It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
America's oldest cave paintings found, dating back 6K years
page: 2share:
reply to post by butcherguy
In addition, certain native central California tribes semi domesticated the mule deer, by maintaining meadows favorable to deer. They also practiced rudimentary horticulture by clearing out competitive plants from the oak belt, thereby maximizing acorn production.
In addition, certain native central California tribes semi domesticated the mule deer, by maintaining meadows favorable to deer. They also practiced rudimentary horticulture by clearing out competitive plants from the oak belt, thereby maximizing acorn production.
reply to post by punkinworks10
I realise that you and many others wish this were true, but as you are aware, the origins of human settlement in the New World are a topic of intense scholarly debate and will probably remain so for a long time to come.
Wow, really, humans have been in the new world for at least 50,000 years
I realise that you and many others wish this were true, but as you are aware, the origins of human settlement in the New World are a topic of intense scholarly debate and will probably remain so for a long time to come.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by punkinworks10
Wow, really, humans have been in the new world for at least 50,000 years
I realise that you and many others wish this were true, but as you are aware, the origins of human settlement in the New World are a topic of intense scholarly debate and will probably remain so for a long time to come.
Calico Hills ca up to 200k years old
Topper site SC up to 50k years old
Prendejo cave up to 50k
Burnham OK , mammoth kill site up to 50k years
Vallsequillo Mexico 40k years
Tequixquiac dog sculpture Mexico 40 k years old
Pedra Furada Brazil 35k years old
Monte Verde Chile 35k years old
The Neanderthal/denisovan/modern human line split is over a million years ago
Modern human emergance in Africa 300 thousand years ago
Native American divergence from all other human lineages 175k years ago
The entirety of the body of evidence clearly indicates a very early entrance into the new world,
many people and apperantly you WISH it wasn't true
punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-6-2013 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-6-2013 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by punkinworks10
The items on that list are familiar to ATS members from your earlier threads and posts, and from others'.
You know as well as I do that there is great controversy surrounding all the items on it – controversy regarding dating and controversy of many other kinds as well.
I am sympathetic to the idea of early human diffusion into the New World, but surely the verdict on matters of this kind must be left to those whose area of special expertise this is. I know you are intensely interested in the subject, but I question your authority to make the statements you like to make. Real scientists aren't sure about these things; how on earth could you (or I) be?
The items on that list are familiar to ATS members from your earlier threads and posts, and from others'.
You know as well as I do that there is great controversy surrounding all the items on it – controversy regarding dating and controversy of many other kinds as well.
I am sympathetic to the idea of early human diffusion into the New World, but surely the verdict on matters of this kind must be left to those whose area of special expertise this is. I know you are intensely interested in the subject, but I question your authority to make the statements you like to make. Real scientists aren't sure about these things; how on earth could you (or I) be?
edit on 20/6/13 by Astyanax because: well, there was this hippopotamus...
reply to post by Astyanax
How so sites, run by comolely different groups all be wrong.
If you read the counter claims, usually by people, who haven't actually phsically studied the site or artifacts, are negative for the sake of being negative. In some cases the counterclams are suspicious that the original.
A perfect example is the dog carving from Mexico, the bone definitively dates to 40k years, there is no argument about that. The detractor claim the bone was carved 30k years after the camels death, but bone will not last more than a few years on the surface, and if buried for that period of time it mineralizes to the point it can't be carved.
At some point the old dogma has to be cast aside if you want to reach the truth.
We know homo erectus reached far northern China 1.2 million years ago, we know they reached the islands of indonesia, and crossed the Wallace line. We know there are modern humans in norther China 100k years ago, and the genetics tell us that certain native American populations were separated from other populations for 175k years.
We also know that native American have the highest percentages of Han and Hsd genes of modern human population, we also know that Han was of blood type O, which has it's highest frequency in native American populations.
I don't make my decisions lightly or wily nily based some you tube video, I actually search for the published papers that I have access to including the counter arguments.
How so sites, run by comolely different groups all be wrong.
If you read the counter claims, usually by people, who haven't actually phsically studied the site or artifacts, are negative for the sake of being negative. In some cases the counterclams are suspicious that the original.
A perfect example is the dog carving from Mexico, the bone definitively dates to 40k years, there is no argument about that. The detractor claim the bone was carved 30k years after the camels death, but bone will not last more than a few years on the surface, and if buried for that period of time it mineralizes to the point it can't be carved.
At some point the old dogma has to be cast aside if you want to reach the truth.
We know homo erectus reached far northern China 1.2 million years ago, we know they reached the islands of indonesia, and crossed the Wallace line. We know there are modern humans in norther China 100k years ago, and the genetics tell us that certain native American populations were separated from other populations for 175k years.
We also know that native American have the highest percentages of Han and Hsd genes of modern human population, we also know that Han was of blood type O, which has it's highest frequency in native American populations.
I don't make my decisions lightly or wily nily based some you tube video, I actually search for the published papers that I have access to including the counter arguments.
reply to post by punkinworks10
You make a passionate case for your point of view, but the very fact that you have to do so shows that the statements you are presenting as fact have not yet received widespread acceptance as being true.
Yes, a lot of different web sites can be wrong. Most of the internet is wrong in one way or another.
You know, all you really have to do is state your case a bit differently: 'It is my strong conviction, based on the evidence, that the New World was settled as early as 50,000 years ago.' We could then argue about the evidence all we like, but nobody could fault your ethics. Do you understand?
You make a passionate case for your point of view, but the very fact that you have to do so shows that the statements you are presenting as fact have not yet received widespread acceptance as being true.
Yes, a lot of different web sites can be wrong. Most of the internet is wrong in one way or another.
You know, all you really have to do is state your case a bit differently: 'It is my strong conviction, based on the evidence, that the New World was settled as early as 50,000 years ago.' We could then argue about the evidence all we like, but nobody could fault your ethics. Do you understand?
edit on 20/6/13 by Astyanax because: there was no need to rub it in.
reply to post by Astyanax
You seem to have missed my point I'm am basing my view point on the published peer reviewed literature, not on websites or you tube videos. In the case of calico hills I used to be on the other side, but after reading dozens of pages of scientific papers I changed my view based on the totality if the evidence and my personal experience.
You seem to have missed my point I'm am basing my view point on the published peer reviewed literature, not on websites or you tube videos. In the case of calico hills I used to be on the other side, but after reading dozens of pages of scientific papers I changed my view based on the totality if the evidence and my personal experience.
reply to post by punkinworks10
It doesn't matter what you base your statements on: they remain nothing but your opinion, yet you are presenting them as fact. It is not I who is missing the point.
It doesn't matter what you base your statements on: they remain nothing but your opinion, yet you are presenting them as fact. It is not I who is missing the point.