3 ms·
Not 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 reason
by Will_Parker 9y ago
Not 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]