Superiour White People - ?

[ScottSA]

The current theories argue that the Americas were populated by successive waves of migration from Asia - you can quibble with the dates and pathways and there may have been some back migration but that does not negate the general conclusion. No serious scientist believes that humans evolved independently in the Americas - one way or another everyone's ancestors migrated from Africa.

Mankind descended from the trees in Scotland and then went to the Americas. And Africa, for that matter, to which the crown of Scotland is entitled. I don't know where all mankind ended up after the descent, but if it's not Scottish it's crrrap.

[Posit]

How do you think they arrived, immaculate conception?

Pangaea.

Since the archaeology points to the earliest occupations being from the south, it is likely that people in the Americas originated there. South America shares many similar geological and botanical traits with Africa. One of the main theories is that there could easily be that same evolution occurring in both continents at the same time.

[Posit]

Mankind descended from the trees in Scotland and then went to the Americas. And Africa, for that matter, to which the crown of Scotland is entitled. I don't know where all mankind ended up after the descent, but if it's not Scottish it's crrrap.

If I were you, I would check out your old Gaelic creation stories. Perhaps there is an indication of the Scots once being shit-flinging tree climbers. If not then perhaps they just evolved into the furry bastards and their latent Neanderthal genes eventually took over?

[Riverwind]

One of the main theories is that there could easily be that same evolution occurring in both continents at the same time.

Such a theory clearly is rediculous since South America and Africa seperated 100 million years ago when the dinosaurs were still around and the ancestors of homo sapiens did not show up until 1-2 million years ago. Aboriginals in the Americas came from Asia and no credible scientist argues otherwise, however, there is plenty of debate regarding the exact timelines but no one places humans in the Americas more than 50,000 years ago. Edited November 27, 2007 by Riverwind

[DogOnPorch]

Pangaea

Pangaea began to break-up during the Jurrasic Period...well before any hominids walked the planet. We resembled possums at this point. No land bridge existed between Africa and the Americas after this initial break-up period ended (early Cretaceous).

---------------------------------------------------------------

Observations always involve theory.

---Edwin Hubble

[DogOnPorch]

Such a theory clearly is rediculous (sic) since South America and Africa seperated 100 million years ago...

Great minds? Fools seldom differ?

Well put either way...

----------------------------------

I was so naive as a kid I used to sneak behind the barn and do nothing.

---Johnny Carson

[M.Dancer]

Pangaea.

Since the archaeology points to the earliest occupations being from the south, it is likely that people in the Americas originated there. South America shares many similar geological and botanical traits with Africa. One of the main theories is that there could easily be that same evolution occurring in both continents at the same time.

What a loon...you are clearly nuts. If that was you theory and if it were true then clearly indians aren't human.....

[kengs333]

YOU must have the market on tin foil hats. The most plausible theory now being postulated is that migration did take place across the Bering Strait during the ice bridge but it went from North America to Asia. Since the oldest humans indicate around 50,000 years ago and given that the ice bridge only existed 10-12,000 years ago there is a pretty good chance this is what happened.

Oh and BTW if you are depending on DNA to support your limited thinking maybe you should considered that 99.9% of all our DNA is shared with the fruit fly and the worm. (and I suppose I now know where YOU originated).

Any residual belief that you could possibly in fact really be an MA student just evaporated because of this post. The current evidence from DNA testing can show that the progression of the migration followed a path leading from Asia to North America. Moreover, DNA testing of the Ojibway has indicated that they actually can be traced back to southern Europe, and crossed the north Atlantic which was likely covered in ice as well, although I suppose they could have constructed boats seeing that they did come from Europe.

[kengs333]

Spare us. Its bad enough you make negative generalizations about gays and Jews, now native people? Your ignorance as to Canadian history and the treatment of aboriginals and what the reserve system was used for should not surprise anyone.

As for your slur that "chiefs" were, "selling of (sic.... (looks like you blanked out at this point) to fuel their addictions" is pathetically racist. You know nothing about the aboriginal elders and their leader or even their names and what they believed or believe in but you just can't resist engaging in racist slurs that smeers all chiefs as dishonest addicts.

Once again you demonstrate to anyone who has the misfortune of reading your words you are a hateful person.

Where did I ever make negative generalizations about Jews? Oh, wait, was it because I made critical remarks about Israel, believe that Israel should be held equally accountable for its human rights violations regardless of the fact that many of its founders are survivors of the Holocaust?

You really like to play the "racist" card freely, don't you?

Evidently, you know nothing about the Six Nations in the 1790s and early 1800s, because it's simply a fact that there was widespread alcoholism, and that much of the money that these people received was directed toward procuring alcohol. The government didn't like it, and therefore by the 1840s Six Nation's affairs were in such disarray that the government had to step in before Six Nations ceased to exist altogether. There's a reason why the government established strict rules in regards to Indians and alcohol, and no doubt had they not, what we have now would be nothing in comparison to the problems the remnants of Six Nations be dealing with.

[jbg]

Pangaea began to break-up during the Jurrasic Period...well before any hominids walked the planet. We resembled possums at this point. No land bridge existed between Africa and the Americas after this initial break-up period ended (early Cretaceous).

Reminds me of a tee-shirt I once saw, which read "re-unite Gonowanaland".

[Posit]

Oh you poor mentally incontinent xenophobes.

If you read all that I posted, I said it was one of that "simultaneous evolution" was one of the main theories being considered. Simultaneous evolution looks at different species - including humans - from around the world and tries to determine the patterns and conditions.

Kengs333 I call bullshit on your DNA theory since all the scientists following the path have embraced that there are similarities in DNA but not in migration patterns. The theory of migration was debunked when the Bering Strait theory fell apart. And it was incontinent thinkers like you who haven't a clue, who try to tie racial traits together without any knowledge or understanding of what studying DNA really means. As well, DNA investigation is only in its infancy and they have only used a small sample to postulate this grand theory. The fact remains that the 50,000 to 60,000 year old evidence of human occupation of the south predates many parts in northern Asia, so it is unlikely people originated there. It also predates the occupation of Europe by about 20,000 years, which is significant in that if people didn't migrate to the warmer climates, then why would they travel and live in the cold, sub-arctic climates like northern Asia.......

While Pangaea is theorized to have occurred long before humans were thought to have arrived, it certainly was not before the DNA of our predecessors crawled out of the sea. And it leaves the possibility open that there was a concurrent development of human beings on both continents. From a research POV the recent archaeological finds of human occupation are compelling further archaeological study in South America. It was originally discounted because scientists had been investing in the Bring Strait Theory and had ignored the possibility that there was older human occupation in the Americas than what occurred during the ice bridge. No doubt it will require investigation to establish if human occupation began either before the "out of Africa" migration or after. Needless to say it appears to have been before Asia, and long before Europeans ever met their shit-flinging latent Neanderthals, that ScottSA likes to call his family.

Kengs333 I suspect you haven't graduated high school, let alone community college or university. If you did then I would suggest that you also seek a refund since you make a poor example of why kids should stay in school and get an education.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Posit

[White Doors]

That would be a good guess if native people originated in Asia. But since the Bering Strait theory has been totally debunked by the scientific community, you'll have to make another lame attempt at defending fake Canadian cultural myths. Culture is inherited and passed along with languages. You might be mistaking tradition which often changes with the times, but does not alter the culture.

Interesting. You propose a spontaneous generation theory? You take the 'Indigenous' part of Indigenous Peoples very seriously do you?

LOL

Edit to add: OMG!

He really DOES believe this!

This is THE dumbest thing I have ever heard on ANY message boards!

Look at what ideology can do to a person!

It really blows me away sometimes, the dumbness of it all.

Rue, where are you to blow sweet flowery scents at posit to help him back up this claim?

Can you see the insanity for what it is now? Can you sever your pathetic attempts to back Indian land claims for the transparent version of you wanting to help the Israeli cause? Are your liberal bias' stronger than your Jewishness?

Inquiring minds and all that.

Edited November 27, 2007 by White Doors

[AngusThermopyle]

I find it ironic that a couple of people here make attempts to denigrate the mental capacity of other posters whilst posting the biggest steaming pile of revisionist crap I've ever heard. stick with known science, not revisionist fantasy.

[DogOnPorch]

Oh you poor mentally incontinent xenophobes.

Funny...I was thinking the same thing.

The theory of migration was debunked when the Bering Strait theory fell apart.

When was this? Links please. I couldn't help but notice you also refer to this as an 'ice bridge'. Perhaps you might want to refresh yourself on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_land_bridge

While Pangaea is theorized to have occurred long before humans were thought to have arrived,

Continental Drift...not a theory anymore.

And it leaves the possibility open that there was a concurrent development of human beings on both continents.

'Concurrent development' is statistically impossible. As well, there are only minor phenotypical differences between humans anywhere on the planet. No 'marsupial humans' for example.

The fact remains that the 50,000 to 60,000 year old evidence of human occupation of the south predates many parts in northern Asia, so it is unlikely people originated there. It also predates the occupation of Europe by about 20,000 years, which is significant in that if people didn't migrate to the warmer climates, then why would they travel and live in the cold, sub-arctic climates like northern Asia.......

Link?

-------------------------------------------------------------

The key to why things change is the key to everything.

---James E. Burke

[M.Dancer]

There is no 40,000 to 50,000 year old evidence of humans in the Americas. EOS

[Riverwind]

While Pangaea is theorized to have occurred long before humans were thought to have arrived, it certainly was not before the DNA of our predecessors crawled out of the sea. And it leaves the possibility open that there was a concurrent development of human beings on both continents.

Not a chance in hell. Any primate like mammal living at the time was the ancestor of everything from lemurs and monkeys to gorillas and humans. Any parallel development that started that long ago would have produced distinct species with very different physical characteristics. It is clear that you will go to any length to justify your delusions.

From a research POV the recent archaeological finds of human occupation are compelling further archaeological study in South America. It was originally discounted because scientists had been investing in the Bring Strait Theory and had ignored the possibility that there was older human occupation in the Americas than what occurred during the ice bridge.

The generally accepted explaination for this evidence is that boatmen from polynesian islands in the south pacific were able make the voyage (this is what I was talking about when I said there were multiple waves a immigration).

Here is a map of the migrations of humans out of africa: http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/?

Edited November 27, 2007 by Riverwind

[M.Dancer]

There is varying thought of where the peoples of the Americas all came from. Certainly most North America populations came from Asia and Eurasia (which explains European DNA) but there is thought that in South America the ancestry may be proto polynesian.

The traditional theory held that the first Americans crossed the land bridge from Siberia to Alaska around 11,500 years ago and followed an "ice-free corridor" between two large Canadian ice sheets (the Laurentide and Cordilleran) to reach unglaciated lands to the south. These first inhabitants, whose archaeological sites are scattered across North and South America, were called the Clovis people, named after the town in New Mexico where their fluted spear points used for hunting mammoth were first found in 1932.

There is now convincing evidence of human habitation sites that date earlier than the Clovis culture including sites located in South America. Monte Verde, a well-studied site located along a river near southern central Chile, dates 12,500 years ago. This site contains the buried remnants of dwellings, stone tools including large bifacial projectile points, and preserved medicinal and edible plants. How did people manage to settle this far south at such an early date? A coastal migration route is now gaining more acceptance, rather than the older view of small bands moving on foot across the middle of the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska and into the continents. Emerging evidence suggests that people with boats moved along the Pacific coast into Alaska and northwestern Canada and eventually south to Peru and Chile by 12,500 years ago—and perhaps much earlier. Archaeological evidence in Australia, Melanesia, and Japan indicate boats were in use as far back as 25,000 to 40,000 years ago. Sea routes would have provided abundant food resources and easier and faster movement than land routes. Many coastal areas were unglaciated at this time, providing opportunities for landfall along the way. Several early sites along the coast of Canada, California, Peru, Ecuador, and Chile date between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago. Many potential coastal sites are now submerged, making investigation difficult.

If the Clovis people were not here first, then who was? Clovis points are found in many sites in North and Central America with a significant early cluster in the southeastern United States. Points similar to Clovis but without fluting and dating more than 12,000 years ago have been found in stratified archaeological sites in the eastern United States, such the Cactus Hill, Virginia. These finds have occurred because archaeologists are no longer halting their digging at the bottom of the Clovis level.

So far scientists have found no technological affinities to relate Clovis to the Asian Paleolithic. However, Europe may have possible lithic precursors to Clovis. The Solutrean culture of western Europe, dating between 24,000 and 16,500 years ago, shows a similar lithic technology to that used to produce Clovis tools. The two cultures also share bone-shaping techniques, pebble-decorating artistry, the unusual tradition of burying stone tools in caches filled with red ocher, and other traits.

In addition to archaeological research on ancient human sites, ancient skeletal remains show a range of physical attributes suggesting separate migrations of different populations of modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) from Asia. The handful of human skeletons dated over 8,000 years ago show some regional variation, but as a group their skulls differ markedly from the broad faces, prominent cheekbones, and round cranial vaults that characterize modern–day American Indians. These ancient specimens have long and narrow cranial vaults with short and relatively gracile faces. Two examples are the 9,400-year-old Spirit Cave Man from Nevada and the most recently discovered 8.900-year-old Kennewick Man found in Washington State in 1996. Physical anthropologists see a greater similarity in these crania to certain Old World populations such as Polynesians, Europeans, and the Ainu of Japan. Only one early specimen, Wizards Beach Man, a Nevada skeleton dated to 9,200 years ago, falls within the range of variability of contemporary American Indians, an exception that requires further scientific validation. Crania with American Indian morphology appears by at least 7,000 years ago.

The similarity of the ancient crania to Polynesians suggests that one early source of migrants to the Americas was Asian circumpacific populations. These populations were succeeded in Asia by the recent expansion of modern Mongoloids (i.e., Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, etc.), and in America by the ancestors of recent Native Americans. Whether individual skeletons or specific early groups were directly related to later peoples is unknown. Early migrants may have been replaced through competition or changed through gene flow by later arrivals. At this time, scientists are not ruling out the possibility of a migration from Europe.

Evidence for diverse migrations into the New World also comes from Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) research on living American Indian populations. These studies have consistently shown similarities between American Indians and recent populations in Asia and Siberia, but also unique American characteristics, which the very early crania have also shown. Evidence for only four mtDNA lineages, characterizing over 95 percent of all modern American Indian populations, may suggest a limited number of founding groups migrating from Asia into the New World. Recently, however, a fifth mtDNA lineage named "X" has turned up in living American Indians and in prehistoric remains for which there does not appear to be an Asian origin. The first variant of X was found in Europeans and may have originated in Eurasia. Naturally, generations of conflict, intermarriage, disease, and famine would influence the genetic makeup of modern Native Americans. Further work with mtDNA, nuclear DNA (which is more representative of the entire genome), and Y-chromosome data, the male-transmitted complement of mtDNA, will permit better estimates of the genetic similarities between Old and New World groups and help to determine when they would have shared a common ancestor.

http://www.si.edu/Encyclopedia_SI/nmnh/origin.htm

[DogOnPorch]

...but there is thought that in South America the ancestry may be proto Polynesian.

Much, much, much more likely.

---------------------------------------------

Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey.

---The Beatles

[Posit]

Much, much, much more likely.

---------------------------------------------

Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey.

---The Beatles

Only the racists perpetuate this myth. They have to believe that indigenous people are immigrants themselves in order to justify the murder, rape and genocide employed by their ancestors to expand colonialism.

A liberal estimate of Polynesian migration from South East Asia was only about 4-5000 years ago - not even close to the Bering Strait ice bridge (the idea of it being a land bridge is only a relatively new idea created by those scientists who won't admit to their failure in theorizing the Bering Strait migration went bust), and about 45-55,000 years after earliest evidence of human occupation in South America. Nice try though but it just proves how simplistic you people are.....Using elementary grade texts as argument to support your xenophobia is a pedantic tactic to say the east. ScottSA's relatives have a better chance at thinking it through than most of you do....

[M.Dancer]

Only the racists perpetuate this myth.

Ergo according to the above, all scientists are racist....

[M.Dancer]

A liberal estimate of Polynesian migration from South East Asia was only about 4-5000 years ago -

Only racists posit that the polynesians weren't capable of populating south america......

Emerging evidence suggests that people with boats moved along the Pacific coast into Alaska and northwestern Canada and eventually south to Peru and Chile by 12,500 years ago—and perhaps much earlier. Archaeological evidence in Australia, Melanesia, and Japan indicate boats were in use as far back as 25,000 to 40,000 years ago

.

http://www.si.edu/Encyclopedia_SI/nmnh/origin.htm

[ScottSA]

ScottSA's relatives have a better chance at thinking it through than most of you do....

Why thank you. I've always suspected that my relatives are clever folks, so I sent them your theories for comment. After reading them, they decided that anti-psychotic medicine is the best route, although several of them seem to have taken my reference to "black sheep on the BB" literally, so watch your rear for the next few days.

[M.Dancer]

........ so watch your rear for the next few days.

To say the "east"

[White Doors]

Well Posit perhaps you could provide some mainstream scientific thought that is peer reviewed that supports your theory of two strains of the same DNA producing humans but never having met from over 100 million years ago.. hmmmm.. I wonder what the mathematical odds of that happening would be?

waiting patiently.

But what I REALLY want to know is, do you actually believe this or what?

ie: Are you serious?

[Riverwind]

Only the racists perpetuate this myth. They have to believe that indigenous people are immigrants themselves in order to justify the murder, rape and genocide employed by their ancestors to expand colonialism.

I see you are calling people racist because they don't buy your rediculous arguments. But temper tantrums do not change the scientific facts: American aboriginals are homo sapiens and are able to interbreed with any other homo sapiens. That means that your 'parallel evolution' hypothesis is worthless.

Here is the primate evolutionary tree: http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/trees.htm

You would like us to believe that American aboriginals are a branch that split off from the rest 100 million years ago yet chimpanzees and humans split apart a mere 10 million years ago? It makes no sense. Perhaps you are simply a troll that knows better but given your posts on other issues I suspect you might actually believe it. Which is worrisome because it is just more evidence of the ridiculous mythology created by modern aboriginals that they use to justify their race based entitlements.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Riverwind