DogOnPorch Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 It's a possibility. If the native population has lived around the ailment for a while and not be affected by it, chances are they could have built up some immunity towards it. If the Europeans never encountered the ailment, then they would not have an immunity to the disease. But what I am saying here is purely hypothetical. lol...good. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
wyly Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 The fact remains that archaeologist made a huge mistake 30 or 40 years ago. They created the Bering Strait theory and then quit looking for earlier occupation of the Americas.more bs...archeologists never stop looking, it's all that they live for...There are indications and finds that suggest that human occupation in the Americas goes back 60,000 years (that would be 15-20,000 years before the known occupation of Europe.) While the excavations that have uncovered artifacts from 30-40,000 years ago have yet to be verified, the potential is there - such as the cited case - that occupation began through other means and that the Bering Strait theory as the only migration has been debunked.you've got zippo with anything before the current oldest confirmed site in oregon... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 CBC This scientist was on Quirks & Quarks this week, and said he believes the earliest people arrived by boat from Asia. This America truly is the New World, don't you think ? I've been watching this for a while, until there is organic carbon dating done the site will always be in question...carbon dating in Oregon and Catalina islands as well as in southern Chile strongly suggest this site may be legit...but that missing carbon date is what will always give it questionable value... I always suspected that human migration could have come by sea and said so in a Uni archy paper 30 yrs ago, nice to see my hunch being verified...only coastal migration by boat could explain the speed of the colonization of the americas...I never understood why it was seen as so improbable as humans had already made open sea deep water voyages 40thousand YBP why was it impossible for a costal migration by sea to N america much, much later... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Michael Hardner Posted March 28, 2011 Author Report Posted March 28, 2011 I've been watching this for a while, until there is organic carbon dating done the site will always be in question...carbon dating in Oregon and Catalina islands as well as in southern Chile strongly suggest this site may be legit...but that missing carbon date is what will always give it questionable value... I always suspected that human migration could have come by sea and said so in a Uni archy paper 30 yrs ago, nice to see my hunch being verified...only coastal migration by boat could explain the speed of the colonization of the americas...I never understood why it was seen as so improbable as humans had already made open sea deep water voyages 40thousand YBP why was it impossible for a costal migration by sea to N america much, much later... I think Dr. Waters indicated that items had been tested, and the date was 15500 year before present era. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
WIP Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 Or they were simply exterminated by the groups moving in. They would not be in the gene pool if that was true. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 The fact remains that archaeologist made a huge mistake 30 or 40 years ago. They created the Bering Strait theory and then quit looking for earlier occupation of the Americas. There are indications and finds that suggest that human occupation in the Americas goes back 60,000 years (that would be 15-20,000 years before the known occupation of Europe.) While the excavations that have uncovered artifacts from 30-40,000 years ago have yet to be verified, the potential is there - such as the cited case - that occupation began through other means and that the Bering Strait theory as the only migration has been debunked. It's not an either/or situation. The archeological evidence now is pointing to earlier migrations by boat, but that doesn't disprove the fact that many groups migrated overland to Alaska during the last ice age, when sea levels were drastically lower than they are today....and there is geological evidence supporting the existence of a land bridge that cut off the Arctic Ocean from the Pacific for a short period of time. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
charter.rights Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 It's not an either/or situation. The archeological evidence now is pointing to earlier migrations by boat, but that doesn't disprove the fact that many groups migrated overland to Alaska during the last ice age, when sea levels were drastically lower than they are today....and there is geological evidence supporting the existence of a land bridge that cut off the Arctic Ocean from the Pacific for a short period of time. The problem is they are still trying to prove an Asian migration - which is a way to prove the Bering Strait theory is still valid. It might be BUT the other indications - unearthing of artifacts from 40-60,000 years ago - suggest that the migration took place long before sea travel was available. There is a high probability that the migration took place right out of Africa via the Antarctic. As long as Archaeologists are stuck on the Bering Strait they will not look as earnestly as they should. After all with Pre-clovis culture(Evidence of human habitation before Clovis)showing up who knows what else they will find if they instead look for it the 60,000 year occupation. In all the sites found that have potential for a 60,000 year old occupation, it appears the migration is from the south. Check it out. Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
M.Dancer Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 There is a high probability that the migration took place right out of Africa via the Antarctic. By high probability, do you mean 0%? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
wyly Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 I think Dr. Waters indicated that items had been tested, and the date was 15500 year before present era. no human organic matter has been carbon dated that I'm aware of...they have been very rigerous in working on the site but there are a number of natural causes that can give misleading dates...the level of proof required for acceptance of any archeological site is very high and until every doubt can be ruled out it is very difficult to gain recognition, one of those strong requirements is carbon dating...which is why the oregon site has become the absolute standard, human poop... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) The problem is they are still trying to prove an Asian migration - which is a way to prove the Bering Strait theory is still valid. It might be BUT the other indications - unearthing of artifacts from 40-60,000 years ago - suggest that the migration took place long before sea travel was available. There is a high probability that the migration took place right out of Africa via the Antarctic. As long as Archaeologists are stuck on the Bering Strait they will not look as earnestly as they should. After all with Pre-clovis culture(Evidence of human habitation before Clovis)showing up who knows what else they will find if they instead look for it the 60,000 year occupation. In all the sites found that have potential for a 60,000 year old occupation, it appears the migration is from the south. Check it out. the problem for your bizarre hypothesis is DNA evidence is absolute, DNA doesn't lie...migration has been traced out western asia through DNA not from africa...human migration through antarctica? ...so you're now claiming migration came before sea travel and that took place by way of a land bridge from africa to antarctica to S america, because you claim there was no sea voyages at that time:blink: ...without doing a quick google I don't think those continents have been linked for at least 150 million years which creates a problem for you as sapiens have only been around for 150-200K...first open sea travel must have occurred somewhere between 40-60,000 at the very least, with the aboriginal colonization of australia...and wiki citations draw an automatic fail on any Uni archy papers so your links are worthless... Edited March 28, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 They would not be in the gene pool if that was true. and as DNA evidence has confirmed there is nice genetic link/trail found in todays population that extends all the way down the west coast of the americas...likely the remnants of original wave of migrants that skipped their way down the coast from alaska to terra del fuego...later waves may have also come by boat or the the land bridge that opened later... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
charter.rights Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 The use of mitochondrial DNA to determine origin is a theory and has a number of problems in that it is carried through the female lines only, and the hit is much like trying to determine that all blond-haired blue-eyed people originated in Germany. The use of mtDNA is exclusive, not inclusive, and has a margin of error that puts some doubt in its validity. It is a nice fad as theories go, but I wouldn't put a lot of weight behind it. Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
wyly Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 The use of mitochondrial DNA to determine origin is a theory and has a number of problems in that it is carried through the female lines only, and the hit is much like trying to determine that all blond-haired blue-eyed people originated in Germany. The use of mtDNA is exclusive, not inclusive, and has a margin of error that puts some doubt in its validity. first you espouse an unknown land bridge connecting africa > antarctica > s america 40,000 ybp and now you have the gall to question the validity of DNA science as well?...you're truly one of a kind...It is a nice fad as theories go, but I wouldn't put a lot of weight behind it.but yet you expect the forum to accept your far out fantasy of a land bridge from africa to antarctica to s america as established theory and wiki links as irrefutable facts ... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
charter.rights Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 (edited) first you espouse an unknown land bridge connecting africa > antarctica > s america 40,000 ybp and now you have the gall to question the validity of DNA science as well?...you're truly one of a kind... but yet you expect the forum to accept your far out fantasy of a land bridge from africa to antarctica to s america as established theory and wiki links as irrefutable facts ... And you are a global climate change naysayer, right? The science is there but you deny it why? Because you don't want to believe it.... 60,000 years ago the earth was a much different place than it is today. Lower sea levels in some areas of the world - such as Beringer land bridge - were exposed above the water. Continents were closer together and had vastly different coastlines than they do today. Get it in you head, ok? mtDNA is a theory. It makes conclusion not by finding similarities but by excluding them from other groups. They look for genes in the matrilineal line that exclude any other possibilities. That is like saying they must be blue eyed because they don't have brown eyes, without considering all the other possibilities. It isn't accurate given the fact that most indigenous people around the world refuse to give samples for testing and they are guessing using very small samples. Edited March 29, 2011 by charter.rights Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
DogOnPorch Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 60,000 years ago the earth was a much different place than it is today. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
charter.rights Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 Way to go. You got Saipan a video so he can learn something.... Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
wyly Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 (edited) And you are a global climate change naysayer, right? The science is there but you deny it why? Because you don't want to believe it.... 60,000 years ago the earth was a much different place than it is today. Lower sea levels in some areas of the world - such as Beringer land bridge - were exposed above the water. Continents were closer together and had vastly different coastlines than they do today. Get it in you head, ok? mtDNA is a theory. It makes conclusion not by finding similarities but by excluding them from other groups. They look for genes in the matrilineal line that exclude any other possibilities. That is like saying they must be blue eyed because they don't have brown eyes, without considering all the other possibilities. It isn't accurate given the fact that most indigenous people around the world refuse to give samples for testing and they are guessing using very small samples. get this in your head, ok?... wiki is not a scientifically acceptable source EVER!get this in your head, ok?..."THEORY" in science is understood to mean ACCEPTED TO BE TRUE!...therfore, mtDNA Theory = accepted to be true! get this in your head, ok?...there has not been a land connection between africa, antartica and the americas in about 150 million years, sapiens have been on the earth less than 200K...I assume your math skills are up to the challenge of figuring out the problem with your migration patterns hypothesis...or maybe not... australia was last connected to another continent some 40 million years ago and that was antarctica, therefore man had to use a boat to reach it some 40-60kybp as it has never had a land bridge to asia since the ascent of sapiens... Edited March 29, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
DogOnPorch Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 get this in your head, ok?... wiki is not a scientifically acceptable source EVER! Remember with these dudes... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18401&view=findpost&p=645344 Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Oleg Bach Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 They would not be in the gene pool if that was true. Every one assumes that humans "exterminated" the competators...maybe these primatives were more evolved and did not resort to extermination...why would they exterminate? There was so much land you could just walk over the hill and be alone. Quote
wyly Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 Quite right, Oleg! There is an extremely popular notion about evolution that we automatically become more and more advanced. Comic books, cheap science fiction and Hollywood have for years portrayed men from the future as far more intelligent than present day. As I said, the idea is almost universally popular but it is also dead wrong! All evolution means is that a species will adapt to changing conditions. Intelligence became a survival factor to some of the great apes. Smarter ones were more likely to live to reproduce than those that weren't. It was as simple as that! When we were in the trees, those great apes had feet that looked like hands, as apes do today. When we came down onto the prairie grasslands, being able to walk more efficiently and eventually run faster than the lions became major survival characteristics. So our hips and our feet changed. Nowadays, we're already more than smart enough to survive in our environment. The vast majority of us don't need to run faster than the lions or bears, either. So evolution of our intelligence or our feet stops! The important thing is that a species changes ONLY if it has to for survival! If it doesn't have to then it simply doesn't! There IS NO evolutionary program in our genes to make us continually evolve towards some superior being! Mankind has evolved little or none over the last 50,000 years or more and unless something drastically changes it will not evolve any more over the next 50,000. people assuming we are smarter than sapiens 50K ago is a major annoyance with archelogists, we are know smarter than they were...but we never ran faster than lions just further and for longer duration, no animal can match us for running endurance...other than that a very good post... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 Every one assumes that humans "exterminated" the competators...maybe these primatives were more evolved and did not resort to extermination...why would they exterminate? There was so much land you could just walk over the hill and be alone. yes, extermination could happen but very unlikely... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Shwa Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 (edited) get this in your head, ok?... wiki is not a scientifically acceptable source EVER! I think that is fair. So what IS an scientifically acceptable source and do those sources suffer any sort of defects at all? How about Graham Hancock and his Antarctic theories for a white mother race. Does this count? get this in your head, ok?..."THEORY" in science is understood to mean ACCEPTED TO BE TRUE!...therfore, So this notion completely destroys the idea of 'competing theories' then? One would think that scientific theory has a development before it is accepted as to be true for the purposes of developing further understanding using that theory. mtDNA Theory = accepted to be true! Which is a good thing to state since it commits you to revising your position immediately when the use of mtDNA comes into question right? One would think that your rigorous defence of the utility of mtDNA would also compel you to rigorously explore ways in which this utility could be damaging. get this in your head, ok?...there has not been a land connection between africa, antartica and the americas in about 150 million years, sapiens have been on the earth less than 200K...I assume your math skills are up to the challenge of figuring out the problem with your migration patterns hypothesis...or maybe not... Cite please. And don't use wikipedia. And list all competing theories too, for the purposes of being rigorously honest. australia was last connected to another continent some 40 million years ago and that was antarctica, therefore man had to use a boat to reach it some 40-60kybp as it has never had a land bridge to asia since the ascent of sapiens... Cite please, a legitimate scientific cite. Don't use wikipedia and also provide any competing theories in your response. Edited March 29, 2011 by Shwa Quote
Bonam Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 (edited) Wikipedia is a perfectly good cite for basic facts as requested in the above post. It becomes hairy when dealing with controversial historical information (but then so does most anything else), but it is a great source for scientific information. Furthermore, most claims made on many Wikipedia pages are backed up by appropriate references at the bottom of the page, which can be checked directly if one desires. Edited March 29, 2011 by Bonam Quote
TimG Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 They would not be in the gene pool if that was true.Nothing says they did not keep a few good looking slaves around. Quote
TimG Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 it is a great source for scientific information.Unless the science is subject where debate is actively surpressed like global warming. In those cases wikipedia is a useless source. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.