Tags
Tab Item Content
Join Us!
Archives Meta
Filipinos are one o...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Filipinos are one of the most genetically distant Mongoloid groups to Native Americans.

89 Posts
12 Users
31 Likes
13.4 K Views
Qamzardaan
(@qamzardaan)
Posts: 487
Reputable Member
Topic starter
 
@rodriguez @prau123 @selurong @rambo
 
Believe it or not, but Filipinos are one of the most genetically distant Mongoloids to Native Americans. 
 
Look at how further away the Native Americans (Mixe, Aymara, Surui) are from the Luzon (Filipino) sample. Even heavily Mongoloid/ENA shifted Europeans such as Udmurt, Saami, Chuvash or South Asians/South Central Asians such as Velamas, Punjabi Sikh India, Balochi are genetically closer to Luzon than the Native American samples are. 
Furthermore, look at how Finnish_East and Chechen are genetically closer to the Luzon than the Aymara (a Native American ethnic group from South America) are to the Luzon. 
 
Using Global 25: one of the best genetic calculators out there. It shows the genetically closest/least distant to the furthest/most distant groups to Filipinos (Luzon, Vizayan). The more bottom the population, the more distant it is from the target population. For example, Jomon being under the Han_Shanxi for Luzon means the Jomon is genetically further away from the Luzon Filipino than Han Chinese from Shanxi Province is to the Luzon.
 
Distance to: Luzon
Spoiler
0.03156051 TON_2500BP (ancient Austronesian from Tonga)
0.04318910 Hawaiian
0.15793637 PYF_150BP (Polynesian individual from French Polynesian)
0.16298458 Aeta
0.18643250 Japanese
0.18760312 Han_Shanxi
0.21154847 JPN_Jomon (ancient Jomon individual)
0.30932762 Onge
0.31569919 Bonda (Austroasiatic tribe from India who is mainly AASI+Mongoloid mix)
0.32545087 Kazakh
0.37983117 Chukchi
0.40016918 Selkup
0.43131702 Paniya
0.47761238 Velamas
0.49934736 Udmurt
0.50306836 Chuvash
0.50327046 Saami
0.51062189 Punjabi_Sikh_India
0.54690081 Balochi
0.56779663 Mixe
0.57762529 Finnish_East
0.58200607 Chechen
0.59616315 Aymara
0.60069870 Egyptian
0.61254712 Georgian_Imer
0.61278076 Swedish
0.63061924 Surui
0.74406654 Papuan
Same thing with the Vizayan (Filipino) sample. Look at how the Balochi and Finnish_East are genetically closer to the Vizayan Filipino than the Mixe despite the latter being predominantly West Eurasian or how the Chechen and Egyptian arre genetically closer to the Vizayan than the Aymara (a Native American ethnic group from the Andean region of South America) are to the Filipino individual.

Distance to: Vizayan

Spoiler

0.03787383 Hawaiian
0.05090447 TON_2500BP (ancient Austronesians from Tonga)
0.12412708 Aeta
0.12471414 PYF_150BP (Polynesian individual from French Polynesia)
0.18756090 Japanese
0.18880175 Han_Shanxi
0.19113253 JPN_Jomon (ancient Jomon individual)
0.27250584 Onge
0.28497809 Bonda (Austroasiatic tribe from India who are a mix between AASI+Mongoloid)
0.29717628 Kazakh
0.36093267 Chukchi
0.37476629 Selkup
0.39842864 Paniya
0.44506657 Velamas
0.46829877 Udmurt
0.47191727 Chuvash
0.47311126 Saami
0.47812768 Punjabi_Sikh_India
0.51587057 Balochi
0.54767174 Finnish_East
0.55025334 Mixe
0.55190947 Chechen
0.57104436 Egyptian
0.57867941 Aymara
0.58275948 Georgian_Imer
0.58346070 Swedish
0.61343304 Surui
0.70968324 Papuan
 
This is also the reversal with Native Americans. Filipinos are one of the most distant groups genetically to them:
 
A Genetic Distance Run using Global 25: one of the best genetic calculators out there by Davidski:
 
Surui (a Native American tribe from South America) from most to least. Look at how faraway from Surui the Filipino samples are (Luzon and Igorot). Even some Caucasoids such as Mari, Udmurt, Saami, Turkmen or some Tatars are genetically closer to Surui than Filipinos are. The closest pops to the Surui are Chukchi, Kirghiz, Selkup who are Paleosiberian and Central Asian.
 
Distance to: Surui
Spoiler

0.45144851 Chukchi
0.55907602 Selkup
0.55926932 Kazakh
0.56213218 Khanty
0.56802163 Mansi
0.57328326 Hazara
0.58823501 Uzbek
0.58932847 JPN_Jomon (Jomon individual)
0.59467283 Japanese
0.59745944 Han_Shanxi
0.60032065 Aeta
0.60447864 Onge
0.61563835 Malay
0.61569381 Turkmen
0.61624356 Mari
0.61727523 Udmurt
0.61745261 Saami
0.62104511 Bonda
0.62192123 Tatar_Lipka
0.62297913 Hawaiian
0.62713075 PYF_150BP (Polynesian individual from French Polynesia)
0.62927452 Tatar_Crimean_steppe
0.62957523 Bengali_Bangladesh
0.63061924 Luzon
0.63546647 TON_2500BP (ancient Austronesian from Tonga)
0.63748473 Igorot
0.64498427 Paniya
 
Or compare to the Pima, a Native American tribe from Southwestern USA/Northern Mexico. Once again, the Filipinos (Luzon, Igorot) are at the bottom which means the most distant/furthest away. Some Caucasoids like Mari, Turkmen, Udmurt, Saami, some Tatars seem genetically closer to the Pima than Filipinos are. Closest pops are Chukchi, Kirghiz, Kazakh who are Paleosiberian and Central Asian.
 
Distance to: Pima
Spoiler
0.36647137 Chukchi
0.47170710 Kazakh
0.47360330 Selkup
0.47846664 Khanty
0.48470136 Mansi
0.48787113 Hazara
0.50546008 Uzbek
0.50901481 JPN_Jomon
0.51351578 Japanese
0.51548158 Han_Shanxi
0.52262929 Aeta
0.52624097 Onge
0.53659742 Turkmen
0.53825171 Malay
0.53944549 Mari
0.54085620 Udmurt
0.54205455 Saami
0.54491092 Tatar_Lipka
0.54504236 Bonda
0.54735152 Hawaiian
0.54997690 PYF_150BP
0.55177051 Tatar_Crimean_steppe
0.55374478 Bengali_Bangladesh
0.55478313 TWN_Hanben
0.55549123 Luzon
0.56080526 TON_2500BP (ancient Austronesian from Tonga)
0.56430606 Igorot
0.57200262 Paniya
 
Reasons for why Filipinos and Natives could be extremely genetically distant from one another.

1) Native Americans are genetically very divergent from other "Mongoloids" including Filipinos due to being separated from Asians for at least 20,000 years or more after they move to the Americas

2) Native Americans have 30-40% ANE (even up to 45% ANE according to some qpAdm formal stat results that I saw), a predominantly ancient West Eurasian component that they shared with South Asians, Central Asians and Caucasoids such as West Asians, Europeans, Middle Easterners. Most Mongoloids including Filipinos lack ANE or if they have it is very negligible/almost zero amounts which they received from their Iberian admix. Spaniards have some ANE but pretty low compared to Northern Euros and Eastern Euros.

3) ANE also means around 23-30% West Eurasian ancestry or more for Native Americans. Filipinos on the other hand, are predominantly or almost 100% East Eurasian (its a term to refer to those in the Mongoloid and Australoid genetic cluster).

4) The East Eurasian ancestry of Native Americans is Siberian-derived and related to Paleo-Siberian/Devil's Gate which is the main ancestors of Tungusic tribes which is very different and distinct from the East Eurasian ancestry of Filipinos which originates from Southern China and closely related to Taiwanese Aborigines.

I can show you how I get these distance numbers if you want.

 
 
Posted : 09/11/2020 7:37 am
Prau123 reacted
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Posts: 2399
Famed Member
 

@qamzardaan

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing this.  However genetic results are consistent with geographical distance. The further away the ethnic group is from the Filipinos, the more distant related it is genetically.  The Native American groups such as Mixe, Ayamara, and Surui are located at the opposite side of the Pacific Rim and therefore their genetics are distantly related to Filipinos.  There are exceptions though such as Papuans that are geographically closer in distance to Filipinos compared to Hawaiians and Native American Indian tribes and yet their genetics turned out to be the most distant to Luzons and Visayans.

 

However Filipinos do still have a small percentage of Native American Indian genes whether it's 2% or less.  The Native American Indian genes in Filipinos is derived from ANE and recent admixture from the Aztecs, Mayan, Incans that were introduced by Spaniards during Manila Acapulco Galleon Trade between 1565 to 1815. The migration actually extended up to 1898 and maybe even some more years during the turn of the twentieth century. However this admixture in Filipinos may have been introduced in cities primarily.  

 

There are exceptions in America.  The Botocudo tribes and Haida tribes have Polynesians genes. They would be considered genetically close to Filipinos.

 

The Surui tribe in Brazil along with the Xavante tribe and Karitiana tribe are considered Australasians which makes them closely related to Australian Aborigines, New Guineans and Andaman Islanders

 

 

I find this odd since some Native American Indians could actually pass up as Filipinos. 

 

 
Posted : 09/11/2020 8:55 am
Qamzardaan reacted
Qamzardaan
(@qamzardaan)
Posts: 487
Reputable Member
Topic starter
 

@prau123

Not necessarily. Even Natives who live in the Pacific Rim can be genetically very distant from Filipinos as well. 

The reason why Papuans are genetically very distant from the Luzon and Vizayan could be that Papuans and other Melanesians are very diverged genetically from other East Eurasians (yes they belong to the same Mega East Eurasian group as Mongoloids, Negritos, Andamanese, Australian Aborigines and Native Americans) from genetic drift and living in isolation on the island of New Guinea for ten thousands of years.

Not all Filipinos have Native American though. In fact, most Filipino DNA results that I saw have literally zero Native American. Also, I will be honest but the highest Native that I ever saw for Pinos is around 1%.  So I'm not really sure how common Native American admix is among Pinoys. Maybe minor Native ancestry is common among certain sections of the Philippine society especially those who have extensive history of contact with the New World, while its rare or nonexistent among other groups in the Philippine society.

Not really, the Native ancestry in Pinoys are not predominantly ANE but a rather an almost balanced mix between Siberian and ANE.

I don't know about the Haida but in turns out that the Botocudos, at least the samples that were tested were actually pure blood Polynesian without any Native American admixture. So they believed it was either mislabeled by geneticists or that the some Polys did actually reach the New World.

I will show the results of those two Botocudo samples later. 

The Surui and Xavante are not Australasians but it was founded by scientists that they have some Onge/Australasian-like genes unlike most Native Americans who have zero affinity to Australoids, which suggests there could be some prehistoric migration from Oceania to the Americas. 

Well genotype does not equal phenotype. The reason some Natives can pass as Pinoys is rather the result of convergent evolution in that different unrelated/barely related populations developed similar features from living in tropical humid climates. Its the same case as Onge/Andamanese and Africans. They look alike to many people but are actually genetically very different and far apart. The overlap in looks in the Onge/Andamanese and Africans is also the result of convergent evolution.

 

 
Posted : 09/11/2020 9:33 am
Prau123 reacted
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Posts: 2399
Famed Member
 

@qamzardaan

 

Filipinos would have no relationship basically with Papuans since the Austronesians arrived in Philippines supposedly around 3,500 yrs ago to 5,000 yrs ago only while Papuans have been on their island for 40,000 to 60,000 yrs ago.

 

I'm actually convince that Polynesians did land in the Americas considering that they were able to travel as far as Easter Island and create a megalithic culture which suggest that they would have the means and capabilities to reach South America.  Plus, chicken was also introduce to South America by Polynesians and received sweet potato in exchange.  

 

Surui and Xavante had to arrive to Brazil somehow.   The only confirm group to travel this far on the Pacific Ocean are Polynesians.  It may have been Polynesians who brought them to South America since Botocudo tribes in Brazil are Polynesians.

 

There are Australo-Melanesians genes also found in Aleutian Islanders and Athabascans in Alaska.

 

 

 

https://dna-explained.com/2015/07/22/some-native-americans-had-oceanic-ancestors/

 

Finally, we get to the Australian part.  The researchers when trying to sort through the “who is closer to whom” puzzle found unexpected results.  They found that some Native American populations including Aleutian Islanders, Surui (Brazil) and Athabascans are closer to Australo-Melanesians compared to other Native Americans, such as Ojibwa, Cree and Algonquian and South American Purepecha (Mexico), Arhuaco (Colombia) and Wayuu (Colombia, Venezuela).  In fact, the Surui are one of the closest populations to East Asians and Australo-Melanese, the latter including Papuans, non-Papuan Melanesians, Solomon Islanders and hunter-gatherers such as Aeta. The researchers acknowledge these are weak trends, but they are nonetheless consistently present.

Dr. David Reich, from Harvard, a co-author of another paper, also published this past week, says that 2% of the DNA of Amazonians is from Oceana.  If that is consistent, it speaks to a founder population in isolation, such that the 2% just keeps getting passed around in the isolated population, never being diluted by outside DNA.  I would suggest that is not a weak signal.

The researchers suggest that the variance in the strength of this Oceanic signal suggests that the introduction of the Australo-Melanese occurred after the initial peopling of the Americas.  The ancient samples cluster with the Native American groups and do not show the Oceanic markers and show no evidence of gene flow from Oceana.

 

 

 

 

 

Second, multiple Oceanic immigration events.  We still have to consider the possibility that there were multiple events that introduced Oceanic DNA into the Native population.  In other words, perhaps the Aleutian Islands Oceanic DNA is not from the same migration event as the Brazilian DNA which we know is not from the same event as the Botocudo.  I would very much like to see the Oceanic DNA appear in a migration path of people, not just in one place and then the other.  We need to connect the dots.

What this new information does is to rule out the possibility that there truly was only one wave of migration – one group of people who settled the Americas at one time.  More likely, at least until the land bridge submerged, is that there were multiple small groups that exited Beringia over the 8,000 or so years it was inhabitable.  Maybe one of those groups included people from Oceana.  Someplace, sometime, as unlikely as it seems, it happened.

The amazing thing is that it’s more than 10,000 miles from Australia to the Aleutian Islands, directly across the Pacific.  Early adventurers would have likely followed a coastal route to be sustainable, which would have been significantly longer.  The fact that they survived and sent their DNA on a long adventure from Australia to Alaska to South America – and it’s still present today is absolutely amazing.

 

Australia to Aleutians

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Posted : 09/11/2020 11:31 am
Qamzardaan reacted
Qamzardaan
(@qamzardaan)
Posts: 487
Reputable Member
Topic starter
 

@prau123

Are you appalled and mindblowned that Native Americans are genetically closer to some Caucasoids like Mari, Turkmen, Saami, Udmurt, some Tatars than to they are to Filipinos?

 
Posted : 09/11/2020 1:56 pm
Prau123 reacted
Page 1 / 18