The truth about Native Americans

The mtDNA of a the founding Native Americans clears that right up.

You are mostly Asian.

The look of the modern Asian wouldn't have been the only thing to have impacted the final look of the Native American. Contrary to popular belief, there were other groups that had that mtDNA. Caucasoids came over to the Americas - hence that guy they did a mock up of who looked like Cpt. Picard. Negroids.

One of the mtDNA lines in the Americas is theorized to be Neandrathal even. (don't take this personally, the Ginger Gene of the Caucasians is also theorized to be Homo N.)

The Genographic Project might be of interest to you.

genographic.nationalgeographic.com...

reply to post by Indellkoffer

If this article is right and the other dig sites conflicting our current stance on history. Then you can bet there are certain historical remnants that could hold keys to our past. There are certain objects that have been found that have not been able to be disproven but do not see the light of day because of the people that don't want to investigate unorthodox objects. Who would want to rewrite any history books? At this point we have too many theories, that it would be unwise to just say, this is how it happened, there are no alternatives. It's stupid that we have people saying I am right because of my doctorate, and you are wrong. That's the same attitude 20+ doctors gave me when I knew the medical problem I had and they continued to scoff saying I was wrong and pointing out their M.D.. Well the fact of the matter is I almost died, was right, and I sued them for millions of dollars.
That's like when the "white men" came here and started telling my people how our history came to be. When actually new finds are confirming our beliefs:
news.nationalgeographic.com...

And also Antarctica has been discovered long before we are taught it was. You can bet there are certain objects that could prove to hold historical secrets compromising our current notion of evolution. Though I am not saying any objects are valid. How could I without enough people taking it seriously enough to do warrant more tests?

Originally posted by Indellkoffer The "this word sounds like that one" has been debunked ever since someone first came out with it. One of the biggest problems is that the way you hear words depends on where you were born.

True, yes, but there are studies that include grammar, word and sentence construction as well as the content of traditional tales and then the concept starts to gain a little traction. Not enough to bet the farm, but certainly enough to take a second look.

One may also use 'glottochronology' to work backwards towards a root language, and even put dates to diverging groups. Not everybody likes it, though.

The land crossing from Sibera down thru what is Alaska is a little weak. A good place to start would be Forbidden Archology by Mike Cermo. In the book he talks about the finds in the 1800's in the California gold mines that can place humans as far back as at least 240,000 yrs or more on
North America. Most historians and archaclgoist want to place the land bridge to about 10,000 to 20,00 years ago. But then they have to explain away stone tools found in a dig in Mexico that dates back to 240,000 years ago. No one wants to talk about the faact that Eypgtians were shipping copper out of upper Michigan during the constuction of the Pyriminds. There is a newpaper report from Arizona in 1909 that a expediation from the Smithinstoning Institue found mummies and other artifacts in a cavern in the Grand Canyon, but they deny it today. But you are not granted a permit to explore that part of Grand Canyon today, Isis Temple.

Here is another great fact fact that is over looked. Lewis and Clark on their great expediation took Welsh interurptors to talk to the Indian tribes that they would encounter, what 's with that. Also in Georgia the native tribes talk about a tribe of moon eye people. My rule is not to trust any Sciencist

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Considering that between the arrival of Australopithecus and the appearance of
Neanderthal a period of about 2,900,000 years passed and yet there was no real advancement in
all of that time, and we can see this because the tools that we have discovered of the two species
remain virtually identical. Then about 35,000 years ago modern man suddenly arrived on the
scene. Where did he come from so quickly? How is it possible?

[edit on 3-2-2009 by NativeAmerican]

Originally posted by NativeAmerican Considering that between the arrival of Australopithecus and the appearance of
Neanderthal a period of about 2,900,000 years passed and yet there was no real advancement in all of that time, and we can see this because the tools that we have discovered of the two species remain virtually identical. Then about 35,000 years ago modern man suddenly arrived on the
scene. Where did he come from so quickly? How is it possible?

Well, you have to consider what survives in the archeaological record. Like the say, love is fleeting, but stone tools are forever. But there is a great deal of difference in the technology and other evidence. Also, consider where each group lived...australopithicus was out of Africa. Neanderthal were scattered around Europe and the Levant. They were hugely different.

Neanderthal burials show that some were buried with flowers. Objet d'art and musical instruments have been found. Frankly, the only difference in late Neanderthal and early modern human sites is the morphology of the human remains.

Modern man evolved outside of Neanderthal, we even co-existed for a time. But ultimately, we made the cut...they didn't.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


There's just something that doesn't feel right about it. I'm not saying it isn't accurate but I think there should be more done before this kind of stuff is taught in school as fact. Right now they're still considered theories. There aren't enough proven "transitional species". Even Darwin realized that it was only a hypothesis and the data that was available to him did not provide absolute evidence that his theory was correct. Yet here we are over 150 years after evolution was first theorized, after literally thousands of excavations, and there are still not enough transitional species apparent anywhere in the fossil record.

Originally posted by NativeAmerican There's just something that doesn't feel right about it. I'm not saying it isn't accurate but I think there should be more done before this kind of stuff is taught in school as fact.

The very fact that we are around and that australopithicaus and neanderthal are not is, in itself, a pretty fine example of natural selection. Take a look at some anthro, and you see transitional species...early modern types have specific attributes, early and late neanderthal, the changes are there in the paleontological record. It isn't a smooth and seamless transition, but it seems that it occured in several centres. Here's a outline:
www.sociologyguide.com...

It isn't complete, as it singles out cro-magnon for artistic capabilities, and it has been shown that neanderthal possessed them as well...credit where credit is due, eh?

One of the reasons that we are pretty certain of the process is that it can be observed in the animal kingdom as well. The importance of Darwin's observations in the Galapagos stems from the fact that it was an isolated environment, and changes could be noted that could be compared with mainland species.

Sorry not to be more specific, but I'm a little distanced from my pure theory.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


There is no "pure" or "unpure theory". A theory is still a theory, and does not warrant the status of fact until all information is present to deem it so and all alternative possibilities bearing contrary evidence have been exhausted.

Originally posted by NativeAmerican
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

There is no "pure" or "unpure theory". A theory is still a theory, and does not warrant the status of fact until all information is present to deem it so and all alternative possibilities bearing contrary evidence have been exhausted.

You are correct in the 'philosophical' use of the phrase, however, the scientific use is different. I'll provide the following quote from the US National Acadamy of Sciences, through wikipedia:

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now, when I referred to 'pure theory', what I meant was a distillation of the practical observations into theory. I don't recall the exact physical changes observed in each species, only that they indicated the occurance of evolution through natural selection and whatever other forces were at play. So I'm handing you the theory rather than the practicum.

Any way you cut it, your observations are valid, and it's all a matter of context. I hope this is cleared up for you. Keep asking the questions.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Will look into it. I'd also like to thank you at this time for all the information you have provided .

reply to post by NativeAmerican

I'm not saying it isn't accurate but I think there should be more done before this kind of stuff is taught in school as fact.

This is a common misconception. What is deemed acceptable to teach in school is not supposed to represent some immutable facts about how our world works or what it's history is. School only brings our children up to the basic standards of our current understanding, so that they can take the next step beyond when they are out of school. Steps that may help to expand, or perhaps even revolutionize our understanding of the world around us.