Interesting story for anyone interested in human origins. More research is needed, of course, but it is an interesting find, and it could explain some other apparent discrepancies (like mtDNA, noted in the article). http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/24000-year-old-boy-reveals-origins-native-americans-001050
(put on your best Yorkshire accent and...) "Krug, do you see that mammoth over there? Yes. The large one with the impressive tusks. I want the left one. Make it so."
it's a commonly held hypothesis that emigrating peoples from what is now russia crossed the bering strait before it was one and made their way east to become the inuit and south all the way down to include the mayans, which is why the western tribes have a somewhat oriental look, as in a round, rather flat face and nose, and a slight almond shape to the eyes, plus the straight black hair... like this hopi girl: in my time living among the hopi, i learned that they feel an extremely close connection to the tibetans, which would make sense of such a scenario... some of the tribes in the more eastern part of the country, however, have the hawk-like roman nose, prominent cheekbones and rounder eyes more reminiscent of europeans... such as the shawnee leader, tecumseh: which suggests they probably arrived on the north american continent from a different direction...
I once heard that the native Japanese people - the Ainu - were on the verge of becoming a new species, which was apparently evident by pregnancy issues of Japanese-Mexican women. Does anyone know anything about this? I can't find a thing about it on the net.
Makes no sense. Australian Aboriginals, after 40,000-60,000 years isolated from the rest of the human species still did not evolve into a new race or even subspecies by biological definitions.
Historically, the Ainu have been treated as lesser people in Japan, from what I understand, to the point that they were considered a "subspecies" by some, because of certain physical traits. What @Dean Stride heard might be some remnant of the historical view of the Ainu by other Japanese.
Strangely enough, though, I can remember being told something similar when I was in high school about the Aboriginal People of Australia. Utter nonsense, of course. In the case of Aboriginal Australians, other than simple blind racism, the urban myth may have roots in a mundane bit of anthro data concerning the rate at which different peoples from different regions around the world show propensity for impacted third molar (wisdom teeth), completely absent third molar, and supernumerary molars. Aboriginal peoples of Australia show an unusually high rate of presentation of supernumerary molars. *shrug*
In case anyone is interested, biologically speaking the scientific consensus leans heavily toward the conclusion there are no human subspecies, we are all one race, one species. And while there has been resistance in the scientific community and attempts to find genetic clusters that might define racial subgroups, most biologists are rejecting that conclusion. A lot of the arguments are outlined in quick summaries in this Wiki entry but this one sums it up: The following is also noted: There are ethnic groups, national identities, all those cultural divides. But as far as biological science is concerned, no population on the planet has yet been found whose genomes qualify as a subspecies. Human populations have not had the three requirements to subdivide: isolation, selection pressure and time, lots of it. Native Australians were isolated for the longest time of any known human population still around today. If there was going to be any group that truly qualifies as a subspecies or separate race it would be them. It would not be any population isolated (likely imperfectly at that) while still in the same geographical location as other populations.
Just because they didn't doesn't automatically mean other groups can't or won't. Could be. I didn't hear it from a particularly credible source, so I'm not inclined to believe it, also given the fact that I can't find even references to support it.
If an isolated population didn't genetically diverge after 50,000 years, why would you think a small population in Japan, not completely isolated would?
The possibility, of course, exists that such a thing could happen in the future. Humans are not immune to the paradigm of speciation, but the likelihood becomes dramatically less and less as isolationism becomes a rarer thing. Our history as a modern species is showing a trend toward genetic homogeny, which is the reverse. Plus, the timeline needed for true speciation is really, really long. As a sidetone, I participated in the National Genographic study. I did the mitochondrial study. My mitochondria is New World in origin. Somewhere in my family tree, Pocahontas peeks out at me.
I always like to believe that outside pressures can cause speciation despite lacking complete isolation. But yeah, it probably isn't realistic to think in the manner of several tens of thousands of years. That's awesome! Unfortunately, I'm not as financially well off to have it done. And I missed the promotion, too, when it was half price! Talk about a bummer.
OK, if you don't like the Australian Aboriginal explanation for why "that makes no sense", try this one: The Ainu (Japanese: アイヌ?), also called Aynu, Aino (アイノ), and in historical texts Ezo (蝦夷), The Ainu are not a genetically isolated group.
Fair enough. I was kind of hoping something to pop up, just to increase their awesomeness, but it seems not.
