Theories of Indigenous Origin in the Americas

[jacee]

Many indigenous people in North America look Asian. So land bridge theory works for me.

End of hyper deep analysis.

Who came from where?

Sorry to disturb your deep thought.

Edited June 28, 2016 by jacee

[jacee]

The fact that one chart indicates that uncertainties exist do not undermine the largely objective nature of DNA analysis when compared to subjective 'linguistic analysis'. And even if you take into the uncertainties related to timing of the migration there is very little doubt about the claim that Americans natives came from Asia.

http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297(08)00139-0?cc=y=

Well, there has been a lot of effort to impose that view.

I'm not sure that's for scientific reasons.

.

Edited June 28, 2016 by jacee

[Smallc]

Who came from where?

Sorry to disturb your deep thought.

Thankfully, we have genetics to tell us the answer. All of humanity originated in northern Africa. With current understanding, any other theory is unsupportable.

[jacee]

The fact that one chart indicates that uncertainties exist do not undermine the largely objective nature of DNA analysis when compared to subjective 'linguistic analysis'. And even if you take into the uncertainties related to timing of the migration there is very little doubt about the claim that Americans natives came from Asia.

http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297(08)00139-0?cc=y=

It says it's "guesswork" for the Americas, the precise area we're questioning.

It tells us nothing of origin or timing.

Useless.

Certainly doesn't lead to your conclusions.

Are you perhaps promoting dogma and not science?

.

Edited June 28, 2016 by jacee

[jacee]

Thankfully, we have genetics to tell us the answer. All of humanity originated in northern Africa. With current understanding, any other theory is unsupportable.

"Current understanding" seems to be in flux.

Science is like that.

Dogma isn't.

Dogma seeks to impose views of science for political reasons.

.

[Smallc]

Current understanding is always in flux - that's how science works.

Flux needs evidence though, and you're lacking it.

[TimG]

It tells us nothing of origin or timing.

I don't see the point of discussing the technical details since you have no interest in reading and understanding the material provided (looking at one figure and ignoring the context is not helpful). FWIW the material provided claims there is no doubt that humans originated in Africa and spread around the world. There were some claims that part of the American population was descended from migrants from Europe in addition to the later migrants from Asia. However that hypothesis is not that plausible given the latest research (linked above).

But these discussions distract from my main point: that hypotheses developed from objective facts such as DNA analysis are superior to hypotheses developed from subjective facts such as linguistic analysis. So if one has to decide which hypothesis has more credibility the one using objective facts is far superior.

Edited June 28, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Current understanding is always in flux - that's how science works.Flux needs evidence though, and you're lacking it.

That's how the word "current" works.

[jacee]

Current understanding is always in flux - that's how science works.

Flux needs evidence though, and you're lacking it.

There's lots of evidence if you're actually interested.

If you're just promoting dogma, you won't be:

... some scientific theories harbored social and political agendas that were used to deprive Indians and other minorities of their rights.

Edited June 28, 2016 by jacee

[jacee]

I don't see the point of discussing the technical details since you have no interest in reading and understanding the material provided (looking at one figure and ignoring the context is not helpful). FWIW the material provided claims there is no doubt that humans originated in Africa and spread around the world. There were some claims that part of the American population was descended from migrants from Europe in addition to the later migrants from Asia. However that hypothesis is not that plausible given the latest research (linked above).

We are discussing whether the Bering land bridge theory of population of America fit with all the data.

But these discussions distract from my main point: that hypotheses developed from objective facts such as DNA analysis are superior to hypotheses developed from subjective facts such as linguistic analysis. So if one has to decide which hypothesis has more credibility the one using objective facts is far superior.

The DNA data is "guesswork" for America. That doesn't sound "superior" to me.

The linguistic data is intriguing.

And the truth will emerge from the confluence of all forms of data, of course.

As long as we're open to the truth:

.

Edited June 28, 2016 by jacee

[TimG]

The DNA data is "guesswork" for America. That doesn't sound "superior" to me.

You are being deliberately obtuse (largely because you refuse to actually read the material provided). The distribution of DNA among the modern populations is *not* guesswork. It is an objective fact. The distribution of DNA among modern populations is the basis for the hypothesis. The only room for uncertainty comes from the models used to track the movement of DNA over time but there is no doubt on some claims such as most of the DNA in Americans came from Asians and the DNA of disputed origin either came from Europe or Asia.

The linguistic data is intriguing.

It is also irrelevant because it is based on subjective and unfalsifiable theories about how languages evolve over time. Models for the migration of DNA can be tested in a lab. That makes models for the movement of DNA superior. Edited June 28, 2016 by TimG

[Accountability Now]

There's lots of evidence if you're actually interested.

If you're just promoting dogma, you won't be:

... some scientific theories harbored social and political agendas that were used to deprive Indians and other minorities of their rights.

So you are quoting Vine Deloria Jr who studied in the science art....of....philosophy.

Perhaps leave the science to those who study science because at this point the only dogma being promoted is your own!

[Accountability Now]

You are being deliberately obtuse

Tim...this conversation is a carry over from the Jason Kenney thread where her whole purpose was to indicate that anyone who believes that aboriginals migrated here are in fact white supremacists. She was called out by everyone in that thread so she's trying her luck here.

[jacee]

The only room for uncertainty comes from the models used to track the movement of DNA over time but there is no doubt on some claims such as most of the DNA in Americans came from Asians and the DNA of disputed origin either came from Europe or Asia.

Or vice versa.

.

[?Impact]

All of humanity originated in northern Africa.

I thought the genetic linage (mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome) is traced back to central Africa. Mitochondrial DNA near Lake Tanganyika, and Y chromosome on the west coast near Cameroon. There is a very interesting chart on Y chromosome dispersal and possible migration routes. There is a less detailed and more localized view for mitochondrial dispersion, I believe that outside these areas there is not enough distinction in modern man to suggest routes. It is interesting that Eve (mitochondrial DNA) and Adam (Y chromosome) probably never met.

There are some proponents of the theory that early Homo sapiens cross bred with various Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis populations in different parts of the world, there is even the possibility with Homo rhodesiensis and Homo heidelbergensis. While most of the offspring were probably infertile, the few that did survive (linage) might have had sufficient cognitive superiority over their ancestors that they eventually became dominant. It would be interesting to see if we classify this gained dominance as natural selection or genocide.

Note there is also Biblical evidence* to the multiple cross breeding theory:

Genesis 6:4 - There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Numbers 13:33 - And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Note that there were earlier subspecies like Homo sapiens idaltu that have since become extinct. The current surviving modern man is the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens.

*evidence - I used this term to be consistent with betsy.

Edited June 28, 2016 by ?Impact

[TimG]

Or vice versa.

There is no genetic evidence to support the migration of populations from the Americas.

[waldo]

Solutrean hypothesis

Montana Boy: Bones Show Ancestral Links to Europe

New evidence suggests Stone Age hunters from Europe discovered America

New theories shine light on origins of Native Americans

.

[eyeball]

Many indigenous people in North America look Asian. So land bridge theory works for me.

End of hyper deep analysis.

I'm leaning towards the migration by boats along the southern coast of Beringia and then down the west coast of the America's. While this method probably involved smaller groups of people they would be able to cover vaster distances faster.

[?Impact]

Solutrean hypothesis

With the Solutrean sites mostly underwater, in what were coastal areas during the last ice age, it is quite costly to do proper archaeological excavation. The evidence does seem to suggest there were early Europeans in North America during the ice age, but it is not clear if they ever met up with the Asians that eventually settled the continent. They could have been a few small transitory communities that died out.

[TimG]

The evidence does seem to suggest there were early Europeans in North America during the ice age

The guys think the DNA markers can be explained completely with migrations from Asia:

http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297(08)00139-0?cc=y=

Also:

In 2014, the autosomal DNA of a male infant from a 12,500-year-old deposit in Montana was sequenced.[6] The DNA was taken from a skeleton referred to as Anzick-1. The skeleton was found in close association with several Clovis artifacts. Comparisons showed strong affinities with DNA from Siberian sites, and virtually ruled out any close affinity of Anzick-1 with European sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean Edited June 28, 2016 by TimG

[waldo]

The guys think the DNA markers can be explained completely with migrations from Asia:

http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297(08)00139-0?cc=y=

ya ya... you flogged this once already! Do you think your (almost decade old dated) 2007 published reference should just automatically negate subsequent... more recent... discoveries? Is that what you're saying?

.

[?Impact]

The guys think the DNA markers can be explained completely with migrations from Asia:

Exactly. The only substantial evidence we have of possible Earlier European migration is the tool artifacts. That is why I said they might have been transitory communities that died out. Since these tools were found in coastal communities, perhaps there were no humans alive that brought them. I don't know what the ocean currents were like 25,000 years ago, but the tools might have been carried in wooden crafts that washed up on the beaches of North America and subsequently disintegrated. While they could have been "message in a bottle" or possibly an offering to the gods, I think it is likely that people set out in water crafts, either intentionally for discovery or through navigational error or lost in storm, but didn't survive the long voyage.

[jacee]

Where did the archaeological evidence go?

All theories considered ... but I'm guessing the basement caves of the Smithsonian have some secrets.

The Ancient Red Haired Giants Who Ruled America:

The Missing Skeletons and the Great Smithsonian Cover-Up

We are now a century later, and still none have been found to confirm Sapir's contention. Certainly the receding glaciers from the last ice age would have wiped much of it out in the north, but not all as we have many much older archaeological finds like the dinosaurs. Where would the people have gone during the ice age, and would there not be a melding of the diverse languages and cultures as these groups encountered each other along migration routes? The same factors that lowered linguistic diversification in the old world due to extensive trade routes would not necessarily apply to a nomadic population in the new world.

All worth considering.

I'm sure work is ongoing ... if it isn't being suppressed.

I must admit this blew me away.

Lost Civilizations of America

.

[TimG]

The only substantial evidence we have of possible Earlier European migration is the tool artifacts.

And even then tool artifacts are not the same evidence as DNA. DNA markers prove populations are related or not and the only questions are how and when. Tool similarity is subjective and could be coincidental. The DNA markers also open the possibility later migrants from Asia wiped out the earlier migrants from Europe but I am sure that is a narrative that jacee would want to avoid like the plague. Edited June 28, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

Tool similarity is subjective and could be coincidental.

It is not just design similarity, the flint appear to be quarried in France.