"La Mujer de las Palmas," suggests diverse migration
Jack Linthicum
Sort of ragged journalism but brings the Lady of the Palms out of
shadow and forward as the evidence for much more diverse migration to
the Americas than many of the recent studies.
Ancient woman suggests diverse migration
* AP foreign, Saturday July 24 2010
MARK STEVENSON
Associated Press Writer= MEXICO CITY (AP) — A scientific
reconstruction of one of the oldest sets of human remains found in the
Americas appears to support theories that the first people who came to
the hemisphere migrated from a broader area than once thought,
researchers say.
Mexico's National Institute of Anthropology and History on Thursday
released photos of the reconstructed image of a woman who probably
lived on Mexico's Caribbean coast 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. She
peeks out of the picture as a short, spry-looking woman with slightly
graying hair.
Anthropologists had long believed humans migrated to the Americas in a
relatively short period from a limited area in northeast Asia across a
temporary land corridor that opened across the Bering Strait during an
ice age.
But government archaeologist Alejandro Terrazas says the picture has
now become more complicated, because the reconstruction more resembles
people from southeastern Asian areas like Indonesia.
"History isn't that simple," Terrazas said. "This indicates that the
Americas were populated by several migratory movements, not just one
or two waves from northern Asia across the Bering Strait."
Some outside experts caution that the evidence is not conclusive.
Ripan Malhi, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of
Illinois, said that "using facial reconstructions to assign ancestry
to an individual is not as strong as using ancient DNA to assess the
ancestry of the individual, because the environment can influence the
traits of the face."
"All of the current genetic evidence points to Northeast Asia as the
main source for Native Americans," Malhi said.
However, there have been few opportunities to use DNA or other methods
to identify the origins of the first inhabitants because only a
handful of skeletons from 10,000 years ago have survived.
The female is known as "La Mujer de las Palmas," or "The Woman of the
Palms," after the sinkhole cave near the Caribbean resort of Tulum
where her remains were found by divers and recovered in 2002.
Because rising water levels flooded the cave where she died or was
laid to rest, her skeleton was about 90 percent intact. Archaeologists
and physical anthropologists calculated she was between 44 and 50
years old when she died, was about 5 feet (1.52 meters) tall and
weighed about 128 pounds (58 kilograms).
Experts also measured skull features and calculated the muscle and
other tissue layers that once covered her face, which served as a
guide for experts in paleo-anthropological modeling at the Atelier
Daynes in France to complete a model of the woman.
The model shows a stocky woman and clad in a simple knee-length woven
tunic. She had a broad face, prominent cheeks, thin lips, and little
trace of the epicanthic eye-folds that characterize many modern Asian
populations.
"Her body structure, skin and eyes are similar to the population of
Southeast Asia," the institute said in a statement.
Susan Gillespie, an associate professor of anthropology at the
University of Florida, noted that while the Bering land bridge theory
still has a lot of support, "the situation is messier than the
straightforward scenario ... of big-game hunters chasing woolly
mammoths over the exposed 'Bering bridge' to Alaska."
"Recently there has been more serious inquiry into the various origins
of migrants, modes of transportation, and dates of when they got
here," Gillespie said in an e-mail message. "Dates for peopling of the
Americas have been pushed way back, and with the finding of very early
skeletal remains, the genetic/skeletal linkages to peoples of
northeast Asia has become more cloudy."
But Gillespie cautioned against comparing a reconstructed face from
10,000 years ago to modern populations in places like Indonesia, which
have also probably changed over 10 millennia.
"You have to find skeletons of the same time period in Asia, or use
genetic reconstructions, to make a strong connection, and cannot rely
on modern populations," she wrote. "Do we have any empirical data on
what Southeast Asian women looked like ... 10,000 years ago?"
JTEM
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Associated Press Writer= MEXICO CITY (AP) — A
> scientific reconstruction of one of the oldest
> sets of human remains found in the Americas
> appears to support theories that the first
> people who came to the hemisphere migrated
> from a broader area than once thought,
> researchers say.
Interestingly enough, this is one of those stories
that pops up periodically, and at this point is
hardly surprising.
Here's a cite setting these kinds of stories back
to at least 1997:
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-twoworlds/1867
Now here's why I think it's not all that important...
See, there's people and then there's "Culture."
Personally, I believe that people have been arriving
in the Americas starting from the first moments they
could -- whether by land bridges or floating on top
of something. And when you consider "Mungo Man" --
the remains of an early "Modern" who was buried in
Australia about 40,000 years ago, it wouldn't be too
much of a stretch to say that man "Could" have
arrived here in the Americas no later than 38 thousand
BC... that's when man was physically capable of it...
"Could do it."
Mind you, I said "No later than."
But random arrivals are meaningless. They're not
significant. No matter how many wandering families
or lost seamen stumbled their way to the Americas,
none of them ever did more than represent themselves.
See, the land is just huge, the starting points
so widely separate and 20 or 30 thousand years (or more)
is just such a long time, even if we were talking
about a million arrivals it's unlikely any of them
would cross paths, nor could they communicate if they
somehow did.
No, there had to be a certain population density, a
threshold if you will, that had to be crossed before
we stopped talking about individual wanderers and
castaways and started started talking about a culture.
"Clovis Culture."
And THAT is interesting. Not isolated habitations, but
a culture, a people linked to a single culture. And
it wasn't possible until the traditional "mass"
migration they like to talk about occurred, likely
doubling (at least) the population in a geologically
speaking "Rapid" period of time.
The big problem here is the DNA so-called "Evidence."
It looks the same no matter what. Yes, even if a
proportion of the continents population came from
Africa, Europe, Australia or the pacific islands,
it would pretty much look identical to, say, a
population that was 100% derived from Beringia
crossers.
Every time a Bering male mated with an Australian
female, for example, the Australian y-chromosome
would be hidden. And every time a Bering female
mated with, say, a European male, the European
mtDNA would be masked. These kind of match ups so
favor the majority that it's only a matter of time
before the minority DNA markers are gone, or at
least few enough and far enough between to keep
you from seeing them. Add some disparity here --
"Kill the men folk & take the women!" -- and it'll
happen all the faster.
Jack Linthicum
In other words you have no idea what this signifies.
JTEM
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In other words you have no idea what this signifies.
In other words, you had no idea that it doesn't
signify anything that wasn't already established
a very long time ago.
Jack Linthicum
"Established"? You mean like three weeks ago? A year ago?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100628170926.htm
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2808%2901618-7
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090108121618.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19135370
JTEM
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Established"? You mean like three weeks ago? A year ago?
: Here's a cite setting these kinds of stories back
Jack Linthicum
Are you aware of the On Your Knees Cave dating? You have very few
fixed dates to work from. You are making those into some form of solid
study, but there are thousands of years between the dates that be
established. The On Your Knees Cave man is 10,300 +/- 50 BP, Kennewick
Man 5650 and 9510 years old, Paisley caves coprolites and a bone tool
at 14000 to 14230 years, Arlington Springs woman 13,000. No DNA from
any besides On Your Knees, so no way of finding whether they are all
of one lineage or not.
http://www.athenapub.com/oldestDNA.htm
http://archaeology.about.com/b/2008/04/03/paisley-caves-the-discovery-of-preclovis-human-dna.htm
JTEM
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Are you aware of the On Your Knees Cave dating?
There's always a rick of error in any dating,
despite what anyone might tell you. The important
part here is the racial/ethnic identification of
the remains -- which is what proves the point.
I'll explain:
Let's say the remains are way younger than Beringer.
That proves man didn't need Beringer, that he was
fully capable of getting here in the absence of a
land bridge. And if we extrapolate that, we might
even argue that the conditions which created the
land bridge (Glaciation) actually impeded migration!
It's a similar story if the remains are too old, or
even if they date to Beringer.
If you've got what for all appearances is a non-Beringer
arrival that dates to the land bridge, that suggests that
the land bridge wasn't entirely necessary, that people
could & did arrive here without it.
Science may be built on measurements, but it's
currency is a sound inference.
Jack Linthicum
Also know where the land was then. Know also the scientific method has
to proven by another using the same data. Your ideas are not proven.
Lee Olsen
> : Here's a cite setting these kinds of stories back
> : to at least 1997:
> :
> :http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-twoworlds/1867
"An archaeologist determined it to be the skull of a man who lived
9,200 years ago and died at the age of 45 by a projectile wound to the
head."
Typical of you to pick a totally crap article to cite from.
The point was in his hip and he didn't die from the wound.
"The lanceolate-shaped projectile point is interpreted
as the tip or armament of a spear or dart. A spear
could be hand held and used for thrusting, or propelled
by throwing, while a dart would have been propelled
by an atlatal. Based on the orientation of the point
in the ilium, with the tip toward the anterior surface
and the base toward the posterior surface, the point
entered the body from the right side of the back, and
with enough force to embed the entire tip deeply in
the right ilium. The extensive amount of bone that
has grown around the stone point suggests that the
point was in place for a considerable amount of time
and was not the cause of death."
http://www.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/fagan.htm#interp
Lee Olsen
> Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Are you aware of the On Your Knees Cave dating?
>
> There's always a rick of error in any dating,
> despite what anyone might tell you.
Says one nut case who cites another:
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-twoworlds/1867
Don't quit your day job, even if it is picking up trash along
side freeways. You will never make it in anthropology.
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Says one nut case who cites another:
> http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-twoworlds/1867
Um, is there something on that page you feel
is relevant and hasn't already been addressed?
> Don't quit your day job, even if it is picking
> up trash along side freeways. You will never
> make it in anthropology.
That might actually mean something, if you made
the least bit of sense.
What is it you're disagreeing with? What does the
cite establish that I missed?
Do you even know what the topic of conversation is?
What day it is? The year?
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 10:58 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > : Here's a cite setting these kinds of stories back
> > : to at least 1997:
> > :
> > :http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-twoworlds/1867
> "An archaeologist determined it to be the skull
> of a man who lived 9,200 years ago and died at
> the age of 45 by a projectile wound to the head."
The dating is the only useful bit of information.
Well, for this exchange. It's the only relevant part
to the current topic.
> Typical of you to pick a totally crap article to
> cite from.
The article you just cited? That article?
> The point was in his hip and he didn't die from
> the wound.
I'm not sure why you believe the cause of death is
relevant, or why anyone would take your word on
anything. I mean, you are famous for your lack of
reading comprehension.
Here, I'll demonstrate. You cited someone who
was part of a team, and his one and only role
on the was to study an artifact recovered from
the remains. This artifact was found in what
you call the hip:
: As part of the team assembled to conduct an
: analysis of the Columbia Park Remains, my
: task involved the analysis and description
: of the lithic artifact embedded in the human
: ilium.
Now, being retarded, you're claiming that this
means there were no other apparent wounds on the
body, and certainly not on the skull. The fact
that this man, this one individual member of
the team was charged with the study of an artifact
is being misrepresented by you to mean that there
was one and only one wound.
In short: You are an idiot.
JTEM
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Also know where the land was then.
Meaning.... what?
Like I said, a non-beringer arrival proves that a
land bridge wasn't necessary, that people could &
did get here without a land bridge.
> Know also the scientific method has to proven
> by another using the same data.
And that means... what?
> Your ideas are not proven.
They're not ideas, and they aren't mine. They are
inescapable inferences. It's something you have to
accept: People arriving in the Americas before or
after the land bridge proves that a land bridge was
never necessary, that people could get here without
it.
Lee Olsen
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 26, 10:58 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > : Here's a cite setting these kinds of stories back
> > > : to at least 1997:
> > > :
> > > :http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-twoworlds/1867
> > "An archaeologist determined it to be the skull
> > of a man who lived 9,200 years ago and died at
> > the age of 45 by a projectile wound to the head."
>
> The dating is the only useful bit of information.
And how do you know that since:
> There's always a rick of error in any dating,
> despite what anyone might tell you.
> Well, for this exchange. It's the only relevant part
> to the current topic.
What makes you think the dating is right?
>
> > Typical of you to pick a totally crap article to
> > cite from.
>
> The article you just cited? That article?
No, the one you cited.
: Here's a cite setting these kinds of stories back
: to at least 1997:
:
: http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-twoworlds/1867
>
> > The point was in his hip and he didn't die from
> > the wound.
>
> I'm not sure why you believe the cause of death is
> relevant,
I never said it was relevant. If the moron you cited couldn't
get the simplest of facts right, what makes you think anything
else is right?
> or why anyone would take your word on
> anything.
Take my word? I just cited the NPS. What part of the NPS do you think
I am?
> I mean, you are famous for your lack of
> reading comprehension.
Says who? JTEM, idiot who can't read?
>
> Here, I'll demonstrate. You cited someone who
> was part of a team, and his one and only role
> on the was to study an artifact recovered from
> the remains. This artifact was found in what
> you call the hip:
Here, too stupid to understand words? Try a photo, loon:
http://tinyurl.com/33uhab8
Got it yet?
>
> : As part of the team assembled to conduct an
> : analysis of the Columbia Park Remains, my
> : task involved the analysis and description
> : of the lithic artifact embedded in the human
> : ilium.
>
Now, JTEM being retarded says
> you're claiming that this
No jackass, I'm not claiming anything that even a lunatic
like yourself can't see for yourself.
> means there were no other apparent wounds on the
> body, and certainly not on the skull.
Loon, do you always make up your delusions as you go along?
>The fact
> that this man, this one individual member of
> the team was charged with the study of an artifact
> is being misrepresented by you to mean that there
> was one and only one wound.
No clown, the moron you cited claimed the point was in the
head, he didn't mention the other injuries.
>
> In short: You are an idiot.
Lets see now, how many people studied and published
papers on the point in the hip, Owsley, Chatters, Fagan,...
but not the guy you cited, he thought:
" ...died at the age of 45 by a projectile wound to the head"
Only guy on the planet as dumb as you and you found
him to cite. Simply amazing.
Jack Linthicum
"Inescapable inferences" are just ideas, not proven, no need to accept
random thoughts from scattered data that doesn't correlate.
I presume you have not spent time in the Kuriles and Aleutians and
therefore know that you don't get very far in a boat. Watch those
"Deadliest Catch" programs on TV, those are steel ships with diesel
engines, 130 tons or more in displacement, 78 to 130 feet in length.
The "ship" of your imagination, the umiak, would be made of wood and
skin, propelled by paddles, maximum 20 tons in displacement and 17 to
60 feet in length.
VtSkier
I'm reading this thread without a great deal of knowledge
and finding it interesting. I'd like to jump in here with
questions.
What are the distances involved from Asia to North America
via the Aleutians (and possibly the Kuriles)? What are the distances
involved from Europe to Greenland via the Orkneys, Faeroes
and Iceland?
How are Norse ships all that different from Umiaks except,
perhaps, by the addition of a sail? As I recall the average
Knorr (Knarr?) was around 50 feet in length.
I think the point is the logical argument that since
people arrived in North America (Paleo Siberian Aleuts
and Eskimos) after the land bridge was inundated that the
land bridge was not necessary for earlier migrations.
I also think it is necessary to talk about possibilities
to be able to set directions for the gathering of
"scientific data".
If we accept that the land bridge is the only route for
early migration, then we tend not to look for evidence
of other routes. If we discuss the possibilities of other
routes then we look for evidence.
Other possibilities are also being talked about these
days.
1) Coastal land route as opposed to "ice free corridor"
inundated sites in the Queen Charlotte's may be evidence
of this.
2) Earlier immigration of Na-Dene speakers, then a period
of isolation in the Yukon before coming south with other
people walking by them (no, not right next to them) and
peopling NA before them.
3) A back-migration of Na-Dene speakers to Central Asia
from Beringia/Alaska.
4) A land or easy sea route from Europe during glacial
times. Far fetched, maybe, but being talked about.
We 'know' that very early modern humans made significant
sea crossings to get where they are today (Australia), so
sea crossing cannot be discounted in the discussion of
the peopling of North America.
Jack Linthicum
First remember 14,000 years ago. No Viking ships no ships at all. Best
shot in the Baltic was a hollow log.
Second Japan to Northwest 4800 miles, Kuriles very nasty, no possible
land travel along the coast, best bet is the existence of points of
land not covered by the glaciers. Nice book for this is Lost World by
Tom Koppel, or look at http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/alaska/index.html.
Next try Bones, Boats and Bison by E. James Dixon and any article by
Jon Erlander.
Europe is closer, maybe 2200 miles but nothing but ice at that time as
the edge of the sea.
Beringa disappeared about 5000 BC when the water from the melting
glaciers covered it. There is a large part of offshore Southeast
Alaska and British Columbia, some estimates 200,000 square miles or
more.
http://www.geog.uvic.ca/blast/Publication%20PDFs/Walker-ICS041.pdf
Lee Olsen
wrote:
> On Jul 26, 11:40 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > Also know where the land was then.
>
> > Meaning.... what?
>
> > Like I said, a non-beringer arrival proves that a
> > land bridge wasn't necessary, that people could &
> > did get here without a land bridge.
>
> > > Know also the scientific method has to proven
> > > by another using the same data.
>
> > And that means... what?
>
> > > Your ideas are not proven.
>
> > They're not ideas, and they aren't mine. They are
> > inescapable inferences. It's something you have to
> > accept: People arriving in the Americas before or
> > after the land bridge proves that a land bridge was
> > never necessary, that people could get here without
> > it.
>
> "Inescapable inferences" are just ideas, not proven, no need to accept
> random thoughts from scattered data that doesn't correlate.
>
> I presume you have not spent time in the Kuriles and Aleutians and
> therefore know that you don't get very far in a boat.
Right on.
Here are a few more coastal-route examples:
http://www.44mlb.com/quillayute-river-disaster.htm
James Island, Washington, 14 February 1997
"The 44-ft. motor lifeboat (44363) lies grounded on a rocky shore at
James Island,
Washington after capsizing three times, the second time stern over bow
as well as
being bounced on and off the rocks. The top portion of the boat had
been torn away.
Rips, scratches, and several deep dents marred its white hull. The
boat's engine was
still running when its lone survivor, Seaman Apprentice Ben Wingo,
bruised and battered
on the night of 12 February 1997, stepped down off the boat in waist-
deep water and
waded to shore where he set off a flare."
http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/polarsea/home.htm
This ship was nearly capsized off Vancouver Island... the story here:
http://www.docksideconsultants.com/wavessup.html
"Polar Star (October 25 1985) The U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Polar
Star was
the first single ship to circumnavigate the North American continent
by traversing
the Northwest Passage. After successfully completing the dangerous
passage
through ice-filled waters, the 122 meters (399 feet) long vessel was
not far from
Vancouver Island and was traveling south east to Seattle when it was
hit on the
starboard beam by a sequence of extreme waves—the so-called “Three
Sisters.”
This was thought to be due to the interaction of increasingly heavy
seas the vessel
was headed into, combined with a storm that had been building to the
west of the
vessel for over 36 hours across a fetch of 1,613 kilometers (1,000
miles). The waves
came suddenly out of the darkness at 0200 (2:00 A.M.), causing the
vessel to roll
violently back and forth 50 degrees. Three crew were tossed the width
of the 26 meter
(85 feet) wide bridge, killing one and injuring two others. Winds
reached 60 knots with
gusts to 80. The significant wave height was around 3.5 meters (11.5
feet), while the
“Three Sister Waves” that struck the ship were estimated as three
times as high, or
10.7 meters (35 feet). (21, p. 190-196)"
>Watch those
> "Deadliest Catch" programs on TV, those are steel ships with diesel
> engines, 130 tons or more in displacement, 78 to 130 feet in length.
> The "ship" of your imagination, the umiak, would be made of wood and
> skin, propelled by paddles, maximum 20 tons in displacement and 17 to
> 60 feet in length.
If you are not safe in the Polar Star during the Holocene, I can't
imagine things would
be any better at the end of the Pleistocene in a umiak.
Not to mention there is also a reason for this:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/16/pf/2005_most_dangerous_jobs/index.htm
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What makes you think the dating is right?
Why should I think any of it is right?
The point, dear retard, is that the remains do
not match those of the supposed Beringer
population.
THEY DIDN'T CROSS THE LAND BRIDGE.
So whether they came before the land bridge,
after or during doesn't make a difference --
it proves that people could & did get here
without a land bridge.
Now, as I've already pointed all this out
before it clearly is at odds with the way
you want things to be, so I can look forward
to pointing it out again & again...
> No, the one you cited.
I was replying to you, actually, and you were citing
the article. You even quoted it. Here:
:> > "An archaeologist determined it to be the skull
:> > of a man who lived 9,200 years ago and died at
:> > the age of 45 by a projectile wound to the head."
But, don't worry. As a mentally ill freak you can now
ignore the fact that you were claiming to not have
cited the article...
> > I'm not sure why you believe the cause of death is
> > relevant,
>
> I never said it was relevant.
Then stop bringing up his wounds.
> If the moron you cited couldn't get the simplest of
> facts right,
Who said they were the "simplest of facts? I mean,
when was it written? What was their source?
The remains had more than one head wound, and the cite
mentions nothing about an artifact. Why do you assuming
they are confusing the hip wound for a head wound?
Oh, yes: There's that legendary lack of reading
comprehension of yours...
> what makes you think anything else is right?
You clearly got it wrong: You think there were
no head wounds. There were. Yes, there was also
a wound to the hip with a point still in it, but
that was not the only wound on the body.
By your own standards you must be rejected as
an untrustworthy schmuck.
Congratulations, idiot.
Jack Linthicum
How do you know that any of the remains, and there are very few, don't
match the Beringa population? ESPN or something?
Lee Olsen
> > What makes you think the dating is right?
>
> Why should I think any of it is right?
Depends on how many dates and how many sites.
Not really difficult, except for an illiterate like you.
>
> The point, dear retard, is that the remains do
> not match those of the supposed Beringer
> population.
Yes they do.
>
> THEY DIDN'T CROSS THE LAND BRIDGE.
Yes they did.
>
> So whether they came before the land bridge,
> after or during doesn't make a difference --
> it proves that people could & did get here
> without a land bridge.
What's the evidence for that, your imagination?
>
> Now, as I've already pointed all this out
> before it clearly is at odds with the way
> you want things to be, so I can look forward
> to pointing it out again & again...
You don't point out anything except how ignorant
you are. So stop pointing that out, it makes you look bad.
>
> > No, the one you cited.
>
> I was replying to you, actually, and you were citing
> the article. You even quoted it. Here:
You idiot, you gave the link to it, I never heard of that idiot
before you dug him up. Two peas in a pod. How do clowns
like you two connect with each other.
>
> :> > "An archaeologist determined it to be the skull
> :> > of a man who lived 9,200 years ago and died at
> :> > the age of 45 by a projectile wound to the head."
>
> But, don't worry. As a mentally ill freak you can now
> ignore the fact that you were claiming to not have
> cited the article...
Asshole, you found that crap and I proved it was crap.
>
> > > I'm not sure why you believe the cause of death is
> > > relevant,
>
> > I never said it was relevant.
>
> Then stop bringing up his wounds.
Boy you are dense.
>
> > If the moron you cited couldn't get the simplest of
> > facts right,
>
> Who said they were the "simplest of facts? I mean,
> when was it written? What was their source?
Asshole, you linked to a lunatic and you didn't know the difference,
but you do now don't you?
>
> The remains had more than one head wound, and the cite
> mentions nothing about an artifact. Why do you assuming
> they are confusing the hip wound for a head wound?
Idiot, he claimed the was a point in his head, it wasn't.
A blind man could see that.
>
> Oh, yes: There's that legendary lack of reading
> comprehension of yours...
What part of no point in the head are you too stupid to
understand?
>
> > what makes you think anything else is right?
>
> You clearly got it wrong: You think there were
> no head wounds.
Liar, how do you know what I think if you can't even read
what I wrote?
I said the point was in his hip, and cited the proper
scource, something you are incapable of.
I didn't say anything at all about any other wounds. You made that
up.
You are a psychopath.
> There were. Yes, there was also
> a wound to the hip with a point still in it, but
> that was not the only wound on the body.
Oh I see, you think the only way wounds can get on the
head is by points, not by clubs or sharp sticks?
That only proves what an idiot you are.
> By your own standards you must be rejected as
> an untrustworthy schmuck.
Too bad you don't have any standards to reject.
>
> Congratulations, idiot.
Says the liar who is too chicken to quote me directly. What's the
matter poo-poo, no guts?
Lee Olsen
wrote:
He gets his info off bathroom walls.
Here is what Powell and Neves say:
"When the data were analyzed controlling for the effects
of genetic drift (i.e., with smaller long-term effective
population sizes for Paleoindians), the Paleoindian samples
were no longer distinct from modern Native American
populations."
JOSEPH F. POWELL AND WALTER A. NEVES
Craniofacial Morphology of the First Americans:
Pattern and Process in the Peopling of the New World
YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 42:153–188 (1999)
JTEM
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> How do you know that any of the remains, and
> there are very few, don't match the Beringa
> population?
'Cus they're from different ethnic groups.
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Here is what Powell and Neves say:
> "When the data were analyzed controlling for
> the effects of genetic drift
: on DNA analysis of the Remains of "Kennewick
: Man" from Columbia Park, Washington
:
: No DNA suitable for PCR amplification could
: be extracted from the Kennewick samples
: studied. Thus, no conclusion regarding its
: ethnic ancestry or cultural affiliation
: based on DNA can be made.
http://www.friendsofpast.org/pdf/DOI/DOI09993.pdf
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why should I think any of it is right?
>
> Depends on how many dates and how many sites.
> Not really difficult, except for an illiterate
> like you.
So prove you're not only illiterate but a hypocrite:
Map it out.
Go on. Try it. Or you can just admit that you haven't
the faintest clue what you're talking about.
Lee Olsen
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Here is what Powell and Neves say:
> > "When the data were analyzed controlling for
> > the effects of genetic drift
That was in general for all the Americas, not just Kennewick
Man.
>
> : on DNA analysis of the Remains of "Kennewick
> : Man" from Columbia Park, Washington
> :
> : No DNA suitable for PCR amplification could
> : be extracted from the Kennewick samples
> : studied. Thus, no conclusion regarding its
> : ethnic ancestry or cultural affiliation
> : based on DNA can be made.
http://www.friendsofpast.org/pdf/DOI/DOI09993.pdf
Right, so then we don't really know that "'Cus they're from
different ethnic groups." is true or not, at least based on DNA.
So then it's back to skull metrics. Fortunately Kennewick man
is not the only skeletal material from that era in the Great Basin.
There is Stick Man, The Dalles Man and a slew of poorly
preserved skeletons from the Marmes Rockshelter.
The few teeth (incisors) all show shoveling to some degree. Some of
the
skulls have traits similar to Kennewick Man, some do not, those are
more similar to modern people of the area. So, as near as anyone
can tell, if there were two differnt groups, then they were all using
the same cultural items through time.
No new artifact types showed up suddenly like if some new invader took
over
with differnt styles.
If there were two different ethnic groups involved, they sure liked
using
the same beads, lithics, edgeground cobbles, crescents etc.
George
> The point, dear retard, is that the remains do
> not match those of the supposed Beringer
> population.
>
> THEY DIDN'T CROSS THE LAND BRIDGE.
>
> So whether they came before the land bridge,
> after or during doesn't make a difference --
> it proves that people could & did get here
> without a land bridge.
Okay. So these sea travelers of yours just set out into unknown waters
without knowing there was land in front of them and if there was just
how far away it was..
Doesn't that sound suicidal to you?
Don't demean the intelligence of those who settled the Americas. They
walked, followed the food and so arrived in North America
Jack Linthicum
Wisely put, go to the basics, why, how?
One aspect of the number of people who made up the initial and
subsequent population that came to the Americas. Please note that the
first article has left room for others, which follow their own path in
describing the migration.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030193
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n10/full/5201481a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2223069/
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000829
and
plus the idea of the "Founder effect"
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> On Jul 28, 1:21 am, George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 28, 10:28 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The point, dear retard, is that the remains do
> > > not match those of the supposed Beringer
> > > population.
>
> > > THEY DIDN'T CROSS THE LAND BRIDGE.
>
> > > So whether they came before the land bridge,
> > > after or during doesn't make a difference --
> > > it proves that people could & did get here
> > > without a land bridge.
>
> > Okay. So these sea travelers of yours just set out into unknown waters
> > without knowing there was land in front of them and if there was just
> > how far away it was..
>
> > Doesn't that sound suicidal to you?
>
> > Don't demean the intelligence of those who settled the Americas. They
> > walked, followed the food and so arrived in North America
>
> Wisely put, go to the basics, why, how?
>
> One aspect of the number of people who made up the initial and
> subsequent population that came to the Americas. Please note that the
> first article has left room for others, which follow their own path in
> describing the migration.
>
> http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030193
>
> http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n10/full/5201481a.html
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2223069/
>
>
> and
>
> http://anthropology.net/2007/10/31/people-of-the-americas-mtdna-tells...
>
> plus the idea of the "Founder effect"
Lee Olsen
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Why should I think any of it is right?
>
> > Depends on how many dates and how many sites.
> > Not really difficult, except for an illiterate
> > like you.
>
> So prove you're not only illiterate but a hypocrite:
>
> Map it out.
Map out what, your illiteracy? That's too easy.
Start with this:
"'Cus they're from different ethnic groups."
You made the statement, are you too illiterate to
back up your claim?
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Why should I think any of it is right?
>
> > > Depends on how many dates and how many sites.
> > > Not really difficult, except for an illiterate
> > > like you.
>
> > So prove you're not only illiterate but a hypocrite:
>
> > Map it out.
> Map out what, your illiteracy? That's
Check mate.
As per your usual, you're spewing words that you don't
understand.
No, I'm not going to challenge you again. Why bother?
You never have been able to answer, and you never will
be able to answer. You're an idiot trying to bullshit
everybody.
Moron.
JTEM
George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> Okay. So these sea travelers of yours
> just set out into unknown waters
Maybe? Who knows? They're not from the same
Siberian population which was supposed to
have crossed Beringer and genetically
dominated the Americas, with the land bridge.
The rest is incidental.
JTEM
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030193
Not available.
> http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n10/full/5201481a.html
This isn't a second cite at all, but apparently just
a page drawing on the unavailable first cite.
It's complicated, but not as impressive as you might think.
They apparently began with a number of assumptions, searched
out mathematical models which worked with their assumptions
and declared themselves victors.
Applying those same models to, say, Europe, you're not only
going to miss the Neanderthals but Cromagnon man and even
many later arrivals as well:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051112125213.htm
So, does that sound like a really good model to you? It
doesn't to me.
Which is why whenever I can choose between archaeology
and DNA I always choose archaeology. It's always right,
DNA is usually wrong.
How? Because DNA conclusions (Note: NOT "Evidence" but
conclusions, i.e. "Opinions") are based on assumptions.
Always.
Like the study you cite, which assumes there were no
other arrivals from anyplace other than Siberia.
Lee Olsen
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Why should I think any of it is right?
>
> > > > Depends on how many dates and how many sites.
> > > > Not really difficult, except for an illiterate
> > > > like you.
>
> > > So prove you're not only illiterate but a hypocrite:
>
> > > Map it out.
> > Map out what, your illiteracy? That's
>
> Check mate.
No fool, all you have to do is read *all* of the NPS report on
Kennewick
Man. You apparently want me to rewrite here all what they wrote on
the
dating matter. It was paid for by the tax payers, I'm under no
obligation
to hold your hand. You stupid shit, are you too dumb to read the
report
yourself? Does your mother still have to wipe your ass too?
You made an idiot out of yourself by citing a clown who claimed
a point was stuck in Kennewick Man's head and claimed he died
from the wound. That proved how much you know about the matter,
nothing.
>
> As per your usual, you're spewing words that you don't
> understand.
As usual, more lip service.
>
> No, I'm not going to challenge you again. Why bother?
Why don't you try reading the NPS report then?
>
> You never have been able to answer, and you never will
> be able to answer. You're an idiot trying to bullshit
> everybody.
So says the jackass who cites rubbish.
Moron.
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> No fool, all you have to do is read *all*
> of the NPS report on Kennewick Man.
So you can't articulate a position, but somehow
know that it exactly replicates all the reports
on Kennewick man, AND this makes other people
stupid?
You know, there's a number of treatments for
mental illness which have proven quite effective.
I mean, you've for nothing to lose here and
everything to gain...
Lee Olsen
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No fool, all you have to do is read *all*
> > of the NPS report on Kennewick Man.
>
> So you can't articulate a position,
What an idiot, I just did above and you are too ignorant
to falsify what I said. Tou reply is nothing more than ad
hominim.
>but somehow
> know that it exactly replicates all the reports
> on Kennewick man, AND this makes other people
> stupid?
In your case and in the case of the URL you cited, yes.
> You know, there's a number of treatments for
> mental illness which have proven quite effective.
For those who think the spear point in Kennewick Man
was imbedded in his head and was killed by it, yes, there is
treatment....
For the questionalable dating, see NPS Kennewick Man.
You have been given the proper source, if you are too
stupid to look it up, then, yes, you are stupid.
Jack Linthicum
Since you didn't read Hey, claimed it was not available, how do you
know that the Rasmus Nielsen1 paper is just a rehash. It is a critical
examination of a new technique for evaluation models of examining
genetic data.
"What sets Hey's study apart from other similar studies is the use of
complex and more realistic models. While no model can be exactly true,
the approach by Hey can help distinguish good models from bad ones.
Genetic data in human demographic studies have often been analyzed by
interpreting an estimated gene tree or network. As Hey points out, the
verbal interpretations are themselves models that often are very
simplistic. The method presented by Hey is an important step forward
in the field of human genetic demographics, replacing Ad hoc story
telling with rigorous model testing and statistical inference.
For figures and charts go to the original at the citation.
Jody Hey1
1 Department of Genetics, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey,
Piscataway, New Jersey, United States of America
Abstract Top
The founding of New World populations by Asian peoples is the focus of
considerable archaeological and genetic research, and there persist
important questions on when and how these events occurred. Genetic
data offer great potential for the study of human population history,
but there are significant challenges in discerning distinct
demographic processes. A new method for the study of diverging
populations was applied to questions on the founding and history of
Amerind-speaking Native American populations. The model permits
estimation of founding population sizes, changes in population size,
time of population formation, and gene flow. Analyses of data from
nine loci are consistent with the general portrait that has emerged
from archaeological and other kinds of evidence. The estimated
effective size of the founding population for the New World is fewer
than 80 individuals, approximately 1% of the effective size of the
estimated ancestral Asian population. By adding a splitting parameter
to population divergence models it becomes possible to develop
detailed portraits of human demographic history. Analyses of Asian and
New World data support a model of a recent founding of the New World
by a population of quite small effective size.
Citation: Hey J (2005) On the Number of New World Founders: A
Population Genetic Portrait of the Peopling of the Americas. PLoS Biol
3(6): e193. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030193
Academic Editor: Andy G. Clark, Cornell University, United States of
America
Received: July 12, 2004; Accepted: March 25, 2005; Published: May 24,
2005
Copyright: © 2005 Jody Hey. This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing
interests exist.
Abbreviation: IM, isolation with migration
Introduction Top
Archeological evidence, as well as anatomical, linguistic, and genetic
evidence, have shown that the original human inhabitants of the
Western Hemisphere arrived from Asia during the Late Pleistocene [1–
4]. However, there persists uncertainty on the source, within Asia, of
peoples who migrated to the New World [5], on the timing of the
earliest migration [6–10], and on whether there have been multiple
migrations [3,11–13].
For complex historical subjects such as the colonization of the
Americas, there are many ways that models can be constructed,
examined, and compared. One approach is to develop a portrait based on
a particular kind of data, such as linguistic [6], skeletal [14], or
archaeological [15] data, or on DNA sequence data from a particular
portion of the human genome such as the mitochondria [4,16–19] or the
Y chromosome [9]. Yet each source of data has unique sources of
variation. In the case of genetic data there occurs a large stochastic
variance of the coalescent history among genes that causes different
loci to vary widely in levels of genetic variation and in apparent
patterns of relationships among populations [20–22]. This stochastic
variance is sometimes overlooked, for example in discussions of the
histories of the individual DNA sequence haplotypes [18], and it is
easy to underestimate the many possible histories that are consistent
with a finding that haplotypes are shared by different populations [23–
25].
To accommodate the stochastic variance among loci, population
geneticists have turned in recent years to Bayesian and likelihood
methods that explicitly take into account the range of possible gene
tree histories that are consistent with a given dataset [26–30]. For
questions on population divergence, the focus has been on models of
population splitting in which an ancestral population divides into two
descendant populations, after which there may be gene flow between the
descendant populations. These “isolation with migration” (IM) models
can have a large number of parameters, and they offer the possibility
of capturing many of the dynamics that occur in the early stages of
population divergence or speciation [30–33].
Figure 1A shows the basic IM model, in which the ancestral and
descendant populations each have a constant size. Each of the terms in
the model is explained in Table 1. Basic limitations of this model are
that it cannot provide details on how descendant populations were
founded or whether population sizes have changed. Certainly for human
populations there is considerable genetic evidence that population
sizes have grown [34–37], and it would be helpful if it were possible
to capture information on the sizes of descendant populations as they
are formed. For example, if one descendant population formed as a
small founder population that later grew to a large size, such
dynamics would not be revealed in the fitting of the basic IM model.
To allow the study of such histories, an additional parameter has been
added to the IM model. Figure 1B shows a model in which an ancestral
population splits in two, with the relative sizes of those two new
populations reflected in the parameter s, where 0 < s < 1. At the time
of the split, descendant population 1 has size sNA from which it moves
to size N1 at the time of sampling. Similarly, population 2 begins
with size (1 − s)NA from which it moves to size N2 at the time of
sampling. Figure 1B depicts one population growing and the other
shrinking, but in fact either population is free to either grow or
shrink under this model.
thumbnail
Figure 1. Isolation with Migration Models
(A) The basic IM model. The demographic terms are effective population
sizes (N1, N2, and NA), gene flow rates (m1 and m2), and population
splitting time (t). Also shown are parameters scaled by the neutral
mutation rate (u), as they are actually used in the model fitting.
Terms for basic demographic parameters, including N, m, t, and u, are
not italicized. Note that the migration parameters are identified by
the source of migrants as time goes backward in the coalescent. In
other words, the migration rate from population 1 to population 2
(i.e., m1) actually corresponds to the movement of genes from
population 2 to population 1 as time moves forward.
(B) The IM model with changing population size. An additional
parameter, s, is the fraction of NA that forms N1 (i.e., the fraction
1 − s gives rise to N2)
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030193.g001
thumbnail
Table 1. Parameter Summary and Description
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030193.t001
These models were applied to questions on the founding of New World
populations from Asia. A total of nine DNA sequence datasets that
included Asian and Native American (Amerind-speaking) samples were
drawn from the literature (Figure 2 and Table 1) and analyzed jointly
using a procedure that provides posterior probability distributions
for each of the model parameters [30,33]. The stochastic variance
among loci is clearly evident in the variation of FST values (between
Asian and New World samples) observed among the loci. Of the nine loci
included in the present study, three have fairly high FST values,
while the remainder are either negative (undefined) or near zero
(Table 1).
thumbnail
Figure 2. Approximate Geographic Locations, and Sample Sizes per
location, for Each Locus Listed in Table 1
In some cases locations are based on actual geographic locations, in
other cases the locations are the approximate center of the geographic
region occupied by ethnic groups identified in the original references
(Table 1).
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030193.g002
Asian samples were arbitrarily designated as being from population 1
and the New World samples from population 2. In this case, 1 − s is
the fraction of the ancestral population that founded the New World
population. The analyses also require that prior distributions be
specified for each model parameter. It was assumed that the New World
was founded by a minority of the ancestral Asian population,
corresponding to a specified uniform prior distribution for s between
0.5 and 1. For the other parameters, flat prior distributions were
selected that would span the entire range of the posterior densities
(i.e., uninformative priors) [30]. However, in some cases the
posterior distributions were quite flat over the highest portions of
parameter ranges. In these cases the choice of the upper bound on the
prior distribution does affect the posterior distribution, and we are
not able to use an uninformative prior distribution. However,
parameters can still be estimated on the basis of the locations of
peaks in the parameter regions that can be assessed, and the effect of
altering the prior distribution on these estimates can be determined.
The overall picture that emerges is one in which the New World was
very recently founded by a small number of individuals (effective size
of about 70), and then grew by a factor of about 10. The data do
suggest that there has been gene exchange between Asia and the New
World since that time; however, the likelihood surfaces are quite
flat, so confidence in gene flow estimates is low.
Results Top
The method assumes that the loci have not been subject to
recombination or to directional or balancing selection. For
recombination, we used only those loci that showed no evidence of
recombination by the four-gamete test [38]. It is possible that this
has missed some recombination since the time of common ancestry.
Regarding natural selection, the study was limited to loci that had
not individually been reported to show evidence of directional or
balancing selection. However, it is possible that when considered
together, and polymorphism and divergence from chimpanzees are
considered under a common neutral model, that there is evidence of
selection. An HKA test [39] of the eight loci with estimates of
divergence from chimpanzees (Table 2) yielded a p value of 0.054,
which is nearly statistically significant. This test assumes, as do
the models analyzed in this study, that all loci are sampled from the
same panmictic population [39], and it is possible that the differing
geographic sources of the loci included in the study may have
contributed some variation.
thumbnail
Table 2. Information on Loci Used in the Study
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030193.t002
The estimated posterior distributions are shown in Figure 3. For the
initial analysis, allowing for exponential population size changes,
the posterior distribution for t yielded both a major and a minor peak
(the curve for t with a high tupper, Figure 3D). Given the mutation
rate estimates (see Table 1), the location of the major peak (t =
0.032) corresponds to 7,130 y, whereas the location of the minor peak
(t = 0.27) corresponds to 44,400 y. Given the remote possibility of
such an ancient time as the latter, analyses were also done with a
smaller upper bound on t of 0.2 (identified as “low tupper” in Figure
3), which corresponds to 33,000 y. Analyses were done with this
reduced upper limit for t for both models in Figure 1, allowing for
population size change and for the case of fixed population sizes. In
the case of constant population sizes, the distribution for t shows a
peak (t = 0.038) very near those for the analyses under population
size change; however, the highest posterior density is found at the
upper limit of t. When the constant population size model was run with
a higher upper limit on t, the posterior distribution showed the same
low value peak as well as a steadily rising curve for higher values of
t (unpublished data).
thumbnail
Figure 3. Marginal Posterior Probability Densities
Probability densities for each of the parameters described in Figure 1
are shown, as follows: (A) θ1; (B) θ2; (C) θA; (D) t (i.e., t/u); (E)
t shown on a scale of years over the range corresponding to a maximum
t value of 0.2; (F) s; (G) m1; and (H) m2. The analysis in which a
high upper limit on the prior distribution for t was used is
identified as “high tupper,” while those analyses with a smaller upper
limit on the prior distribution of t are identified as “low tupper.”
Each curve is based upon the results of multiple simulations over
millions of Markov chain updates (see Materials and Methods), and is
plotted over the specified prior range of that parameter.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030193.g003
The archaeological portrait of early New World populations has largely
centered around widespread Clovis sites that have an earliest
estimated age of about 13,000 y before the present [15,40,41]. The
oldest generally agreed upon New World archaeological date is from the
non-Clovis Monte Verde site in Southern Chile, which has been dated to
about 14,000 y before the present [10,42,43]. Clearly the time points
associated with our estimates of t are more recent than expected,
given the archaeological estimates. However, these distributions do
span the time periods that have been most discussed. For example, a
time of 14,000 y has a relatively high probability in each of the
analyses (Figure 3E). Given that people have lived in the New World
probably for only several hundred generations, it is noteworthy both
that the posterior densities for t do show clear peaks in the expected
time period and that the probability estimates drop to zero as t
approaches zero. In other words, the data contain a clear signal of a
nonzero, albeit recent, founding time of New World populations.
With regard to migration, each of the three analyses show nonzero
peaks for both directions of gene flow. These may well reflect the
occurrence of more than one episode of migration to the New World. For
example, it has been suggested on the basis of mitochondrial DNA
haplotypes and glaciation history that an initial migration along a
coastal route may have been followed later by another migration,
possibly through an ice-free noncoastal corridor [13]. However, the
posterior distributions shown here have little resolution, as all of
the curves for m1 and m2 are broad, and all have high probability at
the lower limit of resolution, indicating that zero gene flow is
nearly as well supported by the data as are nonzero gene flow levels.
The ancestral population parameter, θA, shows a relatively narrow
distribution with a very consistent peak location across the three
analyses. These attributes are partly to be expected, given that the
very large majority of the variation in the samples is older than t.
In effect, more information is available for θA than for the other
parameters. The estimated effective size of the ancestral population
is about 9,000 (Table 3), which is roughly consistent with previous
estimates for Asian samples [44]. The current Asian population
parameter (θ1) revealed broad distributions and estimates that are
near those for the ancestral population. Although the estimates of
current effective size in Asia vary among the analyses (Table 3), they
are all fairly close to the ancestral size estimates, suggesting that
there has not been much population growth in Asia since t. Also
consistent with the apparent constancy of population size is the
distribution of s, the splitting parameter, which shows a peak at
0.992, signifying that only a small portion (less than 1%) of the
ancestral Asian population left to found the New World population.
thumbnail
Table 3. Model Parameter Estimates
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030193.t003
In contrast to the Asian population, the New World population
parameter (θ2) is much smaller, and suggests a recent New World
effective population size of less than 1,000 (Table 3). However, given
the estimate of the effective size of the founding New World
population (about 70; Table 4), the overall picture is of a nearly 10-
fold growth in the New World effective size since t.
thumbnail
Table 4. Estimates of Demographic Quantities
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030193.t004
In order to gain a sense of how consistent the data actually are with
the model and the parameter estimates, 500 simulated datasets were
generated under the model in Figure 1B, with sample sizes and true
parameter values (see Table 2, column 3) that were the same as for the
actual data. From each simulated dataset, the average number of
pairwise differences between sequences were calculated within each
population (Asia and the New World) and between these populations. The
average of these values from the 500 simulated datasets, and the
observed values from the actual data, are shown in Table 5. In
general, the observed and expected values are similar; however, one
consistent pattern of departure is that the data from the New World,
for most loci, show more variation by this measure than were found in
the simulated data.
thumbnail
Table 5. Contrasting Observed and Expected Levels of Variation
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030193.t005
Discussion Top
The method described is one of several new approaches that can glean
information about ancestral population sizes [30,45–47]. By including
a new parameter for population splitting, it is possible to generate
estimates not only of the size of the ancestral population, but also
of the founding size of each founder population.
Taken together, the analyses in this study suggest a recent founding
of the New World Amerind-speaking peoples by a small population of
effective size near 70, followed by population growth in the New
World. It is interesting that the analyses do not suggest much
population size change in Asia since the time of the founding of the
New World population. Given the very broad distributions for θ1, it is
possible that the true value of this parameter is much higher than
suggested by the peak location, and that there has been considerable
population growth in Asia. The analyses reveal very broad
distributions for migration parameters, and although the peak
locations suggest that gene flow has been fairly high (2Nm values
greater than 1; see Table 3), the estimated probabilities of migration
rates having been zero are also high (Figure 3G and 3H). Also, because
Eskimo-Aleut and Na Déne speakers were not included in this study, the
question of separate migrations for these groups has not been
addressed [3].
As parameter-rich as the method is, neither this nor any mathematical
model can be expected to fully represent the complex history of two
related populations. However, the same is essentially true of
narrative models, as investigators are always constrained by limited
data and the need to keep explanations as simple as possible given
their data. In this light, the IM model provides a fairly complete
framework for some oft-debated questions on human history. With the
addition of a new parameter, the IM framework can now also be used to
address questions about the founding size of populations and of
population size change.
In the context of human demographic history, the most problematic
assumption under the IM model is that each population is panmictic.
Certainly this is not the case today, and it is likely to have even
been less true in times past. This raises the general and important
question of how local patterns of population structure affect regional
or global estimates of diversity [44,48,49]. Although this question
cannot be answered here, the analyses do suggest that some kinds of
departures from panmixia have not occurred. For example, if the New
World had been founded by a local population that had long been
separated from other Asian populations, then the estimate of t would
be expected to reflect this older population structure, rather than
the founding of the New World. Our generally low estimates of t argue
against this scenario. Similarly, if the sampled Asian populations had
been highly structured, with many long-separated local populations,
then this would have inflated the estimates of NA and N1,
respectively. However, the generally low estimates of effective
population size argue against this particular kind of population
structure.
The analyses presented here share with some other genetic studies
estimated dates for the peopling of the Americas that are more recent
than archeologically based estimates [8,9,16]. However, the difficulty
of estimating such recent events using genetic data alone should not
be overestimated [18]. When considering human populations within the
past few tens of thousands of years, two gene copies that share the
same haplotype will often have had a common ancestor far longer ago
than any of the dates in question. Similarly, genetic evidence on the
peopling of the Americas has been interpreted both as consistent with
multiple migrations [12] and as indicating just a single founder event
[16,19,50]. Divergent interpretations are understandable, given that a
finding of two populations that share sequence haplotypes at a locus
can be taken as evidence of two quite different models: (1) a recent
population separation; or (2) gene exchange between populations.
The available data do not yet allow precise estimates of founding time
nor of whether there has been gene flow between the New World and Asia
following the initial founding event. However, the new method
implements a parameter-rich model of divergence and has the potential
to recover the history of complex divergence processes. The method can
also be applied to a large number of loci, with large sample sizes,
and in the future can be expected to provide increasingly detailed
portraits of human population divergence.
Materials and Methods Top
Selected loci and samples.
Given the prevailing model of the founding of New World populations
via a Bering land bridge, the descendant populations were defined as
the Amerind speakers of the New World and the peoples of northeastern
Asia. Greenberg et al. [3] proposed that New World populations include
three linguistic groups (Eskimo-Aleut, Na Déne, and Amerind), each
associated with a separate episode or period of migration. Because of
the limited number of published comparative DNA sequence studies that
include samples from Eskimo-Aleut and Na Déne group, the present study
was limited to samples from Amerind-speaking populations. Asian
samples were limited to those from China, Mongolia, Korea, and
Siberia. These are partly arbitrary boundaries selected as a balance
between the need to include as many loci as possible and uncertainty
about the present locations of descendants of those Asian populations
that gave rise to the founders of the New World.
The model fitting requires data from loci that do not show evidence of
recombination and that do not show clear evidence of directional or
balancing selection. All available datasets from the literature that
met these criteria and that had multiple DNA sequences from both of
the designated sample regions were selected. The selected loci are
listed in Table 1. The input data file is provided in Dataset S1, and
a list of sample locations is provided in Protocol S1.
Model development.
At the center of the method for estimating the parameters is an
expression for the posterior probability distribution of model
parameters Θ, given the data. For the case of multiple loci
where Θ refers to the vector of parameters of the model, Xi refers to
the data for locus i, and Gi is the genealogy for locus i [33]. With n
loci, the full set of parameters includes six or seven demographic
parameters, depending on the inclusion of s, as well as n locus-
specific mutation rate scalars [33]. A genealogy includes the topology
of an ultrametric tree, the associated coalescence times, and the
times of migrations on each branch of the tree [30]. For a given locus
i, the probability f(Xi|Gi) is calculated using the mutation model for
that locus and the branch lengths in the genealogy. The probability
f(Gi|Θ) is calculated using expressions from basic coalescent theory
[30,51–55]. By integrating over all possible genealogies that are
consistent with the data, the results obtained are not conditioned on
any particular estimate of the genealogy, and they necessarily
incorporate all of the stochastic variance that arises among
independent loci under the model.
The integration in Equation 1 cannot be solved directly for any but
the simplest of models, but it can be approximated using a Markov
chain simulation [56]. This approach was originally applied to the IM
model by Nielsen and Wakeley [30], and then augmented to include
multiple loci [33] and additional mutation models [32,57].
Over the course of a simulation the genealogy for a given locus varies
for topology, branch lengths, and migration times. However, the
probability of the data for a locus given a particular genealogy, f(Xi|
Gi), depends only upon the branch lengths and the mutation model for
that locus [30]. Although inclusion of s will affect the genealogies
that arise in the course of the simulation, there will be no effect on
the calculation of the probability of the data for a given genealogy
(i.e., f(Xi|Gi) is not a function of s), and thus including s has no
effect on the applicability of the method to diverse mutation models.
In contrast, the probability of a genealogy given a set of parameter
values, f(Gi|Θ), depends strongly on s because the probability of
individual coalescent and migration times are functions of population
size.
The calculation of f(Gi|Θ) is most directly done by taking the product
of the probabilities of each of the coalescent and migration events
that occur in the genealogy. Griffiths and Tavare [55] developed the
general theory for the probability distribution of coalescence times
when the population size is changing. Given a function v(τ)= Nτ/N0 of
the population size at time τ, relative to that at time 0, they
provide a general expression for the distribution of coalescent times.
For population 1, the effective size goes from N1 at time zero, to sNA
at time t. If it is assumed that the size change is exponential over
this period, then for population 1,
and for population 2,
One additional complication that arises is that when the population is
growing exponentially back into the past (decreasing in size as time
moves forward), there is a finite probability that the time to
coalescence will be infinity [58]. Thus, for population 1 when sNA is
less than N1, it is necessary to calculate the probability of
coalescence time conditioned on there being a coalescent event.
Migration under an exponentially changing population size can also be
incorporated under this same framework with two changes. First, unlike
coalescence, where the rate is inversely proportional to population
size, the rate of migration is directly proportional to population
size. Second, as time goes backward in the coalescent, the migration
rate from population 1 to population 2 (i.e., m1) actually corresponds
to the movement of genes from population 2 to population 1 as time
moves forward. This means that in the coalescent under changing
population size, we expect that the migration rate from population 1
to 2 will vary with the size of population 2. Thus the corresponding
relative rate function for migration from population 2 to population 1
is
and for migration in the reverse direction it is
These intensity functions for coalescence and migration were used to
develop an expression for f(Gi|Θ) that includes s, and that could be
directly incorporated into the update criteria for all of the
demographic, mutation, and inheritance scalars described in Hey and
Nielsen [33]. Also needed, in order to allow for changing population
size, are the update criteria for s and the update criteria for the
genealogies. For s, updates are drawn from a uniform distribution over
the user-specified prior range (e.g., in the current study, an
interval within the range of 0.5 to 1). An update from s to s* will
affect the probability of all genealogies and thus has an acceptance
probability, under the Metropolis Hastings criterion, of
where n is the number of loci and Gi is the current genealogy for
locus i (see Equation 3 in Hey and Nielsen [33]). If we assume a
uniform prior distribution for s, such that the prior probability of
s, f(s), is constant for all s, and if we choose updates such that the
q(s* → s) = q(s → s*) [30], then this simplifies to
For genealogy updates the same proposal distribution of genealogies
that was used in the case without s was retained, and then this
proposal distribution was incorporated into the update criteria [59].
If f(Gi|s) denotes the probability of the genealogy for locus i, given
the other parameters including s, and f(Gi) is the Hastings term for
the proposal probability of the genealogy for locus i, given the other
parameters1 excluding s, then the update criteria for the genealogy
for locus i is
Performance.
The IM computer program [33] was modified to include the additional
parameter. The program is available from http://lifesci.rutgers.edu/~heylab/Heyla
bSoftware.htm#IM . For the Markov chain simulation that is
implemented by the program, it is difficult to assess how well the
method works, because of the need to generate large numbers of
simulated datasets and because of the long run times required [33]. To
conduct testing, a program was written to generate simulated datasets
under the models in Figure 1. Datasets were simulated in groups of 10
or 20, each having 10–20 loci, for a given set of parameter values,
and for a range of parameter values. Figure 4 shows the marginal
posterior densities estimated from each of 20 independent simulations
for a case of modest population growth with the following parameter
values. θ1 = 10; θ2, = 10; θA = 10; t = 2.5; s = 0.2; m1 = 0.04; and
m2 = 0.1. For each parameter, the mean of the 20 estimates is shown,
and in general these are fairly close to the true value, though there
is considerable variance for the peak locations in individual runs. To
test whether the locations of these distributions are consistent with
the true values of the parameters (i.e., the values used in the
simulations), probabilities were combined by treating each simulation
as an independent test of the same hypothesis [60]. For each posterior
density pi, i = 1,…,20, is the chance that a parameter value is more
extreme (i.e., departs more from the mean of the distribution) than is
the actual true value. That is, if x is the area of the curve to the
left of the true value then pi = 2x if x < 0.5 and pi = 2(1 − x) if x
> 0.5. If the pi's are uniformly distributed, then the quantity
thumbnail
Figure 4. The Marginal Densities Obtained by Fitting the Model with
Population Size Change to Simulated Data
The input parameters for the simulations were as follows: (A) θ1 = 10;
(B) θ2 = 10; (C) θA = 10; (D) t =2.5, (E) s = 0.2, (F) m1= 0.04; (G)
m2= 0.2 ; and t = 5 (t/2NA = 0.5). For each simulated dataset,
coalescent simulations were done for each of 20 loci with identical
mutation rates under an infinite sites mutation model, each with
sample sizes of 10 for each of the two populations. Each simulated
dataset was analyzed using wide uniform prior distributions for each
parameter. Each analysis began with a burn-in period of 300,000 steps
followed by a primary chain of 3 million to 10 million steps. The
curves for parameters θ1 through m2 are shown in (A) through (G),
respectively. For each figure, the true parameter value used in the
simulations is shown as a black vertical bar, and the mean of the
estimates for the 20 simulations (based on peak locations) is shown as
a gray vertical bar.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030193.g004
is χ2 distributed with 40 degrees of freedom (i.e., two times the
number of densities). The z values were as follows: θ1, 35.5; θ2,
26.4; θA, 41.7; t, 41.1; s, 26.4; m1, 29.9; m2, 44.1; and the mean of
the seven values was 35.0. In the corresponding χ2 distribution, 90%
of the probability mass falls above 29.05; 50% falls above 39.3; and
10% falls above 51.8 [61]. Clearly these values are not entirely
independent of each other, but they all fall in the middle of the χ2
distribution with a mean (35.0) close to the 50% point of the χ2
distribution (39.3).
From these simulations, and many others (additional results provided
in Protocol S1), it is clear that sample sizes do need to be large for
the posterior distributions to be informative. With data from fewer
than five loci or fewer than ten individuals per population per locus,
it is often the case that distributions are very flat or that there
are multiple peaks. There is a tradeoff in sampling effort required
for different kinds of histories. When t is small, sampling effort
should be shifted to larger sample sizes per locus, whereas when t is
large, sampling effort should be shifted toward more loci. This
tradeoff is a byproduct of the fact that the stochastic variance among
loci, that is associated with coalescent and migration events in
genealogies at times near t, goes up as t increases. Another tradeoff
that arises is between s and the migration rate parameters. Just as
the frequency of polymorphic sites can be used to estimate changes in
population size [62], it can also be appreciated that the information
for s must reside in the distribution of times of node intervals in
the descendant populations. Migration can have dramatic effects on
node interval times within populations. In practice, via simulation,
the method does not resolve a sharp peak for s for populations that
have had more than moderate amounts of migration (e.g., 2Nm values are
greater than 0.5; see Protocol S1).
Analyses.
Each of the three analyses were done using at least three independent
runs, with ten or more independent chains under Metropolis coupling
[33] as described by Geyer [63]. Each chain was initiated with a burn-
in period of 100,000 updates, and the total run length of each
analysis was between 10 million and 30 million updates. The mixing
properties of individual runs were monitored by measuring the
autocorrelation of individual parameters over the course of the run,
and by estimating the effective sample size for each of the parameters
as a function of the autocorrelation estimates (see p. 499 in [64]).
Analyses were taken to have converged upon the stationary distribution
if independent runs generated similar distributions, with each having
a lowest effective sample size of 50 for the time parameter (the
parameter to show the slowest rate of mixing).
To convert estimates of parameters that include the mutation rate to
more easily interpreted units, a value of 6 million y since the
splitting of human and chimpanzee lineages was used [65–69]. The
geometric mean of the human-chimpanzee DNA sequence divergence of each
locus, except ATM (see Table 2), was calculated and then used as a
molecular clock calibration for converting the estimate of the time
parameter, t, to divergence in years. The geometric mean mutation rate
across these loci was estimated to be 4.66 × 10−6 mutations per year.
The geometric mean is used rather than an arithmetic mean, because
under the multilocus model, the mutation rate by which demographic
parameters are scaled is the geometric mean of the individual locus-
specific mutation rates [33].
To convert the estimates of the population mutation rate parameters
(θ1, θ2, and θA) to estimates of effective population size (N1, N2,
and NA, respectively) a measure of mutation rate on a scale of
generations is needed. Thus, an assumption was made of 20 y per
generation, and the geometric mean divergence between humans and
chimpanzees for each species contrast was divided by 12 million y then
multiplied by 20 y per generation. These calculations yielded a
geometric mean value of 9.32 × 10−5 mutations per generation. These
mutation rate values were then used to convert individual θ estimates
to effective population size estimates (i.e., θ = 4Nu, and N = θ/4u).
Migration parameters in the model can be used to obtain population
migration rate estimates (i.e., M = 2Nm, the product of the effective
number of gene copies and the per gene copy migration rate) using an
estimate of the population mutation rate (θ = 4Nu). Thus θ × m/2 =
(4Nu × m/u)/2 = 2Nm [32].
Supporting Information Top
Dataset S1. Peopling of Americas Data File: Nine Loci
This is the input file that contains all of the data and that was
analyzed using the IM computer program.
(582 KB TXT).
Protocol S1. Additional Simulations and List of Sample Locations
(92 KB DOC).
Acknowledgments Top
John Wakeley, Tad Schurr, and David Meltzer provided input on an early
draft of the paper. Rasmus Nielsen provided some helpful suggestions
on parameter updating. Thanks also to three reviewers for very helpful
suggestions and critique.
Author Contributions Top
JH conceived and designed the model and analyses, selected the
datasets, wrote the computer programs, performed the analyses, and
wrote the paper.
References Top
1. Brace CL, Nelson AR, Seguchi N, Oe H, Sering L, et al. (2001)
Old World sources of the first New World human inhabitants: A
comparative craniofacial view. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98: 10017–
10022. Find this article online
2. Goebel T (1999) Pleistocene human colonization of Siberia and
peopling of the Americas: An ecological approach. Evol Anthropol 8:
208–227. Find this article online
3. Greenberg JH, Turner CG, Zegura SL (1986) The settlement of the
Americas: A comparison of the linguistic, dental and genetic evidence.
Curr Anthropol 27: 477–497. Find this article online
4. Wallace DC, Garrison K, Knowler WC (1985) Dramatic founder
effects in Amerindian mitochondrial DNAs. Am J Phys Anthropol 68: 149–
155. Find this article online
5. Goebel T, Waters MR, Dikova M (2003) The archaeology of Ushki
Lake, Kamchatka, and the Pleistocene peopling of the Americas. Science
301: 501–505. Find this article online
6. Nichols J (1990) Linguistic diversity and the first settlement
of the New World. Language 66: 475–521. Find this article online
7. Nettle D (1999) Linguistic diversity of the Americas can be
reconciled with a recent colonization. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96:
3325–3329. Find this article online
8. Starikovskaya YB, Sukernik RI, Schurr TG, Kogelnik AM, Wallace
DC (1998) mtDNA diversity in Chukchi and Siberian Eskimos:
Implications for the genetic history of Ancient Beringia and the
peopling of the New World. Am J Hum Genet 63: 1473–1491. Find this
article online
9. Lell JT, Brown MD, Schurr TG, Sukernik RI, Starikovskaya YB, et
al. (1997) Y chromosome polymorphisms in native American and Siberian
populations: Identification of native American Y chromosome
haplotypes. Hum Genet 100: 536–543. Find this article online
10. Fiedel SJ (2000) The peopling of the New World: Present
evidence, new theories, and future directions. J Archaeol Res 8: 39–
103. Find this article online
11. Tarazona-Santos E, Santos FR (2002) The peopling of the
americas: A second major migration? Am J Hum Genet 70: 1377–1380. Find
this article online
12. Lell JT, Sukernik RI, Starikovskaya YB, Su B, Jin L, et al.
(2002) The dual origin and Siberian affinities of Native American Y
chromosomes. Am J Hum Genet 70: 192–206. Find this article online
13. Schurr TG, Sherry ST (2004) Mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome
diversity and the peopling of the Americas: Evolutionary and
demographic evidence. Am J Human Biol 16: 420–439. Find this article
online
14. Gonzalez-Jose R, Dahinten SL, Luis MA, Hernandez M, Pucciarelli
HM (2001) Craniometric variation and the settlement of the Americas:
Testing hypotheses by means of R-matrix and matrix correlation
analyses. Am J Phys Anthropol 116: 154–165. Find this article online
15. Taylor RE, Haynes CV, Stuiver M (1996) Clovis and Folsom age
estimates: Stratigraphic context and radiocarbon calibration.
Antiquity 70: 515–525. Find this article online
16. Bonatto SL, Salzano FM (1997) Diversity and age of the four
major mtDNA haplogroups, and their implications for the peopling of
the New World. Am J Hum Genet 61: 1413–1423. Find this article online
17. Merriwether DA, Clark AG, Ballinger SW, Schurr TG, Soodyall H,
et al. (1991) The structure of human mitochondrial DNA variation. J
Mol Evol 33: 543–555. Find this article online
18. Malhi RS, Eshleman JA, Greenberg JA, Weiss DA, Schultz Shook BA,
et al. (2002) The structure of diversity within New World
mitochondrial DNA haplogroups: Implications for the prehistory of
North America. Am J Hum Genet 70: 905–919. Find this article online
19. Silva WA, Bonatto SL, Holanda AJ, Ribeiro-Dos-Santos AK, Paixao
BM, et al. (2002) Mitochondrial genome diversity of Native Americans
supports a single early entry of founder populations into America. Am
J Hum Genet 71: 187–192. Find this article online
20. Takahata N, Nei M (1985) Gene genealogy and variance of
interpopulational nucleotide differences. Genetics 110: 325–344. Find
this article online
21. Hudson RRFutuyma D, Antonovics J (1990) Gene genealogies and the
coalescent process. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology. New York:
Oxford University Press. pp. 1–44.
22. Hudson RR, Turelli M (2003) Stochasticity overrules the “three-
times rule”: Genetic drift, genetic draft, and coalescence times for
nuclear loci versus mitochondrial DNA. Evolution 57: 182–190. Find
this article online
23. Knowles LL, Maddison WP (2002) Statistical phylogeography. Mol
Ecol 11: 2623–2635. Find this article online
24. Templeton AR (2004) Statistical phylogeography: Methods of
evaluating and minimizing inference errors. Mol Ecol 13: 789–809. Find
this article online
25. Hey J, Machado CA (2003) The study of structured populations—New
hope for a difficult and divided science. Nat Rev Genet 4: 535–543.
Find this article online
26. Felsenstein J (1992) Estimating effective population size from
samples of sequences: A bootstrap Monte Carlo integration method.
Genet Res 60: 209–220. Find this article online
27. Kuhner MK, Yamato J, Felsenstein J (1995) Estimating effective
population size and mutation rate from sequence data using Metropolis-
Hastings sampling. Genetics 140: 1421–1430. Find this article online
28. Griffiths RC, Tavare S (1994) Ancestral inference in population
genetics. Stat Sci 9: 307–319. Find this article online
29. Beerli P, Felsenstein J (1999) Maximum-likelihood estimation of
migration rates and effective population numbers in two populations
using a coalescent approach. Genetics 152: 763–773. Find this article
online
30. Nielsen R, Wakeley J (2001) Distinguishing migration from
isolation. A Markov chain Monte Carlo approach. Genetics 158: 885–896.
Find this article online
31. Wakeley J, Hey J (1998) Testing speciation models with DNA
sequence data. In: DeSalle R, Schierwater B, editors. Molecular
Approaches to Ecology and Evolution. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag. pp. 157–
175.
32. Hey J, Won Y-J, Sivasundar A, Nielsen R, Markert JA (2004) Using
nuclear haplotypes with microsatellites to study gene flow between
recently separated Cichlid species. Mol Ecol 13: 909–919. Find this
article online
33. Hey J, Nielsen R (2004) Multilocus methods for estimating
population sizes, migration rates and divergence time, with
applications to the divergence of Drosophila pseudoobscura and D.
persimilis. Genetics 167: 747–760. Find this article online
34. Pritchard JK, Seielstad MT, Perez-Lezaun A, Feldman MW (1999)
Population growth of human Y chromosomes: A study of Y chromosome
microsatellites. Mol Biol Evol 16: 1791–1798. Find this article online
35. Harpending HC, Batzer MA, Gurven M, Jorde LB, Rogers AR, et al.
(1998) Genetic traces of ancient demography. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
95: 1961–1967. Find this article online
36. Sherry ST, Rogers AR, Harpending H, Soodyall H, Jenkins T, et
al. (1994) Mismatch distributions of mtDNA reveal recent human
population expansions. Hum Biol 66: 761–775. Find this article online
37. Watkins WS, Ricker CE, Bamshad MJ, Carroll ML, Nguyen SV, et al.
(2001) Patterns of ancestral human diversity: An analysis of alu-
insertion and restriction-site polymorphisms. Am J Hum Genet 68: 738–
752. Find this article online
38. Hudson RR, Kaplan NL (1985) Statistical properties of the number
of recombination events in the history of a sample of DNA sequences.
Genetics 111: 147–164. Find this article online
39. Hudson RR, Kreitman M, Aguadé M (1987) A test of neutral
molecular evolution based on nucleotide data. Genetics 116: 153–159.
Find this article online
40. Meltzer DJ (1995) Clocking the first Americans. Annu Rev
Anthropol 24: 21–45. Find this article online
41. Anderson DG, Faught MK (2000) Palaeoindian artefact
distributions: Evidence and implications. Antiquity 74: 507–513. Find
this article online
42. Dillehay TD, editor (1996) Monte Verde: A late Pleistocene
settlement in Chile. Vol 2: The archaeological context and
interpretation. Washington, D C: Smithsonian Insititution Press. 1071
p.
43. Meltzer DJ (1997) Monte Verde and the Pleistocene peopling of
the Americas. Science 276: 754–755. Find this article online
44. Tishkoff SA, Verrelli BC (2003) Patterns of human genetic
diversity: Implications for human evolutionary history and disease.
Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 4: 293–340. Find this article online
45. Rannala B, Yang Z (2003) Bayes estimation of species divergence
times and ancestral population sizes using DNA sequences from multiple
loci. Genetics 164: 1645–1656. Find this article online
46. Rosenberg NA, Feldman MW (2002) The relationship between
coalescence times and population divergence times. In: Slatkin M,
Veuille M, editors. Modern developments in theoretical population
genetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 130–164.
47. Takahata N, Lee SH, Satta Y (2001) Testing multiregionality of
modern human origins. Mol Biol Evol 18: 172–183. Find this article
online
48. Hammer MF, Blackmer F, Garrigan D, Nachman MW, Wilder JA (2003)
Human population structure and its effects on sampling y chromosome
sequence variation. Genetics 164: 1495–1509. Find this article online
49. Zietkiewicz E, Yotova V, Gehl D, Wambach T, Arrieta I, et al.
(2003) Haplotypes in the dystrophin DNA segment point to a mosaic
origin of modern human diversity. Am J Hum Genet 73: 994–1015. Find
this article online
50. Merriwether DA, Rothhammer F, Ferrell RE (1995) Distribution of
the four founding lineage haplotypes in Native Americans suggests a
single wave of migration for the New World. Am J Phys Anthropol 98:
411–430. Find this article online
51. Kingman JFC (1982) The coalescent. Stochastic Processes Appl 13:
235–248. Find this article online
52. Kingman JFC (1982) On the genealogy of large populations. J Appl
Probab 19A 27–43. Find this article online
53. Tavare S (1984) Line-of-Descent and genealogical processes, and
their applications in population genetics models. Theor Popul Biol 26:
119–164. Find this article online
54. Hudson RR (1983) Properties of a neutral allele model with
intragenic recombination. Theor Popul Biol 23: 183–201. Find this
article online
55. Griffiths RC, Tavare S (1994) Sampling theory for neutral
alleles in a varying environment. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
344: 403–410. Find this article online
56. Gilks WR, Richardson S, Spiegelhalter DJ (1996) Markov chain
Monte Carlo in practice. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall. 486 p.
57. Palsbøll PJ, Berube M, Aguilar A, Notarbartolo-Di-Sciara G,
Nielsen R (2004) Discerning between recurrent gene flow and recent
divergence under a finite-site mutation model applied to North
Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)
populations. Evolution Int J Org Evolution 58: 670–675. Find this
article online
58. Kuhner MK, Yamato J, Felsenstein J (1998) Maximum likelihood
estimation of population growth rates based on the coalescent.
Genetics 149: 429–434. Find this article online
59. Hastings WK (1970) Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov
chains and their applications. Biometrika 57: 97–109. Find this
article online
60. Fisher RA (1954) Statistical methods for research workers.
Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. 360 p.
61. Rohlf FJ, Sokal RR (1981) Statistical tables. San Francisco: W.
H. Freeman and Company. 192 p.
62. Tajima F (1989) The effect of change in population size on DNA
polymorphism. Genetics 123: 597–601. Find this article online
63. Geyer CJ (1991) Markov chain Monte Carlo maximum likelihood. In:
Keramidas EM, editor. Computing science and statistics. Proceedings of
the 23rd Symposium on the Interface; April 21–24, 1991. Seattle,
Washington: Interface Foundation of North America. pp. 156–163.
64. Robert CP, Casella G (2004) Monte Carlo statistical methods. New
York, New York: Springer. 645 p.
65. Glazko GV, Nei M (2003) Estimation of divergence times for major
lineages of primate species. Mol Biol Evol 20: 424–434. Find this
article online
66. Vignaud P, Duringer P, Mackaye HT, Likius A, Blondel C, et al.
(2002) Geology and palaeontology of the Upper Miocene Toros-Menalla
hominid locality, Chad. Nature 418: 152–155. Find this article online
67. Brunet M, Guy F, Pilbeam D, Mackaye HT, Likius A, et al. (2002)
A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa. Nature
418: 145–151. Find this article online
68. Wildman DE, Uddin M, Liu G, Grossman LI, Goodman M (2003)
Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA
identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A 100: 7181–7188. Find this article online
69. Chen F-C, Li W-H (2001) Genomic divergences between humans and
other hominoids and the effective population size of the common
ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. Am J Hum Genet 68: 444–456. Find
this article online
70. Wright S (1951) The genetical structure of populations. Ann
Eugenics 15: 323–354. Find this article online
71. Hudson RR, Slatkin M, Maddison WP (1992) Estimation of levels of
gene flow from DNA sequence data. Genetics 132: 583–589. Find this
article online
72. Harding RM, Fullerton SM, Griffiths RC, Bond J, Cox MJ, et al.
(1997) Archaic African and Asian lineages in the genetic ancestry of
modern humans. Am J Hum Genet 60: 772–789. Find this article online
73. Chakravarti A, Buetow KH, Antonarakis SE, Waber PG, Boehm CD, et
al. (1984) Nonuniform recombination within the human β-globin gene
cluster. Am J Hum Genet 36: 1239–1258. Find this article online
74. Savatier P, Trabuchet G, Faure C, Chebloune Y, Gouy M, et al.
(1985) Evolution of the primate beta-globin gene region. High rate of
variation in CpG dinucleotides and in short repeated sequences between
man and chimpanzee. J Mol Biol 182: 21–29. Find this article online
75. Mishmar D, Ruiz-Pesini E, Golik P, Macaulay V, Clark AG, et al.
(2003) Natural selection shaped regional mtDNA variation in humans.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100: 171–176. Find this article online
76. Ingman M, Kaessmann H, Paabo S, Gyllensten U (2000)
Mitochondrial genome variation and the origin of modern humans. Nature
408: 708–713. Find this article online
77. Shen P, Wang F, Underhill PA, Franco C, Yang WH, et al. (2000)
Population genetic implications from sequence variation in four Y
chromosome genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97: 7354–7359. Find this
article online
78. Kaessmann H, Heissig F, von Haeseler A, Paabo S (1999) DNA
sequence variation in a non-coding region of low recombination on the
human X chromosome. Nat Genet 22: 78–81. Find this article online
79. Kaessmann H, Wiebe V, Paabo S (1999) Extensive nuclear DNA
sequence diversity among chimpanzees. Science 286: 1159–1162. Find
this article online
80. Jaruzelska J, Zietkiewicz E, Batzer M, Cole DE, Moisan JP, et
al. (1999) Spatial and temporal distribution of the neutral
polymorphisms in the last ZFX intron. Analysis of the haplotype
structure and genealogy. Genetics 152: 1091–1101. Find this article
online
81. Jaruzelska J, Zietkiewicz E, Labuda D (1999) Is selection
responsible for the low level of variation in the last intron of the
ZFY locus? Mol Biol Evol 16: 1633–1640. Find this article online
82. Thorstenson YR, Shen P, Tusher VG, Wayne TL, Davis RW, et al.
(2001) Global analysis of ATM polymorphism reveals significant
functional constraint. Am J Hum Genet 69: 396–412. Find this article
online
83. Hammer MF, Garrigan D, Wood E, Wilder JA, Mobasher Z, et al.
(2004) Heterogeneous patterns of variation among multiple human X-
linked loci: The possible role of diversity-reducing selection in non-
Africans. Genetics 167: 1841–1853. Find this article online
JTEM
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Applying those same models to, say, Europe, you're not only
> > going to miss the Neanderthals but Cromagnon man and even
> > many later arrivals as well:
>
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051112125213.htm
>
> > So, does that sound like a really good model to you? It
> > doesn't to me.
> Since you didn't read Hey, claimed it was
> not available, how do you know that the Rasmus
> Nielsen1 paper is just a rehash.
Oh, POP! You clearly never read your own cites, or
you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.
HINT: The cite was "Plos Biology" and the second
link, IN IT'S OPENING SENTENCE, refers to the "new
study" in this Plos Biology.
Damn, you're fucked...
> It is a critical examination of a new technique
> for evaluation models of examining genetic data.
As I said, looking at Europe's present populations,
and using this model, it would not only miss the
Neanderthals & Cromagnon but far more recent populations
as well.
So the model sucks.
> The founding of New World populations [delete a whole
> lot of quoting]
You clearly don't understand the issue. Here, I'll explain
it and then you can continue to not get it:
The only important piece of information needed here is
the source of their DNA. I was under the impression that
it's from the present native populations, not from
ancient DNA samples. If this is the case, the entire study
is bogus. It's all bogus. See, sampling the present
population of Europe and extrapolating backwards would NOT
result in anything approaching an accurate picture.
It couldn't.
Which means -- now hold on to your hat -- if the Americas
had been settle by non beringer populations (and it looks
an awful lot like it was), those non beringer populations
would be invisible to (absent from the results of) such
a study.
Now if THAT'S too subtle then let me spell it out for you:
Your cite, the study you cited could be completely wrong.
Given real world models (as opposed to the theoretical
models they depend on) they are wrong. Period.
You're welcome.
George
Is it your contention that there was only one migration from one area
into North America from Asia?
What of the peoples moving up the coast through China and onto the
Beringer land bridge.
Supposing of course that your DNA claim has some substance..
If you hear hoofbeats in the night expect horses....
Lee Olsen
>
> Which means -- now hold on to your hat -- if the Americas
> had been settle by non beringer populations (and it looks
> an awful lot like it was),
"Archeological evidence, as well as anatomical, linguistic, and
genetic
evidence, have shown that the original human inhabitants of the
Western Hemisphere arrived from Asia during the Late Pleistocene [1–
4]. However, there persists uncertainty on the source, within Asia,
of
peoples who migrated to the New World [5], on the timing of the
earliest migration [6–10], and on whether there have been multiple
migrations [3,11–13]."
Then cite a source to counter that statement.
> those non beringer populations
> would be invisible to (absent from the results of) such
> a study.
Yes, but more than one disipline of studies is involved.
DNA could very well miss the people at L'Anse aux Meadows
for instance, but archaeology didn't. Same with Greenland,
it really isn't that hard to figure out that two different peoples
occupied that area also, one from Asia and one from Europe.
Unless the first people got here and flopped like at
L'Anse aux Meadows, then it would be pretty hard to hide
from both DNA and archaeology. And if such a group made
that little impact as to be invisible, then they were of no
consequence anyway, other than just being a novelty item.
JTEM
George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> Is it your contention that there was only
> one migration from one area into North
> America from Asia?
It is my contention that whatever was possible is
what happened -- including the occasional arrival
from Oceania, Africa & Europe.... over a period
of tens of thousands of years, beginning sometime
around or shortly after, oh, 42,000 ybp.
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 6:37 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Which means -- now hold on to your hat -- if the Americas
> > had been settle by non beringer populations (and it looks
> > an awful lot like it was),
> "Archeological evidence, as well as anatomical,
> linguistic, and genetic evidence, have shown that
> the original human inhabitants of the Western
> Hemisphere arrived from Asia during the Late
> Pleistocene
I keep forgetting how monumentally ignorant you are...
Define "Late Pleistocene," you moron.
Is it, say, that last million years? Only the last
500 thousand? Half that maybe -- the last 250 thousand
years?
Secondly, as you are well aware, there is archeological
evidence that people arrived from other places and
at other times than the main (largest) wave(s).
You're welcome.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Deer, deer
It all goats to show.
Eric Stevens
Jack Linthicum
On the other hand, these could be valid studies using the best
information available and you could be a narrow-minded idiot wedded to
some kook premise that you can't prove but like to use as a comparison
to real studies.
Lee Olsen
<sputter, spit, vomit>
Define:
> > Which means -- now hold on to your hat -- if the Americas
> > had been settle by non beringer populations (and it looks
> > an awful lot like it was),
Define who exactly these invisible people were and the dates to the
best
of your knowledge. They could be late Miocene acording to your non-
descript
description..
JTEM
JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
: I keep forgetting how monumentally ignorant you are...
:
: Define "Late Pleistocene," you moron.
:
: Is it, say, that last million years? Only the last
: 500 thousand? Half that maybe -- the last 250
: thousand years?
> <sputter, spit, vomit>
>
> Define:
Okay, so you clearly have no idea what you meant
by "Late Pleistocene." Well, I mean in addition to
all those other things you've spewed in the past
but never understood...
I'm laughing at you, retard.
JTEM
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > The only important piece of information needed
> > here is the source of their DNA. I was under
> > the impression that it's from the present
> > native populations, not from ancient DNA
> > samples. If this is the case, the entire study
> > is bogus. It's all bogus.
> On the other hand, these could be valid studies
> using the best information
"Best information" and "Valid" do not go hand & hand.
> and you could be a narrow-minded idiot wedded to
> some kook premise that you can't prove but like
> to use as a comparison to real studies.
This would be better if you hadn't already revealed
that you never read your own sources.
HINT: It's clearly the conclusion (the opinion) you're
attached to, and not the science. Because if it were
the science you would have read the cites.
Lee Olsen
Lee Olsen
Opps I hit send, rather than reply.
Define this, retard....
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Define this,
Absolutely, retard. No problem what so ever.
But you asked this in response to my asking you
to define "Late Pleistocene," which you haven't
done yet.
Say, you're not a hypocrite, are you? I mean, in
addition to being so clearly retarded, you're not
also a hypocrite... right?
So answer my challenge BEFORE issuing your own:
Define "Late Pleistocene," you stupid fucking idiot.
Jack Linthicum
I wonder about you. You just critiqued your own post of July 29 9:37
pm and found large holes in your own arguments. Get some professional
help.
JTEM
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I wonder about you.
Well I don't wonder about you. You give every
outward appearance of being a standard usenet
troll -- from your blind adherence to whatever
nonsense you're currently advocating to you
insane, control-freak response to anyone who
questions your self-deluded authority.
Dude, you challenged me on a point that was
established within THE FIRST SENTENCE of your
own goddamn cite!
You only had to read as far as the first sentence,
something you apparently NEVER DID, of your own
goddamn cite!
That's how little you care for the details -- the
actual science. So, yeah, go fuck yourself, you
ignorant twit.
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > No fool, all you have to do is read *all*
> > > of the NPS report on Kennewick Man.
>
> > So you can't articulate a position,
>
> What an idiot, I just did above and you are too ignorant
> to falsify what I said.
Precious. Absolutely precious.
Lee Olsen
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Define this,
>
> Absolutely, retard. No problem what so ever.
Then go ahead and define it, you evasive ass.
Lee Olsen
>
> > What an idiot, I just did above and you are too ignorant
> > to falsify what I said.
You dumb ass, no you didn't, prove you read it all.
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Say, you're not a hypocrite, are you? I mean, in
> > addition to being so clearly retarded, you're not
> > also a hypocrite... right?
> >
> > So answer my challenge BEFORE issuing your own:
> >
> > Define "Late Pleistocene," you stupid fucking idiot.
> Then go ahead and define it, you evasive ass.
Wow. When I said your reading comprehension sucks I
was being too kind... you vile hypocrite.
So, like I said, define "Late Pleistocene" and THEN
ask your incredibly stupid question.
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > What an idiot, I just did above and you are too ignorant
> > > to falsify what I said.
>
> You dumb ass, no you didn't, prove you read it all.
Those are your words, moron, and you're right: You
never did articulate your position... so I don't blame
you for calling yourself a "dumb ass" the way you do.
Lee Olsen
> Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > scientific reconstruction of one of the oldest
> > sets of human remains found in the Americas
> > appears to support theories that the first
> > people who came to the hemisphere migrated
> > from a broader area than once thought,
> > researchers say.
>
> Interestingly enough, this is one of those stories
> that pops up periodically, and at this point is
> hardly surprising.
>
> Here's a cite setting these kinds of stories back
> to at least 1997:
>
> http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-twoworlds/1867
>
> Now here's why I think it's not all that important...
>
> See, there's people and then there's "Culture."
> Personally, I believe
"I believe" No science there, so let's move on and see if we can
find some in this post.
> that people have been arriving
> in the Americas starting from the first moments they
> could -- whether by land bridges or floating on top
> of something.
More hot air.... rambling babble.
> And when you consider "Mungo Man" --
> the remains of an early "Modern" who was buried in
> Australia about 40,000 years ago, it wouldn't be too
> much of a stretch to say that man "Could" have
> arrived
"could have" no empirical data here also, and accompanied by a lack
of dates. They all hid for another 25,000 years....in the same asylum
with you no doubt.
>here in the Americas no later than 38 thousand
> BC... that's when man was physically capable of it...
> "Could do it."
Could do it and did do it is two different things, loon.
>
> Mind you, I said "No later than."
>
> But random arrivals are meaningless. They're not
> significant. No matter how many wandering families
> or lost seamen stumbled their way to the Americas,
> none of them ever did more than represent themselves.
How profound. You just said absolutely nothing. Why do sickos like
you waste your breath on drivel like that, do you think you are
impressing
someone?
>
> See, the land is just huge, the starting points
> so widely separate and 20 or 30 thousand years (or more)
> is just such a long time, even if we were talking
> about a million arrivals it's unlikely any of them
> would cross paths, nor could they communicate if they
> somehow did.
"even if"? No science there either.
>
> No, there had to be a certain population density, a
> threshold if you will, that had to be crossed before
> we stopped talking about individual wanderers and
> castaways and started started talking about a culture.
"a certain" You forgot the math, just what exactly is this certain
threshold you speak of? Do you always make up rubbish as you go
along? Yes, you do.
>
> "Clovis Culture."
>
> And THAT is interesting. Not isolated habitations, but
> a culture, a people linked to a single culture. And
> it wasn't possible until the traditional "mass"
> migration they like to talk about occurred, likely
> doubling (at least) the population in a geologically
> speaking "Rapid" period of time.
"doubling" What is your data for that, you forgot the math,
the citation, the science, just pure lip service.
But again, for a person who makes everything up,
why would it matter, right?
>
> The big problem here is the DNA so-called "Evidence."
The really big problem here is a guy that doesn't have the talent
to clean toilets in real life, is making remarks that prove he is a
basket
case.
>
> It looks the same no matter what. Yes, even if a
> proportion of the continents population came from
> Africa, Europe, Australia or the pacific islands,
> it would pretty much look identical to, say, a
> population that was 100% derived from Beringia
> crossers.
No evidence for Africa, Europe, Australia or the pacific islands
invaders, so why bring it up?
>
> Every time a Bering male mated with an Australian
> female,
Spare us from your ignorant drivel, OK?
> for example, the Australian y-chromosome
> would be hidden. And every time a Bering female
> mated with, say, a European male, the European
> mtDNA would be masked. These kind of match ups so
> favor the majority that it's only a matter of time
> before the minority DNA markers are gone, or at
> least few enough and far enough between to keep
> you from seeing them. Add some disparity here --
> "Kill the men folk & take the women!" -- and it'll
> happen all the faster.
What a vivid imagination for an inmate. No science, a post completely
devoid of content.
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "I believe" No science there,
Wait. Are you really that stupid? I mean, did it not
occur to you to check the subject line of this thread,
or the cite I offered and you quoted?
I mean, it's not like there's no evidence, it's that
you're trying rather hard to not see it and it shows.
Moron.
Lee Olsen
<endless lip service>
No one here needs a phantasy review from a person
who knows absolutely nothing about the subject at hand.
Now why don't you go back to your day job cleaning toilets.
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> No one here needs a
Hey, dhit head: You don't even know what you
mean when you say, "Late Pleistocene." You
could explain what you meant even after repeated
challenges.
Yeah, you're THAT fuck up.
Congratulations.
Lee Olsen
>
> Define "Late Pleistocene,"
Toilet-bowl cleaners who reference to URLs that claim
Kennewick Man was killed by a spear point in the head
are too stupid to be making demands on this list. Idiots who
make claims like: "See, the land is just huge, the starting points
so widely separate and 20 or 30 thousand years (or more).."
are so vague and meaningless they don't deserve a reply,
especially when coming from a brainless asshole.
Jack Linthicum
> Define "Late Pleistocene," you moron.
>
>
Try this, it's very simple. Type "late pleistocene" at google. You
will get many cites offering rationally agreed definitions of "late
pleistocene" made by people who do this for a living. Those are the
definitions you should have known before you asked the question.
Lee Olsen
Thanks Jack...case in point:
Goebel, Waters, and O'Rouke
The Late Pleistocene Dispersal of
Modern Humans in the Americas
Science Vol. 319 14 March 2008
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Toilet-bowl cleaners who
No, that is __Not__ an acceptable definition
for "Late Pleistocene."
Again, stop trying to obfuscate with your infantile
(f)Lames and counter challenges. You used the term
"Late Pleistocene," now either define what you mean
or admit your ignorance.
HINT: Say, shit head, you could have always just
Googled "Late Pleistocene," and then posted what
you found.
Of course, I would have used your definition as a
search string, and then demonstrated how you had
to resort to cutting & pasting. Unless....
Unless you had Googled the term, and then paraphrased
the definitions you found. See, once you put the
definition into your own words you...
Oops!
An accurate paraphrase would have required understanding,
huh? That's why you couldn't even manage to cheat. You
had to fail to define the term -- reveal your astounding
ignorance -- because the only other option would have been
to make you look even more stupid.
I'm laughing at you.
JTEM
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2:00 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Define "Late Pleistocene," you moron.
>
> Try this, it's
As a moron you missed the point entirely.
Your alter ego doesn't know what THEY mean when they
use the term, and proved a number of times.
Jack Linthicum
As I said before, you are beyond crazy and lack a keeper
Lee Olsen
<nothing>
Goebel, Waters, and O'Rouke
The Late Pleistocene Dispersal of
Modern Humans in the Americas
Science Vol. 319 14 March 2008
For just one example of many, with no further definition needed,
or given in the paper....professionals know and do not
need to be told what the term means. Professionals are expected to
know
basic 101.
Thank you for aligning me in the camp with all the professionals
who use the term.
However, kindergarden students and toilet-bowl cleaners
need further explanation because of their limited vocabulary.
Sign up for a class in elementary antho 101 to shore up your
deficiency in language skills before you get into advanced
discussions here.
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Goebel, Waters, and O'Rouke
> The Late Pleistocene Dispersal of
> Modern Humans in the Americas
> Science Vol. 319 14 March 2008
<nothing>
Nope, retard, that doesn't work at all. See,
I wasn't doubting that there is a definition
for "Late Pleistocene" -- I wasn't challenging
the idea that such a term really exists and
has a legitimate definition -- I was challenging
the myth that you know what that definition is
and understand it.
Speaking of interesting "Coincidences".... both
you and your sock puppet missed this point.
Repeatedly.
JTEM
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> As I said before,
You have NEVER offered a definition for "Late Pleistocene,"
never mind phrased in your own words.
You're incapable of doing it. Heck, at this point the
only one you're fooling is your own goddamn sock puppet.
Lee Olsen
>
> You have NEVER offered a definition for "Late Pleistocene,"
> never mind phrased in your own words.
Nor I, you stupid shit, do you think everyone owes you an explanation
for a simple words that are commonly used in the literature? What a
spoiled,
childish brat. Grow up and learn how to click a mouse for yourself.
Google: "late pleistocene migrations...About 532,000 results (0.28
seconds).
Surely even a retard like you can find something there that will shore
up
your deficient volcabulary.
Lee Olsen
<nothing again>
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Goebel, Waters, and O'Rouke
> > The Late Pleistocene Dispersal of
> > Modern Humans in the Americas
> > Science Vol. 319 14 March 2008
>
>
You stupid shit, do you think everyone owes you an explanation
for simple words that are commonly used in the literature? What a
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You stupid shit, do you
No, that isn't a definition for "Late Pleistocene"
either.
Just come out and admit that you have no idea what
you meant when you used the term.
Go on, you drool soaked retard, admit it.
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > You have NEVER offered a definition for "Late Pleistocene,"
> > never mind phrased in your own words.
> Nor I, you stupid shit,
Precious.
Jack Linthicum
No need, I find you unable to understand simple directions and decline
to try.
JTEM
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > As I said before,
>
> > You have NEVER offered a definition for "Late Pleistocene,"
> > never mind phrased in your own words.
>
> > You're incapable of doing it. Heck, at this point the
> > only one you're fooling is your own goddamn sock puppet.
>
> No need,
Technically, yeah, there is no need to fool your own
sock puppet, but with comprehension you might've also
read it as "you're only fooling yourself."
If you had any reading comprehension, that is.
Jack Linthicum
"I find you unable to understand simple directions and decline
to try."
What you left out of my post
JTEM
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "I find
Alternatively -- an alternative to your mental breakdown
here -- you could have explained where you believe the
DNA came from, and then mapped out how this supported
your conclusion.
Moron.
Lee Olsen
What part of this are you too stupid to understand, moron?
http://tinyurl.com/28nb4fb
"It is widely accepted that the ancestors of Native Americans
arrived in the New World via Beringia approximately 10 to 30
thousand years ago (kya). However, the arrival time(s), numbe
r of expansion events, and migration routes into the Western
Hemisphere remain controversial because linguistic,
archaeological, and genetic evidence have not yet provided
coherent answers. Notably, most of the genetic evidence has
been acquired from the analysis of the common pan-American
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups. In this study, we have
instead identified and analyzed mtDNAs belonging to two rare
Native American haplogroups named D4h3 and X2a.
Results
Phylogeographic analyses at the highest level of molecular
resolution (69 entire mitochondrial genomes) reveal that
two almost concomitant paths of migration from Beringia led
to the Paleo-Indian dispersal approximately 15–17 kya.
Haplogroup D4h3 spread into the Americas along the Pacific coast,
whereas X2a entered through the ice-free corridor between
the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets. The examination of an
additional 276 entire mtDNA sequences provides similar entry
times for all common Native American haplogroups, thus indicating
at least a dual origin for Paleo-Indians.
Conclusions
A dual origin for the first Americans is a striking novelty from
the genetic point of view, and it makes plausible a scenario
positing that within a rather short period of time, there may
have been several entries into the Americas from a dynamically
changing Beringian source. Moreover, this implies that most probably
more than one language family was carried along with the Paleo-
Indians."
Why is it you demand others to explain and repeat here what is freely
available online? You may still be able to con your mother into
washing your diapers for you at home, here your are going to
have to learn to wash your own.
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What part of this are you too stupid to
> understand, moron?
Ironically, moron, I not only understood it but
I explained my issues with hit (hint: using the
same criteria Europe was never populated by
comparatively "Recent" populations, much less
Cromagnon or Neanderthal).
Oh, as you are so monumentally stupid, allow me
to spell it out further: That means it's entirely
circular. It BEGINS by assuming it knows exactly
where north America's population came from, and how
it got here.
Of course, you only wish you could understand this,
so you'll have to take the word of us superiors on
it... which you can't, as your stupidity would never
allow it...
Lee Olsen
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Here is what Powell and Neves say:
> > "When the data were analyzed controlling for
> > the effects of genetic drift
>
> : on DNA analysis of the Remains of "Kennewick
> : Man" from Columbia Park, Washington
> :
> : No DNA suitable for PCR amplification could
> : be extracted from the Kennewick samples
> : studied. Thus, no conclusion regarding its
> : ethnic ancestry or cultural affiliation
> : based on DNA can be made.http://www.friendsofpast.org/pdf/DOI/DOI09993.pdf
You go by the odds, there is nothing at all in the archaeological or
DNA record that would
imply he was something other than one of the first founding
haplogroups or one
of the new sub-haplogroups. The DNA found in every Archaic or Paleo
skeleton tested
sucessfully so far has been from one of the founding groups or sub-
groups. Many have
failed DNA tests to be sure, but you do not draw conclusions from
failures, only successes.
Now, if someone does find a diagnostic artifact from some other
source or ancient
haplogroup from somewhere besides what is known from Beringia, then
yes, at that
point one could make a good argument he was from somewhere else, but
not until.
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 8:03 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Here is what Powell and Neves say:
> > > "When the data were analyzed controlling for
> > > the effects of genetic drift
>
> That was
....you. You're replying to yourself.
> > : on DNA analysis of the Remains of "Kennewick
> > : Man" from Columbia Park, Washington
> > :
> > : No DNA suitable for PCR amplification could
> > : be extracted from the Kennewick samples
> > : studied. Thus, no conclusion regarding its
> > : ethnic ancestry or cultural affiliation
> > : based on DNA can be made.
>
> http://www.friendsofpast.org/pdf/DOI/DOI09993.pdf
> Right, so then we
Right, so you were wrong.
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > : on DNA analysis of the Remains of "Kennewick
> > : Man" from Columbia Park, Washington
> > :
> > : No DNA suitable for PCR amplification could
> > : be extracted from the Kennewick samples
> > : studied. Thus, no conclusion regarding its
> > : ethnic ancestry or cultural affiliation
> > : based on DNA can be made.http://www.friendsofpast.org/pdf/DOI/DOI09993.pdf
>
> You go by the odds,
The odds are that they are misinterpreting the
DNA "evidence."
No "odds": Their model doesn't work if you apply
it to Europe. In fact, it totally fucks up everything.
Lee Olsen
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > : on DNA analysis of the Remains of "Kennewick
> > > : Man" from Columbia Park, Washington
> > > :
> > > : No DNA suitable for PCR amplification could
> > > : be extracted from the Kennewick samples
> > > : studied. Thus, no conclusion regarding its
> > > : ethnic ancestry or cultural affiliation
> > > : based on DNA can be made.http://www.friendsofpast.org/pdf/DOI/DOI09993.pdf
>
> > You go by the odds,
>
> The odds are that they are misinterpreting the
> DNA "evidence."
Some of it, yes, I agree...see:
http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/mtDNA_quality_control.pdf
>
> No "odds": Their model doesn't work if you apply
> it to Europe. In fact, it totally fucks up everything.
But where both DNA and archaeology match is where the best
evidence is....yeah, if each comes to the opposite conclusion then
sure,
one has to be wrong.
It is possible that both are wrong when they do agree, but with two
independent
lines of research in agreement, the odds become expoentially smaller
that they
are not.
So getting back to the Kennewick Man. What in the archaeological
record at ca 8000 rcybp
would be considered evidence that a new people showed up at that
time?
James Chatters in his pop-book Ancient Encounters made such a claim.
But he never made such a claim in a peer-reviewed paper. As of 2004,
Chatters was
the only person in the 10 previous years (2004 to 1994) to check out
the Marmes skeletons
for study.
If he had found evidence to support the claim in his book, why didn't
he publish it
in American Antiquity like his other paper on Kennewich Man? The
reason was he didn't find
anything to refute morphological continuity.
Neves argues same thing also (two different groups), but I have yet
seen him include in his skull metric
papers anything that would match the archaeological/cultural record.
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> But where both DNA and archaeology match
> is where the best evidence is....
Yet we both know there's evidence of non-Beringer
arrivals.
> So getting back to the Kennewick Man. What in
> the archaeological record at ca 8000 rcybp
> would be considered evidence that a new people
> showed up at that time?
You're going off in the completely wrong direction.
Basically, you're asking me to substitute people
from elsewhere in the model I'm attacking.
That makes no sense, as the model remains the same.
As I've pointed out many times, I don't believe in
any linear model. I favor a threshold. Which is to
say, man had to be arriving in the Americas starting
the first moments he could, but it was only ever
isolated people or groups until a population
threshold was finally crossed (a population density
had been reached) which allowed for a unified
"Culture."
...and THAT is the operative word here: "Culture."
NOTE: Clovis points are rare, but human remains
dating to Clovis culture are almost unheard of, and
regularly attacked when they are heard of.
> The reason was he didn't find anything to refute
> morphological continuity.
What morphology? Where?
> Neves argues same thing also (two different groups),
> but I have yet seen him include in his skull metric
> papers anything that would match the
> archaeological/cultural record.
What record? How many Clovis graves are aware of? Please
post descriptions of these Clovis era skulls.
The point of, of course, is that there is no morphology
at all. None.
Lee Olsen
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > But where both DNA and archaeology match
> > is where the best evidence is....
>
> Yet we both know there's evidence of non-Beringer
> arrivals.
Sure, post Columbian.
>
> > So getting back to the Kennewick Man. What in
> > the archaeological record at ca 8000 rcybp
> > would be considered evidence that a new people
> > showed up at that time?
>
> You're going off in the completely wrong direction.
Not if Kennewick Man is dated to ca 8000 rcybp.
He is not Paleo, but early Archaic.
> Basically, you're asking me to substitute people
> from elsewhere in the model I'm attacking.
>
> That makes no sense, as the model remains the same.
Kennewick Man has nothing to do with a Beringian
model. People were here thousands of years before
8000 rcybp. Everything about him suggest a local. No
DNA needed.
>
> As I've pointed out many times, I don't believe in
> any linear model. I favor a threshold. Which is to
> say, man had to be arriving in the Americas starting
> the first moments he could, but it was only ever
> isolated people or groups until a population
> threshold was finally crossed (a population density
> had been reached) which allowed for a unified
> "Culture."
There is no DNA or archaeological evidence for other than Beringian
cultures.
What are you using for evidence?
>
> ...and THAT is the operative word here: "Culture."
Well, operate on culture and give us some names of
these cultures, I'm game.
>
> NOTE: Clovis points are rare, but human remains
> dating to Clovis culture are almost unheard of, and
> regularly attacked when they are heard of.
There are only so many plowed fields, so many gullies where
artifacts wash out, and only so many dried up lake beds with
soil of Clovis age. Scientists know of only a few thousand
(maybe up to 10,000) and there is no way to know how
many are unknown in private collections. Current Research in
the Pleistocene has new finds listed in every issue.
It has been guestimated that if we have found this many with
the limited exposures available, then a million more must still be
buried
under many feet of top soil.
>
> > The reason was he didn't find anything to refute
> > morphological continuity.
>
> What morphology? Where?
Marmes Rockshelter. It's a stratified site with skeletal
material dated from about 10,500 to very recent.
> > Neves argues same thing also (two different groups),
> > but I have yet seen him include in his skull metric
> > papers anything that would match the
> > archaeological/cultural record.
>
> What record? How many Clovis graves are aware of? Please
> post descriptions of these Clovis era skulls.
Why do you need graves when Clovis has the most diagnostic
artifacts on the planet?
>
> The point of, of course, is that there is no morphology
> at all. None.
Why are the teeth of Native Americans, both ancient and modern
so much different, on average (there are only a few anomalous
exceptions) so much different than the rest of the world, except
NE Asia? Christy Turner claims he can tell the difference
blindfolded. My bet is you wouldn't put up much money that he can't.
Here is from the abstract of the latest 2010 DNA paper:
"Thus, the recognized maternal founding lineages of Native Americans
are at least 15, indicating
that the overall number of Beringian or Asian founder mitochondrial
genomes will probably increase extensively when all
Native American haplogroups reach the same level of phylogenetic and
genomic resolution as obtained here for C1d."
Perego et al
The initial peopling of the Americas: A growing
number of founding mitochondrial genomes
from Beringia
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2010/06/24/gr.109231.110.full.pdf
"Beringia" is still the key word, no matter how many sub-haplogroups
they find.
What "culture" items would eliminate only Beringia as the source
population?
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Kennewick Man has nothing to do with a Beringian
> model.
Now, quick! Contraqdict yourself:
> People were here thousands of years before
> 8000 rcybp. Everything about him suggest a
> local. No DNA needed.
Notice the contradiction?
> > As I've pointed out many times, I don't believe in
> > any linear model. I favor a threshold. Which is to
> > say, man had to be arriving in the Americas starting
> > the first moments he could, but it was only ever
> > isolated people or groups until a population
> > threshold was finally crossed (a population density
> > had been reached) which allowed for a unified
> > "Culture."
> There is no DNA or archaeological evidence for other
> than Beringian cultures.
There is no DNA for anything. Period. As I keep pointing
out, and you occasionally seem to acknowledge, what the
DNA looks like today isn't necessarily any indication of
what it looked liked even post Clovis, let alone Clovis.
And Clovis bears no similarity to any supposed "Culture"
it originated from, so there goes that "Argument," too.
So that leaves us with *Zero* similarity between Clovis
culture and the Asiatics they supposedly left behind, and
absolutely *Zero* morphological or DNA evidence tying
Clovis to Asia.
Sure, THOUSANDS OF YEARS LATER you've got ties to Asia,
but that's inconclusive at best, if not down right
misleading.
> What are you using for evidence?
The real world -- as opposed to theoretical -- models.
Take Europe for example.
I'd add "Common Sense" but I fail to see any useful
distinctions between it and the above. An example of
this would be, say, how humans did do pretty much
everything they were capable of, so they started to
arrive in the Americas as soon as they could.
That is the most safest, most conservative position
anyone can take, yet it has routinely been rejected.
Why? Because, yeah, often times it really does have
less to do with science than it does popularity.
> > ...and THAT is the operative word here:
> > "Culture."
>
> Well, operate on culture and give us some names of
> these cultures, I'm game.
What, you never heard of "Clovis"?
> > NOTE: Clovis points are rare, but human remains
> > dating to Clovis culture are almost unheard of, and
> > regularly attacked when they are heard of.
> There are only so many plowed fields, so many
> gullies where artifacts wash out,
I'm not talking about artifacts, I'm talking about
these human remains which you required in order to
make your claims regarding morphology & DNA.
> > > The reason was he didn't find anything to refute
> > > morphological continuity.
>
> > What morphology? Where?
> Marmes Rockshelter.
About 7,000 years younger than Clovis by the most
recent estimates, at the very least. Interesting,
but I already presented a cite demonstrating that
going by the same model you currently defend you
couldn't find the people populating Europe only
7,000 years ago... hmmm.... it's as if I was not
posting a random cite after all.... like it went
a long ways towards demonstrating how inaccurate
your model is...
> It's a stratified site with skeletal
> material dated from about 10,500 to very recent.
You need to place the words "Has been" in front of
"Dated."
This cite places the absolute oldest human remains
at around 6,700 years of age:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/281063
But, out of curiosity, what do you think this establishes?
That there was a land bridge? That people crossed it from
Asia to America?
Well it's a good thing that nobody is disputing either of
these two facts, because your Marmes Rockshelter establishes
neither. That's right, it never so much as hints at the
ultimate origins of the ancestors of the people found in the
rock shelter, and neither does it suggest a mode of travel
to the new world.
> > What record? How many Clovis graves are aware of? Please
> > post descriptions of these Clovis era skulls.
>
> Why do you need graves when Clovis has the most diagnostic
> artifacts on the planet?
That should be self evident: The issue we're debating
isn't the artifacts, it's the origins of the people who
made those artifacts.
You made several reference to morphology which
doesn't exist, and my pointing out that there
are no remains to examine highlights this point.
> > The point of, of course, is that there is
> > no morphology at all. None.
> Why are the teeth of Native Americans, both ancient
> and modern so much different, on average (there are
> only a few anomalous exceptions) so much different
> than the rest of the world, except NE Asia?
So you're arguing that this would be impossible with
anything less than a 100% Asian origins?
> Here is from the abstract of the latest 2010
> DNA paper:
I soundly rejected the DNA claims, and pointed out
why (HINT: It was because we can apply the exact
same DNA assumptions to Europe and KNOW FOR A FACT
that the results are pure bullshit).
Why these constant circles? Deal with the evidence
for a change.
Lee Olsen
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Kennewick Man has nothing to do with a Beringian
> > model.
>
> Now, quick! Contraqdict yourself:
How so? Do you have evidence he was not a local?
Do you have evidence his ancestors did not come
through Beringia to get here? Please cite this evidence.
>
> > People were here thousands of years before
> > 8000 rcybp. Everything about him suggest a
> > local. No DNA needed.
>
> Notice the contradiction?
How so? Do you have evidence he was not a local?
Do you have evidence his ancestors did not come
through Beringia to get here? Please cite this evidence.
Part of my family has been in the US for 7 generations. I was born
here, I'm a local.
>
> > > As I've pointed out many times, I don't believe in
> > > any linear model. I favor a threshold. Which is to
> > > say, man had to be arriving in the Americas starting
> > > the first moments he could, but it was only ever
> > > isolated people or groups until a population
> > > threshold was finally crossed (a population density
> > > had been reached) which allowed for a unified
> > > "Culture."
> > There is no DNA or archaeological evidence for other
> > than Beringian cultures.
>
> There is no DNA for anything. Period. As I keep pointing
> out, and you occasionally seem to acknowledge, what the
> DNA looks like today isn't necessarily any indication of
> what it looked liked even post Clovis, let alone Clovis.
So the fact that most of the same haplogroups that are found
in NE Asia are the same as the ones found in the Americas
(allowing for mutations through time) means nothing?
>
> And Clovis bears no similarity to any supposed "Culture"
> it originated from, so there goes that "Argument," too.
Please see the papers by Pearson, Goebel, Hoffecker,
Powers, and Yesner for all the artifacts found in Alaska
that are identical to those found in the lower 48.
Really, the only thing missing is the formal platform
setup for the fluting process. That's it. Blade technology
is found in Alaska and in the lower 48. Clovis did not use
micro-blade tech, why should they? Who would force them to?
>
> So that leaves us with *Zero* similarity between Clovis
> culture and the Asiatics they supposedly left behind, and
> absolutely *Zero* morphological or DNA evidence tying
> Clovis to Asia.
See the papers by Pearson, Goebel, Hoffecker,
Powers, and Yesner for all the artifacts found in Alaska
that are identical to those found in the lower 48.
I have no idea where you are getting your statements.
It sounds like from a 1970s text book.
>
> Sure, THOUSANDS OF YEARS LATER you've got ties to Asia,
> but that's inconclusive at best, if not down right
> misleading.
It is really sad you can't name one of those early cultures
that your are alluding to.
>
> > What are you using for evidence?
>
> The real world -- as opposed to theoretical -- models.
>
> Take Europe for example.
I suppose you mean Stanford and Bradley's Solutrean
connection? If you believe that, why not the 'just as
old' Bluefish Caves site?
>
> I'd add "Common Sense" but I fail to see any useful
> distinctions between it and the above. An example of
> this would be, say, how humans did do pretty much
> everything they were capable of, so they started to
> arrive in the Americas as soon as they could.
There is no evidence for any Paleo European DNA in the Americas.
No Solutrean points have ever been found in the Americas.
>
> That is the most safest, most conservative position
> anyone can take, yet it has routinely been rejected.
>
> Why? Because, yeah, often times it really does have
> less to do with science than it does popularity.
So, show the science.
>
> > > ...and THAT is the operative word here:
> > > "Culture."
>
> > Well, operate on culture and give us some names of
> > these cultures, I'm game.
>
> What, you never heard of "Clovis"?
Sure, bi-Beveled bone rods have been found in Asia at the
Yana site, in Alaska at the Broken Mammoth site in Alaska,
and in numerous sites across the Americas in the Clovis
culture (and in a descending timeline), but never in Europe,
Africa, or SE Asia.
>
> > > NOTE: Clovis points are rare, but human remains
> > > dating to Clovis culture are almost unheard of, and
> > > regularly attacked when they are heard of.
> > There are only so many plowed fields, so many
> > gullies where artifacts wash out,
>
> I'm not talking about artifacts, I'm talking about
> these human remains which you required in order to
> make your claims regarding morphology & DNA.
If the teeth are most similar, both Paleo and recent in Asia and the
Americas, why would anyone think Clovis teeth would be any
different?
>
> > > > The reason was he didn't find anything to refute
> > > > morphological continuity.
>
> > > What morphology? Where?
> > Marmes Rockshelter.
>
> About 7,000 years younger than Clovis by the most
> recent estimates, at the very least.
Hicks, Brent A. (2004). Marmes Rockshelter: A Final Report
on 11,000 Years of Cultural Use, Pullman, Washington:
Washington State University Press, ISBN 0874222753
The oldest dated skeletons at Marmes are about 10,500 and the
artifacts of the period are Windust, same as the date and the
artifacts
from the Buhl Woman burial in Idaho.
> Interesting,
> but I already presented a cite demonstrating that
> going by the same model you currently defend you
> couldn't find the people populating Europe only
> 7,000 years ago... hmmm.... it's as if I was not
> posting a random cite after all.... like it went
> a long ways towards demonstrating how inaccurate
> your model is...
I don't follow what went on in Europe 7000 years ago.
I do follow what was going on in Europe during
the Pleistocene. And I can assure you there was nothing
that matches the skeletons, DNA, teeth, or artifacts in the
Americas.
>
> > It's a stratified site with skeletal
> > material dated from about 10,500 to very recent.
>
> You need to place the words "Has been" in front of
> "Dated."
>
> This cite places the absolute oldest human remains
> at around 6,700 years of age:
>
> http://www.jstor.org/pss/281063
That report was from 1987.
Hicks got a grant for $400,000 to restudy all the old material.
The results of Hicks rework is cited above and is from 2004.
The artifacts found at the lowest levels are Windust, dated
elsewhere to the time of Buhl, ca. 10,500 through to roughly the time
of Kennewick Man. There is no reason to suspect the dating pattern
is wrong at Marmes. Hicks also got 6 new, if IIRC, AMS dates from the
old material.
>
> But, out of curiosity, what do you think this establishes?
>
> That there was a land bridge? That people crossed it from
> Asia to America?
Let me point out one more thing. In the 1960s a Russian
archaeologist named Dikov noticed a striking similarity
between the artifacts he found at Ushki and those found on
the Columbia Plateau. At that time his dates were running thousands
years older than the ones on the Plateau and he naturally assumed
a migration south for the Ushki people into America.
Goebel, Waters,and Dikova (2003) reexcavated and published new
dates and they are now very similar to the ones on the Plateau.
So, the two could be contemperaneous or even represnt a back
migration,
which some of the DNA papers are claiming.
Either way, Beringia is involved, not Europe.
>
> Well it's a good thing that nobody is disputing either of
> these two facts, because your Marmes Rockshelter establishes
> neither. That's right, it never so much as hints at the
> ultimate origins of the ancestors of the people found in the
> rock shelter, and neither does it suggest a mode of travel
> to the new world.
True, but there is certainly nothing that would imply anything other
than Beringia for the ancestors of those people.
>
> > > What record? How many Clovis graves are aware of? Please
> > > post descriptions of these Clovis era skulls.
>
> > Why do you need graves when Clovis has the most diagnostic
> > artifacts on the planet?
>
> That should be self evident: The issue we're debating
> isn't the artifacts, it's the origins of the people who
> made those artifacts.
The people from Alaska, not Europe or SE Asia, or Jomon, or
any other place that has been suggested as the source.
>
> You made several reference to morphology which
> doesn't exist, and my pointing out that there
> are no remains to examine highlights this point.
No, you need to look at Hicks 2004, rather than Sheppard et al 1989.
And by the way, I have the entire paper, not just the first page
that you cited. He is not claiming *all* the older dates are wrong.
That wasn't what he redated.
>
> > > The point of, of course, is that there is
> > > no morphology at all. None.
> > Why are the teeth of Native Americans, both ancient
> > and modern so much different, on average (there are
> > only a few anomalous exceptions) so much different
> > than the rest of the world, except NE Asia?
>
> So you're arguing that this would be impossible with
> anything less than a 100% Asian origins?
No, when you do not have a Fosom point stuck in the
ribs of an extinct bison for smoking gun evidence, then
the next best thing is combining all the evidence known
into what is the most parsimounious result.
>
> > Here is from the abstract of the latest 2010
> > DNA paper:
>
> I soundly rejected the DNA claims, and pointed out
> why (HINT: It was because we can apply the exact
> same DNA assumptions to Europe and KNOW FOR A FACT
> that the results are pure bullshit).
Then where is the European DNA?
>
> Why these constant circles? Deal with the evidence
> for a change.
So you think the Hasket point that fell out of the burial cast at
Marmes
is of European origin?
BTW, it was because of my incessant whining that our local community
college library now has TWO copies of Hicks 2004. The first one was
continually checked out by a professor who was using it in class for
a reference, I never could find it on the shelf. I suggest you do the
same
if your local library doesn't have it.
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Kennewick Man has nothing to do with a Beringian
> > > model.
>
> > Now, quick! Contraqdict yourself:
>
> How so?
You say he has nothing to do with your model, only
to conclude that he fits your model like a glove.
> > > There is no DNA or archaeological evidence for other
> > > than Beringian cultures.
>
> > There is no DNA for anything. Period. As I keep pointing
> > out, and you occasionally seem to acknowledge, what the
> > DNA looks like today isn't necessarily any indication of
> > what it looked liked even post Clovis, let alone Clovis.
> So the fact that most of the same haplogroups that are
> found in NE Asia are the same as the ones found in the
> Americas (allowing for mutations through time) means
> nothing?
Again, you keep moving in circles, forgetting the facts that
have previously been established...
For like the tenth time here:
What the DNA looks like TODAY isn't necessarily any indication
as to what it looked like 10 thousand years ago. As proof
positive of this scientifically established fact I have
repeatedly introduced Europe, and how YOUR assumptions
regarding DNA, if applied to Europe, would result in totally
BOGUS results.
ONCE AGAIN:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051112125213.htm
> > And Clovis bears no similarity to any supposed "Culture"
> > it originated from, so there goes that "Argument," too.
>
> Please see the papers by Pearson, Goebel, Hoffecker,
> Powers, and Yesner for all the artifacts found in Alaska
> that are identical to those found in the lower 48.
Alaska isn't Asia. You're agreeing with me.
> Really, the only thing missing is the formal
> platform setup for the fluting process. That's
> it.
Alternatively, you could acknowledge what you just
said, how you just admitted that "Clovis" does not
originate in Asia, that the closest it ever gets is
Alaska.
> Blade technology is found in Alaska and in the lower 48.
But not Asia. According to your fantasy, these people
traveled across a land bridge only to throw away everything
they knew the moment they arrived here.
> > So that leaves us with *Zero* similarity between Clovis
> > culture and the Asiatics they supposedly left behind, and
> > absolutely *Zero* morphological or DNA evidence tying
> > Clovis to Asia.
> See the papers by Pearson, Goebel, Hoffecker,
> Powers, and Yesner for all the artifacts found in Alaska
> that are identical to those found in the lower 48.
Alaska isn't Asia. The lower 48 isn't Asia. You are
welcome.
> I have no idea where you are getting your statements.
> It sounds like from a 1970s text book.
Dude, not even a 1970s textbook claims that Alaska or
the lower 48 is Asia... so that's no excuse for you.
> > Sure, THOUSANDS OF YEARS LATER you've got ties to Asia,
> > but that's inconclusive at best, if not down right
> > misleading.
> It is really sad you can't name one of those early
> cultures that your are alluding to.
Hello? Clovis?
Seriously, you're a train wreck.
Anyways, I'm *Way* past my "stop at the first
critical flaw" rule, so I might as well rest it here.
But I urge you to learn that Alaska isn't Asia, and
NOBODY on the planet claims that the population of
north America originated in Alaska.
ASIA, dude, ASIA.
And Clovis culture is NOT found in Asia.
Lee Olsen
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Kennewick Man has nothing to do with a Beringian
> > > > model.
>
> > > Now, quick! Contraqdict yourself:
>
> > How so?
>
> You say he has nothing to do with your model, only
> to conclude that he fits your model like a glove.
No, and the reason you didn't quote me directly is because I didn't
say that.
So let's snip it back in:
"How so? Do you have evidence he was not a local?
Do you have evidence his ancestors did not come
through Beringia to get here? Please cite this evidence.
Part of my family has been in the US for 7 generations. I was born
here, I'm a local."
Now you are telling me I'm from somewhere else and that I'm
not a local of this culture?
>
> > > > There is no DNA or archaeological evidence for other
> > > > than Beringian cultures.
>
> > > There is no DNA for anything. Period. As I keep pointing
> > > out, and you occasionally seem to acknowledge, what the
> > > DNA looks like today isn't necessarily any indication of
> > > what it looked liked even post Clovis, let alone Clovis.
> > So the fact that most of the same haplogroups that are
> > found in NE Asia are the same as the ones found in the
> > Americas (allowing for mutations through time) means
> > nothing?
>
> Again, you keep moving in circles, forgetting the facts that
> have previously been established...
You haven't established any facts.
>
> For like the tenth time here:
>
> What the DNA looks like TODAY isn't necessarily any indication
> as to what it looked like 10 thousand years ago.
On Your Kees Cave Man is not 10,000 years old?
Since when?
> As proof
> positive of this scientifically established fact I have
> repeatedly introduced Europe, and how YOUR assumptions
> regarding DNA, if applied to Europe, would result in totally
> BOGUS results.
Why do you talk about Europe? There in no European DNA
at On Your Knees Cave.
>
> ONCE AGAIN:
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051112125213.htm
What does Europe have to do with Kennewick Man or Clovis?
You said "culture" was a clue, did you not?
>
> > > And Clovis bears no similarity to any supposed "Culture"
> > > it originated from, so there goes that "Argument," too.
>
> > Please see the papers by Pearson, Goebel, Hoffecker,
> > Powers, and Yesner for all the artifacts found in Alaska
> > that are identical to those found in the lower 48.
>
> Alaska isn't Asia. You're agreeing with me.
Yana River is on the western edge of Breingia, so you're
agreeing with me.
>
> > Really, the only thing missing is the formal
> > platform setup for the fluting process. That's
> > it.
>
> Alternatively, you could acknowledge what you just
> said, how you just admitted that "Clovis" does not
> originate in Asia, that the closest it ever gets is
> Alaska.
You need to look on a map and find the Yana River.
And Alaska is still eastern Beringia.
>
> > Blade technology is found in Alaska and in the lower 48.
>
> But not Asia.
Yes, both macro and micro in Asia.
>According to your fantasy,
Ted Goebel et al 2000
Studenoe-2 and the origins of microblade technologies
in the Transbaikal, Siberia.
Antiquity, 74:567-75
these people
> traveled across a land bridge only to throw away everything
> they knew the moment they arrived here.
>
> > > So that leaves us with *Zero* similarity between Clovis
> > > culture and the Asiatics they supposedly left behind, and
> > > absolutely *Zero* morphological or DNA evidence tying
> > > Clovis to Asia.
> > See the papers by Pearson, Goebel, Hoffecker,
> > Powers, and Yesner for all the artifacts found in Alaska
> > that are identical to those found in the lower 48.
>
> Alaska isn't Asia. The lower 48 isn't Asia. You are
> welcome.
Yana and Alaska are Beringia, you are welcome.
>
> > I have no idea where you are getting your statements.
> > It sounds like from a 1970s text book.
>
> Dude, not even a 1970s textbook claims that Alaska or
> the lower 48 is Asia... so that's no excuse for you.
Yana and Alaska are Beringia, you are welcome again.
>
> > > Sure, THOUSANDS OF YEARS LATER you've got ties to Asia,
> > > but that's inconclusive at best, if not down right
> > > misleading.
> > It is really sad you can't name one of those early
> > cultures that your are alluding to.
>
> Hello? Clovis?
Bi-beveled bone rods..Yana, Beringia, Broken Mammoth, Beringia,
south of the ice sheets, lower 48 Clovis. Again, no bi-beveled bon
rods
in Europe, Africa, or SE Asia. They are an all pan Beringia show.
>
> Anyways, I'm *Way* past my "stop at the first
> critical flaw" rule, so I might as well rest it here.
Yes, try to find out where Beringia is on a map.
>
> But I urge you to learn that Alaska isn't Asia, and
I urge you to find out where Beringia is.
> NOBODY on the planet claims that the population of
> north America originated in Alaska.
Beringia IS Alaska.
>
> ASIA, dude, ASIA.
Beringia, yes. Thanks for the agreement. We are making progress.
>
> And Clovis culture is NOT found in Asia.
Beringia, yes. The Clovis culture is not a channel flute.
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > You say he has nothing to do with your model, only
> > to conclude that he fits your model like a glove.
> No, and the reason you didn't quote me directly
> is because I didn't say that.
You did say that, you idiot, but you didn't use those
words. The reason I didn't quote you directly is
because you broke it up, you intentionally separated
the answer to your question from your question.
Wait. Or are you now claiming something other than an
Asian origin -- across the land bridge -- for Kennwick
Man's ancestors?
Answer the question: Are you or are you not now
arguing that Kennwick Man's ancestors did __Not__ come
across the land bridge from Asia?
You know, that "Model" you're currently claiming he
doesn't fit...
> > Again, you keep moving in circles, forgetting the facts that
> > have previously been established...
>
> You haven't established any facts.
Wrong, as per your usual, moron:
: For like the tenth time here:
:
: What the DNA looks like TODAY isn't necessarily
: any indication as to what it looked like 10
: thousand years ago. As proof positive of this
: scientifically established fact I have repeatedly
: introduced Europe, and how YOUR assumptions
: regarding DNA, if applied to Europe, would result
: in totally BOGUS results.
:
: ONCE AGAIN:
:
: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051112125213.htm
> On Your Kees Cave Man is not 10,000 years old?
> Since when?
You clearly has no grasp of the science here. None.
Seriously, you're *Way* out of your element, totally
over your head.
Give it up.
For people not quite so intellectually challenged as you:
As has been established, using the models advocated by
the mental case here, applying the DNA assumptions on
which this model is based on to Europe, we know for a
fact that they don't work. We know that the result would
be an extremely inaccurate picture of the history of
human habitation of Europe. Conclusion: The model sucks.
In fact, the model itself is of no scientific value what
so ever. They began with assumptions and then simply
built their "model" to suit those assumptions.
This is NOT speculation. We can easily test this by
applying it to Europe, at which point it fails miserably.
Lee Olsen
<nothing again>
Let's have a review and see how you are doing so far.
1. You don't know how to find "Late Pleistocene,"
yet it is in the title of numerous papers.
2. "The odds are that they are misinterpreting the
DNA "evidence."
The odds are they are not, since
there are 10X more Clovis-like traits found in Beringia
than in Europe.
3.You didn't have a clue Alaska or the Yana River was part of
Beringia.
4. "What the DNA looks like TODAY isn't necessarily any indication
as to what it looked like 10 thousand years ago."
On Your Kees Cave Man is not 10,000 years old?
Since when? (No answer)
5. Then you cite one page from Sheppard et al from 1987 and
claim the skeletons are "About 7,000 years younger than Clovis by the
most
recent estimates, at the very least."
Most recent estimates?
See Hicks 2004 for more recent (no answer)
6. You didn't know Alaska was part of Beringia.
7. Then you tell us blades are not found in Asia: "But not Asia.
According
to your fantasy, these people traveled across a land bridge only to
throw
away everything they knew the moment they arrived here."
Which of course is total nonsense:
http://paleo.sscnet.ucla.edu/BrantCA2001.pdf
Why are you doing posting on sci.arch?
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Let's have a review and see how you are doing so far.
Unfortunately, such a task would require some
reading comprehension, something you can't fake
no matter how many handle you switch between...
> 1. You don't know how to find "Late Pleistocene,"
Actually, I repeatedly challenged YOU to define
what YOU meant by "late Pleistocene," and you
couldn't manage to even fake it!
Seriously, you could have Googled it, and then
re-phrased one of the definitions you found using
your own words. But you did not dare, as paraphrasing
requires comprehension, something you'll never have.
> 2. "The odds are that they are misinterpreting the
> DNA "evidence."
Ironically, something you agreed with!
: > The odds are that they are misinterpreting the
: > DNA "evidence."
:
: Some of it, yes, I agree...see:
: http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/mtDNA_quality_control.pdf
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/50c9d3c8565f83d2?hl=en&dmode=source
> The odds are they are not,
So you've come full circle and are now disputing yourself.
Typical of your stupidity.
> since there are 10X more Clovis-like traits found
> in Beringia than in Europe.
There are NONE found in Asia. None. Yet you claim a
100% Asian origin with no contribution from elsewhere.
Moron.
> 3.You didn't have a clue Alaska or the Yana River
> was part of Beringia.
Ironically, thanks to your lack of reading comprehension,
you're not even aware that this is an issue.
See, there are no Clovis points found in Russia,
and Alaska isn't in Asia.
The issue is WHERE the Clovis people came from -- their
pre American origins -- and as Alaska is part of north
American -- and NOT part of Asia -- it can not be the
point of origins.
Get it? Even just a little?
> 4. "What the DNA looks like TODAY isn't necessarily
> any indication as to what it looked like 10 thousand
> years ago."
Or 7 thousand years ago, for that matter.
As an example, using the same testing methods employed
by the model you are currently humping, not only was
Europe NEVER populated by Heidelberg Man, Neanderthals
and Cromagnon, but even the inhabitants of 7 thousand
years ago wouldn't exist:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051112125213.htm
Of course, you're far too stupid to grasp the implications
of this.
You're *Way* out of your league.
> 5. Then you cite one page from Sheppard et al from 1987 and
> claim
I don't claim anything. You made the claim regarding the
age of certain human remains, and I not only didn't believe
you but posted a cite that contradicted you.
Moron.
> See Hicks 2004 for more recent (no answer)
Where is it?
Look, moron, I don't chase invisible cites. If you've
got one then come up with it, if you don't then run
screaming to some other group, one where you don't
have a reputation as a mentally ill imbecile.
> 6. You didn't know Alaska was part of Beringia.
So you're reading comprehension is so bad that you
not only don't know this is irrelevant, but you're
not even aware that you're repeating yourself.
HINT: Read your own #3, you drool soaked moron,
and then read my reply. Maybe it'll jog your memory
some....
> 7. Then you tell us blades are not found in Asia:
"Clovis Culture" -- i.e. "Clovis Points."
Generic "Blades" are found all over the world, but
the only match to Clovis is found in Europe.
> Which of course is total nonsense:
> http://paleo.sscnet.ucla.edu/BrantCA2001.pdf
The word "Clovis" never so much as appears once in
your cite. It has absolutely no relevance what so
ever to this exchange.
None.
You are a moron of the lowest order.
Lee Olsen
<forgot to say anything important>
You need to go to a library and hit the books.
Find out what all this means and then come back
when you know something.
Work on these points:
1. You don't know how to find "Late Pleistocene,"
yet it is in the title of numerous papers.
2. "The odds are that they are misinterpreting the
DNA "evidence."
The odds are they are not, since
there are 10X more Clovis-like traits found in Beringia
than in Europe.
3.You didn't have a clue Alaska or the Yana River was part of
Beringia.
4. "What the DNA looks like TODAY isn't necessarily any indication
as to what it looked like 10 thousand years ago."
On Your Kees Cave Man is not 10,000 years old?
Since when? (No answer)
5. Then you cite one page from Sheppard et al from 1987 and
claim the skeletons are "About 7,000 years younger than Clovis by the
most
recent estimates, at the very least."
Most recent estimates?
See Hicks 2004 for more recent (no answer)
6. You didn't know Alaska was part of Beringia.
7. Then you tell us blades are not found in Asia: "But not Asia.
According
to your fantasy, these people traveled across a land bridge only to
throw
away everything they knew the moment they arrived here."
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Work on these points:
They're not "points," you idiot, they're
symptoms of your mental illness.
> 1. You don't know how to find "Late Pleistocene,"
Wrong. I challenged YOU to define what YOU meant
when YOU employed the term "Late Pleistocene,"
and even after numerous challenges you couldn't do
it. Here's the post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/c0b90873d406a504?hl=en&dmode=source
YOU COULDN'T EVEN FAKE IT!
Here, I challenge you again: In YOUR OWN WORDS,
explain exactly what you mean by "Late Pleistocene"?
And remember: If you do ever respond to the
challenge (in part, of course, you'll never out
such a definition in your own words), I'll immediately
cut & paste YOUR original post, the one that prompted
me to challenge you, and make fun of your out-of-context
definition!
> 2. "The odds are that they are misinterpreting the
> DNA "evidence."
You agreed with this. Here's your words in their proper
context:
: > The odds are that they are misinterpreting the
: > DNA "evidence."
:
: Some of it, yes, I agree...see:
: http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/mtDNA_quality_control.pdf
Here's the post you said those words in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/50c9d3c8565f83d2?hl=en&dmode=source
> 3.You didn't have a clue Alaska or the Yana River
> was part of Beringia.
Not only are you making this up out of whole cloth,
you're so monumentally stupid that you don't even
know that it's irrelevant!
The discussion is on the origins of north American's
Clovis culture. YOU are claiming that they originated
in Asia. Alaska isn't in Asia. And as for this "Yana
River" nonsense: There are no Clovis points found there!
> 4. "What the DNA looks like TODAY isn't necessarily
> any indication as to what it looked like 10 thousand
> years ago."
Not only 100% correct, but scientifically proven in a
number of circumstances!
A second example -- one I hadn't introduced yet -- is
the recent "discovery" of Neanderthal genes in modern
populations. Prior to this only recent discovery, the
overwhelming consensus was that Neanderthals made ZERO
genetic contribution, and that interbreeding itself
was highly unlikely.
The first example, the one I gave you numerous times
(but you haven't the intellectual capacity to understand
it) is this one:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051112125213.htm
There you go. Testing TODAY'S population of Europe,
and then extrapolating backwards, would achieve BOGUS
results. And, yeah, that is EXACTLY what your model
did. It took DNA from TODAY'S Indian population and
extrapolated it backwards... EXACTLY the way we know
doesn't work.
> 5. Then you cite one page from Sheppard et al
> from 1987 and claim
I made no "Claims." You did.
Here, I'll quote you:
: Marmes Rockshelter. It's a stratified site
: with skeletal material dated from about 10,500
: to very recent.
Here's the post where you said it:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/f26e98c0b904d529?hl=en&dmode=source
As you can see (speaking rhetorically), you made
a claim. Nope, not so much as a single supporting
cite.
In response to your claim, I produced a cite which
refuted you. Don't like it? Tough shit.
Here's the cite that refutes you, the cite which
dates the oldest human remains to 6,700 y.b.p.:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/281063
> 6. You didn't know Alaska was part of Beringia.
You're...
#1. Making this up.
#2. Too stupid to understand that it has no bearing
on this exchange (other than to establish your stupidity)
#3. Repeating yourself. See your #3, you twisted freak.
> 7. Then you tell us blades are not found in Asia:
Again, you;re just making this up.
"Blades"? Hey, you idiot, "Blades" are found all over the
planet! We were discussing CLOVIS CULTURE -- i.e. "Clovis
Points."
No, not generic "Blades."
> "But not Asia.
Clovis points aren't found in Asia, you jackass.
> Which of course is total nonsense:
> http://paleo.sscnet.ucla.edu/BrantCA2001.pdf
This "cite" proves you're an idiot! It has NOTHING
to do with the exchange here, no relevance what so
ever!
IT DOESN'T EVEN MENTION "CLOVIS" AT ALL!
Idiot.
Lee Olsen
< nothing again>
Here, maybe this will help you find Beringia and the land bridge.
http://www.nps.gov/bela/index.htm
Key word: Alaska
Notice carefully the direction of the arrow here:
http://www.erroluys.com/America/images/BeringiaStateMuseumIllinois600.jpg
That's the direction of migration.
Here is a movie to help you locate Beringia also:
http://tinyurl.com/y86yhn
If you still have problems locating Beringia, please don't hesitate
to ask for more help.
Tomorrows lession for you will be the oldest skeletal material at
Marmes Rockshelter.
JTEM
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Here, maybe this will help you find Beringia and the
> land bridge.http://www.nps.gov/bela/index.htm
> Key word: Alaska
As I already pointed out a number of times:
#1. You're making this up. The very first time either
one of us spoke of this is your posting before last,
when you invented the issue.
#2. You're proving how retarded you are. After all, I
say "Alaska isn't in Asia" and you keep misreading this
as "Alaska wasn't included in what was called "Beringia."
#3. It's a moot point. It has no bearing what so ever
on the debate here. Alaska isn't part of Asia, and
nobody on the planet is claiming that North America's
Indian population originated in Alaska (the claim you're
defending is that they originated in Asia).
Honestly, you're a joke. You're mocking yourself at this
point. GET OUT OF THIS GROUP.
You're clearly in *Way* over your head.
Lee Olsen
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 12:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
"This cite places the absolute oldest human remains
at around 6,700 years of age:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/281063
About 7,000 years younger than Clovis by the most
recent estimates, at the very least."
-------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmes_Rockshelter
"Human remains at the site are the oldest that have been found in
Washington,
and at the time was the oldest set of remains found in North America.
Later radiocarbon work has confirmed the original dating of this
site,
indicating that these human remains, albeit very fragmentary, are
still
some of the oldest ever excavated in the New World."
Washington State University
http://tinyurl.com/39edtcq
"The second group of elk and human bone fragments was clearly
found in good datable context, between layers of Glacier Peak
tephra estimated to have been deposited ca. 10,000 B.P. A
radiocarbon date of 10,750 ±100 B.P. (WSU 211) from shell in
earliest cultural level, plus the association with the 1965
finds, confirmed the antiquity of the human remains."