Go back thirty years and "everybody" thought the ice free corridor migration route to settle the Americas was "the" answer to the question. New evidence, new data, and more accurate technology have displaced this theory. We now know people migrated down the west coast, went east, and then north.

Science is not like religion. You don't "believe" things on faith without evidence. You can't just make things up. If the facts don't support the theory, the theory is discarded -- not the facts -- as so many people today want to do to maintain fictional "truths."


http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/official-first-americans-werent-clovis-people-after-all/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2017 08:07AM by anybody.

Rather than bother with discussing the tabloid link (that link above "Analysis Suggests these bones didn't Really belong to Santa Claus" is telling and an insult to our intelligence), I did click on the link to the Science article, and I found the "usual suspects," Dillehay, Erlandson, etc.

Dillehay is the one who still champions Monte Verde (see Roosevelt, Anna C., also Feidel, Stuart, and both Haynes). Erlandson is a "kelp highway proponent" who still believes that stone "crescents" (found both on the coast and in the Great Basin) were "ancient WMD's and used by pre-Clovis humans for many thousands of years.

I remain unconvinced, as do two who were present when Monte Verde was "blessed," C. Vance Haynes and Dina Dincauze.

BTW, this one was covered a few weeks ago in another thread; I did, in the interest of "objectivity" summarize both points of view, and my take on this one is it amounts to politics, not science, period.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2041222,2043640#msg-2043640

I remain unconvinced that any migration involving extensive sea-going technology in the North Pacific is supported by either evidence or common sense. Proponents point to the colonization of New Guinea and Australia in archaic times as evidence of human ; what is noteworthy is that sea levels were far lower then (per Simon Southerton), and the climate was far milder.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2041222,2043640#msg-2043640

You've looked into this more than I have so maybe the jury is still out. We shall see as more evidence comes out.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/majority-of-scientists-now-agree-that-humans-came-to-the-americas-by-boat/

https://blog.education.nationalgeographic.org/2017/11/08/did-the-first-americans-take-a-ride-on-the-kelp-highway/

Different articles but they cite the same paper.


BTW, I'd don't by the Soltrean hypothesis either. I'd believe the Kelp Highway route if there's evidence to support it. That seems to be what they are claming.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2017 06:08PM by anybody.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde

Wiki listed the source as PLOS One, and that left me shaking my head...

>>All submissions go through a pre-publication review by a member of the board of academic editors, who can elect to seek an opinion from an external reviewer. According to the journal, papers are not to be excluded on the basis of lack of perceived importance or adherence to a scientific field. By not excluding papers on the basis of subject area, PLOS One facilitates the discovery of the connections between papers whether within or between disciplines.

>>As with all journals of the Public Library of Science, PLOS One is financed by charging authors a publication fee.

Ancient seaweed? Seems to me I read somewhere about "old carbon" and its effects on C-14 Dating. Okay, here's one that's beyond my abilities to translate properly... Dillehay did offer a "seaweed ball" as evidence confirming MV's antiquity...

http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html

Incidentally, another area of Monte Verde yielded dates of 33,000 years bP, and yet was ignored. Inquiring minds want to know why...

It's nice to follow a discussion based on scientific hypothesis than interpreting Bible scriptures.

so ~ ¿ Lamanites are real then ?


an ~ ¿ the Book of Mormon is true ?


ziller am confuse ~

Who needs the kelp highway when you have submarines!

I prefer the Pacific Coast Highway.
It's above the kelp.

As our Cabbie points out ably, there's a difference between "here's some evidence that may mean something other than what we currently think" (which is what this is), and "here's some evidence that proves what we currently think is wrong (which this isn't).

But it's still a good lesson in how science works.
When new evidence comes in, people try to see how it fits into existing explanations (also based on evidence). Sometimes it confirms the existing explanations. Sometimes it shows them wrong. Sometimes where it fits isn't clear -- and scientists debate what it means and where it fits. Usually more evidence comes in and clarifies things one way or another...but not always.
In any case, our scientific explanations are always evidence-based, open to change, and always open to debate/argument. Best system for determining facts we humans have ever come up with :)

Science changes with new data. Religion doesn't.

I read something from Dan Peterson about this that implied that they came by boats just like the Book of Mormon said even if the timelines were wrong. Science doesn't phase Mormons at all. The Meldrum crowd don't worry about timelines, anything that can be cherry picked and taken out of context makes for good proof. And now there is that Universal Model scam going on from some Mormons who are producing their own science. Mormons don't deal in reality.

Could it that it’s because Reality and Mormonism have little to nothing in common?

Say it isn't so. :)

What's the "Universal Model scam going on from some Mormons"?

Sounds crazy but interesting ;-)

Any details?

Tom in Paris

Sorry to have bothered you - and indeed, rather sorry to have bothered myself ;-)

Frighteningly loony pseudoscience. Still, it's best to know the batdung that's out there, I suppose...

Tom in Paris

Universal Model discussed on this post
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1938748,1938748#msg-1938748

My theory (which could be proved wrong) is that people who crave certainty just want to be right about something for a change.

From Harvard no less...

http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reichlab/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/SkoglundReich2016_Americas.pdf

>>The first unambiguous evidence of modern humans in the Americas dates to between 14,000 and 15,000 years ago [5–8], and was likely the consequence of migration from Beringia.

The article gives four citations in support of the 14,000 year date, and as I noted, two of these involve Jenkin's "petrified poop" in Paisley Caves; the third is that dubious "Manis Mastodon," and that leaves Monte Verde standing alone... And somehow, it's managed to age 4,000 years as well.

Here's Stuart Fiedel's critique of the Paisley Caves coprolites. Fiedel, incidentally, has been a very vocal critique of Dillehay's Monte Verde claims.

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/554776/pdf