Reminder that "Native" Americans are not native to the America's at all and killed off two entire continents of the original inhabitants
http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/nature14895_Skoglund_2015.pdf
>head geneticist at Harvard confirms that there is archaic Australoid dna in amazonian natives not found in other 'Native" Americans
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2015/01/first-americans/hodges-text
>By all appearances, the earliest Americans were a rough bunch. If you look at the skeletal remains of Paleo-Americans, more than half the men have injuries caused by violence, and four out of ten have skull fractures. The wounds don’t appear to have been the result of hunting mishaps, and they don’t bear telltale signs of warfare, like blows suffered while fleeing an attacker. Instead it appears that these men fought among themselves—often and violently.
>The women don’t have these kinds of injuries, but they’re much smaller than the men, with signs of malnourishment and domestic abuse.
>these are all indications that the earliest Americans were what he calls “Northern Hemisphere wild-type” populations: bold and aggressive, with hypermasculine males and diminutive, subordinate females. And this, he thinks, is why the earliest Americans’ facial features look so different from those of later Native Americans. These were risk-taking pioneers, and the toughest men were taking the spoils and winning fights over women. As a result, their robust traits and features were being selected over the softer and more domestic ones evident in later, more settled populations.
>Naia has the facial features typical of the earliest Americans as well as the genetic signatures common to modern Native Americans. This signals that the two groups don’t look different because the earliest populations were replaced by later groups migrating from Asia, Instead they look different because the first Americans changed after they got here.
>tldr
Early "native" Americans had hyper masculine features and a violent culture, this lend credence to the theory they genocided the earlier people until only a small group remained in the amazon which is proven by genetic analysis
How many fucking times have you posted it? And no, it's not conclusively proven. The difference could stem from differences between founding populations in Siberia, one having a little bit of DNA from SE Asia and the other having none but otherwise the two being closely related.
>>52684073
>one having a little bit of DNA from SE Asia
Except there is ZERO South east asian dna!
They have dna that matches populations in papua new guinea and australia only and it is found not all over but in isolated groups in the amazon.
Now how would it mysteriously only exist there? Perhaps the natives in other areas were killed off by these hyper masculine invaders
>>52684195
SE Asia used to be populated by Negritos, exclusively. All the Chinese looking people came from China. It's realistic enough that there was a coastal migration northeast while on the other hand a migration across the pacific seems less probable.
>>52684323
This doesn't address anything I said
If a Tocharian of european decent is found in asia, it doesnt make his dna central asian, it is still european.
The fact that the Australoid dna is found only in isolated regions of the amazon is very telling, especially after discovering the warlike and hyper masculine ancestry of supposed "native" americans
>>52683995
Lol, Americans are so cute when they want to cover their genocide with "they did it too!"
>>52684527
Russians arent cute all tbqhwymfl
Still came before you
>>52684453
The DNA matches Andaman islanders just as much as Australians. Perhaps 20000 years this DNA was in Taiwan from where there was a migration to Kamchatka across Japan, and the first settlers of the Americas carried some percentages of it but were soon replaced by another wave of settlement from Siberia which had none of it but in Amazon basin they had more demographic depth than elsewhere.
>>52684701
What your proposing is not in combat with anything I said.
>>52684913
Well the initial premise that the first settlers of America looked like Aboriginals as in the OP pic would be very far from correct if they entered America in mixed form already.
>We dindu nuffin. We wuz settlers and shiet.
>>52685772
Exactly, "native" americans need to stop claiming this, they cant hide from the truth
>>52685313
But ancient native americans did not even physically look like modern ones.
How would this ancient group mix with a modern looking one?
