A serious topic about the Philippines as it relates to Austronesian Options

[User1]

Some mind candy for the intellectually minded.. but will this thread pick up?

This post has been edited by User1: Jun 7 2010, 08:51 PM

[Austronesian]

did you draw that yourself LMAO

[LazyAzian]

Our closest genetic relatives are the Ami people.

We have close genetic ties to Indonesian and Thais as well.

Just like how some people take a bunch of pictures from Polynesian peoples and compare them to Filipino peoples and show the "similarities."

I can easily do the same with Indonesian and Thais.

Have you ever watched Indonesian and Malaysian television? The actors bear a striking resemblence to Filipinos.

OMGD LOOK THEIR INDONESIAN, BUT THEY LOOK FILIPINO. IS THAT MY AUNT? *SARCASM*


HEY THAT LOOKS LIKE MY TITA! OMGD NO WAI THEY ARE THAI!


This post has been edited by LazyAzian: Jun 4 2010, 04:32 PM

[User1]

did you draw that yourself LMAO

Umm, no, it's a language tree from an article in an linguistic journal (the red is mine, yeah, to make it clear), the source of which I'll edit in if anyone is interested.. which I doubt.. since no one went, "Look how interesting that chart is.. It has many interesting points, like how Ami are not direct ancestors of Filipinos!"

[kermit_criminal]

Our closest genetic relatives are the Ami people.

We have close genetic ties to Indonesian and Thais as well.

Just like how some people take a bunch of pictures from Polynesian peoples and compare them to Filipino peoples and show the "similarities."

I can easily do the same with Indonesian and Thais.

Have you ever watched Indonesian and Malaysian television? The actors bear a striking resemblence to Filipinos.

OMGD LOOK THEIR INDONESIAN, BUT THEY LOOK FILIPINO. IS THAT MY AUNT? *SARCASM*


HEY THAT LOOKS LIKE MY TITA! OMGD NO WAI THEY ARE THAI!

ok... i dont think anyone is arguing we arent related to indonesians... thais not so dirctly. however, we're more closely related to polynesians then we are to the chinese, korean, japanese.. who are generally what comes to mind when people use the term asian.

[Austronesian]

ok... i dont think anyone is arguing we arent related to indonesians... thais not so dirctly. however, we're more closely related to polynesians then we are to the chinese, korean, japanese.. who are generally what comes to mind when people use the term asian.

actually we r closer related to guandong chinese then we r to polynesian

[kermit_criminal]

shut the fu*ck up

[User1]

Autosomally, yes.

The green can be interpreted as the Austronesian cluster. Taiwanese Abos (Ami, Atayal) are the purest, but close by are also the Phillippines. Indonesia, Malaysia are about as autosomally green/"Austronesian" as South China.

[matigasngulo]

AMI = cousin of Filipinos, not grandparents

WTF just saw your sig, when did PKM pass away ?

This post has been edited by matigasngulo: Jun 5 2010, 02:00 PM

[trismegistos]

Autosomally, yes.

The green can be interpreted as the Austronesian cluster. Taiwanese Abos (Ami, Atayal) are the purest, but close by are also the Phillippines. Indonesia, Malaysia are about as autosomally green/"Austronesian" as South China.

Interesting that the Javanese and the Malays have as predominant Daic(Tai-Kadai) blood. According to the naziwannabes, they were supposed to be product of the interbreeding between Melanesians(Papuans) and Amis who originally came from the Yunnan homeland as the Sino-Tibetans . They have only same proportion of minute traces of Melanesian blood as the Tagalogs, Bisayans and the Ryukans(Japanese).

The Javanese', the Malays', and the Pinoys' genetics sure show far greater genetic diversity in contrast to the Amis and the Ryukans.

How then can such impoverished diversity like the Amis give rise to descendant populations in Southeast Asia that are far more diverse? VERY UNLIKELY. Naziwannabes will opined that it is because of sweeping interbreeding(GENETIC ADMIXTURE) which is highly unlikely(Ancients tended to be TRIBAL AND CLANNISH)... The reason for genetic biodiversity is GENETIC DIVERGENCE AS MIGRATORY POPULATIONS SPLIT and NOT DAUGHTER POPULATIONS(Formosans) as PARENTS(See italicized text and Map)... "the journey would have imposed a very strong population bottleneck (not many can survive the journey) that genetic diversity would have been reduced tremendously in the descendant Chinese populations" and Ami populations(Taiwan is considered as Genetic Backwaters instead of Homeland).



The Genetic continuum thus far proved Southeast Asia origin for the East Asians and Malayan-Filipinos and that the Yunnan-Taiwan homeland for Malayo-Polynesians is very unlikely.(Migrations of Humans were unlikely to proceed to Glacier covered Central Asia but Southward via Sout Asia then to Southeast Asia then finally NORTHWARD as glaciers retreated and with the inundations of Sunda shelf, and finally, Caucasoids had able to linked up with the Mongoloids in Central Asia) link: http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...t&p=4437265

Quoting Farhan Ali:
A few others brought up the important issue of Austronesian origins. This issue is definitely complex. But it is almost certainly NOT the case that natives in Taiwan are genetic ancestors of Austronesian-speaking Southeast Asians because native Taiwanese are positioned highly nested in the Southeast Asian tree; instead, they are likely descendants of Southeast Asians. The present study sampled only two native Taiwanese populations. But in other studies sampling more native Taiwanese populations, the same pattern of results is found.

The origins of Austronesian languages (as opposed to genetic origins of Southeast Asians) are trickier. The two biggest pieces of evidence for Taiwanese origins are 1) there is greater Austronesian language diversity in Taiwan than elsewhere in Southeast Asia and 2) that agriculture is believed to have been brought into Southeast Asia from Taiwan/China in the Holocene a few thousand years ago, bringing along the Austronesian root words associated with agriculture. Language origins do not always track population ancestry, so in this case, it is entirely conceivable that native Taiwanese came from Southeast Asia and subsequently, a proto-Austronesian language from the North spread Southwards back in Southeast Asia with little population contribution as uncovered by the genetic study.

Alternatively, one can combine the genetic with linguistic evidence. Linguistic ancestry has very shallow time depth and cannot say much about which language families are related to which. But from the genetic evidence, speakers of the Austronesian language family are closely related to speakers of other Southeast Asian language families. Thus, based on parsimony, it is likely then that some proto-language of Southeast Asian ancestors came from Southeast Asia itself. Austronesian, Austro-Asiatic language families etc. are thus likely just daughters of this ancestral language in Southeast Asia.

As mentioned in the article, this present study debunks many established ideas including stories our grandparents and teachers may have told us. One is the belief that aboriginal Southeast Asians (e.g., the Orang Asli) were of a different lineage from the rest of Southeast Asians, but this study clearly shows that all Southeast Asians and East Asians including all the aborigines are united in one branch. The aborigines, despite what commentators here have alluded to in terms of their superficial “African” looks, are not more related to those from Africa than the Chinese, Japanese or others in Asia are. Looks are very deceiving. So can ‘wisdom’ passed down to us.

Fox argued that the greater genetic diversity in Southeast Asian populations is due to greater admixture. Admixture (e.g., intermarriages) is, of course, an important element of human history but such scenarios can be statistically tested and have been rejected in this paper as well as in others. E.g., a simple admixture scenario would predict that the closer geographically the populations are to the sources of admixture (India and China, in this case), the closer the genetic distance to populations in the sources and the greater the genetic diversity. There is no correlation between geography and genetic distances, and contrary to prediction, there is in fact a reduction in genetic diversity as one gets closer to India and China (e.g., Thailand, South China, etc.); the highest diversity is found in Indonesia which is the farthest away from India and China by land (little evidence of long-range maritime migrations in prehistory).

Fox also brought up the interfamily language diversity in mainland Southeast Asia. I’m not familiar with the intricate details of classifying languages, but I suspect it is as arbitrary as genus, family, etc. classifications of organisms. What defines a language family? There are elements that unite Austronesian with Austro-Asiatic but why are these separate families and not one? There are also elements that unite Malayo-Polynesian branch of the Austronesian family, but why it is a branch as opposed to a distinct family? In biology, the answer is that it arbitrarily depends on which guy happens to study that group of organisms, and this is probably the case for languages. In any case, in biology there are different levels of phenotypic diversity. It can be phylodiversity in which case, arbitrary higher level classifications matter and there is species diversity which depends only on species definitions (which are less arbitrary). Using mutual unintelligibility as the criterion of language ‘speciation’, it is true that island Southeast Asia has much greater language ‘species’ diversity.

Whether this diversity means superiority or whether we should force everyone speak the same Sino-Tibetan language is a question of power and not a question of scientific fact.

edit:

Umm, no, it's a language tree from an article in an linguistic journal (the red is mine, yeah, to make it clear), the source of which I'll edit in if anyone is interested.. which I doubt.. since no one went, "Look how interesting that chart is.. It has many interesting points, like how Ami are not direct ancestors of Filipinos!"

source? The Higher Phylogeny of Austronesian
Re: common origins between Tai-Kadai, Hmong-Mien, Austronesians, etc.
But I don't think pre-Austronesians came from NE China as the paper suggested. The reasons as stated above by recent more conclusive genetic studies and as what Farhan Ali mentioned about the subjectivity and arbitrary nature of linguistic reconstructions.

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Jun 6 2010, 08:12 AM

[User1]

Interesting that the Javanese and the Malays have as predominant Daic(Tai-Kadai) blood.

The red is actually the Austro-Asiatic stratum. The Kra-Dai color is the green, same as Taiwanese aborigines. The Austro-Asiatic peoples in Malaysia are usually called by others as "negritos". "Australoids" don't have one color because they are individual populations. I'd also discourage anyone from using the word "Australoids" or "negrito". "Australo-Melanesian morphology" and "Oceanian pygmy" are more appropriate for various reasons.

According to the naziwannabes, they were supposed to be product of the interbreeding between Melanesians(Papuans) and Amis who originally came from the Yunnan homeland as the Sino-Tibetans . They have only same proportion of minute traces of Melanesian blood as the Tagalogs, Bisayans and the Ryukans(Japanese).

This is only according to you.

The Javanese', the Malays', and the Pinoys' genetics sure show far greater genetic diversity in contrast to the Amis and the Ryukans.

You got it backwards. That's because these populations are composites. For example, the Monobo sample's second larget component is the purple (Phillippines "negrito") component.

How then can such impoverished diversity like the Amis give rise to descendant populations in Southeast Asia that are far more diverse?

You don't seem to understand the cluster maps. As all cluster maps, it doesn't deal with panmictic diversity but components. Africans are the most diverse but they always show up in one color. Populations with the most recent admixture are always the ones with the greatest amount of clusters (i.e. Uighurs in the cluster map; Uighurs are historically clearly attested to be mixtures of Indo-Europeans and "Altaics"). By your logic Malaysians (who are mixtures of Indians, "negrito" Austro-Asiatics, Austronesians, etc.) should be the ancestors of Africans, and Uighurs and Hispanics should be the ancestors of Europeans and Asians
Pay attention to the bold, because it falsifies your logic, which basically falsifies your entire argument.

The Genetic continuum thus far proved Southeast Asia origin for the East Asians and Malayan-Filipinos and that the Yunnan-Taiwan homeland for Malayo-Polynesians is very unlikely.(Migrations of Humans were unlikely to proceed to Glacier covered Central Asia but Southward via Sout Asia then to Southeast Asia then finally NORTHWARD as glaciers retreated and with the inundations of Sunda shelf, and finally, Caucasoids had able to linked up with the Mongoloids in Central Asia) link: http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...t&p=4437265

That's not what the archaeology says..

Quoting Farhan Ali:
[i]A few others brought up the important issue of Austronesian origins. This issue is definitely complex. But it is almost certainly NOT the case that natives in Taiwan are genetic ancestors of Austronesian-speaking Southeast Asians because native Taiwanese are positioned highly nested in the Southeast Asian tree; instead, they are likely descendants of Southeast Asians. The present study sampled only two native Taiwanese populations. But in other studies sampling more native Taiwanese populations, the same pattern of results is found.

By this logic, the Monobo sample in the Phillippines are the ancestors of the urban Tagalog, Visayans, and the Ilocano in the samples, because the Monobo are not as uniformly green. As I said, this is more likely the result that the Monobo sample has a higher amount of Phillippines pygmy component.

Alternatively, one can combine the genetic with linguistic evidence. Linguistic ancestry has very shallow time depth and cannot say much about which language families are related to which. But from the genetic evidence, speakers of the Austronesian language family are closely related to speakers of other Southeast Asian language families. Thus, based on parsimony, it is likely then that some proto-language of Southeast Asian ancestors came from Southeast Asia itself. Austronesian, Austro-Asiatic language families etc. are thus likely just daughters of this ancestral language in Southeast Asia.

Actually, if you pay attention to the map, there is no common link between Austro-Asiatics (red with blue/possibly Sino-Tibetan) and Austronesians (green). There is also a superficial resemblance between Puerto Ricans and North African people, but what does that really mean?

As mentioned in the article, this present study debunks many established ideas including stories our grandparents and teachers may have told us. One is the belief that aboriginal Southeast Asians (e.g., the Orang Asli) were of a different lineage from the rest of Southeast Asians, but this study clearly shows that all Southeast Asians and East Asians including all the aborigines are united in one branch. The aborigines, despite what commentators here have alluded to in terms of their superficial “African” looks, are not more related to those from Africa than the Chinese, Japanese or others in Asia are. Looks are very deceiving. So can ‘wisdom’ passed down to us.

If you understood Y-chromosome and mtDNA phylogeny in a sufficient manner, you'd know this happened around the Middle East-South Asia like 50,000 years ago, so it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Fox argued that the greater genetic diversity in Southeast Asian populations is due to greater admixture. Admixture (e.g., intermarriages) is, of course, an important element of human history but such scenarios can be statistically tested and have been rejected in this paper as well as in others. E.g., a simple admixture scenario would predict that the closer geographically the populations are to the sources of admixture (India and China, in this case), the closer the genetic distance to populations in the sources and the greater the genetic diversity. There is no correlation between geography and genetic distances, and contrary to prediction, there is in fact a reduction in genetic diversity as one gets closer to India and China (e.g., Thailand, South China, etc.); the highest diversity is found in Indonesia which is the farthest away from India and China by land (little evidence of long-range maritime migrations in prehistory).

You've completely lost me. This seems to be based on assumptions in your mind which I don't know about, so I can't even understand what you are referring to. And I think this would be a good time to stop answering your points.

I’m not familiar with the intricate details of classifying languages

You don't seem to be familiar with any of the stuff you are talking about. I suggest you understand genetics, ethno-history, archaeological-prehistoric population events in the region first.
I only deal with raw data, because I'm intellectual like that.

Please keep politics of ego out of my thread. You keep posting out of some Nation-of-Islamesque reaction to some colonialism that started with the Spanish, which I find totally incomprehensible, disgusting, and idiotic.

This post has been edited by User1: Jun 6 2010, 10:18 PM

[Austronesian]

The red is actually the Austro-Asiatic stratum. The Kra-Dai color is the green, same as Taiwanese aborigines. The Austro-Asiatic peoples in Malaysia are usually called by others as "negritos". "Australoids" don't have one color because they are individual populations. I'd also discourage anyone from using the word "Australoids" or "negrito". "Australo-Melanesian morphology" and "Oceanian pygmy" are more appropriate for various reasons.


This is only according to you.


You got it backwards. That's because these populations are composites. For example, the Monobo sample's second larget component is the purple (Phillippines "negrito") component.


You don't seem to understand the cluster maps. As all cluster maps, it doesn't deal with panmictic diversity but components. Africans are the most diverse but they always show up in one color. Populations with the most recent admixture are always the ones with the greatest amount of clusters (i.e. Uighurs in the cluster map; Uighurs are historically clearly attested to be mixtures of Indo-Europeans and "Altaics"). By your logic Malaysians (who are mixtures of Indians, "negrito" Austro-Asiatics, Austronesians, etc.) should be the ancestors of Africans, and Uighurs should be the ancestors of Europeans, Asians, Oceanians.
Pay attention to the bold, because it falsifies your logic, which basically falsifies your entire argument.

When a population shows up with different colors, it means they are admixed. For example, Hispanics show up with different color clusters, but it doesn't mean Hispanics are the progenitors of Europeans and Native American.


That's not what the archaeology says..


By this logic, the Monobo sample in the Phillippines are the ancestors of the urban Tagalog, Visayans, and the Ilocano in the samples, because the Monobo are not as uniformly green. As I said, this is more likely the result that the Monobo sample has a higher amount of Phillippines "negrito" component.


Actually, if you pay attention to the map, there is no common link between Austro-Asiatics (red with blue/possibly Sino-Tibetan) and Austronesians (green).


If you understood Y-chromosome and mtDNA phylogeny in a sufficient manner, you'd know this happened around South Asia like 50,000 years ago, so it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

You've completely lost me. This seems to be based on assumptions in your mind which I don't know about, so I can't even understand what you are referring to. And I think this would be a good time to stop answering your points.


You don't seem to be familiar with any of the stuff you are talking about. I suggest you understand genetics, ethno-history, archaeology-prehistoric population events in the region first.
I only deal with raw data, because I'm intellectual like that.

Please keep politics of ego out of my thread. You keep posting out of some Nation-of-Islamesque reaction to some colonialism that started with the Spanish, which I find totally incomprehensible, disgusting, and idiotic.

LOL trisimegitos is one of those crazies that believes he came from Atlantis. He also believes in that Masonic crap as well

[User1]

No one will be able to use the screen name "Austronesian" the next time you get banned. The name should be available to some scholarly type who can answer Austronesian lingua-ethno issues. Such a shame.

Mods.. just leave Ejay be. He seems to be not trolling anymore. Leave him be with his K-pop.

[kermit_criminal]

user1 so what is your conclusion about the origins of the filipino.



on another note, i wouldnt suggest mods leave Ejay be, a troll is a troll

[LazyAzian]

I consider Filipinos Asian.

All the years I've lived in Philippines (Cebu specifically), everyone considers themselves Asian rather than Polynesian.

If we were to base it on majority opinion, the majority of the Philippines considers themselves Asian.

Only a handful, usually overseas Filipinos, consider themselves Polynesian.

Seriously, the only time I've ever heard Filipinos considered Pacific Islanders was when I came to Canada, which is bullcrap because even the University of Toronto puts Filipino Studies under the Southeast Asian department.

But if you think otherwise, then go, I'm not going to force you to change your mentality.

This post has been edited by LazyAzian: Jun 7 2010, 04:50 AM

[matigasngulo]

POLY PRIDE

[martin_nuke]

No one will be able to use the screen name "Austronesian" the next time you get banned. The name should be available to some scholarly type who can answer Austronesian lingua-ethno issues. Such a shame.

Mods.. just leave Ejay be. He seems to be not trolling anymore. Leave him be with his K-pop.

He can still use the screen name AMI

This post has been edited by martin_nuke: Jun 7 2010, 04:41 PM

[User1]

user1 so what is your conclusion about the origins of the filipino.



on another note, i wouldnt suggest mods leave Ejay be, a troll is a troll

That's rather a broad question, and I thought it was already implied above..
To be overall simplistic, Filipinos = Taiwan rice farmers + true locals (who now are best represented by the so called "negritos"). I don't see how precise racial break-downs of who is what does anything other than creating schizophrenia.

Back a step, the Taiwanese aborigines that arrived on the Philippines are already a complicated bunch, although morphologically mainly "Mongoloid". I'm too lazy to go through the details of the ethnic melange of mainland East Asia 10,000-5,000 years ago, but even Taiwanese aboriginal tribes have legends of "little black men" (equivalent of "negritos") that they exterminated.

Forward a step, the Philippines would be the stepping stone for the Austronesian language and culture into the Malay archipelago and Polynesia.

[Austronesian]

That's rather a broad question, and I thought it was already implied above..
To be overall simplistic, Filipinos = Taiwan rice farmers + true locals (who now are best represented by the so called "negritos"). I don't see how precise racial break-downs of who is what does anything other than creating schizophrenia.

Back a step, the Taiwanese aborigines that arrived on the Philippines are already a complicated bunch, although morphologically mainly "Mongoloid". I'm too lazy to go through the details of the ethnic melange of mainland East Asia 10,000-5,000 years ago, but even Taiwanese aboriginal tribes have legends of "little black men" (equivalent of "negritos") that they exterminated.

Forward a step, the Philippines would be the stepping stone for the Austronesian language and culture into the Malay archipelago and Polynesia.

more like filipinos= Taiwan rice farmers + malays and indonesians

I think there r varying degrees of intermixing region by region

hence the diveristy found in the local population of the Philippines

This post has been edited by Austronesian: Jun 7 2010, 09:04 PM