Maybe you hear that you look chinese because you are? I heard that over 50 % of malaysias population are chinese.

No, the only true Mongoloid are Mongolians.

I see you got the irony. I guess I have to explain. Mongoloids were named after Mongolians, so in jianlian's book, only people who looks strictly like a Mongolian can be Mongoloid.

LOL, my Maria is Visayan (Filippino) and asians around her says she doesn't look Filippino. When she asked why they said she was too light, so skin color is something many tend to equate with race or ethnicity.

LOL, my Maria is Visayan (Filippino) and asians around her says she doesn't look Filippino. When she asked why they said she was too light, so skin color is something many tend to equate with race or ethnicity.

SE Asians might have darker skin but still to everyone else were all asian and white, black, Hispanic people cant even tell the difference between a Filipino and a Korean

All my white friends can definitely tell the difference between a Filipino and a Korean.

you have no friends

Well, the truth is most white people just don't give a fu-k. I'm sure they know that a Norwegian looks much different than a Greek, but in their eyes they're still both White like Koreans and Filipinos are both Asians. The only people who care are those with no life.

All my white friends can definitely tell the difference between a Filipino and a Korean.

you have no friends

alike race

korea, north china, north japan, mongol race = alike race (east asian)

south china, north vietnam = alike race(east + south asian)

thai, cambodia, laos race = alike race(south asian)

philippine, indonesia, malaysia race = alike race(south asian)
mix race

south japan race = north japan race + philippine race

south vietnam race = north vietnam race + thai race

taiwan race = north china race + philippine race

You seem to care a lot about what white people think.

To East Asians

Southeast Asians are mixed from a Northern lineage (usu. North Chinese) and a Southern one (Austronesian) which are separate races, but the intermarriage can blur the lines to people who don't have good eyes.

So they're more like "Latinos" in the U.S if you want to be ridiculous. They aren't the same race as NE Asians.

All my white friends can definitely tell the difference between a Filipino and a Korean.

I know many filipinos who look like koreans and southern chinese,but generally majority of filipinos have a slight sinoid look compared to thais and malays,much closer to zhuang and vietnamese but many are closer to fujianese because of the interbreeding between fukien speakers and there are pinoys with caucasian look

pinoys with sinoid look
angel locsin

borgy manotoc

filipinos are malays with some negrito admixture later chinese and spanish ~ while thai, vietnamese and zhuang have direct flow of han chinese blood ~ when some people look different it doesnt really affect the majority.

alike race

korea, north china, north japan, mongol race = alike race (east asian)

south china, north vietnam = alike race(east + south asian)

thai, cambodia, laos race = alike race(south asian)

philippine, indonesia, malaysia race = alike race(south asian)
mix race

south japan race = north japan race + philippine race

south vietnam race = north vietnam race + thai race

taiwan race = north china race + philippine race

I beg to differ...alot of filipinos(well the visayans) r of 100% malay stock.
Though there is quite a number of pinoys who had proto-malay ancestors who mixed with negrito(its evident among the ilocano) but alot of filipinos r ethnically malay(pure malay) Just like in mainland south east asia you can tell the pure tai from the ones who mixed with negritos

its quite easy to tell the modern malay filipinos from the more primitive proto-malay-negrito mixture.

picture of what Im talking about...100% filipino of visayan descent who's ancestors were modern malay from Borneo who arrived in the Philippines 1,000 to 2,000 years ago

Most visayans and muslim filipinos can trace their lineage back to Malaysia and Indonesia

thats why Philippines has so many undocumented indonesians living there because they can blend in so well with the locals

oh and to sukuza...angel locsin looks sinoid because her father is chinese-filipino

A Stanford University study conducted during 2001 revealed that Y-chromosome Haplogroup O3-M122 (labeled as "Haplogroup L" in this study) predominates among Filipino males. This particular haplogroup is also predominant among Chinese and Korean males. That finding is consistent with the theory that people migrated from China south into the Philippines. Another haplogroup, Haplogroup O1a-M119 (labeled as "Haplogroup H" in this study), is also found among Filipinos. The rates of Haplogroup O1a are highest among the Taiwanese Aborigines. Overall, the genetic frequencies found among Filipinos point to the Ami tribe of Taiwan as their nearest genetic relative.[9]

Results and Discussion

To determine the genetic affinity between the Daic populations and the Western Austronesians, we typed twenty single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and seven short tandem repeats (STRs) in the non-recombining region of 1,509 Y chromosomes sampled from 30 Daic populations, 23 ISEA populations, and 11 Taiwan aboriginal populations (see Figure 1 for locations of the populations and Table 1 for population information). Almost all of the Daic populations in China and all of the Taiwan aboriginal populations were sampled in this study.

In addition, principal component (PC) analysis of 134 East Asian populations encompassing all linguistic groups in East and Southeast Asia was performed using the frequencies of haplogroups defined by SNPs. The result showed that Daic populations are closer to the Western Austronesian groups than any other East and Southeast Asian populations are (Figure 2), indicating a strong genetic affinity between Daic speakers and Western Austronesians. The separation of the Daic-ISEA-Taiwan cluster from the other ethnic groups is attributable to PC2 rather than to PC1, and O1a* is the haplogroup that shows the strongest correlation with PC2 (r2 = -0.875, P < 10-4; see Additional file 1 for details). Furthermore, O1a-M119 is the dominating haplogroup in Taiwan aborigines (average 77%) ranging from 54% to 100% (Table 2, sum of O1a* and O1a2). This lineage is also highly prevalent in Daic speakers (20.5%) and in ISEA (21.2%), but not in the other East Asians (< 5%) [23,31-34]. Therefore, O1a-M119 is expected to provide much information for delineating the relationship between the Daic and Western Austronesians.

The PC plot of Figure 2 indicates that some Daic populations are close to the Sino-Tibetan cluster. It is possible that Daic and Sino-Tibetan populations have a common ancestry, which might have resulted in their genetic resemblance. However, another explanation for this observation is that Daic populations in mainland East Asia may have been influenced by Han Chinese genetically as they coexisted as neighbors since around 2,500 years ago. Admixture analysis can estimate the proportions of assumed Daic or Han ancestry in the present Daic populations, and some Daic populations isolated from Han Chinese can be used as the parental population in this admixture analysis. Aboriginal populations on Hainan Island (Hlai, Jiamao, and Cun) and Taiwan Island are assumed to have been relatively isolated, as their cultures were little influenced by the exotic cultures on the mainland. Therefore, the genetic structures of these island aborigines might be the closest to that of ancestral Daic [35].

Additional file 1. Correlation coefficients between haplogroups and PCs. Although P values of the correlation coefficients between PC1 and M9, M110, M95, M88 etc. are all very significant, all of these correlation coefficients are less than 0.5. Thus, PC1 has little information about the ethnic clustering. In contrast, PC2 is significantly correlated with O1a-M119 seen in a large correlation coefficient. This haplogroup distinguishes the Daic-MP-TW cluster. Thus, PC2 provides information on ethnic clustering.
Format: DOC Size: 33KB Download file
This file can be viewed with: Microsoft Word Viewer
Table 1. Classification, population, and location information of the populations sampled in this study
Table 2. Y-SNP haplogroup frequencies of the newly studied samples (%)
Figure 2. Principal component plot of Y-SNP. (A) PC plot of all the population samples. DC (green stars) is closest to MP (purple crosses) and TA (blue crosses). All of the other groups including ST, HM, AA, and AT (red spots including triangles, squares and diamonds) are rather far removed from MP and TA, which indicates that DC is the only group that might be related to MP and TA. (B) PC plots of pooled samples. The ST, HM, AA, and AT samples were pooled according to the linguistic families. The DC samples were pooled according to the sub-families. MP and TA samples were pooled according to the geographic locations. Ethnic groups: AA, Austro-Asiatic speakers; AT, Altaic speakers; DC, Daic speakers; HM, Hmong-Mien speakers; MP, Malayo-Polynesian speakers; ST, Sino-Tibetan speakers; TA, Taiwan aborigines.
To estimate the assumed genetic influence of Han Chinese on the mainland Daic, we applied the Y SNP data of mainland Daic, Hainan aborigines, Taiwan aborigines, and Han Chinese [34] to our admixture analysis. For this analysis, we set the latter three pooled populations as the parental populations of mainland Daic. Our results show that the genetic contribution of the Hainan aborigines is very high (2.145 ± 0.927), while those of the Han Chinese (-0.314 ± 0.422) and Taiwan aborigines (-0.831 ± 0.662) are hardly detected. Here the negative values of the genetic contribution estimated by the ADMIX program suggest that there is no possible contributions to the present Daic populations. This result indicates that the paternal lineages of Daic populations are relatively undisturbed, and the genetic affinity between Daic and Western Austronesian populations has hardly been influenced by population admixture.

The ISEA populations may also be admixed. In our study, we assumed that the ISEA were mixed by three potential parental populations: Daic populations, Taiwan aborigines, and the indigenous populations of the Sunda Islands, who are similar to Papuans. We performed an admixture analysis on the Indonesians, and included data of the Papuans from the literature [36,37] as one of the parental population structures in the analysis. Our analysis showed the following admixture proportions: Daic (0.713 ± 0.124), Taiwan (0.143 ± 0.125), and Papuans (0.144 ± 0.050), indicating that the contribution of the Daic ancestry on the Indonesians is the most dominant. There is some uncertainty in these data as our assumption that the ISEA population is an admixture can not be tested.

As the haplogroup O1a* is the most unique haplogroup of the Daic and Western Austronesian populations, we estimated pairwise genetic divergence between Daic, Indonesians, and Taiwan aborigines using seven STRs carried by O1a* individuals (see Table 3 for genetic distances and Additional file 2 for STR raw data). Our study shows that the divergence between Taiwan aborigines and Indonesians is the largest, and is about 3-fold as much as that between the Daic group and Taiwan aborigines. The divergence between the Daic group and Indonesians is comparable to that between the Daic group and Taiwan aborigines. These findings indicate that the Indonesians and Taiwan aborigines are genetically closer to the Daic group than the two Western Austronesian groups are to each other. Furthermore, the diversity based on the seven STRs carried by O1a* individuals is higher in the Daic speakers than the diversities in Indonesians and Taiwan aborigines (Table 3). The population with the highest diversity is not always the oldest, but can also be a result of admixture with other neighbouring populations. However, the high diversity of the O1a* haplogroup of the Daic speakers should have resulted from the oldest age of the population, as this haplogroup is almost absent in the neighbouring populations and no admixture can bring more diversity. Taking the results of diversity and divergence together, the Daic population group is likely the ancestral group from which the Indonesians and Taiwan aborigines derived separately in paternal lineages. Other haplogroups of Y chromosomes (e.g. O3-M122, O2a-M95) displayed a similar pattern as O1a*, showing that the Daic group is genetically closer to Indonesians and Taiwan aborigines than these latter two groups are to each other (Table 3). Interestingly, O2a may be traced even further to Austro-Asiatic populations as suggested by a recent study [38].

Additional file 2. Y-STR haplotypes of individual samples. The names of the individuals begin with ISO639-3 codes of their populations.
Format: XLS Size: 202KB Download file
This file can be viewed with: Microsoft Excel Viewer
Table 3. Y-STR diversity of O1a, O2a, and O3 haplogroup
A median-joining network was constructed based on 7-STR haplotypes of O1a* individuals in the three ethnic groups (Figure 3). If THH of ISEA is true, i.e., ISEA primarily derived from Taiwan aborigines, one would expect sharing and/or connections of ISEA lineages and Taiwan aboriginal lineages in the network. In Figure 3, Daic lineages (green nodes) constitute the center of the network. All ISEA lineages (yellow nodes) and Taiwan aboriginal lineages (blue nodes) are either shared or connected to one of the Daic lineages, either directly or indirectly. In contrast, none of the Taiwan aboriginal lineages (except for one) are shared with or connected to the ISEA lineages. These observations suggest that ISEA did not directly derive from Taiwan aborigines but that the ISEA and Taiwan aborigines derived from the Daic independently of each other.

Figure 3. Haplotype network of Y-STRs of Haplogroup O1a* individuals. As the original network was too complicated to display, here we presented the shortest tree of the largest possibility reduced from the network (this function is available in the recent versions of NETWORK program). Each node represents an O1a* STR haplotype. The lengths of the lines are proportional to the mutation steps. The broken line stands for only one step. The sizes of the nodes are proportional to their frequencies. Almost none of the ISEA haplotypes is directly linked to Taiwan aborigines, and both ISEA and Taiwanese are linked directly or indirectly to the Daic haplotypes holding the centre of the network (big green node).
We further noticed the Daic lineages that are connected to ISEA lineages in the network. Interestingly, most of the Daic haplotypes connecting to the ISEA are either from Hainan Island or from Guangxi, which is to northwest of Hainan (green nodes with dark green frames in Figure 3). These Hainan and Guangxi populations are located around the Gulf of Tonkin. In particular, Cham, a Malayo-Polynesian population in South Vietnam, as well as Tsat in Hainan, which is a subgroup of Cham [11,39], were found to connect Daic and Indonesians in the network. Therefore, we hypothesized that the ISEA likely originated in the area around the Gulf of Tonkin, and migrated southward through the Indochina Peninsula to the Malaya Peninsula before they spread to most of the islands of the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean.

The age of the O1a* haplogroup was estimated in the network. The total age is 33765 ± 5221 years, which corresponds to the last Ice Age. The age of all the Daic samples in the network is 33193 ± 5577 years, close to the age of O1a*. It is not easy to estimate the real age of the Taiwan clusters as they overlap with the Daic haplotypes to a large extent. This kind of overlap also indicates multiple migrations from Daic populations to Taiwan aborigines. We estimated the age of the Taiwan cluster in the left side of the network to be 14659 ± 3110 years. The estimated age of all the Taiwan samples is 21268 ± 3148 years. Interestingly, this latter age is close to the age of the oldest human remains found in Taiwan, those of the Chochen Man [40]. Therefore, we conclude that the migration of O1a* individuals from the mainland to Taiwan Island occurred during the Palaeolithic Age.

Because two fairly specific clusters of ISEA haplotypes can be observed in the network, we performed time estimates in both clusters. The age of the left ISEA cluster in the network is 9895 ± 2393 years, whereas that of the right cluster is 25880 ± 7137 years. The linguistic estimate for the origin of the Malayo-Polynesian is younger than that of our estimates, around 5000–6000 years ago [16]. Moreover, little overlap between Daic haplotypes and ISEA haplotypes is observed in the network, which indicates bottleneck effects might have formed the two ISEA clusters during the emigration of ISEA populations out of the ancestral Daic populations. Geographically, the bottleneck might be the narrow seashore of Vietnam. Therefore, the O1a* haplogroup was most probably introduced into ISEA populations during the origin of the Malayo-Polynesians more than 7500 years ago. However, the possibility of recent migrations of the O1a individuals into ISEA can not be ignored, because the genetic time estimate is not precise enough to eliminate such a possibility.

It should be noted that, in the Express Train Hypothesis, there are two different aspects: 1) the origin of the migrations, i.e. the Taiwan Homeland Hypothesis, and 2) the mode of migrations, i.e., a rapid dispersal starting from Indonesia. In this study, we examined the THH in Western Austronesians by including the Daic speakers and ISEA, both of which are largely missing in previous studies. We show that Taiwan is not likely the homeland of Indonesian ISEA, at least not for the major paternal lineages. Although both Taiwan aborigines and Indonesian ISEA derived from the Daic, their departures occurred separately, suggesting that the major paternal lineages of Western Austronesian populations are not monophyletic.

Interestingly, the spread of the domestic pig in the Southeast Asia archipelago and the Pacific took place in almost the same way as that of Western Austronesian populations suggested by our study. The pigs in Taiwan and in regions as far as Micronesia came directly from the mainland of East Asia, while those in the Southeast Asian archipelago and Polynesia came from the Indochina Peninsula. It is assumed that the domestic pig was introduced by human populations during early migrations, which would imply that humans have also entered the Southeast Asia archipelago and the Pacific in two different routes [41].

In fact, our observations are consistent with a monophyletic Austro-Tai super-phylum which contains Daic speakers, Malayo-Polynesians, and Taiwan aborigines [5]. The observations presented in this study demonstrate that it is absolutely necessary to include Daic populations and ISEA in the Austronesian origin studies. Without these groups, Polynesians and Taiwan aborigines would have appeared most similar to each other, leading to the conclusion that all the Austronesians originated in Taiwan.

Our results suggest that the Gulf of Tonkin is more likely the homeland of the paternal lineages of ISEA. Due to the complex nature of population migrations from Eastern Indonesia to the Pacific Islands [23,42-47], and the pronounced genetic division between Eastern and Western Austronesians [27], we opted not to include Polynesian data in our analysis. Instead, we only analyzed Western Austronesians. The absence of O1a-M119 in Polynesian populations is intriguing and it can not be simply explained by invoking the bottleneck effect [21-25] given that a great deal of diversity of Y chromosome haplotypes has been observed in Polynesians [23,42].

Consistent with our findings for paternal lineages, mitochondrial DNA studies on populations from Peninsular Malaysia also suggest an ancestry of aboriginal Malays in Indochina around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum [48]. This ancestry subsequently dispersed through the Malaya Peninsula into island Southeast Asia [48]. The ISEA mtDNA studies also indicated that if an Austronesian migration from Taiwan did take place, it was demographically minor [49].

Most of our conclusions are based on the analysis of O1a*, which is only a fraction of the Y-chromosome lineages found in these populations. The frequency of this group of lineages is remarkable in Taiwanese populations, but it is not so dramatic in Malayo-Polynesians or Daic populations. It is possible that some population events could have involved other Y-chromosome lineages. It is also reasonable that there are other minor parts of paternal lineages with different origins, such as aboriginal populations of Indonesia prior to the formation of Austronesian, or that more recent migrations from South Asia took place [29]. The genetic relationship amongst the East and Southeast Asians are much more complicated than expected.

read the studies i posted,filipinos are not malays,should i say it over and over i will,filipinos are more related to hainanese and taiwanese aborigines,since taiwanese aborigines are closer to zhuangs and hainanese

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipino_people

as I said you have almost no idea what you're posting nor do you know the value of your own article (remind me of some Lao members here)

first of all, let me remind you that the article talks about Austronesian in general, especially the Taiwanese aborigines, not about the Filipino people in particular

secondly the article you posted proves nothing about your statement "filipinos aren't malay" because according to the article, the population of Indonesia and Malaysia also show close genetic relationship to the Daic/Taiwanese aborigines.

thirdly, the article also says that the Cham people and the Tsat people of Hainan (which is a subgroup) of Cham people show close genetic relationship to the network of Daic/Indonesian population. And Cham people were Malay ethnically.

fourth, the article also says that all the populations mentioned can be traced back to have origin in the Gulf of Tonkin and sea line of Vietnam about 30,000 years ago. So perhaps all Asians were related

fifth, the dominant Y-DNA of Daic population is O2a, not O1. The article you posted claims that the Li (or Hlai) people of Hainan are the "purest" Daic people because they weren't mixed much with other population due to their isolated location on the island. But even among the Li people, O2a is still the dominant ~ O2a frequency in Li people is 57% while O1 is only about 30%. Vietnamese have high frequency of both O2a and O1 (but more O2a than O1 like other populations around them). So mainland SEA are still more related to each other than to Filipinos.

btw did I mention that the dominant and "original" Y-DNA among the Zhuang is O2a, and not O1? I posted the link to the research of Li Hui in Chinese Chat. Li Hui and his team concluded that O* and O2a are the two originals Y-DNA among the Zhuang, while O1 and O3 were introduced into the Zhuang population later.

Do you know what I think? O1 Y-DNA was from the "island people" and O2a was from the "mainland people". Daic (and also Vietnamese) were mixed of both, that's why they have relatively high frequency of both O2a and O1. Filipinos and Taiwanese have high frequency of O1 ONLY and the tribes from far inner land of Southern Asia have high frequency of O2a ONLY.

It should be noted that, in the Express Train Hypothesis, there are two different aspects: 1) the origin of the migrations, i.e. the Taiwan Homeland Hypothesis, and 2) the mode of migrations, i.e., a rapid dispersal starting from Indonesia. In this study, we examined the THH in Western Austronesians by including the Daic speakers and ISEA, both of which are largely missing in previous studies. We show that Taiwan is not likely the homeland of Indonesian ISEA, at least not for the major paternal lineages. Although both Taiwan aborigines and Indonesian ISEA derived from the Daic, their departures occurred separately, suggesting that the major paternal lineages of Western Austronesian populations are not monophyletic.

Interestingly, the spread of the domestic pig in the Southeast Asia archipelago and the Pacific took place in almost the same way as that of Western Austronesian populations suggested by our study. The pigs in Taiwan and in regions as far as Micronesia came directly from the mainland of East Asia, while those in the Southeast Asian archipelago and Polynesia came from the Indochina Peninsula. It is assumed that the domestic pig was introduced by human populations during early migrations, which would imply that humans have also entered the Southeast Asia archipelago and the Pacific in two different routes [41].

no,the O1 of filipinos are closer to taiwanese aborigines,but sundic malays are a separate group i tell you.....

no,the O1 of filipinos are closer to taiwanese aborigines and ami,but sundic malays are a separate group i tell you.....they first migrated before the ancestors of filipinos via hainan,while filipinos,malagassy and borneans migrated from taiwan from the philippines,even the pigs show it,OH WELL

daics are not equivalent to malays,they are the thais,tw aborigines,kadai,filipino-borneans and malay-polynesians,they should not be branded as malay.......

the ancestors of micronesians who are related to filipinos have O2 dna as well,derived from the tw aborigines O2,it is the pre-proto filipinos and mainlanders that bought in o2 dna to malays.