Humans in North America more than 36,000 year ago

[westwall]

They have easily gone back 18-20 Thousand years ( Pre Clovis ) and my guess is they will find pre Diluvial remains and even farther back .

Agreed. The largest impedance to archeological research are those "reputable archelogists" more interested in protecting their stories, than doing real research.

 

[Failzero]

Agreed. The largest impedance to archeological research are those "reputable archelogists" more interested in protecting their stories, than doing real research.

And Federal Regulations like NAGPRA

 

[Mushroom]

Tell that to the dinosaurs. They reached peak size when it was 15 to 20 degrees warmer than the present day. Warm enough globally that there were no polar ice caps.

Only a few of which were large, and they were not mammals.

Are we talking about North America 36 kya, or North America 65 mya?

 

[Mushroom]

Reputable Archeologists" have been proven wrong enough times I no longer care about their opinions.

Where is the lithic evidence?

Quite literally all they have and claim is that some stones were used to bash open bones.

Know what is missing from a site claiming to be from 130 kya?

Lithic evidence. As in tools used to butcher the animals. Or marks on the bones relating to butchering. Absolutely no stone tools at all, just rocks for bashing bones.

That makes absolutely no sense. We know Australopithecus was doing the same thing, over 4 mya. And that Homo Erectus was manufacturing tools as early as 2.9 mya.

Yet, here is a group of homo sapiens that had somehow jumped from Africa to North America, and were not using tools other than those that Homo Habilis used?

This has nothing to do with dating, this is simply impossible. Unless you believe that when Homo Sapiens were just arriving in what is modern Egypt, some group suddenly raced all the way to modern San Diego. And somehow completely forgot how to make tools along the way.

 

[Mushroom]

Agreed. The largest impedance to archeological research are those "reputable archelogists" more interested in protecting their stories, than doing real research.

You really believe in a global Biblical flood? Now I know exactly how serious to take your claims now.

But that is not altogether inaccurate, as it is known that the earliest evidence of humans in North America are likely dozens of miles off-shore and underwater. But it has nothing to do with any biblical flood.

 

[westwall]

You really believe in a global Biblical flood? Now I know exactly how serious to take your claims now.

But that is not altogether inaccurate, as it is known that the earliest evidence of humans in North America are likely dozens of miles off-shore and underwater. But it has nothing to do with any biblical flood.

Of course. Picture this. Mankind lives on the coasts, and on rivers. Now, take a look at the continental shelf.

THAT was the coastline during the Pleistocene. That's where mankind lived. Then, the continental ice sheets melted, and all that water forced those people to move to high ground.

That's your global flood. Every culture that has a written record all talk about the great flood.

So, yes...it happened. The Earth didn't become waterworld, that's stupid, but there was a worldwide flood that forced mankind to move from their towns along the continental shelf, and up to where they are now.

 

[westwall]

Only a few of which were large, and they were not mammals.

Are we talking about North America 36 kya, or North America 65 mya?

Correct, not mammals, but they WERE warm blooded. And yes, there were many species that were quite large. And the time frame doesn't matter. Life is life. It grows to the size that it's food intake will support, provided it's gene structure allows it.

 

[westwall]

Where is the lithic evidence?

Quite literally all they have and claim is that some stones were used to bash open bones.

Know what is missing from a site claiming to be from 130 kya?

Lithic evidence. As in tools used to butcher the animals. Or marks on the bones relating to butchering. Absolutely no stone tools at all, just rocks for bashing bones.

That makes absolutely no sense. We know Australopithecus was doing the same thing, over 4 mya. And that Homo Erectus was manufacturing tools as early as 2.9 mya.

Yet, here is a group of homo sapiens that had somehow jumped from Africa to North America, and were not using tools other than those that Homo Habilis used?

This has nothing to do with dating, this is simply impossible. Unless you believe that when Homo Sapiens were just arriving in what is modern Egypt, some group suddenly raced all the way to modern San Diego. And somehow completely forgot how to make tools along the way.

Tools get taken. Once a caveman gets a rock that fits his hand, he's going to keep it. He will work on it and make it ever more comfortable.

Thus, he isn't going to leave it behind. How else are those bones going to get cracked in that manner? What is your theory?

The one thing we absolutely know is homo sapiens moved around a lot. No one knows what the extent of their range was.

Everytime there's a new discovery it pushes back the time estimates.

Every single time.

 

[Mushroom]

That's your global flood. Every culture that has a written record all talk about the great flood.

That is not the "Global Flood", because it happened over thousands of years.

 

[Mushroom]

Tools get taken. Once a caveman gets a rock that fits his hand, he's going to keep it. He will work on it and make it ever more comfortable.

Thus, he isn't going to leave it behind.

Stone tools were disposable. Easy to make, easy to break. And they leave marks behind when used, and would be "resharpened" by breaking off new flakes.

This is what I mean by "lithic evidence". Evidence on the bones of their being butchered. Evidence at the location of stone flakes where the rocks used for butchering were flaked again to renew a sharp edge. Even discarded stones which broke in ways they could not be flaked again. That is exactly the evidence I am talking about.

There is none of that at that site. No marks on the bones that the animals were butchered. No evidence that any stone tools were used other than as bashing bones, nothing.

That might have made sense at an Australopithecine or Homo Habilis site, where the most advanced tools were untooled rocks used only as hammers. It makes absolutely no sense for a Homo Sapiens site, millions of years after humans learned how to modify rocks and used them as more than crude hammers.

Even Cro Magnum and Neanderthal had become rather skilled tool makers from stones, and both evolved long before Homo Sapiens. One of the things that let us to still exist after those other two hominids went extinct was our more advanced toolmaking capabilities.

As I said, it makes no sense that anything claiming to be of any hominid past Homo Habilis would show no more tool abilities than they showed over 3 mya.

Unless the first humans to come to North America were not only freaking Speedy Gonzales, but also completely retarded.

But as seeing as you somehow believe in a biblical flood, I should not be surprised.

 

[westwall]

That is not the "Global Flood", because it happened over thousands of years.

Yeah, the water rose about a meter per century. Some places were faster. There would have been ice dams that broke which would release tremendous volumes of water in a single event. The Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington are examples of that. A lake the size of Montana suddenly draining. That deluge cut 200 foot deep canyons in a week.

And yes, it's a global flood to a primitive people. You have to look at it through their eyes. Not ours.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is interesting that humans certainly traveled to Australia across great expanses of ocean about 50,000 years ago yet it is considered heterodoxic to propose a similar ocean journey to North America could have happened somewhere in between that time and 13000 years ago.

 

[westwall]

Stone tools were disposable. Easy to make, easy to break. And they leave marks behind when used, and would be "resharpened" by breaking off new flakes.

This is what I mean by "lithic evidence". Evidence on the bones of their being butchered. Evidence at the location of stone flakes where the rocks used for butchering were flaked again to renew a sharp edge. Even discarded stones which broke in ways they could not be flaked again. That is exactly the evidence I am talking about.

There is none of that at that site. No marks on the bones that the animals were butchered. No evidence that any stone tools were used other than as bashing bones, nothing.

That might have made sense at an Australopithecine or Homo Habilis site, where the most advanced tools were untooled rocks used only as hammers. It makes absolutely no sense for a Homo Sapiens site, millions of years after humans learned how to modify rocks and used them as more than crude hammers.

Even Cro Magnum and Neanderthal had become rather skilled tool makers from stones, and both evolved long before Homo Sapiens. One of the things that let us to still exist after those other two hominids went extinct was our more advanced toolmaking capabilities.

As I said, it makes no sense that anything claiming to be of any hominid past Homo Habilis would show no more tool abilities than they showed over 3 mya.

Unless the first humans to come to North America were not only freaking Speedy Gonzales, but also completely retarded.

But as seeing as you somehow believe in a biblical flood, I should not be surprised.

Stone tools are not easy to make. They require a lot of time to get right. You are referring to flint tools, like knives or arrowheads.

I am referring to heavy impact implements. The bones in question have a spiral break pattern. That is an indication of human involvement.

Your insults while amusing, don't address facts.

I refer to a biblical flood because that's one of the earliest written accounts of human history. But, as I said, ALL ancient cultures speak of a great flood.

Your myopic view of the world, and it's ancient unwritten history is typical of modern archeology. They see something. They make up a story, and they stick to that story, no matter what new evidence appears.

I look at the world through the eyes of a geologist with nearly 60 years of field experience. I see what has created the various rock formations and those that are young enough, I can see how those processes would have affected mankind.

If you were to walk along a coastal cliff region in the Lompoc area you will find little mounds of shell debris. That's where the Chumash smashed them to get the meal hidden inside. Most people would wonder why the Chumash brought them up to the top of the cliff.

But I know that the cliff rose up long after the Chumash were gone from that area. That's the biggest problem with archeology today, they ignore a lot of evidence from other fields of research.

And homo sapiens killed off the Neanderthal or bred with them which eliminated them that way. We all have some Neanderthal DNA in us. And our big advantage was a faster gestation period. We simply reproduced faster than they did. There is modern research that tries to explain the larger size of Neanderthal babies by claiming their teeth developed 15% faster after birth, but they can't show how that would happen. OTOH if the Neanderthal gestation period is 11 months, the teeth are no longer an issue. So, who to believe, archeologists who dream up magical growing teeth, or biologists who present a growth rate based on known gestation processes?

 

[Mushroom]

yet it is considered heterodoxic to propose a similar ocean journey to North America could have happened somewhere in between that time and 13000 years ago.

The claim is not 13,000 years ago, it is a well known fact humans were in North America long before 13,000 years ago.

The claim is that they somehow did it 130,000 years ago. That is rubbish, they had not even extended past the Middle East by that point.

 

[westwall]

The claim is not 13,000 years ago, it is a well known fact humans were in North America long before 13,000 years ago.

The claim is that they somehow did it 130,000 years ago. That is rubbish, they had not even extended past the Middle East by that point.

How do you know? That is certainly one theory. But there is no way to know.

What we do know, is the timeline of man's diaspora from Africa is constantly being pushed back.

 

[Failzero]

How do you know? That is certainly one theory. But there is no way to know.

What we do know, is the timeline of man's diaspora from Africa is constantly being pushed back.

The Million Year old Proto Homo Sapiens skull found in China is rocking the Out of Africa theory which is on the ropes .

 

[westwall]

The Million Year old Proto Homo Sapiens skull found in China is rocking the Out of Africa theory which is on the ropes .

Possibly. There are always issues with fossils. I am not a fan of basing entire theories on single objects. Too many times those objects are proven to be simply anomalous, and representative of species as a whole.

 

[Failzero]

Possibly. There are always issues with fossils. I am not a fan of basing entire theories on single objects. Too many times those objects are proven to be simply anomalous, and representative of species as a whole.

But 4-7 Partial Skulls or skeletons are a firm Foundation of the Out of Africa theory

 

[westwall]

But 4-7 Partial Skulls or skeletons are a firm Foundation of the Out of Africa theory

Trust me, I don't like that theory either!

 

[Hafar1014]

And this is likely true.

More and more over the last several years, the "Clovis First" theory has been largely dismissed. Mostly because the Clovis culture only starts in around 12-13 kya. And there have been multiple sites that have pushed human habitation back to at least 15-18 kya. With some now showing evidence of 48-60 kya.

Myself, I do believe that the actual date is likely close to the 45-60 kya timeframe. But because of where the habitation was we will never find the archaeological evidence until somewhere around the next Glacial Maximum. But realistically, there is absolutely no reason that humans could not have reached the Americas outside of the time of their arrival in Australia. In fact, traveling from Siberia to North America during the ice age would have been far easier than traveling to Australia.

There may have been an advanced race that died out.