Post by Peter NyikosThis was a popularization, and not a good one since none of the people who
did the research was mentioned, nor were we told where the original research article appeared.
Fortunately, two of the scientists who wrote the original research article gave a much
https://theconversation.com/fossil-footprints-prove-humans-populated-the-americas-thousands-of-years-earlier-than-we-thought-168426
Some of the comments by readers were asinine, but there were several good ones. Here is one I found
"There is something the author is not considering, but which was a conclusion I reached in early January, 1989, in Tofino while talking with someone from the local Reserve during an oil spill clean up of Long Beach. Namely, that the first humans to arrive in the Americas, didn’t walk across a land bridge, but followed sea mammals they were hunting along its edges in small boats. I reckon even the land bridge between the two continents would have been glaciated and thus presented some difficulty with using it as a means of access to North America from Asia. The idea of an ice free corridor that they then travelled down to get to warmer climes also doesn’t hold up to scrutiny: it either would have been too arid to support life, or it would have been glaciated, making travelling down it impossible for our ancestors. It is now known that Australian Aborigines must have travelled to Australia by boats 40,000 years ago, since there is no other possibility, suggesting humans were making boats long before we used to think."
-- Lord Andrew Barham
Digression: these were more like the Tasmanian aborigines than the present day Aborigines. The Tasmanian aborigines
were of a different race closer to the Melanesians. They were the victims of what may be the only completely
successful genocide of a whole racial variety in world history, the culprits being the British colonists.
Post by Mario PetrinovicPost by DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_lovesPost by Mario PetrinovicOh yes, this solid evidence isn't in tune with genetic "evidence"
(again, lol).
That "genetic evidence" is not including the newer data of the Surui of the Amazon and some groups in Columbia that have Andaman-like genetic traces indicating a plausibly much earlier migration. Those footprints may have been made by people who resembled Andaman people more than today's Asians or Amer. Indians.
https://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/jarawa
I knew that they will find a way to "adjust" themselves to the new
physical data.
As all good scientists must, unless they can interpret the physical data differently
from those who found the data.
Post by Mario PetrinovicYes, this is credible scientific method, whichever number you put in
front of them, they will always find a way to make it "right", lol.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, Mario.
New evidence can make huge changes in what we consider
to be established science. Think of continental drift, rescued
from endless ridicule by the discovery of plate tectonics.
Post by Mario PetrinovicI only wonder why it took them so long (yes, I even didn't bother to
see your link). How long it takes them to "adjust" these days?, Few
minutes, lol?
Well, now that I've given you a non-Beringian migration hypothesis,
you might want to see why DD'eDeN said it was for people interested in such hypotheses.
The only reason I'm not doing it now is that I still have to do send one of my classes
some information, and then will need to call it quits for the night: my wife and I
are making an early trip to a "farmer's market" tomorrow morning.
But in your time zone, you will probably be up hours before us.
Well, Peter, usually I am awake for whole night (probably a cause of
the job that I did, driving trains whole nights), but today it was an
exception, I went to bed early, and I just woke up (5 AM). When you are
retired you can do whatever you want, :) .
Regarding the subject, yes, I was also thinking along the lines of
that hypothesis.
Frankly, I don't know what DD meant, everything I need to know, I
already know.
Regarding molecular clock (which I am attacking at every possible
occasion), clock is a device that is supposed to tell us the time, it is
not the device to which you will tell the time. This whole idea (of the
molecular clock), is bogus, all the way. Instead it telling the time to
us, it is us who need to tell the time to it. This is *not* a clock,
this is a joke, a joke that you make about the fools who don't get it
(scientific community).
A molecular clock, actually, is "the proof". The proof of stupidity.
Actually, the whole "Genetic Mutation Theory" is stupid, but nobody
got it. So, as such, it is another proof. Scientific community provided
us with a lot of proves in the 21st century, indeed. Proves about its
own stupidity. And I thank them for that (because they have been honest
about it, thanks again).
--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolut