nature is just one source of info and is not conclusive. you have to present to us a lot more!
Oh My Goodness! This is the first time I've ever heard a person says Nature is not credible as
Scientific Journal.
Don't you know a lot of scientists dream up to publish their journal to Nature?
what are the circled numbers. give us a description of events happening in each of the circles . What were the evidences to substantiate the time that the circles occurred?
I've already given you the
scientific journal~ you can;t read them yourselves?
Or is it that you are scientifically uncompetent to read?
circled no 1 appears very close to the coast of China and that could be a strong evidence showing that Austronesian were from China
All human came from Africa, so what?
The existent of being an Austronesia began from Taiwan, this is scientifically accepted. Before that, there were just pre-Austronesian people. So you think at 3000 BC Chinese had spread into Southern China? Well, Linguistical and anthropological analysis reveal that this pre-Austronesian people that migrated to Taiwan was not Sino-Tibetan Chinese, but related Tai-Kadai people (Thai and Khmer)
http://www.ualberta.ca/~vmitchel/rev3.html
It is important to note that the
fishermen-farmers who crossed the straits to Taiwan were not the Sino-Tibetan speaking Han Chinese who today make up the great majority of the Chinese population. Linguistic evidence from Taiwan suggests that they spoke an Austronesian language closely
related to the Tai-Kadai language family that is the dominant language group today in Laos, Thailand and the north and east of Burma.
On Taiwan, the Austronesian speaking fishermen-farmers honed their sea-faring skills. They soon embarked on one of
the most astonishing and extensive colonizations in human history known as the Austronesian expansion. By about 2,500 BC, one group, and just one group of Austronesian speakers from Taiwan had ventured to northern Luzon in the Philippines and settled there. The archaeological record from the Cagayan Valley in northern Luzon shows that they brought with them the same set of stone tools and pottery they had in Taiwan. The descendants of this group spread their language and culture through the Indo-Malayan archipelago as far west as Madagascar off the east coast of Africa and as far east as Hawaii and Easter Island in the central Pacific Ocean.
in China we also have historical/archeological books too！ Having the above series of references does not represent the people (who may be Chinese too）were the first to know how to navigate at high seas
Scientific journal of course cannot be compared with historical books. Even more, we are talking about 3000 BC, Chinese haven't even invented books and began their bronze age.
Scientific journal is the most credible peer-reviewed source of reference with clear methodology.
Anthropologic studies shows that Han Chinese culture spread inland up north in Yellow River. This has been conducted using molecular DNA analysis.
explain to me the varies era in China's history and let us verify
you have to prove fisheries at sea never happened in our civilization
Simple, let's begin from 3000 BC, the point reference where Austronesian start the expansion to South East Asia and Pacific.
Where was Chinese civilization back there? The period around 3000 BC was in Chinese culture refer to three emperors and five sovereigns (三皇五帝
. Here is archaelogical studies reveals the location of the earliest Chinese culture:
How is it possible the Chinese was on Taiwan and South China Sea? If Chinese had been there, todays South East Asian would have been Chinese. I cannot apprehend your unscientific logic
dont jump into conclusion before the above and more questions to be properly answered
filipinos' ancestors could be of Chinese origin
Nope~ filipino ancestors are Austronesian, which in turn related to Tai-Kadai people, not Sino-Tibetan Chinese.
B/S my point has revealed your attempt to hide away other conditions in UNCLOS' article
you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt the areas belong to the filippines and there is no other governments who are in contention of the claim
Even Taiwanese government map has shown that the incident didn;t occured inside Taiwan-claim border. The Taiwanese official has shown it is inside Philippines border... my my...
we have 56 ethnic groups Han is Chinese; so are Mongolians Manchurians etc
give us a proof the earliest ancestors of Taiwanese aborigines are not originated from mainland China
The earliest ancestors of Taiwanese aborigines of course did not originated from Mainlaind. If you talk the earliest, they came from Africa..
Furthermore, the Earliest Chinese migration also came from Southeast Asia 30,000 year ago as reveal by newest Human Genome Project result
that their history which bears no relevance to the disputed area and it has no relevance as to negate our fishing boats did not sail there
You cannot scientifically show that the Han Chinese were the earliest sailor of the area, I;ve shown through scientific reasoning that Filipinos Ancestors sails the area earlier than Chinese Han. What more evidence do you seek?
Even on your Chinese earliest record of South China Sea, Yizhoushu (逸周书
, the South Sea Barbarian had been recordedly sending turtle and hawksbill turtle to China. So where was the turtle came from? Of course from fishing aroung South China Sea. And who was the Barbarian the Chinese chauvinistically called? They are South East asian...
You own history record have been recording the activity of South East Asian fishing aroung South China Sea... LOL
explain to us the relevance of the pic as to the EEZ claims
You are invoking traditional rights~
Traditional rights are exercised through traditional means, thats the interpretation of traditional fishing rights as agreed by Australia-Indonesia.
see my reply above
you are seriously biased against us
This is not biased but scientifically objective.
that is your individual rough claim on a forum which is narrow minded and it cannot be substantiated by a comprehenisive comparison with our history
I've given you all the scientific reference and you say unsubstatiated? WOW
Taiwanese boat was in disputed waters and the party who had caused the unarmed fisherman's death was the PCG - these will be the findings from the investigation
WOW~ the Official Taiwanese Government had explicitly said the incident is outside disputed water and you stubbornly chose to ignore this?
Tsk tsk tsk~
I think you have shown yourself that you are the one who is biased.
http://www.cga.gov.tw/GipOpen/wSite/public/Attachment/f1368153033684.pdf
Let me highlighted for you...
南界線
外10浬 (10 nm
outside souther border)
