4 ms·
Or they are like the Norsemen-sure they made it early, but with 100,000 missing years of continuous habitation until Clovis, et al, they died out and didn't con
by ZanyProgrammer 9y ago
Or they are like the Norsemen-sure they made it early, but with 100,000 missing years of continuous habitation until Clovis, et al, they died out and didn't contribute anything.
- Jabanga 9y agoThe Norseman had one small colony that was attacked by people already inhabiting North America. They settled the Eastern tip of Canada then departed. These people, if they existed, would have colonized all the way from Western Alaska to California, meaning they would have had numerous settlements, and in an uninhabited continent.
- Will_Parker 9y agoNot to mention, the difference in known human technology and capability from 130k years ago to 50k years ago is not small. Using something like Bayesian reasoning, I find it more plausible that this is experimental error than a one-off revelation that humans had technology to cross the Pacific 130kya.
- joe_the_user 9y agoPreviously: "the article mentions the previous earlier evidence as being from 115K years ago" (edit, oops, misread, this is way before anything we've heard about thus much less certain, forget about it).
- _saturnine 9y ago>previous earlier evidence as being from 115K years ago I think you may have misread that. The article said this discovery "predat[es] the best evidence up to now by about 115,000 years".
- Will_Parker 9y agoIs there really evidence from before 20kya that is taken seriously by anyone these days? According to Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas "Available scientific evidence indicates that humanity emerged from Africa over 100,000 years ago, yet did not arrive in the Americas until less than 20,000 years ago."
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]