• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:#183]Humans in the Americas before last Ice Age

Fishking

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
43,134
Reaction score
16,114
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Pretty cool reading this. Apparently, humans got here before the last ice age, so they sailed over here or something way back when? Does this push back civilization and advanced humans even further? I know ancient finds, like Göbeklitepe have pushed it back a bit, but this might push it back even further. I don't know, but pretty cool, none the less. The cool part to me was the footprints being in a layer that was lower than mammoth prints. Either way, the very early activity of humans has always been fascinating to me.


The tracks at one location have been revealed as both the earliest known footprints and the oldest firm evidence of humans anywhere in the Americas, showing that people lived there 21,000 to 23,000 years ago — several thousand years earlier than scientists once believed.

“It’s the earliest unequivocal evidence for humans in the Americas,” said the lead author of the study, Matthew Bennett, a professor of environmental and geographic sciences at Bournemouth University in the U.K.

It has long been debated whether humans arrived in the Americas by a northern route from Siberia before or after the Last Glacial Maximum, when vast sheets of ice would have made migration along the Pacific Coast or through western Canada impossible.

The ancient footprints at White Sands answer that question, suggesting that they may have arrived up to 30,000 years ago, thousands of years before the height of the ice age, Bennett said
 
Pretty cool reading this. Apparently, humans got here before the last ice age, so they sailed over here or something way back when? Does this push back civilization and advanced humans even further? I know ancient finds, like Göbeklitepe have pushed it back a bit, but this might push it back even further. I don't know, but pretty cool, none the less. The cool part to me was the footprints being in a layer that was lower than mammoth prints. Either way, the very early activity of humans has always been fascinating to me.


The tracks at one location have been revealed as both the earliest known footprints and the oldest firm evidence of humans anywhere in the Americas, showing that people lived there 21,000 to 23,000 years ago — several thousand years earlier than scientists once believed.

“It’s the earliest unequivocal evidence for humans in the Americas,” said the lead author of the study, Matthew Bennett, a professor of environmental and geographic sciences at Bournemouth University in the U.K.

It has long been debated whether humans arrived in the Americas by a northern route from Siberia before or after the Last Glacial Maximum, when vast sheets of ice would have made migration along the Pacific Coast or through western Canada impossible.

The ancient footprints at White Sands answer that question, suggesting that they may have arrived up to 30,000 years ago, thousands of years before the height of the ice age, Bennett said
Very cool. It seems likely that the land bridge from Asia to North America was already in place 30,000 years ago.
 
Very cool. It seems likely that the land bridge from Asia to North America was already in place 30,000 years ago.
Possibly. The article does mention that it might not be the case, but who really knows? I'd love to have a time machine to observe these things. Of course, it would have to be one that only lets me see and not interact. Otherwise I'd probably pass some disease on and ruin literally everything.
 
Pretty cool reading this. Apparently, humans got here before the last ice age, so they sailed over here or something way back when? Does this push back civilization and advanced humans even further? I know ancient finds, like Göbeklitepe have pushed it back a bit, but this might push it back even further. I don't know, but pretty cool, none the less. The cool part to me was the footprints being in a layer that was lower than mammoth prints. Either way, the very early activity of humans has always been fascinating to me.


The tracks at one location have been revealed as both the earliest known footprints and the oldest firm evidence of humans anywhere in the Americas, showing that people lived there 21,000 to 23,000 years ago — several thousand years earlier than scientists once believed.

“It’s the earliest unequivocal evidence for humans in the Americas,” said the lead author of the study, Matthew Bennett, a professor of environmental and geographic sciences at Bournemouth University in the U.K.

It has long been debated whether humans arrived in the Americas by a northern route from Siberia before or after the Last Glacial Maximum, when vast sheets of ice would have made migration along the Pacific Coast or through western Canada impossible.

The ancient footprints at White Sands answer that question, suggesting that they may have arrived up to 30,000 years ago, thousands of years before the height of the ice age, Bennett said
Ice ages are periodic, so those human tracks might date to the previous one.
 
Science still doesn’t know how the early people spread, they only have theories so it’s not settled science.
 
I'm guessing it was on foot.
My anthropology professor said it was by boat. They don’t know for sure. Some say life formed then spread out while others think that life developed all over at the same time.

It will never really be known.
 
Some say life formed then spread out while others think that life developed all over at the same time.
If you're talking about human life, then the genetic record pretty much dispels that idea. Homo Sapiens doesn't trace back to multiple origins.

Life on the planet, however, might have arose in different places concurrently, under similar favorable conditions.
 
If you're talking about human life, then the genetic record pretty much dispels that idea. Homo Sapiens doesn't trace back to multiple origins.

Life on the planet, however, might have arose in different places concurrently, under similar favorable conditions.
The consensus agrees with you but the point was that there is still enough not known that it remains a possible theory.

Ultimately it doesn’t really matter except for academic reasons.
 
If you're talking about human life, then the genetic record pretty much dispels that idea. Homo Sapiens doesn't trace back to multiple origins.

Life on the planet, however, might have arose in different places concurrently, under similar favorable conditions.

1) There has been no fossil record in North and South America that predates Homo Sapiens! -

2) All the evidence points to Central Africa as the origin, with fossils reflecting later stages in human development found in Asia and Europe!

3) European Homo Sapiens share approximately 1 - 4% of their genetic code with "Neanderthals" whose existence was limited to Europe - the fossil record from 40,000 years ago indicates that humans had 6 - 9% Neanderthal DNA!

4) There is fossil evidence that "Neanderthals" were in existence from 400,000 years ago to as recently as 40,000 years - which would explain their "inbreeding" with Homo Sapiens who were already well on their way to becoming the dominant "hominoid" species!

5) Scientifically, evolution is a slow but ongoing process, whereby species either adapt to the changing environment over time or become extinct - it would be naive to think that Homo Sapiens, in the future, will be exempt from this process!


 
Last edited:
1) There has been no fossil record in North and South America that predates Homo Sapiens! -
There is no HUMAN fossil record in the Americas that predates Homo Sapiens
2) All the evidence points to Central Africa as the origin, with fossils reflecting later stages in human development found in Asia and Europe!
Agreed.
3) European Homo Sapiens share approximately 5% of the genetic code with "Neanderthals" whose existence was limited to Europe!
Not quite - whose fossil evidence is so far limited to Europe!
For all we know, Neanderthal also originated in Central Africa. Likewise Denisovan Man, where the only current evidence comes from Asia.
4) There is fossil evidence that "Neanderthals" became extinct as recently as 35,000 years ago which would explain their "inbreeding" with Homo Sapiens who were well on their way to becoming the dominant "hominoid" species!
Agreed.
5) Scientifically, evolution is a slow but ongoing process whereby many species become extinct, having failed to adapt to changing environments over time - it would be naive to think that Homo Sapiens, in the future, will be exempt from this process!
Agreed.

🦧

🐒

🧔‍♀️

:)
 
Pretty cool reading this. Apparently, humans got here before the last ice age, so they sailed over here or something way back when? Does this push back civilization and advanced humans even further? I know ancient finds, like Göbeklitepe have pushed it back a bit, but this might push it back even further. I don't know, but pretty cool, none the less. The cool part to me was the footprints being in a layer that was lower than mammoth prints. Either way, the very early activity of humans has always been fascinating to me.


The tracks at one location have been revealed as both the earliest known footprints and the oldest firm evidence of humans anywhere in the Americas, showing that people lived there 21,000 to 23,000 years ago — several thousand years earlier than scientists once believed.

“It’s the earliest unequivocal evidence for humans in the Americas,” said the lead author of the study, Matthew Bennett, a professor of environmental and geographic sciences at Bournemouth University in the U.K.

It has long been debated whether humans arrived in the Americas by a northern route from Siberia before or after the Last Glacial Maximum, when vast sheets of ice would have made migration along the Pacific Coast or through western Canada impossible.

The ancient footprints at White Sands answer that question, suggesting that they may have arrived up to 30,000 years ago, thousands of years before the height of the ice age, Bennett said
No, the humans who were here before the last ice age were descendants of Adam and Eve. The Ice age occurred around the time of Noah's Flood.
 
A couple years back, I did a cursory review of this stuff for a Native American unit I was teaching. They had already determined that there were major migrations (over the land bridge?) more than once, up to 23,000 years ago. That was based on archeology. The footprints lock it in, though. What people tend to forget is that these theories are all based on what we can unearth. Most evidence of human life from that long ago has been utterly destroyed. We are viewing a picture with 75% of its pieces missing. It is always so cool to find one more piece!!!
 
Pretty cool reading this. Apparently, humans got here before the last ice age

You got your dates wrong. The last Ice Age in North America was the Pinedale, which lasted from around 30kya until around 10kya. So they did not arrive before, but in the middle of the last ice age.
 
Very cool. It seems likely that the land bridge from Asia to North America was already in place 30,000 years ago.

One thing many people miss is that there was not one "ice age", there were several. Europe, North America, Siberia, the Himalayas, even Africa and South America each had their own ice ages, that many times were at the same time, but they all started and ended at different times. But for this the one that is most important is the North American one. Which actually started before the one in Siberia, and ended later.

But most anthropologists now are starting to believe that the earliest migration was not via the land bridge, but by following the coastlines via boats. Likely by groups that lived primarily by fishing and lived along coastal regions. The larger numbers though arrived at a later date, and likely in greater numbers via the land bridge following the game they hunted.
 
No, the humans who were here before the last ice age were descendants of Adam and Eve. The Ice age occurred around the time of Noah's Flood.
There was no "flood." There was a Deluge, but it was not a flood. It's not my fault x-tians don't know how to correctly translate the Sumerian-Akkadian loanword used in the Hebrew text, which was plagiarized from other cultures.
They had already determined that there were major migrations (over the land bridge?) more than once, up to 23,000 years ago.
There was no land bridge. That theory was demolished 30 years ago, but there are die-hard Mustache Pete dinosaurs that still cling to it.

There are 3 Stone Age tribal groups that live in the Amazonian Basin whose DNA is Australasian. Australasia is Indonesia and Australia and the islands in-between.

They sailed here more than 35,000 years ago and landed at a site in northern Chile. Since the Andes would have been a formidable obstacle, they migrated around the coast of South America to the Amazon Jungles where they were hunting giant sloths 25,000 years ago.

The skeletal remains of a Negroid woman was found in a cave there, but precise dating is not possible, so it's estimated at least 25,000 but not more than 42,000 years ago. Originally, there was a lot of excitement because it was thought she came from Africa, but DNA testing later confirmed that she is Australasian and related to the other 3 groups.

None of the tribal groups in the Pacific Northwest came across a land-bridge. Their oral histories and traditions all say they came by boat, because there was no land-bridge because it wasn't possible for there to be one.

Where it is alleged there was a land-bridge there was actually 4,000 ft glacier.

DNA testing also shows at least one European group migrated to the Atlantic Northeast.

It is important to remember that sea levels were 600-800 ft lower than present. This is a map I made geology class some years ago showing the Gulf States:
Florida.jpg

Central Atlantic:

Azores.jpg

It would have been real easy to sail from Ireland to Iceland to Greenland to Nova Scotia.

One thing many people miss is that there was not one "ice age", there were several.

Well, yes and no. Blame the Media for screwing things up.

There have been many Ice Ages and the current Ice Age began 23 Million years ago when the Caribbean Plate crashed into the North American Plate creating the Panamanian Isthmus and altering the flow of both wind and water currents in the Atlantic and Pacific, and when the Antarctic Continent reached "critical mass" within the Antarctic Circle (it moves at a rate of about 2.5 cm per year.)

Since then, we have experienced periodic Inter-Glacial Periods.

Initially, an Inter-Glacial Period lasted about 12,000-15,000 before reverting back to a Glacial Period lasting about 40,000 years.

After the Mid-Pleistocene Event 600,000 years ago, Inter-Glacial Periods started lasting 12,000 to 32,000 years and Glacial Periods 80,000 to 120,000 years.

But, it's still the same Ice Age. In the Future, when a "critical mass" of the Antarctic Continent moves out of the Antarctic Circle, the Ice Age will come to an end and then people will totally freak out because average global temperatures will be 95+°F all day long every day for Millions of years.



But most anthropologists now are starting to believe that the earliest migration was not via the land bridge, but by following the coastlines via boats. Likely by groups that lived primarily by fishing and lived along coastal regions. The larger numbers though arrived at a later date, and likely in greater numbers via the land bridge following the game they hunted.
 
There was no land bridge. That theory was demolished 30 years ago, but there are die-hard Mustache Pete dinosaurs that still cling to it.
I've never heard that. Can you share?
I had heard about the Pacific islanders reaching SA by boat earlier, though not much about it.
 
There was no "flood." There was a Deluge, but it was not a flood. It's not my fault x-tians don't know how to correctly translate the Sumerian-Akkadian loanword used in the Hebrew text, which was plagiarized from other cultures.

There was no land bridge. That theory was demolished 30 years ago, but there are die-hard Mustache Pete dinosaurs that still cling to it.

There are 3 Stone Age tribal groups that live in the Amazonian Basin whose DNA is Australasian. Australasia is Indonesia and Australia and the islands in-between.

They sailed here more than 35,000 years ago and landed at a site in northern Chile. Since the Andes would have been a formidable obstacle, they migrated around the coast of South America to the Amazon Jungles where they were hunting giant sloths 25,000 years ago.

The skeletal remains of a Negroid woman was found in a cave there, but precise dating is not possible, so it's estimated at least 25,000 but not more than 42,000 years ago. Originally, there was a lot of excitement because it was thought she came from Africa, but DNA testing later confirmed that she is Australasian and related to the other 3 groups.

None of the tribal groups in the Pacific Northwest came across a land-bridge. Their oral histories and traditions all say they came by boat, because there was no land-bridge because it wasn't possible for there to be one.

Where it is alleged there was a land-bridge there was actually 4,000 ft glacier.

DNA testing also shows at least one European group migrated to the Atlantic Northeast.

It is important to remember that sea levels were 600-800 ft lower than present. This is a map I made geology class some years ago showing the Gulf States:
View attachment 67360708

Central Atlantic:

View attachment 67360706

It would have been real easy to sail from Ireland to Iceland to Greenland to Nova Scotia.



Well, yes and no. Blame the Media for screwing things up.

There have been many Ice Ages and the current Ice Age began 23 Million years ago when the Caribbean Plate crashed into the North American Plate creating the Panamanian Isthmus and altering the flow of both wind and water currents in the Atlantic and Pacific, and when the Antarctic Continent reached "critical mass" within the Antarctic Circle (it moves at a rate of about 2.5 cm per year.)

Since then, we have experienced periodic Inter-Glacial Periods.

Initially, an Inter-Glacial Period lasted about 12,000-15,000 before reverting back to a Glacial Period lasting about 40,000 years.

After the Mid-Pleistocene Event 600,000 years ago, Inter-Glacial Periods started lasting 12,000 to 32,000 years and Glacial Periods 80,000 to 120,000 years.

But, it's still the same Ice Age. In the Future, when a "critical mass" of the Antarctic Continent moves out of the Antarctic Circle, the Ice Age will come to an end and then people will totally freak out because average global temperatures will be 95+°F all day long every day for Millions of years.
Blame the scientists for believing their own corrupt ideology. The Sumaritians came after Adam and Eve. In fact, after Noah's flood that covered the entire earth. Did you know that the same formations caused by the local flood you are describing happened all over the world including in the United States? Didn't think so.
 
There was no land bridge. That theory was demolished 30 years ago

No, it has not. Unless you are one of the nutcases that believes in the "Solutrean Only hypothesis" of migration to the Americas. And even most who do accept the Solutrean hypothesis reject that one.
 
It would have been real easy to sail from Ireland to Iceland to Greenland to Nova Scotia.

But why? There was absolutely no "seafaring tradition" among the peoples of North America in that time frame, unlike that of the Pacific. To that being the source of more than a small handful of people is foolish.

Huge areas of the Pacific were inhabited by prehistorical times, because many of the cultures were seafarers and would move from island to island. Yet, Iceland was not inhabited until around 800 CE, because Europeans did not have such a tradition. Especially as the conditions there were not favorable most of the year for such adventuring until the advent of vessels like the Longship in the 3rd century CE.
 

The Laws of Economics were operative 1 millisecond after the Big Bang. When you run out of food, you gotta move.

Political reasons. If a family or families violated some taboo, they'd be forced to relocate far, far away to avoid persecution, up to and including death. Or, someone didn't get to be the clan/tribal leader so they got mad and took their toys and left along with their followers.

Humans are curious by nature. They were totally ignorant relative to us, but that doesn't mean they didn't wonder (or wander) or think. Birds nest on land. Birds migrate. It doesn't take a big brain to realize that birds are going from one land to another land year after year.

Where is that land? Gosh, why don't we follow the migrating birds?

There was absolutely no "seafaring tradition" among the peoples of North America in that time frame, unlike that of the Pacific. To that being the source of more than a small handful of people is foolish.

You mean none that you're aware of. And you misunderstand the meaning of "sea-faring."

I keep my little boat ported at Vama Veche and while it's only got two sails, I can make close to 30 knots. I like tooling around the Black Sea, and sometimes I go through the Straits into the Aegean, 'cause I have a thing for Greek food (yeah, it's in my DNA -- literally.)

But that doesn't make me a sailor nor does it make me a seafarer. It just means I occasionally use a boat for transportation.

There are one Y-DNA and two mt-DNA Haplogroups of European origin in the Americans among the "natives."

So, yeah, it was a small group of people, one man-clan who apparently intermarried/mated with women of two separate mt-DNA Haplogroups.

Obviously, it's only in your world that 40,000 people have to pick up and move. The reality is, it only has to be a few dozen or so.

Contrary to your false assertion, there are "Native Americans" in the Northeast Atlantic who fish/crab. That's commerce/trade, and not sea-faring.

Huge areas of the Pacific were inhabited by prehistorical times, because many of the cultures were seafarers and would move from island to island. Yet, Iceland was not inhabited until around 800 CE, because Europeans did not have such a tradition.

To which Europeans are you referring?

Do you have any idea how many Y-DNA and mt-DNA Haplogroups are European in origin?

The fact that some Europeans had/have no sea-faring tradition is not proof that absolutely none of them did.

Sumerians had a sea-faring tradition, but Iraqis and Kuwaitis do not. What does that prove? It proves Sumerians had a sea-faring tradition and Iraqis and Kuwaitis do not.

I don't doubt for a minute that groups living in Heidelberg (Germany) or in Germany down on the Swiss border or all those 100s of ethnic groups in the Lake Baikal Region had no sea-faring tradition, but to suggest that the peoples who lived in Doggerland -- and none of those peoples are there now -- had no such tradition is absurd. Then again, the peoples in Doggerland don't need to have a sea-faring tradition. They just need to know how to use boats.

Especially as the conditions there were not favorable most of the year for such adventuring until the advent of vessels like the Longship in the 3rd century CE

You have no idea what the conditions were at that time, and attempting to crow-bar what is now or what was in 3rd Century CE is grossly anachronistic.
 
No, it has not. Unless you are one of the nutcases that believes in the "Solutrean Only hypothesis" of migration to the Americas. And even most who do accept the Solutrean hypothesis reject that one.

I don't know anything about the Solutrean Only hypothesis.

Palaeo data suggest that Greenland must have been largely ice free during Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS-11). The globally averaged MIS-11 sea level is estimated to have reached between 6–13 m above that of today.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16008

“Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.

[emphasis mine]


After you read those very informative peer-reviewed articles published by the Danish government and Nature, you'll be up-to-speed and we can begin our discussion.

When Earth begins transitioning to a Glacial Period, Arctic sea ice expands.

Icebergs frequently transit the Bering Strait, but as one might imagine, way back in the past as Earth enters the Glacial Period, there were a helluva lot of ice bergs.

As Arctic Sea Ice continues its expansion, the entire Bering Strait is covered with pack ice which ends up sitting there 24/7 year round and then as sea levels decrease, the Strait is filled with ice and the adjacent continental shelf on the Asian and American continents is exposed and snow and ice are piling up.

So, no, there was no land bridge. There was only a glacier about 4,000 feet high and nearly 100 miles or more wide.
 
Blame the scientists for believing their own corrupt ideology. The Sumaritians came after Adam and Eve. In fact, after Noah's flood that covered the entire earth. Did you know that the same formations caused by the local flood you are describing happened all over the world including in the United States? Didn't think so.

The religion forum
is that way ------->
 
Blame the scientists for believing their own corrupt ideology. The Sumaritians came after Adam and Eve. In fact, after Noah's flood that covered the entire earth.

Nope. Blame x-tians for believing in their own corrupt texts and rituals.

The correct translation of the word is "deluge" and not "flood" and a deluge is not the same thing as a flood.

Do you not read the bible you thump so hard? Do you not understand what you're reading?

Terah was chief priest for El Shaddai and his principal city and cult center was Ur, which was in the land of Sumer & Akkad.

Since Sumerian cosmogony was written on 7 clay tablets, it is referred to as "the 7 Tablets of Creation."

Until one of the Poops changed it 3 centuries ago, New Year's Day was always the first day of Spring, aka the Spring Equinox or Vernal Equinox.

The Sumerians used a 360-day calendar with a five day intercalated period around the 1st day of Spring.

The following ritual took place throughout Mesopotamia in all the civilizations. The chief priest --Terah ---would climb the steps of the ziggurat on the last day of the year at sunset, and since the priesthood was herediatary, that means Abram/Abraham was a priest-in-training and would climb to the top of the ziggurat with his father.

Terah, with Abram/Abraham by his side, would read from the 1st tablet of the 7 Tablets of Creation to the crowd gathered below the ziggurat.

Eventually, some people in the crowd would dress up like the gods and act out their roles in creation much in the same way some people dress up and act out the parts in The Rocky Horror Picture Show. It was a fun time for everyone.

Terah and Abram/Abraham would read the next 5 tablets each night for the next 5 days.

On New Year's Day, Terah and Abram/Abraham would read the 7th tablet, which was not about creation, but about extolling the virtues of the gods.

That ritual, reading 7 tablets over 7 days -- 6 tablets describing various creation acts and the 7th just a day of rest and relaxation singing the praises of the gods-- got corrupted into Earth was created in 6 days and the Yahweh-thing resting on the 7th day.

Sumerian cosmogony beings with the creation of our Solar System and not the creation of the Universe, and since the Hebrews copied Sumerian cosmogony, it likewise begins with the creation of our Solar System and not the creation of the Universe.

From Sumerian cosmogony, it is crystal clear the time span is Billions of years and not mere days, since the time-span is 1,000 shars or 4,320,000,000 years.
 
That's interesting about the land bridge. Seems like a mighty long way for people to travel in a little boat, but short of alien spacecraft giving them a lift, if they didn't walk, they had to use boats.

Why is the DNA of most of the Native Americans not Pacific Islanders, though? Did the Siberians also travel the entire Pacific in boats to reach a land they didn't know existed?
 
Back
Top Bottom