Date: December 24, 2019 12:17AM
> Willerslev--whom I greatly admire, have followed,
> and cited here in past posts--does give a date of
> around 15,000 years for people entering Alaska.
> That's all there is, honest.
You are the gift that keeps on giving. In 2018 Willerslev and colleagues wrote a paper saying that ancestors of the Native Americans entered the Americas between 25,000 and 20,000 years ago.* Honest.
> That is consistent with the Anzick dates, and its
> population being ancestral to Native Americans...
Not in the way you mean. You think Native Americans appeared in Alaska some 15,000 years ago and showed up at the Anzick site in Clovis times. Willerslev, however, reckons the original migrants arrived in the Americas millennia earlier than that by coming down the Pacific Coast--just as RtB's article states. So when you dispute RtB's source, you are implicitly saying that Willerslev is wrong.
If that were not enough to indicate that you have not read the original Willerslev article, you claim that the Anzick child was "directly ancestral" to today's Native Americans in North, Central and South America. But that is not at all what the authors wrote; you are merely repeating what the journalist regurgitated. The truth is that Willerslev found "evidence of a deep divergence in Native American populations that predates the Anzick-1 individual." So again we see a story that occurred thousands of years before you think there were people in Alaska let alone further south.
> And now a blast of the old exhaust pipe to LW for
> that whine about Edward Vajda... I simply included
> an article about him that was easily accessible
> and gave the pertinent background information as
> an introduction.
Seriously? You gave us an advertisement for an event that occurred some six weeks ago and hoped no one would actually follow the link. As a matter of fact, you don't even know what he said in that speech.
> I won't be responsible if you're
> not willing to engage in some elementary research
Excellent. Do you remember the last time we went through this? You linked to a couple of youtube videos which you hadn't even watched from start to finish, and when I confronted you with some of Vajda's publications you were stumped. Cabbie, you haven't evinced evidence of having read an academic publication within the last five years.
> Vajda's finds are interesting and seminal, and I
> even left you an "out" because he discovered
> connections between Athabascan (Dené) languages
> in this hemisphere and the Ket people in Siberia.
You don't understand his research, which is not a surprise because your reading is limited to the aforementioned advertisement. Show us what you know, Cabbie. When and where did the Athabascan and Yeniseian languages diverge? What does that tell us about the dates for the peopling of the Americas?
> I'm well aware there's another Amerindian
> population that is not all that closely related.
If you had known that, you wouldn't have said the Anzick child was "directly ancestral" to today's Native Americans.
> They are, however, probably descended from the
> population that gave rise to the Anzick child.
Uh, yeah. No one disputes that. The problem is that you think the Anzick boy was 1) part of the original migration and 2) "directly ancestral" to all of today's Native Americans in North, Central and South America. Neither of those assertions is true.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2019 02:57AM by Lot's Wife.