Human Origins.
https://youtu.be/dGiQaabX3_o
Gets it almost right.
Human history isn't just one history.
Anatomically Modern Humans are about 200,000 years old. And Homo Erectus lived for ten times longer than us. There were many breeds of humans who interbred with Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
We are the least ancient of the 16 different breeds of humans who preceded us and interbred with us, and there were many more breeds of hominids living in Africa and all over the world for millions of years before we evolved..
I saw a great Nat. Geo show on Netflix about the first Americans. The Clovis, who were here 13,000 years ago. 7,000 years prior to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
No religious account can account for all of that, except perhaps Buddhism or Hinduism or Native pantheist religions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2019 12:55AM by schrodingerscat.

I say we're mutations off of other mutations off a design created by a trillion trillion blind monkeys typing code a trillion trillion light years away.

This is funny. I like to add that the monkeys were happily smiling.

A note, Kori.

"Clovis First" is no longer the consensus academic view of the peopling of the Americas. There are too many sites with credible dates before then. Look up "pre-Clovis" and you'll find a wealth of interesting information.

All I know is that I'm here now.

Unless, of course, I'm an avatar in a computer simulation and that's what I'm programmed to think.

Breeds isn't correct. Hominin species is.

"Rewind to 30,000 years ago. As well as modern humans, three other hominin species were around: the Neanderthals in Europe and western Asia, the Denisovans in Asia, and the "hobbits" from the Indonesian island of Flores."
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150929-why-are-we-the-only-human-species-still-alive

I can see why you will never unwrap yourself from around your breeding axle.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Breeds isn't correct. Hominin species is.
>
> "Rewind to 30,000 years ago. As well as modern
> humans, three other hominin species were around:
> the Neanderthals in Europe and western Asia, the
> Denisovans in Asia, and the "hobbits" from the
> Indonesian island of Flores."
> http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150929-why-are-we
> -the-only-human-species-still-alive
>
> I can see why you will never unwrap yourself from
> around your breeding axle.

If they were different species, they wouldn't be able to produce fertile offspring, which defines a species, when they can only reproduce fertile offspring with their own kind, family or type. The words breed, race and sub-species are interchangeable.

Like a wolf and a coyote can interbreed, even though they're different sub species of Canine.
That seems to me a lot like Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Neanderthals and Denisovans and Idaltu, Heidelbergensis, Erectus, the list goes on. Lots of different 'types', families, sub-species, breeds of humans. 16 of whom we've got fossile evidence of, 4 of whom we've got DNA evidence to back up the fossile evidence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2019 12:23AM by schrodingerscat.

Kori,

The definition you suggest is widely accepted and generally accurate, but there are problems with it as well. And in the case of hominids, the standard practice is as EB describes.

I just did a rough-and-ready search and found a number of decent sources all of which describe the various hominid groups as "species" and none of which use the term "breeds." For example. . .


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-human-familys-earliest-ancestors-7372974/

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_17

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/overview-of-hominin-evolution-89010983

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If they were different species, they wouldn't be
> able to produce fertile offspring, which defines a
> species, when they can only reproduce fertile
> offspring with their own kind, family or type. The
> words breed, race and sub-species are
> interchangeable.
>
> Like a wolf and a coyote can interbreed, even
> though they're different sub species of Canine.
> That seems to me a lot like Homo Sapiens Sapiens
> and Neanderthals and Denisovans and Idaltu,
> Heidelbergensis, Erectus, the list goes on. Lots
> of different 'types', families, sub-species,
> breeds of humans. 16 of whom we've got fossile
> evidence of, 4 of whom we've got DNA evidence to
> back up the fossile evidence.

That is not the definition of species. It is a common layman understanding but your absolutist usage of it is incorrect. It doesnt apply to asexually reproducing soecies for example. So clearly ability to produce viable offspring is not the limiting factor on the definition of a species.

Polar bear is Ursus maritimis. Brown bear is Ursus arctos. They interbred in the Pleistoscene to produce the grizzly bear, which we know to have been fertile ever since and has developed its own characteristics. Polar bears and grizzlies are now interbreeding again to form the pizzly or grolar because of global warming. This hybrid is fertile also.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/05/when-polar-bears-and-grizzlies-breed-they-can-produce-fertile-offspring-why-can-t-other-species.html

Its not that they cant interbreed, but that they don't without external pressures



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2019 08:34AM by dogblogger.

To quote the prophets from Rush (probably Neil Peart), "Why are we here? Because we're here. Roll the Bones"

Here, start with this one:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm

>>New Evidence Puts Man In North America 50,000 Years Ago

Show me the DNA...

Same source; different dates...

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/02/native-americans-descend-ancient-montana-boy

This week, she [Sarah Anzick] is the second author on a paper in Nature that reports the complete sequence of the Anzick child’s nuclear genome. The sequencing effort, led by ancient DNA experts Eske Willerslev and Morten Rasmussen of the University of Copenhagen, comes to a dramatic conclusion: The 1- to 2-year-old Clovis child, now known to be a boy, is directly ancestral to today’s native peoples from Central and South America. “Their data are very convincing … that the Clovis Anzick child was part of the population that gave rise to North, Central, and Southern American groups,” says geneticist Connie Mulligan of the University of Florida in Gainesville.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-clovis-point-and-the-discovery-of-americas-first-culture-3825828/

This one offers an overview, and the only "consensus" is that Clovis was "America's first widespread culture." I've reviewed the "optical thermo-luminescence dating" that was used at Buttermilk Creek, and it rests on an assumption on when the rocks (minerals?) were last exposed to sunlight.

Anyway, to repeat Tonto's old joke to the Lone Ranger: "What's this we, kemo sabe?"

I know my ancestors came from the British Isles; your mileage may vary, but speaking of "consensus" it is generally agreed--and supported by genetic evidence--that modern Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa ~75,000 years ago, and any "cross-breeding" with other members of the genus Homo was minimal.

Moving on...

Manis Mastodon? That one would have us believe ancient hunters were slaying the mighty proboscideans with a projectile point ~1/4" in diameter. The "Paisley Caves Poop" is disputed by many as well.

Last item: Be sure to mind your manners...

> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/0411
> 18104010.htm
>
> >>New Evidence Puts Man In North America 50,000
> Years Ago

Why would anyone argue either for or against that? It is fifteen years out of date, scientifically dubious, and something no one in this thread has endorsed. It is irrelevant.


--------------------
> This week, she is the second author on a paper in
> Nature that reports the complete sequence of the
> Anzick child’s nuclear genome. The sequencing
> effort, led by ancient DNA experts Eske Willerslev
> and Morten Rasmussen of the University of
> Copenhagen, comes to a dramatic conclusion: The 1-
> to 2-year-old Clovis child, now known to be a boy,
> is directly ancestral to today’s native peoples
> from Central and South America.

You state that the child "is directly ancestral to today's native peoples from Central and South America." And yet the statement you quote in support of that proposition says something quite different.

Thus...


---------------
> “Their data are
> very convincing … that the Clovis Anzick child
> was part of the population that gave rise to
> North, Central, and Southern American groups,”
> says geneticist Connie Mulligan of the University
> of Florida in Gainesville.

Whereas you assert that the child is "directly ancestral," the expert says the child "was part of the population that gave rise to North, Central, and Southern American groups." The scientists' failure to endorse your view that the boy was a "direct ancestor" of modern Native Americans is not surprising, for he died before his third birthday.


---------------------
> This one offers an overview, and the only
> "consensus" is that Clovis was "America's first
> widespread culture."

Moving the goal post. You have claimed many times that Clovis First is the dominant view. That is no longer true; even your favorites Roosevelt and Willerslev do not think Clovis was the initial American people. So here you present a different argument: namely, that Clovis was the "first widespread culture."

That may be true. So what? Has anyone said anything different?


----------------
> I've reviewed the "optical
> thermo-luminescence dating" that was used at
> Buttermilk Creek, and it rests on an assumption on
> when the rocks (minerals?) were last exposed to
> sunlight.

Not relevant.


----------------
> Manis Mastodon? That one would have us believe
> ancient hunters were slaying the mighty
> proboscideans with a projectile point ~1/4" in
> diameter. The "Paisley Caves Poop" is disputed by
> many as well.

Again, this is irrelevant. The role, or lack thereof, played by humans in the demise of mastodons bears no relation to Native American genetics and origins.

Good post, Cabbie, with your usual thoughtfulness.

Perhaps he can help you find documentation to support your notion that the Arab population in Palestine is shrinking and will one day reach zero?

Can't do anything about argumentative nitwits either. Some things are just what they are.

I give a person a compliment, and you want to shred my compliment because you are that kind of a person.

Take it back to the other thread, why doncha?

I have nothing to say to you. You just want to stir up dissension.

As for Arabs in Israel, check the immigration records. See for yourself. They are not reproducing at the same rates they were before. Their children are leaving. And I'm not talking about Palestinians. I'm speaking of elsewhere in the country. But I don't wish to have that discussion with you because you don't converse. You don't engage. You're just here to argue.

And you're off topic on this thread to boot.

Nor was my comment to you, but to Cabbie.

Why are you taking my comment to Cabbie so personal, Miss Lot?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2019 08:31AM by Amyjo.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And you're off topic on this thread to boot.

I would say "to kettle" and then to the pots.

I will reassert my opinion that the fundamental intent of the ’great post, Cabbie’ was to provoke Lot’s Wife. And that's fine. What's good for the goose, the gander gets in spades; no problem.

And then the petty, affected moral outrage is hilarious. Why the management allows itself to be manipulated is an interesting question.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

And you, Padre, are an animal!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2019 09:24PM by Lot's Wife.

Amyjo, merely reasserting a false proposition does not make it true. Your claims that the Arab population of Palestine is shrinking and will die out completely are contradicted by the UN statistical agency, the Palestinian statistical agency, the Federal Reserve, the US Census Bureau, and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. You have not explained why we should reject their analysis (really it's just a matter of counting) and embrace your unevidenced view.

Perhaps, however, now is an opportune moment to add a more subtle note about your posts about Palestinian demographics. You wrote:

"The concentration of Jews that are in Israel are Israeli, nonetheless. Which is the majority of the population there. The Arabs (Muslims and Christians,) are a shrinking population. When they are gone there will be no one to replace them. They are not allowed to immigrate there, unlike the Jews are. Once they die off, that will be the end of their villages. Then Israel will be all Jewish."

Can you understand that your gleeful prediction that the Arabs will disappear and leave the Promised Land to the Chosen people sounds somewhat insensitive? Many would think that a repressed ethnicity comprising almost half of a country's population deserve something more than hopes that they will fade out of existence.

You have done this before, like when without any evidence besides someone else's interpretation of a voice over the phone, you announced that that virtually all Pakistani telemarketers sympathize with, and funnel money to, ISIS. That was a foolish position to assume, and yet you defended it to the bitter end. I don't believe you are intentionally hostile to people of other ethnicities, but it may be time to examine your visceral impulses in that regard. The Arab population of Israel/Palestine deserves every bit as much respect as the Jewish population. And getting excited about the proposition that an ethnicity is going to die out is unseemly at best: it is the emotional presumption from which atrocities are born.

Thank the God of Abraham that your demographic projections are incorrect. If the Israeli-Palestinian problem is going to go away, that must occur through mutual respect and compromise. Hoping that a massive minority will simply disappear is morally wrong.

Well, I agree with Lot's Wife there.

The Christian Arab population has been shrinking for some time, but my impression was that the Muslim Arab population was still growing.

Amyjo, the fact that Lot’s Wife and Jordan are in agreement that your opinion regarding the Arab/Muslim population in Israel is wrong ought to be sufficient to warrant an ”oops, my bad!” from you.

Learning to do this simple thing, when appropriate, would make your life a lot easier, on so many levels!

If you don't believe me, ask Tevai.

That would still leave the matter of hoping that an ethnic minority should just go away. That's not a very magnanimous attitude.

It surfaces in the cesspool that is my mind that if mormonism completely disappears from the face of the earth, there will be no one who will care about ’pioneer mormon stock’ and one's descent from said stock.

It would be best if the church collapsed because people lose interest rather than disappearing as an ethnicity and culture and occupants of a land due to falling fertility and emigration.

Hoping that life is so bad that a people clear out so others can monopolize a territory and unify a nation is a notion with an unfortunate history.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2019 09:16PM by Lot's Wife.

I keep trying to get through that cartoon video we're supposed to accept as actual science, and I keep having to change bullchip filters. Okay, let me put that another way: I left seventh grade over half a century ago. Tabloid silliness hasn't generally been acceptable on RFM, and I suggest somebody needs to review the term "peer reviewed" if they wish to avoid foolishness.

I focussed my discussion on when Homo sapiens first came to this hemisphere, an area I've researched--with Simon Southerton--extensively, because of its relevance in debunking the BOM (which is one of the board's primary agendas), but I'm comfortable with the current "Out of Africa" timetable for modern homo sapiens (supported by genetic evidence), and to suggest there are other extant subspecies of Homo sapiens is specious nonsense. I included the "50,000 years in this hemisphere" figure because it's axiomatic in research to offer a summary of past discussions even if they're later shown to be erroneous.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2019 04:39AM by SL Cabbie.

Southerton, of course, is another expert who has for years disagreed with you on Clovis First. Like Roosevelt and Willerslev and RichardtheBad, he reckons that there were earlier human entrants into the Americas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl-uoAWywOE

Richard's "debunking"--he lost credibility with me when he defended Dennis Stanford's "Solutrean Solution"--consisted of claiming "Clovis First was dead," and I simply pointed out the genetic evidence--from the Anzick Clovis Child--showed he belonged to a population that was ancestral to all Native Americans. You've offered nothing comparable.

I also had the pleasure of of offering Simon the news of Willerslev's findings. Moreover, on the geography end, anything Simon--who's a close friend--offers comes from someone who lives in Canberra and isn't bound to black-and-white thinking as you are. Spare me the "Google expert" act, seriously.

#what Amyjo said

Finally, I packed the book Kerry/FlattopSF sent me on the subject, so it isn't available. Maybe his ghost will visit you tonight and school you on "because you said so?" claims...

I've also corresponded with Jennifer Raff on the subject of the coastal migration hypothesis, and she, at least, said to me "We'll have to agree to disagree" on that one.

That's a world view that is apparently foreign to you.

Ooops, I forgot to mention Gary Haynes who's now retired, but who noted when asked if there were "pre-Clovis people" answered, "Probably is the safest answer."

(edited to correct typo)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2019 01:01AM by SL Cabbie.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl-uoAWywOE

For a long time, your research on these topics has consisted primarily of youtube videos. Here you don't even explain what point you are trying to make by linking to a presentation by Roosevelt. What are you trying to say?


-------------------
> Richard's "debunking"--he lost credibility with me
> when he defended Dennis Stanford's "Solutrean
> Solution"--consisted of claiming "Clovis First was
> dead," and I simply pointed out the genetic
> evidence--from the Anzick Clovis Child--showed he
> belonged to a population that was ancestral to
> all Native Americans. You've offered nothing
> comparable.

That's lame, isn't it? Anyone who reads this thread can see you are trying to expropriate my views. To wit, above you wrote that the "Clovis child. . . is directly ancestral to today’s native peoples." I replied that the child was NOT directly ancestral to today's native peoples--he couldn't have reproduced before his death at age two--but part of a broader ancestral population. Now you are adopting MY argument and claiming it as your own. You say I've "offered nothing comparable"--and yet I offered the argument you are now parroting.


----------------
> I also had the pleasure of of offering Simon the
> news of Willerslev's findings.

You've written this before, even using the "had the pleasure" formulation. The important point, however, is that your having read an article and reported on it to Southerton does not make you in any way an expert on the subject either generally or relative to Southerton.


------------------
> Moreover, on the
> geography end, anything Simon--who's a close
> friend--offers comes from someone who lives in
> Canberra and isn't bound to black-and-white
> thinking as you are. Spare me the "Google expert"
> act, seriously.

Whether Southerton is a "close friend" does not have any bearing on your expertise, or lack thereof. Moreover, you told us a year or so ago that he was not responding to your emails.


--------------------
> Finally, I packed the book Kerry/FlattopSF sent me
> on the subject, so it isn't available. Maybe his
> ghost will visit you tonight and school you on
> "because you said so?" claims...

That was a 2002 book, right? So nearly 20 years out of date. And Roosevelt changed her views on Clovis after that.


-----------------
> I've also corresponded with with Jennifer Raff on
> the subject of the coastal migration hypothesis,
> and she, at least, said to me "We'll have to agree
> to disagree" on that one.

Yes, you've said this before too. The fact that an expert says "we'll have to disagree" does not mean she thinks you are an expert. Quite the contrary.


----------------
> Ooops, I forgot to mention Gary Haynes who's now
> retired, but who noted when asked if there were
> "pre-Clovis people" answered, "Probably is the
> safest answer."

Are you seriously offering that as support for your proposition that pre-Clovis is wrong? The fact that your stars say you are wrong and Haynes says you are "probably" wrong does not mean you are right.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2019 04:12PM by Lot's Wife.

You're going to tell me that isn't Anna C. Roosevelt? And somehow I'm getting vilified for a YouTube with an actual scientist, yet this thread begins with one that was definitely at the seventh grade level.

#crickets (Still waiting for someone to speak to the subject and not engage in shell games and obfuscation)

From my "mailbag":

>>Was going to post this on RFM but decided its not worth wasting my time with Lot's wife.

>>"Clovis first is dead and Pluto is not a planet. No further debate is allowed, pay no attention to the controversy still being hashed out among scientists. Lot's wife's position is the final word and she will post IRL info about you if you don't bow to her and respect her authority."

The reality is the "evidence" for pre-Clovis people is sparse; I'll start with Wiki just to offer an overview:

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

>>According to one alternative theory, the Pacific coast of North America may have been free of ice, allowing the first peoples in North America to come down this route prior to the formation of the ice-free corridor in the continental interior.[87] No evidence has yet been found to support this hypothesis[citation needed] except that genetic analysis of coastal marine life indicates diverse fauna persisting in refugia throughout the Pleistocene ice ages along the coasts of Alaska and British Columbia; these refugia include common food sources of coastal aboriginal peoples, suggesting that a migration along the coastline was feasible at the time.

https://www.inverse.com/article/47895-human-migration-americas-ice-free

(2018 on this one, folks)

>>Fehren-Schmitz is a “big supporter of the coastal route,” but the work of other scientists led her and her co-authors to acknowledge in the new paper that coastal travel is a “prematurely narrow interpretation of current evidence.” The study’s primary author, University of Alaska, Fairbanks anthropology professor Ben Potter, Ph.D., explains to Inverse that we can’t definitively side with the coastal route theory because we lack data on the northern part of that route. Furthermore, if the coastal route theory is correct, he wonders, then how could a culture accustomed to hunting mammoth and bison transition so quickly into a maritime society? He concludes that there’s a “lack of evidence where we should expect to see evidence” and that more research is necessary.

'Nuff said.. Well a bit more from the book Kerry sent me...

Roosevelt: There are no authorities. You have to be your own authority.

I accepted that counsel years ago, but my ego isn't so great I need to inflict it on others; I'm content to put out some facts and honest reporting without editorializing.

Since I caught flak for simply reporting "claims of humans in the Americas circa 50,000 years ago," I'll just toss this into the pot with the serious disclaimer, "I'm just the reporter, folks."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/04/26/archaeology-shocker-study-claims-humans-reached-the-americas-130000-years-ago/?utm_term=.781fc6945478

>>Archaeology shocker: Study claims humans reached the Americas 130,000 years ago

>>Some 130,000 years ago, scientists say, a mysterious group of ancient people visited the coastline of what is now Southern California. More than 100,000 years before they were supposed to have arrived in the Americas, these unknown people used five heavy stones to break the bones of a mastodon. They cracked open femurs to suck out the marrow and, using the rocks as hammers, scored deep notches in the bone. When finished, they abandoned the materials in the soft, fine soil; one tusk planted upright in the ground like a single flag in the archaeological record. Then the people vanished.

>>This is the bold claim put forward by paleontologist Thomas Deméré and his colleagues in a paper published Wednesday in the journal Nature [That's a serious publication, folks]. The researchers say that the scratched-up mastodon fossils and large, chipped stones uncovered during excavation for a San Diego highway more than 20 years ago are evidence of an unknown hominin species, perhaps Homo erectus, Neanderthals, maybe even Homo sapiens.

Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of drama...

Cry havoc, and let slip the red herrings of irrelevance.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're going to tell me that isn't Anna C.
> Roosevelt?

Perhaps you should reread what I wrote, for I said it WAS Roosevelt.


----------------
> #crickets (Still waiting for someone to speak to
> the subject and not engage in shell games and
> obfuscation)

Kori can defend himself if he wants to.


------------------
> >>Was going to post this on RFM but decided its
> not worth wasting my time with Lot's wife.

Anonymous criticism? It's hard to address points raised in an email I can't see and whose author I don't know.


------------------
> >>"Clovis first is dead and Pluto is not a planet.
> No further debate is allowed, pay no attention to
> the controversy still being hashed out among
> scientists.

Interesting. I have never said "Clovis First" is wrong. I have said, time and again, that it is no longer the consensus--as evidenced by the agreement among the scientists you claim are experts but who uniformly think your pet theory is incorrect.


-----------------
> Lot's wife's position is the final
> word and she will post IRL info about you if you
> don't bow to her and respect her authority."

I am not an authority on this topic and no one needs to respect me in any way. I only ask--nay, demand--that you use evidence and logic to correct my errors. Name dropping, mischaracterization of evidence, and criticism from anonymous people who may in fact be you are not epistemologically sound argumentative techniques.


------------------
> The reality is the "evidence" for pre-Clovis
> people is sparse; I'll start with Wiki just to
> offer an overview:


I'll just skip the Wiki article because we know the overview and, as you constantly note, Wiki is not that reliable. But your inclusion of a source you constantly deride does not strengthen your argument.


-----------------
> >>Fehren-Schmitz is a “big supporter of the
> coastal route,” but the work of other scientists
> led her and her co-authors to acknowledge in the
> new paper that coastal travel is a “prematurely
> narrow interpretation of current evidence.” The
> study’s primary author, University of Alaska,
> Fairbanks anthropology professor Ben Potter,
> Ph.D., explains to Inverse that we can’t
> definitively side with the coastal route theory
> because we lack data on the northern part of that
> route. Furthermore, if the coastal route theory is
> correct, he wonders, then how could a culture
> accustomed to hunting mammoth and bison transition
> so quickly into a maritime society? He concludes
> that there’s a “lack of evidence where we
> should expect to see evidence” and that more
> research is necessary.

You radically mischaracterize the article. The "Clovis First" argument that you have defended to the death stated that the first peoples to enter the Americas came through the continental corridor and established the Clovis culture. The "pre-Clovis" theory, by contrast, notes that there were almost certainly people in the Americas before Clovis. Pre-Clovis advocates NEVER said that humans avoided the corridor once it opened.

So your article does NOT support your Clovis First position. It says that "We must accept that people voyaged into the Americas along multiple routes." That is entirely consistent with the pre-Clovis theory, which merely says that some people entered the new world before the Clovis culture.


------------------
> 'Nuff said.. Well a bit more from the book Kerry
> sent me...
>
> Roosevelt: There are no authorities. You have to
> be your own authority.

Yes, you keep quoting that statement from 2002. It is ironic that you now cite Roosevelt's 20-year-old dictum to negate her subsequent research and findings. She clearly disagrees with both your substance and with your approach to science and knowledge.


----------------------
> I accepted that counsel years ago, but my ego
> isn't so great I need to inflict it on others; I'm
> content to put out some facts and honest reporting
> without editorializing.

Sure.

I'm going to toss in another link with a relevant "overview," and add I was "horrified" by that claim from Steven Oppenheimer right at the end.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/are-all-native-americans-descended-from-the-clovis-peop-1522343687

As noted, I'm one of those who's of the belief the DNA of the "Anzick Clovis Child" offers some pretty powerful evidence:

>>For the past 20 years, anthropologists have argued over whether the first Americans came to the New World by walking over a land bridge across the Bering Strait, or by sea from southwest Europe (the so-called the Solutrean hypothesis). A genetic analysis of a one-year-old Late Pleistocene human from a Clovis burial site in western Montana may have settled the issue once and for all.

>>According to the study's authors, some 80% of all present-day native populations in North and South America are direct descendants of the Clovis boy's family, and the remaining 20% are still more closely related to the Clovis family than any other people on the planet.

Cabdriver Philosophical Observation: The "Clovis Boy's Family" lived ~12,000 years ago (his remains were found in Montana), and yet there are those who want to suggest 15,000 year old remains (the dating is problematic, honest) are somehow their "descendants."

And more "Solutrean Silliness"?

>>All this being said, many experts are not convinced, including Oxford University geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer. "They haven't produced evidence to refute the Solutrean hypothesis," he is quoted in the CBC article. "In fact, there is genetic evidence that only the Solutrean hypothesis explains."

Anyway, Richard seemed "embarrassed" when I "connected" him with Stanford and Bradley's Solutrean claims, so here's a link explaining them. I don't blame you, Richard, but you now seem to want to "school me" on the subject of DNA science, and that represents a shift from a few years ago when you took the position you were repeating what the molecular biologists were saying.

https://insider.si.edu/2012/03/ice-age-mariners-from-europe-were-the-first-people-to-reach-north-america/

>>"Across Atlantic Ice" is the result of more than a decade’s research by leading archaeologists Bruce Bradley of the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, and Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. Through archaeological evidence, they turn the long-held theory of the origins of New World populations on its head. For more than 400 years, it has been claimed that people first entered America from Asia, via a land bridge that spanned the Bering Sea. We now know that some people did arrive via this route nearly 15,000 years ago, probably by both land and sea. Eighty years ago, stone tools long believed to have been left by the first New World inhabitants were discovered in New Mexico and named Clovis. These distinctive Clovis stone tools are now dated around 12,000 years ago leading to the recognition that people preceded Clovis into the Americas. No Clovis tools have been found in Alaska or Northeast Asia, but are concentrated in the south eastern United States. Groundbreaking discoveries from the east coast of North America are demonstrating that people who are believed to be Clovis ancestors arrived in this area no later than 18,450 years ago and possibly as early as 23,000 years ago, probably in boats from Europe.

Stanford hasn't backed down from this position.

And I don't expect Stanford to back down from his position anytime soon. He died last year (RIP, to a man who wiped more knowledge of North American Paleo-Indian archaeology off his ass every morning, than either you or I can ever know to exist).

As for the rest of your post. What is your point?

Given the "geographical reality" that argues against his Solutrean Silliness, I'd say the use of that term is problematic.

I will alert Simon to his passing, and I'm certain, given that he's much more of a gentleman than I am, he'll refrain from any more of the rhetoric he's shared with me in the past about this individual.

Of course I'm still waiting for you to speak to the subject of those Solutrean claims rather than engage in still more deflections.

Richard never endorsed the Solutrean hypothesis so there's no need to defend it.

What he said was that some of Stanford's research was valuable. That is not the same thing as endorsing all of his thinking, particularly the Solutrean nonsense that Richard rejected multiple times.

You might as well say Richard lacks credibility because he believes in the Flat Earth theory, which of course he does not.

This time my comment wasn't to you; it was to Richard...

And your ad hominem attack criticizing my use of a "third hand blog" (actually it is "second hand") is particularly rich since the link you gave only offers an abstract, and one would need to purchase the entire article, something I'm not inclined to do.

I'm doubtful you purchased the article either.

Whoops, I forgot to call you on one more bit of dishonesty and prevarication:

>>It is ironic that you now cite Roosevelt's 20-year-old dictum to negate her subsequent research and findings. She clearly disagrees with both your substance and with your approach to science and knowledge.

So you've appointed yourself to speak for her?

Here's an update on that subject in her own words:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Peopling-of-the-Americas-The-20372

>>All the new evidence, therefore, has revealed that the first Americans had settled in many different regions by 11,000 years ago. Not only the plains but also the coasts and tropical forests were occupied by the earliest-known people. Thus, Clovis was just one regional specialization among many. Although the new data suggest a different scenario for colonization of the hemisphere, the much earlier dates remain problematic. An initial entry at about 12,000 years ago remains the most viable conclusion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2019 05:13AM by SL Cabbie.

> This time my comment wasn't to you; it was to
> Richard...

Public bulletin board, public discussion. If you want to go private, send Richard an email.


-------------------
> And your ad hominem attack criticizing my use of a
> "third hand blog" (actually it is "second hand")
> is particularly rich since the link you gave only
> offers an abstract, and one would need to purchas
> the entire article, something I'm not inclined to
> do.

Lets unpack that sentence. First, my saying that you used a bad source is not an "ad hominem" attack. Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary to learn what "ad hominem" means. Second, your source was indeed third-hand. The initial account was the academic publication, the second-hand account was the CBC article, and the third-hand account was the gizmodo article that you linked. One, two, three.

As for whether you want to read the full article or not, I don't really care. The fact is you didn't even bother to read the authors' abstract which, as indicated by the quotation I provided, contradicts what you say. You didn't even read the second-hand account but went right to a tertiary article by a person who doesn't even list a college degree on his resume. Where some have an instinct for the jugular, you go right for the capillaries.


----------------
> Whoops, I forgot to call you on one more bit of
> dishonesty and prevarication:
>
> >>It is ironic that you now cite Roosevelt's
> 20-year-old dictum to negate her subsequent
> research and findings. She clearly disagrees with
> both your substance and with your approach to
> science and knowledge.
>
> So you've appointed yourself to speak for her?

Why would it be dishonest of me to appoint myself to speak for her? Rash, perhaps, but dishonest? Maybe you need to look that word up too.

And how is my honesty, or lack thereof, relevant to the substance of the discussion? She has explained fully that she changed her mind and now accepts the pre-Clovis hypothesis.


----------------
> Here's an update on that subject in her own
> words:
>
> https://www.britannica.com/topic/Peopling-of-the-A
> mericas-The-20372
>
> >>All the new evidence, therefore, has revealed
> that the first Americans had settled in many
> different regions by 11,000 years ago. Not only
> the plains but also the coasts and tropical
> forests were occupied by the earliest-known
> people. Thus, Clovis was just one regional
> specialization among many. Although the new data
> suggest a different scenario for colonization of
> the hemisphere, the much earlier dates remain
> problematic. An initial entry at about 12,000
> years ago remains the most viable conclusion.

You have got to be kidding. Read the Article History on that page and you will see that Roosevelt wrote that article in the 1990s. Click also on the "Learn More" button. It will tell you that the article is outdated and "presented on the site "as archival content, intended for historical reference only." So what you claim is an update on Roosevelt's thinking is in fact more than two decades old and explicitly labeled as outdated. You can hardly use that to conceal Roosevelt's current position, which by dint of nearly 20 years of new and better research is diametrically opposed to yours.

So stop the name-calling and do your homework. Otherwise you are going to keep embarrassing yourself.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2019 05:54AM by Lot's Wife.

As I have said over and over again, I DO NOT accept the Soloutrean hypothesis. Your assertion as to my beliefs is flat out wrong.

This article is irrelevant to Richard, but I'm going to take it on separately.

You are making some elementary mistakes. First, the article is written by George Dvorsky, a blogger whose academic qualifications do not show up in his bios on various sites. It follows that his opinions should be taken with a grain of salt especially when, as in this case, he is summarizing another site's summary of an academic report.* Why, Cabbie, are you using a third-hand account rather than the actual study?

Second, you ignore parts of the article that contradict your Clovis First argument. You write, for instance, "the "Clovis Boy's Family" lived ~12,000 years ago . . . and yet there are those who want to suggest 15,000 year old remains . . . are somehow their "descendants." In fact, nothing in the article indicates that the 15,000 year old materials are "descendants" of the Clovis Boy or his family. That is your distortion.

To the contrary, Jennifer Raff, an expert whom you often call a friend but who disagrees fundamentally with you on the Clovis question is summarized as stating that the Clovis Boy and his family were NOT the ancestors of all of today's Native Americans. She explains that they were part of one branch of the ancestral population, the other branch having entered the Americas earlier than Clovis. She ACCEPTS the Monte Verde dating of 14,600 years ago that you reject, thereby endorsing the Pre-Clovis theory that you likewise insist is wrong.

Third, the underlying research is exactly as Raff states. The authors write that the Clovis Boy's family was "directly ancestral to many contemporary Native Americans." "Many," not the "all" that you claim. Where did the other groups of Native Americans come from? The study states that "we find evidence of a deep divergence in Native American populations that predates the Anzick-1 individual."

So you are again citing research that contradicts your claims. You say there were no Native Americans in the Americas before Clovis. The study and Raff and other commentators state that there were. You assert first that all Native Americans descended directly from the Clovis Boy and then, when I pointed out that that was wrong, retreated to the position that all Native Americans descended from the boy's family. But the study says that is false as well. It says that there was an initial Beringian population which split up into multiple groups around 17,000 years ago, the first of which came down the coast with the later group moving south into the center of the North American continent and eventually produced the Clovis culture.

That IS the Pre-Clovis Theory. The coastal migration came first and resulted in settlements as far south as southern Chile. The continental migration came later and produced the Clovis complex. If you want to disprove that consensus view, you'll need to find articles that support your position rather than misrepresenting studies that do not.





*The actual academic publication, as opposed to third-hand blog articles, it may be found at https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13025

The question isn't where, but when.

'twas a garden in Jackson county, Missouri, where man first tasted existence. Then he tasted of the fruit of iniquity, which is knowing stuff.

If Mormons carve out a homeland here (I live in Jackson County) I don't know if I will be abused, tolerated, or accepted.

NdGT -- "How Life Began"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlLz0E9awVw



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2019 08:37PM by anybody.

The true answer is beyond us and will remain unanswered.
In it's place is anyone's best theory.

"We are the least ancient of the 16 different breeds of humans who preceded us and interbred with us, and there were many more breeds of hominids living in Africa and all over the world for millions of years before we evolved.."

Don't stop there. Take it back further, where did hominids come from.
https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/earlyprimates/early_2.htm

And keep taking it back.
https://www.livescience.com/57942-what-was-first-life-on-earth.html

Right, but go back even further than the first life on earth.
What came before that?
Viruses.
They're not alive.

I have read in scientific papers that the first life on Earth was a now dormant or extinct predecessor of both viruses and bacteria.
Since virus is not technically alive, yet contains all the recipe for life, perhaps the DNA is what came prior to life.
And it got transported here from another ocean world that got annihilated and sent a frozen asteroid to our warm wet planet where it unwound and found the elements necessary for life, DNA. Protein, carbon. Water. Air.

Whether viruses are alive or not depends on your definition. Sure, by the standard definition for more complex life forms viruses don't rise to that level. But there are lots of concepts, lots of scientific definitions, that are fuzzy around the edges.

An origin possibility that you have not mentioned is the RNA hypothesis. DNA probably isn't the origin of life since while it can store information very well, it doesn't do much else. RNA does: it is a less effective information storage system but it triggers the creation of the proteins necessary for more complex structures and ultimately viruses and bacteria. Moreover, under conditions similar to those characterizing early earth, RNA assembles itself spontaneously.

The theory is therefore that RNA arose from the "primordial chemical soup" and then triggered the formation of the proteins necessary for simple viruses while, simultaneously, the random transposition of a couple of molecules transformed RNA into DNA, which with its more stable data storage capacity allowed the evolution of more complex life forms.

That accords with the word we see today, in which DNA stores information and transfers it through RNA to proteins and larger structures. It also obviates the need to posit an extraterrestrial source of DNA and explains how life may be a perfectly natural chemical process on planets with similar compositions: of which there are many.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-rna-life.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170519083636.htm

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

"And it got transported here from another ocean world that got annihilated and sent a frozen asteroid to our warm wet planet where it unwound and found the elements necessary for life, DNA. Protein, carbon. Water. Air."

That doesn't really answer the question either. It just shifts it back and places it somewhere else. You would need to ask where did it come from to get on that distant ocean world? How did it begin in the universe? And why discard the Miller experiment?

mikemitchell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "And it got transported here from another ocean
> world that got annihilated and sent a frozen
> asteroid to our warm wet planet where it unwound
> and found the elements necessary for life, DNA.
> Protein, carbon. Water. Air."
>
> That doesn't really answer the question either. It
> just shifts it back and places it somewhere else.
> You would need to ask where did it come from to
> get on that distant ocean world? How did it begin
> in the universe? And why discard the Miller
> experiment?
I don't discard The Miller Experiment, which proves life could have developed on this or any other planet.

But that experiment and the subsequent refinements render the extraterrestrial dimension unnecessary. There is obviously still lots of uncertainty, but this is an area where Occam would almost surely do some shaving.

"I don't discard The Miller Experiment, which proves life could have developed on this or any other planet."

The idea of where first life began is provocative isn't it? When you mentioned life being transported from another world it brought back fond memories of a college biology class from years ago. The professor asked us how it began and someone suggested that very thing (from another world). We had a vigorous discussion and the professor kept us on point, that another world only moves the problem away from earth and still leaves the question unanswered.

Yeah... Where was that Space Winnebago from that stopped on earth to pump out its bilge all those many billions of years ago?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2019 06:47PM by elderolddog.

LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeskbiJjCXI

If I were in that class, I'd say, from RNA and DNA, which are present in non-life, like viruses.
But panspermia is entirely possible and even probable according to many scientists.
So the next question is, where did RNA and DNA come from?
Nobody knows, but my guess is that the universe tends toward life, instead of chaos.
Why?
Nobody knows, but my guess is that it has a lot to do with math, specifically the fibonacci series, which is determined by music of strings vibrating through the 11 dimensions of hyperspace.
Which is M theory.
Which I just read here, In a great book, the Jazz of Physics, The Jazz of Physics: The Secret Link Between Music and the Structure of the Universe https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465093574/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_PeppDbQT1NXRS
Quoting Michio Kaku, the string theorist who developed M Theory.
https://youtu.be/jremlZvNDuk



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2019 08:53PM by schrodingerscat.

Nobody knows, but Kori will beat it to death as he recovers from Mormonism. Yay!

It was a good class that day. The professor took us through how Redi had performed true science to show that flies did not arise spontaneously from rotting meat. That got added to the discussion, how can life begin with non-living matter. Like I said, the subject is as provocative now as it was then.

I don't really care where I came from. That's the past and I need to deal the present with an eye on the future.

I've got bigger fish to fry.