DNA evidence rocks the boat

reply to post by Hollywood11


I'm sorry, but I actually studied a bit of archeology and went on a dig. They don't assign ritualistic meaning to everything, please stop talking out of your posterior. If they find ancient spear points, they know that they were pointing rocks that went into animals without ritualistic meaning.

And you really, really don't know what you're talking about. Just in general in this thread.

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Now, what DNA evidence in fact does prove is that Native americans did not cross the bering straight and did not evolve out of Siberians. Native Americans are the red people, what they are is a mixture of all the other peoples, white, yellow, black, and brown.

Not out of Siberians, but east central Asians (10.1146/annurev.genom.5.061903.175920).

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Isolated groups of people and genetic drift in fact can show us that all humans did not come out of Africa and Native Americans did not come out of Siberians

Another false claim (10.1126/science.1188021).

If you want to discuss this further start providing links to peer-reviewed articles (like me).

Before Socrates overheard Plato relay the story of Atlantis there had never been any historical mention before or since, and only second hand at that.
In fact, there is absolutely no evidence that Atlantis is nothing more than just a story. At the very most it's an allegory of recent political situations of the time.

However, outside of that one connection you make in your post, it is a very interesting theory.

reply to post by Hollywood11

Native Americans are Eskimos from Siberia and the north pole, it's what they are.
They crossed while there was still ice between the far north and from the other side siberia - alaska.

Access this link and see if there is any resemblance between native north americans and them.
Native North Americans

I would say they are the same in culture, looks and so on.....same people.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I would imagine the x haplo type would be sufficient evidence to get you started. Science seems like they are steering clear of it because they are having a hard time molding the facts to fit their land bridge theories. I wonder when modern people will accept that theories are just that..and subject to change when new evidence presents itself.
Archaeology seems to be behind the world when it comes to this problem. They ignore DNA evidence. And radio carbon dating is not as rock solid as people once thought. The sun has been giving off an unknown particle that accelerates radioactive decay in recent times. This throws radio carbon dating for a loop since it relies on radioactivity being a constant. The house of cards is collapsing and scientists with opposing theories are struggling to prop it up.

Originally posted by Rezwar
The house of cards is collapsing and scientists with opposing theories are struggling to prop it up.

The only thing that is collapsing is religion and other faith based views, because every day scientific findings make them seem more and more ridiculous

This is right in line with my feelings on this subject. It always troubled me how south american sites such as Puma Punko could be so old and advanced yet north American natives who were supposedly older were hunter/gatherer.

Nice find S+F

reply to post by rhinoceros


You are mistaken if you assume I do not take science seriously. My point is when new evidence arises, the whole scientific community does change their views accordingly. You seem to be in the same situation, relying on old theories that no longer seem to be plausible when faced with the mounting evidence to the contrary. There have been ancient native american settelement remains discovered underwater in the great lakes region. That would push back previous estimates that native americans came over on the land bridge from Asia. The remains are from pre ice age. So if it was pre ice age, how would they be able to cross the land bridge before it existed? There are so many errors in the land bridge theory it's laughable.

reply to post by Rezwar


Provide references to all your claims (not websites, but proper peer-reviewed articles). Then we talk..