[Someneck]

They have tested her mitochondrial DNA several times, from what I heard. Well, not hers, since her fossil is fully mineralized, but she is not the only specimen of the group found. Several geneticists from my university (UFMG) have been working on that research for decades now.

And the Bering crossing theory has been assumed to have taken place ~15,000 years ago. They wouldn't cross Central America and get to South America at least till 11,000-10,000 years ago, around the time when Luzia is theorized to have lived.

A couple of experts on here !

Would someone educate me as to whether a body type can evolve from say a tiny African Bushman to a six foot eight Swede in 15k years ?

(Assuming no mixing with existing populations)

Obviously the process of evolution would accelerate with the admixture of 'better suited ' genes, but could the South American Indian body type and the Indians of say, Montana, be really from the same stock which became diverse within 15k years, or is it simply impossible and it indicates different immigrant stocks ?
It does seem an awfully short time span to me, however I note that it is sufficient time to mineralize a body, so perhaps my perspective is wrong

[Social_Critic]

Well Someneck, I don't think we're discussing Swedes, who happen to be from Africa via Asia (Yes, my friends, Swedes are mutated Africans).

The discussion involves whether this Brazilian Lucy is from the Beringia migration or came via a more Southerly route. There's no problem getting people to cross over from Asia around 15,000 years ago and on down to Tierra del Fuego in the time span involved. To get them down to Patagonia over a 4000 year span requires a fairly slow pace, less than 7 km per year even with zigzags and detours. The way I figure it, it's not like they moved at a steady pace. I assume once in a while a small band would pick up their stuff and move say 50 km in a few weeks, then set down roots for a while. Given our tendency to be curious and like warm weather, some of the jumps may have been swift. For example, once they were in Canada, they must have figured out it would be nicer in say Colorado and Nebraska where they could stuff themselves silly with buffalo meat. And once they were in say Ecuador, they would have hurried on South to find cooler weather.

Dunno why they went all the way down to Patagonia, though. I suppose they may have been running away from cannibals. Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego sure suck. But then, these guys were cousins of today's Chuckchis, so they were used to deal with cold weather.

[Someneck]

Well Someneck, I don't think we're discussing Swedes, who happen to be from Africa via Asia (Yes, my friends, Swedes are mutated Africans).

The discussion involves whether this Brazilian Lucy is from the Beringia migration or came via a more Southerly route. There's no problem getting people to cross over from Asia around 15,000 years ago and on down to Tierra del Fuego in the time span involved. To get them down to Patagonia over a 4000 year span requires a fairly slow pace, less than 7 km per year even with zigzags and detours. The way I figure it, it's not like they moved at a steady pace. I assume once in a while a small band would pick up their stuff and move say 50 km in a few weeks, then set down roots for a while. Given our tendency to be curious and like warm weather, some of the jumps may have been swift. For example, once they were in Canada, they must have figured out it would be nicer in say Colorado and Nebraska where they could stuff themselves silly with buffalo meat. And once they were in say Ecuador, they would have hurried on South to find cooler weather.

Dunno why they went all the way down to Patagonia, though. I suppose they may have been running away from cannibals. Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego sure suck. But then, these guys were cousins of today's Chuckchis, so they were used to deal with cold weather.

I accept all that you say re the time interval of 15k years being more than sufficient to spread all over the Americas - I used to have a tortoise called "speedy" who could have done that. My point, or rather question, is whether the change in physical appearance from Idaho Indian to South American Indian could have occurred in 15k years. It seems a really short time

That was the point of my comparison between the African Bushman and typical Swede - that change (ignoring pigmentation) had a long time to occur, but could an Oriental of Idaho Indian appearance, really evolve into the size and appearance of a South American Indian in 15k years ?

If the answer to that is "No", then multi-migrations are indicated

I know that fast changes can occur when mixing populations, but we are talking about the possibly of a continent with no human habitation, in which case evolution would have to proceed according to other factors -- and more slowly ?

I need an evolution expert to advise

[DudeWhoGetsIt]

instead of Google how about legitimate archeological data.

these aren't the best sources, I haven't got time to find the most compelling ones but 3 minutes of searching turned these up, and if this is intriguing in the least then I'm sure you'll find the better ones yourself...

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Enig ... 0693.shtml

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/3774

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 03874.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread445497/pg7

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpr ... a-the-sea/

http://www.nok-benin.co.uk/religion/pottery.htm

http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter54/t ... netics.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Australoid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australoid ... ericans.3F

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15737585

[Social_Critic]

Sitting Bull (Lakota Sioux)

http://www.geni.com/blog/one-of-todays- ... 39921.html

Mapuche from Southern Argentina (not known if he's mixed with European stock)

http://www.zazzle.com/cacique_lloncon_m ... 8642998628

Ecuador Indians

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ama ... 0?ref=card

I don't see as much variance in these faces as I do between Prince William

http://www.people.com/people/prince_william/0,,,00.html

and

Aaron Knock

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/yob_jailed_a ... e_1_217538

[Someneck]

I have just lived 4 years in central washington in a small town full of Mexicans

I then drove to Milwaukee via Idaho and Montana and Wyoming etc etc etc

The Indians I met along the way were big strong guys who looked nothing like the Mexicans I had just left

Not just the size, but the facial features were absolutely different

The difference between the 'types' was enormous and I wondered whether 15k years could be enough for these differences to appear

[Demosthenes]

Mexicans aren't a good example for this kind of thing because almost all of them are mixed "breeds" between the native Indians and the *mostly* Spanish conquerors.

Therefore, comparing them to more pure blooded northern euros is like comparing apples and tangerine hybrids.

[Igor Antunov]

More potent questions. Who cares? What does it change in the here and now?

[Smertios]

Mexicans aren't a good example for this kind of thing because almost all of them are mixed "breeds" between the native Indians and the *mostly* Spanish conquerors.

Therefore, comparing them to more pure blooded northern euros is like comparing apples and tangerine hybrids.

Well, they can map the genetic code of one Mexican and discriminate the genes that are originally European from those that are originally Native. It's how they do most of these researches on how much one population has of European/African/Etc ancestry.

In the absence of actual "pure" specimens, the comparison can work, as long as you can discriminate the non-Native part —which you are not interested in, to begin with.

[Social_Critic]

Admitedly, Mexicans tend to be shorter than North American amerinds. But North American amerinds are American, and Mexicans are from Mexico. And as we all know, people who are fed properly tend to grow taller. On the other hand, it may be that some survival traits were applicable to north american nomads which weren't applicable to Mexicans living in highly stratified societies where most of them were serfs.

Maybe the upper castes of the Aztec and other civilizations were taller? And maybe they valued serfs who could serve in agriculture and as human sacrifice - having a little dude as a human sacrifice must be a lot safer than say trying to stick a knife in Jesse Ventura's chest.

[quetzalcoatl]

Suffice it to say the human race did not originate in the Americas, or for that matter in Europe or Asia. That makes us what? All Africans? To complicate matters further, DNA analysis of worldwide populations leads to the conclusion that human population was under severe threat in "recent" history; reduced to a level of about a 1000 persons at one point.

I don't know what particular relevance migratory patterns has to political claims of aboriginality, or decisions made on how long a population must reside in a location to consider their presence in some sense legitimate.

Perhaps one should just go Biblical and exhaust all claims after the seventh generation.

[Social_Critic]

Quetza, I make this a hobby because I like to understand the past, and how we got here. And why we are the way we are. It's a fascinating subject. And because I'm an agnostic (atheist when it comes to earthling religious beliefs), the use of DNA sequencing and anthropology to find out where I came from is the best option. The Bible isn't a source for reality, it's just a tale.

[ReactionaryRichard]

The "Out of Africa" theory suggests that all modern humans descend from one maternal source, one female, Eve. However, even the proponents of this theory do not claim that "Eve" was the only upright walking, hominid around during this period. Scientist would have us believe that only Eve's lineage survived direct competition from other species of hominids. I find this theory troubling. In light of new genetic evidence that suggests there was interbreeding with Neanderthal, I think there is still much to learn on this subject. The use of genetics could prove the Out of Africa theory to be complete rubbish.

As for the American-Indian, I think their traditions are to me more reliable than any theory created 20,000 years later. I know an American-Indian who told me that his people had always been here. I think many times people of Western traditions try to fit others into their own dogma, by trying to understand other people in a "biblical" sense. I think that leads to a bunch of crap theories.

[Far-Right Sage]

I find myself very much in agreement with that.

The Amerindians maintain beautiful and deep traditions which do not merely consist of aesthetically pleasing pageantry, but profound inward reflection and if this set of cultural customs and trend of inward reflection produces a confident people with a "point of origin" myth that is integral to their understanding of one another in a communitarian sense, understanding of individual roles within their specific tribes, etc., then why attempt to change this?

Scientific data and statistics are in many cases found to be manipulated only long after they were produced as relevant studies in a certain political atmosphere that is reflective of the era in which the studies were commissioned. Hence the persecution of neutral academics such as Galileo then and the reverse crusade today of seeking to punish or denigrate all people who still dare feel a connection to the soil they trod through and their whispers of their ancestors.

The Western world has built a false religion based on nothing but greed, emptiness, and the persecution of all those who seek to elevate themselves from this death cult.

[quetzalcoatl]

Quetza, I make this a hobby because I like to understand the past, and how we got here. And why we are the way we are. It's a fascinating subject. And because I'm an agnostic (atheist when it comes to earthling religious beliefs), the use of DNA sequencing and anthropology to find out where I came from is the best option. The Bible isn't a source for reality, it's just a tale.

I was being a little facetious.

[Social_Critic]

Richard and Sage:

As for the American-Indian, I think their traditions are to me more reliable than any theory created 20,000 years later.

Twenty thousand years ago American natives (all of them) were living in Siberia or in Beringia. There were no native americans, and there were no traditions unique to native americans. The DNA evidence is overwhelming, they have been pinned down as migrants who came here from Asia, and there's no way to change this fact.

Regarding the difference between amerinds, it's fairly easy to change their looks over a period of 13,000 years or so. Consider than Inuit have been typed to be Amerinds, who happened to move back to the North later, after their ancestors had already been around for a while. In less than 10,000 years, they changed to take on the unique Inuit physical characteristics, such as short legs, round faces, round bodies, etc.

I happen to be visiting an area that's full of inuit (what some call Eskimos), and I'm learning to tell the difference between Inuit (or Eskimo) and Aleut, their close relatives.

Regarding the proof that all of you are from Africans, it's in your blood. 75,000 years ago you were darkish dudes with epicanthic folds living in East Africa, soon thereafter you learned to make better spears and rafts. By 55,000 years ago your cousins had made it all the way to Australia. And so on and so forth.

[Social_Critic]

Richard and Sage:

As for the American-Indian, I think their traditions are to me more reliable than any theory created 20,000 years later.

Twenty thousand years ago American natives (all of them) were living in Siberia or in Beringia. There were no native americans, and there were no traditions unique to native americans. The DNA evidence is overwhelming, they have been pinned down as migrants who came here from Asia, and there's no way to change this fact.

Regarding the difference between amerinds, it's fairly easy to change their looks over a period of 13,000 years or so. Consider than Inuit have been typed to be Amerinds, who happened to move back to the North later, after their ancestors had already been around for a while. In less than 10,000 years, they changed to take on the unique Inuit physical characteristics, such as short legs, round faces, round bodies, etc.

I happen to be visiting an area that's full of inuit (what some call Eskimos), and I'm learning to tell the difference between Inuit (or Eskimo) and Aleut, their close relatives.

Regarding the proof that all of you are from Africans, it's in your blood. 75,000 years ago you were darkish dudes with epicanthic folds living in East Africa, soon thereafter you learned to make better spears and rafts. By 55,000 years ago your cousins had made it all the way to Australia. And so on and so forth.

[Tirunus]

You are correct that the native Americans are earlier immigrants, the majority of which came at the end of the ice age. But I believe that after these immigrants have lived there for thousands of years, developed a culture nearly completely different from the land they came from and created new, independent civilizations, they are natives of that land.

If we follow your logic, the Africans are the true natives of all the world and that they should be able to colonize anywhere they want since no one really has a claim to non-African land

[Far-Right Sage]

I happen to be visiting an area that's full of inuit (what some call Eskimos), and I'm learning to tell the difference between Inuit (or Eskimo) and Aleut, their close relatives.

I'm sure.

Social Critic, you are reasonably knowledge on a few topics and your opinion would likely be far more respected if not for these "personal" anecdotes.

[Malatant of Shadow]

Just a few points to raise, as I'm coming late to this thread.

Ongoing disputes over details of a general hypothesis do not invalidate the hypothesis. The Asian source of the Amerinds is well settled, as is the general idea that these people migrated to the Americas in late prehistoric times, not too long before the dawn of civilization. The precise date and the exact mode of travel remain uncertain.

There is of course no reason at all to give any credence to Native American legends claiming they have always lived here, except as myth, carrying mythic significance and spiritual validity like all myths. It is literally impossible for that hypothesis to be correct, and the tactic of looking for uncertainties in the competing ideas does not work to support them anymore than a similar tactic works for creationism.

The diseases (notably smallpox) that wiped out the Native Americans shortly after the arrival of the first Spanish were not absent among them because their Asian ancestors were isolated in a cold region, but because the diseases did not evolve until civilized or at least proto-civilized times. At the time of the migrations, there was no such organism as the smallpox virus. Smallpox developed as a mutation of a cattle disease, and jumped from domesticated cattle to their human keepers. The disease spread, probably producing horrendous death tolls in prehistoric times, through the populations of the old world, so that by modern times a limited immunity to it had developed (Europeans suffered about ten percent mortality from smallpox; for the Amerinds it was more like 90 percent). Native Americans had nothing comparable infecting them because they had no large domesticated animals.

The reason why they had no large domesticated animals is because they arrived late in terms of human migration and had more advanced technology than was the case most places in the eastern hemisphere. They were more efficient hunters. Native Americans hunted American horses, elephants, and generally all large prey animals except the bison to extinction. The horse at least can be domesticated and if it had survived the Amerinds would surely have domesticated it in the course of becoming civilized. The mastodon might have been possible to domesticate, too, as its relative the elephant certainly is.

The Spanish were not the first Europeans to reach the New World, but they were the first to build successful settlements. The Vikings arrived some 500 years earlier but faced a native population not decimated by smallpox and got their butts kicked. Which should impress us with what the Eastern North American natives could do in combat when they weren't mostly dead, given that the Vikings were not exactly wimps, either.

The smallpox plague in the New World was by far the worst epidemic in recorded history. (The original emergence of smallpox in the eastern hemisphere might have been equally bad, but it occurred in prehistoric times.) An estimated 90 percent of pre-Columbian Amerinds were killed in it. By comparison, the Black Death killed an estimated one European in three. If it hadn't been for that, it's extremely unlikely that Europeans could have colonized the New World in the way they did. The interaction would probably have more closely resembled what happened in Africa.

Native Americans were in the early stages of developing civilization at the time the Europeans arrived. That they had no large domesticated animals limited them, but nonetheless the natives of Mexico, Central America, the Andes, and the Mississippi basin were civilized (lived in cities, fed themselves by agriculture) and most Amerinds were proto-civilized, meaning they were at least partly agricultural and lived in settled communities not large enough to be called cities. Only a few tribes were still hunter-gatherers. Some of the civilized peoples had written languages, and they practiced rudimentary metalworking in gold and silver and copper. There is plenty of tin in the Americas, so discovery of bronze working was probably only a matter of time. Or they could have picked up iron and steel technology from the Europeans if they had been able to resist the incursions, which they would have except that they were mostly dead.