Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:49 pm +0000
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
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, but before the bridge was covered by the sea about 11,000 years BP.
Wed Sep 23, 2015 1:43 pm +0000
Wed Sep 23, 2015 2:51 pm +0000
Wed Sep 23, 2015 3:34 pm +0000
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).
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!
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.
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)?
Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:11 pm +0000
Thu Sep 24, 2015 2:19 pm +0000
Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:48 pm +0000
Thu Sep 24, 2015 5:18 pm +0000
http://www.ubthenews.com/topics/early_m ... ericas.htm
Thu Sep 24, 2015 5:26 pm +0000
Thu Sep 24, 2015 6:23 pm +0000
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.
Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:23 am +0000
Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:58 am +0000
Fri Sep 25, 2015 12:08 pm +0000
Sun May 08, 2016 7:42 am +0000
Makalu wrote:3) uhm i forgot what i was gonna say and gotta run now