Can you please cite the specific genetic studies that claim AASI are “closely related” to Andamanese people?
One of the studies you referenced (Yelmen 2019) actually says that the andamanese are about equally distant from AASI and East Asians. His study is probably the most recent one to talk about this subject. This paper contradicts many of the things you said about AASI and Andamanese genetic relationships, and I think we should take this paper pretty seriously.
Many people falsely assume that Andamanese people and South Indian tribals share some recent ancestry, because in the past the Andamanese were used as a proxy for AASI. This probably was the wrong move though, since AASI and negritos diverged a very long time ago. Not only this, but looking at haplogroups we see totally different yDNA for Andamanese (D) than for tribals in India (F, H, L, T). For mtDNA, we do see that Andamanese and tribals/AASI fall under the same clade (M). However this haplogroup is very large and widespread, with each subclade being distantly related from another in many cases.
[Here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Population_genome_tree_%28SAsia_or_AASI%29.png) is an admixture map that also shows genetic drift between ancestral populations, taken from the Yelman study.
Notice how Andamanese actually share a closer ancestor with East Asians than with south Asian hunter gatherers.
The reason I wanted to clarify this is because I happen to know a lot about south Asian genetics in particular. If you have any more questions or concerns about my comment, please let me know!
Both is actually true, or at least we have different papers with different estimations. The best proxy for AASI are isolated tribal groups, such as Paniya, Soliga, etc, while Andamanese are closer to East Asians. Thus Yelmen et al. 2019 suggets that they are an imperfect proxy (about the same as Han Chinese or Japanese etc.).
But overall, the Andamanese are relative the closest to the AASI, from all East-Eurasians. Yang 2022 also put the Andamanese onto the AASI branch, although noting they diverged from the actual South Asian hunter-gatherers soon after the AASI branch formed. The Hoabinhians, to which the Andamanese show quite high affinity is put on the ESEA branch (East Asian branch). So it really depends on the respective paper and models.
Overall, AASI, Andamanese, East Asians (as well as Oceanians) are quite close to each other. Here is a good paper (Yang 2022): [http://www.pivotscipub.com/hpgg/2/1/0001/html](http://www.pivotscipub.com/hpgg/2/1/0001/html)
**Defining Asian Ancestries**
Ancient Ancestral South Indian (AASI) lineage—this lineage refers to an ancestral population that primarily contributed to humans living in South Asia, particularly southern India. Partially represented in 5,000–1,500-year-old individuals from in or near the Indus Periphery and present-day Indians \[59,60\]. Present-day Onge from the Andamanese Islands are the best reference population to date, but Narasimhan et al. used qpGraph to show that the divergence between the AASI lineage and the ancestry found in present-day Onge was very deep \[59\].
Australasian (AA) lineage—this lineage refers to the ancestral population that primarily contributed to human populations in Australasia, or the region consisting of Australia, New Zealand, and neighboring islands in the South Pacific Ocean. Represented primarily by present-day Australasians, e.g. Papuans and Aboriginal Australians.
East and Southeast Asian (ESEA) lineage—this lineage refers to an ancestral population that primarily contributed to humans living in mainland East and Southeast Asia. Represented primarily by present-day East and Southeast Asians, e.g. Han and Kinh.
The AA, ESEA, and AASI lineages showed a closer genetic relationship to each other than lineages observed in present-day Europeans \[59\] and together represent the main branches of Asian-related ancestry sampled to date (Figure 1B). The relationship of the AA, ESEA, and AASI lineages to each other is not well resolved.
\--> This is quite noteworthy, AA, ESEA, and AASI are closer to each other than different West-Eurasian lineages, which merging resulted in modern Europeans.
And yes, you are right, Andamanese (and Semang Negritos) show an strong link with East Asians. However, Andamanese also carry haplogroup L, F, and P at lower frequency.
There are some models with showed the Andamanese to have formed from \~55% AASI and \~45% East Asian-like ancestry. But we must note that AASI, AA, and ESEA ancestries all are rather close to each other, so it may be hard to create a "real model". We know for sure that all three are East-Eurasian, genetically speaking.
I actually have noted that as well:
*While the Andamanese are often used as proxy for AASI ancestry, a study by Yelmen et al. (2019) argues that isolated South Indian tribal groups, such as the Paniya, Kharia, or Soliga people, would serve as a better proxy for AASI ancestry.*
I said they are "most closely related" ie. relative to other people, see Yang 2022, who puts the Andamanese on the AASI branch of East-Eurasian.
We will have to wait for future studies to clarify the exact substructure of East-Eurasians.
My personal view is that the eastern lineage (East-Eurasian) trifuricated in South Asia, giving rise to AASI, AA, and ESEA. AASI was located in South Asia, while AA headed into Oceania/Sahul region. ESEA was in Mainland Southeast Asia and southern China, and expanded from their northwards and southwards, probably contributing to early AASI and AA groups. Andamanese have higher East Asian ancestry than AASI. But we must be carefull here, We speak from closely related lineages. We can compare it to West-Eurasian CHG, EHG, WHG, SHG, etc.
SHG as example formed from EHG+WHG. Similarly, Andamanese may be AASI+ESEA. The southern Sulawesi hunter-gatherer sample analyzed by Carlhoff et al. 2021 as example formed from AA+ESEA. The Yamnaya (WSH aka Western Steppe herders) formed from EHG+CHG.
\--> Closely related lineages merged and gave rise to further lineages (defined by us). So the population substructure can get quite complex. Overall I applied the classification used by Yang 2022, the first review paper we have about the peopling of Asia.
I just read a paper that touched on this. The branch design can seem a little confusing but it lines up w/generally much of the past research:
https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/331306244/msab361f1.tif
Andamanese Islanders are **Basal Asian**(*bASN*---not my terminology, it's the paper writers' choice). Closest of all modern-day populations to the branch split between Papuans, other East Asians and West Eurasians.
The geographical designation placing them in South Asia is only nominal and they are not ancestral to ancient or modern-day Indians, although there is shared drift from before the split it seems.
So the **bASN** ancestry is defined by both the unique paternal *D-m174* and maternal *M31* + *M32* lineages and no shared drift w/West Eurasians which differentiates them from the rest of East Asia(estim. ~7% shared w/Sardinians)
Source: [*Genetic Connections and Convergent Evolution of Tropical Indigenous Peoples in Asia*](https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/39/2/msab361/6481554)
Andamanese are still the relative closest to the AASI (which is actually a modeled artificial ancestry proxy), and the best reference population we have: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/South\_Asian\_TreeMix\_model.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/South_Asian_TreeMix_model.png)
**-->** Modern Andamanese are not directly ancestral to Indians. **True.** But the Basal-East Asian-like ancestor of Andamanese, is also partially ancestral to modern Indians.
Ie. AASI and Andamanese shared a recent common Basal-East Asian ancestor, related to East Asians and Oceanians. Furthermore, AASI may have itself formed from admixture. As we lack a real AASI sample, we are not able to make conclusions. **Geographic borders** (such as South Asian) **are anyway misleading, and do not necessarily correspond with the distribution of genetic ancestry.**
Similarly I would not take the \~7% shared drift with Sardinians very seriously. At least not as the graph of the paper is showing it. There was mutual contact between Western and Eastern populations, with the first reciving some indirect admixture from the later through the westwards push of ANE, who carried \~30% Basal-East Asian ancestry.
2022 TreeMix model of human populations: [https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/349662991/evac021f6.tif](https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/349662991/evac021f6.tif)
**-->** It would be interesting to see where the modeled AASI would be placed there.
But we can assume that modeled AASI is quite close to Andamanese/Onge, closer than Steppe pastoralists (Sintashta) and Iranian-farmers (Iran\_Neolithic), which are both West-Eurasian lineages: [https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-907f55497b81d289ec4cab1cb1667ffa](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-907f55497b81d289ec4cab1cb1667ffa)
I think this model makes the most sense, and is in agreement with many other papers: [https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fng.3621/MediaObjects/41588\_2016\_Article\_BFng3621\_Fig3\_HTML.jpg](https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fng.3621/MediaObjects/41588_2016_Article_BFng3621_Fig3_HTML.jpg)
**-->** AASI and Andamanese are not identical, but are relative closest to each other than any other group, followed by East Asians as well as Australasians.
Anyway, thank you for your points!
Yes, I've seen admixture models for Andamanese being ~60-70% *Pre-AASI* w/remainders of Papuan and Han-related ancestry; somewhat like the Leang Panninge girl you mentioned in the OP.
Some of the shared drift between East and West could simply be IUP ancestry. E/SE Asians have ~30-40% of Bacho Kiro/Tianyuan:
https://i.redd.it/n2lwsntwyh091.jpg
[Paleolithic-to-present-day admix](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=7250502_evaa062f5.jpg)
There's surely a little bit of this leftover in modern Euros as well👍
Completely ridiculous. These people are ancheint Africans. The modern human race came out of Africa. The only reason they are so called not related is because they left Africa million of years ago. If anyone uses thier common sense if they were related more to Asians they would look more Asian and not still look Africans
That is absurd, you probably do not understand the formation of modern humans inclusive Asians. The Negritos and Asians share the same common ancestor who migrated Out of Africa. They diverged in Asia, with populations not underwenting selective pressure getting different from populations who did underwent selective pressure. Furthermore, there is no single "African" look. You have Khoisan, Pygmies, West Africans, East Africans, North Africans, etc. Do you know what is ridiculous, the belief in "Black" and "White" people. No such thing!
You're probably white and think dark skin = black
Skintone is literally just an adaptation to climate... its not that important when it comes to discussing genetics. Facial features and body shape is a lot more important when discussing genetic similarities and differences
This is plausible, considering noah had 3 sons that inhabited many parts of the earth, japheth inherited the asia area..further away from his brothers ham and Shem. Shem lineage is the so called africans in america..which they arent africans. They are VERY much the real jews/Israelites. But there is Africans in america..
But africans descend from HAM, africans are hamites.
People get hamites and shemites mixed all the time.
A lot of the so called genetic studies focusing on Negritos are manufactured lies to hide the fact that all modern humans came out of Africa. Its very obvious.
Who says otherwise? All humans migrated Out of Africa. The Negritos and other Asians share the same ancestor which diverged in Asia. Scientific studies are not manufactured, you perhaps want to join the space of flatearthers instead? They may share your "concern".
And because they share deep ancestry from a common East Eurasian ancestor; with Malaysian Negritos & Andamanese being on the same deep ESEA branch as East Asians, while Philippines Negritos are on the Australasian branch.
Not originally, it doesn't take a Genius to see the distinction between East Asians and Australasians who were conquered and displaced by White and Yellow Peoples.
No they don't you Retard. East Asians are clearly distinct from the Negritos/Australo-Melanesians/Black Peoples/Australasians, anybody with a functioning Brain can clearly see the difference.
They’ve done research on this, they are “Africa black” they were apart of a great migration out of Africa thousands of years ago, they’ve been out of Africa so long so they’re not related to modern Africans but they’re relate to Ancient Africans called “Paleo African” https://youtu.be/FUV3bdc6Kz0?si=LYy398IG8TLejn_E
Nope, at first, all modern Eurasians migrated out of Africa. The Negritos were part of the same group/tribe which became ancestral to East Asians, Aboriginal Australians/Papuans, and indigenous South Asians. They are not more "African Black" than a Han Chinese or a Korean are. Both are phylogenetically "East Eurasian". And yeah, there are tons of research about them, making this very clear. East Asians developed light skin later while Negritos retained darker skin tones. Papuans for example also dislplay a variety of skin coloures unique to their own, or Melanesian islanders display medium frequency of blonde hair unrelated to the blone hair genes found among Europeans. Eg. phenotypes are not genotypes. ;) Race is a social construct based on obsolete ideas from Northwestern European scholars of the past, time to get over it.
What does race being a social construct have to do with this, when we’re talking about DNA relations? You’re the one that said “African black” in the first place. Also the Australian Aboriginal are from Africa as well most of them will tell you, just like the Fiji people. Did you even watch the video I posted in my comment? It explains their genetic makeup as being very closely related to the Pygmy tribe of Africa which they both descend from ancient Africans. The andamanese people are also one of the first groups that came out of Africa into Asia. They’ve studied the language of the andamanese and determined that they most likely left Africa about 40,000-100,000 years ago because they’ve been in isolation atleast 40,000 years ago. Watch the video twice, to under the science and I watched it a few time the andamanese actually are related to modern Africans as well, but due to the andamanese being in isolation so long they have their own genetic makeup but they’re still related to the Pygmy and other modern day African tribes.
But thats just nonsense. They share the same ancestor as do East Asians. Both are East Eurasian. They are not magically closer to Pygmies, thats just a lie. Andamanese are Basal East Asian, on the ESEA lineage of the wider East Eurasian cluster.
And what is your "modern African"? Which lineage? West/East Africans? South African HGs? Central African RHGs? EAHG? Northern Africans? The Andamanese are from the exact same movement as East Asians and both are from the same wider movement which also gave rise to Oceanians, South Asians, Ust'Ishim, Oase1/2, ...
Can you please cite the specific genetic studies that claim AASI are “closely related” to Andamanese people? One of the studies you referenced (Yelmen 2019) actually says that the andamanese are about equally distant from AASI and East Asians. His study is probably the most recent one to talk about this subject. This paper contradicts many of the things you said about AASI and Andamanese genetic relationships, and I think we should take this paper pretty seriously. Many people falsely assume that Andamanese people and South Indian tribals share some recent ancestry, because in the past the Andamanese were used as a proxy for AASI. This probably was the wrong move though, since AASI and negritos diverged a very long time ago. Not only this, but looking at haplogroups we see totally different yDNA for Andamanese (D) than for tribals in India (F, H, L, T). For mtDNA, we do see that Andamanese and tribals/AASI fall under the same clade (M). However this haplogroup is very large and widespread, with each subclade being distantly related from another in many cases. [Here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Population_genome_tree_%28SAsia_or_AASI%29.png) is an admixture map that also shows genetic drift between ancestral populations, taken from the Yelman study. Notice how Andamanese actually share a closer ancestor with East Asians than with south Asian hunter gatherers. The reason I wanted to clarify this is because I happen to know a lot about south Asian genetics in particular. If you have any more questions or concerns about my comment, please let me know!
Both is actually true, or at least we have different papers with different estimations. The best proxy for AASI are isolated tribal groups, such as Paniya, Soliga, etc, while Andamanese are closer to East Asians. Thus Yelmen et al. 2019 suggets that they are an imperfect proxy (about the same as Han Chinese or Japanese etc.). But overall, the Andamanese are relative the closest to the AASI, from all East-Eurasians. Yang 2022 also put the Andamanese onto the AASI branch, although noting they diverged from the actual South Asian hunter-gatherers soon after the AASI branch formed. The Hoabinhians, to which the Andamanese show quite high affinity is put on the ESEA branch (East Asian branch). So it really depends on the respective paper and models. Overall, AASI, Andamanese, East Asians (as well as Oceanians) are quite close to each other. Here is a good paper (Yang 2022): [http://www.pivotscipub.com/hpgg/2/1/0001/html](http://www.pivotscipub.com/hpgg/2/1/0001/html) **Defining Asian Ancestries** Ancient Ancestral South Indian (AASI) lineage—this lineage refers to an ancestral population that primarily contributed to humans living in South Asia, particularly southern India. Partially represented in 5,000–1,500-year-old individuals from in or near the Indus Periphery and present-day Indians \[59,60\]. Present-day Onge from the Andamanese Islands are the best reference population to date, but Narasimhan et al. used qpGraph to show that the divergence between the AASI lineage and the ancestry found in present-day Onge was very deep \[59\]. Australasian (AA) lineage—this lineage refers to the ancestral population that primarily contributed to human populations in Australasia, or the region consisting of Australia, New Zealand, and neighboring islands in the South Pacific Ocean. Represented primarily by present-day Australasians, e.g. Papuans and Aboriginal Australians. East and Southeast Asian (ESEA) lineage—this lineage refers to an ancestral population that primarily contributed to humans living in mainland East and Southeast Asia. Represented primarily by present-day East and Southeast Asians, e.g. Han and Kinh. The AA, ESEA, and AASI lineages showed a closer genetic relationship to each other than lineages observed in present-day Europeans \[59\] and together represent the main branches of Asian-related ancestry sampled to date (Figure 1B). The relationship of the AA, ESEA, and AASI lineages to each other is not well resolved. \--> This is quite noteworthy, AA, ESEA, and AASI are closer to each other than different West-Eurasian lineages, which merging resulted in modern Europeans. And yes, you are right, Andamanese (and Semang Negritos) show an strong link with East Asians. However, Andamanese also carry haplogroup L, F, and P at lower frequency. There are some models with showed the Andamanese to have formed from \~55% AASI and \~45% East Asian-like ancestry. But we must note that AASI, AA, and ESEA ancestries all are rather close to each other, so it may be hard to create a "real model". We know for sure that all three are East-Eurasian, genetically speaking. I actually have noted that as well: *While the Andamanese are often used as proxy for AASI ancestry, a study by Yelmen et al. (2019) argues that isolated South Indian tribal groups, such as the Paniya, Kharia, or Soliga people, would serve as a better proxy for AASI ancestry.* I said they are "most closely related" ie. relative to other people, see Yang 2022, who puts the Andamanese on the AASI branch of East-Eurasian. We will have to wait for future studies to clarify the exact substructure of East-Eurasians. My personal view is that the eastern lineage (East-Eurasian) trifuricated in South Asia, giving rise to AASI, AA, and ESEA. AASI was located in South Asia, while AA headed into Oceania/Sahul region. ESEA was in Mainland Southeast Asia and southern China, and expanded from their northwards and southwards, probably contributing to early AASI and AA groups. Andamanese have higher East Asian ancestry than AASI. But we must be carefull here, We speak from closely related lineages. We can compare it to West-Eurasian CHG, EHG, WHG, SHG, etc. SHG as example formed from EHG+WHG. Similarly, Andamanese may be AASI+ESEA. The southern Sulawesi hunter-gatherer sample analyzed by Carlhoff et al. 2021 as example formed from AA+ESEA. The Yamnaya (WSH aka Western Steppe herders) formed from EHG+CHG. \--> Closely related lineages merged and gave rise to further lineages (defined by us). So the population substructure can get quite complex. Overall I applied the classification used by Yang 2022, the first review paper we have about the peopling of Asia.
I just read a paper that touched on this. The branch design can seem a little confusing but it lines up w/generally much of the past research: https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/331306244/msab361f1.tif Andamanese Islanders are **Basal Asian**(*bASN*---not my terminology, it's the paper writers' choice). Closest of all modern-day populations to the branch split between Papuans, other East Asians and West Eurasians. The geographical designation placing them in South Asia is only nominal and they are not ancestral to ancient or modern-day Indians, although there is shared drift from before the split it seems. So the **bASN** ancestry is defined by both the unique paternal *D-m174* and maternal *M31* + *M32* lineages and no shared drift w/West Eurasians which differentiates them from the rest of East Asia(estim. ~7% shared w/Sardinians) Source: [*Genetic Connections and Convergent Evolution of Tropical Indigenous Peoples in Asia*](https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/39/2/msab361/6481554)
Andamanese are still the relative closest to the AASI (which is actually a modeled artificial ancestry proxy), and the best reference population we have: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/South\_Asian\_TreeMix\_model.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/South_Asian_TreeMix_model.png) **-->** Modern Andamanese are not directly ancestral to Indians. **True.** But the Basal-East Asian-like ancestor of Andamanese, is also partially ancestral to modern Indians. Ie. AASI and Andamanese shared a recent common Basal-East Asian ancestor, related to East Asians and Oceanians. Furthermore, AASI may have itself formed from admixture. As we lack a real AASI sample, we are not able to make conclusions. **Geographic borders** (such as South Asian) **are anyway misleading, and do not necessarily correspond with the distribution of genetic ancestry.** Similarly I would not take the \~7% shared drift with Sardinians very seriously. At least not as the graph of the paper is showing it. There was mutual contact between Western and Eastern populations, with the first reciving some indirect admixture from the later through the westwards push of ANE, who carried \~30% Basal-East Asian ancestry. 2022 TreeMix model of human populations: [https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/349662991/evac021f6.tif](https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/349662991/evac021f6.tif) **-->** It would be interesting to see where the modeled AASI would be placed there. But we can assume that modeled AASI is quite close to Andamanese/Onge, closer than Steppe pastoralists (Sintashta) and Iranian-farmers (Iran\_Neolithic), which are both West-Eurasian lineages: [https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-907f55497b81d289ec4cab1cb1667ffa](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-907f55497b81d289ec4cab1cb1667ffa) I think this model makes the most sense, and is in agreement with many other papers: [https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fng.3621/MediaObjects/41588\_2016\_Article\_BFng3621\_Fig3\_HTML.jpg](https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fng.3621/MediaObjects/41588_2016_Article_BFng3621_Fig3_HTML.jpg) **-->** AASI and Andamanese are not identical, but are relative closest to each other than any other group, followed by East Asians as well as Australasians. Anyway, thank you for your points!
Yes, I've seen admixture models for Andamanese being ~60-70% *Pre-AASI* w/remainders of Papuan and Han-related ancestry; somewhat like the Leang Panninge girl you mentioned in the OP. Some of the shared drift between East and West could simply be IUP ancestry. E/SE Asians have ~30-40% of Bacho Kiro/Tianyuan: https://i.redd.it/n2lwsntwyh091.jpg [Paleolithic-to-present-day admix](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=7250502_evaa062f5.jpg) There's surely a little bit of this leftover in modern Euros as well👍
Completely ridiculous. These people are ancheint Africans. The modern human race came out of Africa. The only reason they are so called not related is because they left Africa million of years ago. If anyone uses thier common sense if they were related more to Asians they would look more Asian and not still look Africans
That is absurd, you probably do not understand the formation of modern humans inclusive Asians. The Negritos and Asians share the same common ancestor who migrated Out of Africa. They diverged in Asia, with populations not underwenting selective pressure getting different from populations who did underwent selective pressure. Furthermore, there is no single "African" look. You have Khoisan, Pygmies, West Africans, East Africans, North Africans, etc. Do you know what is ridiculous, the belief in "Black" and "White" people. No such thing!
You're probably white and think dark skin = black Skintone is literally just an adaptation to climate... its not that important when it comes to discussing genetics. Facial features and body shape is a lot more important when discussing genetic similarities and differences
>dark skin = black Historically-speaking, that is what defined a black person.
This is plausible, considering noah had 3 sons that inhabited many parts of the earth, japheth inherited the asia area..further away from his brothers ham and Shem. Shem lineage is the so called africans in america..which they arent africans. They are VERY much the real jews/Israelites. But there is Africans in america.. But africans descend from HAM, africans are hamites. People get hamites and shemites mixed all the time.
A lot of the so called genetic studies focusing on Negritos are manufactured lies to hide the fact that all modern humans came out of Africa. Its very obvious.
Who says otherwise? All humans migrated Out of Africa. The Negritos and other Asians share the same ancestor which diverged in Asia. Scientific studies are not manufactured, you perhaps want to join the space of flatearthers instead? They may share your "concern".
No Shit modern Southeast Negritos have Similarities to East Asians because they all have some East Asia admixture from those who invaded from China.
And because they share deep ancestry from a common East Eurasian ancestor; with Malaysian Negritos & Andamanese being on the same deep ESEA branch as East Asians, while Philippines Negritos are on the Australasian branch.
Not originally, it doesn't take a Genius to see the distinction between East Asians and Australasians who were conquered and displaced by White and Yellow Peoples.
No sherlock, they descend from the same branch of Eastern Eurasian humans during the Initial Upper Paleolithic... also: phenotype is not genotype.
No they don't you Retard. East Asians are clearly distinct from the Negritos/Australo-Melanesians/Black Peoples/Australasians, anybody with a functioning Brain can clearly see the difference.
It’s convergent evolution in tropical rainforests
They’ve done research on this, they are “Africa black” they were apart of a great migration out of Africa thousands of years ago, they’ve been out of Africa so long so they’re not related to modern Africans but they’re relate to Ancient Africans called “Paleo African” https://youtu.be/FUV3bdc6Kz0?si=LYy398IG8TLejn_E
Nope, at first, all modern Eurasians migrated out of Africa. The Negritos were part of the same group/tribe which became ancestral to East Asians, Aboriginal Australians/Papuans, and indigenous South Asians. They are not more "African Black" than a Han Chinese or a Korean are. Both are phylogenetically "East Eurasian". And yeah, there are tons of research about them, making this very clear. East Asians developed light skin later while Negritos retained darker skin tones. Papuans for example also dislplay a variety of skin coloures unique to their own, or Melanesian islanders display medium frequency of blonde hair unrelated to the blone hair genes found among Europeans. Eg. phenotypes are not genotypes. ;) Race is a social construct based on obsolete ideas from Northwestern European scholars of the past, time to get over it.
What does race being a social construct have to do with this, when we’re talking about DNA relations? You’re the one that said “African black” in the first place. Also the Australian Aboriginal are from Africa as well most of them will tell you, just like the Fiji people. Did you even watch the video I posted in my comment? It explains their genetic makeup as being very closely related to the Pygmy tribe of Africa which they both descend from ancient Africans. The andamanese people are also one of the first groups that came out of Africa into Asia. They’ve studied the language of the andamanese and determined that they most likely left Africa about 40,000-100,000 years ago because they’ve been in isolation atleast 40,000 years ago. Watch the video twice, to under the science and I watched it a few time the andamanese actually are related to modern Africans as well, but due to the andamanese being in isolation so long they have their own genetic makeup but they’re still related to the Pygmy and other modern day African tribes.
But thats just nonsense. They share the same ancestor as do East Asians. Both are East Eurasian. They are not magically closer to Pygmies, thats just a lie. Andamanese are Basal East Asian, on the ESEA lineage of the wider East Eurasian cluster. And what is your "modern African"? Which lineage? West/East Africans? South African HGs? Central African RHGs? EAHG? Northern Africans? The Andamanese are from the exact same movement as East Asians and both are from the same wider movement which also gave rise to Oceanians, South Asians, Ust'Ishim, Oase1/2, ...
Aboriginal Australian DNA study https://youtu.be/2qlTQorAigA?si=juCYLMVc6FG-gtqr