The Chinese evolved from Indians: Study

Indians are the ancestors of Chinese, Japanese and East Asians. My question is with the Himalayas between India and China, how did the early people who arrived in India, go to China?

And the Indians and Chinese have now evolved into different races.

It was earlier thought that humans from Africa reached India and East and Southeast Asia separately. Now it has been proved that the humans came to India and from India they went to China and East Asia

A genetic study has found that Indians are the ancestors of the Chinese and other East Asian populations.

The study, a joint project of 10 Asian countries, found that India received a wave of migration from Africa 60,000-70,000 years ago and these early humans subsequently moved to East and Southeast Asia. The earlier belief was that humans from Africa reached India and East and Southeast Asia separately.

The study has important implications, especially in the understanding of human migratory patterns and in the investigation of genetics and disease.

Source: www.dnaindia.com...

Study or not, i still believe that indians came from the south eastern regions, mixture of african and middle eastern, and perhaps the chinese, japanese and other asian countries came from the north. Just look at the eskimos. See i always thought that the asian eyes were an evolutionary trait coming from lands of glare where snow falls.

Then again, i havnt really looked into it, i guess i will now. Interesting thread, certainly has my attention. S&F

That is very interesting. I also recall this study that causasians or Europeans also evolved from Indians! The study basically said that humans came out of Africa migrated to India, and from India migrated westwards into Europe.

I don't know though with these theories, because Indians, Chinese, Africans and Europeans are so distinct racially, I wonder how they could all belong to the same stock. Perhaps they all have their own original ancestor and are not part of the same stock? Any reasons why this cannot be the case?

[edit on 14-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child

I don't know though with these theories, because Indians, Chinese, Africans and Europeans are so distinct racially, I wonder how they could all belong to the same stock. Perhaps they all have their own original ancestor and are not part of the same stock? Any reasons why this cannot be the case?

I think that as they migrated to various parts of the world, their physical race features evolved and became distinct. I think that when humans came out of Africa, that is where the common ancestor came from and as they migrated North and East then the climate and other factors was the reason that they became so different.

When will there be a study that says we as a people actually came from Atlantis?


I still believe in Atlantis and also most of our ancestors came from atlantis.

BBC's version is different. Doesn't mention the Indian-Chinese connection except that it was a SINGLE migration event from the south.

news.bbc.co.uk...

I doubt anything coming from dnaindia. Judging from other posts with sources from dnaindia, the site seems to be rather iffy.

reply to post by postmeme

BBC's version is different. Doesn't mention the Indian-Chinese connection except that it was a SINGLE migration event from the south.

I think that south starts from India because that was the way the continents were in that period. I think the BBC article says a single migration and that could have been from India.

You may be right about the DNA website, but I think it may not be all that unreliable.




[edit on 14-12-2009 by sunny_2008ny]

Originally posted by sunny_2008ny
And the Indians and Chinese have now evolved into different races.

Just friendly correction here. There is actually no such thing as race. "The Chinese descended from Indians" would be a more scientifically accurate sentence.

...it has been proved that the humans came to India and from India they went to China and East Asia

Ya know, as an Anthropology student I had always suspected as much. Too bad I haven't earned my degree yet. I could have conducted this study to prove my guess. Oh well. Thank you very much for sharing it.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
When will there be a study that says we as a people actually came from Atlantis?

Tell you what; prove Atlantis existed and Anthropologists will no doubt look into all of the possibilities where human ancestry is concerned.

Just, uh... wait a few years to prove it. I would very much like to be one of the Anthropologists who do that...

reply to post by sunny_2008ny


Okay, but how do we test this? Do we actually have any evidence showing Africans evolving into Indians, Indians into Chinese and into Europeans? I would like to see it.

When I examine the features of Indians, Chinese, Africans and Europeans I find them too different visually to have evolved from one another.

Indian:



Chinese:



African:



European:



They look incredibly different. Not just in skin tone, but facial features as well. This is why I cannot understand how they could all have evolved from a common stock.



[edit on 15-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child


I can explain your differences, and, again, please do not call it "evolving" from one race to another. That is an ignorant statement. The human race has evolved as a single race (or species, if you prefer). What you see as a "race" is a socially constructed concept and has no scientific meaning.

As to the various differences you see in human beings, I can sum it all up into a single word. Adaptation.

Each ethnic group on earth looks the way they do because they have adapted to their own local environment. Explaining each and every adaptation for each ethnic group would require pages and pages to explain, so I encourage you to do your own research.

I will mention that Africans have a darker skin color because their skin has adapted to the high amount of sun they're exposed to. Their skin produces more melanin, and protects them against the more harmful effects of sun exposure. The further you travel from Africa the less likely you're going to need this adaptation. Therefore skin tone gradually lightens.

I'm very hesitant to even mention skin color in a post, but I want to make it clear that it is not a "racial" thing. It is a human thing. It is an adaptation and no adaptation should ever be used as a racial stereotype... especially when races do not even exist.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

[edit on 15-12-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

Originally posted by scubagravy
Study or not, i still believe that indians came from the south eastern regions, mixture of african and middle eastern, and perhaps the chinese, japanese and other asian countries came from the north. Just look at the eskimos. See i always thought that the asian eyes were an evolutionary trait coming from lands of glare where snow falls.

Then again, i havnt really looked into it, i guess i will now. Interesting thread, certainly has my attention. S&F

There are a lot of (really big) snow covered mountains to the north and northeast of India. Who knows how long it took for humans to cross this natural boundary - may have been enough time to select a predominate eye shape. Based on linguistics and DNA, it could be said the Japanese came from the Chinese. It wouldn't be a huge stretch to say the Chinese came from India.

Originally posted by scubagravy
There are a lot of (really big) snow covered mountains to the north and northeast of India. Who knows how long it took for humans to cross this natural boundary - may have been enough time to select a predominate eye shape.

Bingo! You don't know how right you are! The epicanthic eye fold, or the "predominate eye shape" as you called it, is an adaptation to cold weather. The theory is that an epicanthic fold in a snowy environment would protect the eyes from extra UV radiation.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

Originally posted by one_enlightened_mind
reply to post by Indigo_Child

 

I can explain your differences, and, again, please do not call it "evolving" from one race to another. This is ignorant statement. The human race has evolved as a single race (or species, if you prefer). What you see as a "race" is a socially constructed concept and has no scientific meaning.

As to the various differences you see in human beings, I can sum it all up into a single word. Adaptation.

Each ethnic group on earth looks the way they do because they have adapted to their own local environment. Explaining each and every adaptation for each ethnic group would require pages and pages to explain, so I encourage you to do your own research.

I will mention that Africans have a darker skin color because their skin has adapted to the high amount of sun they're exposed to. Their skin produces more melanin, and protects them against the more harmful effects of sun exposure. The further you travel from Africa the less likely you're going to need this adaptation. Therefore skin tone gradually lightens.

I'm very hesitant to even mention skin color in a post, but I want to make it clear that it is not a "racial" thing. It is a human thing. It is an adaptation and no adaptation should ever be used as a racial stereotype... especially when races do not even exist.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

The flip side to this is the development of lighter skin to enhance UV absorption for the production of vitamin D. You could say the further you travel from Africa you need the adaptation of lighter skin more, rather than needing the darker adaptation less. Darker skinned people living in low UV areas run the risk of developing rickets for this very reason unless they can get it from somewhere else like eating oily fish - Eskimos, for example.

Originally posted by jawsismyfish

The flip side to this is the development of lighter skin to enhance UV absorption for the production of vitamin D. You could say the further you travel from Africa you need the adaptation of lighter skin more, rather than needing the darker adaptation less.

Ah. You are correct. I'm afraid I didn't explain it as accurately as I could have. Thank you for pointing that out.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

Originally posted by one_enlightened_mind
Originally posted by jawsismyfish

The flip side to this is the development of lighter skin to enhance UV absorption for the production of vitamin D. You could say the further you travel from Africa you need the adaptation of lighter skin more, rather than needing the darker adaptation less.

Ah. You are correct. I'm afraid I didn't explain it as accurately as I could have. Thank you for pointing that out.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

I was just adding a little to your very good points which you explained perfectly well. Nature's balancing act is simply amazing to me. Great thread!

I have always believed that man started out in the Tibetan Plateau region.

It has always caught my eye when looking at a globe of the earth.

It is shaped weird and I call it the belly button of the planet.

I always wondered what natural forces created the shape considering it is the highest point on earth.

I was researching this thread and found an older thread here that talked about some of the same information being discussed here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Good stuff guys,keep up the discussion!

reply to post by one_enlightened_mind


Ah, I was hoping for a proper explanation, not the conventional explanation of adaptation. I am aware of that and it is much in need of explanation itself, so I am none the wiser after your explanation.

First of all, I don't see any reason to be politically correct and accept that race is just socially constructed and therefore does not exist. Every label is socially constructed, that doesn't mean it does not exist. Countries are socially constructed; species differences are socially constructed; time is socially constructed. We could even argue all of reality is socially constructed because we order it through our minds. The fact remains there are different human groups which physiologically are very distinct: Indians, Africans, Chinese, Indians etc

There is nothing offensive in labelling these groups as distinct. The traditional term is "race" I don't really have a problem with this term, but I can see why it is problematic.

Now here is why the traditional explanation of adaptation does not fly with me. Single origin theory or Out of Africa theoy is not the only theory, there is also multiple origin theory. Secondly, it is based on finding fossil remains and when new fossil remains are discovered human origins are changed. First it was posited that humans originated in Asia, and then when older remains were found in Africa it was changed to they originated in Africa. The fact that older remains have not been found elsewhere does not prove that they did originate in Africa, for the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

The other part that I find dubious is how they find fossils of different looking hominoids and then nterpret these as stages in a single line of evolution from primates to modern humans. But what if there were serveral kinds of hominoids on Earth at this time, and what if they co-habited? Maybe there were several origins in different parts of the world and each followed a different evolutionary line? The Indians, Chiinese, Africans and Europeans may all have their own distinct line and developed parallel to one another. Why could this not be the case? As I have not studied Anthropology or biology I am not aware of counter-explanations for why this is impossible. So you are going to have to enlighten me.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Ah-ha. So you want to know why there can't be several "races" of humans who have evolved from their own stock.

In order to understand that you're going to need to understand the definition of a species. A common definition is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen. This means that when an animal evolves into a certain species it can only reproduce with members of it's own species and nothing else. Dogs with dogs, cats with cats, birds with birds; you get the idea.

Now, what does that have to do with humans? Well humans are classified under the Genus Homo and species sapien. In other words we are all Homo sapiens. We are all one species, and we can all interbreed with one another.

How can I prove this if it's just a "social consturct" as you claim? Simple. The statistical measurement we use to assess genetic variation is Fst, or the fraction of variation found between samples. In this case the genetic variations referred to are the frequencies of a given allele at a known locus (what you would know better as our genes), and the samples used are human populations. An Fst of 0.0 means there is no genetic difference, and an Fst of 1.0 means the compared populations are 100% different. When we look at Fst across multiple human nuclear DNA loci, we see values no greater than 0.17.

What that means is that across our genome, is a staggeringly low level of of human genetic variation. We are all one species, and science has proven it again and again.

There is no race.


[edit on 15-12-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Something to keep in mind is that there is actually greater differentiation within so-called racial groups than between them.

Not all Chinese look alike; nor do all blacks , all Europeans. Aside from a few obvious generalizations, there is far more diversity within races.

There could in fact have been multiple strands of human ancestry, but I would imagine that there was plenty of opportunity for interbreeding -- even between Neanderthal and us for example.