FGS
Posted on 11/24/2005 1:02:17 PM PST by blam
Geeze, not only do I discover I am a Jew but a red headed Jew at that.
"A discussion of Native American legend and tradition that holds that they did not come over the land bridge from Siberia. What then were their origins?"
DNA haplotypes show they did come from Asia.
I first saw the CEMS in 1971. Lots of smoke and mirrors.
Throw a bunch of rocks together and move them around alot and pretty soon they'll break up and fall into a pattern.
Cover with soil. Dig up in a few years. WOW! ---- A site!
Anytime Chuck Miller needs a story he'll dig out the same one he did 5-8 years before update it, talk to Fred and crew ---- WOW! A new Calico EMS story.
Natural occurance of this type abound in the High Desert but when a PHD says "Ahh vee hav zee site". Then it's a site! Sure!
Neanderthal and modern humans shared most of their DNA. It is still not proven conslusively that Neanderthals totally died out. Some modern humans may exist who had some Neaderthal ancesters. Maybe you!
I thought redheads "evolved" in western China/eastern India and migrated thru eastern Europe. I read where ancient graves have been discovered in China of "white" people, well preserved, with red hair intact.
If this came from Neanderthals, then this would be evidence of Neanderthal DNA in modern populations, b/c redhair is a genetic trait. Yet, all I have read is that there is no such connection.
Here it is:
The Curse Of The Red Headed Mummy
Some of the Melanesians have red hair as do some of the Australian Aboriginies.
Northern Tribe.
Folklore is not a reliable evidence of ancient origins. Consider that ancient campfires have been dated jusyt south of Pittsburgh at 16,000 years BP. That means that the makers, presumably Indians, were around, and living not far from the glaciers. They should have then seen the glaciers, and also mammoths and saber-tooth tigers, and yet we have nothing in Am. Indian folklore about these things. It is just too long ago for a folk story to hold up. It is about 800 generations! After just a few generations, nobody would believe grandpa's descriptions of a heap big ice sheet, or of mammoths, once they were gone.
Folklore has limits, definite limits.
>There is no evidence of Neanderthal DNA in modern populations.<
Although his theory is HIGHLY controversial, Professor Michael Hammer at the University of Arizona thinks he may have found just such evidence. Research on the matter is not yet published or peer-reviewed AFAIK, but stay tuned!
False.
It is currently based on guesswork and opinions, and even the criteria for the dating methods they use are based on opinion.
False.
Yet, they treat their theory like an actual belief system.
Actually, they treat it as extremely well-established science, supported by an overwhelming volume of evidence along multiply independent cross-confirming lines of evidence, because it is.
If you dated the Darwinists according to the sediment on their brains they'd all be a million years old.
Goofy ad hominem, at a playground level of sophistication.
I'd give your post a "D".
Go hit a library and try again later.
So they were humans who were not quite "anatomically modern". It's hardly the big problem you make it out to be:
I find this story very hard to believe. It sounds like another Piltdown Man hoax. If this is true, EVERY theory of human evolution is out the window.
Complete nonsense. It's perfectly compatible with the *current* theory of human evolution.
The only changes would be to theories of human *migration* (i.e., when exactly humans arrived at particular locations).
And even so, it might just be a minor adjustment, not a major revision. If a small wave of humans arrived in the California area that far back, but couldn't make a go of it and died off, then later the major human migration which populated the American continents arrived at the time currently described in the history books, it wouldn't be a big change, just a footnote.
That was yesterday. Today it's 6,000 years and one day.
Gingervitus.
Wow...perhaps they were related to Kennewick man. This is facinating. Thanks, Blam and SC.
FGS
Again, not to beat a dead horse, but my reaction was to the claim in the article that "Humans" populated CA 200,000 years ago. All "Homos" are not "Homo Sapiens". When I saw "Humans", I assumed "Homo Sapiens". Indeed, you would agree that a claims that Homo Sapiens lived there for that period, it would pre-date Homo Sapiens in Africa, and indeed, be revolutonary.
If you are takling about other types of Homos, then I would agee with you - its a footnote, and an interesting question of how they got here, what happened to them and why, and why there are no fossil remains.
Regarding evolution, I agree that much of it, like intra-spacies evoluton, is hard fact. Inter-species evoluton is a different matter, and is fair game for serious debate.
I look forward to it. Thanks. There seems no reason why the two wouldn't "inter-marry".
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.