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

[MaryP]

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.

Cool. They knew some stuff, didn't they?

 

[Loulit01]

What a great thread! Thanks all.

 

[Oozlefinch]

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

And exactly how many birds migrate from Europe to North America?

Well, I can actually answer that. One. The Northern Wheatear. A small bird the size of a sparrow which is known for it's very long migrations. As in, from Africa to North America.

Funny, I can't imagine tribes of prehistoric humans banding together and deciding to take up hunting sparrows, and then following their migration routes to new lands.

You see, this is what is so funny about almost all of your arguments. You actually do not try to claim anything, you just argue, and then throw out a bunch of random nonsense with nothing to back it up and hope we will just agree with it without looking into it ourselves.

Well, apparently one of your main claims was humans followed the birds. Tell me, exactly how many tribes were following birds like the Canadian Goose during their migrations? Yep, that is the big thing about using birds, unless you take the time to domesticate them they are not all that reliable source of food. Better to just camp out along their migration routes and catch them coming and going than to actually try to follow them from place to place. If you are going to follow game for hunting, it is going to be big game.

You know, like Bovines, Equines, and Cervidae.

Not by following birds that weigh in at a whopping 20-30 grams each to a new continent.

 

[Oozlefinch]

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

So, no, there was no land bridge. There was only a glacier about 4,000 feet high and nearly 100 miles or more wide.

That is the Solutrean Only hypothesis. That there was no migration other than from Europe. That no other route was ever possible.

Of course, interestingly enough it is only those that have no understanding of science, like Racists and Skinheads that tend to believe such nonsense. It is actually a favored belief of Neo-Nazi groups all over the continent, but all scientists ignore it.

Just as you ignore what I said many times, that huge numbers came via boat from Asia.

Look, your claims and science are weak, and mostly laughable. But now at least I know how to classify most of your arguments. Especially as they largely match what many of the Aryan Pride pukes have been saying for years.

 

[rahl]

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.

we know empirically, that at no time in earths history has there ever been a global flood.

 

[Oozlefinch]

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?

I have not face palmed as much since I read a post by the Flat Earth Society that they were growing and were a global movement.

OK, first of all, why would you need a boat for a land bridge? I mean, do we normally need boats to cross a bridge?

Secondly, you are aware are you not that you can sail from Australia all the way to the tip of South America, and never be more than 100 miles from sight of land, right?

You know, kind of how Russia first got to Alaska in the first place. Of course, the natives in the area had known of the land across the other side of the islands for thousands of years. They just did not care, no reason to go there. The people had different customs, different language, and were not real friendly.

And why is the DNA not the same as Pacific Islanders?

*second face palm*

Because the Pacific Islanders broke away from Asians well over 10,000 years after the migration to North America. Before they became distinct as their own sub-group, they had to break away from the parental group via distance or some other barrier to stop the cross-migration of genes. For the API, it was distance and water. And the Austronesian Expansion did not even start until around 3500 BCE. Long after those that had migrated to the Americas had all contact severed.

 

[Oozlefinch]

we know empirically, that at no time in earths history has there ever been a global flood.

Oh, there have been. However, they were all long before history. Even before humans, mammals, and even the dinosaurs.

In fact, the closest that would match is actually around 66 mya, with the Chicxulub impact. With geologists identifying the aftermath of flooding deep in North America from the flooding caused by that impact. As well as Africa and Europe.

But of course there was nobody to record that event.

Now if you were to clarify your statement to that there was no time in the history of humans, then I would agree. But in the history of the planet itself? There you are very much wrong.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

The religion forum
is that way ------->

Creation Science is Science. The facts are clear. The formations like the Grand Canyon and other rock formations are the same all over the earth from the same time period. It doesn't take millions of years to create a canyon. That's a proven fact. https://www.livescience.com/8312-canyons-form-quickly-gusher-suggests.html
It's funny in that article that after explaining the way canyons can be created very quickly, it then falls back on the old Colorado River lie that it took millions of year. LOL! Then, it says just the opposite and states very little is really known about these formations. And, I'd also include all formations little is really known, just guessed at.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

I'm guessing it was on foot.

Yep, guessing. That's all old earth science has is a bunch of guessing.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

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.

Nope, nothing crystal clear about guess work by atheists.

 

[MaryP]

why would you need a boat for a land bridge? I mean, do we normally need boats to cross a bridge?

I was remarking on the theory that there was no land bridge.

Secondly, you are aware are you not that you can sail from Australia all the way to the tip of South America, and never be more than 100 miles from sight of land, right?

No, I wasn't! How very cool!

As for the DNA thing, they found a skull in SA with Pacific Islander genes that was older and different from the others. But I obviously don't know much about it, which is why I asked. Asking questions is how we learn. Sorry it caused you grief.

 

[beancounter]

Creation Science is Science. The facts are clear. The formations like the Grand Canyon and other rock formations are the same all over the earth from the same time period. It doesn't take millions of years to create a canyon. That's a proven fact. https://www.livescience.com/8312-canyons-form-quickly-gusher-suggests.html
It's funny in that article that after explaining the way canyons can be created very quickly, it then falls back on the old Colorado River lie that it took millions of year. LOL! Then, it says just the opposite and states very little is really known about these formations. And, I'd also include all formations little is really known, just guessed at.

No, it's not.

Creation science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible. It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid."

 

[Oozlefinch]

Creation Science is Science.

It is a science. Pseudo-science. That tries to take anything and explain it is the most illogical and convoluted manner possible. Ignoring anything they do not like.

And just about all that take it anything seriously are the almost inbred Fundamentalists who would deny that even fire existed if it was not in the Bible.

Here is the funny thing, like a lot of scientists I am actually fairly religious. But I find the babblings and moronic claims of most Fundamentalists to be so retarded I am surprised that most even accept Electricity and do not want to exorcise the magic spirit in the box on their desk that sends and receives these magical messages sent through wires.

 

[rahl]

Oh, there have been. However, they were all long before history. Even before humans, mammals, and even the dinosaurs.

no. there has never at any time been a global flood.

In fact, the closest that would match is actually around 66 mya, with the Chicxulub impact. With geologists identifying the aftermath of flooding deep in North America from the flooding caused by that impact. As well as Africa and Europe.

But of course there was nobody to record that event.

Now if you were to clarify your statement to that there was no time in the history of humans, then I would agree. But in the history of the planet itself? There you are very much wrong.

We know empirically there has never been a global flood. There is not enough water.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I was remarking on the theory that there was no land bridge.

No, I wasn't! How very cool!

As for the DNA thing, they found a skull in SA with Pacific Islander genes that was older and different from the others. But I obviously don't know much about it, which is why I asked. Asking questions is how we learn. Sorry it caused you grief.

Oh, there was a land bridge. Several in fact, spread over tens of thousands of years. But most of the early migration came as it did throughout the rest of the Pacific Rim. By people in small coastal boats following the land. Just as those that reached places like Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, and Australia.

But we also know there was a land bridge simply by looking at what crossed. Interesting fact, the Equine prior to the land bridge was a North American only animal. All of those horses from Asia to Africa and Europe? All from descendants that crossed on the land bridge prior to the species becoming extinct in North America. So even ignoring any kind of pseudo-science nonsensical claims, the fact that horses went from North America to Asia is proof that humans could also do the same in reverse.

And I am one that believes that there was no "single colonization" of the Americas, but hundreds of them. Almost all differing groups, from dozens of years to hundreds of years apart. And other than a few exceptions, remaining along the seacoasts as that was how most of them lived. And it also explains many of the curious things found in the groups that did settle North America.

For those in the NW and Pacific Coast, fishing remained their main source of food until the modern era. Deer were hunted more for leather and to keep them from their plants than from an actual need to hunt them for food. And they all largely settled down into set areas, with very little migration. A huge difference from the nomadic Great Plains tribes, who seasonally followed large game and lived off of that. And this is in keeping with groups that would have started as coastal seafarers and lived at the edge of the coasts or on major rivers.

Me, I look at the tribes through the nation, and there are some rather huge differences between them. I do accept the Solutrean theory, that at least some did indeed migrate from Europe. But never any large amounts, just enough that those that came from Asia were able to learn their own unique stoneworking tricks and the "Clovis Point" was passed along before they genetically vanished in the "Indian Genetic Soup". Which is why the Clovis Point is very much like European stone tools of the era, but vastly different than those from Asia of the time. However, ultimately those few that came from Europe were genetically like drops of ink put into a bucket of milk, and diluted away. But there are some interesting genetic markers left in many tribes.

But even the claim that living in similar conditions will always result in similar behavior does not match, as the tribes of the US-Canadian NE did not live like their brethren in the NW. More agricultural, and also more dependent upon hunting as opposed to fishing. Common among either groups that had crossed the Continent so had adopted hunting to replace fishing, or those from Europe which in prehistory had more of a hunting tradition as they still had some incredibly massive creatures to contend with (Mastodons, woolly rhino, and the auroch just to start).

But one thing I have learned long ago, is to be highly suspicious of anybody that claims there is only "One Solution", and that anything other than their very strict linear one is correct. Me, you might say I see the human colonization of the Americas as a bunch of spaghetti. There was no one migration, but thousands of them. In many different ways. But that the final evidence left behind by those first inhabitants is forever out of reach, as they were a costal people. And until we enter another Ice Age, their first settlements and all the proof is now a dozen miles and more out to sea.

The above image may seem puzzling without context, but realize this was what the coastline was like at roughly 30-20,000 years ago. And that all the brown seen was back then dry land.

Then realize you are looking at the San Francisco Bay, around 18,000 years ago.

 

[Oozlefinch]

We know empirically there has never been a global flood. There is not enough water.

Uhhhh, what?

Now please, what time frame are you even trying to talk about? Because if you notice, I was actually quite specific about time frames when I gave an example of a massive flood that covered continents.

You are aware that essentially the entire planet was a "Water World", until around 3.2 billion years ago, right? There was at that time no continents at all. No land, the planet was nothing but a single great ocean. And for the first few hundred million years multiple continents are believed to have risen, then fallen into the ocean again.

You see, this is the problem in that you are trying to maintain absolutes, and not putting in any kind of context at all. That is not science, and I am actually talking from science. "There is not enough water" is actually a nonsensical claim, especially as apparently you are only talking about in reference to the planet at this day. You are aware that it is billions of years old, right? And it was not always as we see it now.

"Not enough water" indeed, One of the silliest claims I have ever read.

 

[MaryP]

Oh, there was a land bridge. Several in fact, spread over tens of thousands of years. But most of the early migration came as it did throughout the rest of the Pacific Rim. By people in small coastal boats following the land. Just as those that reached places like Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, and Australia.

But we also know there was a land bridge simply by looking at what crossed. Interesting fact, the Equine prior to the land bridge was a North American only animal. All of those horses from Asia to Africa and Europe? All from descendants that crossed on the land bridge prior to the species becoming extinct in North America. So even ignoring any kind of pseudo-science nonsensical claims, the fact that horses went from North America to Asia is proof that humans could also do the same in reverse.

And I am one that believes that there was no "single colonization" of the Americas, but hundreds of them. Almost all differing groups, from dozens of years to hundreds of years apart. And other than a few exceptions, remaining along the seacoasts as that was how most of them lived. And it also explains many of the curious things found in the groups that did settle North America.

For those in the NW and Pacific Coast, fishing remained their main source of food until the modern era. Deer were hunted more for leather and to keep them from their plants than from an actual need to hunt them for food. And they all largely settled down into set areas, with very little migration. A huge difference from the nomadic Great Plains tribes, who seasonally followed large game and lived off of that. And this is in keeping with groups that would have started as coastal seafarers and lived at the edge of the coasts or on major rivers.

Me, I look at the tribes through the nation, and there are some rather huge differences between them. I do accept the Solutrean theory, that at least some did indeed migrate from Europe. But never any large amounts, just enough that those that came from Asia were able to learn their own unique stoneworking tricks and the "Clovis Point" was passed along before they genetically vanished in the "Indian Genetic Soup". Which is why the Clovis Point is very much like European stone tools of the era, but vastly different than those from Asia of the time. However, ultimately those few that came from Europe were genetically like drops of ink put into a bucket of milk, and diluted away. But there are some interesting genetic markers left in many tribes.

But even the claim that living in similar conditions will always result in similar behavior does not match, as the tribes of the US-Canadian NE did not live like their brethren in the NW. More agricultural, and also more dependent upon hunting as opposed to fishing. Common among either groups that had crossed the Continent so had adopted hunting to replace fishing, or those from Europe which in prehistory had more of a hunting tradition as they still had some incredibly massive creatures to contend with (Mastodons, woolly rhino, and the auroch just to start).

But one thing I have learned long ago, is to be highly suspicious of anybody that claims there is only "One Solution", and that anything other than their very strict linear one is correct. Me, you might say I see the human colonization of the Americas as a bunch of spaghetti. There was no one migration, but thousands of them. In many different ways. But that the final evidence left behind by those first inhabitants is forever out of reach, as they were a costal people. And until we enter another Ice Age, their first settlements and all the proof is now a dozen miles and more out to sea.

The above image may seem puzzling without context, but realize this was what the coastline was like at roughly 30-20,000 years ago. And that all the brown seen was back then dry land.

Then realize you are looking at the San Francisco Bay, around 18,000 years ago.

Stellar post. Thank you!

 

[Oozlefinch]

Stellar post. Thank you!

Any time.

I have been following things like geology for over 4 decades. And anthropology and human migration for at least 3 decades. In fact, human migration has long fascinated me, and in most cases it was human caused. One group pushes out another, which then pushes out another tribal group. Like pool balls on a table. Hence, the people we call the "Franks" who we now see as living in France.

Which in the time of the Roman Republic were actually in modern Germany, but pushed out of there by other Asian originating tribes. And before the Roman Republic during the era the Greeks dominated Southern Europe, they were still in modern day Turkey. And they had been pushed there from even farther East. I find it just as fascinating that a group that likely originated in modern Mongolia eventually settled in France. Or that a group from the Southern Mississippi area when the Mississippian Culture disintegrated slowly moved up to the Great Lakes. But their constant fighting saw them expelled and they started a slow westward movement towards the Pacific Ocean. Fighting through multiple tribes, and were just meeting those in the Rocky Mountains when the "White Man" arrived.

And the speculation as to what would have happened in a world without Columbus, where in another hundred years or so the Lakota would have finally reached the Pacific Coast, and been fighting with the Tlingit. Then more than likely turning south, until they met and came into conflict with the Chumash. Of course, the meeting with the Tlingit they might have left their home area, and the Tlingit being the first ones to fight the Chumash, just as Franks, Goths, Visigoths, and hundreds of other tribes were sent on their migrations by the Huns and Mongols.

Humans do not migrate out of curiosity. Individuals do, not entire peoples. You may have such an individual return and entice some to follow them (Daniel Boone and the Cumberland Gap comes to mind), but those are minor compared to true human migrations.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

No, it's not.

Creation science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible. It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid."

Do you understand Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia? It's a compilation of viewers who write in their own understandings of the topic. I could go in and counter and replace that nonsensical statement. By the way, your brand of science is just interpretation of the same facts that creation science interpretation comes from. But, you don't know that because you are blinded by your own ideology. Old earth-universe is not settled science. By a long shot! Just the fact very large canyons around the world have been created in days and weeks should cause you to ponder why people think the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon over a period of millions of years. That idea makes no sense once you understand the force of water with the other canyons.

 

[MaryP]

Any time.

I have been following things like geology for over 4 decades. And anthropology and human migration for at least 3 decades. In fact, human migration has long fascinated me, and in most cases it was human caused. One group pushes out another, which then pushes out another tribal group. Like pool balls on a table. Hence, the people we call the "Franks" who we now see as living in France.

Which in the time of the Roman Republic were actually in modern Germany, but pushed out of there by other Asian originating tribes. And before the Roman Republic during the era the Greeks dominated Southern Europe, they were still in modern day Turkey. And they had been pushed there from even farther East. I find it just as fascinating that a group that likely originated in modern Mongolia eventually settled in France. Or that a group from the Southern Mississippi area when the Mississippian Culture disintegrated slowly moved up to the Great Lakes. But their constant fighting saw them expelled and they started a slow westward movement towards the Pacific Ocean. Fighting through multiple tribes, and were just meeting those in the Rocky Mountains when the "White Man" arrived.

And the speculation as to what would have happened in a world without Columbus, where in another hundred years or so the Lakota would have finally reached the Pacific Coast, and been fighting with the Tlingit. Then more than likely turning south, until they met and came into conflict with the Chumash. Of course, the meeting with the Tlingit they might have left their home area, and the Tlingit being the first ones to fight the Chumash, just as Franks, Goths, Visigoths, and hundreds of other tribes were sent on their migrations by the Huns and Mongols.

Humans do not migrate out of curiosity. Individuals do, not entire peoples. You may have such an individual return and entice some to follow them (Daniel Boone and the Cumberland Gap comes to mind), but those are minor compared to true human migrations.

Yes, and we are living through another. I sometimes wonder if exactly the same kind of arguments were going on around the kitchen table when the 'invaders' flooded into safer territory. Probably.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

It is a science. Pseudo-science. That tries to take anything and explain it is the most illogical and convoluted manner possible. Ignoring anything they do not like.

The funny thing is your brand of science does exactly the same thing. There is no such thing as "pseudo" science. That's a term made up by atheists who do everything possible to prove their is no God.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The funny thing is your brand of science does exactly the same thing. There is no such thing as "pseudo" science. That's a term made up by atheists who do everything possible to prove their is no God.

And I am not an Atheist. I am very much a Christian. I am simply not a Fundamentalist, who has no concept of logic as being a literalist actually requires lack of logic.

Interesting however that apparently you are trying to project onto me something I do not believe, just because I think you are wrong. However, it does tell me quite a bit about your idea of tolerance, and acceptance of others who do not agree with you.

And yes, it is pseudo-science. A more polite word than "pseudo-nonsense".

 

[Glitch]

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.

Fossil footprints show humans in North America more than 21,000 years ago

The footprints, the earliest firm evidence for humans in the Americas, show that people must have arrived here before the last Ice Age.

www.nbcnews.com

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

Except for the fact that homo sapiens did not exist before the last ice-age. The current ice-age began 2.58 million years ago. Homo sapiens have only been around for 300,000 to 315,000 years. Ice-ages last for millions of years, and are composed of long periods of glaciation and brief warmer periods known as interglacial periods. We are currently 11,700 years into the Holocene Interglacial period.

Humans first appeared in North America sometime between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago, during the last glacial period that started 115,000 years ago and peaked ~25,000 years ago. The last glacial period ended 11,700 years ago. The land bridge between Siberia and Alaska remained intact until about 10,000 years ago.

 

[Loulit01]

I repeat: What a great thread.

 

[Fishking]

Except for the fact that homo sapiens did not exist before the last ice-age. The current ice-age began 2.58 million years ago. Homo sapiens have only been around for 300,000 to 315,000 years. Ice-ages last for millions of years, and are composed of long periods of glaciation and brief warmer periods known as interglacial periods. We are currently 11,700 years into the Holocene Interglacial period.

Humans first appeared in North America sometime between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago, during the last glacial period that started 115,000 years ago and peaked ~25,000 years ago. The last glacial period ended 11,700 years ago. The land bridge between Siberia and Alaska remained intact until about 10,000 years ago.

*proto-humans