Yikes! America's first inhabitants were.....EUROPEANS?!

[Justin Moore]

Funny thing is, most conservatives I know are much less concerned about race than liberals are

That's an extreme valid point and has been my personal experience as well.

[Bahadur]

glock glockler:

I might be opening myself up to a big kick here, but is it possible that the South Pacific aborigines might have been descended from a "white" tribe or migration that ended far away from home?

That is highly unlikely. The South Pacific aborgines do not share common identifying genetic features with Europeans. Remember what I wrote about tortured explanations when Europeans first encountered blonde aborigines? We must get over it, but blonde hair is NOT exclusive to Europeans, though admittedly it is much more common among them.

There is speculation that the Ainu in Japan and the Tocharians (I think) in China were a result from migrations of white people.

That is, again, speculation without much, if any, evidence.

Also, if there could be such broad migrations, is it possible that there could have been migrations by Europeans to America, or Egyptians for that matter, or has there been no connections found with the pyramids in South America?

While possible, there is no extant evidence of such migrations before the Viking incursions to northern Americas. As for the pyramid, that is a structure independently developed in several parts of the globe by unrelated peoples (as some written languages were, for example). There is NO relationship discovered between Egyptian pyramids and American ones. One would think that, for example, if the two were related, writings found on both would be structurally related or even similar. Simply not so.

CaptainHoek:

No, we don't know that for a fact. Those are the generally accepted theories, but theories, even corrrect ones, are not facts.

Ah, no. At one time, what we today call laws of physics (facts) were mere theories. We now know that they are true. Otherwise, we wouldn't be flying around in metal vehicles.

What I wrote earlier stands - it is a FACT that there were three main avenues of migration to the Americas from Asia: the connected land bridge (at one time), then the Bering Sea and the Pacific oceanic route.

MatthewM:

There are only two currently valid theories:
1) God created lots of stuff a long time ago.
2) We have no clue.

Either one is fine with me and just as valid. Atheist or Arrogant Scientists won't accept either one. It would kill off so many jobs and titles.

"Only two valid theories"? I see. So the laws of physics (that led to the invention of unimaginable power like nuclear power) are merely "invalid theories," eh?

We are currently in the same place as 100yrs ago. The scientific community knows the current theories are a joke, but won't give in until something else comes along.

ps: Mankind 5000 years ago were just as smart as we are today. They just didn't have all the inventions and works yet discovered and written down that we have now. They were no better or worse, just lacking in good books...

I don't even know where to start. Where would such "good books" come from without continuing discovery based on experimentation and scientific inquiry? Blind trust in God? We tried that for about 1,000 years and that led to what historians used to call "the Dark Ages."

Any "scientists" who claim they know much about long ago are liars or deceiving themselves in their arrogance.

I think you should speak for yourself though "arrogance" is not the word I'd use for you. But feel free to subject yourself to the surgical and dental methods of 100 years ago if you think that we are "currently in the same place as 100yrs ago."

[Quartus]

Mankind 5000 years ago were just as smart as we are today.

I agree, but that ain't sayin' much. Just look at this example:

What I wrote earlier stands - it is a FACT that there were three main avenues of migration to the Americas

That's not only not very smart - it's not even very educated.


(HINT: The scientific method requires proof - not consensus - to establish something as a fact.)



And we don't even have complete consensus on those theories.

[Joe Demko]

Some of you appear to be confusing hypotheses with theories. In order to become accepted as a theory, a hypothesis has to be backed up with evidence. Such evidence is gathered through research. Hypotheses do not easily become accepted as theories, as scientists appear to enjoy discrediting each other at least as much as they enjoy making new discoveries. Please do no misuse the word theory, as its use in common language and its use in science do not have the same connotations.

[MatthewM]

Bahadur,

You are SO all over the place! The "theories" I was clearly talking about are those on "evolution".

I DID state, & you quoted, that people in the past were simply missing out on the collected works of those who followed them. I was, clearly, referring to overall "intelligence".

Ayn Rand was asked if each Man would do just as well if he were on an island unto himself. Half her answer was something like, "no we need the inventions of our predecesors recorded in books". Intelligence, which I was speaking of, is better evidenced in what you do with what you have. I'm daily surrounded by idiots who have every modern toy at their elbow, but are stupid.

You entire reply reflects that you should read & think before posting so quickly.

I never said you have to believe in God or creationism. I clearly said that "I don't know" has equal validity. It does not have to be a choice between the religion of Darwinism & a Divinity. They are both religions that have a handfull of evidence & require mountains of "faith".

If the whole concept of trying to prove the evolution model was removed from the discussion at hand about migrations of peoples, the answers would be so simple. There used to be hundreds and hundreds of kinds of people who were all different. 400 years ago, you could travel N.America and find several dozen unrelated "indians". 100 years ago, and today, you can do the same in Africa. 2000 years ago, you could do this anywhere in the world. It has to do with travel. People always screw (literally) each other wherever they travel. A great many "Africans" have only their dark skin in common. "Indians" had little in common with each other. Some had huge narrow noses, some were tall some very short. In the three islands that inlcude Tonga and the continent of Australia, there are dark skinned people who are completely different from each other or anyone else. Yet, they are their closest neighbors. Pigmys. Tutus. Watusis. I submit none of us have a "common" ancestor. If you believe in God, then I submit that Genesis was way over simplified & that God dropped over a hundred different kinds of people all over the world. Whether through disease or "screwing" they are all disappearing.

Viva la diferance. We should celebrate and enjoy our differences. "Blacks" should get back to "Black is beautifull" and quit dying their hair blond. Women should nix the stupid plastic boobs. I like the tall skinny French black model who was in the bond movie some years ago. She magnifies her differences. I used to like Nichole Kidman & her Irish looks. These people would not be memorable if they all looked the same. Oh yeah, Michael Jackson should just make a video of him killing himself....

Did I leave anything out?

[Double Naught Spy]

As an archaeologist, I am really enjoying this discussion. Apparently we, those people in supportive fields working on archaeological questions, and the media have done a very poor job in communicating to the general public specific facts, denoting information that is some form of conjecture or unproven but is serving as potential or operational facts, and the significances of all of these things in relation to how we view the past.

Keep in mind that this woman of Mexico may be the current oldest dated skeleton, but that she is far from being one of the earliest inhabitants of the new world. Numerous sites pre-date her age, some by hundreds and some by thousands of years.

The skeleton is interesting, but not so much in terms of drawing any grand conclusions.

[Blackhawk]

The skeleton is interesting, but not so much in terms of drawing any grand conclusions.

Since when have facts gotten in the way of drawing grand conclusions?

The limits of the universe and the arrogance of mankind are beyond comprehension.

[Mike Irwin]

Couldn't have been.

They likely didn't have any concept of the larger landmass that is now called Europe, so how could they have been Europeans?

But what do you know.

If this is true, I AM a Native American...

But maybe I'm a Native European American?

No, that's not right...

How about a Native American European American?

Still stilted...

Maybe American of European Extraction whose ancestors were native to North America?

Christ, that's even worse...

Wait. I know...

How about if I just say I'm an AMERICAN, and skip the stupid check boxes on forms?

What, that's radical thinking... Perhaps I should be imprisoned for having such thoughts...

[Bahadur]

captainHoek:

I agree, but that ain't sayin' much. Just look at this example:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I wrote earlier stands - it is a FACT that there were three main avenues of migration to the Americas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not only not very smart - it's not even very educated.

(HINT: The scientific method requires proof - not consensus - to establish something as a fact.)

The fact that peoples from Asia and the Pacific migrated via three routes to the Americas is not a hypothesis or even just theory - it IS a fact, supported by genetic, other biological (mainly domesticated animals) and archeological evidences. Now, it may be that there were additional channels or waves or migrations that we have not yet corroborated similarly, but it remains that these three routes of migrations did occur.

If you are going to say that is "not even very educated," I urge you to present your much more educated "counter-facts."

Lastly, to believe that human beings are as knowledgeable about the world today as they were 5,000 years ago is ridiculous and utterly uneducated. Our understanding of physics, mathematics, biology and a whole host of countless disciplines, advanced by the method of scientific inquiry, not to mention mere observation and trial and error, have advanced tremendously over the past 5,000 years (5,000 years ago, most, probably all, of humanity did not enjoy writing and the tremendous spread of knowledge that it brought).

Double Naught Spy:

Apparently we, those people in supportive fields working on archaeological questions, and the media have done a very poor job in communicating to the general public specific facts...

I disagree. I think that scientists, including archaeologists, have done a fine job of communicating their findings. People who are given to forming opinions based on feelings and vague prejudices rather than a study of facts, theories and hypotheses (the differences of which Golg-13 so explained so beautifully) are not likely to be swayed by any method of communication, better or not. Some idiots can't be taught.

MatthewM:

I repeat what you wrote:

There are only two currently valid theories:
1) God created lots of stuff a long time ago.
2) We have no clue.

Again, "only two... valid theories"? Either God created everything or we know nothing. Is that what you are stating? So, either one must believe in creationism or we have no knowledge whatsoever.

You entire reply reflects that you should read & think before posting so quickly.

I urge you to listen to your own counsel.

[Destructo6]

If you are going to say that is "not even very educated," I urge you to present your much more educated "counter-facts."

His gripe wasn't the theory. The complaint was that they were being represented as fact. In the same vein, there was a very smart and educated character by the name of Ptolemy whose theory was represented as fact for about 1,500 years, yet was wrong.

[germanguns]

I think the proper phrasing would be:
1. Life was caused by some entity or force on purpose
2. Life happened by chance without a specific purpose

Those are the only two choices I see, and those are very, very broad choices at that.

[ReadyOnTheRight]

Wait. I know... How about if I just say I'm an AMERICAN, and skip the stupid check boxes on forms?...

Funny thing is, most conservatives I know are much less concerned about race than liberals are. Yes, there are some bigots who call themselves conservative, but they aren't the majority. Nobody in this country is causing more race problems than the liberals.

Two excellent points.

Discoveries of who was here first really only matter to those who want to base laws on emotions. Unfortunately there are a lot of those folks in government and the judicial branch, so these kinds of discoveries do matter -- mostly to show that we really are all pretty much the same. Maybe the more people realize this the closer we'll be to a society based more on facts and experience than emotions and PR. (Although I'm not holding my breath).

As much as I dislike entitlements and think they get in the way of opportunity, the US government DID make treaties with certain American tribes to avoid wars.

Some of the hypotheses on 10,000+ year-old advanced civilizations (like the idea that the Great Pyramid is actually 10K years old and others are more recent, poorly-made copies) are pretty interesting, but no U.S. treaties were made with Vikings, Europeans, Atlantians or Egyptians flying to America in UFOs -- unless it was maybe with their descendents.

Also -- I'm no scientist, but isn't it impossible to prove a negative? I think it's pretty likely that quite a number of people in watercraft intentionally or unintentionally got to the Americas from all over the world. Humans are pretty tough and curious. They just weren't documented because they weren't doing it for the Queen of Spain and probably didn't even come back.

[Quartus]

If you are going to say that is "not even very educated," I urge you to present your much more educated "counter-facts."

Your statements show a lack of understanding of the scientific method, especially the difference between facts and conclusions.



germanguns, nicely put!

[dischord]

rockjock:

They base their entire system of social engineering on race. Their house of cards would come crashing down if lighter-skinned people happened to be the first in America.

Who said Europeans 13,000 years ago were light skinned?

Look, I disagree with the PC "social engineering" thing as much as the next guy, but it's based on historical wrongs, not race per se. This possible discovery doesn't change those wrongs. Do you really think that the PC-loonys are going to say, "Gee, there's a possiblity that Europeans made it to this continent 10,000 to 15,000 years ago and there might even be some European blood flowing in the Indians. Well, that means we have to shut up about what the Europeans and their decendants did 500 to 100 years ago. Last one out, turn off the lights."

This doesn't change the tragedy of what happened.

It neither increases nor decreases what white-Americans owe the Indians (I'm not saying we owe anything).

It neither increases nor decreases whatever right the Indians have to feel and voice resentment about how their lands and way of life were lost. (If anyone thinks it does, I don't want to hear any complaints about "them Mexicans and Arabs" taking over our land and changing our way of life.)

I'm not sure what bearing it has on anything to do with racial politics, other that to say "nyah, nyah, your ancestors migrated too," which most Indians knew already, humans not being originally from this continent.

Mike Irwin

If this is true, I AM a Native American...

But maybe I'm a Native European American?

Mike, you are a native American. You were born here. Isn't it odd that people would see nothing wrong with you saying "I'm a native Pennsylvanian" but they would raise their eyebrows if you said, "I'm a native American."

I dislike the term native American for more than PC reasons -- it's just plain wrong. Native means "born in."

You're a native American of European decent.

11.43x23:

Also -- I'm no scientist, but isn't it impossible to prove a negative?

No. It's a logical fallacy to put the burden of proof on the negative, but that doesn't make such proof impossible in all cases.

For example, leaving aside any sci-fi speculation, your being alive today is proof that you were not Alexander the Great's aide.

Positive proof of one thing also can be negative proof of another thing

[Quartus]

You're a native American of European decent.

And he's a real decent guy, regardless of his descent!






"House of cards" vs. "no difference at all"?

I think the truth as far as LAW making is closer to the latter, but it WOULD be a great PR defeat for the PC crowd, which includes a few Indian activists who have made much of being "The Original People".

[dischord]

You shouldn't expect good spelling from someone who puts an H in discord

[ReadyOnTheRight]

For example, leaving aside any sci-fi speculation, your being alive today is proof that you were not Alexander the Great's aide.

I see your point about proving a negative. Although Hindus might want to bring reincarnation into their version of proof. (While speculating -- maybe Alexander's teacher? Of course many of his teacher's theories were taken as fact and as basis for our scientific theory, yet later disproven.)

I still don't think you can PROVE that there were not advanced civilizations before ours and you can't prove that there weren't visitors and settlements in the Americas before the folks we call American Indians.

[westex]

and my conclusions are:

1) who cares (unless your livlihood is derived from tax dollars devoted to this area)

2) winners always make the rules and write the history (unless they are Republicans, then consensus is necessary)

3) 9mm is better than 45 (unless you prefer something larger)

4) Texans were here first (I know this as a fact since the garden of eden is about 8 miles south of me)

[dischord]

I still don't think you can PROVE that there were not advanced civilizations before ours and you can't prove that there weren't visitors and settlements in the Americas before the folks we call American Indians.

I agree. Negative proof is sometimes possible, not always possible.

4) Texans were here first

And they came from Virignia. Sam Houston and Steven Austin were both Virginians who migrated to Texas.

[ReadyOnTheRight]

3) 9mm is better than 45 (unless you prefer something larger)

I beg to differ. 11.43 is just the right size. We all know that 17 9mm rounds will only anger those hopped up on drugs and one well-placed .45 will stop a Mac truck.

Who cares is right -- but fun to discuss with well-informed people.

[Bahadur]

Destructo6:

His gripe wasn't the theory. The complaint was that they were being represented as fact. In the same vein, there was a very smart and educated character by the name of Ptolemy whose theory was represented as fact for about 1,500 years, yet was wrong.

Ah, but if you take that logic, nothing can ever be factual. Everything is "simply theory until proven wrong when we know better in the future."

There are certain things about which our knowledge has progressed to a sufficient point that we can establish them as facts (we know for a fact that the earth revolves around the sun - we aren't going to find out 1,500 years later that it revolves around the moon).

germanguns:

I think the proper phrasing would be:
1. Life was caused by some entity or force on purpose
2. Life happened by chance without a specific purpose

Those are the only two choices I see, and those are very, very broad choices at that.

Why must there be "purpose"? I do not necessarily disagree with you - I merely question. You see, I don't claim to know IF there is God or not or IF the universe is created on purpose, came into being by a force or simply has always been. I have troubling understanding how those who reject Darwin for his supposed lack of scientific rigor, for example, can so easily believe in a "purpose," which has not been demonstrated in anway except by circular logic.

captainHoek:

Your statements show a lack of understanding of the scientific method, especially the difference between facts and conclusions.

Do kindly explain instead of resorting to vague accusations.

I stated that is was a FACT that there were the following migratory routes from Asia-Pacific to the Americas during pre-historic times: a land bridge, the Bering Sea and the Pacific oceanic route. This isn't theory or hypothesis - it's a FACT based on indisputable scientific evidences. These routes existed physically (not in some theoretical realm).

As an analogy, it is akin to stating that it's a fact that Greece was one of the destinations of the Indo-Aryanic migrations (for example). There are indisputable genetic, biological and archaeological (not to mention linguistic) evidences of the same.

Oh, do kindly explain why these aren't facts, as facts can be observable, demonstrable phenomena AS WELL AS concepts whose truth can be proven.

11.43x23:

Discoveries of who was here first really only matter to those who want to base laws on emotions.

Well, let's not forget that such discoveries ARE of intersts to scientists, particularly those who study the pattern of human migrations and so forth. It's not always about some politically correct legal engineering. Sometimes it IS about the quest for the Truth and Knowledge.

Some of the hypotheses on 10,000+ year-old advanced civilizations (like the idea that the Great Pyramid is actually 10K years old and others are more recent, poorly-made copies) are pretty interesting, but no U.S. treaties were made with Vikings, Europeans, Atlantians or Egyptians flying to America in UFOs -- unless it was maybe with their descendents.

I think it's pretty likely that quite a number of people in watercraft intentionally or unintentionally got to the Americas from all over the world. Humans are pretty tough and curious. They just weren't documented because they weren't doing it for the Queen of Spain and probably didn't even come back.

True. It's entirely possible that humans from various parts of the world may have reached the Americas. However, there are groups who we know for SURE did reach the Americas from genetic, other biological and archaeological evidences. Then there are those who MAY HAVE reached the Americas (evidences scant or in dispute). And then there are those who definitely COULD NOT HAVE reached Americas because of a number of incontrovertible physical or technological barriers (like the lack of an even primitive maritime technology after the land bridge was severed).

[Quartus]

it's a FACT based on indisputable scientific evidences.

It's a CONCLUSION (or theory) drawn from some evidence, evidence which is subject to interpretation. It may be a correct theory or not, but a theory it remains until it can be PROVEN by direct observation or by being replicated in an experiment. By its nature, it can be neither observed nor replicated.

And if you read the academic journals, you'll find that many things that are taught in school (yes, college included) as "indisputable scientific evidences" are, in fact, hotly disputed amongst the researchers.



As to the question of "purpose", that might be better stated this way:

There are two possiblities:

The the origin of the universe is either due to random causes or to non-random causes.


"Non-random causes" logically implies intelligence, and it follows from that that there is purpose. It could have been a trivial purpose of momentary entertainment, as an, "Oh, I just felt like it. No reason, really." kind of thing. Or it could have been something more meaningful. But either case is purpose.

But random forces or intelligent design, this has been debated at great length between evolutionists and creationists, and is probably the only thing they can agree on: these are logically the only two possibilties.

[Joe Demko]

Captain Hoek,

Do please refrain from using the word theory again until you understand its meaning within the context of scientific method. Your last post was a nice definition of what a hypothesis is. You seem to think that because scientific method requires that we remain open to modifying hypotheses, or even theories, as new data becomes available that there is no such thing as fact and that a theory is, therefore, just a wild guess or flight of fancy. That is absolutely not the case.
"That's just a theory!" has been the rallying cry of those who don't understand science ever since we still called ourselves natural philosophers.

[Quartus]

I didn't say anything even remotely like "there is no such thing as fact and that a theory is, therefore, just a wild guess or flight of fancy". I didn't even say that a theory was a bad thing, or not worthy of consideration.

I said that a theory is not a fact. Is that too advanced for you? Neither a theory nor a hypothesis is a fact. Fact, by the scientific method, requires proof by replication or direct observation.

Bahadur stated a theory (of migration) as absolute fact. It is not. The evidence may be weak or strong, but it is only evidence. That a certain skeleton was found at a certain place is a fact. What that means in terms of human patterns of migration is not.

But you are correct in one point - I gave it too much credit in calling it a theory. Since it is not testable, it is only a hypothesis.

[germanguns]

Bahadur, all I was saying is that the two basic arguments for the origin of the universe is that something made it, or it came by chance/always was.

I just thought that using "God" was too specific when MatthewM defined the two theories, because that requires a definition of God, and that varies greatly from person to person. Also, it excludes any other "creative forces". I was just putting what I thought were the two most basic of choices for the origin of the universe.

Personally, I do not know nor do I care to know. I do enjoy listening to peopel debate possible origins, and even debate some myself, but in the end it does not affect how I live my life.