Distance to: Vizayan
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.
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.
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.
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.