1 posted on
08/04/2003 12:50:14 PM PDT by
NukeMan
To: NukeMan; blam; vannrox
Looks like something you'd like to read....
2 posted on
08/04/2003 12:53:29 PM PDT by
NukeMan
To: NukeMan
Using radiocarbon dating, scientists found that the Ushki site, the remains of a community of hunters clustered around Ushki Lake in northeastern Russia, appears to be only about 13,000 years old, 4,000 years younger than originally thought. OK so THIS site isn't old enough. Nothing in this discovery says they DIDN'T cross there 4,000 years earlier. All it shows is that this site is irrelevant to the debate.
3 posted on
08/04/2003 12:58:30 PM PDT by
ElkGroveDan
(Fighting for Freedom and Having Fun)
To: NukeMan
I don't get it. Just because the Siberian settlement wasn't the direct source of the human migration during the land bridge doesn't prove that the land bridge wasn't used by someone else.
4 posted on
08/04/2003 1:00:39 PM PDT by
Dog Gone
To: NukeMan
7 posted on
08/04/2003 1:09:02 PM PDT by
blam
To: NukeMan
"We have to think bigger now and start thinking outside the box." Maybe they could paddle out of that box...
8 posted on
08/04/2003 1:09:12 PM PDT by
Redcloak
(All work and no FReep makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no FReep make s Jack a dul boy. Allwork an)
To: NukeMan
Given the fact the land bridge is mostly underwater, finding out one site is younger than believed doesn't rule out its existence or use... the "land bridge" was huge... not saying they didn't come in boats... but this hardly discredits the land bridge theory in and of itself.
To: NukeMan
10 posted on
08/04/2003 1:19:46 PM PDT by
blam
To: PatrickHenry; js1138
Ping!!
11 posted on
08/04/2003 1:23:43 PM PDT by
Aric2000
(If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
To: NukeMan
I haven't read it yet, but
Red Earth, White Lies is supposed to have a good refutation of the Bering Land Bridge theory.
ML/NJ
12 posted on
08/04/2003 1:34:09 PM PDT by
ml/nj
To: NukeMan
Exactly what are they carbon dating? Pieces of wood?
13 posted on
08/04/2003 1:38:32 PM PDT by
skeeter
(Fac ut vivas)
To: NukeMan
...said Michael Waters, co-author of the research that appeared last week in the journal Science. "We have to think bigger now and start thinking outside the box." Start with different cliches.
17 posted on
08/04/2003 1:50:12 PM PDT by
Sloth
("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
To: NukeMan
bump
18 posted on
08/04/2003 1:53:57 PM PDT by
Sam Cree
(Democrats are herd animals)
To: NukeMan
University of Kansas anthropological geneticist Michael Crawford said early humans probably could not have crossed the land bridge and traveled to New Mexico in 400 years. Reaching South America by foot within 1,000 years was even less likely. I don't see this at all. That's a diffusion rate of around 10 miles per year. Even non-nomadic people can achieve that.
To: NukeMan
But some archaeologists argue that due to the nomadic characteristics of America's first settlers, the seemingly difficult feat of traversing both North and South America in 1,000 years is not They would not only have had to be very nomadic but able to adapt to the multitude of changing climates (each containing a different mix of new plant and animal life) as they travelled from North to South America. That is a pretty tall order.
To: NukeMan
making it highly unlikely that people could have traversed the thousands of miles from Siberia in such a short period Maybe they took I-5.
27 posted on
08/04/2003 2:34:22 PM PDT by
B Knotts
To: NukeMan
Suggest to these same scientists the "Native Americans" might have started from here ,and migrated to Asia,and you will undoubtedly be treated to a long, cool silence...
29 posted on
08/04/2003 4:06:53 PM PDT by
genefromjersey
(So little time - so many FLAMES to light !!)
To: NukeMan
I guess I don't understand why everyone seems so partial to the land bridge theories. If the article is correct, there is no evidence to support the idea that the folks who settled Clovis came from Asia on land. While there may be other undiscovered sites on the Asian side, who cares? The land bridge theory has been cracking and flaking for awhile. Let it go.
47 posted on
08/05/2003 10:50:26 AM PDT by
aBootes
To: NukeMan
DNA testing of native Americans should offer clues to their ancestory ... isn't this avenue being explored?
50 posted on
08/05/2003 11:15:13 AM PDT by
BluH2o
To: blam; FairOpinion; StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach
55 posted on
02/18/2007 9:43:43 PM PST by
SunkenCiv
(I last updated my profile on Thursday, February 15, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
56 posted on
06/24/2009 3:02:11 PM PDT by
SunkenCiv
(http://www.troopathon.org/index.php -- June 25th -- the Troopathon)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson