ps418

Why would I want/need to do that, Mibby? You are still implying, as you have several times now, that the the person originating an hypothesis has some bearing on whether it is true or not. That's nonsense. It doesn't work that way.


Right. That's because there is nothing there that requires any explanation beyond that which has already been given. As I just stated, I'm making no claims about when humans first arrived in NA, except that it was in the Pleistocene (2.5Ma-10Ka). 200-250k is still late Pleistocene.

What about them? The page you reference is titled "Leakey's Embrassment," and states that "mainstream scientists, however, have often dismissed the findings as products of nature and derided Leakey for what they felt was poor science," and cites only Phillip Tobias to the effect that some of the tools might be actual tools. Not having seen them, Ill remain agnostic for now.

However, even assuming that the tools are really tools, and that some of them are really 200,000 years old, this does not conflict with anything I've said. At 200k, or even 2.5Ma, there is still only one possible way for humans and the other pleistocene mammals to have gotten to NA.


This makes the second premature claim of victory in as many posts. IF the Calico artifacts are true artifacts, then they would indeed challenge the idea that Clovis is the earliest evidence for humans in NA, but would not in any way challenge the hypothesis that humans and other mammals migrated to NA from Asia.

Patrick

Vorkosigan

The Calico Site was, alas, disproven by statistical studies. See <a href="http://geology.uvm.edu/morphwww/classes/gradsem/1998/krisbib.html" target="_blank">Payen at the bottom of this page</a>. Sad -- it is my own pet idea that we'll find [i]H. erectus[/u] in North America someday -- but there it is. <a href="http://jfa-www.bu.edu/Abstracts/D/DuvallJ_6_4.html" target="_blank">Duvall et al</a> also used statistical tests to disprove the Calico Site tools. Bummer.

The other cases mentioned in Forbidden Archaeology turn out to be equally bogus. See <a href="http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk/" target="_blank">Doug Weller's Cult Archaeology Site</a> which has an excellent set of links.

In any case, Mibby, the existence of humans in the new world at 200Kya is not relevant to the fact that the current population is descended from Asian groups. This is proven by DNA analysis, and the evidence is incontrovertible.

BTW, can you answer the question of where you think these people came from, if they did not come from Asia? Did they spring from the ground, or what?

Vorkosigan

RogerLeeCooke

I don't think the discovery of a pre-Clovis civilization (which in fact *has* been discovered and the discovery is being suppressed by political pressure) would invalidate any treaties. (Not that the Government has often been scrupulous about obeying these treaties!) But I am annoyed that the Indians set up such a howl about "their ancestors" when discoveries are made of people who were *not* their ancestors. What they want apparently is to have their claims accepted without evidence, and that always makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck.

I personally can't imagine why anybody would want to live on a reservation when they are free to move off it and join the surrounding society; but if that's what people want, the treaties giving them that right should certainly be respected. But no more than the treaties require. Archaeology should be free to explore off the reservations. The idea that finding out how people in the past actually lived is somehow disrespectful to them strikes me as bizarre in any case. I know of no better way to honor them. It's far superior to inventing pious lies and legends about them and telling people they have to believe that as the truth.

Just shows you what a depraved paleface I am. I have no respect for these people's "native ways of knowing." I insist that there is only one way of knowing things: the rational, scientific way. Guess I'm an incurable, closed-minded bigot.

ps418

Thanks for the links Michael, especially that Cult Archaeology site. That's definitely getting added to my links page.

mibby529

I have never read Forbidden Archeology, personally.

But I have found this place to be like the Spanish Inquisition ever since I drew the logical conclusion that said skeleton disproved the Bering Strait theory, which, BTW, has never had the scientific method applied to it. (i.e., question, research, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion)

Or it could be the reverse. Duhh...

That's a straw man, and an attempt to set up a false dichotomy. I personally don't know, but I'm not ready to believe assumptions.

Blaming "political pressure" is as Hovindian as you can get. Indians have no political power; we're less than 1% of the population, and we don't have any resources to lobby with.

Anyway, for all you know, those pre-Clovis people could be related to modern Indians. You're just assuming they aren't because, in your worldview, Indians are recent arrivals. (Circular fallacy.)

ps418

Except that evidence of human habitation in Asia goes back almost 2 million years, whereas in NA the evidence only goes back with any certainty to less than ~30k. Double duhh. . .

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

Richiyaado

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our weapons are logic and reason... no, logic, reason, and an examination of data... no, I mean, our weapons include logic, reason, an examination of data and physical evidence and... Can we start the sketch over?

Seriously, Mibby, what conclusions can reasonably be drawn about any ancient skeletal remains if scientists are not permitted to study them? Such remains just become intriguing ciphers.

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Richiyaado ]</p>

mibby529

That HAS to be a mistake. I thought humans only existed some 200 thousand years ago...A million at most...

Keep it up; you're starting to sound like Genesis.

The idea that coming up with theories based on what missionaries said is somehow rational strikes me as bizarre in any case.

Hey, we knew earth was round - and went around the sun - before you did. And we knew that hunting animals to extinction meant you wouldn't have any more to hunt before you did. And we knew the moon was an object while you thought it was a "light." And we knew that bathing was actually healthy while you thought it would let "evil spirits" in.

How about the dogmatic, presumptionist way? Your "theories" are entirely derivative of long-dead men who believed Indians were "racially prone to violence" and bullshit like that.

The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Hey, we knew earth was round - and went around the sun - before you did. And we knew that hunting animals to extinction meant you wouldn't have any more to hunt before you did. And we knew the moon was an object while you thought it was a "light." And we knew that bathing was actually healthy while you thought it would let "evil spirits" in.

Actually, it's widely believed that mastodons, mammoths, and other "megafauna" went extinct in North and South America a few thousand years ago, because they were hunted to extinction.

There's also abundant archaeological evidence that several tribes in the American Southwest died out or were forced to emigrate because they logged off all the local forests and thus changed the region from an arid woodland to desert.

The notion that Native Americans lived in perfect harmony with their environments is a myth.

Cheers,

Michael

ps418

No mistake. You thought wrong. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis first appeared about ~400ka. Our genus goes back well over 2 million years.

Thats because you lump everything that conflicts with your beliefs into a single category and call it Genesis, for some odd reason.