Brett Robson wrote:

> No, the Australians are the most closely related to Africans. They migrated
> following the coast  to Australia. Populations left along the way, eg Sth India
> ended up mixing with the later waves of people, the Australians are the most
> isolated group and genetically closest to the original group that left Africa.
> Based on current evidence an interesting problem is how they got to Australia so
> quickly.

Given that humans have been in Australia at least 40,000 years, and at 
the extreme vagaries of radio-carbon dating no longer than 120,000 
years, and that in order to get there during that period they needed to 
cross the Wallace line - the answer is probably going to involve 
watercraft. My understanding is that the Wallace line has never been 
less than 60 miles across. Without boats, a hunter-gatherer community 
moving at 5 miles per year would cover a lot of ground over say 100 
generations - and with boats a good deal more.


-- 
"You are about to embark on a course of studies which...  form a noble 
adventure. Except for those of you who will become teachers or dons, all 
that you will learn in the course of your studies will not be of the 
slightest possible use to you in later life -- save only this -- that if 
you work hard and intelligently you should be able to detect when a man 
is talking rot"

J.A. Smith, 1914