Skip to comments.North America Settled by Just 70 People, Study Concludes
Posted on 05/08/2011 7:55:52 AM PDT by wildbill
A new study of DNA suggests North America was originally populated by just a few dozen people who crossed a land bridge from Asia during the last Ice Age.
About 14,000 years ago, humans crossed the Bering land bridge from Siberia to North America, most experts agree. But just how many intrepid explorers were involved in spawning subsequent populations has not been known.
"The estimated effective size of the founding population for the New World is about 70 individuals," said Jody Hey, a professor of genetics at Rutgers University.
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
They were the first. I believe there were others.
Wow. 70 people “settled” an entire continent? Talk about elbow room.
Oh, yeah. Garmin.
You are right...They even got as far as the tip of South America in a few short years.
Amazing stuff...I mean crap!!!!
Are our tax dollars being used for this “study”?
Not all of us are willing to assume that the western hemisphere was settled once from Asia alone.
The geneticist’s study says there are only 70 separate DNA strains in the bloodlines of all AMerinds.
If some folks can believe that everyone is descended from only two people, I don’t see why a scientific finding of 70 DNA lines in N. America isn’t possible.
It’s probably reasonably accurate. It take as little as 400 years to fill the continent.
Agreed... some of the East Coast indians suggest European ancestory. The Cherokee language is actually very similar to Greek and some ancient Hebrew artifacts have been found in obscure places like Oklahoma... I do believe some Asiana came across the land bridge as suggested, but do not believe Lied Ericson was the next to make it here.
Hey Prof...who settled Tierra del Fuego about the same time? Hmmm? .
Oops, Lief Ericson. Darn autocorrect...
Jody Hey here seems to assume the originals were Asian rather than Michael Collins hypothesis of European origins.
Law of exponents ensures that people reproduce quickly.
If it was 70 people, half of them women, and each woman averaged 5 kids who could make it to adulthood, of which about half were female,..., it would only take about 500 years to go from 70 people to 50 million people.
Do we have to “give it back”?
Midnight Oil - Beds are Burning
Invasive species don’t usually need to do much but what they normally do - and the cold calculus expands them exponentially over the new territory.
But yes, good times, no competition from the #1 competition humans have faced throughout their time on Earth - other humans.
¿Hay sólo tres carros?
Have the “Experts” ever been wrong yet?
What percentage of women were able to have 5 kids survive into adulthood 20,000 years ago without the benefit of modern medicine. As recently as Medieval Europe as many as half of childbirths resulted in death of the mother, not to mention the frequency in which the child itself died.
Can you imagine what the South Americans are thinking?
"D'oh! And all we had to do was swim across some stupid canal!"
Depends on how slow you were at climbing the tree in those days.
Probably fifty fifty, have five kids and live to the ripe old age of 35:
You’d have been able to get a good spot at Times Square for Dick Clark’s Rocking New Years Eve.
Certainly a higher percentage than Medieval Europe. The middle ages had problems with sanitation and food. People coming into a new continent wouldn’t have problems with either.
Well, yeah, but can you imagine cleaning up all that mess by yourself?
Oh, great. How much is it going to cost to figure that out?
When I say that, if they had 5 kids, that is net. That is including the many that would die as a fetus or prior to age 5.
However, even if you knock it down to 3 kids, it would still only take a little more than 1,000 years to do that exact same thing.
My point is that the bulk of the story is probably correct. Mathematically speaking, 70 people is a reasonable starting point for a population to start from.
There might have been a lot more octo-moms back then, too.
According to my data, there were 71.
Yeah, but the last one was gay.
I have never done any real study of the subject but American, both North and South, Indians vary as much as other races do from each other.
I have seen pictures of Peruvians who look like they could have just been transported from China. Another group from Mexico and South, look just like the stone carvings on Aztec buildings. Hugo Chavez is a good example of them.
North American Plains Indians look like the image on the buffalo nickel and unlike any other race that I know of.
Although they were probably diluted by Scotch Irish to a great degree, Cherokee tend to look a little like Peruvian Indians except they are larger and much handsomer.
I agree, but it still discounts the Cherokee-Greek connection. I think there is in incredible story there.
How about the Cherokee-Hebrew connection?
Not even hardly...
I don't see how they can conclude 70 individuals as opposed to 70 families or even tribes.
Whole lot of knowing and begatting bump...
March 24, 2011
Discovery in Texas suggests earlier settlers in North America
By Randolph E. Schmid Associated Press
WASHINGTON The discovery of ancient stone tools at an archaeological dig in Texas could push back the presence of humans in North America, perhaps by as much as 2,500 years.
Thousands of artifacts dating to between 13,200 and 15,500 years ago were uncovered by researchers led by Michael R. Waters of Texas A&M University. They report the discovery in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.
The find was located 5 feet below materials left by the well-known Clovis culture, which was once thought to have been the first American settlers around 13,000 years ago.
I take it that there are no Native Americans then?
Just an argument over when everyone got here.
Wait a week and the stories will change. I have been reading a bout this stuff since I was 15, 50 years, and I have come to the conclusion that they haven’t a clue.
Biologists have shown that the rate of reproduction of any species is inversely proportional to it’s rate of survival. This is why the birthrates are so in the West and so much higher in the Middle East.
There is a lot about our history that we will never know about in this life.
It will be a gift from God when we shall see the true history of mankind and the paths our ancestors took prior to our individual existence.
There is proof that Chinese came to the west coast of North America in the late 6th century, and co-mingled with the native Americans. Historical Chinese records write of boat travelers trading with the Americans in the far lands now known as Mexico, and document plants that only grow in America. Also verbal records of some Americans correlate to the Chinese records. I studied this over forty years ago, was controversial back then because Columbus was "supposed" to be the first.
I guess they excluded the olmecs and those others who came by boat
Columbus was recognized as the first “Government” to reach the new world. To think he was the first anything else is ridiculous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.