donald raab Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure Knucklelover and Bernard will visit this
> post.
>
> So much for independent development and pristine
> isolation.
>
> According to this connections everywhere.

According to "other" sources, we've been visited by space aliens.....

But seriously, this genetic claim is taken WAY out of context. As Pacal noted, we're all related (within the last 5,000 generations or less). The worldwide HLA evidence IS being studied in detail, but it does NOT show any indication of massive admixture.... rather the PATTERN of distributions shows "some" migration (nothing really earthshattering) and lots of near random associations due to ancient common ancestry & lots & lots of genetic drift among founding populations.

(For example, if Chinese had an HLA at a 50% level, and some American Indian tribe had it at 20%.... this is NOT definitive evidence of admixture. And if the Chinese ALSO had another HLA at 70%, which is NOT found in that American Indian tribe, then the combined datum PROVES no admixture. Cherry picking random matches does NOT prove a link.... you have to look at ALL HLA data for the groups in question, and even then you have to consider timing.... are you talking ANCIENT common ancestry being reflected, or admixture? And if admixture, are you talking 10,000 years ago.... or 3,000.... or 300?)

Mind you, SOME connections & contacts DID exist. Norse is proven, some degree of Polynesian is certain based on domestic plant distributions. And there was ALWAYS a trickle of contact & geneflow across Beringia. And there is a good chance of occasional minor contact that left no significant cultural or genetic impact. It's just the wild, unsupported claims (such of of "massive, unrecorded contact that the establishment is covering up") you have to look out for.

BTW, I'm sure your mispelling of my netname was inadvertant, and not meant as a hostile act?

KENUCHELOVER.