Australian Aboriginal DNA & early history!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ส.ค. 2024
- The genes of the Australian Aborigines, what can they tell us? Where did their ancestors come from? How long have they been in Australia? What people have married each other? Two recent genetic studies, based on the largest Australian Aboriginal genetic sample collected so far, can give us answers to these questions, and to even more questions. (But well, perhaps not to the question of what people have married each other. Rather, the studies show what people have had kids with each other, and nothing else.) In this video, I discuss what the two studies can show us about the pre-history of the Australian Aborigines. And sorry, creationists, the genes of the Aborigines do in fact show that they have been in the land a lot longer than 6000 years… #AboriginalHistory, #AboriginalPrehistory, #australianhistory, #aboriginalaustralians, #australianaborigines, #Papuans, #DiscoveryofAustralia, #migration, #dna, #Genes, #nature, #LastGlacialMaximum, #PopulationBottleneck, #inbreeding, #Zygosity, #Yarrabah, #queensland, #tiwi, #TiwiIslands, #Yolngu, #ElchoIsland, #Galiwinku, #northernterritory, #Titjikala, #CentralDesert, #papua, #peru, #amazon, #indianterritory, #oklahoma, #cherokee, #MachadoJosephdisease, #mjd, #NationalCentreforIndigenousGenomics
Great presentation. Very interesting and clear. I am looking forward to watching more of them.
Bull, his accent bothers me, and I can't read the white board, so one out of ten.
Good on you, and well done getting this research done.
Thankfully, just stumbled across your channel Jackaroo Toro.
Thank you for sharing your intellect in this intriguing and meaningful subject of our indigenous history and make-up!
Regards
hey mate, can you include links for your material thanks , keep up the good work as not to many other people are doing this
This is an interesting presentation of the genetics of humans in a closed population. Thanks.
Thoroughly enjoyed the video and have subscribed to watch future episodes. I am Australian.
Thank you very much for your presentation, it was very interesting. I am a little concerned about the sample size of this study, and the limited regions from which the data were collected. There are a number of groups of full blood indigenous people in southern Australia whose genetic data could add weight or detract from the inferences detailed in the papers discussed, especially given the "multi wave migration and occupation" hypothesis usually applied to the understanding of Australia's settlement. But that is a topic for another day.
Only the Thunder Koala would be brave enough to step into this territory, where even angels fear to tread.
Great info. I really appreciate your ongoing efforts to elucidate the language, linguistics, and culture of the First Peoples of Australia. And now, a wonderful presentation on genomic findings.
Oh yeah, and the comment to creationists... Time they wise up and learn something.
Well done - much appreciated. And thank you, from San Diego, California, USA.
I offer my comment in goodwill, recognising the sovereignty of the original, Indigenous population of Australia.
There are many potentially contentious views on this, as it was pointed out to me by young Elder from Framlingham , Victoria, in the 1990s, that many people now object to use of the tterm Aboriginal or aborigines:on the basis that the actual meaning of that term means not original: and as such was one of the lies under which genocide was perpetrated. Thankyou.
@@taleandclawrock2606 As far as I am aware people do not like the term Aborigine but are OK with Aboriginal. The term Aborigine comes from latin and means "from origin". In other words, the original inhabitants. So, I think your Framlingham friend may have had access to incorrect information on that.
Are you seriously suggesting that there weren’t 2 kangaroos, 2 koalas, 2 wombats, 2 platypuses, etc on Noah’s Ark?
I would just like to add that there was a time when I was myself a creationist. I come from an Evangelical background, but would not feel comfortable calling myself either an Evangelical or a creationist these days. These days I rather enjoy making fun of creationism, when I get the chance. The world started to make so much more sense when I realized that evolution is a real thing. 🙂
@@jackarootorointeresting. But is Darwinism? Plenty of scientists would have us believe we evolved from apes and yet until they find the missing link it's simply a theory. The greatest minds such as Pythagoras and Einstein both believed in a god and were men of faith. I think it was Aristotle said when science proves his faith wrong he will revisit his definition of truth
Youve got a new subscriber in me mate, cheers from durambal tribe QLD!
Thanks for the video. sounds interesting. can you please cite your sources of this data. please provide links. most appreciated. cheers.
He did, verbally and on screen at ~3:50. Both from Nature, so will be behind a paywall/subscription.
Here is one of them: Reis, Andre LM, et al. "The landscape of genomic structural variation in Indigenous Australians." Nature 624.7992 (2023): 602-610.
Here is the other: Silcocks, Matthew, et al. "Indigenous Australian genomes show deep structure and rich novel variation." Nature 624.7992 (2023): 593-601.
One small correction, people do not actually get 50% of their DNA from each parent, it can actually vary a percent or so to either parent.
That is no small correction, Nigel. Such a presumption can distort conclusions.
The mitochrodrial DNA would be expected to be 100% from the mother.
That's interesting! Can you briefly explain the reason why that happens in a way a layman would understand? I've heard that when half of the copies of our Chromosomes are sent over that sometimes little bits of conaminant from the other pair can get spliced in hence parts of the Y chromosome are slowly being consumed into the X chromosome and vise versa. I have no idea how true any of this is because the way I understood this to be only bits of telomere should accidentally get passed over. Sorry for all the weird things I got wrong when saying this my understanding is bad but hopefully someone knows what I was trying to get at.
Don’t trust ancestry either. My DNA has changed 4 times already. You cannot just suddenly change your DNA. It is fraudulent.
Bollocks.
A 150 sample size from a little, tiny bit of the country doesn't really amount to much, I'm afraid. Unfortunately this is only a small bit of start on a real analysis. I reckon other groups or tribes are going to give vastly different perspectives. Please continue the work and keep the videos coming as I am sure the details will be fascinating!
are you upset with the sample size or possible bias? your comment points at both inconsistently
Yes, a sample of 150 people is of course much too small. But it is only the start of the analysis, as you say.
Yes it does that's all you need
@@cleanjimmythink about it. If the sample is 150 people from Canberra the data is already biased. There was over 500 Aboriginal languages and they have the same amount of countries within Australia. The NT Aborigine has a different appearance to the Carnarvon one or Kalgoorlie in the same way you can tell the difference between Chinese and Japanese. Not to mention Broome where people will likely be a mix of Chinese, European and inland indigenous.
"I reckon..."
Guy gives you a summary of scientific findings, and your counter argument is 'I reckon...'?
Pretty sure 'I reckon...' is not a valid scientific method...
Interesting but confusing and in the end what are we to conclude with such a small sample. Statistics is not evidence if the population is not defined accurately.
Subbed mate. Very interested in your work. Such an ancient culture that is still misunderstood and misrepresented in mainstream Australia. Keep up the good work 👍
What qualifications do you possess to ensure your presentation of these studies are faithful & accurate?
Fascinating! Thanks!
Question??? The South American tribes mentioned have been identified as sharing Aboriginal DNA?? So genetically they're linked
Nowhere in the video is that claim made.
Aborigine
'Aborigine' is a noun, while 'Aboriginal' is an adjective sometimes employed as a noun. The distinction is important as the term 'Aboriginal' recognises that there are hundreds of diverse Aboriginal groups and languages throughout the nation, not just one mob.
good info video
By looking into Aboriginal DNA, what is the main common theme. That Aboriginal genes are not recessive, this alone negates all this BS about who we are.
Those population are Northern Australia...not Central Australia, etc. So not a good study sample...
That is true. I guess this is just the start.
Titjikala is an Aboriginal community in central Australia...
Your use of "Aborigine" will offend a lot of people. It's the historical usage/association that creates the problem with the term.
The DNA data tells only part of the story. Consider also the archaeology, and that First Peoples also hold Denisovan DNA, and that some of our ancestors were in this part of the world up to 500k bp. Also, the genetic samples are primarily being drawn from communities who have been interacting with Asia with some irregularity for thousands of years, whilst to do the job well you'd want to draw a lot more samples from where most of us actually live - the eastern seaboard. There are more First Peoples living in New South Wales (same for Queensland) than the Northern Territory, Western Australia, and South Australia combined and genetically we are highly diverse even within those regions.
Well, to be fair, J Toro was presenting the research results of others, not his. I appreciate him stepping out of his area of expertise to discuss some important findings that others have made.
Your use of "Mob" will offend a lot of people. It's the historical usage/association that creates the problem with the term.
@@smkh2890Your use of quotation marks for things that didn't happen is the real offense here.
@@jpatten it makes no sense to take offence at academic or technical usage: “inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists; indigenous.
"the aboriginal populations in Southeast Asia"
@@smkh2890 Neither of which you exhibit. I take offense at how slowly the neurons are firing in that quagmire of a mind of yours, that you're quoting the imaginary, leaping to conclusions in thinking I'm offended when I referred to "a lot of people", and that you think perhaps genuinely that you're contributing something here. I present the Dunning Kruger effect in motion, everyone.
Your control group is kinda small . 159 not 158 . But thanx , I enjoyed this . I’ve always been fascinated by the aboriginal migration.
"Your control group is kinda small"
It's not a control group, it's a sample size...
Hello, There isn't much information out there about this but the majority of Australians don know that the number of people affected by forced adoption compared to the stilen generation is 25:1. (250,000 Australians were forcibly separated at birth by the Australian Government, given new identities and new birth certificates that states their adoptive parents gave birth to them. It would be very interesting to see the DNA breakdown of this cohort , they deserve ongoing public acknowledgement and redress! Can you help!
They were not "stolen" they were removed from abusive and neglectful families
Many are mixed race children so their DNA is not relevant to a study of aboriginal genetics
Yes, this affected a lot of people. Quite terrible! My main Ngarla consultant had a sister that was stolen and taken away to another state. When he had grown up, he spent a number of years searching for her, but couldn't find her. In the end, she managed to find him (and the other siblings).
@@warwicklewis8735 Spot On Wick! Not Stolen Saved
@@jackarootoro And whats was the sisters alternative life being abused or even murdered by her parents!
@@rods6405 I don't know much about the sister's life after being stolen. But she certainly wasn't murdered. She did get two kids of her own in due course, so to speak.
What we need to do is to look at the Denisovan populations who inhabited Sahul. Remember, Sahul incorporated Australia.
You've mentioned you've studied linguistics, but nothing of your training in genetics? They are different fields are they not?
One question sir. There is evidence that the Indigenous Australians were in the Northern Territory 65,000 years ago, this study was published by Professor Chris Clarkson on some of the oldest ground-edge stone axe technology in the world. Yet the geneticists say there was a bottleneck 60,000 years ago as Homo Sapiens were coming out of Africa. How can Homo Sapiens be at two places at once. One group producing artifacts in Australia 5000 years earlier than the ones coming out of Africa? Take into account that travelling from Africa to Australia at that period was due to dispersion, which happened extremely slowly in the times of large predators and megafauna. Have I missed something as the numbers the geneticists convey do not add up in my very humble opinion?
Remember that the figures are kind of tentative, humans came out of Africa first & then dispersed. Don't trust the figures if they don't concord with that, 60,000 seems too generous. 50,000 is better & non contradictory.
The NT evidence is still somewhat controversial with recent analysis suggesting that the site was disturbed naturally (eg by termites) and thus is not correctly dated. Nearly all physical evidence points to an arrival around 45-50,000 years ago, which matches genetic analysis. That said, there is evidence for modern humans in Asia before the arrival of the ancestors of all modern peoples so it's conceivable that some made it to Australia before the "modern" wave. Or it might be that physical evidence older than 50,000 years could represent some other group such as Denisovans for whom there is some genetic evidence for being present in Sahul till as recently as 40,000 years ago. Interestingly there was a novel analysis a few years ago that traced the emergence of a unique Hepatitus B related gene that suggested initial arrival into Australia of around 50,000 years ago.
@@graememcelligott8874 interesting. Thanks for the reply.
That's what you get when whites think they know Aboriginal people of the world.
Confusion.
Tell me the truth ,do white people get on with Aboriginal people, to be able to give an accurate history lesson.?
@@graememcelligott8874
Bullshit.
To start a long walk you have to pace yourself ,take your time look around and get familier with your surroundings and arrive at your destination safely. (critical thinking -with no assumptions). Thank you.
Indigenous Australians, not “Aborigines”.
Interesting, but more studies needed.
That is definitely the case. I take it this is just a start.
You made a big issue about the Yarabah "forced" aggregation, and just glossed over the fact that the Titjikalah group negotiated their own deal with the NT Government and the pastoralist lessee of Maryvale Station. I was the Administration Manager of Finke River Mission of the Lutheran Church of Australia at the time and assisted the Titjikala people with some practical issues in relation to their excisions boundaries...
How can they determine how long the Aboriginal Australians have been there from genes?
Mutations get added to populations at a fairly regular rate so you can use that to estimate the time to last common ancestor between two populations. The gives an estimate for how long ago Australians split from Eurasians. This is backed up by archaeology.
So they're comparing the genomes of Aboriginal Australians with the genomes of other people and then making an estimate based on that. The truth is that they could have been separately created that way.
@@vesuvandoppelganger No, DNA proves common descent. Genetic testing is the single best tool we have available right now for illuminating the ancient human past.
@@vesuvandoppelganger Genome creation hasn't been observed in nature, whereas mutations are a well understood and observed phenomena.
@@vesuvandoppelgangerwhy do you think that could be true?
What do we know of Tasmanian indigenous genomics?
I don't know about DNA specifically, but there were Tasmanian's on the Bass Strait islands that got adopted by Koori tribes in Victoria.
They did not die out
I know. There is a significant population of mixed-race native descendants. But the originals were plainly racially distinct from the mainland aboriginals. I would like to know the genomic relationships between them and the Papuans. I doubt that we will ever be allowed to find out.
@@jacksmith8466 I would expect to find a direct relationship between the two groups before the Tasmanian Aborigines were isolated for 10,000 years after the formation of the Bass strait.
@jacksmith8466 The Bass Strait island aboriginals were mixed, the children of aboriginal women sold by their tribes to whalers for recreation, cooking etc. When the whaling station closed down, the women were sent to the mainland. This is the genetic background of today's grifters.... sorry, I mean free loaders. Sorry, I mean "indigenous" Tasmanians from Victoria.
@@AntechynusMore like kidnapped by whalers. Your racism is unacceptable.
Thanks mate
So with population numbers; is there a possibility of the theoretical aboriginal population of near 5 million just before europeans arrived?
Studies found 25 per cent of the genetic variance is unique to Indigenous Australians - Australasians
Australian Aboriginals and Tamils look very similar
Ernie Dingo's relatives came from India.
Thank you for the video very informative. So if I heard correctly (please correct me if I am wrong) when you mate with a relative you have a greater chance of more diseases ????
Correct! But man can they play the banjo!
Well, yes and no. What was figured out at some point earlier in history (probably at an early point, since people have lived in small groups for most of our history) was that when people get kids with parallel cousins (and parallel second cousins) the chances of diseases increase. When people have kids with cross-cousins (and cross-second cousins) they don't to the same extent. Parallel cousins are father's brothers children and mother's sister's children. And cross-cousins hence father's sister's children and mother's brother's children. In the Australian section system, parallel cousins are classified as siblings, while cross-cousins are the only real cousins in that system. See my videos about kinship!
Good to see interesting research.
Just wanted to say Galiwinku is pronounced as
Gull-ah-wing-koo.
Titjikala is pronounced Tit-chee-kah-lah.
Yarrabah is an old mission and any samples taken from there will have European, and asian blood mixed in because half caste kids were taken from everywhere and put up there, so how accurate a picture can you get from those samples of ancient Australian Indigenous genetics?
The top end of Australia had genetics from china, Indonesian, etc, such a mix since colonisation..
It would have been an awesome study if the samples were taken from pure blood indigenous folks who had no other more recent genetics introduced into their lines..
Top end and central Aboriginals are pure fullblood aboriginals the blackest in Australia, every aboriginals has south east Asian DNA as they migrated through there as genetic research shows
Some scientists also say early Denisovians breeded with south east Asians 44,000 years ago as they also have Denisovian dna
DNA test of Australia’s oldest remains mungo man show he was not Aboriginal. The dating of the remains is based on the dirt located around the remains but an anomaly found the dirt on the surface was older than the dirt underground. The results caused political problems so they retested DNA of 5 other people from the area and published those results
“Aborigines” is a slur , it’s offensive to Aboriginals also know as First Nations.
How do we read the papers for ourselves with no links to them?
Google scholar, probably.
BRAVO!! MORE PLEASE!! The Ice Age is not talked about much in Southern Hemisphere - but I have a thousand ton eccentric rock on my property in Wentworth Falls NSW (Blue Mountains) which I assume dates from Younger Dryas about 12K years ago which equals a mile thick sheet of ice, not to mention the astounding weathering of the Jamieson Valley etc... I also believe there were several migrations of aboriginies into Australia inspite of the rorts that mark recent history... Most notably the tasmanian aboriginies that were isolated to extinction... Dr Maxwell
Another question: I was told that aborigines could lower their body temperature in a sort of hibernation - to an extent that would kill anyone else.... How else did naked aborigines survive in Tasmania etc?
I think estimating the average age for a generation is far too long.
Ancient people would have been breeding at a much earlier age than 28.
28 would be middle-aged 47,000 years ago.
I believe 25 years is the average for current European generations.
I prefer 20 years as the gauge for a generation.
Yes, that struck me as far too long, although that would be the average age of having kids, not age for having your first. You might start at 14 and still be having them at 40 (assuming you survived that many births). You could be a grandmother at 28 and still be having kids yourself. 22-25 seems more plausible to me, but 28 is not toooo far-fetched.
There are problems involved with estimating the average age for a generation at 28, years, of course, but I agree with what @fionaanderson5796 writes in her comment.
@@stephanieyee9784 In population biology and demography, generation time is the average time between two consecutive generations in the lineages of a population. In human populations, generation time typically has ranged from 20 to 30 years, with wide variation based on gender and society. Historians sometimes use this to date events, by converting generations into years to obtain rough estimates of time.
Aboriginals - get it right
DNA from 10- 20 or 30,000 years ago in Australia would need human remains to get it from and then if it existed would not tell you the size of the population, even his accent is suspicious he's going to try and sell you the Brooklyn Bridge any minute . Here is an example of DNA opinion from ONLY 2000 to 4000 years ago - Egyptologist Barry Kemp has noted that DNA studies can only provide firm conclusions about the population of ancient Egypt if the sample results are of a significant number of individuals and represent a broad geographical and chronological range. and they did not !
Nobody is calling this a firm conclusion. Its basically a rough guide but interesting. It is pretty much in line with previous genetic studies of the Australian population. In theory the Australian population should be much easier to study than say Egypt, because of the relative isolation. What they seem to be looking at is the changes in DNA compared to other populations (such as Papua). Given that it generally takes such and such amount of time for DNA changes to occur and for isolation diseases to appear the authors can infer the amount of time of seperation and/or isolation, give or take.
That's what I was thinking
The time of 60,000-70,000 years in country doesn’t come from DNA, it comes from their Dreamtime stories.
One example is a mob in South Australia have a story about an asteroid hitting a crater and it creating a lake, and the meteor remnants have been tested for there age. This is just one example there are so many that can be proved that it is irrefutable. The only question is where in between 60k and 70k, which is why most go with 65,000
@@TheVeryHungryGhost As far as I am aware the principle quoted source for the 65k is finds at the Madjedbebe rock shelter, media and some politicians seems to have taken it as fact. However the age of the finds there are disputed and it seems that most experts in field put the current evidential max at 50k. I dont think it is possible to call a retelling of an event that happened 65k ago as irrefutable.
@@TheVeryHungryGhost as you say, it's not just the asteroid. Where I live the dreamtime stories tell of the gods fighting, splitting the ground til fire burst out, laying waste to the vegetation, and creating mounts Warrenheip, Buninyong, Eccles, etc. These are all volcanic cones, dated to around 40,000 ya. The Aboriginal people were here before that and witnessed the eruptions. There are stories of major events like this from all over country.
Interesting. The findings of Richard Leaky do not fit well, with the genetic results presented. Leaky suggested there were 15,000 year separated human waves, based on the extinction of rates of megafauna. It would be beneficial to science if genetic studies involving thousands of aboriginals could be taken across the alleged eighteen language groups and 250 familial groups. Pity some ingenious folk are shy about genetic studies, while others pay money to Ancestry to receive genetic feedback.
Probably worried about which country it might say they came from. Lot of white ones out there.
The first humans in Australia were Welsh.
'New South Wales' (?)!
I can do science me.
☺️
Bah! They just didn't know how to spell Whales.
Fool.
Summary in text please! My attention span is limited !
Very interesting historical research results. I hope you have thick skin and a strong helmet on for all the abuse you're gunna cop.😆 Looking forward to future vids mate. 👍
How did you take the population census!!! Your number does not match the assertion that the aboriginal people have been here for 60 to 80 thousand years. Nice story, needs more dragons tho
Finally someone telling the truth...not the politically correct version....
A pinch of salt that's all it is...
😊this all helps us to know who's gang we are in, is it divisive or does it help us to realise God made us all one flesh and encourage us to love one another? I ask any one who listens to consider.
Now do Y-DNA. It will show a world-changing emigration from Australia.
Can you please do a video on the original Australian first nation. The pygmies which the so called Australian Aborigines came here and ate. Dutch and Chinese sailors have reported it.. watching the pygmies being hunted down and ate cheers Graham
Interesting, cannibals?
@@GraniteRidge the Aborigines would eat their own babies if it was life and death for the tribe. They cover it up these days but it was well known
@@theaussienurseflipper.8113 People everywhere do desperate things in desperate situations, including Europeans. This is well known but covered up by people like you.
@@GraniteRidge Captain Cook observed and document this when he first landed in botany bay
@@rods6405 never heard the Aboriginals admit to this one.
150 sample size is laughable.
Or tragic, if seen from my point of view. To be meaningful, the samples should have been taken from a Queensland community to which the Queensland Government exiled negrito pygmies from the Atherton Rainforest; although Tiwi and NE Arnhem Land were obvious choices, and also should have been taken from Wadeye, north central coast (where circumcison is not practiced), and the Walbiri regions. About 1000 samples might produce tentative conclusions. Churning time frames require vast other sources of knowledge.
@@tonyryan43 1000+ would be a good size and also done independently.
It would be better to have more but as the man says in the video, it’s voluntary. Perhaps you would prefer it to be done forcibly but that’s illegal
It is only a start. Science is a marathon, not a sprint. It has only been 30 years since the human genome was mapped.
@@sandwichgroper Oh, you are so world-weary. I'm impressed. But has it occurred to you that hundreds would volunteer if they know the surveyor. Being tribal means "family" is the cornerstone of your values. That in turn means that if a member of family does the survey, there is trust and interest. A strange foreigner gets zilch.
Creationists only consider church theology, not independent research. In the case of the Adam and Eve story, this story seems to coincide with the events that took place prior to the Younger Drias, where the tail of a comet caused major climate change and as a result caused the change in human habits, creating the onset of agriculture, religious beliefs and the building of centralized government, continually growing larger. As to this study, it confirms that Australian aboriginals are a very diverse people, more diverse than Eurasians.
An interesting overview, Francis. This diversity is actually even more complex than presented here. The samples were taken in the wrong places and were way too small to prevent error.
Aborigine is the correct usage not Aboriginal. Aborigine is a noun. Aboriginal is an adjective.
@@AquaMarine1000 Don't be so pedantic. That, of course, is correct, but popular usage is ambivilant so, that then becomes the rule, according to dictionary publishers.
@@AquaMarine1000The difference between Being and Doing!
@@AquaMarine1000 Whilst you may be correct. Most Aboriginals dont like the word Aborigine as it was used in a derogatory way for many years. So, its considered polite to say Aboriginal.
G'day mate, good on you for trying to share knowledge...
You will be getting a lot of flack from butthurt virtue signalling Muppets though... not to mention the colossal ignorance of the very people you are discussing....
Care to expand on what you mean by that last sentence? Muppet
I know. That happened the last time I made a video where I talked about genetics. Still, I find it interesting, and I think the information should be made more publicly known. An interesting question (that I'm asking myself) is, would I dare to talk about modern urban Aboriginal identity? There are academics that write about that sort of thing, but would I dare discuss it in a video here on the channel? Or would that be when the sh*t really would hit the fan?
@jackarootoro I've seen presentations on genetics before and was really first intrigued by The Human Genome project and its findings on migration paths and dates for early humans... I also remember how horrified aboriginals became when told they are descendants of Sri Lankans...
Good luck with your endeavours 👍
I can hear sjws brains exploding now at the idea of studying urban indigenous genetics.... especially if you identify why the genetics and social structures for honesty and hard work are yet to evolve.
🤣 Australian accusing literally anyone of ignorance. Pot kettle black.
@jackarootoro one of the rules of how to be a good colonizor is knowing when to shut your hole. You really seem to resonate with bigots. That's ok with you?
S O THEY ARE AFRICAN... THEY LIED TO US.!
Where is that mentioned in the video?
@@tsopmocful1958 @4:50
You are African also - all humans are descended from the same original ancestors.
@@user-el9pr1te9j correct.
@@user-el9pr1te9j Yes, my question was aiming to make your point.
the answer is still NO!
Soon you and your bigoted views will cease to be of relevance.
You say "Check out the articles online" but your information is inadequate. Silcox and Andre WHAT?
Tamil Nadu language groups are represente by Aryian to name but one. Closest phonetic living ancestoral relative. Tam, Atl Osiris. Oral history predates an ice age.. ps just a hint about the authenticity of Gosford glyphs. Later Toro like tortion waves on the toroidial field.
So do poms and australians.😂
congratulate me... I made it to 1:26.... and that was a struggle... who tf does he think he is ??
Ill take my instruction about Indigenous Australian culture from qualified sources... ie: Aboriginal historians
how about talk about the original pygmies which the first nation as they call these days ate them
How about reading a current science book or an encyclopedia on the topic before espousing debunked BS first?
What? Original pygmies? LoL. Zero evidence for that in the literature, anywhere.
How about you read Doctor Birdsell's original paper, where he came up with that hilarious idea in the 40's, which he himself later dismissed, and which nobody in his profession ever supported? Or do you just get your ideas from other conspiracy theorists and nuffy's like Keith Windschuttle?
@@jpatten "hilarious" so what happened to the pygmy aborigines I have seen pictures of them when their dna dominates in offspring but why dont they exist as separate "Peoples"
Hilarious, there is no scientific support for the claims you are making. None.@@rods6405
You’re wrong culturally and extremely offensive. As an Aboriginal person I’m telling you that the word you’re using is related to intergenerational trauma and you really need to be working in a trauma informed way. Your pronunciation of our language is just as important just you can’t get that right.
If you’re going to speak about a culture, then first understand it before trying to educate people.
Aboriginal is singular, Aboriginal Peoples is plural. Don’t use your non Aboriginal education to talk about Aboriginal Peoples knowledge.
I like how this guy speaks slowly so that the racists can understand him
This was a really disappointing video for numerous reasons.
It’s amusing to see someone using TH-cam like a primary school teacher, with a piece of paper and a felt tip pen! You know it’s 2024, right. You can actually edit videos at home these days!
I hav a question for you how com the mega fauna wer around in 40 thousand years surely the aboriginals wudnt hav been around then as they say they wer here 60thousand years ago these megafauna wud hav killed them if this was true
The opposite is true. The megafauna were vulnerable to modern humans arriving & everywhere in the world those animals went extinct after first contact.
Your not suppose to ask questions like that. You might find out that that the aboriginals (and possibly their dingoes) ate up all the megafauna babies! I hope Ekaren does not read your question!
How come you're still around? Didn't sabre tooth tigers eat your ancestors?
Just to be clear, this guy is NOT an Aussie.
That's correct. He never claimed to be otherwise. His Nationality has ZERO bearing on the strength of his position or the weight of his argument.
Yeah, no shit
What gives you that idea?😀
It is plain stupid to use a difficult-to-read white board as a presentation, coupled with an illogical time frame. Second observation, judging by the author's inability to pronounce lingual groups' names properly (Galiwingu instead of Galiwin'ku), he is hopelessly unfamiliar with the NT and its history, Third, his conclusions expose his unawareness of the much wider existing knowledge and, more significantly, the conspiracy of silence inflicted by anthropologists on data that conflicts with their political narrative. I wish foreigners and southerners would just stay away from our country and cease proselytising their inadequate conclusions. As was declared by an Austrian team of investigators in the 1990s, any anthropologist who has failed to demonstrate linguistic proficiency prior to putting pen to paper, should have his degree shredded and be banned from further involvement in these complex disciplines. Such arrogance is a major crime against professional ethics.
good to see YOUR presentation to compare and contast... second point. check his other vids for his knowledge... third point what wider existing knowledge the native population could not read or write and did not have any new ideas in there 40,000 yr plus existence here,
I'm suspicious of this guy. But I also notice how quick people jump on board and assume he's right. The problem with the internet
We don't like being called "aborigines". Take a moment to learn our names please. If only at a regional level such as Murri, Gurri, Palawa, Nunga, Noongar. Can't really take you seriously otherwise.
watch the rest of his videos you NON aborigine.... he use there names all the time
Hi Matt. Since he is discussing results from four geographically and genetically distinct groups, could you please suggest an inclusive name, specific to the relevant Australian people, that does not cause offence to anyone. The Australian government uses 'Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders', and I have heard some people refer to themselves as 'koories' (spelling?) - is this also offensive to you? I am asking since I would like to be respectful when discussing these things with others. Thank you.
@@user-el9pr1te9j First Peoples / Aboriginal & T.I people.
You pretentious fraud. Those names emerged after invasion and reflect distortions and journalistic selectivity. Prior to invasion by Europeans en masse, people were differentiated by the use of the word 'the' (definite article to the academics). Thus Wangurri use the word 'Dhangu', Djambarrpuyngu, 'Dhuwal'; and Descendent identity is by tribe, depending upon context. Your names are about as legitimate as your 'welcome to country' ceremony and burning of gum leaves. Just amateurish copycat behaviour, that has the tribal peoples shaking their heads in wonderment.
Our cultures, languages and identities are distinct. What unites us is connnection to Country and a common shared experience of successive racist government policies, such as dispossession, eradication, assimilation, genocide and the state-sponsored abduction of our children into slavery. In October, Australians very clearly stated they are not interested in listening to us. I won't play the role of educator again. The regional names I've given you are enough to guide your own learning. You have more information at your fingertips than any generation previous. Talking with black people IRL is always preferable. I will say this however, if you’re Australian, your wealth, way of life and institutions are built on stolen land. Whether it be crops, stock, natural resources or even tourism. There is no economic development without land. Our languages, cultures and identity spring from Country. Our Country. The privilege that Australians enjoy is paid for by us every day. Educate yourself and pay the rent.
Their history? Got here, set fire to the place, did nothing for a long time.
I can recommend some books if you want to address your ignorance. Do you read?
@@mattswadling4572 books. Yes, another aboriginal invention
@Mambojambo157 I think you fear what we represent. I think Australia's identity and what you want to believe about yourselves just isn't compatible with our true shared history. Children.
@@mattswadling4572 you represent antiwhitism to serve yourself at the cost of everyone else. So yes, terrified of you and you can shove your talk of unity. Everyday you expose that as an outrageous lie
Why are you here?
Love how some white Bloke is telling us about First Nations people
Are you saying he's racist for being respectfully interested in indigenous Australians? He's just presenting the findings of studies done with and by the indigenous populations that he mentions. Did you listen to the info, or just look at his skin colour?
Cold reality... No Aborigine has the English language capacity to make such a presentation. Also, no Aborigine has the knowledge of science to even commence a coherent report on genetics. And, most certainly, no Aborigine from Queensland, NSW, Victoria, SA or southern WA have any grasp of this subject, can speak a northern language, or possess Aboriginal culture. Does that set you straight with harsh reality? If not, I am up for any challenge because I am about to prepare a book on the ignorance, dishonesty, cronyism, nepotism, and outright criminality of urban professional Aborigines, as was made so shockingly evident in the aftermath of the Voice referendum. These are the people who are directly causing the genocide, erosion of parenting, and cultural destruction destroying the tribal peoples of the NT/Kimberly delta region.
That is mighty racist of you.
@@tonyryan43 Sorry, I disagree that no Indigenous Aussie has the capacity to make this type of presentation. And anyway, probably 90% of all people wouldn't be able to undertake and put together studies like this.
@@saliadee2564 Name one. I know who the closest to such status is and she would not waste her time. Meanwhile, what the hell does your reference to 90% of the people mean? Can you please explain how this makes sense?
Nothing like a foreigner taking jobs from aussies to tell us about the indigenous, no torres straight islanders, they live in au.
You are at perfect liberty to do his job, he is not "taking" anything you are competent at doing.
this must be wrong aborigines did not come from any where else
The birthplace of humans is East Africa. Everyone alive traces their ultimate origin to there.
@@kidslovesatan34They do not. That is just a theory. They will never be sure where different races in the world have come from.
@@bettymarshall2702 Okay, that's not the consensus view from geneticists, archaeologists and paleo anthropologists. On what basis do you make that claim? What do you know that they don't? What is your primary source for that claim?
@@bettymarshall2702 How do you know that they can never be sure as to where people come from? What are you basing that on?
Please stop using the word Aborigines, it’s extremely offensive. Call us First Nations or Aboriginal… @bettymarshall2702
Just out of curiosity how come, I don't get it.
@@GraniteRidge what’s not to get, one is a reference to Fora and Flora, the other is reference to humans which clearly we are
@@JakobJames-c6q Rubbish. Aboriginal is singular and Aborigines is plural. Flora and FAUNA refers to plants and native animals.
@@bettymarshall2702 Is it OK to call Indigenous Australians ‘Aborigines’?
‘Aborigine’ is generally perceived as insensitive, because it has racist connotations from Australia’s colonial past, and lumps people with diverse backgrounds into a single group. You’re more likely to make friends by saying ‘Aboriginal person’, ‘Aboriginal’ or ‘Torres Strait Islander’.
If you can, try using the person’s clan or tribe name. And if you are talking about both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, it’s best to say either ‘Indigenous Australians’ or ‘Indigenous people’.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machado%E2%80%93Joseph_disease
What point are you making ?
"Among aboriginal Australians, the founder mutation appears to have occurred about 7000 years ago. As this mutation is shared with other families based in Asia it seems likely that it was imported into Australia"
@@dnomyarnostaw This is interesting because it seems to coincide with the arrival of the dingo 8000 to 4000 ya and (according to other genetic research available on youtube) there was also language and culture change at this time. Although the same study said that genetics changed very little.