Ancient Native Americans from Europe?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

Because why have only one air-tight theory when you can have two?

But seriously, knowing one method of migration doesn't eliminate the possibility of others.

When tooblue was saying the land bridge theory wasn't air-tight, I think he was referring to the perception of some that it was the ONLY means of trans-continental migration and ergo the only source of genetic contributors to the Native American population.

Genetic research of ancient North American human remains has shown the remains to be much more heterogeneous than originally thought.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

When tooblue was saying the land bridge theory wasn't air-tight, I think he was referring to the perception of some that it was the ONLY means of trans-continental migration and ergo the only source of genetic contributors to the Native American population.

Genetic research of ancient North American human remains has shown the remains to be much more heterogeneous than originally thought.

Up until recently the only accepted theory for the population of the Americas was the land bridge -the theory is considered air-tight.

What happens if one day it is discovered that humans orginitated in the Americas ... an open mind must address the possibility.

Question ... why is the bulk of the search in Africa? Is it due primarily to orientalism -traditional cultural attitudes and cultural educational influences?

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Up until recently the only accepted theory for the population of the Americas was the land bridge -the theory is considered air-tight.

What happens if one day it is discovered that humans orginitated in the Americas ... an open mind must address the possibility.

Question ... why is the bulk of the search in Africa? Is it due primarily to orientalism -traditional cultural attitudes and cultural educational influences?

Well, Darwin predicted a really long time ago that Africa would be found to be the cradle of humanity. Scientists, as they generally do, sought to prove him wrong, and for quite a while the research centered on Asia. Eventually, Darwin was found to be correct, as usual. As for why exactly Africa was so conducive to human evolution, we're still working on that. We do have some strong correlations between the advent of new, more advanced species, and various climate/ecological patterns, but we're not ready to really draw conclusions yet, especially since the information is coming in so rapidly. The classes I'm taking now don't even use books, since they tend to be long since out of date by the time they hit the shelves.

There is certainly no doubt at this stage that Africa is where humanity came from, as we are actively digging in America, and obviously making good progress, but the efforts there have been to find anything older than about 12-13,000 years, whereas the efforts in Africa have produced hominin fossils as old as 5-6 million years. It is still in question where exactly in Africa, though. The Great Rift Valley was once thought to have caused the environmental changes necessary to apply the right selective pressures, but the latest and oldest finds have been west, mostly in Chad. We're still working on that too.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Adam

I have always thought this. How would proof that 100% of the DNA of every Native American living in 2007 came from Asia disprove that two boats of people (maybe 60 people max) came from the Middle East in the year 400 B.C.?

The most it could do is force Lehi and the gang to become a tiny civilization among many, rather than the ancestors of all Native Americans, which is what the dominant belief in the church is (although apparently not so much here).

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

Well, Darwin predicted a really long time ago that Africa would be found to be the cradle of humanity. Scientists, as they generally do, sought to prove him wrong, and for quite a while the research centered on Asia. Eventually, Darwin was found to be correct, as usual. As for why exactly Africa was so conducive to human evolution, we're still working on that. We do have some strong correlations between the advent of new, more advanced species, and various climate/ecological patterns, but we're not ready to really draw conclusions yet, especially since the information is coming in so rapidly. The classes I'm taking now don't even use books, since they tend to be long since out of date by the time they hit the shelves.

There is certainly no doubt at this stage that Africa is where humanity came from, as we are actively digging in America, and obviously making good progress, but the efforts there have been to find anything older than about 12-13,000 years, whereas the efforts in Africa have produced hominin fossils as old as 5-6 million years. It is still in question where exactly in Africa, though. The Great Rift Valley was once thought to have caused the environmental changes necessary to apply the right selective pressures, but the latest and oldest finds have been west, mostly in Chad. We're still working on that too.

But ... has anyone looked in the Americas? To speak with such certainty one must assume they have looked extensively in the Americas and not merely dismissed the possibility as flippant.

Unless of course the scientific community has taken it on faith that the current course of action is the correct one

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

But ... has anyone looked in the Americas? To speak with such certainty one must assume they have looked extensively in the Americas and not merely dismissed the possibility as flippant.

Unless of course the scientific community has taken it on faith that the current course of action is the correct one

Yes, as I just posted in the very comment you quoted, the Americas are being scoured as we speak, a process which began decades ago.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

Yes, as I just posted in the very comment you quoted, the Americas are being scoured as we speak, a process which began decades ago.

so Evolution is God and Darwin is the prophet of the restoration ... how would you like to pay for the registration of your religion -cash or credit?

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

so Evolution is God and Darwin is the prophet of the restoration ... how would you like to pay for the registration of your religion -cash or credit?

I have no idea what you could possibly be talking about. You might as well say that physics is God and Newton is the prophet (Einstein as first counselor?). Are your beliefs so tenuous that you can't handle knowledge coming from sources other than Mormon leaders?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Adam

I have always thought this. How would proof that 100% of the DNA of every Native American living in 2007 came from Asia disprove that two boats of people (maybe 60 people max) came from the Middle East in the year 400 B.C.?

Woot is to science what Tex and Aaron Shaf are to religion.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Woot is to science what Tex and Aaron Shaf are to religion.

How is that nonsense relevant? I already responded to that comment anyway.