Native Americans actually came from a tiny mountain region in Siberia,

[Lee Olsen]

http://tinyurl.com/8ymdd7k

[JTEM]

On Jan 27, 11:39 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/8ymdd7k

It's tracing DNA, not populations. There is a
massive difference.

We know from the archaeology that people have been
arriving in the Americas going back a lot further than
the DNA evidence predicts. This presents two possibilities:

#1. The DNA evidence is just plain wrong

#2. The DNA evidence is recording the arrival of a
DOMINANT population or specific line.

Now #2 has to be right at some level. I mean, unless
we can establish a mechanism for barring the arrival
of humans to the new world prior to 13K ybp, we are
forced to assume that they were arriving.

Probably in small, isolated groups.

Then, sometime around 13K ybp (I'm guess later than
that, actually) there was a major migration -- "Major"
in comparison to the population that was already here --
perhaps equal or greater in size to the entire existing
population.

But even THAT isn't necessary. I mean, it isn't necessary
for the new arrivals to dwarf the existing population in
numbers. Humans are a social animal. If the new arrivals
simply saw themselves as homogenous, while everyone
else saw each other as different tribes/races/ethnicitys/etc
then they could have picked them off/subjugated them
piecemeal.

But HOW it happened isn't all that important. What is
important is that the arrival a dominant people some
13K ybp (or later), in an America already populated to
some degree, can easily explain the DNA data.

And if we REALLY want to complicate things there is
another possibility...

DNA is subject to selective pressures. What this
means is that a lineage could have evolved in Asia
some 13K ybp (or later), a tiny number of people
carrying that lineage could have migrated to the
Americas sometime afterwards, and because of
the selective advantage of that DNA it eventually
became dominant, resulting in the data we see
today.

Such a model is totally viable, and is easily
capable of explaining the data without requiring
the particular DNA lineage to be an early arrival
nor a large in numbers upon arrival.

The point is, of course, that DNA doesn't tell us how it
got a certain way. The so-called "Conclusions" of the
DNA studies are no more than the naked opinions of the
researchers, opinions OFTEN based on assumptions that
the very next study rejects.

For example, all the DNA studies on Europe's population
hold very different assumptions than the studies of
America's indian population.

DNA does not tell much, nor can it ever tell us much.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 27, 9:37 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 11:39 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/8ymdd7k
>
> It's tracing DNA, not populations. There is a
> massive difference.

Since there is only evidence of one to trace, there is no difference
at all.

>
> We know

No, we don't know and neither do you.

> from the archaeology that people have been
> arriving in the Americas going back a lot further than
> the DNA evidence predicts.

Reference for that?


> This presents two possibilities:

No, only one (from the article):
"Though it's possible, even likely, that more than one wave of people
crossed the land bridge, Schurr said that other researchers have not
yet been able to identify another similar geographic focal point from
which Native Americans can trace their heritage."

So if you are hiding evidence that no one else knows about, please
post it.

>
> #1.  The DNA evidence is just plain wrong

No evidence for that.

>
> #2.  The DNA evidence is recording the arrival of a
> DOMINANT population or specific line.

What DOMINANT population was that?

Again: "Though it's possible, even likely, that more than one wave of
people crossed the land bridge, Schurr said that other researchers
have not yet been able to identify another similar geographic focal
point from which Native Americans can trace their heritage."

>
> Now #2 has to be right at some level. I mean, unless
> we can establish a mechanism for barring the arrival
> of humans to the new world prior to 13K ybp, we are
> forced to assume that they were arriving.

>
> Probably in small, isolated groups.

Evidence...references?

>
> Then, sometime around 13K ybp (I'm guess

[snip rest of guesses]

[note]

On Jan 27, 11:39 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/8ymdd7k

Early Hs Siberians & pre-Amerindians (before horse domestication but
during dog domestication) went N <-> S along steppe & river flood
plains between Ural & Altai ranges (cf parallel to later N <-> S route
between NAm Rocky & Appalachian range), followed bison/reindeer from
arctic coasts south to Taurus range (warm So. Black (tuna) & So.
Caspian shore) and north to arctic coasts for salmon fishing.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 30, 9:29 am, note <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 11:39 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/8ymdd7k
>
> Early Hs Siberians & pre-Amerindians (before horse domestication but
> during dog domestication) went N <-> S

Good point. Another example is the Yana River site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yana_River
which is above the Arctic Circle and dated very early (ca 30 kya), yet
there is no evidence they went any further east
at that time.

[JTEM]

note <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Early Hs Siberians & pre-Amerindians (before horse domestication but
> during dog domestication) went N <-> S along steppe & river flood
> plains between Ural & Altai ranges (cf parallel to later N <-> S route
> between NAm Rocky & Appalachian range), followed bison/reindeer from
> arctic coasts south to Taurus range (warm So. Black (tuna) & So.
> Caspian shore) and north to arctic coasts for salmon fishing.

The big problem here is that we have other finds, finds
which absolutely/positively point towards other routes.

No, this does not mean that scenario you posit is false, it
simply requires that (at the least) the scenario you map out
if one of a number of scenarios.

Specifically, there are things like the "Coastal Entry Hypothesis"
which suggests that the Americas were populated by sea
faring people -- or at least people with boats -- which requires
no land bridge. And, yes, there is physical evidence to support
this theory, several finds. And there is evidence to support
other theories. The logical conclusion here is that people came
by boat starting just as soon as they had the means, while
others came by foot just as soon as there was a land bridge.

The DNA evidence? Well, it's not "Evidence" at all. It is what
it is, yes, but DNA never tells you how it got to look the way it
does, and there are numerous known ways to explain a given
result. The problem is that morons ignore all but whatever
explanation that best supports their pet theory.... their agenda.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 30, 10:05 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Specifically, there are things like the "Coastal Entry Hypothesis"
> which suggests that the Americas were populated by sea
> faring people -- or at least people with boats -- which requires
> no land bridge.

http://www.alaska.net/~taiga2/SAA02poster.html
"Based on data presented here, it is abundantly clear that the first
Alaskans
were interior-based hunters, perhaps with a focus on bison, but
included
the hunting of birds, small mammals, wapiti, caribou, and moose, and
catching
fish (mostly salmonid). This subsistence model is difficult, if not
impossible,
to correlate with hypothetical coastal or marine oriented migrations
occurring
on the southern Pacific shores of Beringia. That is not to say that
these
migrations might not have occurred, merely to say that the Alaskan
data do not
support those hypotheses."

The new DNA evidence location (Altai) is within ca. 500 miles of
Turner's homeland hypothesis using other types of evidence...teeth,
skulls, archaeology.

"In sum, the ultimate regional homeland can reasonably be
hypothesized as having
been in north China, Mongolia, and southern Siberia, a rich
ecologically diverse
region occopied long before humans set foot further nort. An easy to
remember
focal point of this region is Lake Baikal, near the headwaters of the
Anadar, Ob,
Yenisei, Lena, and Amur rivers that together drain much of central and
eastern
Siberia (Turner 2002:130)."

Christy Turner
Teeth, Needles, Dogs, and Siberia: Bioarchaeological Evidence for the
Colonization
of the New World
in
Jablonski, N.G., ed. (2002)
The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World,
Memoirs
of the California Academy of Sciences, No. 27.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Specifically, there are things like the "Coastal Entry Hypothesis"
> > which suggests that the Americas were populated by sea
> > faring people -- or at least people with boats -- which requires
> > no land bridge.

> "Based on data presented here, it is abundantly clear that the first
> Alaskans
> were interior-based hunters,

This is not a Zero-Sum game.

No where in the above do I claim that the first inhabitants of
north America had to be inhabitants of Alaska.

You're not responding to what I said. You are not refuting anything
I said. In a way, you are confirming my statements, at least those
in regardless to multiple scenarios and personal agendas.

Again, this is not a Zero-Sum game. The earliest identified
remains in Alaska can date to one time, and reflect one culture,
while the earliest identified remains elsewhere can date to a
very different time and be consistent with a different culture. You
are not addressing this, let alone refuting it.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 30, 12:36 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Specifically, there are things like the "Coastal Entry Hypothesis"
> > > which suggests that the Americas were populated by sea
> > > faring people -- or at least people with boats -- which requires
> > > no land bridge.
> > "Based on data presented here, it is abundantly clear that the first
> > Alaskans
> > were interior-based hunters,
>
> This is not a Zero-Sum game.

It's an evidence game and so far you haven't presented any.

> No where in the above do I claim that the first inhabitants of
> north America had to be inhabitants of Alaska.

No one said you did, Holmes said that.

> You're not responding to what I said.

Yes I am. Since the dates in Eastern Beringia are older than your
unspecified, no counter evidence, coastal entry date, who cares who
came in second?

>You are not refuting anything
> I said.

You didn't say anything to refute, you only name-dropped coastal, like
that was supposed to be evidence for something.

And one thing you didn't address is exactly how these 'later' coastal
route hypotheses refute
the results of the DNA paper that started this thread. You simply
changed the subject.

>In a way, you are confirming my statements,

No I'm not.

> at least those
> in regardless to multiple scenarios and personal agendas.

Agendas are implied in:

" The big problem here is that we have other finds, finds
which absolutely/positively point towards other routes."

Do you have a new secret route? Let's hear about it.

>
> Again, this is not a Zero-Sum game.

So just exactly how do these imaginary later coastal entry seafarers
refute the DNA evidence?
Eastern Beringia obviously was the first settled part of the
Americas. If you have a reference to some new secret hypothesis let's
hear it.

> The earliest identified
> remains in Alaska can date to one time, and reflect one culture,
> while the earliest identified remains elsewhere

"elsewhere"? You haven't presented any "elsewhere" evidence that
refutes Dulik et al., Turner, or Holmes data.

> can date to a
> very different time and be consistent with a different culture. You
> are not addressing this, let alone refuting it.

Refute what? I've already given you evidence for land routes, you have
failed to even mention which route or routes you are claiming, let
alone provided evidence they refute Dulik et al.

The Altai evidence is about NA homeland origins:
Altai--->Lake Baikal---> Eastern Beringia.

Smoke so far: ----> "Coastal Entry Hypothesis"

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > This is not a Zero-Sum game.
>
> It's an evidence game and so far you haven't presented any.

Well I posted this link last April, though you didn't understand
it then so you want understand it now:

http://history.msu.edu/hst321/files/2010/07/bering.jpg

What the link is demonstrating is NOT so much the
so-called "land bridge" from Asia to Alaska as the
break in the glaciers which allowed populations to
leave Alaska and populate the Americas. This break
isn't dated to 13,000 years ago, so YOUR clock starts
then. Anything older in Alaska is certainly interesting,
but it's also NOWHERE else but Alaska.

I'll boil it down even further: Anything older came via
a different route. Period.

Your previous Alaska cite is actually consistent with
this. HINT: It's in frigging Alaska!


Here. This next cite is even less subtle, though still far
too subtle for the likes of you to grasp. I've posted it
many times over the years (Though, you being an
idiot, it's no surprise that you have yet to notice), many
times in direct reply to you, so we can look forward to
you not remembering it in the future either:

: Domestic tools dated at 14,500 years have been
: found in Chile - but with no associated human remains.

And this:

: Dr Gonzalez told BBC News Online: "We believe that
: the older race may have come from what is now Japan,
: via the Pacific islands and perhaps the California coast.

Both in here (the trick is to read these things for content)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm

(Psst. This places people WAY to the south more than
a thousand years before they could have come via
Alaska)

Anyhow, that proves you wrong again, but it's not like
you've ever been right. and the whole thing was a
distraction anyway. You really did post that cite thinking
you were refuting me when in fact you weren't even
addressing me.

I'll point out reality, AGAIN, and you'll fail to grasp a
word of it, AGAIN:

People starting to come to the Americas long before
the passage over the land bridge opened. They
couldn't walk here -- not until the glaciers opened up
about 13 thousand years ago -- so the only way
they could have arrived was by water, by boat.

Yes, this for the most part meant small groups. The
boats, after all, were tiny. Later, much later, a large
rift opened through the glaciers and, together with
the land bridge, this allowed people to walk all the
way from Asia to the Americas. This sudden influx of
new arrivals pushed the population of the Americas
over a threshold -- no longer was it a case of a few
and far between small groups -- and a culture could
form.

Clovis Culture.

you're welcome.

[VtSkier]

This is just a question. Only that. I have no particular opinion one way
or another.

Are you completely sold that the people who developed the Clovis Culture
came from Asia? If so, is your evidence for this 'positive' (i.e.
physical remains) or 'negative' (i.e. couldn't possibly have come from
anywhere else)?

What do you say to the observed similarity in artifacts to European
Solutrean Culture? (Which obviously predates Clovis by 8,000 years or
so) or is the Clovis dates so far established

http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520227835

[JTEM]

VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:

> Are you completely sold that the people who developed
> the Clovis Culture came from Asia?

Absolutely not. In fact, last I heard Clovis Culture does
not exist in Asia!

I've always said that it came down to population, the
size of the population. Until the glaciers parted and
people could walk here, the population of the Americas
was tiny. It consisted of a small number of widely
dispersed groups. Contact between groups would
have been rare at best, One "Culture" was impossible.
The population had to cross a certain threshold before
contact between groups happened anywhere near
regular enough to spread anything resembling a
"Culture."

> If so, is your evidence for this 'positive' (i.e.
> physical remains) or 'negative' (i.e. couldn't possibly have come from
> anywhere else)?

Again, to the best of my knowledge there is no
Clovis Culture found in Asia.

> What do you say to the observed similarity in artifacts to
> European Solutrean Culture?

Whether or not it spawned the "Clovis" tools is beyond
the evidence. I certainly believe that pre Clovis people
came from Europe and/or Africa (as well as Asia and
Oceania).

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 30, 7:27 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> > Are you completely sold that the people who developed
> > the Clovis Culture came from Asia?
>
> Absolutely not. In fact, last I heard Clovis Culture does
> not exist in Asia!

Last I heard the Monte Verde culture doesn't exist in Africa, SE Asia,
Australia, Antarctica, Eastern Beringia,
Asia, or England. Opps, I'm sorry, El Jobo-like points do exist in
Alaska and so do ground tools....4000 years
later than the Monte Verde claimed dates.


>
> I've always said

You say is not evidence for anything.

> that it came down to population, the
> size of the population. Until the glaciers parted and
> people could walk here, the population of the Americas
> was tiny. It consisted of a small number of widely
> dispersed groups. Contact between groups would
> have been rare at best, One "Culture" was impossible.
> The population had to cross a certain threshold before
> contact between groups happened anywhere near
> regular enough to spread anything resembling a
> "Culture."

The reason this is not published in a peer-reviewed journal?

>
> > If so, is your evidence for this 'positive' (i.e.
> > physical remains) or 'negative' (i.e. couldn't possibly have come from
> > anywhere else)?
>
> Again, to the best of my knowledge there is no
> Clovis Culture found in Asia.

No one ever claimed it was after 1936. Try to get your self in the
right century.

>
> > What do you say to the observed similarity in artifacts to
> > European Solutrean Culture?
>
> Whether or not it spawned the "Clovis" tools is beyond
> the evidence.

Right, like boats and coastal routes.

> I certainly believe that pre Clovis people
> came from Europe and/or Africa (as well as Asia and
> Oceania).

Since you can't refute Turner, Holmes, or the DNA evidence, that's all
you have is beliefs.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 30, 6:15 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is not a Zero-Sum game.
>
> > It's an evidence game and so far you haven't presented any.
>
> Well I posted this link last April, though you didn't understand
> it then so you want understand it now:
>
> http://history.msu.edu/hst321/files/2010/07/bering.jpg

Those are "seafarers" or are you just trying to be funny?
Still no evidence to show the homeland wasn't the Altai region. Why
the irrelevant distraction? Haven't you figured out yet that Eastern
Beringia is in the New World?

If you are going to cherry-pick garbage sites that can't repeat and
use laugable indirect dating, then:
http://www.seedenali.com/beringia/bluefish-caves-old-crow-yukon/

Checkmate.

Nor have you presented one iota of evidence to back up your nosensical
claim that "Probably in small, isolated groups."

>
> What the link is demonstrating is NOT so much the
> so-called "land bridge" from Asia to Alaska as the
> break in the glaciers which allowed populations to
> leave Alaska and populate the Americas.

What do glaciers between Alaska and the lower 48 have to do with the
homeland 10 or 15,000 years before the glaciers melted?

> This break
> isn't dated to 13,000 years ago, so YOUR clock starts
> then. Anything older in Alaska is certainly interesting,
> but it's also NOWHERE else but Alaska.

Still no evidence Dulik et al., Turner, or Holmes data is wrong.

>
> I'll boil it down even further:  Anything older came via
> a different route. Period.

I'll boil it down even further, the route south of the glaciers has
nothing at all to do with tickets to the homeland. Beringia is still
the new world and you are ca 15,000 years off in your argument for
Altai not being the homeland, but nice try at irrelevant diversions.

>
> Your previous Alaska cite is actually consistent with
> this. HINT:  It's in frigging Alaska!

http://www.seedenali.com/beringia/bluefish-caves-old-crow-yukon/

>
> Here. This next cite is even less subtle, though still far
> too subtle for the likes of you to grasp.

http://www.seedenali.com/beringia/bluefish-caves-old-crow-yukon/

> I've posted it
> many times over the years (Though, you being an
> idiot,

http://www.seedenali.com/beringia/bluefish-caves-old-crow-yukon/
Back to name calling minus evidence, typical of your ilk.

>it's no surprise that you have yet to notice), many
> times in direct reply to you, so we can look forward to
> you not remembering it in the future either:

>
> : Domestic tools dated at 14,500 years have been
> : found in Chile - but with no associated human remains.

And homeland for this source is???? Your evidence is?
http://www.seedenali.com/beringia/bluefish-caves-old-crow-yukon/

>
> And this:
>
> : Dr Gonzalez told BBC News Online: "We believe that
> :  the older race may have come from what is now Japan,
> : via the Pacific islands and perhaps the California coast.
>

Dr. Gonzalez is really good at making retractions, or didn't you know?
I cite peer-reviewed papers and you cite BBC News. That's about your
speed.

> Both in here (the trick is to read these things for content)
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm

http://www.seedenali.com/beringia/bluefish-caves-old-crow-yukon/

>
> (Psst. This places people WAY to the south more than
> a thousand years before they could have come via
> Alaska)

http://www.seedenali.com/beringia/bluefish-caves-old-crow-yukon/

>
> Anyhow, that proves you wrong again, but it's not like
> you've ever been right.

More lip service, and no evidence.

http://www.seedenali.com/beringia/bluefish-caves-old-crow-yukon/

> and the whole thing was a
> distraction anyway.

What you really mean is you can't tell time. You are still 10 to
15,000 years off from refuting the authors of those papers.

> You really did post that cite thinking
> you were refuting me when in fact you weren't even
> addressing me.

You really did post those cites thinking

you were refuting me when in fact you weren't even

addressing the Altai and Lake Baikal evidence. Try learning
1. The definition of a homeland (hint: Monte Verde is not a homeland)
2. Try to find out the difference between Alaska and the lower 48.
3. You might want to catch up on more recent ice-free corridor data.
4. You also might want to take a DNA 101 class somewhere also.

>
> I'll point out reality, AGAIN, and you'll fail to grasp a
> word of it, AGAIN:

Lip service. No evidence yet to refute the article that started this
thread, only a diversion about anomolous dating.

>
> People starting to come to the Americas long before
> the passage over the land bridge opened.

Tell that to Nansen and Amundsen, I'm sure they will get a good
laugh.

>They
> couldn't walk here -- not until the glaciers opened up
> about 13 thousand years ago

ROFL
http://www.kasperskyonetransantarcticexpedition.com/

> -- so the only way
> they could have arrived was by water, by boat.

http://www.kasperskyonetransantarcticexpedition.com/

>
> Yes, this for the most part meant small groups.
The
> boats, after all, were tiny.

Your imaginary evidence for boats is? Your cultural evidence to refute
Turner is?

> Later, much later, a large
> rift opened through the glaciers and, together with
> the land bridge, this allowed people to walk all the
> way from Asia to the Americas. This sudden influx of
> new arrivals pushed the population of the Americas
> over a threshold -- no longer was it a case of a few
> and far between small groups -- and a culture could
> form.

Your fantasies of how things never were is really comical.


>
> Clovis Culture.
>
> you're welcome

Yeah, for your science fiction.

I did enjoy it. You are always good for a laugh.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 30, 6:15 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> People starting to come to the Americas long before
> the passage over the land bridge opened. They
> couldn't walk here -- not until the glaciers opened up
> about 13 thousand years ago -- so the only way
> they could have arrived was by water, by boat.

As Inspector Columbo would say: "one more thing......"

"Apropos the age of these sites relative to Clovis, and Bradley and
Stanford's (2004: 463)
assertion that the ice-free corridor stayed impassable 'until after
11,000 years ago, too late
for use by Clovis ancestors', we would note that the
geological literature they cite is
outdated. In a recent and thorough review of the Canadian deglaciation
record, geologist
Arthur Dyke (2004) cautions against drawing 'categorical
conclusions' about when the
corridor opened, for there is no evidence at present that the
route was impassable until
11,000 years ago. The same holds true for its biological
viability, the precise timing of
which is still not resolved (Mandryk et al. 2001; review in Meltzer
2004)."

Ice Age Atlantis? Exploring the Solutrean-Clovis 'Connection'
Author(s): Lawrence Guy Straus, David J. Meltzer, Ted Goebel
Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 37, No. 4, Debates in "World
Archaeology" (Dec., 2005), pp.
507-532
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Don't quit your day job.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 30, 6:59 pm, VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:

> Are you completely sold that the people who developed the Clovis Culture
> came from Asia?

Abstract
"Bradley and Stanford (2004) have raised now, in several instances,
the claim that European Upper
Paleolithic Solutrean peoples colonized North America, and gave rise
to the archaeological complex
known as Clovis. They do so in the face of some obvious challenges
notably the several thousand
miles of ocean and the 5000 radiocarbon years that separate the two.
And yet they argue in their
recent paper that the archaeological evidence in support of a
historical connection is 'overwhelming'.
We are profoundly skeptical of this claim; we believe that the many
differences between Solutrean
and Clovis are far more significant than the few similarities, the
latter being readily explained by the
well-known phenomenon of technological convergence or parallelism. The
origin and arrival time of
the first Americans remain uncertain, but not so uncertain that we
need to look elsewhere other than
north-east Asia."
Lawrence Guy Straus, David J. Meltzer and Ted Goebel

Ice Age Atlantis? Exploring the Solutrean-Clovis 'Connection'

Lawrence Guy Straus, David J. Meltzer, Ted Goebel

World Archaeology, Vol. 37, No. 4, Debates in "World
Archaeology" (Dec., 2005), pp.
507-532

"Based on the modern and ancient
DNA records, then, Asia was the homeland
of the first Americans, not Europe, lending
no support to the recently proposed “Solutrean
hypothesis,” that the progenitors of Clovis were
derived from an Upper Paleolithic population on
the Iberian Peninsula (15, 16)."
Ted Goebel, et al.
The Late Pleistocene Dispersal of Modern Humans
in the Americas
14 MARCH 2008 VOL 319 SCIENCE


"Our results strongly support the hypothesis that
haplogroup X, together with the other four main mtDNA
haplogroups, was part of the gene pool of a single Native
American founding population; therefore they do not
support models that propose haplogroup-independent
migrations, such as the migration from Europe posed by
the Solutrean hypothesis.18"
Nelson J.R. Fagundes et al.
Mitochondrial Population Genomics Supports
a Single Pre-Clovis Origin with a Coastal Route
for the Peopling of the Americas
The American Journal of Human Genetics 82, 1-10, March 2008


"Furthermore, there is no clear reason why this trans-Atlantic
migration
would involve a haplogroup (X) that typically comprises no more than
2% of the
mtDNAs in modern European populations to the exclusion of another such
as haplogroup
H, which represents >40% of mtDNAs in all of these groups (Comas et
al.
1997, 1998; Macaulay et al. 1999; Richards et al. 1998, 2000;
Sajantila et al. 1995;
Torroni et al. 1994b, 1996)."
Theodore G. Schurr
THE PEOPLING OF THE NEW WORLD:
Perspectives from Molecular Anthropology
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2004. 33:551–83

> http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520227835

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Last I heard the Monte Verde culture

You're making my case, squashing your own.

It was impossible for people to populate the Americas
by foot -- crossing over the land bridge from Asia --
until the glaciers parted some 13 thousand years ago.
This Monte Verde you just introduced is far too old. It
had to arrive via another means: Boat.

And not that it matters, but you aren't contradicting me.
I said that the origins of Clovis is beyond the evidence,
and you are supporting this with another example of tools
which don't seem to fit any arrival scenario.

Please think before you post.

[JTEM]

I'm just going to reply to one of these two posts.
Experience says we'll be doing this for many
months, with you avoiding every important point
in favor of your mental illnesses, so there's no
point in rushing into a shit fest.

you'll get us there.... you always do....

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well I posted this link last April, though you didn't understand
> > it then so you want understand it now:
>
> >http://history.msu.edu/hst321/files/2010/07/bering.jpg
>
> Those are "seafarers" or are you just trying to be funny?

As I pointed out, and your trademark stupidity coupled to
your astounding array of debilitating personality disorders
caused you to miss, it is illustrating a critical point:

Nobody could populated the Americas via a land bridge
until the path through the glaciers opened. They didn't
open until roughly 13,000 years ago.

None mental cases instantly recognized that any settlement
older than 13,000 ybp had to arrive by another route: The
water, by boat.

There is no shortage of evidence for arrivals earlier than
13,000 ybp, as even YOU cited one example.

HINT: Monte Verde. The Monte Verde cite REQUIRES
that a route other than any land bridge was taken, as
it dates more than a thousand years before the glaciers
parted.

Speaking rhetorically, you twisted fuck, once you grasp
this overly simplistic and bleeding obvious point you will
understand that when the Beringia people finally arrived
in the Americas they found that there were already people
(cultures) here, and that they had been here for a very,
very long time.

And once you understand THAT, you can understand the
problems with the DNA so-called "Evidence." The so-called
"Evidence" for whatever reason (there are a number of
very plausible ones that I have raised elsewhere) is masking
all these earlier arrivals. It doesn't mean that they never
existed, it doesn't mean that they don't have countless
living descendents, it's just that the testing can not detect
their contribution.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 31, 8:57 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm just going to reply to one of these two posts.
> Experience says we'll be doing this for many
> months, with you avoiding every important point
> in favor of your mental illnesses, so there's no
> point in rushing into a shit fest.

More cheap talk (and no evidence) I'm sure we will be seeing lots more
of it from you in the coming years.

>
> you'll get us there.... you always do....
>
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well I posted this link last April, though you didn't understand
> > > it then so you want understand it now:
>
> > >http://history.msu.edu/hst321/files/2010/07/bering.jpg
>
> > Those are "seafarers" or are you just trying to be funny?
>
> As I pointed out, and your trademark stupidity coupled to
> your astounding array of debilitating personality disorders
> caused you to miss, it is illustrating a critical point:

Yep, the lip sevice minus the evidence to refute Schurr, Turner, and
Holmes just keeps coming from you.

>
> Nobody could populated the Americas via a land bridge
> until the path through the glaciers opened.
> They didn't
> open until roughly 13,000 years ago.

Good grief, are you really that illiterate? The land bridge has
nothing at all to do with the ice-free corridor.
Your own reference shows that, did you even look at it? Do you need
help understanding the two are not the same thing? Feel free to ask
questions.

>
> None mental cases instantly recognized that any settlement
> older than 13,000 ybp had to arrive by another route:  The
> water, by boat.

Your evidence for that is your imagination. First, the idea of using
the ice-free corridor was based on zero evidence, and even it had
evidence "Arthur Dyke (2004) cautions against drawing 'categorical
conclusions' about when the corridor opened,". So you are too
illiterate to challenge Dyke in the journals, so you take a crap in
this forum instead.

> There is no shortage of evidence for arrivals earlier than
> 13,000 ybp, as even YOU cited one example.

Which doesn't prove boats or reject Shurr's homeland, are you just
trolling or do you really not understand what a
homeland is?

>
> HINT:  Monte Verde. The Monte Verde cite REQUIRES
> that a route other than any land bridge was taken, as
> it dates more than a thousand years before the glaciers
> parted.

No it doesn't, because the landbridge isn't the ice-free corridor and
no one knows when the-ice free corridor opened and the landbridge has
never been closed (even if it mattered). You can't refute Dyke or
Nansen.

> Speaking rhetorically, you twisted fuck, once you grasp
> this overly simplistic and bleeding obvious point you will
> understand that when the Beringia people finally arrived
> in the Americas they found that there were already people
> (cultures) here, and that they had been here for a very,
> very long time.

For a person who just contradicted his own reference, that's a
laugh.

> And once you understand THAT, you can understand the
> problems with the DNA so-called "Evidence." The so-called
> "Evidence" for whatever reason (there are a number of
> very plausible ones that I have raised elsewhere) is masking
> all these earlier arrivals.

You are a mess. Even IF the earliest sites were proven legit, you are
back far enough in time that the ice-free corridor was open again. So
they still would have walked here. No boats necessary, Occam's
Razor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas
Your retraction, by the way, won't be accepted so don't bother making
one.

> It doesn't mean that they never
> existed, it doesn't mean that they don't have countless
> living descendents, it's just that the testing can not detect
> their contribution.

That's a negative argument. The fact remains, you don't know anymore
about landbridges than you do about DNA.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 31, 8:42 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Last I heard the Monte Verde culture
>
> You're making my case, squashing your own.

Since Monte Verde has nothing to do with the homeland, the only case
you are making is you can't grasp the difference between a homeland
and a route.

>
> It was impossible for people to populate the Americas
> by foot

Says who? Evidence for this?

> -- crossing over the land bridge from Asia --
> until the glaciers parted some 13 thousand years ago.
> This Monte Verde you just introduced is far too old. It
> had to arrive via another means:  Boat.

The landbridge isn't the ice-free corridor. Try to get the two strait
(pun).

>
> And not that it matters, but you aren't contradicting me.
> I said that the origins of Clovis is beyond the evidence,

Gee, the same guy who doesn't know the difference between the
landbridge and the ice-free corridor is now pretending he knows
something about Clovis tools?

> and you are supporting this with another example of tools
> which don't seem to fit any arrival scenario.

I guess that means, besides not reading Dyke (2004), you haven't read
Pearson (1997), or Hoffecker, Powers,and Goebel (1993)?

The only 'no fit' arrival scenario is Monte Verde. Since you can't
find a 14,000 kya homeland for it, it means it's just as probable that
the assemblage is more recent.

>
> Please think before you post.

Please learn the difference between the landbridge and the ice-free
corridor before replying.
And as Inspector Columbo would say..."one more thing":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas

PS: Have you found the star witness, Dr. Gonzalez, retraction yet?
Typical of pre-Clovis work I might add:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-footprints_N.htm
or
http://tinyurl.com/258p3gd
"Gonzalez, concedes the fight, replicating the Argon results from
Renne's lab."

With typical pre-Clovis sites like this out there I guess it doesn't
matter too much when the ice-free corridor was open, eh?

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Since Monte Verde has nothing to do with the homeland,

It's more than 1,000 years TOO OLD. It was settled
before anyone could walk from Asia to the Americas
via the land bridge. It conclusively proves that people
had other means to reach the Americas and employed
them.

Get it? Even just a little?

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> More cheap talk (and no evidence)

Ironically, you said that I never posted evidence, I
re-posted cites which I had posted in reply to you
in the past (one going back to 2010) only for you
to come full circle and claim that I never came up
with any evidence.

Seriously, you're fucked in the head. This is the one piece
of the puzzle that you need. That's it. This ONE image
tell it all, everything you need to know, and puts everything
else in it's proper context:

http://history.msu.edu/hst321/files/2010/07/bering.jpg

What it's showing you is the gap, the parting of the
glaciers. This had to occur before anyone could reach
the Americas via the so-called "Land Bridge," and it
is not believed to have existed until roughly 13,000 ybp.

If you were normal you'd be able to understand what this
means. You'd grasp that any & every find dating before
this gap in the glaciers had to arrive via a different route.

Idiot.

Get used to this, shit for brains, because experience tells
us that I'm going to pointing this same fact out six months
from now....

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 31, 5:28 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Since Monte Verde has nothing to do with the homeland,
>
> It's more than 1,000 years TOO OLD.

Wrong again. Monte Verde is not older than the sites in Asia.

The Altai---> Lake Baikal----> to Dyuktai sites are a minimum of ten
to six thousand years older than Monte Verde, so even IF
the ancestors of the Monteverdians took a short cut across the Pacific
once they got to the coast, it still wouldn't refute
Shurr or Turner.

> It was settled
> before anyone could walk from Asia to the Americas
> via the land bridge.

The land bridge was never blocked, nor is it today in winter. Central
Alaska (Eastern beringia) was never ice covered.
The mountain valleys east of Dyuktai, in Asia, were never ice covered.
So it was an easy walk from Altai all the way to
NW Canada. No boats required. No boats known, nor is there any reason
to suspect they were used at all. Not to mention the fact the ice-free
corridor was open numerous times in the past, a point you have
carefully avoided.

> It conclusively proves that people
> had other means to reach the Americas and employed
> them.
>
> Get it?  Even just a little?

That's rich. You don't have a clue as to the difference between the
ice-free corridor and the land bridge. You don't have a clue that
10,000 is older than 1000 (Altai vs Monte Verde) you are saying I
don't get it?

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 31, 5:34 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > More cheap talk (and no evidence)
> Ironically, you said that I never posted evidence, I
> re-posted cites which I had posted in reply to you
> in the past (one going back to 2010) only for you
> to come full circle and claim that I never came up
> with any evidence.

Liar. You haven't posted one thing yet to refute the latest DNA paper
or it's Altai conclusion.
Your so-called evidence has nothing to do with homeland. Nor do you
seem to have the vaguest notion of the difference between homeland
and
route.

> Seriously, you're fucked in the head.

Name calling is being serious? That's the only vocabulary you seem to
have. Try to develop one that includes the words landbridge and ice-
free corridor and the definitions of each.

.This is the one piece

> of the puzzle that you need.
> That's it. This ONE image
> tell it all, everything you need to know, and puts everything
> else in it's proper context:

> http://history.msu.edu/hst321/files/2010/07/bering.jpg


> What it's showing you is the gap, the parting of the
> glaciers.

That's the ice-free corridor, not the land bridge.

> This had to occur before anyone could reach
> the Americas via the so-called "Land Bridge," and it
> is not believed to have existed until roughly 13,000 ybp.

Repeating your stupidity isn't going to make it come true.
Fact: "Arthur Dyke (2004) cautions against drawing 'categorical

conclusions' about when the corridor opened,".

Your uneducated delusions doesn't negate Dyke's work.
And two, Nansen made short work of the Greenland glaciers, no reason
to think the ice-clogged corridor was any different. The dog evidence
at early sites confirms either an over the ice route or second
choice, through the ice-free corridor. Got any boat dogs? I didn't
think so.

> If you were normal you'd be able to understand what this
> means. You'd grasp that any & every find dating before
> this gap in the glaciers had to arrive via a different route.

Data free, evidence free, out-of-date (1930's) nonsense.

> Idiot.

Only word in your vocabulary. Thanks for proving that's all you know
about landbridges and DNA.

> Get used to this, shit for brains, because experience tells
> us that I'm going to pointing this same fact out six months
> from now....

That's all you have to refute Schurr, Turner, and Homes?

Oh yeah, I forgot, you did reference Dr. Gonzalez.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...

or
http://tinyurl.com/258p3gd
"Gonzalez, concedes the fight, replicating the Argon results from
Renne's lab."

Your so-called references are a sick joke.

[VtSkier]

Lee, for christ's sake. JTEM just isn't being clear in your mind. All
you say about the land bridge ITSELF is true and nobody denies it
including JTEM. It was always possible to walk across it, even today
when/if the sea freezes. However most people would agree that once in
Alaska (a part of Beringia) it would have been difficult, if not
impossible to walk to the REST of the Americas without there being an
"ice-free corridor" as described and as shown on various maps. There is
that clear and can we move on?

Other than this point, please continue to have at each other. Those of
us reading the 'discussion' are getting some bits which may be useful.

I for one, support the notion of a sea route. Evidence for which may be
under water off the northwest coast. There may even be a reason to
search for east coast evidence, also submerged. The Norse got to North
America in rather (for ocean going vessels) rather flimsy craft, and, no
they didn't use dragon ships for their exploration.

[JTEM]

Moron, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The land bridge was

Good for you! All those words, all these posts plus the
many thousands yet to come, and you can't even
address what I said beyond some child-like denial....

VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
: Lee, for christ's sake. JTEM just isn't being clear in your
: mind.

Well, perhaps "Mind" is quite the right word...

: All you say about the land bridge ITSELF is true and

: nobody denies it including JTEM. It was always possible
: to walk across it, even today when/if the sea freezes.
: However most people would agree that once in
: Alaska (a part of Beringia) it would have been difficult, if
: not impossible to walk to the REST of the Americas
: without there being an "ice-free corridor" as described
: and as shown on various maps.

I would add: This is powerful evidence that any people
who arrived prior to that corridor took a different route.
Coupled to the morphological evidence -- the skulls I
cited, for example. The ones that reveal an entirely
separate racial/ethnic stock than the "land bridge"
group -- conclusively show that the population of the
Americas was a diverse group, and NOT the
homogenous Siberian group suggested by the "Out
of Asia" model.

: There is that clear

Absolutely.

: and can we move on?

Don't hold your breath.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Liar.

Another term you can't comprehend... No
different than "Lip Service" or even
"Out of Africa"...

VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
: Lee, for christ's sake. JTEM just isn't being clear in your
: mind.

Well, perhaps "Mind" isn't quite the right word...

[Lee Olsen]

What in the hell does christ have to do with changing the topic of
this thread, as you and JTEM are doing? The paper is about DNA
evidence, HOMELANDS, and Altai thousands of years older than boat
evidence or Monte Verde.
How they got to SA has nothing at all to do with the homeland of the
first people people.

Biological, skeletal, and archaeological evidence have always pointed
to NE Asia as the homeland, even Thomas Jefferson (and the Spanish
before him) knew that. This means whatever date someone got to South
America, their ultimate homeland was somewhere in Asia and now
specifically Altai.

There is absolutely nothing at Monte Verde to refute the DNA claim of
Altai being their ultimate source.

Arguments about routes may be fun, but totally irrelevant to Altai.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 1, 6:03 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The land bridge was
>
> Good for you!

Thanks.

> I would add:  This is powerful evidence that any people
> who arrived prior to that corridor took a different route.

The topic of this thread is:
"Native Americans actually came from a tiny mountain region in
Siberia"
If you can't follow one, what are you doing here?

How MV people got to SA has nothing at all to do with the homeland of
the
first NA people.

Biological, skeletal, and archaeological evidence have always pointed
to NE Asia as the homeland, even Thomas Jefferson (and the Spanish
before him) knew that. This means whatever date someone got to South
America, their ultimate homeland was somewhere in Asia and now

evidence
shows specifically the Altai region.

[note]

On Jan 30, 1:12 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 9:29 am, note <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 11:39 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/8ymdd7k
>
> > Early Hs Siberians & pre-Amerindians (before horse domestication but
> > during dog domestication) went N <-> S
>

> Good point. Another example is the Yana  River sitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yana_River

> which is above the Arctic Circle and dated very early (ca 30 kya), yet
> there is no evidence they went any further east
> at that time.
>
>
>
> > along steppe & river flood
> > plains between Ural & Altai ranges (cf parallel to later N <-> S route
> > between NAm Rocky & Appalachian range), followed bison/reindeer from
> > arctic coasts south to Taurus range (warm So. Black (tuna) & So.

> > Caspian shore) and north to arctic coasts for salmon fishing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Correction: Tuna in Black sea to spawn occurs in July, not winter.
Also Tuna bones in cave on Timor 44ka requires boats.
IMO woven dome huts (inverted ape bowl nests, with internal leaf
lining externally applied as shingles) developed into the first
constructed boats, roundboat caracles, preceding dugout canoes and
constructed rafts (both linear). Densiovans were in SEAsia, followed
Sunda coasts to Amur River, followed salmon inland to Altai. But
AmerIndians were on the west side, following the N<->S central
migrations. Yana, Ket, Yenesie weren't densiovans.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 1, 6:09 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Liar.
>
> Another term you can't comprehend... No
> different than "Lip Service" or even
> "Out of Africa"...

Topic of thread: "Native Americans actually came from a tiny mountain
region in Siberia"

You can't figure out the topic is not boats and you are questioning my
comprehension?
Find a good shrink, then get a dictionary.

[VtSkier]

A couple of things actually. I have little argument with the point that
present day and from, oh say, 6000BCE to 1500CE the dominant native
population of the Americas hailed from Asia. Maybe even from the small
Siberian region mentioned in the subject line. It may even be that the
Na-Dene peoples are related to the Yenisei-ans and came from Asia at a
later date or that they holed up in Beringia for a few thousand years
when others were moving south AND THEN moved south (and maybe west to
become the Yenisei-ans).

This is, I believe the subject of the discussion.

The subject line states flatly a position that is not yet provable and
which there are a number of people who disagree with it. The point being
that the Asian/Siberian descendants who make up the majority, or maybe
even the totality of present day native Americans, are not related to
the very first people to inhabit this hemisphere.

This discussion, then, has gone off topic somewhat in that what started
out as discussion of an article (which I just re-read) about present day
populations of native Americans tracing their heritage/lineage back to
the Altai in Central Asia, which may well be true, to a discussion of
who the FIRST native Americans were, where they came from and how they
got here. The point being that the ancestors of the present native
Americans may or may not have been the FIRST Americans.

The second part described above I find much more interesting than the
first. I have little doubt that the present day populations of native
Americans ancestors came from Central Asia. I'm also pretty convince
about how they got here (Ice Free Corridor). But I'm also convinced that
they weren't the first and I'd like to hear more about this. This is
what has prompted me to write all these words. Would we like to continue
and would it make you , Lee, more comfortable to change the subject line?

There is evidence, however scant, that there were people in the Americas
before the ice free corridor opened up near the end of the LGM. JTEM has
actually presented evidence of this whether you believe it or not. The
point he is trying to make, and has a hard time on the basis of DNA
because there isn't any ancient DNA available, is that the population of
the Americas, when they were first becoming populated was more diverse
than present populations of native Americans would indicate. The
question then is where did they come from.

> Biological, skeletal, and archaeological evidence have always pointed
> to NE Asia as the homeland, even Thomas Jefferson (and the Spanish
> before him) knew that. This means whatever date someone got to South
> America, their ultimate homeland was somewhere in Asia and now
> specifically Altai.

Of present day population, yes. The present population in SA is surely
Asian in origin, but the Monte Verde population of maybe 20k years ago
is another matter entirely. The 20k to 13k years ago population, maybe
not. No evidence one way or another. There is, however, some
morphological evidence popping up now and then. Kenniwick man may be an
example of that, though he is probably fairly young geologically, may be
a holdout from an earlier population or just an anomaly.

> There is absolutely nothing at Monte Verde to refute the DNA claim of
> Altai being their ultimate source.

There is nothing one way or the other.

> Arguments about routes may be fun, but totally irrelevant to Altai.

Actually arguments about routes IS fun and probably IS irrelevant to
Altai, but maybe not irrelevant to other places. I have a hard time
picturing early nomads from central Asia building boats, but I don't
have much trouble at all picturing early people from , say Japan,
building boats. Nor do I have much problem picturing early people from
the Basque coast or Canary Islands building boats.

[note]

> the Basque coast or Canary Islands building boats.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Pericue of Baja CA had long skulls, possibly a remnant of parical
roundboat people

[note]

India: roundboats common for both river and coast fishing, harigolu,
parical, parisal
Tibet: "" kudru, ,kowa
Vietnam: ""
Tigris: qufa, gopher, kofr
Mandan N Dakota: bowl-shaped bullboats used for smokehole cover, fur
left on
Ma'dan Tigris/Euphrates: familiar with roundboats, but switched to
linear canoes
Both Mandan & Ma'dan were river traders & buffalo hunters/herders
dan/jordan/sudan/don/dnieper/dniester/danube - river valley (sanskrit
dhanu, OE dhenu)
Britain: coracles
Eskimo: umiak
Old Norse: wicker oval hide boats
China: round wood washtubs were also used to fish

Oldest boat model is the golden coracle

The word 'keel' originates from round boat (which had no keel)

Longboats only developed after woven waterproof sewn-shingled/skinned
roundboats,
paddles developed only after punting poles.

Longhouses paralleled longboats, both had wood decks

Amur is NOT part of Baikal, so Amur was denisovan territory, other
areas were part of Baikal northwards, coasts of arctic now submerged
so AmerIndian migration evidence underwater,

[JTEM]

VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:

> I for one, support the notion of a sea route. Evidence for which may be
> under water off the northwest coast.

There's strong evidence for it, not the least of which the
arrivals prior to the glaciers opening.

> There may even be a reason to search for east coast
> evidence, also submerged.

Well just look at the currents today. It's no accident
that the Vikings reached the Americas, as travel from
Europe to Iceland puts you within steps of the "subpolar
gyre"

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Subpolar_Gyre

There. That's a natural current which can take you all
the way to the Americas.

Off Iberia there is a similar (though longer) route. Pretty
much all that is required for its "Discovery" (accidental
or not) is travel to & from the Canary Islands... and when
exactly they were first settled is anyone's guess. Certainly
the Canaries are far smaller today than they would have
been when the glaciers were still around.

The point, of course, is that we know people were traveling
across the water more than 40,000 years ago, as Australia
had to have been reached no later than that. So any time
starting NO LATER THAN 40K ybp people could have started
arriving in the Americas.

This is why I am so into the "Threshold" idea. The Americas
are VERY large, and the people would have mostly been
coming by accidents, mostly in very small groups and even
individuals with it excessively unlikely for any two arrivals to
ever bump into each other.

The odds were simply too great.

This would have continued for thousands of years -- tens of
thousands -- until humans finally won a foot old, there were
finally some viable populations... second, third, eighth
"American" generations were born.... people adapted to the
new place... the conditions... the food sources.... and then,
BAM, the ice wall opened up and a large infusion from Asia
began.

This explains why the Siberian arrivals pretty much instantly
went from setting foot here to Clovis culture crossing the
continent. They didn't have to bring enough people for that,
there was already people here. And they didn't need to take
lots of time to adapt, the people who were here already did,
and could show them.

It's not only a logical explanation, but it does fit the
evidence. I'd say that it's a fairly safe guess.

[JTEM]

VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:

> The subject line states flatly a position that is not yet provable and
> which there are a number of people who disagree with it. The point being
> that the Asian/Siberian descendants who make up the majority, or maybe
> even the totality of present day native Americans, are not related to
> the very first people to inhabit this hemisphere.

It's very likely that the first people to inhabit the Americas
are related to the present population, but left us few clues
in the DNA. There are almost no instances (and none that
I can think of) where one human group completely wiped
out another without any interbreeding. And....

REMEMBER: DNA is _Not_ equal. It does fall under
selective pressure. Even the DNA of a tiny and
seemingly insignificant minority can eventually come
to dominate a group via selective pressure.

This is what proves the fallacy in most "DNA"
interpretations.

DNA that conferred resistance to a disease, for example,
or allowed you to digest a critical winter food source...
synthesize a missing protein or vitamin... any advantage at
all could take what was a tiny minority and eventually bring
their DNA to a dominant status.

This would not mean that nobody else left descendents. After
all, it would be that "Everyone else" that the tiny minority
and it's descendents were mating with... passing on their
advantageous genes. But, given enough generations they'd
be pretty hard to find.

Today's testing is tracing those genes and those genes
only, and pretending it is tracing the population. There is
a huge difference.

> This discussion, then, has gone off topic somewhat in that
> what started out as discussion of an article (which I just
> re-read) about present day populations of native
> Americans tracing their heritage/lineage back to
> the Altai in Central Asia, which may well be true,

What I pointed out, and set of the nut, was that the
study showed no such thing. All it shows is where
the dominant line has come from.

They simply do not have "A lineage." They have many.
Amongst their ancestors are people who came from
places OTHER THAN Siberia, but the testing is
simply not able to show them.

> There is evidence, however scant, that there were

> people in the Americasbefore the ice free corridor

> opened up near the end of the LGM. JTEM has
> actually presented evidence of this whether you
> believe it or not. The point he is trying to make, and
> has a hard time on the basis of DNA because there
> isn't any ancient DNA available, is that the population
> of the Americas, when they were first becoming
> populated was more diverse than present populations
> of native Americans would indicate.

Well, what the testing is indicating.

The problem here is the testing itself. It's not that
people from other times & places aren't ancestors
to the present population, it's that the DNA testing
is inadequate.

> The present population in SA is surely
> Asian in origin,

No. It surely is dominated by Asian traits and
genetic markers. It does, however, have
ancestors from other places as well as Siberia.

People are confusing the limits of the studies
with hard evidence.

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:

> > No, I'm pointing out how the critical piece was
> > the corridor and not the "land bridge."
>
> Well, yes, you were conflating the two.

No. you're not understanding. The land bridge
was there for a very long time, but nobody could
use it to cross into the Americas until the glaciers
parted. Until the glaciers parted, nobody was
settling the Americas by way of crossing the land
bridge. They had to come a different way. The
land bridge was a dead end. They needed boats.

> > It's more than 1,000 years TOO OLD. It was settled
> > before anyone could walk from Asia to the Americas
> > via the land bridge.
>

> There you *were* conflating the 'land bridge' (Beringia),

No. Here, I'll simplify it for you...

Idiots: LAND BRIDGE! IT'S ALL ABOUT SOME
LAND BRIDGE!

Me: No. The land bridge wasn't a path to the Americas
until the glaciers parted. Until the glaciers parted you
could not populate the Americas from Siberia via any
land bridge.

Again, the critical piece here is the Glaciers opening,
the corridor. THAT is what turned a piece of frozen
tundra into a "Land bridge." Until that occurred, it
wasn't a "Land Bridge" it was simply "Land." It was
not a route to the Americas.

Please stop obfuscating.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The topic of this thread is:
> "Native Americans actually came from a tiny mountain region in
> Siberia"

They didn't. The claim is wrong. Native Americans
have many ancestors hailing from many places.
The tests are simply looking at (and presumably
tracing) what is presently a (or the) dominant genetic
line.

They are tracing genes and not any population.

As I explained, and you are unable to grasp, the
genes in question could even have been a
comparatively late introduction by a small minority.
Going back 10 thousand years it's possible that
few (at best) carried the specific genes in the
Americas, and going back a little further it's
possible that nobody carried them. That, 100%
of the descendents of living native Americans
came from elsewhere AT THAT TIME.

Genes are not equal. Genes are subject to
natural selection. Genes are subject to sexual
selection. Genes are subject to social selection.
Even the genes of a tiny minority or individual
can come to dominate a group. Studies such
as the one you are misrepresenting only ever
"Trace" the genes, not the group.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 1, 8:54 am, note <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 1:12 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 9:29 am, note <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 27, 11:39 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://tinyurl.com/8ymdd7k
>
> > > Early Hs Siberians & pre-Amerindians (before horse domestication but
> > > during dog domestication) went N <-> S
>
> > Good point. Another example is the Yana River sitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yana_River
> > which is above the Arctic Circle and dated very early (ca 30 kya), yet
> > there is no evidence they went any further east
> > at that time.
>
> > > along steppe & river flood
> > > plains between Ural & Altai ranges (cf parallel to later N <-> S route
> > > between NAm Rocky & Appalachian range), followed bison/reindeer from
> > > arctic coasts south to Taurus range (warm So. Black (tuna) & So.
> > > Caspian shore) and north to arctic coasts for salmon fishing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Correction: Tuna in Black sea to spawn occurs in July, not winter.
> Also Tuna bones in cave on Timor 44ka requires boats.

Timor isn't Altai.

> IMO woven dome huts (inverted ape bowl nests, with internal leaf
> lining externally applied as shingles) developed into the first
> constructed boats, roundboat caracles, preceding dugout canoes and
> constructed rafts (both linear).

> Densiovans were in SEAsia,

Correction: a small portion of their DNA is there.

> followed
> Sunda coasts to Amur River, followed salmon inland to Altai.
> But
> AmerIndians were on the west side,

> following the N<->S central
> migrations. Yana, Ket, Yenesie weren't densiovans.

For that matter, what is there to show Densiovans were at Denivosa
Cave at 20,000 years ago?

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 1, 9:17 am, note <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Pericue of Baja CA had long skulls, possibly a remnant of parical
> roundboat people

What about the cases where long skulls are found with round skulls at
the same sites using the same artifacts like at Marmes and the Kansas
remains?

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 1, 10:59 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The topic of this thread is:
> > "Native Americans actually came from a tiny mountain region in
> > Siberia"
>
> They didn't.

That is not evidence they didn't.

>The claim is wrong.

That is not evidence the claim is wrong.

> Native Americans
> have many ancestors hailing from many places.

For example, here is one person who has changed his mind:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1212_051212_humans_americas.html
December 12, 2005
"I don't want people to think that we are proposing any kind of
transoceanic migration from Africa or Australia,"
said Neves, of the University of São Paolo in Brazil.
"We know that these [paleoindian] people had reached China around
20,000 years ago.
The Mongoloid population that you see in [northeast] Asia today is
more recent. So we don't have to think
about transoceanic migrations to explain this."


As far as Europe as a possible source by boat:
From Greenman Current Anthropology 1963, comments p 68: Hans-Georg
Bandi..."The author (Greenman) speaks of canoes
and kayaks in the Upper Paleolithic of France and Spain. He bases his
theory on cave pictures, for example,
those from Castillo and La Pasiega. I think he will remain alone in
identifying those pictures as representations
of boats."

also see reply from:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2740258

> The tests are simply looking at (and presumably
> tracing) what is presently a (or the) dominant genetic
> line.

Generally speaking anthropologists don't worry or care about novel
inputs of 5% or less.

>
> They are tracing genes and not any population.

So let's take the Jomon of Japan for example. Populations and cultures
have identifiable archaeology. Where are the Jomon pots in the New
World? Why did they leave their culture and their teeth at home?

>As I explained, and you are unable to grasp, the
> genes in question could even have been a
> comparatively late introduction by a small minority.

What do I have to do with this? Refute Schurr's work with a rebuttal
paper. Journals accept short letters to the editor and publish them if
they have merit.

> Going back 10 thousand years it's possible that
> few (at best) carried the specific genes in the
> Americas, and going back a little further it's
> possible that nobody carried them.

Well, there are a few old skeletons and teeth that have been tested
for DNA over 10 thousand years old and they are still consistent with
the later DNA evidence. Rumor has it the Anzick DNA results should be
published sooner or later.
Paisley Cave is typical NA. While Arlington Springs did not repeat
(which is bad) it was Hap B., an NA type.

>That, 100%
> of the descendents of living native Americans
> came from elsewhere AT THAT TIME.

So 100% is not correct. And keep in mind Monte Verde has no human
remains to test, so nothing to falsify there.

>
> Genes are not equal. Genes are subject to
> natural selection. Genes are subject to sexual
> selection. Genes are subject to social selection.
> Even the genes of a tiny minority or individual
> can come to dominate a group. Studies such
> as the one you are misrepresenting only ever
> "Trace" the genes, not the group.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. The results, and their conclusions,
are easily testable and falsifiable. That makes it science, not just
talk.


"However, investigators still do not agree on the
number of population movements that generated the
genetic diversity in Amerindian groups, although
a growing consensus for a single major expansion
is developing Schurr 2004:563."

Theodore G. Schurr
THE PEOPLING OF THE NEWWORLD:
Perspectives from Molecular Anthropology
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2004. 33:551–83

"Multivariate analysis helped establish that all Native Americans
were likely derived from one ancient, extinct population
that resided in the region of Mongolia (east Central Asia),
and that Mongolians and Southeast Asians are two independent
groups (Shields, Jones 1998)."

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/malhi/www/MalhiLab/downloads/Eshleman%20et%20al%202003.pdf


http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=9101
Native Americans Descended From a Single Ancestral Group, DNA Study
Confirms
April 28, 2009

"Now, after painstakingly comparing DNA samples from people in dozens
of
modern-day Native American and Eurasian groups, an international team
of
scientists thinks it can put the matter to rest: Virtually without
exception
the new evidence supports the single ancestral population theory."

The study is published in the May issue of the journal Molecular
Biology and
Evolution.


"Even though some additional minor founder types have been
later identified in North America, such as X, the hypothesis of just
four major founder types in the initial colonization of the New
World remains uncontested. (3)"
3. Tamm E, Kivisild T, Reidla1 M,Metspalu1 M, Smith DG, et al. (2007)
Beringian
standstill and spread of Native American founders. PLoS ONE 2: e829.

Fagundes et al. (2008):
"Here we show, by using 86 complete mitochondrial genomes, that all
Native American haplogroups, including haplogroup X, were part of a
single founding population, thereby refuting multiple-migration
models."

While there are a few papers (disagreements) that claim two groups,
these papers are arguing events very close in time and thus
insignificant.

[JTEM]

, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> That is not evidence they didn't.

huh?

The DNA studies you pray to aren't evidence at all.
as per your usual you are focused in on opinions
that agree with your opinion, and pretending that
amounts to evidence.

The facts are as follows:

No population migrated here on foot via any "Land
Bridge" until the glaciers opened, and they didn't
open before 13 ybp.

Humans did arrive prior to 13 ybp.

Your nonsense can not account for those humans,
those people who arrived prior to 13,000 ybp. Perhaps
you still believe in some insane "Replacement" theory,
though that has never been the case anywhere else.
Or perhaps you believe that they all just went out for
Chicken one night and got lost on their way back.

Either way, you come up short... and stupid.... and
severely mentally ill.

> For example, here is one person who has changed his mind

Great. What do you think this means? Go on, spell it out for
us. What do you think this means, and why?

> > The tests are simply looking at (and presumably
> > tracing) what is presently a (or the) dominant genetic
> > line.

> Generally speaking anthropologists don't worry or care about novel
> inputs of 5% or less.

Wow, you really can't see that's circular, can you? You're
honestly THAT stupid....

> So let's take the Jomon of Japan for example.

Why? What are the dates? How is this relevant at all?

> Where are the Jomon pots in the New
> World?

Why would there be any? What is your imaginary logic
here?

I'd call this a strawman but it has yet to attain even that
height....

> >As I explained, and you are unable to grasp, the
> > genes in question could even have been a
> > comparatively late introduction by a small minority.
>
> What do I have to do with this?

You have to fail to grasp it, like everything else.

> Refute Schurr's work

This isn't even up to the level of an appeal to authority!
Seriously, mental case, decide what it is he's saying,
what specifically you want to claim he is supporting,
and why.

> > Going back 10 thousand years it's possible that
> > few (at best) carried the specific genes in the
> > Americas, and going back a little further it's
> > possible that nobody carried them.

> Well, there are a few old skeletons and teeth that have been tested
> for DNA over 10 thousand years old and they are still consistent with
> the later DNA evidence.

I'm not aware of any. Oh, sure, there are some Alaskan
finds, but they're hardly relevant. After all, nobody is saying
that populations couldn't cross over from Siberia, over a
land bridge and through alaska, only that this could not happen
until long after people started arriving by other means.

> Paisley Cave is typical NA.

You're far too stupid & insane to get it, but you're proving my
point. You really are a fucking imbecile, it's not just an act.

Nobody is claiming that people didn't migrate to the americas
from Siberia. Nobody is claiming that ancestors to today's
natives didn't come here. Hence, nobody is saying that you can't
find the DNA of these ancestors. What is being pointed out to
you is that they were not the only people, and they were not
the first.

> >That, 100%
> > of the descendents of living native Americans
> > came from elsewhere AT THAT TIME.
>
> So 100% is not correct.

Nothing has been demonstrated.

> And keep in mind Monte Verde has no human
> remains to test, so nothing to falsify there.

It was never required. The archaeology is itself
inconsistent with the model you worship.

> > Genes are not equal. Genes are subject to
> > natural selection. Genes are subject to sexual
> > selection. Genes are subject to social selection.
> > Even the genes of a tiny minority or individual
> > can come to dominate a group. Studies such
> > as the one you are misrepresenting only ever
> > "Trace" the genes, not the group.

> I'm not misrepresenting anything.

You are, even if it's unintentional, even if you're only
misrepresenting it out of ignorance.

> The results, and their conclusions,

I.e. "Opinions."

> are easily testable and falsifiable.

Actually, there opinions are rejected most everywhere
else on the planet. Take Europe, for example. Or
Australia. Similar testing there yields false results.
Mungo man demonstrates that quite conclusively.
Everyone accepts that his population were ancestors
to today's Aborigines, while interpreting the DNA
tests the same way they do here would have to rule
that out completely. And, again, there is Europe.
Taking the very same assumptions to the same kind
of DNA testing in Europe would require that virtually
nobody in Europe 4 thousand years ago has living
descendents today.

It's just plain dumb. Like you. Dumb. And this is
something we see with DNA testing all the time --
interpretations which are rejected elsewhere (even
disproven) are religiously defended by idiots like
you in cases like this.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Topic of thread:

#1. You mean subject line, not "Topic" (idiot).

#2. It's wrong. It's just plain wrong.


You're welcome, shit for brains.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 1, 8:54 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> , Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That is not evidence they didn't.
>
> huh?

Your delusional lip service is still evidence free.

>
> The DNA studies you pray to aren't evidence at all.

More data free, evidence free lip service by someone who knows
absolutely nothing about DNA.
No offense, but let's face the face the facts, you just aren't
intelligent enought to write a DNA paper or a rebuttal to one.
You don't have the education to qualify for garbage pick-up service
where they work, let alone refute them.

> as per your usual you are focused in on opinions
> that agree with your opinion, and pretending that
> amounts to evidence.

Says who, a shoe-shine boy like you?

>
> The facts are as follows:
>
> No population migrated here on foot via any "Land
> Bridge" until the glaciers opened, and they didn't
> open before 13 ybp.

Are you referring to the ice-free corridor again, still to ignorant to
get your facts straight?
So, you snip Dyke 2004 eh?
"Apropos the age of these sites relative to Clovis, and Bradley and
Stanford's (2004: 463)
assertion that the ice-free corridor stayed impassable 'until after
11,000 years ago, too late
for use by Clovis ancestors', we would note that the
geological literature they cite is
outdated. In a recent and thorough review of the Canadian deglaciation
record, geologist

Arthur Dyke (2004) cautions against drawing 'categorical
conclusions' about when the

corridor opened, for there is no evidence at present that the
route was impassable until
11,000 years ago. The same holds true for its biological
viability, the precise timing of
which is still not resolved (Mandryk et al. 2001; review in Meltzer
2004)."

Ice Age Atlantis? Exploring the Solutrean-Clovis 'Connection'
Author(s): Lawrence Guy Straus, David J. Meltzer, Ted Goebel
Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 37, No. 4, Debates in "World
Archaeology" (Dec., 2005), pp.
507-532
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

You couldn't get a job shining shoes where he works, in spite of your
shoe shining credentials. You haven't got a clue when it opened up,
not that it matters, since evidence for glacier travel occurs long
before boats to the New World. And proven again by Nansen again that
it works just fine.

>
> Humans did arrive prior to 13 ybp.

And made the tracks retracted by your reference, Gonzalez?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-footprints_N.htm

Hint: your reference to the Buttermilk site has also been trashed.
Indirect dating just doesn't get it anymore, same for Monte Verde.

>
> Your nonsense can not account for those humans,
> those people who arrived prior to 13,000 ybp. Perhaps
> you still believe in some insane "Replacement" theory,
> though that has never been the case anywhere else.
> Or perhaps you believe that they all just went out for
> Chicken one night and got lost on their way back.

More data free lip service from a shoe-shine boy. The ice-free
corridor opened and shut like a swinging door. Of course you snipped
that reference also.
Snip and swear, that's your science MO.

>
> Either way, you come up short... and stupid.... and
> severely mentally ill.

Does the Gonzalez retraction ring a bell? Read all of the article,
particularly the part about Monte Verde.

>
> > For example, here is one person who has changed his mind
>
> Great. What do you think this means?  Go on, spell it out for
> us. What do you think this means, and why?

I'm sorry, I notice I forgot to include the rest of the story:

Here is what Roosevelt (2002) wrote:
"Some anthropologists have suggested (Neves & Pucciarelli 1991; Neves
et al. 1996) that Paleoindians
must have come across the sea from the Pacific Islands because their
crainia are more like those
from the Pacific Islands than they are like present northeastern Asian
populations or Amerindians."

Either Roosevelt can't read or Neves changed his mind. Nothing wrong
with changing ones mind,
except to wonder how he supposedly arrived at the sea crossing idea in
the first place without
any supporting archaeological data or even genetic data that was
available in 1996.
By 2005 or so he finally got the picture.

No one got here by boat ca 14,000, period.

>
> > > The tests are simply looking at (and presumably
> > > tracing) what is presently a (or the) dominant genetic
> > > line.
> > Generally speaking anthropologists don't worry or care about novel
> > inputs of 5% or less.
>
> Wow, you really can't see that's circular, can you?  You're
> honestly THAT stupid....

Weren't you the guy ranting about million a while back?

>
> > So let's take the Jomon of Japan for example.
>
> Why?  What are the dates?  How is this relevant at all?

That was in your refeference you stupid ass. Are you really that
dimwitted?
: Dr Gonzalez told BBC News Online: "We believe that
: the older race may have come from what is now Japan,
: via the Pacific islands and perhaps the California coast.

Well, you just go ahead and snip your mistake, and don't worry, this
one you will be seeing often, it's classic JTEM.

>
> > Where are the Jomon pots in the New
> > World?
>
> Why would there be any?  What is your imaginary logic
> here?

Boats boy, Japan is an island and a posible source for those dribble-
ins you can't name, but your reference did.
You know, the same on that made the retraction.

>
> I'd call this a strawman but it has yet to attain even that
> height....

: Dr Gonzalez told BBC News Online: "We believe that
: the older race may have come from what is now Japan,
: via the Pacific islands and perhaps the California coast.

>
> > >As I explained, and you are unable to grasp, the
> > > genes in question could even have been a
> > > comparatively late introduction by a small minority.
>
> > What do I have to do with this?
>
> You have to fail to grasp it, like everything else.

: Dr Gonzalez told BBC News Online: "We believe that
: the older race may have come from what is now Japan,
: via the Pacific islands and perhaps the California coast.

>
> > Refute Schurr's work
>
> This isn't even up to the level of an appeal to authority!

You mean it's not up to shoe-shine boy authority!

> Seriously, mental case,

: Dr Gonzalez told BBC News Online: "We believe that
: the older race may have come from what is now Japan,
: via the Pacific islands and perhaps the California coast.

> decide what it is he's saying,
> what specifically you want to claim he is supporting,
> and why.

Yeah, you tell us all about next time you shine Schurr's shoes.

>
> > > Going back 10 thousand years it's possible that
> > > few (at best) carried the specific genes in the
> > > Americas, and going back a little further it's
> > > possible that nobody carried them.
> > Well, there are a few old skeletons and teeth that have been tested
> > for DNA over 10 thousand years old and they are still consistent with
> > the later DNA evidence.
>
> I'm not aware of any.

You aren't aware of much, so why would what you are awere of matter?

> Oh, sure, there are some Alaskan
> finds, but they're hardly relevant. After all, nobody is saying
> that populations couldn't cross over from Siberia, over a
> land bridge and through alaska, only that this could not happen
> until long after people started arriving by other means.

So says a shoe-shine boy that understands nothing of the ancient DNA
tested.

>
> > Paisley Cave is typical NA.
>
> You're far too stupid & insane to get it, but you're proving my
> point. You really are a fucking imbecile, it's not just an act.

: Dr Gonzalez told BBC News Online: "We believe that
: the older race may have come from what is now Japan,
: via the Pacific islands and perhaps the California coast.

> Nobody is claiming that people didn't migrate to the americas
> from Siberia.

Yes you did. You name-dropped others that you refused to name, but
your reference did.

> Nobody is claiming that ancestors to today's
> natives didn't come here.

And JTEM caught in another lie: "Whether or not it spawned the
"Clovis" tools is beyond
the evidence. I certainly believe that pre Clovis people came from
Europe and/or Africa (as well as Asia and
Oceania)."

> Hence, nobody is saying that you can't
> find the DNA of these ancestors. What is being pointed out to
> you is that they were not the only people, and they were not
> the first.

Oh, these were?
"Whether or not it spawned the "Clovis" tools is beyond
the evidence. I certainly believe that pre Clovis people
came from Europe and/or Africa (as well as Asia and
Oceania)."

You're not haveing a good night are you?

>
> > >That, 100%
> > > of the descendents of living native Americans
> > > came from elsewhere AT THAT TIME.
>
> > So 100% is not correct.
>
> Nothing has been demonstrated.

Yes it has. Your ignorance of the literature is hardly anyone else's
problem. I mean a self appointed DNA expert
like yourself should know these things without being told.

>
> > And keep in mind Monte Verde has no human
> > remains to test, so nothing to falsify there.
>
> It was never required. The archaeology is itself
> inconsistent with the model you worship.

Tell that to all people who gave the grants to Schurr for his
professional work and not you. I'm sure they will have a good laugh.

>
> > > Genes are not equal. Genes are subject to
> > > natural selection. Genes are subject to sexual
> > > selection. Genes are subject to social selection.
> > > Even the genes of a tiny minority or individual
> > > can come to dominate a group. Studies such
> > > as the one you are misrepresenting only ever
> > > "Trace" the genes, not the group.
> > I'm not misrepresenting anything.
>
> You are, even if it's unintentional, even if you're only
> misrepresenting it out of ignorance.

"Whether or not it spawned the "Clovis" tools is beyond
the evidence. I certainly believe that pre Clovis people
came from Europe and/or Africa (as well as Asia and
Oceania)."

Have you been mentally retarded long, or just when you post here?

>
> > The results, and their conclusions,
>
> I.e. "Opinions."
>
> > are easily testable and falsifiable.
>

(snip rest of cartoons, you've said enough to keep this group laughing
for months.)

> Nobody is claiming that people didn't migrate to the americas
> from Siberia.

"Whether or not it spawned the "Clovis" tools is beyond
the evidence. I certainly believe that pre Clovis people
came from Europe and/or Africa (as well as Asia and
Oceania)."

Thank you, you have certainly made my day. You know, I'm getting to
like you after all, no one has ever made me look so good in such a
short time as you.

And as Columbo would say: "one more thing..."

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/5/995.abstract

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 1, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nobody is claiming that ancestors to today's
> natives didn't come here.

"Clovis" tools is beyond
the evidence. I certainly believe that pre Clovis people came from
Europe and/or Africa (as well as Asia and
Oceania)."

Good night, sweet dreams, and don't let the bed bugs bite!

[note]

On Feb 1, 3:40 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 8:54 am, note <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 1:12 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 30, 9:29 am, note <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 27, 11:39 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://tinyurl.com/8ymdd7k
>
> > > > Early Hs Siberians & pre-Amerindians (before horse domestication but
> > > > during dog domestication) went N <-> S
>
> > > Good point. Another example is the Yana  River sitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yana_River
> > > which is above the Arctic Circle and dated very early (ca 30 kya), yet
> > > there is no evidence they went any further east
> > > at that time.
>
> > > > along steppe & river flood
> > > > plains between Ural & Altai ranges (cf parallel to later N <-> S route
> > > > between NAm Rocky & Appalachian range), followed bison/reindeer from
> > > > arctic coasts south to Taurus range (warm So. Black (tuna) & So.
> > > > Caspian shore) and north to arctic coasts for salmon fishing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Correction: Tuna in Black sea to spawn occurs in July, not winter.
> > Also Tuna bones in cave on Timor 44ka requires boats.
>
> Timor isn't Altai.

Timor & Amur : both had people with Denisovan genes
Amur had different population than most of Altai region

>
> > IMO woven dome huts (inverted ape bowl nests, with internal leaf
> > lining externally applied as shingles) developed into the first
> > constructed boats, roundboat caracles, preceding dugout canoes and
> > constructed rafts (both linear).
> > Densiovans were in SEAsia,
>
> Correction: a small portion of their DNA is there.
>
> > followed
> > Sunda coasts to Amur River, followed salmon inland to Altai.
> > But
> > AmerIndians were on the west side,
> > following the N<->S central
> > migrations. Yana, Ket, Yenesie weren't densiovans.
>
> For that matter, what is there to show  Densiovans were at Denivosa
> Cave at 20,000 years ago?

John Hawks analysed finger bone & another bone from Denisova,
parsimony would indicate a body or two around

[note]

I'm was referring only to the Pericue at Baja CA coasts, and only
because they might have arrived in boats, parical coracles, separate
from Beringia migration (inland or coastal Beringia), but rather
elsewhere across the Pacific. Seems highly unlikely, but not
impossible. Long skull shape was just a convenient marker I recalled,
could have been common around west Asia, possibly linked to earlier
neandertal mixture, or maybe an artifact of head-binding infants among
nomads, not sure.

Highly likely the Pericue mixed genes & tongues with others, if they
started as a small landing party, their genes might have been somewhat
similar to proto-Beringians, due to earlier shared ancestors.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Your delusional lip service is still evidence free.

Seriously, all kidding aside, you don't know what that
term means. You only ever misuse it, broadcast your
ignorance....

Speaking of ignorance, here's the deal: You have never
once been cable of doing anything as simple as tell us
what you believe a cite of yours means.... what it
shows/supports.... what it refutes... how it does this.

It's been years, there's been countless challenges, you
are haven't the intellectual capacity to so much as
explain what you mean.

This, of course, is on top of all the cites you've been
caught red-handed misunderstanding, and all the
terms you've posted when in fact you haven't a clue as
to what they mean.

Why is this thread any different?

HINT: It's not.

I point out that there was no "Land Bridge," that people
couldn't migrate here before the glaciers opened, before
the "Corridor" existed, and you misunderstand this as....

What?

Go on. Explain it. What do you think I'm saying? If
it right or wrong? Why do you believe this?

It's not about "Cites." You only ever focus in on the opinions
of the people who publish them -- not the actual data, not
working out all the ways it could be interpreted... the pros
and cons for each. For now, just tell me what you think my
position is, whether it's right or wrong and why.

Seriously, you can't manage this even though it's all laid
out in front of you in one group, in one thread, yet you expect
anyone but one of your own sock puppets to respect your
babbling on archaeology & anthropology?

You're a parasite.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Clovis" tools is beyond
> the evidence.

Nobody said this. It's simply your trademark lack of
reading comprehension at work.

The question was whether or not Clovis tools originated
in Europe -- whether the style, the "technology" was
transplanted from Europe.

I said that was beyond the evidence. It is beyond the
evidence.

Again, you lack the intellectual capacity to engage in
these discussions. For real. you're a child, at least
intellectually, and you fail at even the reading.

you're a waste product.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 2, 7:27 am, note <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 3:40 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 8:54 am, note <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 30, 1:12 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 30, 9:29 am, note <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 27, 11:39 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >http://tinyurl.com/8ymdd7k
>
> > > > > Early Hs Siberians & pre-Amerindians (before horse domestication but
> > > > > during dog domestication) went N <-> S
>
> > > > Good point. Another example is the Yana  River sitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yana_River
> > > > which is above the Arctic Circle and dated very early (ca 30 kya), yet
> > > > there is no evidence they went any further east
> > > > at that time.
>
> > > > > along steppe & river flood
> > > > > plains between Ural & Altai ranges (cf parallel to later N <-> S route
> > > > > between NAm Rocky & Appalachian range), followed bison/reindeer from
> > > > > arctic coasts south to Taurus range (warm So. Black (tuna) & So.
> > > > > Caspian shore) and north to arctic coasts for salmon fishing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Correction: Tuna in Black sea to spawn occurs in July, not winter.
> > > Also Tuna bones in cave on Timor 44ka requires boats.
>
> > Timor isn't Altai.
>
> Timor & Amur : both had people with Denisovan genes

Still doesn't connect them directly.

> Amur had different population than most of Altai region

Shurr (2004) took the Amur region into consideration and placed it 4th
on the list of possibilities.
Phillips-Krawczak et al. (2006) questioned some of Shurr's mtDNA
results.
OK, so now Schurr (2012) added male Q into the mix and is back to the
Altai region for the homeland.
At least that's the way I read it, not knowing a thing about DNA.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > IMO woven dome huts (inverted ape bowl nests, with internal leaf
> > > lining externally applied as shingles) developed into the first
> > > constructed boats, roundboat caracles, preceding dugout canoes and
> > > constructed rafts (both linear).
> > > Densiovans were in SEAsia,
>
> > Correction: a small portion of their DNA is there.
>
> > > followed
> > > Sunda coasts to Amur River, followed salmon inland to Altai.
> > > But
> > > AmerIndians were on the west side,
> > > following the N<->S central
> > > migrations. Yana, Ket, Yenesie weren't densiovans.
>
> > For that matter, what is there to show  Densiovans were at Denivosa
> > Cave at 20,000 years ago?
>
> John Hawks analysed finger bone & another bone from Denisova,
> parsimony would indicate a body or two around

Well, 40,000 is a long time to 20,000 years ago.

I haven't had a chance to check it out yet, but there seems to be (or
was) some argument about one of the finger bones from Denisova (or
another cave close by) being Neanderthal.

[note]

Re. long heads

“The long-headed Paleo-Aleuts were still very much around”
Crawford's research with modern Aleuts also suggests that they carry
some Paleo-Aleut DNA, because their ancestors branched off from other
Arctic peoples about 13,000 years ago—long before they colonized the
islands, perhaps when they were still in Asia or Beringia.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/archaeology/america/aleut-origins-relationships-2012.html

Not arguing, but possibly roundboats of coastal fishermen got swept to
both Baja & Aleutians?

[Lee Olsen]

> http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/archaeology/america/aleut-origins...

>
> Not arguing, but possibly roundboats of coastal fishermen got swept to
> both Baja & Aleutians?

Is this the type of boat you are talking about?
http://tinyurl.com/84xpvmz

[note]

> Is this the type of boat you are talking about?http://tinyurl.com/84xpvmz- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

No, that's linear.
see coracle

[note]

> > Is this the type of boat you are talking about?http://tinyurl.com/84xpvmz-Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> No, that's linear.

> see coracle- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

http://www.dark-age-boats.co.uk/britishromanboats.php

Herodotus saw Tigris roundboats, used to trade items (obsidian? ochre?
baltic amber? lapiz lazuli? ) from Taurus/Armenia down to Babylon and
Ur, so linked to Ma'dan (probably were Ma'dan males) floating
villages.

Carving of Scorpion King shows roundboats sewn shingled.

Earliest boats were wicker baskets/domes covered by inserted leaves
with bitumen/pitch, later buffalo/yak hides with ghee yak butter or
tar.

[note]

> > > Is this the type of boat you are talking about?http://tinyurl.com/84xpvmz-Hidequoted text -

>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > No, that's linear.
> > see coracle- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> http://www.dark-age-boats.co.uk/britishromanboats.php
>
> Herodotus saw Tigris roundboats, used to trade items (obsidian? ochre?
> baltic amber? lapiz lazuli? ) from Taurus/Armenia down to Babylon and
> Ur, so linked to Ma'dan (probably were Ma'dan males) floating
> villages.
>
> Carving of Scorpion King shows roundboats sewn shingled.
>
> Earliest boats were wicker baskets/domes covered by inserted leaves
> with bitumen/pitch, later buffalo/yak hides with ghee yak butter or

> tar.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

http://the-arc-ddeden.blogspot.com/2012/01/bowl-boats-bull-boats.html

[Lee Olsen]

> > > > Is this the type of boat you are talking about?http://tinyurl.com/84xpvmz-Hidequotedtext -

>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > No, that's linear.
> > > see coracle- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> >http://www.dark-age-boats.co.uk/britishromanboats.php
>
> > Herodotus saw Tigris roundboats, used to trade items (obsidian? ochre?
> > baltic amber? lapiz lazuli? ) from Taurus/Armenia down to Babylon and
> > Ur, so linked to Ma'dan (probably were Ma'dan males) floating
> > villages.
>
> > Carving of Scorpion King shows roundboats sewn shingled.
>
> > Earliest boats were wicker baskets/domes covered by inserted leaves
> > with bitumen/pitch, later buffalo/yak hides with ghee yak butter or
> > tar.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> http://the-arc-ddeden.blogspot.com/2012/01/bowl-boats-bull-boats.html

Don't get me wrong, I'm the last person to knock the use of bull
boats.
1) Pegi Jodry (Stanford's wife) made a circumstantial case for Clovis
boats.
2) They are light enough for your dog to transport.
http://tinyurl.com/7crbb35
3) When it's not being used as a boat, it would make small tent at
night. This could be one reason no Clovis dwellings have been found.
4) Chief Joseph's band ran circles around Howard's army for months,
thanks in part to the use of bull boats.

While the same arguments could be made for your average canoe or
dugout, they are very time consuming to build.
If times get tough, you can always eat your dog and drag the bull boat
yourself. I don't think a canoe would be too good to eat, even if you
were really hungry.

But the problem is the long boats *DO* work in the open sea. Sure, to
get to OYKC or Santa Rosa all one would need is a bull boat (or swim).
To get from Asia to Attu and all the way down the American coast
would require a long boat.

Or one could test getting from Asia to Attu in a bull boat and prove
everyone wrong :).

Jodry's article is free online in Mammoth Trumpet, July 2000.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 2, 9:42 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Clovis" tools is beyond
> > the evidence.
>
> Nobody said this.

So you admit you are a nobody. Thanks for admitting that much at
least.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 2, 9:38 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
(nothing, but sure did snip a lot.)

Good time for a review:

On Feb 1, 8:54 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> , Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > That is not evidence they didn't.

> huh?

Your delusional lip service is still evidence free.

> The DNA studies you pray to aren't evidence at all.

More data free, evidence free lip service by someone who knows
absolutely nothing about DNA.
No offense, but let's face the face the facts, you just aren't
intelligent enought to write a DNA paper or a rebuttal to one.
You don't have the education to qualify for garbage pick-up service
where they work, let alone refute them.

(no response)

> as per your usual you are focused in on opinions
> that agree with your opinion, and pretending that
> amounts to evidence.


Says who, a shoe-shine boy like you?

(what could he say?)

(no response)

> Humans did arrive prior to 13 ybp.


And made the tracks retracted by your reference, Gonzalez?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...

Hint: your reference to the Buttermilk site has also been trashed.
Indirect dating just doesn't get it anymore, same for Monte Verde.

(no response)

> Your nonsense can not account for those humans,
> those people who arrived prior to 13,000 ybp. Perhaps
> you still believe in some insane "Replacement" theory,
> though that has never been the case anywhere else.
> Or perhaps you believe that they all just went out for
> Chicken one night and got lost on their way back.


More data free lip service from a shoe-shine boy. The ice-free
corridor opened and shut like a swinging door. Of course you snipped
that reference also.
Snip and swear, that's your science MO.

(no response)

> Either way, you come up short... and stupid.... and
> severely mentally ill.


Does the Gonzalez retraction ring a bell? Read all of the article,
particularly the part about Monte Verde.

(I guess he didn't read it)

(no response, what could he say?)

> I'd call this a strawman but it has yet to attain even that
> height....


: Dr Gonzalez told BBC News Online: "We believe that
: the older race may have come from what is now Japan,
: via the Pacific islands and perhaps the California coast.

If Gonzalez can't recognize a simple footprint, what chance does she
have of getting anything right?

[JTEM]

Demented, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Again, you lack the intellectual capacity to engage in
> > these discussions. For real. you're a child, at least
> > intellectually, and you fail at even the reading.

> So you admit you are a nobody. Thanks for admitting that much at
> least.

Case in point....

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 3, 8:22 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Case in point....

"In sum, the ultimate regional homeland can reasonably be hypothesized
as having
been in north China, Mongolia, and southern Siberia, a rich
ecologically diverse
region occopied long before humans set foot further north. An easy to
remember
focal point of this region is Lake Baikal, near the headwaters of the
Anadar, Ob,
Yenisei, Lena, and Amur rivers that together drain much of central and
eastern
Siberia (Turner 2002:130)."

Christy Turner
Teeth, Needles, Dogs, and Siberia: Bioarchaeological Evidence for the
Colonization
of the New World
in
Jablonski, N.G., ed. (2002)
The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World,
Memoirs
of the California Academy of Sciences, No. 27.


http://csfa.tamu.edu/cfsa-publications/Goebel-etal-2000.pdf
Studenoe-2 and the origins of microblade technologies in the
Transbaikal, Siberi
Ted Goebel et al.
Antiquity; Sep 2000; 74


Schurr 2004
http://tinyurl.com/6w4vlpl
see fig. 5

Any more questions, please feel free to ask

[JTEM]

Ignorant, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Your delusional lip service is still evidence free.

You don't know what "Lip Service" is.

Neither do you know what "Out of Africa" is....

> > The DNA studies you pray to aren't evidence at all.

> More data free, evidence free

That was the point, shit for brains. You don't have
evidence.

> lip service

You appear to be operating under the assumption that
"Lip Service" means something close to the opposite
of what he actually means...

I'd explain it to you, but it has already been explained
to you ad nauseum over the years, and your mental
illness won't allow you to accept the truth (or, more
likely, it won't allow you to accept the fact that you've
always been in error).

> > as per your usual you are focused in on opinions
> > that agree with your opinion, and pretending that
> > amounts to evidence.

This is true. As proof, I offer to all those dozens upon
dozens upon dozens of times when you were
challenged to explain a cite (paraphrase it, explain it
in your own terms) and you couldn't. You have no idea
what they're saying. It's the opinions the researchers
offer that you cling to. The actual data, the methods
used to collect it, that is all over your head.

> > The facts are as follows:
> > No population migrated here on foot via any "Land
> > Bridge" until the glaciers opened, and they didn't
> > open before 13 ybp.

> Are you referring to the ice-free corridor again,

How uncharacteristically lucid! Now fuck it all up
by citing a single cite, a single opinion, and pretending
it's a fact carved into stone by the very finger of God...

> So, you snip Dyke 2004 eh?
> "Apropos the age of these sites relative  to Clovis, and Bradley and
> Stanford's  (2004: 463)
> assertion that the ice-free  corridor stayed impassable 'until after
> 11,000 years ago, too  late

Great. Your cite is denouncing an 11K ybp date for the opening, a
date I never gave. I suggested 13 ybp.

YOUR FLAILING AWAY AT A STRAWMAN.

That's right, shit for brains, you're not responding to me, as per
your usual you're responding to an imaginary argument in your
twisted head....

> You couldn't get a job shining shoes where he works,

Congratulations on your job security!

Now take your meds, you sick fuck.

[JTEM]

note <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Earliest boats were

Truth is, we have no idea what the earliest boats were.

What clues you mention -- like Herodotus and Scorpion
King -- came tens of thousands of years AFTER the
first sea crossings (like to Australia). It's also interesting
that neither of these examples are the sea, while early
arrives to the Americas were most definitely traveling on
the sea.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 3, 8:39 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> YOUR FLAILING AWAY AT A STRAWMAN.

[Lee Olsen]

Wrong, the first arrivals to the New World most definitely did not
come by sea.
http://tinyurl.com/72vd8kr
I wonder how this middle-range research project would do on the way to
Attu or in the mid-Pacific?

Perhaps you would like to sign on as crew? Nah, bad idea, I doubt if
there is much need for a shoeshine boy
on a raft.

[note]

On Feb 4, 12:53 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 8:51 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  note <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Earliest boats were
>
> > Truth is, we have no idea what the earliest boats were.

It does depend on the definition of Boat.

Reed bundles, inflated animal organs, bamboos lashed, hollow tree
trunks floating, etc. may have been used very early, before woven
basket roundboats were culturally sustainably deliberately constructed
for the purpose of crossing water. My definition of deliberate
watercraft by humans starts with inverting their waterproof dome huts
(with woven wicker frame and exterior inserted+hooked mongongo or
mangrove leaf shingles arranged in a coil) which had originated from
ape woven bowl nests of branches and internal inserted+hooked leaves
(accidental mimicry of raptor nests, associated with red scalp hair
and hooked hand resembling raptor beak).

> > What clues you mention -- like Herodotus and Scorpion
> > King -- came tens of thousands of years AFTER the
> > first sea crossings (like to Australia).
> > It's also interesting
> > that neither of these examples are the sea, while early
> > arrives to the Americas were most definitely traveling on
> > the sea.
>
> Wrong, the first arrivals to the New World most definitely did not
> come by sea.http://tinyurl.com/72vd8kr

I have found nothing to support Bednarik's idea of complex rafting to
Australia at such an early date.
Reminds me of Kon Tiki, adventure/exploration/storytelling/great movie

[note]

> 2) They are light enough for your dog to transport.http://tinyurl.com/7crbb35

> 3) When it's not being used as a boat, it would make small tent at
> night. This could be one reason no Clovis dwellings have been found.
> 4) Chief Joseph's band ran circles around Howard's army for months,
> thanks in part to the use of bull boats.
>
> While the same arguments could be made for your average canoe or
> dugout, they are very time consuming to build.
> If times get tough, you can always eat your dog and drag the bull boat
> yourself. I don't think a canoe would be too good to eat, even if you
> were really hungry.
>
> But the problem is the long boats *DO* work in the open sea. Sure, to
> get to OYKC or Santa Rosa all one would need is a bull boat (or swim).




"To get from Asia to Attu and all the way down the American coast
would require a long boat."

Do you have certifiable proof of that? I'm not making claims, but I
think a waterproof bowl (bull/coracle) boat is physically capable of a
long journey across water. But it is strictly dependent on favorable
currents (wind/wave), a rudder-paddle/sail offering only minimal
steering. Bowl boats can carry much more volume (food) than linear
canoes and float higher.

>
> Or one could test getting  from Asia to Attu in a bull boat and prove
> everyone wrong :).
>

> Jodry's article is free online in Mammoth Trumpet, July 2000.- Hide quoted text -

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Truth is, we have no idea what the earliest boats were.
>
> > What clues you mention -- like Herodotus and Scorpion
> > King -- came tens of thousands of years AFTER the
> > first sea crossings (like to Australia).
> > It's also interesting
> > that neither of these examples are the sea, while early
> > arrives to the Americas were most definitely traveling on
> > the sea.

> Wrong,

No, bat shit crazy & ignorant guy. It's not wrong.

> http://tinyurl.com/72vd8kr

This cite doesn't contradict me in the least. In fact, it
implies that you're even more bat shit crazy & ignorant
than I gave you credit for. It places sea travel more than
40,000 years before anyone could have walked to
the Americas.

As per your usual, you're just posting random cites
(even cites that contradict you, like this one) and
pretending that you support your ignorant opinions.

[JTEM]

note <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Truth is, we have no idea what the earliest boats were.
>
> It does depend on the definition of Boat.

Not really, no.

The big question is where you start: With so-called
"Modern" man or earlier. I think it most likely that
your proto-boats began before so-called "Moderns."

> > Wrong, the first arrivals to the New World most definitely did not
> > come by sea.http://tinyurl.com/72vd8kr
>
> I have found nothing to support Bednarik's idea of complex rafting to
> Australia at such an early date.

A far more challenging question: What the hell in that "Cite"
is supposed to contradict the idea of sea travel prior to 13K
ybp?

It's inexplicable.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "In sum, the ultimate regional homeland can reasonably be
> hypothesized
> as having
> been in

Interestingly, this cite contradicts a previous cite you
posted. You do that a lot, post contradictory cites. You're
too stupid and mentally ill to even notice....

Here: "In the Bering Land Bridge area, microblades
are clearly a terminal Pleistocene phenomenon,
perhaps no more ancient than 11,000 BP."

(It's on page 8, you sick fuck)

So if your Asian microblades are associated with your
"Land Bridge" crossers, as you represent here, that
means they were VERY LATE arrivals. They arrived more
than 3,000 after the first arrivals by boat started to
arrive....

Thank you for proving me right again, you sick fuck.

[Lee Olsen]

Well, I have spent a considerable amount of time fishing in this area:
http://tinyurl.com/7y9nxnd
I don't think I would recommend a bull boat for Pacific travel, but we
do know the Chinook had no problems in long boats.
Least that's what Lewis and Clark wrote in their journal.

> I'm not making claims, but I
> think a waterproof bowl (bull/coracle) boat is physically capable of a
> long journey across water. But it is strictly dependent on favorable
> currents (wind/wave), a rudder-paddle/sail offering only minimal
> steering. Bowl boats can carry much more volume (food) than linear
> canoes and float higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_Boat
"These elongated bull boats were capable of transporting two tons"

You have a reference for a round boat that will carry more than two
tons?

>
>
>
>
>
> > Or one could test getting  from Asia to Attu in a bull boat and prove
> > everyone wrong :).
>
> > Jodry's article is free online in Mammoth Trumpet, July 2000.- Hide quoted text -
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "In sum, the ultimate regional homeland can reasonably be hypothesized
> as having

You're misunderstanding & misrepresenting the cite, as usual.

A little further down:

"In the Bering Land Bridge area, microblades
are clearly a terminal Pleistocene phenomenon,
perhaps no more ancient than 11,000 BP."

There. So now you're claiming that nobody could walk across
any land bridge to the Americas until 11K ybp -- some 2,000
years AFTER I gave you credit for.

This means you're even more wrong than I said. I said that
the evidence established that people were arriving by boat
at least 1,500 years before this "Land Bridge," and with this
cite you're arguing that they were actually arriving some
3,500 years (AT LEAST) before the land bridge existed.

YOUR CITE. It says you're wrong. YOUR CITE says you're
wrong.

Page 8. Read it, shit for brains:

http://csfa.tamu.edu/cfsa-publications/Goebel-etal-2000.pdf

For extra bonus shame on your ignorant part, read the very
last sentence. It's right there on page 8.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 4, 7:52 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "In sum, the ultimate regional homeland can reasonably be
> > hypothesized
> > as having
> > been in
>
> Interestingly, this cite contradicts a previous cite you
> posted.

You mean the one you snipped out that you couldn't answer?

> You do that a lot, post contradictory cites. You're
> too stupid and mentally ill to even notice....

>
> Here:  "In the Bering Land Bridge area, microblades
> are clearly a terminal Pleistocene phenomenon,
> perhaps no more ancient than 11,000 BP."
>
> (It's on page 8, you sick fuck)
>
> So if your Asian microblades are associated with your
> "Land Bridge" crossers, as you represent here, that
> means they were VERY LATE arrivals. They arrived more
> than 3,000 after the first arrivals by boat started to
> arrive....
>
> Thank you for proving

You snipped this out:
LO: " If you are going to cherry-pick garbage sites that can't repeat
and
use laugable indirect dating, then:
http://www.seedenali.com/beringia/bluefish-caves-old-crow-yukon/

Checkmate."

This site is older than Monte Verde. And now you are trapped. Do you
know who supports both Bluefish and Monte Verde dates?
That's right shoeshine boy, Adovasio, the same guy that did work on
Monte Verde. So which one do you think he has wrong? Or maybe both?
Which means at that time the ice-free corridor was wide open, no boats
necessary.

Still checkmate. So go ahead and swear, it's all you have.

PS:
http://www.alaska.net/~taiga2/Swan_Point.html
"It is significant that Swan Point is not only the oldest site
(radiocarbon dated between circa 15,000 and 14,200 cal. BP), but also
contains microblade technology throughout the multiple components.
This makes the site comparable with the other Tanana Valley sites, yet
distinctive- a position that may be advantageous for testing theories
on site formation, group mobility, and landscape exploitation
patterns."

As Columbo would say:.."one more thing"

Where is your well-dated ground-slate rod trail to Monte Verde?
11,000 or 15,000 is better than anything a shoeshine boy can
reference.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 30, 7:27 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Again, to the best of my knowledge there is no
> Clovis Culture found in Asia.

There is no Monte Verde ground-slate rod culture in Asia either, so
what?

http://www.seedenali.com/beringia/bluefish-caves-old-crow-yukon/

This site is older than Monte Verde. And now you are trapped. Do you
know who supports both Bluefish and Monte Verde dates?
That's right shoeshine boy, Adovasio, the same guy that did work on
Monte Verde. So which one do you think he has wrong? Or maybe both?
Which means at that time the ice-free corridor was wide open, no boats
necessary.

So take your pick, Swan Point or Bluefish.

http://www.alaska.net/~taiga2/Swan_Point.html
"It is significant that Swan Point is not only the oldest site
(radiocarbon dated between circa 15,000 and 14,200 cal. BP), but also
contains microblade technology throughout the multiple components."

As Columbo would say:.."one more thing"
Where is your well-dated ground-slate rod trail to Monte Verde?

Still checkmate.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 30, 10:05 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The DNA evidence?  Well, it's not "Evidence" at all.

Your credentials are? Your degree in biology is from where? Your
curriculum vitae? Can't wait to see it.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 4, 7:27 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Truth is, we have no idea what the earliest boats were.

>
> > > What clues you mention -- like Herodotus and Scorpion
> > > King -- came tens of thousands of years AFTER the
> > > first sea crossings (like to Australia).
> > > It's also interesting
> > > that neither of these examples are the sea, while early
> > > arrives to the Americas were most definitely traveling on
> > > the sea.
> > Wrong,
>
> No, bat shit crazy & ignorant guy. It's not wrong.

Shoeshine boy:

"while early
arrives to the Americas were most definitely traveling on
the sea."

They were most definitely not.

>
> >http://tinyurl.com/72vd8kr
>
> This cite doesn't contradict me in the least.

Feb 3, 8:51 pm
Shoeshine boy:

"Truth is, we have no idea what the earliest boats were."

You did read all the references, didn't you? And what do boats have to
do with getting to Australia? You said
"boats" above, not me.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "while early
> arrives to the Americas were most definitely traveling on
> the sea."

They were. There is no alternative. The glaciers
blocked the way of anyone on foot until 13K ybp
(or 11K ybp, according to you), and people were
arriving thousands of years prior to that. So they
had to come by boat. They had to travel by sea.

It's simple, inescapable logic, and hence your
difficulty with it.... you being fucked in the head.

> "Truth is, we have no idea what the earliest boats were."

Absolutely true. We know for a fact that people were
traveling across seas at least 40,000 years ago. Your
own cite places the first travel across the sea (by some
form of boat) into the hundreds of thousands of years
ago. The oldest physical remains positively identified
as a boat are not within hundreds of generations of
the YOUNGER of these two time frames. Hence, nobody
has any idea what early boats looked like. We can
only guess.

There is nothing even remotely controversial about
any of this. You are truly a very sick as well as very
stupid individual.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 30, 7:27 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Again, to the best of my knowledge there is no
> > Clovis Culture found in Asia.
>
> There is no Monte Verde ground-slate rod culture  in Asia either, so
> what?

Wait. So you're saying that means the ice corridor
existed more than 14 thousand years ago?

That's stupid.

Or are you saying that the Monte Verde settlement is
equivalent to a major migration taking place over
the so-called "land bridge" when the corridor did
finally open?

That's stupid.

Or are you just being your usual demented self?

Which is it? Explain yourself. Tell us in your own
words the point you're trying to make here.

....and then we'll all laugh at you.

"Lip Service" <snicker>

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Interestingly, this cite contradicts a previous cite you
> > posted.
>
> You mean the one you snipped out that you couldn't answer?

That's not a denial. You're obfuscating, true,
but not denying what I pointed out. You really
are contradicting yourself.

You're back to your standard practice of wildly
posting any cite you can find, and pretending
that it somehow "Proves" you or refutes me.

Your cite refuted you and it added to the already
powerful body of evidence establishing my point
as fact.

> > Here:  "In the Bering Land Bridge area, microblades
> > are clearly a terminal Pleistocene phenomenon,
> > perhaps no more ancient than 11,000 BP."
>
> > (It's on page 8, you sick fuck)
>
> > So if your Asian microblades are associated with your
> > "Land Bridge" crossers, as you represent here, that
> > means they were VERY LATE arrivals. They arrived more
> > than 3,000 after the first arrivals by boat started to
> > arrive....
>
> > Thank you for proving
>
> You snipped this out:

No. Those words never appeared in your post, and
not in the cite either.

You're in free fall fantasy here. You're experiencing
psychotic episodes. For real. You're imaging things
which clearly never happened, pretending to have
said things which even a causal glance at your
original post will show you never said.

You're a laughing stock. You really are, shit for brains.

> This site is older than Monte Verde.

It's also on the WRONG SIDE of your "Land Bridge,"
shit for brains.

Seriously, you just keep embarrassing yourself....

> Still checkmate.

One of these days you're going to find out what that
means and, boy, your face is going to be red....

"Look at me! Not even knowing that the Yukon is
on the WRONG SIDE of the glaciers, the WRONG
SIDE of the ice corridor, and I'm screeching 'Checkmate'
anyway! I sure look like a fucking retard..."

> PS:http://www.alaska.net/~taiga2/Swan_Point.html

Again, shit for brains, WRONG SIDE.

You are disgraceful in your ignorance.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 4, 11:08 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "while early
> > arrives to the Americas were most definitely traveling on
> > the sea."
>
> They were. There is no alternative.

Yes there is:
http://tinyurl.com/736v7bb
Ice-free corridor open 34,000 to 22,000
ice-free corridor closed 22,000 to 15,000
ice-free corridor open 15,000 to today
(Jordan 2009).

>The glaciers
> blocked the way of anyone on foot until 13K ybp

http://tinyurl.com/736v7bb
Ice-free corridor open 34,000 to 22,000
ice-free corridor closed 22,000 to 15,000
ice-free corridor open 15,000 to today
(Jordan 2009).

> (or 11K ybp, according to you),

Wrong again, according to Holmes in 2002 (didn't you see the reference
or date of webpage?) In 2002 11,000 was the best dates they had. There
is no law against redating a site.

> and people were
> arriving thousands of years prior to that.

All from the Altai region. Bluefish caves (Cinq-Mars and Morlan 1999
and Adovasio 1999).

>So they
> had to come by boat. They had to travel by sea.

http://tinyurl.com/736v7bb
Ice-free corridor open 34,000 to 22,000
ice-free corridor closed 22,000 to 15,000
ice-free corridor open 15,000 to today
(Jordan 2009).

>
> It's simple, inescapable logic,

Logic 101. Either they walked through the ice free corridor which was
open most of the time between
34,000 and today:

http://tinyurl.com/736v7bb
Ice-free corridor open 34,000 to 22,000
ice-free corridor closed 22,000 to 15,000
ice-free corridor open 15,000 to today
(Jordan 2009).

Or the second alternative is they did the same thing Amundsen did,
walk over glaciers (using skin clothing and dogs) at any time after
they got to eastern Beringia.

>
> > "Truth is, we have no idea what the earliest boats were."
>
> Absolutely true. We know for a fact that people were
> traveling across seas at least 40,000 years ago.

Oh, I see what your problem is.....

> Your
> own cite places the first travel across the sea (by some
> form of boat) into the hundreds of thousands of years
> ago.

.....you don't know the difference between a raft and a boat. I know
science terms are tough,
but please feel free to ask questions.

> The oldest physical remains positively identified
> as a boat are not within hundreds of generations of
> the YOUNGER of these two time frames. Hence, nobody
> has any idea what early boats looked like. We can
> only guess.

No guessing required. Rafts go where they want (with wind and
current), boats go where they are steered (both directions). So boats
can be inferred
by when there is evidence for return trips. But just saying the word
'boat' doesn't get one across an ocean or down a coast with no
evidence for them lacking evidence for return trips.

Just because the Chinese hundreds of years ago had pop-bottle rockets
doesn't mean it's evidence they got to the moon. Likewise, just
because there is circumstantial evidence for near shore inter-island
transport (where people could see from on island to another) doesn't
mean people were sailing across oceans.

People who are in denial claiming that Amundsen couldn't walk across
thousands of km of glaciers with only simple Eskimo transportation
need to get informed.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 4, 11:32 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 7:27 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Again, to the best of my knowledge there is no
> > > Clovis Culture found in Asia.
>
> > There is no Monte Verde ground-slate rod culture  in Asia either, so
> > what?
>
> Wait. So you're saying that means the ice corridor
> existed more than 14 thousand years ago?

http://tinyurl.com/736v7bb
Ice-free corridor open 34,000 to 22,000
ice-free corridor closed 22,000 to 15,000
ice-free corridor open 15,000 to today
(Jordan 2009).

Or there is always an alternate route if a person doesn't like that
schedule:
http://tinyurl.com/7lavl4e

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 4, 11:22 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > PS:http://www.alaska.net/~taiga2/Swan_Point.html
>
> Again, shit for brains, WRONG SIDE.
>

On Feb 4, 11:22 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > PS:http://www.alaska.net/~taiga2/Swan_Point.html
>
> WRONG SIDE.
>

Sorry, but you are wrong again. This stems from your confusion between
the land bridge and ice-free corridor.
There was no wrong side before ca 9000 years ago. West Beringia,
Central Beringia (underwater today), and East Beringia were all one
region, ice free, water free.

So for what it was, the Dyuktai culture was all over Beringia. More
than anyone can say for the Monte Verde culture which is all over
nowhere.
So if it can be inferred that all other evidence for MV is underwater,
the same UFO argument applies to the ice-free corridor's
evidence...it's under the ice.

"Apropos the age of these sites relative to Clovis, and Bradley and
Stanford's (2004: 463)
assertion that the ice-free corridor stayed impassable 'until after
11,000 years ago, too late

for use by Clovis ancestors', we would note that the
geological literature they cite is
outdated. In a recent and thorough review of the Canadian deglaciation
record, geologist
Arthur Dyke (2004) cautions against drawing 'categorical
conclusions' about when the
corridor opened, for there is no evidence at present that the
route was impassable until
11,000 years ago. The same holds true for its biological
viability, the precise timing of
which is still not resolved (Mandryk et al. 2001; review in Meltzer
2004)."

Ice Age Atlantis? Exploring the Solutrean-Clovis 'Connection'
Author(s): Lawrence Guy Straus, David J. Meltzer, Ted Goebel
Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 37, No. 4, Debates in "World
Archaeology" (Dec., 2005), pp.
507-532
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Evidence is melting out from glaciers faster now than can be
recorded:
http://tinyurl.com/7baptl5

The Canadian scientists have been dredging the bottom of the so-called
coastal route for years and can't find anything older than the oldest
known marine-based sites on land, like Ground Hog Bay for just one
example. On the other hand, the inland site dates just keep getting
older.

Conclusion: No early boats.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 30, 6:15 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I'll boil it down even further:  Anything older came via
> a different route. Period.

http://tinyurl.com/7lavl4e

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'll boil it down even further:  Anything older came via
> > a different route. Period.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7lavl4e

Not only is there ZERO evidence for that (remember when
you were PRETENDING to care about evidence?), but there's
the obvious issue with survival. You can't make it from your
"Land Bridge" to Chili by foot eating the same food... getting
food the same way... living the same life/culture.

You're grasping at straws, throwing out ANYTHING you think
might contradict me, without care for logic or consistency.

You're being pathetic.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Ice-free corridor open 34,000 to 22,000

This completely contradicts ("Disproves," according
to your sometimes standards) your DNA nonsense.
It's so much older than your "Microblade" evidence
and "Molecular Clock" nonsense that only a demented
idiot like you could miss the fact that it hurts your
own position...

Again, you sick fuck. As per your usual you are in
melt down. You're simply throwing in every "Cite"
you think contradicts me, without even realizing their
implications. You're a jackass.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> Ice-free corridor open 34,000 to 22,000

Which is FAR too early for both your DNA and
Microblades. Remember those? According to
you the ancestors of today's Native Americans
didn't even evolve (become genetically/ethnically
unique) until much, much later.

> ice-free corridor closed 22,000 to 15,000

Older than the oldest evidence for human arrival
in the americas....

> ice-free corridor open 15,000 to today

nope, not according to your "Microblades." They
are perfectly in line with the 11 to 10 ybp dating
you disagreed with before you supported.

Man, you're fucked in the head....

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry, but you are wrong again. This stems from your confusion between
> the land bridge and ice-free corridor.

There is no confusion. There was no land "Bridge" to
the americas until the corridor opened. Until then there
was simply land without a path to the Americas.

Duh.

> There was no wrong side before ca 9000 years ago.

Which would require that you're even more wrong than
you established last time, which was 3K years more than
I gave you credit for.

Seriously, now you have the corridor opening 9K ybp...
more than 5 thousand years before the earliest
proof of arrivals.

But you can't see this because you're so fucked up...

[RichTravsky]

VtSkier wrote:
>

>
> Are you completely sold that the people who developed the Clovis Culture
> came from Asia? If so, is your evidence for this 'positive' (i.e.
> physical remains) or 'negative' (i.e. couldn't possibly have come from
> anywhere else)?
>
> What do you say to the observed similarity in artifacts to European
> Solutrean Culture? (Which obviously predates Clovis by 8,000 years or
> so) or is the Clovis dates so far established

Most interesting, but the jury is still out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis



> http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520227835

Ten bucks cheaper at Amazon. Going to order it.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 5, 10:55 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but you are wrong again. This stems from your confusion between
> > the land bridge and ice-free corridor.
>
> There is no confusion.

You are very confused.

> There was no land "Bridge"

Reference?

> to
> the americas


http://tinyurl.com/6oro6ps
and
The Yukon Territory is not in the Americas?
The land bridge was 2000 km from the start of the closed corridor.
So now you think the Yukon Territory is not part of the Americas?
Where do you think it is, China?

> Until then there
> was simply land without a path to the Americas.

http://tinyurl.com/736v7bb

Ice-free corridor open 34,000 to 22,000

ice-free corridor closed 22,000 to 15,000

ice-free corridor open 15,000 to today

(Jordan 2009).

http://tinyurl.com/7lavl4e

>
> > There was no wrong side before ca 9000 years ago.
>
> Which would require that you're even more wrong than
> you established last time, which was 3K years more than
> I gave you credit for.

Says the shoeshine boy who thinks there are 40 kya human foot prints
in Mexico.

> Seriously, now you have the corridor opening 9K ybp...
> more than 5 thousand years before the earliest
> proof of arrivals.

Let's see how many times the liar will snip this out:

"Apropos the age of these sites relative to Clovis, and Bradley and
Stanford's (2004: 463)
assertion that the ice-free corridor stayed impassable 'until after
11,000 years ago, too late
for use by Clovis ancestors', we would note that the
geological literature they cite is
outdated. In a recent and thorough review of the Canadian deglaciation
record, geologist
Arthur Dyke (2004) cautions against drawing 'categorical
conclusions' about when the
corridor opened, for there is no evidence at present that the
route was impassable until
11,000 years ago. The same holds true for its biological
viability, the precise timing of
which is still not resolved (Mandryk et al. 2001; review in Meltzer
2004)."

Ice Age Atlantis? Exploring the Solutrean-Clovis 'Connection'
Author(s): Lawrence Guy Straus, David J. Meltzer, Ted Goebel
Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 37, No. 4, Debates in "World
Archaeology" (Dec., 2005), pp.
507-532
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

http://tinyurl.com/7baptl5

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 5, 10:59 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ice-free corridor open 34,000 to 22,000
>
> Which is FAR too early for both your DNA

Actually you claimed 40 kya in Mexico, so I have at least 6000 years
to spare.

> and
> Microblades. Remember those?

Yes, what about them?
http://www.alaska.net/~taiga2/Swan_Point.html

>  According to
> you

I'm not Holmes, but thanks for the complement confusing me with him.

> the ancestors of today's Native Americans
> didn't even evolve (become genetically/ethnically
> unique) until much, much later.

Says the shoeshine boy.

> > ice-free corridor closed 22,000 to 15,000

> Older than the oldest evidence for human arrival
> in the americas....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluefish_Caves

>
> > ice-free corridor open 15,000 to today
>
> nope, not according to your "Microblades."  They
> are perfectly in line with the 11 to 10 ybp dating
> you disagreed with before you supported.

http://www.alaska.net/~taiga2/Swan_Point.html

You always did have reading comprehensions.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 5, 10:43 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'll boil it down even further:  Anything older came via
> > > a different route. Period.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/7lavl4e
>
> Not only is there ZERO evidence for that

Jan 31, 8:42 am
JTEM: "It was impossible for people to populate the Americas
by foot"

Lesson to be learned: Amundsen just proved you are full of crap once
again.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 31, 8:42 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It was impossible for people to populate the Americas
> by foot

http://tinyurl.com/7lavl4e
"impossible" back from South Pole.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Actually you claimed 40 kya in Mexico,

No, honey, that was the voices in your head.

I pointed out that moderns humans had
already developed boats and were traveling
across the sea 40K ybp AS AUSTRALIA
SHOWS.

You being totally fucked up I can see who you'd
confuse Australia for the Americas....

> > and
> > Microblades. Remember those?
>
> Yes, what about them?

Wrong. Date.

If they came from the people your demented mind thinks
they came from, they didn't arrive until 11 or 10 thousand
ybp.

Duh.

Then again, it's a simple point, not to mention an obvious
point. What's your excuse for missing it, shit for brains?

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Jan 31, 8:42 am
> JTEM: "It was impossible for people to populate the Americas
> by foot"

Um, mental case: That is not what I said. You're misreading
and misrepresenting what I said, and I will return the favor.

It was impossible to populate the Americas by foot until
the glaciers opened, until the corridor existed. This is a
fact. Deal with it, you sick fuck.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It was impossible for people to populate the Americas
> > by foot

As the lack of a period in the above demonstrates, this
is not a sentence, it is a sentence fragment. You are
misreading & misrepresenting my words the same way
you have done with countless articles and studies.

secondly, you are arguing time travel again. Here, look:

> http://tinyurl.com/7lavl4e
> "impossible" back from South Pole.

This photo was taken more than 14,000 years prior
to the first settlers of the Americas that we can prove.
Put another way, it is not showing prehistoric people
crossing any ice.

Ironically, you often pretend to care about evidence,
but there is no evidence what so ever for your
dog sleds.

Finally, what evidence does exists strongly suggests
that your time traveling dog sleds is wrong. Not only
because time travel does not exist, but because the
earliest settlement we can prove is way down in Chili,
and to get there from Alaska would mean living quite
a different lifestyle than the one being lived by people
with dogsleds.

I'll boil it down for you: Two extremely different cultures.

Moron.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 5, 6:56 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It was impossible to populate the Americas by foot until
> the glaciers opened, until the corridor existed.

http://tinyurl.com/7lavl4e
Amdunsen proved you are wrong. Or maybe you think there are no
glaciers at the South Pole?

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > There is no confusion. There was no land "Bridge" to

> > the americas until the corridor opened. Until then there

> > was simply land without a path to the Americas.
>

>  You are very confused.

You find confusion in simple, even rudimentary concepts
and then you project this confusion on to others? Wouldn't
it be a lot simpler for you to "Man Up" and admit to yourself
how confused you are?

Damn, you must be the weakest, most pathetic loser on
earth....

> The Yukon Territory is not in the Americas?

It's on the wrong side. The glaciers blocked it. You
couldn't walk from the Yukon to populate the Americas
until the corridor opened.

Seriously, this is not a difficult concept. Children wouldn't
have the least bit of difficulty with it, yet you're confused
by it.

I'm laughing at you.

> Ice-free corridor open 34,000 to 22,000

It's funny, but not only are these dates WAY off from
anything you are supposedly defending, and support
me.

Both the DNA you worship and the Microblades you
think support you, when placed together, can not
support arrivals prior to 11 thousand ybp if not a little
later.

Get it? Even just a little?

You are officially arguing against YOURSELF. These
cites are demonstrating how WRONG you are.

Congratulations.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 30, 12:36 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> No where in the above do I claim that the first inhabitants of
> north America had to be inhabitants of Alaska.

Since there is no evidence they didn't pass through eastern Beringia,
why would it matter what an uneducated person like you claims?

Here is corroborating evidence that add's more credence to Schurr's
new DNA paper's results:

"In sum, the ultimate regional homeland can reasonably be
hypothesized as having

been in north China, Mongolia, and southern Siberia, a rich
ecologically diverse
region occopied long before humans set foot further nort. An easy to
remember
focal point of this region is Lake Baikal, near the headwaters of the
Anadar, Ob,
Yenisei, Lena, and Amur rivers that together drain much of central
and
eastern
Siberia (Turner 2002:130)."


Christy Turner
Teeth, Needles, Dogs, and Siberia: Bioarchaeological Evidence for the
Colonization
of the New World
in
Jablonski, N.G., ed. (2002)
The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World,
Memoirs
of the California Academy of Sciences, No. 27.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 5, 6:46 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Congratulations.

Thank you.

http://tinyurl.com/736v7bb

ice-free corridor open 15,000 to today
(Jordan 2009).

http://tinyurl.com/8ymdd7k
A study of the mutations indicated a lineage shift between 13,000 and
14,000 years ago
- when people are thought to have walked across the ice from Russia
to America.

Yep, looks good to me too. Glad you agree.

[Lee Olsen]

JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:


> > > There is no confusion.

Only yours.

>
> > It was impossible to populate the Americas by foot until
> > the glaciers opened, until the corridor existed.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7lavl4e
> Amdunsen proved you are wrong. Or maybe you think there are no
> glaciers at the South Pole?

Why don't you prove why it is impossible to travel on glaciers when
so many people are able to do it?

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 31, 5:28 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> > Since Monte Verde has nothing to do with the homeland,
>
> It's more than 1,000 years TOO OLD.

You need to recheck your math skills:
http://www.alaska.net/~taiga2/Swan_Point.html
"It is significant that Swan Point is not only the oldest site
(radiocarbon dated between circa 15,000 and 14,200 cal. BP),
but also contains microblade technology throughout the multiple
components."

Monte Verde --->14,800 years BP