"Yet you can't provide a single reliable one about Aboriginal Australians. Rather telling really."

Well I've given more than a few examples on this issue. Reliable is in the eye of the beholder. But when you reject each one for entirely spurious reasons (oh he's just a swaggie, oh he misspelt the name etc etc) you end up convincing yourself (but only yourself) there is no evidence.

Dear mhaze,

Rare, tenuous and unreliable assertions about aboriginal people eating their children for sustenance have been recognised for what they are by most scholars, hyped nonsense from the day.

None have withstood serious scrutiny but they are being trotted out by people like you recently for obvious reasons.

As to Josephus that bloke has even more disregard for the truth than you do.

His assertion "If you take a look at the Sentinelese tribes from which the aboriginal tribes descended 4.230 years ago out of India" is a glorious mix of young earth thinking with unabashed attempts to tie the inhospitable, missionary killing north Sentinelese with Australian Aborigines. There is utterly zero evidence that Aborigines were decedents from them. Where does the information come from? A yet to be published book.

You blokes really do struggle with this stuff don't you.

A common ancestor 50,000 years ago.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.12219#:~:text=Northern%20Aboriginal%20Australians%20can%20trace%20as%20much%20as,tool-making%20techniques%20and%20the%20ancestors%20of%20the%20dingo.

http://www.sbs.com.au/language/hindi/en/podcast-episode/the-story-untold-links-between-australian-aboriginal-and-indian-tribes-part-1/yiv2rgxq4

http://www.science.org/content/article/almost-all-living-people-outside-africa-trace-back-single-migration-more-50000-years

SR,

" a glorious mix of young earth thinking "

Wow SR, you really have no idea how this works, do you?

"There is utterly zero evidence that Aborigines were decedents from them."

The fact that you don't know about the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Now I've never heard that the data is refined enough to have narrowed it down to one particular group from the subcontinent, but the data that large numbers of Carpentarian aboriginals have what appears ro be subcontinental Indian mtDNA has been around for a while. Just because you don't want it to exist doesn't negate the facts - except to you.

Now I'm not saying I buy the Sentinelese claims. But I'm not rejecting them either. I'll await extra data. Hence my interest in seeing this book Josephus talks about. (See how that works, SR? Gather the data then make a call. Completely different to make a call and reject all competing data).

Personally I think the notion that there was a massive wave of immigrants around 2000 BC who either displaced whoever was at that time in northern Australia or melded with those inhabitants in such a way as to utterly change their culture, seems more than reasonable. Where Josephus is, in my view mistaken is to think that they replaced ALL aboriginals. Clearly there is little DNA evidence that they displaced the so-called Murrayian peoples, and its impossible to see how they could have displaced the Tasmanians.

So, Indians displacing or overwhelming the northern Australian peoples around 4000 years ago? Somewhere between possible and probable. Indians displacing southern tribes? Unlikely.

PS

"Wow SR, you really have no idea how this works, do you?"

I was going to leave it there since you really don't care anyway. But... the researchers show or claim to have shown that the mtDNA dates the new arrivals at 141 generations ago. Their rule of thumb is 1 generation = 30 years. So 141 x 30 =.... well I'll leave you to ponder that calculation.

The religious nut jobs believe the world was created in the evening, 23rd October 4004BC. Josephus, you agree with that nonsense, mhaze will produce the evidence shortly.

Dear mhaze,

I am calling out the claim that "If you take a look at the Sentinelese tribes from which the aboriginal tribes descended 4.230 years ago out of India".

I fully accept that there appears to be around a 10% DNA matching between North Aboriginal tribes and the Indian genome which is possibly the result of migration around 4,000 years ago. There is zero evidence it came from the Sentinelese.

But what our resident troll is attempting is to link them directly to the Sentinelese, to insinuate the Aboriginal culture is recent rather than 60,000 years old, and to tie them to the violence the Sentinelese have shown to intruders.

He started with: "A look at the culture and life of the Sentinelese gives some link to ancient tribes 60,000 years ago and their link to Australia. They use the same weapons and culture." and linked to the death of the missionary.

Then went straight to: "If you take a look at the Sentinelese tribes from which the aboriginal tribes descended 4.230 years ago out of India, they had spears, boomerang shaped sticks and bow and arrows. The aboriginals in the top of NT were using spears and bow and resin tipped arrows. Both have low resistance to common diseases."

Of course there is extremely little known about the culture of the Sentinelese because of their determined isolationism but that didn't stop troll boy claiming similarities. Low resistance to European disease is common with first contact and there is simply no evidence that the Sentinelese using boomerangs.

Now you are claiming "Indians displacing or overwhelming the northern Australian peoples" which doesn't equate with 10% DNA matching.

Agenda driven, over hyped, with little scientific basis seems very much the go around here.