[_ Old Earth _] Is there proof we evolved from monkeys?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dave Slayer
  • Start date Start date
Define Northern Asia.

The Northern part of Asia.

What shared DNA are there between these Northern Asians and Native Americans that lived ca. 13kya?

In 1981 Dr. Wallace headed a Stanford research team that found that ethnic groups could be identified and linked to their continent of origin by the mutation patterns in their mtDNA. Moreover, by determining how often these telltale mutations occurred, it was possible to calculate how long ago certain groups stopped intermarrying and separated, each going off to develop its own unique pattern of mtDNA mutations.

"Each continent had a different pattern" of mtDNA mutations, Dr. Wallace recalls of his research findings. Africans had mtDNA variations that distinguished them from Asians who, in turn, had variations that distinguished them from European-American Caucasians. "That's when I knew we had an anthropological story," he says. ...

Dr. Wallace began studying the mtDNA of Native Americans in the mid-1980s in hopes of resolving a long-raging debate over when prehistoric peoples entered the Americas. The presumption long has been that the ancestors of Native Americans came from Siberia. But anthropologists have argued for year over how many, and when, such migrations occurred.

The mtDNA analyses are showing that the ancestors of the Amerinds, who comprise most Native Americans, entered the Americans in a single migratory wave 20,000 to 40,000 years ago, Dr. Wallace and his Emory colleagues ... reported last year. This puts humans in the Americas long before a fluted stone-spear point--the oldest American tool ever found--was dropped by a prehistoric dweller near Clovis, N.M., 11,000 years ago.

The researchers also found that ancestors of the Navajo, Apache and other members of a Native American group, known collectively as the Na-Dene, are latecomers; they entered the continent in a second migration a mere 5,000 to 10,000 years ago, the research indicates.


Polynesian Links?

To their surprise, however, the researchers found that native Siberians lack one peculiar mutation that appeared in the Amerinds 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. This raises the question of where, if not from Siberia, this mtDNA originated.

It turns out, Dr. Wallace says, that this particular mutation pattern is also found in aboriginal populations in Southeast Asia and in the islands of Melanesia and Polynesia. This hints at what may have been "one of the most astounding migrations in human experience," he says. A group of ancient peoples moved out of China into Malaysia where they became sailors and populated the islands of the South Pacific.

Then some 6,000 to 12,000 years ago these ancient mariners made it to the Americas. "I don't know how they came," Dr. Wallace says. "They either came across the Pacific to Central and South America or they went up the east coast of Asia and across the northern Pacific to Alaska and Canada," he says. He already is examining mtDNA samples from natives of the Kamchatka Peninsula north of Japan to see if there is any mtDNA trace of these ancient sailors.

http://cita.chattanooga.org/mtdna.html

Surprise.

What was the genetic makeup of Clovis tech utilizing populations.

Essentially that of present day Amerinds. As you see, the DNA evidence is much more interesting than you suspected.
 
What I've been able to gather to date, NA mtDNA Hg B is of Southeast Asian origin (possibly Sundaland). NA mtDNA Hg A is of Tibet/ Burma region (Southeast Asia) origin. NA mtDNA Hgs C and D are of Northern Asian origin (and relatively late comers), though there is one subclade of mtDNA Hg D that has been found in the Americas (On your Knees Cave) that is of East Asian origin. NA mtDNA Hg X2a is apparently as ancient as Hg A and both are part of Mhg N (as is Hg B). mtDNA Hg X2a samples have been recovered from populations that also have high frequencies of mtDNA Hg A. mtDNA Hgs C and D are part of Mhg M.

So extant NA mtDNA appears to have come from Southeast, East and North Asia (Mhg M), with the earlier migrations coming from Southeast Asia (Mhg N).

The Barbarian wrote:

Of course, the fact that the indigenous people of the Americas are genetically linked to the indigenous people of northern asia does tend to throw some doubt on Alley Oop…

Yeah, but we're only looking at extant mtDNA hgs.

Have you read about the proposed ET impact that allegedly coincided with the extinction of American

megafauna and Clovis utilizing populations:

Kurbatov, A.V., Mayewski, P.A., et al. â€ÂNanodiamonds discovered
in the Greenland ice sheet within the Younger Dryas boundary
layer.†Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
USA. Forthcoming."

Kennett, D.J., et al. 2009. “Nanodiamonds in the Younger Dryas boundary sediment layer.†Science 323: 94.

Kerr, Richard. 2009. “Did the mammoth slayer leave a diamond calling card?†Science 323: 26.

Haynes, C. Vance, Jr. 2008. “Younger Dryas ‘black mats’ and the Rancholabrean termination in North America.†Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 105(18): 6520-6525.

The Clovis complex is considered to be the oldest unequivocal evidence of humans in the Americas, dating between 11,500 and 10,900 radiocarbon years before the present (14C yr B.P.). Adjusted 14C dates and a reevaluation of the existing Clovis date record revise the Clovis time range to 11,050 to 10,800 14C yr B.P. In as few as 200 calendar years, Clovis technology originated and spread throughout North America. The revised age range for Clovis overlaps non-Clovis sites in North and South America. This and other evidence imply that humans already lived in the Americas before Clovis.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... /5815/1122
 
So extant NA mtDNA appears to have come from Southeast, East and North Asia (Mhg M), with the earlier migrations coming from Southeast Asia (Mhg N).

Interesting. Tell us about the contemporary Neandertals of Southeast Asia. What's the last known date for Neandertals? What was the earliest sign of humans in the Americas?
 
The Barbarian said:
So extant NA mtDNA appears to have come from Southeast, East and North Asia (Mhg M), with the earlier migrations coming from Southeast Asia (Mhg N).

Interesting. Tell us about the contemporary Neandertals of Southeast Asia. What's the last known date for Neandertals? What was the earliest sign of humans in the Americas?

Tell us about the contemporary Neandertals of Southeast Asia.

What does extant mean?

Apparently you missed all this:

Crying Rock wrote/ cited:

Yeah, but we're only looking at extant mtDNA hgs.

Have you read about the proposed ET impact that allegedly coincided

with the extinction of American megafauna and Clovis utilizing populations:

Kurbatov, A.V., Mayewski, P.A., et al. â€ÂNanodiamonds discovered
in the Greenland ice sheet within the Younger Dryas boundary
layer.†Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
USA. Forthcoming."

Kennett, D.J., et al. 2009. “Nanodiamonds in the Younger Dryas boundary sediment layer.†Science 323: 94.

Kerr, Richard. 2009. “Did the mammoth slayer leave a diamond calling card?†Science 323: 26.

Haynes, C. Vance, Jr. 2008. “Younger Dryas ‘black mats’ and the Rancholabrean termination in North America.†Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 105(18): 6520-6525.


What's the last known date for Neandertals?

23kya

What was the earliest sign of humans in the Americas?

Greater than 250kya (Hueyatlaco). Calico is dated to 200kya. Pedra Furada is dated to 100kya. Topper is reporting dates no younger than 50kya. Old Crow reports dates of greater than 30kya. Bluefish Caves reports dates of 28kya. Meadowcroft reports dates as old as 22kya. Cactus Hill reports dates as old as 20kya. La Sena and Lovewell report dates as old as 22kya.
 
I'm aware of some older dates reported, but the one I actually checked, turned out to be carbon from a fire than had been buried and then exposed to groundwater containing geologic carbon. That would give a much older date thereby.

Can you cite a checkable source? The oldest New World human remains I know about are about 12,000 years old, and their skulls look less like Neandertals than those of most modern Europeans.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm
 
The Barbarian said:
I'm aware of some older dates reported, but the one I actually checked, turned out to be carbon from a fire than had been buried and then exposed to groundwater containing geologic carbon. That would give a much older date thereby.

Can you cite a checkable source? The oldest New World human remains I know about are about 12,000 years old, and their skulls look less like Neandertals than those of most modern Europeans.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm

The Barbarian wrote:

I'm aware of some older dates reported, but the one I actually checked, turned out to be carbon from a fire than had been buried and then exposed to groundwater containing geologic carbon. That would give a much older date thereby.

Is that Meadowcroft? If so, that assertation has been falsfied, or at least there is no evidence supporting the claim.


Here are a few peer reviewed site reports on the sites I metioned above:

A TL/ESR STUDY OF THE HEARTH FEATURE AT THE
CALICO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE, CALIFORNIA
James L. Bischoff, Motoji Ikeya, and Fred E. Budinger, Jr.
American Antiquity, 49(4), 1984, pp. 764-774.

Bischoff, J.L., R.J. Shlemon, T.L. Ku, R.D. Simpson, R.J. Rosenbauer, & F.E. Budinger, Jr., "1981 Uranium-series and Soils-geomorphic Dating of the Calico Archaeological Site, California", Geology V9 (12), pp. 576-582.


Corroboration of Sangamonian age of artifacts from the
Valsequillo region, Puebla, Mexico
by means of diatom biostratigraphy
Sam L. VanLandingham
micropaleontology, vol. 50, 170. 4, pp. 313-342, textlfigures 1-4, plates 1-9, tables 1-4, 2004

VanLandingham, S. L., 2006. Diatom evidence for autochthonous artifact deposition in
the Valsequillo region, Puebla, Mexico during the Sangamonian (sensu lato = 80,000 to
220,000 yr BP) and Illinoian (220,000 to 430,000 yr BP). Journal of Paleolimnology,
36:101-116.

Steen-McIntyre, Virginia, et al; "Geologic Evidence for Age of Deposits at Hueyatlaco Archeological Site, Valsequillo, Mexico," Quaternary Research, 16:1, 1981.

Macphail, R. I., and J. M. McAvoy , 2008, A micromorphological
analysis of stratigraphic integrity and site formation at Cactus
Hill, an Early Paleoindian and hypothesized pre-Clovis occupation
in south-central Virginia, USA. Geoarchaeology vol. 23 no. 5,
pp. 675-694.

AU: Daniel P. Wagner, Joseph M. McAvoy
TI: Pedoarchaeology of Cactus Hill, a sandy Paleoindian site in southeastern Virginia, U.S.A.
SO: Geoarchaeology
VL: 19
NO: 4
PG: 297-322
YR: 2004

Adovasio, J.M.
1982 Multidisciplinary Research in the Northeast: One View from Meadowcroft Rockshelter. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 52(3-4): 57-68.

Adovasio, J.M.
1996 Meadowcroft Rockshelter. In The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, edited by B.M. Fagan, pp. 415-416. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Carr, K.W. and J.M. Adovasio
2002 The Paleoindians in Pennsylvania. In Ice Age Peoples of Pennsylvania, edited by K Carr and J Adovasio, 1-50, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.

A bunch more if you'd like me to track them down.

The Barbarian said:
The oldest New World human remains I know about are about 12,000 years old, and their skulls look less like Neandertals than those of most modern Europeans.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm

That particular Mexican skull looks too robust to be a modern European, IMO.

However, I don't think it looks Neanderthal either.

Here's another American skull that is ca. 11kya:

http://www.bosquemuseum.org/images/Press/Skull-2.jpg

Again, robust, but not Neanderthal. Remember, though, that

these two skulls are younger than Clovis.

There's a hypothesis that's gaining support that states all hell broke loose across North America around 12.8kya, killing off the megafauna and significantly reducing any extant human populations at the time (bottleneck):

Kurbatov, A.V., Mayewski, P.A., et al. â€ÂNanodiamonds discovered
in the Greenland ice sheet within the Younger Dryas boundary
layer.†Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
USA. Forthcoming."

Kennett, D.J., et al. 2009. “Nanodiamonds in the Younger Dryas boundary sediment layer.†Science 323: 94.

Kerr, Richard. 2009. “Did the mammoth slayer leave a diamond calling card?†Science 323: 26.

Haynes, C. Vance, Jr. 2008. “Younger Dryas ‘black mats’ and the Rancholabrean termination in North America.†Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 105(18): 6520-6525.

This is real trip:

IRISH, J.D., S.D. DAVIS, J.E. LOBDELL, and F.A. SOLÓRZANO, 2000, Prehistoric Human Remains
from Jalisco, Mexico, Current Research in the Pleistocene 17, 2000 pg. 95-96

"One Chapala superciliary arch deserves specific mention due to its large size. Studies by Solórzano show the bone resembles that in archaic Homo sapiens at Arago, France. In an unpublished 1990 report, Texas A&M osteologists suggest the brow’s thickness and robustness are comparable to those of KNMER 3733 (African Homo erectus). Our measurements show the central torus thickness is 13.3, compared with 8.5 mm for KNM-ER 3733; the lateral torus thickness is 11.5 versus 9.0 mm (Rightmire 1998). Thus for the sake of comparison, the brow is more like that of Zhoukoudian Skull XI (Asian Homo erectus), with a central torus thickness of 13.2 +/- mm; lateral torus thickness was not measured (Rightmire 1998). Modern brows are too diminutive to allow these measurements. The brow also shows pneumatization (air pockets) along its length.
 
Neandertal skull:
images


Skull in question:
_38542745_150concho1.jpg


Anatomically Modern Human skull:
images


So which one does the American skull most resemble? No contest, um? It's not merely "robustness", but a different morphology entirely. Neandertals had long heads and low crania. H. sapiens has a high forehead and a shortened skull. Notice the size of the nose, that large opening. Do you know if the occipital bun is present in the American skull?
 
don't you think that's enough with the skulls?

I have read that the bone structure doesn't directly relate to the flesh(organs, tissue, ect.) which carries the genes which could prove or disprove that point by dna; since bones are not living and dna is part of living cells, is this correct? :shrug

But take this for instance:

http://www.boneclones.com/images/bc-227-lg.jpg

Is this proof of aliens? It's an infant skull, but it looks like ET, so it must be ET right?

Have you ever googled images of human skulls? There are some wierd looking skulls out there. What does that prove? I've heard lots of explanations for the gaps in the fossil record, even affirmed athiests have agreed that there are unexplainable gaps in the fossil record. The skulls aren't enough proof!
 
don't you think that's enough with the skulls?

Evidence is the best way to get to the truth.

I have read that the bone structure doesn't directly relate to the flesh(organs, tissue, ect.)

Demonstrably false. Forensic pathologists can reconstruct the face of people using nothing but the skull.

Archaelogists can often tell what a person did in life, by the examining the skeleton.

which carries the genes which could prove or disprove that point by dna; since bones are not living and dna is part of living cells, is this correct? :shrug

Bones are living like any other tissue. In fact, the DNA we are talking about was recovered from bones.


Infant skull. You can tell by the undeveloped facial bones and the unfused sutures.

Is this proof of aliens?

No.

It's an infant skull, but it looks like ET, so it must be ET right?

If you don't know anything about anatomy, I suppose.

Have you ever googled images of human skulls? There are some wierd looking skulls out there. What does that prove?

In this case, that early Americans were anatomically modern in form, not at all like Neandertals.

I've heard lots of explanations for the gaps in the fossil record, even affirmed athiests have agreed that there are unexplainable gaps in the fossil record.

Well, let's test that assumption. Name me two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find you a transitional. Are you confident enough in your beliefs to do it?

The skulls aren't enough proof!

They effectively end the argument that these ancient Americans were Neandertals.
 
[quote="The Barbarian]Well, let's test that assumption. Name me two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find you a transitional. Are you confident enough in your beliefs to do it?

[/quote]
HA ...what? do you speaka da englis?

It's not an assumption, it's fact there are gaps in fossil records. You could research Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, or Michael Behe and many others if you don't believe me, they've all touched on the gaps.

So, we don't need more theories about the gaps, because evolution can't explain the gaps and the gaps can't explain evolution. Enough with the skulls.
 
[quote:38lj7jq6]Well, let's test that assumption. Name me two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find you a transitional. Are you confident enough in your beliefs to do it?
HA ...what? do you speaka da englis?[/quote:38lj7jq6]

Looks like English to me.... :D

It's not an assumption, it's fact there are gaps in fossil records.
I think the assumption being referred to is the one that asserts that evolutionary theory cannot explain - is in someway flummoxed - by 'gaps' in the fossil record.

You could research Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, or Michael Behe and many others if you don't believe me, they've all touched on the gaps.

The first two, at least, have no doubts about the soundness of evolutionary theory. In the case of Gould and Eldridge's theory of punctuated equilibrium, this regards the transitional periods as brief in geological terms, with the expected consequence of few transitional remains scattered amongst a very much broader array of fossils from inertia-prone (from an evolutionary perspective) well-established, widespread species (see Evolution as Fact and Theory in Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes).

Dawkins had this comment to make in an article in The Times from 21st May, 2005:

Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous “gapsâ€Â. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a “gapâ€Â, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.
Behe, presumably, is more supportive of your viewpoint.

So, we don't need more theories about the gaps, because evolution can't explain the gaps and the gaps can't explain evolution. Enough with the skulls.

Regardless of the views of Behe, Dawkins and Gould, however, your assertion in respect of fossil 'gaps' is at best an unsupported evasion of the challenge Barbarian offered you.
 
It's not an assumption, it's fact there are gaps in fossil records. You could research Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, or Michael Behe and many others if you don't believe me, they've all touched on the gaps.

Then it would be easy to shut me up. Take my challenge and show me. BTW, Gould says that there are innumerable transitionals between major groups.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationistsâ€â€whether though design or stupidity, I do not knowâ€â€as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Stephen Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes 1981

You've been snockered on that one. I haven't read much Dawkins, but I doubt if he denied that fact.

So, we don't need more theories about the gaps, because evolution can't explain the gaps and the gaps can't explain evolution. Enough with the skulls.

They all run for cover when I ask them to substantiate the claim. You're just the latest one to fold.
 
The Barbarian said:
They all run for cover when I ask them to substantiate the claim. You're just the latest one to fold.
latest to fold? no, I said enough with the skulls...that's my stand so i'm not going to play into your game (more than I already have).
I'm not hiding from anything; enough with the skulls that you can't explain. ;)
 
The Barbarian wrote:

The oldest New World human remains I know about are about 12,000 years old, and their skulls look less like Neandertals than those of most modern Europeans.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm

Crying Rock wrote:

That particular Mexican skull looks too robust to be a modern European, IMO.

However, I don't think it looks Neanderthal either.

Here's another American skull that is ca. 11kya:

http://www.bosquemuseum.org/images/Press/Skull-2.jpg

Again, robust, but not Neanderthal. Remember, though, that

these two skulls are younger than Clovis.

There's a hypothesis that's gaining support that states all hell broke loose across North America around 12.8kya, killing off the megafauna and significantly reducing any extant human populations at the time (bottleneck):

Kurbatov, A.V., Mayewski, P.A., et al. â€ÂNanodiamonds discovered
in the Greenland ice sheet within the Younger Dryas boundary
layer.†Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
USA. Forthcoming."

Kennett, D.J., et al. 2009. “Nanodiamonds in the Younger Dryas boundary sediment layer.†Science 323: 94.

Kerr, Richard. 2009. “Did the mammoth slayer leave a diamond calling card?†Science 323: 26.

Haynes, C. Vance, Jr. 2008. “Younger Dryas ‘black mats’ and the Rancholabrean termination in North America.†Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 105(18): 6520-6525.


The Barbarian said:
Neandertal skull:

images


Skull in question:

_38542745_150concho1.jpg


Anatomically Modern Human skull:

images


So which one does the American skull most resemble? No contest, um? It's not merely "robustness", but a different morphology entirely. Neandertals had long heads and low crania. H. sapiens has a high forehead and a shortened skull. Notice the size of the nose, that large opening. Do you know if the occipital bun is present in the American skull?

Crying Rock wrote/quoted:

Agreed, no contest concerning AMH. I was merely pointing out that Penon Woman III and Texas skulls don’t look like modern Europeans’. If some expert geneticists and osteologists are correct Horn Shelter, Wilson-Leonard and Penon Woman III are of South Asian origin (mtDNA B and possibly A).

Here’s an interesting write up on Wilson-Leonard II:

“…That same issue of the 'Strumpet had some wonderfully interesting cranial/facial reconstructions of a 9900 year old American woman from near modern Austin, Texas. She has been lovingly named 'Wilson-Leonard II' by excavation logic but surely we can improve on that, as we did in Lucy's case. There are two casts, one made by forensic artist Betty P. Gatliff and the other by Arthur H. Rathjens and colleagues of Dow Corning Corp. The results are different to my eye, albeit much like sisters. Although Amerinds have often had a nondescript or unspecialized look, I am hard put to locate either model in a 'race'. Gatliff's could easily be an ancestor common to both Caucasoids and Mongoloids, or simply Caucasoid. The other looks strikingly like a forest tribal person from Southeast Asia, as pictured in Coon's Living Races of Man, or just as easily a pastoral Cushite from the Horn of Africa. Remarkable!..â€Â

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mt27.html

http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/plate ... s/head.jpg

http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/plate ... ead-sm.jpg

The Barbarian wrote:

The oldest New World human remains I know about are about 12,000 years old, and their skulls look less like Neandertals than those of most modern Europeans.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm

Crying Rock wrote:

Which are younger than Clovis and not associated with Clovis techs.


The Barbarian wrote:

Do you know if the occipital bun is present in the American skull?


Crying Rock wrote:

I do not. I’ll see if I can track down the formal report. Here are a few links I’ve run across:


http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter54/t ... -Penon.htm

http://www.taostradingpost.com/images/penon.jpg

http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/Faculties/SCS/SCS ... gure43.jpg

http://www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk/Back ... acific.htm
 
latest to fold? no, I said enough with the skulls

Your claim was that there were unexplained gaps. I challenged you to present two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected with no transitionals between them. You declined the challenge. For reasons that are obvious.

...that's my stand so i'm not going to play into your game (more than I already have).

If you want to play here, evidence counts. Tough game, but it works.

I'm not hiding from anything

Except my challenge. Just like everyone else who claims "unexplained gaps."

enough with the skulls that you can't explain.

See above. Notice that the evidence from the skulls makes the point quite clear.
 
The Barbarian said:
Just like everyone else who claims "unexplained gaps."
It must be tough being smarter than palientologists, archaeologists, and all those gone before in the field. :wave
 
mechanicdb said:
The Barbarian said:
Just like everyone else who claims "unexplained gaps."
It must be tough being smarter than palientologists, archaeologists, and all those gone before in the field. :wave
This comment doesn't even make any sense. What do you mean? That all these anonymous scholars that you are alluding to have reached the conclusion that the fossil record fails to support evolutionary theory? If this is your case, you need to support it with something more than content-free assertion.
 
Barbarian notes that creationists will not take his challenge:
Just like everyone else who claims "unexplained gaps."

It must be tough being smarter than palientologists, archaeologists,

As you learned, Gould was a paleontologist, one of the best, and like most other paleontologists, he acknowledged an abundance of transitional forms.

You've just trusted people who were unworthy of your trust. BTW, archaeologists don't study fossils or ancient living things. They study the remains of human cultures of the past.
 
Agreed, no contest concerning AMH. I was merely pointing out that Penon Woman III and Texas skulls don’t look like modern Europeans’. If some expert geneticists and osteologists are correct Horn Shelter, Wilson-Leonard and Penon Woman III are of South Asian origin (mtDNA B and possibly A).

Hmm...what do modern Europeans have to do with it? And your link shows other skulls even less Neandertalish. I don't see any evidence at all for them in the New World, as cool as that might be to imagine.

As far as the South Asian connection is concerned, neolithic peoples from South Asia explored the Pacific, and established societies as far as Easter Island, near South America. It seems perfectly reasonable that some of them made it to the mainland.
 
From the mind of Gould:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design -- indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases -- has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Gould, Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?, Paleobiology 6:119-130, 1980, p127)

from Eldredge:

"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors." (Eldredge, 1989, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p22)

Raff and Kaufman:

"...gaps between higher taxonomic levels are general and large." (Raff and Kaufman, 'Embryos, Genes, and Evolution', Indiana University Press, 1991, p35

Barbarian; gaps are unexplained from an evolutionistic standpoint, you will not be able to reason the gaps (gaps that even evolutionists confirm are there!) when others, more familiar with this area than you, haven't been able to. And that is precisly my point, there are gaps; gaps can't be explained by evolution and evolution can't explain the gaps. The skulls are NOT proof.
 
Back
Top