A question for evolutionary experts regarding Australian Aboriginals?

Question

Some people tell me that they are an old relic of evolution, they are somewhere between homo erectus and homo sapiens. Is this true? It makes sense if you look at their features and how unsuccessful they are in Australia as a whole. This is not meant to offend anyone, I just want objective answers.

Answer 1

" The fact they can interbreed with Homo sapiens, does not make them Homo sapiens ". YES IT DOES. By both the biological species concept and genetical markers. Liger and mules are sterile! They interbreed because they are of the same genus, but produce offspring with uneven chromosome match-up. You wanted objective answers, and you got them; now accept them.

Answer 2

Prior to European settlement, the aboriginal tribes were very successful, and well off.  Presently they are relatively worse off because they are forced to live in a society that does not reflect their own.  The ability to reach the level of success prior to Euro settlement will never be reached now that they have been culturally destroyed.

Answer 3

First, the term "relic of evolution" is inaccurate. If they are alive today, they've been surviving just as long as we have on this planet, which means they are just as evolved as any other animal.

Second, I'd argue the aborigiones were quite successful. They grew to large numbers and developed a comlpex culture, just as complex as anyone's, in an environment so dry one can die of dehydration in hours. It's a harsh place to live, and they have done pretty well. I'd say they are more of a testament to the ruggedness and versatility of humans.

Third, these people are anatomically modern humans. Their appearance in Australia post-dates accepted dates for the appearance of modern humans, and their features and DNA support this. I studied skeletal featues of australian aborigiones in my osteology days, and they don't differ significantly from you or me.

EDIT: I'll say it again. My biological anthro colleagues will say it too. The physical differences between, say, you and an australian aborigione, are insignificant. I measured skulls, thousands of other researchers have measured skulls. I swear, I spend years studying this stuff just to watch people log in and make c**p up. Lovely.

Answer 4

Not an expert, but studied under a respect Anthropologist dealing with Holistine Whitsunday settlements.

Can say that this little rant of yours is so out dated I'm shocked. Useless to claim not wanting to take offence when you are being offensive.

Check the dates & source of your information. TO understand the motivation of Gits spreading that c**p.

.

Answer 5

I'm afraid your thesis is in contrast with two facts.

1) Aboriginals belong to Homo Sapiens in all respects, as they descend directly from the Asians who colonized the Pacific around 5000 BC through the so-called "austronesian expansion". Put simply, the modern Aboriginals are strict cousins of the Chinese. This has been proven by DNA comparison.

2) Aboriginals have been in fact very successful at surviving in an extreme environment, desert, dry and poor in natural resources. Europeans succeeded in traversing the Australian inlands only in the XIX Century, due to their inability to find water and food along the way, a task that Aboriginals do very well. The fact that Aboriginals did not develop an industrial society, evolutionary speaking is irrelevant and should not be confused with being "unsuccessful".

Answer 6

Yes, they are hybrids between homo sapien sapien (which originated in

Ethiopia) and more primitive, non- homo sapien hominids. But so are some

africans and paleomongols.

Pure homo sapien sapiens have a high vertical forehead, a full nosebridge,

no brow ridge, no facial prognatism, and have an IQ of at least 80.

Australian aboriginies have a low sloping forehead, facial prognathism,

minimal nosebridge, prominent brow ridge, and have an IQ around 60.

Ha ha! Six negative ratings! The genetic-egalitarians really got pissed off

by the detailed proof that I gave. Genetic egalitarianism is caused by

the psychological desire to disrupt the fundamental truth that different

entities are not necessarily the same. The sensation of disrupting that

truth is a sensation of crude blind seeping oneness. That same desire

also causes subjectivism and political ultra-leftism.

By the way, neanderthals DID interbreed with european homo sapien

sapiens. Scientists have discovered that the average european has about

5% neanderthal DNA. The genetic study was published in PLoS genetics.

Answer 7

Ry-guy is right.  Humans didn't even interbreed with Neanderthals based on recent DNA studies.  To interbreed with H. erectus would be even more unlikely.  Aboriginies are as modern as any human.

Answer 8

So the aboriginals are the missing link? Hmmm how are they able to interbreed?

Answer 9

Horses and donkeys produce sterile offspring. Yet aboriginals and other humans do not.A cross between a tiger and a lion is sterile as well.

Answer 10

No, it is not true. Australian aboriginals are descendants of the first wave of people to leave Africa ~50,000 years ago (genetic clocks show the relative timing of the separation of populations). Basically, their ancestors took the fast coast route (there are strong genetics similarities in southern India and in pockets in SE Asia) while the rest spread more slowly over land.

Homo sapiens sapiens arose well before this time, at least 130,000 years ago. The sliight differences in appearance between populations are due to genetic drift (the population at the forefront of an advance has less genetic diversity than in the centre, so random traits get concentrated). As well as obvious climatic adaptions.

The 'unsuccessfulness' of Aborigines in modern Australian society is due to huge huge cultural differences ~ 50,000 years worth. If you mean past 'unsuccessfulness' - that they didn't develop agriculture, like happened in only a handfull of places on Earth, is due to the absence of suitable native plants and animals in Australia (where agriculture did arise in the world, it was initially a horrible back-step brought on by desperation, not some sort of creative brain wave).

Answer 11

They are anatomically modern H. sapiens sapiens.

They do have a different morphology for some features, but they are definitely human.  This is not only known through appearance but through their cognitive capacity for language, abstract thought, and complex tool creation/use.

Answer 12

I was all set to write a long response, but I see that you have already recieved many good answers - and one from someone that is clearly a Eurocentric racist, even if they do not realize it.

simply - species produce fertile offspring - therefore - evidence that aborigines are part of our species.

Successful - aboslutely - they were isolated by sea level rise long before most of the technological advances in the rest of the world, yet continued to survive successfully in a very harsh environment -adapted to it very well by many means - including low population density, which is important given the natural carrying capacity of the continent.  Put even some modern folks on the continent with no technology but that which was available to the aborgines and see who would survive – not many.

Physical features different – result from 40 thousand years of isolation and restricted gene flow, but still very human and actually not that much different from many other groups in the same general area.  All differences between human population are primarily the result of relative isolation and restricted gene flow – mountains, seas, etc. even culturally directed isolation.  The same applied to Native Americans, although their isolation from the rest of the world was probably only about 15,000 years or less, as compared to the 40, 000 for Australians,

I hope you find the answers you received enlightening.

Answer 13

WOW!!!! Cynic's being a little touchy. must be that time of the month

Answer 14

The definition of a species is two organisms that can breed and produce fertile offspring. Australian Aborigines are Homo sapien. They have crossed with Europeans many times. A Mule is sterile. A lion and tiger are different in appearance but are the same species. The liger is fertile but for some reason grows to be much larger than either of it's parent variations. That is why they would never be a successful subspecies. They would be too slow and would not have the endurance to hunt successfully.

Answer 15

I wrote a long paragraph but deleted it . You are not worth my effort. Moron!