User talk:Gyatso1

Wrongly interpreted

Note: The study has nothing to do with Ainu but population of Southeast Asia in addition it's just one Jomon individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekHistorian (talk • contribs) 21:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC) It says this Jomon individual is MODELED after a mix of Onge and East Asian. Not that the Jomon really has Onge admixture from intemixture or ancient genetics. In fact it says this " we modeled present-day East Asians (represented by Amis) as a mixture of an Önge-like population and a population related to the Tiányuán " IT JUST USED JOMON AS A EXAMPLE.

" Finally, the Jōmon individual is best-modeled as a mix between a population related to group 1/Önge and a population related to East Asians (Amis), whereas present-day Japanese can be modeled as a mixture of Jōmon and an additional East Asian component (Fig. 3 and fig. S29). "

This study is about The prehistoric peopling of Southeast Asia. Hòabìnhians share ancestry with both onge and Jomon but not Jomon itself.

That makes no sense, how can they share ancestry with Jomon “but not with Jomon itself”? That is strange. Please stop. I have already wrote the user austroesiernto help clarify this.

Did you even read the study

IT SAYS THIS

" TreeMix and qpGraph admixture graphs combining present-day populations and selected ancient samples with high single-nucleotide polymorphism coverage (11). (A) A graph including group 1 samples (Ma911 and La368) fits them as sister groups to present-day Önge. (B) A graph including the highest-coverage group 1 (La368) and group 2 (La364, Ma912) samples shows that group 2 receives ancestry from both group 1 and the East Asian branch. (C) Using qpGraph, we modeled present-day East Asians (represented by Amis) as a mixture of an Önge-like population and a population related to the Tiányuán individual. (D) The Jōmon individual is modeled as a mix of Hòabìnhian (La368) and East Asian ancestry. "

They are just modeling ancestry. If you treat modeled ancestry as real ancestry than all East Asians are of Onge admixture aswell just because the study modeled present day says all East Asian as a mixture of Onge and Tianyuan but this just modeling. They are just using methods and proposing if their genetics are like or like that.

This is only one part, the study says much more... you did not read it. It has a different conclusion too!

Let the moderator decide this

Nowhere does it say Ikawazu Jōmon are showed strong connections to modern Oceanic populations, specifically Papuans or to Adamanese. This is something you added yourself.

It is mainland Hòabìnhians (group 1), who share ancestry with present-day Andamanese Önge, Malaysian Jehai, and the ancient Japanese Ikawazu Jōmon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekHistorian (talk • contribs) 19:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I have included a quote for the statement. Lets wait I agre for it.

Ikawazu jomon typical Jomon morphology

Prehistoric peopling in southeast Asia: Genomics of Jomon and other ancient skeletons

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180809093427.htm

" The female adult skeleton from Ikawazu kaizuka site is accompanied with a pottery that is validated to date back to the period of Gokanmori type pottery, indicating that the period was still Jomon at those sites in Atsumi peninsula, Aichi prefecture. In addition, the female skeleton analyzed here shows typical Jomon morphology. "

Go ahead and waste your time. Go ahead and thinks what typical Jomon morphology means.

" In the present study, the international research team succeeded in extracting and sequencing DNA from 25 ancient individuals' skeletons from Southeast Asian remains, where the condition of DNA preservation is very poor, and from one Japanese Jomon female skeleton. Upon comparison of the genomic data of ancient human skeletons with those of present-day human skeletons, it has become clear that those prehistoric populations in Southeast Asia can be classified into six groups. "

" Group 1 contains Hoabinhians from Pha Faen, Laos, hunter-gatherers (~8000 years ago), and prehistoric populations discovered from Gua Cha, Malaysia (~4000 years ago), being genetically close to present-day Önge and Jarawa from the Andaman Islands and Jehai from the Peninsular Malaysia. To our surprise, group 1 has higher genetic affinities with Ikawazu*3) Jomon individual (Tahara, Aichi), a female adult*4), than other present-day Southeast Asians. In addition, the Ikawazu Jomon genome*5) is best modelled contributing genetically present-day Japanese. "

What are you talking? It say exactly what I said? You make no sense?Gyatso1 (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read that study ( posted in August 8 2018 which is newer than your study ).

* A female skeleton dating back to late Jomon period, ~2500 years ago. A Jomon skeleton discovered from Ikawazu kaizuka site in 2010. Recent studies indicate the beginning of Yayoi period to be ~3000 years ago, but the arrival of Yayoi culture differed depending on regions. The female adult skeleton from Ikawazu kaizuka site is accompanied with a pottery that is validated to date back to the period of Gokanmori type pottery, indicating that the period was still Jomon at those sites in Atsumi peninsula, Aichi prefecture. In addition, the female skeleton analyzed here shows typical Jomon morphology.

So where is your Onge coming from ??? Obviously you're wrong as heck and misinterpreted by trying to say that Ikawazu Jomon is mixed with Onge and show strong connection with Papuan when in fact they don't.

I do not understand you. It makes no sense for me? What has this study to do with the other study? It is forbidden to combine studies here. Also my is not about pottery. You are confused.Gyatso1 (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Go on and keep playing dumb. This is what you exaggeratedly wrote " They analysed an Ikawazu Jōmon sample from southeast Honshu. The study found strong genetic evidence for a relation between this Jōmon individual and modern Andamanese (Onge) and ancient samples from the Hoabinhian culture AND THAN YOU ADDED THIS "They additionally showed strong connections to modern Oceanic populations, specifically Papuans. The Jōmon samples did althought show some genetic influence from an East Asian related group, supporting the view of a non-homogenous origin for the Jōmon people.[81] "

No study, genetic or anthropology shows Ikawazu Jomon is related to Onge, Papuan. The study already says that Ikawazu Jomon showed typical Jomon morphology maning she looks like any Jomon YET YOU'RE HERE BELIEVING IN YOUR EXAGGERATED EDITED NONSENSE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekHistorian (talk • contribs) 20:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

It makes no sense? It is about genetic not your morphologic or pottery study. Why you are so angry? Please stop swearing. Inhave quoted every thing. You must ask the scientists not me. I did not mak the study the scientists made it. Keep calm.Gyatso1 (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not angry, I'm not swearing and I know you're a sockpuppet that was banned. You only started editing since August 7 and I'm 100% sure you are AsadalEditor. I will report you if you keep trying to troll on wikipedia. The next time you edit back the same thing on wikipedia I will report you to the moderator because anyone can easily know either you using a new IP address that has changed or using another local computer. I know you're AsadalEditor, you're posting information that has to do with Southeast Asia not even about Ainu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekHistorian (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you are a racist against us black people. You want to make us black people look bad. But we are not bad. We black people are proud and will not accept the harassment of whit or Asian people. You try to hide the truth. I am sure the white English wikipedia will try to hide it... and the Asians will support it strongly no? We black people will resist and survive you racists.Gyatso1 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't know what you're mumbling about and you're properly not black just trying to troll. You posted a study that has nothing to do with Ainu but about prehistoric Southeast Asia and the study mentions only Ikawazu Jomon individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekHistorian (talk • contribs) 21:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

No, we have enough evidence that they were Australoid. A related black race. But I know that this will be deleted by racist white and asians. I made many tests. I include claims for caucasoid and mongoloid. All ok, no one deletes anything. Also many other edits (extra wrong, but pro white or asian)... nothing happend all ok and well. But when I include real studies supporting australoid, black or non-white informations it instantly get delets by supremacists. We must make a documentation about racist english wikipedia. Its sad but Here is the PROVE. TRUTH will WINGyatso1 (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Iam from the Solomon islands Melanesian black and proud. I will not accept the racism against native black people in Asia!Gyatso1 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Original Tibetans are also black haplogroup D same as Andamanese. Same as Negrito and original southeast asians and original Taiwanese. All were black killed by asians and you are happy or? Now you want to erase our history and say we were never here. This is racism.

No I don't think so. Saying original haplogroup D is black is the same as saying 70% of all modern day East Asian, Southeast Asian mtDNA are descendant of Andamanese M. The Andamanese have 100% mtDNA M. Now do you think the Tibetans are 80% Black. Since mtDNA M and L is a descendant of African L you can easily say the Tibetans did not go extinct because they still have 50% haplogroup D and 70% haologrou mtDNA M

The Adamanese, Negrito of Southeast Asia are 100% mtDNA M, so are 60% of Indian and 40-80% of East and Southeast Asian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekHistorian (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not only haplogroup. Look at me look at Andaman ok? But than look at modern Tibetan or Taiwanese. Look at modern Japanese. The natives get killed... everywhere. Iu karange?

You were saying original Tibetans are also black haplogroup D which is obviously nonsense because Negrito and Andamanese also have 100% mtDNA M. Tibetans have 50% D and 70% mtDNA M that means most of their original DNA are still but obviously all of this is nonsense because every Tibetan look Mongoloid, the only thing black about them is their sun tanned skinned. They belong to the Haplogroup D is the same as Ainu and Adamanese but they became genetically different since prehistoric times and mutated into difference races.

Genetically Negrito, Papuans, Australian aborigins are all closely related with East Asians compared with other population but they have their own seperate cluster.

East Asian and Southeast Asian have 40-80% mtDNA M ( 100% in Negrito, Adamanese ) and 5-10% mtDNA N ( N 60-100% in australian aborigines )

You can technically say all Mongoloid Asians have genetic relations with these black natives of Southeast Asia but they all changed genetically and physically. That is why were the jomons, ainu, east asians, australians, negrito, papuan all share similar genetics haplogroups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro-haplogroup_L_(mtDNA) M and N are descendant of Africans, so all Asians from East, Southeast, Central, Siberia, South Asia trace back to African haplogroups L.

It is a lie. They are very different. Not same origin. Not same blood. It is racist propaganda to say: oh you are all the same and related bla bla” but then you white and asian say: “no the black is nothing worth” and studies support multi regional human origin anyway. You not only want to steal our history but also our blood and our DNA. Many pictures show the Ainu had dark black skin. Ancient Tibetans had black negro skin and look. They not suddenly look asian. Look at all ainu japanese, they look still a bit black. Like papuan. Ancient Taiwanese was black too. The story of the little black man. We know, if younhidenwe will remember. Look what indoensian asians do to papuans! They openly kill black papuans and invite chinee tand other asian to colonize Papua! Free West Papua !

Whatever troll. People say Ariana Grande is Black but turns out she is 100% Caucasian. You should look at the term "blackfishing", even many ordinary white girls or mexican girl can easily look like a biracial just by having a afro hair style and be mistaken for black, the reason is because black people have no standards on how they should look like, they include even the slightest things as black. I've seen Mongoloid Asian , Italians, Armenians who are way more darker than many mixed race biracial blacks, who's phenotype are black but skin is light. The Ainu look nothing like black, you are looking at black/white photos that give a deceptive superficial appearance.

Anyway all Mongoloid Asians including, Jomon, Ainu, South Asians ( Indians, Pakistani ), Negrito, Adamanese, Papuans, australian aborigines shares the same haplogroup M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekHistorian (talk • contribs) 21:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You can continue your racist lies. We know who we are. You work for the asians to claim our last lands too. People lived happy in Papua before the Asians arrived and started to kill. Now you claim our DNA too with absurd claims. Ignore the citations of science. Surly soon the chinese will start claiming too. Jomon are Australoid. South Asian no mongoloid either. Haplogroup means nothing in fact. It is all the DNA. It is the white lie to controll everyone.Gyatso1 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you really think I'm going to believe you are black when your history since 7 August edits are all about Tibetan empire, Bon people, Tibetan Buddhism, Sherpa, History of Tibet, Pumi people all these which are related ethnic groups and history. Why are you so concern with Sino-Tibetan history even your edit on Central Asia and Tarim Basin related with Tibetan history aswell and now your concern with Ainu is because you share the same haplogroup as them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekHistorian (talk • contribs) 22:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Your mistakes

D-M55 in Oceanic has nothing to do with ancient DNA but Japanese expansion and occupation.

" Outside Japan, members of D-M55 have been discovered in samples from Micronesia, South Korea, China, and Timor Island. Korea, Micronesia, Timor, and some parts of China all have been incorporated into the Empire of Japan at some point, so some of these cases may be Japanese descendants left behind when the empire was dismantled following World War II. "

Micronesia：9.5％（Hammer et al. 2006[11]） South Korea: 4.0% (Hammer et al. 2006[11]), 1.6% (Kim et al. 2011[13]) Beijing, China (Han): 2.0% (Kim et al. 2011[13]) Timor Island：0.2%（Meryanne et al. 2014[14]）

The study does not claim any genetic link between Ainu and Austro-Melanesians but rather they are a closely related ancestral population ( this does not men same race, same genetic admixture but rather ) of Prehistoric Human Dispersal in Eastern Eurasia. They are only related in the way they are a prehistoric population a time where Mongoloid Asians did not even exist.

" This cranio-morphometric study emphasizes a “two-layer model” for eastern Eurasian anatomically modern human (AMH) populations, based on large datasets of 89 population samples including findings directly from ancient archaeological contexts. Results suggest that an initial “first layer” of AMH had related closely to ancestral Andaman, Australian, Papuan, and Jomon groups who likely entered this region via the Southeast Asian landmass, prior to 65–50 kya. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekHistorian (talk • contribs) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Why then hide and delete it? It must be mentionedGyatso1 (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Your recent edits to Polynesians could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Legal threat in the edit summary of your edit. David Biddulph (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Please someone must investigate the racism. All studies that support a link to Australo-Melanesians (black people) get delets by racist white or asian supremacist. Please someone must do something against this.Gyatso1 (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)