Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ancient Migration-Coming to America

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Well CMD if you will excuse me, and I apologize in advance, you seem to be guilty of exactly that.
    However I agree with and respect the rest of you post because believe it or not I think we are kindred spirits in many ways.
    But I must take issue with the phrase you just posted “I have begun to wonder if Stanford/Bradley are engaged in an intellectual con game.” I am just as skeptical as you are because I have been following this First American stuff for a long, long time. I am attracted to S and Bs argument and theory because it fits the artifacts at the heart of that argument. I am convinced Drs. S and B are indeed convinced of the truth of their theory.
    I was fortunate to have enjoyed a conversation with Dr. Stanford at least fifteen years ago at the Topper site in South Carolina and he was questioning Clovis across the land bridge even back then. He was questioning that theory because he had been at sites and analyzed artifacts on both sides of the Bearing Strait. When he compared Clovis artifacts to those he couldn’t see the continuation or nexus between them.
    I agree with you because to really make the theory fly there need to be some Solutrean artifacts found in the Del Marva Peninsula area. However, if Clovis and the Solutrean from the Cantabria area of Spain are directly related there may be no daylight between the artifacts of both areas. 
    If Drs. S and B are right I would expect to see this proven by them in the course following years or even less. Will this mean that there were no really early Preclovis people here? No it does not because Clovis will be Clovis and Preclovis will still be Preclovis. Both theories can and will coexist because ond did not necessarily spring from the other.
    I am also convinced that Dr. S and B are not cherry picking their data. That is what it is because both of these professionals have placed their careers on the line and realize subsequent finds will be closely and constantly examined by their peers. I am convinced they are blue ribbon Scientists and because their careers are on the line, they will do it right.

    Comment


    • #77
      CMD, I apologize for the confusion. Since they are not here, I thought everyone would see the humor when I replying for them.
      Let me state for the record and to be absolutely clear, I am not Dennis Stanford or Bruce Bradley.

      Comment


      • #78
        roustabout149, I simply place direct material in italics and believed folks would realize that. I apologize for the confusion.

        Comment


        • #79
          Bill wrote:

          roustabout149, I simply place direct material in italics and believed folks would realize that. I apologize for the confusion.
            Understood.  Quite a bit of reading involved!!!
          P.S.  I should have questioned my thoughts immediately rather than assume seriousness on your part.  I did see your references on the post.  I am not faultless. :S

          Comment


          • #80
            Bill, you wrote:

            "Well CMD if you will excuse me, and I apologize in advance, you seem to be guilty of exactly that."  Bill, yes, I do in fact believe we are kindred spirits, and I do apologize for overly harsh comments I made earlier in this thread. However, I'm confused as to what you're saying I'm guilty of? Do you mean irrational fear of the Solutrean hypothesis?? I'm just wondering, as I've gone back over my most recent posts and I'm unsure what I'm guilty of.
            Rhode Island

            Comment


            • #81
              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]
              I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.

              Comment


              • #82
                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!

                Comment


                • #83
                  painshill, I had no trouble opening your document and I have already posted my reply earlier this morning about that post, on this thread. Please read it and you will discover with absolutely no nonsense, I have addressed your alarm, drama, and fears. In other words chill out dude!
                  In that post I thoroughly explained why their data if flawed there fore cannot be used to make inferences about events that happened 25,000 to 30,000 years ago. Please read my post for a through explanation
                  I explained in my earlier post this morning, why their flawed conclusion in ruling out the possibility of an Atlantic migration was bogus. Please read my post of earlier this morning.   
                  I explained in my post earlier this morning that there I was did not and was not guilty of plagiarizing anything. Please read my post of earlier this morning for details.
                  So far you have been wrong three out of three. Congratulations Pain or Roger, you just won a trifecta!
                  I wish you a good day and say hip hip, and cheerio (and toasted oats too!) to you  B) .

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    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: 
                    Rhode Island

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        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!

                        I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            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.
                            Rhode Island

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              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
                              Searching the fields of Northwest Indiana and Southwestern Michigan

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X