https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58638854

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 23.9.2021. 21:53, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58638854

Oh yes, this solid evidence isn't in tune with genetic "evidence"
(again, lol).

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 4:03:20 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 23.9.2021. 21:53, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58638854
>
> Oh yes, this solid evidence isn't in tune with genetic "evidence"
> (again, lol).
>
> --
> https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
> human-e...@googlegroups.com

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
Note: chaddha@Jarawa: group home, large dome hut

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:29:40 AM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 4:03:20 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > On 23.9.2021. 21:53, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > > https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58638854
> >
> > Oh yes, this solid evidence isn't in tune with genetic "evidence"
> > (again, lol).
> >
> > --
> > https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
> > human-e...@googlegroups.com
> 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
> Note: chaddha@Jarawa: group home, large dome hut

Note: no dog tracks. Beringians had domestic dogs, Andaman people did not.

On 24.9.2021. 9:29, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 4:03:20 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 23.9.2021. 21:53, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58638854
>>
>> Oh 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
> Note: chaddha@Jarawa: group home, large dome hut

I knew that they will find a way to "adjust" themselves to the new
physical data.
Yes, 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 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?

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 2:17:32 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 24.9.2021. 9:29, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 4:03:20 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 23.9.2021. 21:53, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58638854
> >>
> >> Oh 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
> > Note: chaddha@Jarawa: group home, large dome hut
> I knew that they will find a way to "adjust" themselves to the new
> physical data.

The genetic evidence came out a few years ago, and hasn't been applied to North America finds.

> Yes, 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 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?
>
> --
> https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
> human-e...@googlegroups.com

You don't need to see the link, that's for people interested in non-Beringian migration.

Sorry to be so late in joining this thread, Mario. I hope others join too.

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 2:17:32 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 24.9.2021. 9:29, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 4:03:20 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 23.9.2021. 21:53, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58638854

This 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
better article on the subject here:

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
especially thoughtful and worth consideration:

"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.

> >> Oh 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
> > Note: chaddha@Jarawa: group home, large dome hut
> 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.

> Yes, 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.

> I 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.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 5.10.2021. 4:30, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 2:17:32 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 24.9.2021. 9:29, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 4:03:20 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 23.9.2021. 21:53, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58638854
>
> This 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
> better article on the subject here:
>
> 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
> especially thoughtful and worth consideration:
>
> "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.
>
>
>>>> Oh 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
>>> Note: chaddha@Jarawa: group home, large dome hut
>> 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.
>
>
>> Yes, 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.
>
>
>> I 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-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

There's evidence -- far from proof, and maybe not the most compelling but
evidence -- for humans in the New World going back much further than 21
thousand years.

When it comes to settlement in the Americans, the real question here is
"What would have stopped them?"

If you answer that, you know when they weren't here and you have a good
idea when they got here,

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/663996512177651712

On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 6:07:14 PM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:

> There's evidence -- far from proof, and maybe not the most compelling but
> evidence -- for humans in the New World going back much further than 21
> thousand years.

How far back do you think this evidence goes?
> When it comes to settlement in the Americans, the real question here is
> "What would have stopped them?"

Ice sheets, most of the time. No land connection during the interglacials.
The last one was over by 100,000 years ago, and humans may not have had good
water craft to make the connection before that.

> If you answer that, you know when they weren't here and you have a good
> idea when they got here,

There are some indications that humans had made it as far as Alaska 30,000
years ago. The following was written in February 2014 by Scott Armstrong Elias,
Professor of Quaternary Science, Royal Holloway University of London:

"While there is evidence to suggest northeast Siberia was inhabited during a warm period about 30,000 years ago before the last ice age peaked, after this the archaeological record goes silent, and only returns 15,000 years ago, after the last ice age ended.
So where did the ancestors of the Native Americans go for 15,000 years, after they split from the rest of their Asian relatives?

"As John Hoffecker, Dennis O'Rourke and I argue in an article for Science, the answer seems to be that they lived on the Bering Land Bridge, the region between Siberia and Alaska that was dry land when sea levels were lower, as much of the world’s freshwater was locked up in ice, but which now lies underneath the waters of the Bering and Chukchi Seas. This theory has become increasingly supported by genetic evidence.

"The Bering Land Bridge, also known as central part of Beringia, is thought to have been up to 600 miles wide. Based on evidence from sediment cores drilled into the now submerged landscape, it seems that here and in some adjacent regions of Alaska and Siberia the landscape at the height of the last glaciation 21,000 years ago was shrub tundra – as found in Arctic Alaska today.
....The wood and bark of dwarf shrubs would have been used to start fires that burned large mammal bones. The fats inside these bones won’t ignite unless they are heated to high temperatures, and for that you need a woody fire. And there is evidence from archaeological sites that people burned bones as fuel – the charred remains of leg bones have been found in many ancient hearths. It is the heat from these fires that kept these intrepid hunter-gatherers alive through the bitter cold of Arctic winter nights.

"As retreating glaciers opened new routes into the continent, humans travelled first into the Alaskan interior and the Yukon, and ultimately south out of the Arctic region and toward the temperate regions of the Americas. The first definitive archaeological evidence we have for the presence of people beyond Beringia and interior Alaska comes from this time, about 13,000 years ago."

https://theconversation.com/first-americans-lived-on-land-bridge-for-thousands-of-years-genetics-study-suggests-23747

In the seven and a half years since this was written, I believe plenty of evidence has emerged for several thousand years earlier,
but the footprints push it several thousand further back than the bulk of that evidence.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> How far back do you think this evidence goes?

NOVA did an episode where the foremost expert on pre historic "Meat
Caches" identified what he believed to be one in Colorado, dated to
45 thousand years ago.

Strong evidence? Not a chance. But evidence.

> > When it comes to settlement in the Americans, the real question here is
> > "What would have stopped them?"

> Ice sheets, most of the time. No land connection during the interglacials..
> The last one was over by 100,000 years ago, and humans may not have had good
> water craft to make the connection before that.

I wonder if it was something like dogs. But if the 45k is accurate, maybe we're
talking Denisovan or something else? If not they must've crossed from the other
side, Africa or Europe...

> "While there is evidence to suggest northeast Siberia was inhabited during a warm period
> about 30,000 years ago before the last ice age peaked, after this the archaeological record
> goes silent, and only returns 15,000 years ago, after the last ice age ended.
> So where did the ancestors of the Native Americans go for 15,000 years, after they split from
> the rest of their Asian relatives?

I don't think they were the first. I think Clovis was the first time that the population density
grew enough for "A Culture" to spread. It was simply a case where, once the ice corridor
formed, enough people came over to swamp the gene pool.

> "As John Hoffecker, Dennis O'Rourke and I argue in an article for Science, the answer seems to be
> that they lived on the Bering Land Bridge, the region between Siberia and Alaska that was dry land
> when sea levels were lower, as much of the world’s freshwater was locked up in ice, but which now
> lies underneath the waters of the Bering and Chukchi Seas. This theory has become increasingly
> supported by genetic evidence.

I agree. That's where the big population was. And that explains WHY they migrated: Their land
was disappearing!

THEY HAD NO CHOICE!

But they weren't the first. They were simply the largest group.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/664257293727236096

I've been very busy in other Usenet "newsgroups" this past ten days, along with my usual
time consuming duties as a full time faculty member.
It's good to be back to this thread.

On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 11:57:13 PM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > How far back do you think this evidence goes?

> NOVA did an episode where the foremost expert on pre historic "Meat
> Caches" identified what he believed to be one in Colorado, dated to
> 45 thousand years ago.

Thanks. Can you recall how it was identified as a "meat cache"?
Did they actually discover meat and not just bones left by some retreating glacier,
like the mummy of the "Iceman" of the Alps?

> Strong evidence? Not a chance. But evidence.

> > > When it comes to settlement in the Americans, the real question here is
> > > "What would have stopped them?"
>
> > Ice sheets, most of the time. No land connection during the interglacials.
> > The last one was over by 100,000 years ago, and humans may not have had good
> > water craft to make the connection before that.

> I wonder if it was something like dogs. But if the 45k is accurate, maybe we're
> talking Denisovan or something else? If not they must've crossed from the other
> side, Africa or Europe...

That could well be, but Homo sapiens sapiens is said to have migrated out of Africa
even before the last interglacial, and I don't think they had to have interbred
with Denisovians along the way, even if they took the land route thru Siberia.

> > "While there is evidence to suggest northeast Siberia was inhabited during a warm period
> > about 30,000 years ago before the last ice age peaked, after this the archaeological record
> > goes silent, and only returns 15,000 years ago, after the last ice age ended.
> > So where did the ancestors of the Native Americans go for 15,000 years, after they split from
> > the rest of their Asian relatives?

> I don't think they were the first. I think Clovis was the first time that the population density
> grew enough for "A Culture" to spread. It was simply a case where, once the ice corridor
> formed, enough people came over to swamp the gene pool.

Yes, but from where? Seems like they had been in and near Alaska the whole time:

> > "As John Hoffecker, Dennis O'Rourke and I argue in an article for Science, the answer seems to be
> > that they lived on the Bering Land Bridge, the region between Siberia and Alaska that was dry land
> > when sea levels were lower, as much of the world’s freshwater was locked up in ice, but which now
> > lies underneath the waters of the Bering and Chukchi Seas. This theory has become increasingly
> > supported by genetic evidence.

If divers found archeological evidence going back to 40 k or earlier in that inundated land bridge,
that would be sensational.

> I agree. That's where the big population was. And that explains WHY they migrated: Their land
> was disappearing!
>
> THEY HAD NO CHOICE!
>
> But they weren't the first.

To migrate to the lower 48 states? I think you are right.

> They were simply the largest group.

Up to that time, yes.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > NOVA did an episode where the foremost expert on pre historic "Meat
> > Caches" identified what he believed to be one in Colorado, dated to
> > 45 thousand years ago.

> Thanks. Can you recall how it was identified as a "meat cache"?

It shouldn't be too difficult to find the episode.

> > I wonder if it was something like dogs. But if the 45k is accurate, maybe we're
> > talking Denisovan or something else? If not they must've crossed from the other
> > side, Africa or Europe...

> That could well be, but Homo sapiens sapiens is said to have migrated out of Africa
> even before the last interglacial, and I don't think they had to have interbred
> with Denisovians along the way, even if they took the land route thru Siberia.

Well the modern people of the region are supposed to be Hss and they carry Denisovan
DNA, so it's a given: They boinked with the Denisovan.

> > I don't think they were the first. I think Clovis was the first time that the population density
> > grew enough for "A Culture" to spread. It was simply a case where, once the ice corridor
> > formed, enough people came over to swamp the gene pool.

> Yes, but from where? Seems like they had been in and near Alaska the whole time:

The explanation is that the glacial period, the ice, changed the weather patterns, which
of course it would have to. And this change led to ice free and comparatively mild
conditions -- for some value of mild -- within what we now call beringia.

> If divers found archeological evidence going back to 40 k or earlier in that inundated land bridge,
> that would be sensational.

Why aren't we looking?

CERN cost almost $5 billion to build, and about $1 billion per year to operate. The Mars
Perseverance lander has a total budget of $2.7 billion. Wouldn't we all agree that the search
for human origins, our real history is worth even more?

Look. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Dredging.

It's cheap. It's fast.

No, we don't do a lot of it. We dig test trenches, dredge them from the bottom, and sift it all
in search of archaeology establishing any human habitation. AND THEN that tells us where
to go back in search exhaustively, do a real excavation.

Deep sea divers... dam off an area... whatever it takes. If your budget is in the billions, you
get things done.

I wouldn't suggest starting with Beringia though. I'd probably be looking more towards
Sundaland. Even what used to be the east coast of North America...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/664978076018556928