tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8137409915847697670.post3758309897183086498..comments2024-03-17T18:41:00.382-03:00Comments on Patagonian monsters: An Early Peopling of America (Part II)AWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11389280995003336103noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8137409915847697670.post-44041582002471687392014-01-27T18:27:24.333-03:002014-01-27T18:27:24.333-03:00Steve, thanks for your comment.
Indeed we need to ...Steve, thanks for your comment.<br />Indeed we need to think about the peopling of America from a different point of view. <br />The diversity of languages and cultures -seen only in Papua New Guinea, points at an ancient peopling of the continent. European contact post 1492 wiped out countless lineages as millions of amerindians died from disease and war.<br />Anthropologists and Archaeologists simply do not look for anything older than say 20,000 years BP. They may even see a crude stone tool and not recognize it as such. This is what I term "professional deformation": our minds are shaped in college to see things in a certain way and we ignore what does not fit the preconceived pattern. <br />Neanderthals may have peopled America 100 kya, even H. erectus may have entered America 500 kya. <br />What if... they entered America became H. sapiens there and from there spread across the globe?<br />I am currently looking into the dating of mtDNA haplogroups and find it as absurd as the "ether" of 19th century physicists or the Ptolemaic orbits supporting a heliocentric theory. <br />We need some open minds looking at data not minds trying to fit the data to biased theories.<br />AustinAWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11389280995003336103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8137409915847697670.post-53330026838740497832014-01-27T10:27:46.017-03:002014-01-27T10:27:46.017-03:00Thanks for sharing this blog and posting these ver...Thanks for sharing this blog and posting these very interesting observations. As you know, there is still a core of Americans clinging to the 'clovis-first' model, and most of these people have very limited scope of knowledge and thus base their arguments on very narrow lines of 'evidence' -- that being lithics. Its quite pathetic actually, and actually most of these same people have little to no ecological education, but pretend to have ecological grasp on the situation, often erring significantly by drawing on very limited, large-bodied mammal specific literature and human-environment 'models' -- which turn out to be extremely skewed and biased in the direction of their very narrow scope of knowledge on the subject. Hope to come across your book and read it sometime.<br /><br />thanks and regards,<br /><br />Steve Timmermans<br />Sparta, Ontario, CanadaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8137409915847697670.post-9013620739739611852014-01-24T13:14:26.768-03:002014-01-24T13:14:26.768-03:00"MA-1 has distinct differences that set it ap..."MA-1 has distinct differences that set it apart from Native Americans: it lacks shoveled incisors (supporting a possible introgression of this gene in America), and its nuclear and mtDNA haplogroups (hg) are different."<br /><br />You are making a number of good points. The clear West Eurasian features of MA-1 (chisel-shaped incisors, mtDNA U, Y-DNA R) support the idea that MA-1 was not ancestral to any part of Amerindians. Instead, MA-1 may be the product of a West Eurasian (Gravettian) backflow into Siberia and admixture with smaller populations with Amerindian and Papuan affinities. Shovel shaped incisors and other expressions of the EDAR gene shared between Amerindians and East Asians can be interpreted as products of a more recent backflow from America into East Asia post-dating MA-1.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.com