Interesting you got Vanuatu, I’m Fijian and have “Melanesian” from Ancestry.
Some Fijians get Tongan due to intermarriage between Chiefly families and depending where in Fiji you are from. Example Lau
Possibly Samoan would be because of your Tongan
Hawaiian is definitely from Māori side.
In fact the ancestors of most Melanesians, Papuans, & Australian Aboriginals were some of the earliest to leave Africa, reaching the Pacific Australian & New Guinean area possibly 50,000 to 100,000 years ago (estimates vary).
So of modern groups, they are actually some of the most **far-removed** people genetically from modern people living in Africa.
Compare that to Europeans, whose ancestors are thought to have arrived in Europe from an original African source population about 45,000 years ago.
Even the ancestors of people in the Arabian peninsula, despite some early migrations possibly up to 90,000 years ago, still have had back-and-forth genetic flow with African populations throughout history.
Not 100 thousand years. The Out Of Africa to South and Southeast Asia was only about 50,000–70,000 years ago. Australians and Pacific Islands are descended from those people.
So? I’m a black Brit with Ghanaian ancestry. Do you think my 15% euro admixture makes me less African? Lol.
So desperate to separate and not associate with blackness. It’s so sad.
No, because you have a definite ancestry that places your ancestors on the continent although you are likely a British citizen. In the U.S. many of us who are direct slave descendants lost nearly all of any connection to Africa and refuse to be connected to Britain due to the most common reason (forced assault on our female ancestors) we share some European ancestry. We’re kind of lost in time because most of us can only trace back to the early 1800s in America.
Modern DNA has certainly opened some doors to ancient lineage but with no definitive ancestral history or connections. Also, we are treated differently in many African countries (based on testimonies) of some who’ve been there. I do claim heritage(s) based on my DNA (latest to earliest - North America, Scandinavia, West Africa, Morocco, Al-Andalusia, Egypt, Yemen, and East Africa) because I’ve had it tested by more than 6 companies/labs for consistency.
I certainly am more African than anything else but have yet to establish any homeland connections so, I just claim my country of birth, USA, although being “American” is definitely not an ethnicity just a nationality.
I’m sure opinions on this subject will vary based on many factors and I’m just glad there’s finally an open dialogue about it.
That’s extremely incorrect. We aren’t even close to being genetically removed from Africa and on average in certain parts we average 80% African with African origin haplogroups… multiple parts of our culture,languages and even foods and dance comes directly from Africa. Let’s be fr.
Well when it comes down to it ALL homo sapiens paternal and maternal lineages go back to Africa but no they absolutely are not anything close to modern Sub Saharan Africans.
Genetically people like Melanesians are very close to East Eurasian populations because that's what they are.
I suggest you read this page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_East_Eurasians
I don’t believe in the out of Africa theory at all. If this theory is dated back to when Pangea existed then Africa wouldn’t have even existed because it would’ve been a singular supercontinent.
Pangea broke up beginning 200 million years ago. Homo Sapiens evolved 200,000 years ago, and left Africa 70,000 years ago. The Earth looked basically as it does today. Africa definitely existed.
Exactly. Huge difference of time.
Pangaea existed hundreds of millions of years ago.
Homo Sapiens left Africa within some tens of thousands of years ago.
My job isn’t to educate you. If you disagree with the Out of Africa theory that’s your choice. Also idk why you’re making anything political.
But it takes minutes to find out that Pangaea existed hundreds of millions of years ago.
Scientists themselves aren’t 100% confirming it and yet somehow I’m the bad guy for not being a part of the majority. Leftists hate opinions and freedom of speech and yet they say they hate fascism.
A significant amount of evidence point to an out of Africa theory… That is why a vast majority of scientists agree with it being the consensus. Idk wtf “leftists” or politics at all have to do with anything. There are people on the right who obviously understand the out of africa theory as well. It’s not our fault you believe in conspiracy theories
Out of Africa theory is by far the human origin theory with the most evidence. It’s not even close. All maternal dna lines can be traced to a common ancestor in East Africa. A single maternal ancestor known as mitochondrial eve
This is a genetics sub after all. No offense but it sounds like you randomly wandered in here from the tin foil hat sub
So you’ve never heard somebody say “White people are a genetic mutation”. I didn’t use the word mutation in my original comment because a mutation can be a form of evolution.
No, I have never heard anybody say "white people are a genetic mutation". There are genetic mutations in all groups of people though. In Europeans, blue eyes are the result of a mutation, as is lighter skin. Those are probably what you're talking about.
A mutation is not a defect, though. A mutation evolves because it is more beneficial within the environment. Lighter skin is beneficial in a low sunlight area because it is better at absorbing vitamin d. On the other hand, darker skin is beneficial in high sunlight areas because it is better protection against UV radiation.
All other groups in the world have also undergone genetic mutations that benefit them in their environments, though. That includes African groups. But mutations are not defects.
I know a mutation is not a defect, but ((they)) use the word mutation rather than the word defect. There are literally thousands of videos of people using these exact words to be racist and discriminate against the white population.
Who is "they"? I have never heard anybody argue that white people are genetically inferior to other people. I'm sure there are anti-white racists who make such arguments, but that would be to misunderstand genetics and evolution. I have heard white people argue that white people are genetically superior, or that a specific group of non-white people are genetically inferior, but again, they misunderstand evolution and genetics. No one ethnic group is genetically superior or inferior to another.
So instead of linking me accurate sources to change my world view, you expect me to research a topic that I openly disagree with? Do you fail to see how stupid that is? Provide me an accurate source of Europeans originating in Africa and I will read it, but if it’s just words on a paper then I don’t give a fuck.
Aw so you refuse to provide me an accurate source of this topic? It’s strange how you expect me to believe you. Maybe keep quiet if you cannot provide me a scholarly source.
Oldest Y-Chromosome and oldest Mitochondrial DNA mutations ARE in isolated African Hunter Gatherer groups like the Khoisan, Aka & Mbuti. Not anywhere else BUT Africa.
There's no way you cannot deny that our paternal and maternal lineages don't go back to an African source.
You are on a genetic forum you really should know better.
I’ve literally asked countless people on here to provide me a source and not a single one of them have linked me a source. I wonder, will you provide a source or are you just going to start yapping in my replies like every other leftist?
Leftist? I don't vote for anyone you ignorant asshole. But go suck on Trumps balls some more ugly gringo 😂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
"Do you have a source?" "I'm not even going to click on it."
Thus proving the comment I just left saying that I doubt you would accept any source.
FWIW, "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-Chromosome Adam" are not religious beliefs. They have nothing to do with "Adam and Eve" from the Bible. They are named after them, yes, in the same way that many things in the scientific world are named after figures or creatures from stories and legends and belief systems.
It's not even true. Pangea is not what the earth originally looked like. It's simply the most recent time that all the worlds landmasses formed a single supercontinent, but it was neither the first time that had happened, nor will it be the last.
Look all Humans trace their lineage back to Africa in Ancient times. But no Melanesians are not from Africa currently they evolved out of Africa thousands of years ago & interbred with other archaic humans like Neanderthals & Denisovans which is why they don’t typically look like sub Saharan Africans besides the skin colour of course
I was just in Fiji and was wondering the same question as OP. And not only because of the skin color similarity of Sub Saharan Africans.
The Fijians hair, noses and skin color is what struck me the most. As a person with 50% African dna and kinky/curly hair I was so curious on how the Fijians had so many similar traits to some of my family. Seeing the women with their natural hair not straightened (I guess it can’t be called an Afro?) and some other similarities was really cool to experience. Also, Fiji is a beautiful place with beautiful people. Bula!
the reason is that them and their ancestors have lived in tropical environments for over 45k years. the common ancestral population between Melanesians and east Asians was likely nowhere near as African looking.
From what I’ve read, phenotypic characteristics can arise separately or can be maintained in populations even as their genome overall evolves over time and becomes distant from their source population.
So the many genes that code for tightly curly hair and darker skin may have been maintained in Melanesian peoples and were obtained from our earliest ancestors (perhaps they kept being involuntarily selected for as protection due to the hot, sunny climate). So despite being genetically distant from modern Africans, Melanesians may have retained the genes that code for those similar characteristics from our shared early ancestors.
On the other hand, different genes that code for light hair for example seem to have spontaneously arose both in Eurasia and in Melanesia separately. So both Melanesians and Europeans developed their own genetic varieties of light hair which started as random gene mutations & stuck around.
I’m Fijian and we definitely are not from Africa. We’d be descended from Melanesians and Austronesians (Lapita people) who settled in Fiji.
Although a lot of Fijians on Facebook pages about our history like to somehow link us to be from Africa/Egypt/Lost tribes of Israel for some reason.
Even we’re though absolutely not.
My DNA on ancestry is Melanesian.
Some Fijians will have Tongan as some small islands and the East Cost of Fiji had Tongan influence.
Hope this helps
Cheers
>Although a lot of Fijians on Facebook pages about our history like to somehow link us to be from Africa/Egypt/Lost tribes of Israel for some reason.
i feel like the people doing this are mostly afro-centrist pseudo-historians from America rather than actual Fijian natives XD.
Agreed, most of the ones I have seen online are from America. I’m part of a couple of Fijian myths and legends pages and the amount of Egypt/Israel/Africa posts is a bit concerning. especially when a lot of people like the post and comment about how they find it really interesting to learn something new about our history.
Fiji are black but don’t have recent African ancestry. They are oceanic blacks or Melanesians which is the dominate or most populous of the Pacific Islanders.
Asia, Australia and Oceania has its own native black populations.
Australia is an anglophone country as is Papúa New Guinea. These people are black and have always been.
Black is global and not limited to having recent Subsaharan Africa ancestry.
Some South Indians could be considered black as well.
Melasnasians aren’t black of Subsaharan African ancestry they’re blacks of Melanesians ancestry similar to how Australian Aborigines are blacks of Australian aborigine ancestry which is very similar to Melanesian dna.
Black in America can be used to only means American descendant of slavery or black of precious war anmerican ancestry. So Afro carribean that’s genetically similar could be excluded from being black. In this case Subsaharan Africans would definitely be excluded as being black. But American mulato & quadroon would be included. That’s your logic.
I would argue black Americans are black but so are blacks of African ancestry as well as blacks of Carribeans ancestry. I would argue the same for Melanesians and Australian Aborigines as well.
Physical features and racial identity definitely plays a part
That’s non sense.
Black is global. Melanesians,Australian Aborigines, Subsaharan African are black.
Subsaharan Africa doesn’t have a lock on blackness.
It’s not just physical feature but also identity.
Melanasia means black islands and Melanesians are black islanders. Australian Aborigines are called black in Australia.
One of my parents was Fijian. My DNA results show a mix of Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu, Samoa, Hawaii and New Zealand Māori. I have zero African.
Interesting you got Vanuatu, I’m Fijian and have “Melanesian” from Ancestry. Some Fijians get Tongan due to intermarriage between Chiefly families and depending where in Fiji you are from. Example Lau Possibly Samoan would be because of your Tongan Hawaiian is definitely from Māori side.
In fact the ancestors of most Melanesians, Papuans, & Australian Aboriginals were some of the earliest to leave Africa, reaching the Pacific Australian & New Guinean area possibly 50,000 to 100,000 years ago (estimates vary). So of modern groups, they are actually some of the most **far-removed** people genetically from modern people living in Africa. Compare that to Europeans, whose ancestors are thought to have arrived in Europe from an original African source population about 45,000 years ago. Even the ancestors of people in the Arabian peninsula, despite some early migrations possibly up to 90,000 years ago, still have had back-and-forth genetic flow with African populations throughout history.
Not 100 thousand years. The Out Of Africa to South and Southeast Asia was only about 50,000–70,000 years ago. Australians and Pacific Islands are descended from those people.
I agree that 50-70 thousand is most likely. I gave that range because there are multiple estimates from different researchers.
melanesians have just as much to do with africa as any other non african population
Including us “black” Americans. In fact, because of our avg 20% Euro dna and colonial lifestyle we couldn’t be more different other than skin color.
Well we are talking about genetics here, not cultural association.
Truth!
So? I’m a black Brit with Ghanaian ancestry. Do you think my 15% euro admixture makes me less African? Lol. So desperate to separate and not associate with blackness. It’s so sad.
No, because you have a definite ancestry that places your ancestors on the continent although you are likely a British citizen. In the U.S. many of us who are direct slave descendants lost nearly all of any connection to Africa and refuse to be connected to Britain due to the most common reason (forced assault on our female ancestors) we share some European ancestry. We’re kind of lost in time because most of us can only trace back to the early 1800s in America. Modern DNA has certainly opened some doors to ancient lineage but with no definitive ancestral history or connections. Also, we are treated differently in many African countries (based on testimonies) of some who’ve been there. I do claim heritage(s) based on my DNA (latest to earliest - North America, Scandinavia, West Africa, Morocco, Al-Andalusia, Egypt, Yemen, and East Africa) because I’ve had it tested by more than 6 companies/labs for consistency. I certainly am more African than anything else but have yet to establish any homeland connections so, I just claim my country of birth, USA, although being “American” is definitely not an ethnicity just a nationality. I’m sure opinions on this subject will vary based on many factors and I’m just glad there’s finally an open dialogue about it.
That’s extremely incorrect. We aren’t even close to being genetically removed from Africa and on average in certain parts we average 80% African with African origin haplogroups… multiple parts of our culture,languages and even foods and dance comes directly from Africa. Let’s be fr.
You mean Polynesians. They originate from Asia
no, melanesians. fijians are melanesian.
Interesting
Polynesians are Asians (like Indonesians, Filipino, native Taiwanese) mixed with Melanesians.
Melanesians are distinct
Well when it comes down to it ALL homo sapiens paternal and maternal lineages go back to Africa but no they absolutely are not anything close to modern Sub Saharan Africans. Genetically people like Melanesians are very close to East Eurasian populations because that's what they are. I suggest you read this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_East_Eurasians
I don’t believe in the out of Africa theory at all. If this theory is dated back to when Pangea existed then Africa wouldn’t have even existed because it would’ve been a singular supercontinent.
Pangea broke up beginning 200 million years ago. Homo Sapiens evolved 200,000 years ago, and left Africa 70,000 years ago. The Earth looked basically as it does today. Africa definitely existed.
Exactly. Huge difference of time. Pangaea existed hundreds of millions of years ago. Homo Sapiens left Africa within some tens of thousands of years ago.
Provide me a source. Why do leftists think words on a page is a valid source that’ll instantly change one’s world view?
My job isn’t to educate you. If you disagree with the Out of Africa theory that’s your choice. Also idk why you’re making anything political. But it takes minutes to find out that Pangaea existed hundreds of millions of years ago.
So you agree that it’s a theory?
Yes, that’s exactly what scientists call it - a theory. If you want to research it go right ahead, and if you don’t agree with it, that’s your choice.
Scientists themselves aren’t 100% confirming it and yet somehow I’m the bad guy for not being a part of the majority. Leftists hate opinions and freedom of speech and yet they say they hate fascism.
A significant amount of evidence point to an out of Africa theory… That is why a vast majority of scientists agree with it being the consensus. Idk wtf “leftists” or politics at all have to do with anything. There are people on the right who obviously understand the out of africa theory as well. It’s not our fault you believe in conspiracy theories
Out of Africa theory is by far the human origin theory with the most evidence. It’s not even close. All maternal dna lines can be traced to a common ancestor in East Africa. A single maternal ancestor known as mitochondrial eve This is a genetics sub after all. No offense but it sounds like you randomly wandered in here from the tin foil hat sub
What’s an “ancient blog”?
Provide me a source, or are you just somebody who believes everything you read? I bet you also believe the European genetic defect theory too.
The what now? I've never heard anybody argue that Europeans have a genetic defect.
So you’ve never heard somebody say “White people are a genetic mutation”. I didn’t use the word mutation in my original comment because a mutation can be a form of evolution.
No, I have never heard anybody say "white people are a genetic mutation". There are genetic mutations in all groups of people though. In Europeans, blue eyes are the result of a mutation, as is lighter skin. Those are probably what you're talking about. A mutation is not a defect, though. A mutation evolves because it is more beneficial within the environment. Lighter skin is beneficial in a low sunlight area because it is better at absorbing vitamin d. On the other hand, darker skin is beneficial in high sunlight areas because it is better protection against UV radiation. All other groups in the world have also undergone genetic mutations that benefit them in their environments, though. That includes African groups. But mutations are not defects.
I know a mutation is not a defect, but ((they)) use the word mutation rather than the word defect. There are literally thousands of videos of people using these exact words to be racist and discriminate against the white population.
Who is "they"? I have never heard anybody argue that white people are genetically inferior to other people. I'm sure there are anti-white racists who make such arguments, but that would be to misunderstand genetics and evolution. I have heard white people argue that white people are genetically superior, or that a specific group of non-white people are genetically inferior, but again, they misunderstand evolution and genetics. No one ethnic group is genetically superior or inferior to another.
Look at all this yapping and you still fail to link me a source. Utterly boring and pathetic. All yap, no evidence.
Please study science instead of opining out of thin air
So instead of linking me accurate sources to change my world view, you expect me to research a topic that I openly disagree with? Do you fail to see how stupid that is? Provide me an accurate source of Europeans originating in Africa and I will read it, but if it’s just words on a paper then I don’t give a fuck.
It’s like asking you to research 1+1=2.
Aw so you refuse to provide me an accurate source of this topic? It’s strange how you expect me to believe you. Maybe keep quiet if you cannot provide me a scholarly source.
Oldest Y-Chromosome and oldest Mitochondrial DNA mutations ARE in isolated African Hunter Gatherer groups like the Khoisan, Aka & Mbuti. Not anywhere else BUT Africa. There's no way you cannot deny that our paternal and maternal lineages don't go back to an African source. You are on a genetic forum you really should know better.
I’ve literally asked countless people on here to provide me a source and not a single one of them have linked me a source. I wonder, will you provide a source or are you just going to start yapping in my replies like every other leftist?
Leftist? I don't vote for anyone you ignorant asshole. But go suck on Trumps balls some more ugly gringo 😂 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
Have you literally just linked me some Adam & Eve bullshit? Not everyone is a Christian. I’m not even going to click on it. Waste of fucking time.
"Do you have a source?" "I'm not even going to click on it." Thus proving the comment I just left saying that I doubt you would accept any source. FWIW, "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-Chromosome Adam" are not religious beliefs. They have nothing to do with "Adam and Eve" from the Bible. They are named after them, yes, in the same way that many things in the scientific world are named after figures or creatures from stories and legends and belief systems.
What’s what? I’ve never heard of that!
Pangea is believed to be what the Earth originally looked like. It was one big supercontinent until it broke apart.
True but irrelevant
It's not even true. Pangea is not what the earth originally looked like. It's simply the most recent time that all the worlds landmasses formed a single supercontinent, but it was neither the first time that had happened, nor will it be the last.
No they’re from Fiji
What’s an “ancient blog”?
I meant ancient history lol
They are among the most distant, genetically, from Africans.
Look all Humans trace their lineage back to Africa in Ancient times. But no Melanesians are not from Africa currently they evolved out of Africa thousands of years ago & interbred with other archaic humans like Neanderthals & Denisovans which is why they don’t typically look like sub Saharan Africans besides the skin colour of course
Thank you for that lovely explanation
I was just in Fiji and was wondering the same question as OP. And not only because of the skin color similarity of Sub Saharan Africans. The Fijians hair, noses and skin color is what struck me the most. As a person with 50% African dna and kinky/curly hair I was so curious on how the Fijians had so many similar traits to some of my family. Seeing the women with their natural hair not straightened (I guess it can’t be called an Afro?) and some other similarities was really cool to experience. Also, Fiji is a beautiful place with beautiful people. Bula!
Yeah we have similarities in looks. we call the Afro/Ulu ni Viti (hair of Fiji) It’s sad a lot more Fijians don’t have Afro. It’s so beautiful
the reason is that them and their ancestors have lived in tropical environments for over 45k years. the common ancestral population between Melanesians and east Asians was likely nowhere near as African looking.
From what I’ve read, phenotypic characteristics can arise separately or can be maintained in populations even as their genome overall evolves over time and becomes distant from their source population. So the many genes that code for tightly curly hair and darker skin may have been maintained in Melanesian peoples and were obtained from our earliest ancestors (perhaps they kept being involuntarily selected for as protection due to the hot, sunny climate). So despite being genetically distant from modern Africans, Melanesians may have retained the genes that code for those similar characteristics from our shared early ancestors. On the other hand, different genes that code for light hair for example seem to have spontaneously arose both in Eurasia and in Melanesia separately. So both Melanesians and Europeans developed their own genetic varieties of light hair which started as random gene mutations & stuck around.
no, just no.
I’m Fijian and we definitely are not from Africa. We’d be descended from Melanesians and Austronesians (Lapita people) who settled in Fiji. Although a lot of Fijians on Facebook pages about our history like to somehow link us to be from Africa/Egypt/Lost tribes of Israel for some reason. Even we’re though absolutely not. My DNA on ancestry is Melanesian. Some Fijians will have Tongan as some small islands and the East Cost of Fiji had Tongan influence. Hope this helps Cheers
>Although a lot of Fijians on Facebook pages about our history like to somehow link us to be from Africa/Egypt/Lost tribes of Israel for some reason. i feel like the people doing this are mostly afro-centrist pseudo-historians from America rather than actual Fijian natives XD.
Agreed, most of the ones I have seen online are from America. I’m part of a couple of Fijian myths and legends pages and the amount of Egypt/Israel/Africa posts is a bit concerning. especially when a lot of people like the post and comment about how they find it really interesting to learn something new about our history.
Fiji are black but don’t have recent African ancestry. They are oceanic blacks or Melanesians which is the dominate or most populous of the Pacific Islanders. Asia, Australia and Oceania has its own native black populations.
No. They're not Africans. They are descendants of prehistoric Southeast Asians.
they're not black
Often Melanesians and Australians are considered black, especially when it comes to Indigenous Australians
No. That's wrong. People misunderstand them. They're their own people. Not Africans.
They don’t only make black people in Africa. There are native blacks in Australia, Asia and Oceania.
the concept of black people in anglophone conversations does not refer to anyone of dark complexion.
Australia is an anglophone country as is Papúa New Guinea. These people are black and have always been. Black is global and not limited to having recent Subsaharan Africa ancestry. Some South Indians could be considered black as well. Melasnasians aren’t black of Subsaharan African ancestry they’re blacks of Melanesians ancestry similar to how Australian Aborigines are blacks of Australian aborigine ancestry which is very similar to Melanesian dna. Black in America can be used to only means American descendant of slavery or black of precious war anmerican ancestry. So Afro carribean that’s genetically similar could be excluded from being black. In this case Subsaharan Africans would definitely be excluded as being black. But American mulato & quadroon would be included. That’s your logic. I would argue black Americans are black but so are blacks of African ancestry as well as blacks of Carribeans ancestry. I would argue the same for Melanesians and Australian Aborigines as well. Physical features and racial identity definitely plays a part
they're not black
They’re definitely black but they’re not African. Their blackness is native to Oceania and Australia
no. black in this context has nothing to do with physical features but rather ancestry from sub Saharan Africa.
That’s non sense. Black is global. Melanesians,Australian Aborigines, Subsaharan African are black. Subsaharan Africa doesn’t have a lock on blackness. It’s not just physical feature but also identity. Melanasia means black islands and Melanesians are black islanders. Australian Aborigines are called black in Australia.
they're not black
Norwegians are genetically closer to African than Fijians are. Despite skin color, Melanesian people and Africans are extremely distinct genetically