Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Thu Sep 19, 2019 4:59 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:32 pm +0000
Posts: 45
Makalu wrote:
tas, if you have a source from the 30's postulating an 85kya migration i'd like to see it...it most certainly wasnt the widely accepted theory of that time period. The 30's were a time when the prevailing thought was shifting from 2kya to a clovis era theory (11kya)...and currently "clovis first" is dying and mainstream science is once again slowly moving back the dates.

There is some evidence for humans in the americas dating back to 50-60kya...a site at pedra furada,brazil, a site in texas at pendejo cave and dating of petroglyphs in california using thermoluninescence technique...also linguists estimate the diversity of language and dialects in the americas indicates at least 40ky of development.

i have a number of articles on this bookmarked but would need some time to find them which i dont have at the moment.

but if you think that the current paradigm is clear and undisputed you might want to take a look at http://www.pleistocenecoalition.com

Hi Makalu,

I almost added to my earlier post a request for the same thing. In the past where I've seen conflicts between modern determinations and what the UB says, I've often found that the UB seems to say what was known back at the time it was written, and the caveat about unearned knowledge can make sense, but on the timing of the migrations to the Americas I haven't gone looking myself to find out how people understood the topic in the 1930s-1950s. It's interesting to hear that the 85kya migration time line doesn't match with understandings people held back in the early 20th century from what you've seen. It'd be interesting in looking into that further sometime.

Thanks for the link, and to address the point you make about how far back America may really have seen migrations (as well as you quil), I just want to clarify that it's two separate aspects of the UB statements about the migrations that don't match up with what people have discovered.

The UB is clear in saying that after 85kya, the Western Hemisphere was completely cut off from other populations until the Europeans arrived, with only two small exceptions. The first is that the North American tribes had contact with Eskimos. The second is that the South American tribes had contact with 132 Andites roughly 12000-8000 BC, giving their population a "faint touch of the blood of Adam" (64:6.5).

The UB and modern science are in agreement that the Western Hemisphere was populated by people migrating from Asia across to Alaska when ocean levels were so low that there was a land bridge between the two continents.

While there might have been an earlier migration at 85kya that isn't recognized by scientists yet, and so evidence is out there to be found that the Americas had people earlier than is thought now, I don't think there's any doubt in scientists minds that the evidence very strongly shows -- from geology, genetics, archeology, and linguistics -- that a migration event from Asia has also occurred much more recently than the 85kya point. And to my knowledge from browsing the literature, all living Native Americans are descendants from the migrants of this more recent event.

Geologically - the land bridge is known to have been in existence a lot more recently than 85kya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia):

Quote:
It is believed that a small human population of at most a few thousand survived the Last Glacial Maximum in Beringia, isolated from its ancestor populations in Asia for at least 5,000 years, before expanding to populate the Americas sometime after 16,500 years ago, during the Late Glacial Maximum as the American glaciers blocking the way southward melted,[4][5][6][7] but before the bridge was covered by the sea about 11,000 years BP[8].

Genetically - "Current molecular evidence implies that members of a single population left Siberia and headed east to the Americas sometime between about 30 and 13 ka. Most studies suggest this event occurred after the LGM, less than 22 ka." (See the 2008 article linked at the end of my post.) Scientists find that all living Native Americans from North and South America appear to come from a relatively small and recent founding population. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1131883/)

Archeology - despite 100s of millions of people living in North and South America in modern times, there's not any time they have seemed to come across human remains or other clear evidence older than about 13kya. Before 13kya - no widely accepted evidence, though whispers of a little at least. After 13kya or so - a huge amount of archeological evidence. Why would the solid and undisputed evidence line only start distinctly at about 13 kya, which just happens to be about when the other evidence shows that the ancestors of native Americans migrated from Asia? Here's news from 2014 of the discovery of about some of the oldest human remains ever found: http://press.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... -ancestry/

Here's a very good overall summary that's worth a read from the journal of Science from 2008:

http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/cfs ... ce2008.pdf

"Combined, the molecular genetic and archaeological records from Siberia, Beringia, and North and South America suggest humans dispersed from southern Siberia shortly after the last glacial maximum (LGM), arriving in the Americas as the Canadian ice sheets receded and the Pacific coastal corridor opened, 15 ka."

So, these are all different ways of investigating the question of when people reached the Americas, and each points to a similar conclusion. Personally, it doesn't seem likely to me that all this carefully earned knowledge about this migrant wave is going to be found horribly off by 70,000 years. The different types of evidence all corroborate each other too well. Again, that's not to say people won't discover there was in fact an earlier migrant wave, but the evidence doesn't show only an early migrant wave. So, if accepting that this knowledge has been legitimately earned by humanity and accurately describes the past, then there becomes a matter of reconciling the UB's statements about a single 85kya migration event with this knowledge.

Can it be done? Or does the UB require a belief in not accepting knowledge like this as "earned" until it's in line with the UB's statements?

tas


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:55 am +0000
Posts: 432
tas,

Part of the issue is that the "out of Africa" theory of human ancestry is still in full force. I believe current estimates are that humans started to leave Africa 60 to 80 kya. So if we found any evidence of the North American migration occurring during that time period, it would be an enormous threat to that entire paradigm. There have been significant resources invested and careers staked on this hypothesis. Science is not immune from politics and pride and preconceived notions. Some evidence might suggest these events because that's what they want to believe (confirmation bias).

Consider the site at Monte Verde, Chile, dated at 14.8 kya. One scientist studying wood buried near the site dated it to 33 kya. Of course, the result hasn't been verified or accepted by the wider scientific community, and maybe there was an error, but it's interesting that no one is terribly interested in it. Why? Because obviously "it can't be!" Too threatening.

Consider the Topper site in South Carolina. Striking objects most definitely of human agency at layer of soil between 16 to 20 kya.

Consider the Pedra Furada sites in Brazila. Carbon deposits from potentially human-made fires 60 kya or older! Yep!

The point is that researchers don't even THINK to dig deeper because they've already got in their heads human artifacts won't exist in those layers. While the genetic researchers are subject to confirmation bias, those out in the field are subject to sampling bias.

Also, I am curious, how do you reconcile being forced to use a seemingly arbitrary method of classifying TUB history statements as either "physical science" or "historic facts" versus accepting what is said at face value (in other words, interpreting it with preference for the most obvious meaning)?

This is not about idolizing a text. It's about waking up and accepting that this is a real revelation.

- quil


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3667
Greetings....the presentation by tas and his reliance on current scientific theory seems illogical to me. If science in '34 said the migration was 13,000 years ago and the UB did too (in order not to provide "unearned" scientific knowledge - also a weird claim when discussing science trying to determine a history which the UB specifically, directly, and very clearly says is accurately provided by its authors) and THEN science/archeology/DNA found it was really much earlier - then the argument given here would be logical. However, the opposite is the case here - the UB disputes archeological theory - both then and now. So the authors then just made up a ridiculous lie? Weird logic. Spock would not be amused.

A recent study written about in Science mag this summer is refuting prior theories from just 2 years ago and those refute those from 2 years earlier. Native Americans come from Siberia over 22k years ago and remained isolated somewhere, probably in Canada, before then quickly spreading across the American continents which explains the lack of artifacts anywhere which predate the original theoretical date.

The latest "theory" is, thankfully and accurately, also presented AS theory and subject to further revisions. I do not idolize the UB....I just happen to believe it.....especially the history of the universes, the systems, and our planet. I am amazed by its daring to be so very, very specific on dating - even the times of day for some events.

Mortal science is best at disproving the conclusions and theories it creates by its noble method. So is it 13k or 23k? Or is it 85k? Science may never be able to determine this due to a complete lack of evidence available for its currently transforming dating mechanisms which themselves contradict prior dating sciences on the same evidence.

But for those who wish to not believe the UB, science provides ample "evidence" to cling to....well, until it doesn't that is.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/aab3884

:wink:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:32 pm +0000
Posts: 45
quil wrote:
So if we found any evidence of the North American migration occurring during that time period, it would be an enormous threat to that entire paradigm. There have been significant resources invested and careers staked on this hypothesis. Science is not immune from politics and pride and preconceived notions. Some evidence might suggest these events because that's what they want to believe (confirmation bias).

The opposite is also true - there are amazing and prideful career boosts to be had for an eager scientist who can overturn current understandings. There's no shortage of scientists who would love to discover an unexpected result like this and get the glory for it.

quil wrote:
Consider the site at Monte Verde, Chile, dated at 14.8 kya. One scientist studying wood buried near the site dated it to 33 kya. Of course, the result hasn't been verified or accepted by the wider scientific community, and maybe there was an error, but it's interesting that no one is terribly interested in it. Why? Because obviously "it can't be!" Too threatening.

Consider the Topper site in South Carolina. Striking objects most definitely of human agency at layer of soil between 16 to 20 kya.

Consider the Pedra Furada sites in Brazila. Carbon deposits from potentially human-made fires 60 kya or older! Yep!

Again, evidence that some humans may have been in the Americas before 13-14kya isn't the issue I'm pointing out. Instead, it's that modern science shows that the Western Hemisphere wasn't cut off from migration at 85kya. People living in Siberia had a wide open route to migrate into North America just 15-20kya or so, and there's extremely strong evidence that a population of Siberians did just that.

quil wrote:
The point is that researchers don't even THINK to dig deeper because they've already got in their heads human artifacts won't exist in those layers. While the genetic researchers are subject to confirmation bias, those out in the field are subject to sampling bias.

People dig deep enough to find mastodons and plenty of other archaic extinct animals, including dinosaur fossils millions of years old, I don't think it's for a lack of digging correctly that evidence is missing.

quil wrote:
Also, I am curious, how do you reconcile being forced to use a seemingly arbitrary method of classifying TUB history statements as either "physical science" or "historic facts" versus accepting what is said at face value (in other words, interpreting it with preference for the most obvious meaning)?

It needs to be taken at face value that the UB insists that people must earn knowledge and that the revelators are "hampered greatly" by a "proscription on the impartation of unearned or premature knowledge". The book says: "Man's mind is not to be crushed by the mere weight of logic or overawed by shrewd eloquence ... Make your appeals directly to the divine spirit that dwells within the minds of men." The UB puts an enormous premium on the importance of faith, "the supreme assertion of human thought", and also on the sanctity of free will.

I think one reasonable argument is that it was authored so as to not negate people's free will and "crush by the mere weight of logic", which is what would be the case if it is makes assertions that were not possibly known at the time it was made but later proven. These would miraculous proofs of the supernatural. "Religion is never enhanced by an appeal to the so-called miraculous." (102:8.7) It would deny people their free will, the adventure of faith, and the adventure of earning knowledge. Other people would no doubt consider another reasonable argument to be that it simply is not a revelation, as FanOfVan suggested in his post, but was written by humans. That's exactly what should be possible if free will is to be allowed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:40 pm +0000
Posts: 2565
http://www.ubthenews.com/

http://www.ubthenews.com/topics/early_m ... ericas.htm


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3667
[quote="tas It needs to be taken at face value that the UB insists that people must earn knowledge and that the revelators are "hampered greatly" by a "proscription on the impartation of unearned or premature knowledge". The book says: "Man's mind is not to be crushed by the mere weight of logic or overawed by shrewd eloquence ... Make your appeals directly to the divine spirit that dwells within the minds of men." The UB puts an enormous premium on the importance of faith, "the supreme assertion of human thought", and also on the sanctity of free will.

I think one reasonable argument is that it was authored so as to not negate people's free will and "crush by the mere weight of logic", which is what would be the case if it is makes assertions that were not possibly known at the time it was made but later proven. These would miraculous proofs of the supernatural. "Religion is never enhanced by an appeal to the so-called miraculous." (102:8.7) It would deny people their free will, the adventure of faith, and the adventure of earning knowledge. Other people would no doubt consider another reasonable argument to be that it simply is not a revelation, as FanOfVan suggested in his post, but was written by humans. That's exactly what should be possible if free will is to be allowed.[/quote]

fanofVan here: :shock: :?: :roll: I have never suggested the UB is authored by humans for pete's sake!! I said "if one believes" the UB is what it claims to be, which I obviously do. I do find it a "reasonable" argument that it is not what it claims so I do not judge those who do not share my belief, but my belief is firm that it is indeed the 5th Epochal Revelation and speaks clearly for itself. But I have difficulty with those who claim the Papers are the FER but then deny what it says or twist and torment it to suit their own preconceptions....it says what it says and it don't say what it don't....it ain't rocket science! :wink:

I find the italicized quote above interesting and obviously self-contradictory tas - "It needs to be taken at face value...."

But not regarding this? Why not? Is it some metaphorical misrepresentation of the obvious clear meaning as presented? The revelators are "not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years." The authors are NOT so restricted about the history of the universe, system, and planet. Nor did they fictionalize or conform it to 1934 theories and much, or all, of which contradicts all scientific methodologies then and now of geologic formation ages, biological evolution steps and dating (from before frogs to after the leaping lemurs), and the humanoid independent branching just now beginning to take theoretical shape from the so-called "scientific" theory of the single line of modern humans.

You have illogically inverted your objection and your faith in science which has no such faith in itself as it leap frogs over prior theories while the non-scientific grasps at pet theories. Does the UB present a big bang in its condescension? Hardly. While the UB may not anticipate science over a thousand years, so far it has anticipated and corrected much of science for a century already. I theorize (haha) that what they didn't tell us has to do with free, endless energy, the further secrets within the atom, how two gases make a liquid, how to concentrate energy and force or perpetuate them, the stellar secrets of universe formation, etc. They also gave an interesting clue, without saying it directly, that our theoretical constant of the speed of light is WAY off base. (anyone know the clue?)

So it is false to suggest that new scientific facts were not given....they certainly were and science is approaching those given pretty quickly as the method destroys prior theories.

101:4.2 (1109.3) Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.

If taken at "face value" (which is how I also take the text - literally as written), then the history as presented is far more accurate and will "stand on the records of the ages to come..." I am a little confused tas about which "scientific" dating result and process you believe? The 13k, or 26k, or the 50k+...is it DNA or carbon dating or ice dating or soil dating or artifact dating that you feel is absolutely, positively got it right this time science? Sorry. Really. We all cling to what we cling to, including myself. I just really pity anyone who stands pat on anything the scientific method theorizes today for they will be doomed to disappointment by what the method discovers and theorizes next. The method is absolutely cannibalistic regarding prior theories....that's the nature of the model and its beauty and power in function, if not always in result. Do not mistake me, I have a very high regard for the method and those who apply it in pursuit of understanding our world and our universe. Science, when true, takes us toward God the same as religion does, when true!

Thanks for the link coop.....you shine!

8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:32 pm +0000
Posts: 45
Thanks for the clarifications of your point of view, fanofVan.

If a person sees ways that scientific knowledge about historical events isn't going to line up with the UB's statements -- they come to conclusively decide the work by the scientists is in fact much more on the right track and far closer to the real truth -- I think there is more that can be offered to them from the UB than the "take it or leave it" mindset you offer. That's what I'm exploring, and goes back to the open question I posed earlier: Can it be done?

My perspective is that I think it can. When a sacred book says the world is flat it doesn't mean everybody is going to accept that the world is flat, but for those who don't agree about the world being flat, there can still be living waters even for them. Your response has been to make this into personal judgments about me for some reason, and as I understand it you're not interested in ideas too far from your own on this topic, which is fine.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:32 pm +0000
Posts: 45
coop wrote:


Thanks coop. That's a great summary. I think sometimes though ubthenews isn't as careful with the details as they should be, overlooking the fullness of what the UB says. Like for instance with this one, how it only is concerned about how far back the first migrants might have gotten to the Americas, not mentioning the more significant discrepancy about when the Western Hemisphere was cut off from migration. Or the Adam & Eve one, about a gene from about 40,000 years ago, which on the surface can sound like it matches up with the UB. When I read the original paper and compared it to the full story in the UB it didn't match up though.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 941
i have a few minutes to address some things...will try to spend some quality time this weekend.

The papers don't explicitly say that the bering land bridge hasn't been passable for the last 85,000 years...it just says that it sunk shortly after that time and no red man ever crossed back into asia. And science hasn't really proven that the land there was passable during the last ice age...it's just a theory based on sea levels being lower during ice ages and the timing kinda sorta is coincidental with the appearance of clovis points...so it's a theory that fits a theory.

Geneticists pretty much agree that there was no reverse migration...and paleoclimatologists speculate that the bering land bridge cycled between being above or below water in sync with the periods of glaciation between 85kya and now. Being both above sea level and not covered in an ice sheet is hard to prove.

Science also says that the red man spent 5-20,000 years living in "beringia" before moving on into "america" during the LGM. But there's no evidence for that at all...not a single archeological site The genetic studies only say that the red man was isolated from the yellow man during that time period...the dna doesn't really say where that isolation occured at...it may very well have been California. So again berengia is just a theory used to try and make sense of the genetics alongside clovis first theory.

to attempt to answer the question of why does the archeological record flourish around 15kya? several possibilities come to mind..1) see the explosion of NA population around that time in the graph in this article:

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/51/20444.full.pdf+html

2) the artifacts from that period are primarily fluted (clovis) and western stemmed points and we really dont find any knapped projectile points pre-dating those...it appears that they preferred bone and ivory up until that time and those materials tend to rot away into undecipherable forms over the course of 15,000 years

3) uhm i forgot what i was gonna say and gotta run now :lol:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:32 pm +0000
Posts: 45
Thanks, I'll look forward to the next post. Just a quick reference to offer about one thing since I also might not have a chance to post again until next week some time.

Makalu wrote:
The papers don't explicitly say that the bering land bridge hasn't been passable for the last 85,000 years...it just says that it sunk shortly after that time and no red man ever crossed back into asia.

Beyond the 85,000 point, what it says is North and South America were cut off from the rest of the world. The UB is clear about these two continents being isolated and there wasn't a later migration from Asia after the 85,000 migration:

"Excepting the Eskimos in North America and a few Polynesian Andites in South America, the peoples of the Western Hemisphere had no contact with the rest of the world until the end of the first millennium after Christ." (79:5.9; see also 79:5.7)

Personally, I think it's very unlikely that evidence of population flow between Asia and North America at about the 15-20kya time frame goes away some how to then show the population of the Americas were in reality genetically isolated (with two minor exceptions) for 85ky. But, will enjoy looking at the ideas there might be on the topic.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 941
well no contact between peoples isn't the same as no land bridges but i won't belabor the point. one thing i can say for sure about the current scientific facts and the theories built around them are they will change. but i agree that doesnt mean science and the papers will ever be in agreement on the history of the peopling of the americas. the current trend is undeniably pushing the dates back and there already is evidence of isolation/divergence between asians and NA in the same ballpark as the UB scenario....~70,000ybp in this genetic study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC20009/

see table 1...it's worth mentioning that genetics is a new science that should yield better results over time with larger sample groups...but it will never be an exact science due to unknown variations in mutation rate and (if the papers are correct where it says that the red man nearly became extinct due to infighting) population bottlenecks that skew the results. not to mention interpretting the results is human and iffy.

ultimately it doesnt matter if you or i believe the science in the papers is valid or not...the science in the papers is only there to lead man into a balanced philosophy that doesnt neglect the value of the material viewpoint...

peace, laterz


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3667
tas - sorry you feel this is in any way personal...I assure you it is not. It is quite issue specific. The book says its historical records are accurate and you claim them to be untruthful since they don't conform to current scientific theories which are rapidly changing including the ability to locate and time stamp evidence...archeology is rapidly transforming its abilities and conclusions in all of its theoretical constructs.

You infer that the science in UB somehow is antiquated and conforming to 1930s science which it certainly does not - in either history or science. In your last post you claim that the UB gives "flat earth" science and those who decline to swallow the camels offered by human science are blind flat landers - ludicrous....how long will it be for science to discover space respiration? The UB is filled with scientific facts that still far outreach modern theories from astrophysics to the atom. Yet I still don't know by any current evidence (as opposed to theories to prop up prior theories) where science has progressed beyond or even up to what is within the UB. We are told that will come....eventually. But will those "revisions" to come contradict the UB or confirm and move beyond it? I view it as biology 301 "revising" biology 101 myself, rather than some discovery of falsehood in the UB itself.

So the assumption that when the UB and "modern" science diverge indicates that the UB is incorrect is itself a false premise leading to false propositions and confidence in that which even scientists do not share....the rapid and progressive evolution of scientific theory and self contradiction is obvious to all, even the casual lay observer. So even if one did not believe the UB version of either history or science, that should not result in any great comfort in or such absolutism regarding any modern theories upon the progressive road of the scientific method, littered with the carcasses of prior theories. Science itself has no such certainties....nor offers any....including the speed of light and its distance "measurement" abilities....whose potential variables are even now revising much in scientific constructs.

So I confess I find it difficult to accept blind loyalties to modern theories simply because they disagree with the UB....I need more evidence....which, when and as it comes, seems often to only approach more verification of that given in the UB. You accuse me and others of blind and primitive loyalty to the Revelation while you demonstrate the same in favor of theories, not only unproven but constantly changing - the half life of theories appears to be shortening. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black if you know what I mean. The enthusiasm some demonstrate for pointing out differences between the text and science is all well and good...if its point were simply to illuminate and discuss the differences rather than a rush to "prove" the purported unreliability of the Papers. Evidence which disputes the UB and prior scientific evidence BOTH would give reasonable people something to discuss but not so much to dispute I would think.

I wonder what you might think this means "at face value"..."We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come...."

Anyway, I say tomato and you say tomato (hahaha...don't work in print!). Enjoy your week away tas, I too will be gone for the next week. Nothing personal tas when I point out what I consider lack of logic in your presentation on this particular issue. Science will eventually prove more exacting in its future progressions and I have great confidence in its methodologies to do so.

8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3667
In case anyone missed it, here's the PBS documentary on this discovery. Just watched after recording it from a week ago air time. It is amazing how they describe the connections and disconnections of human ancestry and those potential lines which did not survive. You can hear the scientist discuss the very hand and strategies of the Life Carriers in the scientist's bafflement over how many simultaneous species were in development, competition, and inter breeding....making it, in their scientific opinion, forever impossible to actually and accurately piece together modern man's complete history in evolution. Fascinating (if a little slow time to time).

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ ... anity.html

This is believed to be a species of pre-humans from 2 million years ago....a time the UB characterizes in the mid-mammal era.

Enjoy! 8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 941
Makalu wrote:
3) uhm i forgot what i was gonna say and gotta run now :lol:


stumbled on a bookmark and remembered now...the UB says a little over 7,000 people migrated to north america and genetic science study here:

On the Number of New World Founders: A Population Genetic Portrait of the Peopling of the Americas

estimates 9,000 and yet the clovis first model would have this small population growing and migrating across the whole of the western hemisphere in only about 1000 years...in fact the range of dating for clovis points themselves was placed at 200 years...and that's just not enough time for them to have done that. Obviously the knowledge of clovis technology spread throughout a previous existing population.

note that the study above also places the timing of the migration at 44,400 years ago based on current assumed mutation rates...

also note that any fool can poke holes in the clovis first theory but much harder to come up with solid evidence for what did happen :lol:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group