• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Them bones,them bones..

Seems dubious. I'll wait till they dig up Encino Man.
 
Here is a short 5 minute video on the topic. They admit that the conclusion needs more support.


The first Americans: Clues to an ancient migration

 
I love the titles of the journal articles that are reporting on this story, as if this fundamentally changes our understanding of history.

I mean, yea it is a pretty big story if true, but indigenous and pre-historic history is just about the most ignored part of our past. As soon as the hoopla dies down, or if it's ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, a few paragraphs in some text-books will be updated, and no one will be the wiser.
 
But we know they weren't Europeans. Because there were NO EUROPEANS BEFORE COLUMBUS! Why do we know that? Because all finds of Europeans before Columbus are fake. How do we know they are fake? Because there were NO EUROPEANS BEFORE COLUMBUS!

Eldarion Lathria
 
rousseau said:
I love the titles of the journal articles that are reporting on this story, as if this fundamentally changes our understanding of history.

I mean, yea it is a pretty big story if true, but indigenous and pre-historic history is just about the most ignored part of our past. As soon as the hoopla dies down, or if it's ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, a few paragraphs in some text-books will be updated, and no one will be the wiser.
Click to expand...

If the tools were that old and belonged to homo erectus, that would require a basic rethinking of the prevailing notion about the migration out of Africa 50-60,000 years ago being responsible for populating the rest of the planet. OTOH, if the tools are that old, then they more likely belong to a pre-homo erectus species that are already known to have made it at least to Siberia. Showing Neanderthals made it across the Bering Straight and down to modern San Diego would be a big deal, but it wouldn't really do much to change our own human history.

Regardless, the age of the tools is based on highly speculative inferences.
 
ronburgundy said:
rousseau said:
I love the titles of the journal articles that are reporting on this story, as if this fundamentally changes our understanding of history.

I mean, yea it is a pretty big story if true, but indigenous and pre-historic history is just about the most ignored part of our past. As soon as the hoopla dies down, or if it's ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, a few paragraphs in some text-books will be updated, and no one will be the wiser.
Click to expand...

If the tools were that old and belonged to homo erectus, that would require a basic rethinking of the prevailing notion about the migration out of Africa 50-60,000 years ago being responsible for populating the rest of the planet. OTOH, if the tools are that old, then they more likely belong to a pre-homo erectus species that are already known to have made it at least to Siberia. Showing Neanderthals made it across the Bering Straight and down to modern San Diego would be a big deal, but it wouldn't really do much to change our own human history.

Regardless, the age of the tools is based on highly speculative inferences.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Based on some brief reading the conclusion seems highly speculative, although they made it sound as if the migration 10 000 years ago has been attacked a number of times, which leads me to believe there might be more to the theory. I'm just a guy reading an article and not an archaeologist however, and this is a big blind spot in my historical knowledge, so I couldn't really make any convincing arguments in any direction.

Just kinda funny, though, how current journalism tries to sell the story.
 
I am skeptical,too.There is tool making in Africa well before 130,000 years ago,but in north America?
A Big leap for mankind.
 
BTW, this kind of attention seeking article is why I don't regard "Nature" and "Science" to be respectable science journals, despite the fact that academics get lots of prestige and accolades for publishing there.
They have a big "impact factor" which means they get read and cited by a lot of people, but often to the detriment of the public's scientific literacy. They are geared toward mass public consumption and only accept articles based on headline grabbing "splash" factor. That is rarely a recipe for sober, restrained, and well established scientific conclusions.

As far as science journal for the general public, Scientific American seems to do a better job, and is a bit more about summarizing the current consensus thinking in various areas, rather than hyping "revolutionizing" hot-off-the-press unreplicated findings and over-reaching conclusions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom