Evolution

[M.Dancer]

Modern humans reach Europe about 30,000 years ago. There is a footprint in South America that dates to 50,000 years ago.

I would say there is something that may look like a foot print.....but if it is 50,000 years ago it sure ain't no human footprint...

Modern humans who first arose in Africa had moved into Europe as far back as about 45,000 years ago, according to a new study by an international research team led by the Russian Academy of Sciences and the University of Colorado at Boulder.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2007/12.html

Modern humans are thought to have entered Europe about 40,000 years ago, and within 10,000 years, the Neanderthals had largely disappeared from the continent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6099422.stm

[charter.rights]

Modern humans reach Europe about 30,000 years ago. There is a footprint in South America that dates to 50,000 years ago.

Actually, I'll revise this since I did a bit more probing. Modern humans arrived in Europe as early as 40,000 years (other archaeological reports I have studied suggested 35,000 for the sake of argument I'll stick with the National Geographic). That satill puts people in SA at least 10,000 years before Europe.

[M.Dancer]

Actually, I'll revise this since I did a bit more probing. Modern humans arrived in Europe as early as 40,000 years (other archaeological reports I have studied suggested 35,000 for the sake of argument I'll stick with the National Geographic). That satill puts people in SA at least 10,000 years before Europe.

There is no evidence that Humans were in the americas before 40,000 years ago.

[AngusThermopyle]

That satill puts people in SA at least 10,000 years before Europe.

Actually I disagree. The estimate of 40,000 is generally accepted by most, however I did ask if you could show something to lend veracity to your claim regarding S.A. and you haven't provided anything. Once more it would appear that you are just claiming something yet showing nothing to lend legitimacy to your claim.

As I said earlier, I would like to see something, anything, that would lend credence to your claim. This I believe would be very interesting and offer much food for thought. Perhaps even give enough weight to the subject to cause a major shift in belief relating to the origin of modern man.

Well I just read the NG article, it was quite interesting. It still doesn't lend any credence to the claims about SA though. In fact it simply reinforces the 40,000 year theory for Europe. As to when modern humans first inhabited Europe, well I really don't see what bearing that has on the claim of 50,000 years for SA.

Edited March 25, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[WIP]

Precession

The Sphinx was built during the age of Leo... and if each age is approx 2000 years and we are entering Aquarius it would make sense then that:

2000ce to 4000ce -- Aquarius the Water Bearer

1ce to 2000ce -- Pisces the fish

2000bce to 4000bce -- Aries the Ram

4000bce to 6000bce -- Taurus the Bull

6000bce to 8000bce -- Gemini the Twins

8000bce to 10000bce -- Leo the Lion

During these ages the constellation would rise before the sun on the winter solstice ushering in a new age.

The age of Aquarius begins on December 21, 2012.

Royal Arch

No, the Age of Aquarius doesn't start in 2012! Not that it would matter anyway, but this is the usual convergence of pseudoscience that happens every time someone picks a date for the end of the world. Dec. 21, 2012 is only significant because the Mayan calendar makes a role-over. Every 144,000 days or 395 years, the Mayan Calendar reaches a "baktun" where it advances to the next age. There have been 12 so far since the calendar began in 3114 B.C. and there's no reason to expect the next baktun to be any more significant than previous turnovers. But since this is the next date set for the apocalypse the astrologers have jumped on the bandwagon and declared it to be the beginning of the Age of Aquarius.

Since astrology claims to base its systems on astronomy, astrologers are supposed to be determining these constellation ages on the precession of equinoxes. According to various calculations noted in the Wikipedia article, the earliest date claimed for beginning the Age of Aquarius is 2150:

Timeframes

In 1928, at the Conference of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Leiden, the Netherlands, the edges of the 88 official constellations became defined in astronomical terms. The edge established between Pisces and Aquarius locates the beginning of the Aquarian Age around the year 2600.

The Austrian astronomer, Professor Herman Haupt (astronomer), examined the question of when the Age of Aquarius begins in an article published in 1992 by the Austrian Academy of Science: with the German title Der Beginn des Wassermannzeitalters, eine astronomische Frage? (The Start of the Aquarian Age, an Astronomical Question?). Based on the boundaries accepted by IAU in 1928, Haupt's article investigates the start of the Age of Aquarius by calculating the entry of the spring equinox point over the parallel cycle (d = - 4°) between the constellations Pisces and Aquarius and reaches, using the usual formula of precession (Gliese, 1982), the year 2595. However Haupt concludes:

"Though it cannot be expected that astrologers will follow the official boundaries of the constellations, there will be an attempt to calculate the entry of the spring equinox point into the constellation of Aquarius." ...

"As briefly has been shown, the results and methods of astrology in many areas, such as concerning the Aquarian age, are controversial on their own and cannot be called scientific because of the many esoteric elements."[13]

* Zodiacal 30 degrees:

* Heindel-Rosicrucian based interpretation: begins in ca. AD 2654[14] (the Orb of influence started in ca. 1934/1930s).

* Elsa M. Glover interpretation:[15] ca. AD 2638.

* Neil Mann interpretation: begins AD 2150.

* Dane Rudhyar was one of the most important astrologers of the 20th century. His many influential books helped reconcile astrology with modern psychology and free it from the deterministic trappings of the past. According to his interpretation, the Age of Aquarius will begin in AD 2062.

* Constellation boundary year:

* Shephard Simpson interpretation: begins in ca. AD 2680.

* Hermann Haupt interpretation begins in ca. AD 2595 the letter w also plays a role in this.

[edit] Overview

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Aquari...Aquarian_age.29

[WIP]

Actually, I'll revise this since I did a bit more probing. Modern humans arrived in Europe as early as 40,000 years (other archaeological reports I have studied suggested 35,000 for the sake of argument I'll stick with the National Geographic). That satill puts people in SA at least 10,000 years before Europe.

The National Geographic article you posted is consistent with the Out of Africa model of modern human settlement. It doesn't matter a whole lot if migratory patterns went to India before Europe as far as I'm concerned.

The one I posted yesterday that based its conclusions on the latest DNA evidence contends that the first settlers venturing into the New World 40,000 years ago, were trapped in Beringia for 20,000 years until the glaciers receded and allowed travel across the continent. Any comments? http://www.livescience.com/history/080212-new-world.html

[buffycat]

The National Geographic article you posted is consistent with the Out of Africa model of modern human settlement. It doesn't matter a whole lot if migratory patterns went to India before Europe as far as I'm concerned.

The one I posted yesterday that based its conclusions on the latest DNA evidence contends that the first settlers venturing into the New World 40,000 years ago, were trapped in Beringia for 20,000 years until the glaciers receded and allowed travel across the continent. Any comments? http://www.livescience.com/history/080212-new-world.html

Not a bad article at all.

For instance, one criticism Mulligan anticipates is the fact that "20,000 years in Beringia is a long time. Some people will say, 'Get real — where's the evidence?' We would say that there's no one that does arctic underwater archaeology."

Researcher Andrew Kitchen added, "Our theory predicts much of the archaeological evidence is underwater. That may explain why scientists hadn’t really considered a long-term occupation of Beringia."

Mulligan noted one might also contend that any evidence of such a 20,000-year stay in Beringia might have left evidence in Siberia or Alaska. "But we envision a small population there that probably left a relatively light footprint on the landscape," she explained. "And the areas we're talking about — Siberia, Alaska — there's no way to argue that researchers have covered those areas thoroughly, with their incredibly harsh climates."

This last bit from your link, pretty much says it all. SO much of our history is now underwater. People tend to forget (or don't even realise to begin with) how drastically different the exposed shelves made the ancient coastlines. Another thing, which I think is overlooked too often is the ebb and flow of both the sea ice, as well as the glacial ice sheets during the last glacial event. IOW ice free areas would open and close, allowing 'some' migration of humans and animals during 'warmer' events within the glaciation cycle. I would suggest as well, that there would be seasonal variations to where these people would have lived as well. Following game, and food supplies according to the whims of weather.

I would wager that the idea that a 'single' mass migration resulted in the populating of NA (or SA) is foolish, to say the least.

Again, until we can earnestly explore the ancient coastlines, all now underwater, we will not have a full picture of just exactly who was going where at the dawn of our species.

Something, however, to think about - if peoples moved from the South Pacific (by boats) to SA, to the West Coast of NA from Siberia and Asia (boats and land), I would bet there was also some movement from Europe and the Mediterranean areas to the East Coast of NA, again by both boat and over sea ice. I would say there are many of these events occuring often as populations migrated following food various food supplies.

I think it is important to keep in mind that the earth and her climate is NOT a static system. The glacial events themselves are puncutated with very cold and somewhat cold events - wherein the warmer events would have provided quite a few ice free corridors to allow a north south - or south to north movement of groups.

[charter.rights]

The National Geographic article you posted is consistent with the Out of Africa model of modern human settlement. It doesn't matter a whole lot if migratory patterns went to India before Europe as far as I'm concerned.

The one I posted yesterday that based its conclusions on the latest DNA evidence contends that the first settlers venturing into the New World 40,000 years ago, were trapped in Beringia for 20,000 years until the glaciers receded and allowed travel across the continent. Any comments? http://www.livescience.com/history/080212-new-world.html

Mitrochondrial DNA is another of those woefully inaccurate theories. Some narrow thinkers are using it to try to trace migration. What a joke.

Using mitochondrial DNA haplogroups is like suggesting that because you have blond hair and blue eyes, and Queen Victoria had blond hair and blue eyes, you must somehow be related. It does nothing to advance legitimate scientific knowledge and understanding about migrations or occupations.

Edited March 26, 2008 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

Not a bad article at all.

This last bit from your link, pretty much says it all. SO much of our history is now underwater. People tend to forget (or don't even realise to begin with) how drastically different the exposed shelves made the ancient coastlines. Another thing, which I think is overlooked too often is the ebb and flow of both the sea ice, as well as the glacial ice sheets during the last glacial event. IOW ice free areas would open and close, allowing 'some' migration of humans and animals during 'warmer' events within the glaciation cycle. I would suggest as well, that there would be seasonal variations to where these people would have lived as well. Following game, and food supplies according to the whims of weather.

I would wager that the idea that a 'single' mass migration resulted in the populating of NA (or SA) is foolish, to say the least.

Again, until we can earnestly explore the ancient coastlines, all now underwater, we will not have a full picture of just exactly who was going where at the dawn of our species.

Something, however, to think about - if peoples moved from the South Pacific (by boats) to SA, to the West Coast of NA from Siberia and Asia (boats and land), I would bet there was also some movement from Europe and the Mediterranean areas to the East Coast of NA, again by both boat and over sea ice. I would say there are many of these events occuring often as populations migrated following food various food supplies.

I think it is important to keep in mind that the earth and her climate is NOT a static system. The glacial events themselves are puncutated with very cold and somewhat cold events - wherein the warmer events would have provided quite a few ice free corridors to allow a north south - or south to north movement of groups.

The real detriment to successfully finding archaeological evidence is that the soils in the Americas is generally moist and acid and bones deteriorate when found in those environments. Archaeology depends a great deal on the identification and classification of lithics and ceramics for anything greater than about 2000 years. (Although there are other evidence of human occupations besides bones, points and pots.)

[buffycat]

The real detriment to successfully finding archaeological evidence is that the soils in the Americas is generally moist and acid and bones deteriorate when found in those environments. Archaeology depends a great deal on the identification and classification of lithics and ceramics for anything greater than about 2000 years. (Although there are other evidence of human occupations besides bones, points and pots.)

Well, that is a problem with anything left on land, hence fossil evidence is overwhelmingly found in areas which were 'oxygen free' at the time of deposition. Also, a highly acid environment - such as what is found in bogs and marshes - tends to preserve remains very well. We see this in the numerous 'bog' people found throughout the old world.

We still have alot of looking to do.

I am however, speaking of a different time scale - that of the end of the last glacial event, in which case the cyclical growth and shrinking of glaciers would continually wipe out any evidence that may have been laid by our early ancestors. (Not to mention seasonal flooding, and greater flooding events as the ice age came to a rapid close).

[WIP]

Mitrochondrial DNA is another of those woefully inaccurate theories. Some narrow thinkers are using it to try to trace migration. What a joke.

Using mitochondrial DNA haplogroups is like suggesting that because you have blond hair and blue eyes, and Queen Victoria had blond hair and blue eyes, you must somehow be related. It does nothing to advance legitimate scientific knowledge and understanding about migrations or occupations.

Do a little further reading on the subject. The research is not all done on mDNA, the results are also based on examination of Y-chromosone DNA samples. And physical characteristics such as blond hair and blue eyes that you mentioned are a result of gene expression (actively coding proteins). Specifically, the gene that causes this trait is called OCA2 and is carried by virtually every race of people walking the planet. The only mystery was why this gene was selected for in the European population and not in other groups. It should serve as a caution to everyone like you who is hung up on superficial physical characteristics that different races possess!

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/all-blue-ey...stor-15361.html