Ancient Migration-Coming to America

[cgode]

Again, another thread I will interject my disapproval of the way it's playing out socially. Bill,You seem like a smart guy and are very articulate, I welcome respectful discussions without the personal undertones.... You have successfully driven a respected member from an interesting thread..... I think we're done here.
Im hoping this discussion will continue in a respectful manor for all parties involved....I'd rather not see what the "lock" button really does.

[Bill]

CMD, I not only addressed his points, I recognize the fact that I refuted them!
When I address someone’s arguments with a counter argument that consists of facts, science and knowledge and they choose to ignore it that causes me question the honesty of your intentions.
I agree that you have made the right decision for you not to discuss this subject further.

[Bill]

greywolf22, you are kidding right? You did study the photos you posted first right?  :unsure:
We will have to agree to disagree then.

[Bill]

CMD I agree that you should not because you simply do not know enough about this subject to discuss it appropriately. You get angry when someone else does and I appreciate that you have realized that.

[Bill]

Charlie you make me sad because you keep going aimlessly in circles. "Do you think they would present such a firm conclusion in a paper that also contains a dismissal of that same conclusion?" If you read their paper you know they did because I posted it in quotation marks because I took it from directly from their paper.   
"Simple logic would say no, of course they would do no such thing." You even have this wrong because they did see above!
Those guys took modern DNA and applied the Hyplotypes it contained and pretended it was the same as 20,000 year old DNA. Therefore we have no way of knowing whether the DNA got it right or not because the authors didn't compare it to ancient DNA. 
I have and thank you nor acknowldging that. I appreciate the fact that you noticed. B)  B)

[CMD]

Bill wrote:

CMD please read my latest post to Pain because I have addressed all of his and your concerns as well as teach a little about the limitations on the accuracy DNA to reach a long into the past

  No, you have not addressed his points, IMO. When and if you do, I will recognize the fact, but up to this point, you have ignored his points IMO. That's my take. Believe whatever you want Bill. I think Roger has left the thread by the sounds of it. Can't say as I blame him. I myself was on the fence where this theory was concerned. The recent threads on the subject has helped me understand how scanty the evidence is to support this theory and I now suspect it will turn out to be much ado about nothing. A minor blip, a flash in the pan. That's the way I'm leaning at the moment. Believe whatever you want, Bill. I wish you no ill will, but I do not want to discuss this subject with you further.

[painshill]

Bill wrote:

Pain, perhaps you do need a nap then but as they say don’t go way mad, stick around! I will say this as delicately as I can and apologize in advance if you find my response offensive but here goes. Hey, wait a minute isn't that my wife? B) 
All joking aside, it is clear to me by your response that you have no idea what you are talking about. Modern (fresh) DNA can only tell, within limited parameters who is related to whom and where they came from.
By ancestors we are talking about folks who lived around, at most, only 500 to 800 years ago. I’ll even say 1,000 years ago in some cases but to go back older than that, is to invite problems.   
When someone examines modern DNA to make inferences about folks who lived 40,000 –12,000 years, modern DNA don’t mean nothin and why is this?
It is because modern mtDNA cannot reveal Haplotypes or even Haplogroups that were lost anciently. Populations who died, were killed and had a very low rate marrying outside the parent population by survivors may have lost their Haplogroup or Haplotypes.
If that happened than modern DNA will not retain any record of those groups or populations that simply disappeared from the genetic record.
It would be like trying to read a book that has missing chapters. In other words there will be gaps when trying to compare modern DNA to make inferences about ancient people. When people try to use modern DNA to try and answer the question of who people were and where they came from, there is one question that is critical and must be answered first.
Do you really enough ancient Haplotypes represented in your modern sample and in all likelihood, the answer to this question will always be no. Why is it a problem?
Ancient people were especially hunters and gatherers were very mobile and led riskier life styles that stay at home people were not related to them. The stay at homes were pretty stable and just keep making the population lager while the unrelated wanderers were always moving around and theirs was a riskier life style. These people could be killed by new people who wanted their territory or many of them could die over the course of a very severe change of climate or catastrophe.
The survivors even if they joined new and (unrelated to them) groups, their Haplotypes would be bred out over as thousands of years passed. In other words, the DNA of the group would absorb their DNA and genetically leave no trace of their existence at all in modern DNA.
This is the reason why the usefulness of modern DNA is extremely limited and even useless when attempting to make inferences about wandering people who lived 40,000 to 10,000 years ago.

  Oh. Like I said, I'm bowing to your superior intellect.

[Bill]

CMD please read my latest post to Pain because I have addressed all of his and your concerns as well as teach a little about the limitations on the accuracy DNA to reach a long way, accurately into the past.

[Bill]

Pain, perhaps you do need a nap then but as they say don’t go way mad, stick around! I will say this as delicately as I can and apologize in advance if you find my response offensive but here goes. Hey, wait a minute isn't that my wife? B) 
All joking aside, it is clear to me by your response that you have no idea what you are talking about. Modern (fresh) DNA can only tell, within limited parameters who is related to whom and where they came from.
By ancestors we are talking about folks who lived around, at most, only 500 to 800 years ago. I’ll even say 1,000 years ago in some cases but to go back older than that, is to invite problems.   
When someone examines modern DNA to make inferences about folks who lived 40,000 –12,000 years, modern DNA don’t mean nothin and why is this?
It is because modern mtDNA cannot reveal Haplotypes or even Haplogroups that were lost anciently. Populations who died, were killed and had a very low rate marrying outside the parent population by survivors may have lost their Haplogroup or Haplotypes.
If that happened than modern DNA will not retain any record of those groups or populations that simply disappeared from the genetic record.
It would be like trying to read a book that has missing chapters. In other words there will be gaps when trying to compare modern DNA to make inferences about ancient people. When people try to use modern DNA to try and answer the question of who people were and where they came from, there is one question that is critical and must be answered first.
Do you really enough ancient Haplotypes represented in your modern sample and in all likelihood, the answer to this question will always be no. Why is it a problem?
Ancient people were especially hunters and gatherers were very mobile and led riskier life styles that stay at home people were not related to them. The stay at homes were pretty stable and just keep making the population lager while the unrelated wanderers were always moving around and theirs was a riskier life style. These people could be killed by new people who wanted their territory or many of them could die over the course of a very severe change of climate or catastrophe.
The survivors even if they joined new and (unrelated to them) groups, their Haplotypes would be bred out over as thousands of years passed. In other words, the DNA of the group would absorb their DNA and genetically leave no trace of their existence at all in modern DNA.
This is the reason why the usefulness of modern DNA is extremely limited and even useless when attempting to make inferences about wandering people who lived 40,000 to 10,000 years ago.

[gregszybala]

painshill wrote:

Yeah, I read that and yawned. However, I now completely understand the error of my ways and bow graciously to your superior intellect. The bit I was missing (I don't understand how, because it was staring me in the face) is that you must actually be of Solutrean descent. You can get this confirmed here for the princely sum of $119 by having your DNA tested:

http://www.genebase.com/learning/?tuId=16

It will help to fill in the gaps among those 80,000 DNA sequences from native Americans in the Molecular Database. They don't need an awful lot of sample for checking apparently. Half a leg would be fine.
I'm outta here!

  So Roger, it appears you have started your U.S. road trip! Well at least we now know what the backside of you looks like

[CMD]

painshill wrote:

Thanks for the efforts to convert my Word doc to text. This is what I actually said:
[[[What utter nonsense!
What you did Bill was to lift a piece of text word for word from the paper by Kashani et al. for which I posted the abstract. I didn’t post the entire paper for copyright reasons. That’s what abstracts are for… to summarise the conclusions. You selected a piece of text out of context in a partisan manner and presented it as your own counter-argument, which is disgraceful. If you call yourself a scientist you should be deeply ashamed.
Kashani et al. included that text as a frank admission of the possible flaws in genetic evidence in general. It doesn't detract from the evidence they present. Do you think they would present such a firm conclusion in a paper that also contains a dismissal of that same conclusion? What colour is the sky on your planet?
What you missed is that the text was included in the interests of fairness and balance but also as a reassurance that the authors recognised any possible limitations and had allowed for this in their rigorous anaylysis. That is, they were confident that they hadn’t fallen into a possible hole.
You selectively omitted the positive elements from the follow-on text and the main body of evidence and also very clearly missed the conclusion from the data (even allowing for any possible shortcomings). The words used were: “… definitively dismisses the controversial Solutrean hypothesis…”
By drawing attention to the wider context, you have unwittingly reinforced the arguments that rubbish Stanford’s theory. Not the other way round. So, well done. We’ll make a scientist of you yet. Well… probably not, eh?]]]
The three biggest sins in science are plagiarising someone else's data without proper attribution; selectively presenting data out of context and inventing data that wasn't gathered experimentally. You managed two out of three. Wanna go for the full set?
[PS: I am Roger, but stayed with my forum persona Painshill to avoid confusion with another Roger on the site. Painshill is simply where I live. No drama there Bill]

"Do you think they would present such a firm conclusion in a paper that also contains a dismissal of that same conclusion?" Simple logic would say no, of course they would do no such thing. Further, if their chain of reasoning were THAT inexplicably shattered, we wouldn't be finding their article in a respected peer reviewed journal. They'd probably have to go the mass market book route
No one has yet refuted the logical observation you make, Roger. And I'm not going to hold my breath expecting anyone will.

[greywolf22]

I am not a Clovis east meets west. I am a west Clovis meets east. Bill said in some of his comments there is no proof that Clovis was the Northwest. I have recently posted information that shows that Clovis was there.
In the Northwest a lot of land has been buried under ash and lava in the last 14,000 so many of the Clovis sites were buried under this. I have talked to many collectors of Great Basin artifacts and they tell me the same thing.
I see no evidence that Europeans were here first with there tool making. Finding one stone tool that kind of looks like it does not bake a cake.
I have posted Paleo artifacts found in Oregon with those found in Europe to compare.
Clovis Cache Wenatchee Site

Paleo/early Archaic Knife from Oregon.

Paleo Scraper from Oregon. Uniface the other side.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __
Soluterean Points







  ack

[painshill]

Yeah, I read that and yawned. However, I now completely understand the error of my ways and bow graciously to your superior intellect. The bit I was missing (I don't understand how, because it was staring me in the face) is that you must actually be of Solutrean descent. You can get this confirmed here for the princely sum of $119 by having your DNA tested:

http://www.genebase.com/learning/?tuId=16

It will help to fill in the gaps among those 80,000 DNA sequences from native Americans in the Molecular Database. They don't need an awful lot of sample for checking apparently. Half a leg would be fine.
I'm outta here!

[Bill]

Attention Pain, just for you here is a repost two posts I poated earlier this morning and since you seem to be confused here they are. 
Pain, stop the drama and stop playing the outrage card because pure and simple, I busted your game with the authors own admission.
If you actually read my post, all I did was post the proof and their admission that their data and therefore their entire study was based upon incomplete data.
Therefore the author’s statement about their data having ruled out the likelihood of an Atlantic (i.e. Solutrean) migration was in reality not supported by their data at all.
I briefly discussed why that was a bogus conclusion drawn and was totally unwarranted. Why did I say that?
Because and just let me say, you just aren’t getting it are you? Their study looked at modern indigenous mtDNA and I will interpret that statement for you. They sampled DNA from Modern native groups that have been living in areas around the word for a long time.
That means because they were looked at modern indigenous mtDNA, they were attempted to infer that what they found was the same as they would have found if they had studied ancient DNA. Therefore the authors are guilty of crossing the line by drawing unwarranted conclusions from what they found.
Why was and is this a problem? Because in a time span of many dozens centuries, Haplotypes and even Haplogroups may have been dropped, eliminated, or bred out of the modern DNA they sampled because of events that happened anciently. In fact some ancient Haplogroups that existed way back then, may not have been in the local Haplogroups that ensued at all.
There are many reasons why this was likely to have happened which I won’t go into now but will be happy to if asked.
So, in conclusion, let me say let’s stop the sophomoric humour and discuss the subject of the peopling of the Americas like adults. You and several others seem to have an irrational fear of the Clovis from Solutrean hypothesis.
My advice to you is come on; it is a theory for goodness sakes. Whether it turns out to be true or false, the world won’t skip any rotations on its axis because of it.
  I have never (and I said NEVER!) made post in which I attempted to personally take credit for something someone else wrote or said. I always place excerpts from source material in direct quotes and/or post the tile, authors, and source from where it was taken.
This is why I say that no one who has taken the time to read or understand my post will have the idea that I personally, took credit for the quoted material which I placed in quotation marks and listed the source too.
Roger or whatever his name is because he goes by the nom de plume of “Painshill” (I love it) loves to spent his time creating and posting humorous anecdotes (and what a funny fellow he is too). When his humor has become unnecessarily harsh, cutting, or disrespectful then he has earned the right to be called to account. This is something he has chosen.

[CMD]

Bill wrote:

Nothing alarming Charlie, you are over thinking this stuff.
Will “Clovis from Solutrean” become the same thing and have the same chilling effect as “Clovis first” had and would it cause the same kind of tunnel vision. Would it “become a dogma that would inhibit research to the contrary” I believe you said and I believe you inferred.
Are you kidding (just joking)? Have you noticed that most of the archaeological community alone has come out firmly against such a preposterous idea as Clovis from Solutrean. That alone should convince you that there will be plenty of drama but there will be no dogma. Pro Archs will be going out of their way to find ways not to believe it.
Just look at how this issue divides folks into determined, different camps on these forums. When the subject comes up the same kind of heated arguments develop just like politics or religion cause. I don’t know why this is because, in the case of Clovis from Solutrean, why rail against something that is just an archaeological theory?
Are people afraid it is true? Are people afraid it is not? I don’t know lets wait and watch for the archaeological investigations discover. It will be a really cool show and will be fun to watch too.
By the way there will be plenty of drama in the professional Archaeological community and if you thought it was hard to get them to accept Preclovis, and they are still arguing about that one, it will be ten of twenty times harder to get those guys to accept Clovis from Solutrean!

  No Bill. I had stated that I thought you were taking a dogmatic stance, not the archaeological establishment. I felt that you, not the archaeological establishment, was ready to codify the Solutrean theory into a new dogma. Believe me, I was never concerned that that approach would extend beyond yourself and become a new model that scholars dare not question, as happened with the Clovis-first model. BTW, you suggested I might be better off sticking with philosophy, not science. That's fair, because I had thrown a few rocks. But I want you to know that although I most surely do love philosophy, when necessary, I am in fact willing to settle for science :laugh:  :laugh: