high Denisovan admixture come from the fact that they didn't breed with outsiders and we did.

In a nutshell many of those genes were bred out of us and they are not including the extinct lineages in North America . Just the modern ones. 

@Swede  Wasn't this study updated? 

[Razumov]

Analysis of Human Sequence Data Reveals Two Pulses of Archaic Denisovan Admixture

 

[Piney]

@Razumov This study doesn't take in account that over 2/3rds of us were wiped out including whole genetic lineages and there is more of a admixture of Europeans in the North than the South.

There is no such thing as a full blooded North American Indian anymore

[Piney]

@Razumov

Pontus' study looks way off and the one commentor is right. The "yellow fat layer" gene is Denisovan  and that doesn't exist in Europeans or Africans. Where it appears in Eastern Europeans is through Turkic (Bulgar-Cuman) admixture from invasion. "Scratch a Russian, find a Tartar". The little bit of material found in Utah could be anything. Americans are mutts and Puerto Ricans are mostly Native American. 

[Habitat]

Australian indigenes are closely related to Indians, their origins have been traced to the Andaman Islands.

[Piney]

6 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Australian indigenes are closely related to Indians, their origins have been traced to the Andaman Islands.

Dravidians, Not the Northern Indo-Aryans. 

[Habitat]

Just now, Piney said:

Dravidians, Not the Northern Indo-Aryans. 

They are regarded as an Indo-European people.

[Piney]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

They are regarded as an Indo-European people.

Not the Dravidians. They are Austroasiatic 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austroasiatic_languages

 

[Piney]

10 minutes ago, Habitat said:

They are regarded as an Indo-European people.

Wrong branch. Indo-Aryan

[Habitat]

Only a minority have Dravidian blood. I read that that started 141 generations ago. The mind boggles.

[Piney]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

Only a minority have Dravidian blood. I read that that started 141 generations ago. The mind boggles.

Link? 

[Habitat]

7 minutes ago, Piney said:

Link? 

https://www.quora.com/Are-Tamilians-related-to-indigenous-Australians

[Piney]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

https://www.quora.com/Are-Tamilians-related-to-indigenous-Australians

I already know this. Great source though! 

I was talking about the Indo-Ayran gene wash among the Dravidians. I want a link to that. 

Cultural diffusion doesn't necessarily mean genetic diffusion.

[Razumov]

19 hours ago, Piney said:

@Razumov

Pontus' study looks way off and the one commentor is right. The "yellow fat layer" gene is Denisovan  and that doesn't exist in Europeans or Africans. Where it appears in Eastern Europeans is through Turkic (Bulgar-Cuman) admixture from invasion. "Scratch a Russian, find a Tartar". The little bit of material found in Utah could be anything. Americans are mutts and Puerto Ricans are mostly Native American. 

It isn't Pontus' study and you haven't explained why you think it is "way off".

The main finding from the study is that their are two pulses of Denisovan admixture:

Further, we found evidence for two waves of Denisovan admixture, one from a population closely related to the Altai Denisovan individual, and one from a population more distantly related to the Altai Denisovan. The component closely related to the Altai Denisovan is primarily present in East Asians, whereas the component more distantly related to the Altai Denisovan forms the major part of the Denisovan ancestry in Papuans and South Asians. The East Asian populations are the only populations with relatively equal and non-negligible contributions from both components, and it is in these populations that the two waves of Denisovan admixture are most evident.