Comments on: Peopling of Australia:’Reconstructing Indian-Australian Phylogenetic Link’ Satish Kumar et al

By: Evidence for genetic links between Indian and Australian populations ~55,000 years ago

Fri, 22 Jul 2011 22:26:51 +0000

[...] abstract and the open source paper can be accessed from the Biomedcentral website. Thanks to Tim Jones who first blogged this at Anthropology.net as well as @jorgenholm on twitter who picked up the ABC [...]

By: Australia Holidays

Australia Holidays — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:35:10 +0000

I’m always fascinated to learn new theories on this topic. There’s a new book out that suggests modern homo sapiens actually originated from the Australian aborigines and spread out across the world via Asia.

By: Promosyon Tekstil

Promosyon Tekstil — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:46:10 +0000

Your site is really good web. I wish you continued success.. TR.

By: terryt

terryt — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:10:11 +0000

“Also phylogenetically is kinda odd”.

Yes. M42 is such a minority haplogroup in Australia that it’s unlikely to represent an early arrival. And if it’s associated with Austro-Asiatic tribes it’s likely to have entered India from the east.

By: Evidence for genetic links between Indian and Australian populations ~55,000 years ago « Archaeology in Australasia

Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:04:33 +0000

By: Nany

Nany — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 03:21:12 +0000

I feel that the paper have given enough evidence for results. The methods section is located at the end of the paper which is enough for their work. As far as the location of their findings is concerned in the results they have mentioned central Dravidian and austroasiatic tribes. If we see the distribution of the tribes we can say that they are located at central India. Regarding the back mutation- majority of the Australian sequences support the phylogeny except 2 sequences even if they don’t include those sequences it will not affect the results.

By: Luis

Luis — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:49:07 +0000

I read it and it does seem that “provisional” is the best word we can use for it. Lacks of anything that resembles a “materials and methods” section and does not identify the tribes where they located their findings.

Also phylogenetically is kinda odd: they propose to scratch off a phylogenetic link defined on a coding area SNP (much less likely to have suffered parallel mutations than the control area ones) and force the Australians to have suffered “a back-mutation” in order to fit in their proposed phyologeny.

I’m disregarding it by the moment, seriously.