5 ms·

Of course none of this means there were no humans in South America 30kya. It only means this particular site might not be good evidence for such presence. If n

Of course none of this means there were no humans in South America 30kya. It only means this particular site might not be good evidence for such presence. If no other sites show unambiguous evidence of human presence, we might need to account for that. There is a site near Los Angeles, excavated by Richard Leakey, that has been rejected as indicating early human presence because there was too much stone-tool evidence, and because "everybody knows" there were no people there 200kya. Now that we have the unambiguous Cerutti Mastodon site from 130kya, it might need to be re-evaluated. Generally the null hypothesis is that people went anywhere they could go whenever they could, no matter how inconvenient that is for anybody's chronology narrative.

mkl 4y ago
The Cerutti mastodon site seems pretty far from unambiguous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerutti_Mastodon_site#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerutti_Mastodon_site#Criticis...
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  Wikipedia is the last place to consult for current scholarship. Pages are typically "curated" by retired professors with an ax to grind, who carefully scrub anything that contradicts their grad-school thesis. The criticisms that have been thoroughly debunked keep surfacing again. Most egregiously, BS about construction machinery. The only legitimate criticism I have seen is that they didn't find flakes from stone blade maintenance, or a hearth. Of course, that work could have happened 50 feet away, or 500, and not been found. There is way more than enough evidence without.
Beltalowda 4y ago
> Now that we have the unambiguous Cerutti Mastodon site from 130kya, it might need to be re-evaluated. I don't think you can describe that as "unambiguous"; there is plenty of criticism. The other site you're referring to is the Calico site, which was excavated by Louis Leakey, Richard Leaky's father. It wasn't just that there were "too many" of them, it was also that the presence could be explained by natural phenomenon. Does this prove it wasn't human-made? No. But given everything else we know, it's unlikely. > Generally the null hypothesis is that people went anywhere they could go whenever they could, no matter how inconvenient that is for anybody's chronology narrative. That's not really how that works. The first evidence of modern humans is in Africa about 300,000 years ago. The first evidence of humans anywhere outside of Africa is about 200,000 years ago, in the middle-east. East-Asia about 80,000 years ago; Australia: 65,000 years ago. 130,000 or 200,000 years ago just doesn't fit in with ... anything. Perhaps pre-modern humans arrived in the Americas much earlier; but AFAIK there is no evidence of that either, or considered very plausible.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  Considering how much shit people have always got over evidence that "doesn't fit in with ... anything", how surprising is it that you mostly only know about evidence that does? The null hypothesis is always that mammals go where they can. Period. You need an explanation for any circumstance when they evidently couldn't go somewhere. It doesn't matter what fits your preconceptions and biases. Humans are mammals. People got to Crete 200,000 years ago. By boat. Were they H. erectus? H. n.? H. sap.? Nobody knows. People got to Australia 70kya. By boat. We are pretty sure those were H. sap. Anybody who can get to Australia, sailing out of sight of land, can get to lots of other places just as easily: the Philippines, Japan, the Aleutians, etc. Particularly when sea level is 120m lower.
  - bigDinosaur 4y ago
    The null hypothesis (if that's even a good one, which I'm unconvinced about, but whatever considering we see plenty of animals that have evolved in the same area without leaving it) is not some ultimate arbiter of what's true. I don't know why you keep referring to it like your claim must be true because it's your null hypothesis or something.
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      The null hypothesis is what you legitimately need proof to refute. That is not to say that the rule is applied correctly everywhere.
  - kuhewa 4y ago
    > The null hypothesis is always that mammals go where they can. Period. That's not how null hypotheses work
  - jstanley 4y ago
    The null hypothesis is that 2 variables are uncorrelated. You can't just call your hypothesis "the null hypothesis" to try to make it sound more likely.

mkl 4y ago

The Cerutti mastodon site seems pretty far from unambiguous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerutti_Mastodon_site#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerutti_Mastodon_site#Criticis...

moloch-hai 4y ago
Wikipedia is the last place to consult for current scholarship. Pages are typically "curated" by retired professors with an ax to grind, who carefully scrub anything that contradicts their grad-school thesis. The criticisms that have been thoroughly debunked keep surfacing again. Most egregiously, BS about construction machinery. The only legitimate criticism I have seen is that they didn't find flakes from stone blade maintenance, or a hearth. Of course, that work could have happened 50 feet away, or 500, and not been found. There is way more than enough evidence without.

Beltalowda 4y ago

> Now that we have the unambiguous Cerutti Mastodon site from 130kya, it might need to be re-evaluated. I don't think you can describe that as "unambiguous"; there is plenty of criticism. The other site you're referring to is the Calico site, which was excavated by Louis Leakey, Richard Leaky's father. It wasn't just that there were "too many" of them, it was also that the presence could be explained by natural phenomenon. Does this prove it wasn't human-made? No. But given everything else we know, it's unlikely. > Generally the null hypothesis is that people went anywhere they could go whenever they could, no matter how inconvenient that is for anybody's chronology narrative. That's not really how that works. The first evidence of modern humans is in Africa about 300,000 years ago. The first evidence of humans anywhere outside of Africa is about 200,000 years ago, in the middle-east. East-Asia about 80,000 years ago; Australia: 65,000 years ago. 130,000 or 200,000 years ago just doesn't fit in with ... anything. Perhaps pre-modern humans arrived in the Americas much earlier; but AFAIK there is no evidence of that either, or considered very plausible.

moloch-hai 4y ago
Considering how much shit people have always got over evidence that "doesn't fit in with ... anything", how surprising is it that you mostly only know about evidence that does? The null hypothesis is always that mammals go where they can. Period. You need an explanation for any circumstance when they evidently couldn't go somewhere. It doesn't matter what fits your preconceptions and biases. Humans are mammals. People got to Crete 200,000 years ago. By boat. Were they H. erectus? H. n.? H. sap.? Nobody knows. People got to Australia 70kya. By boat. We are pretty sure those were H. sap. Anybody who can get to Australia, sailing out of sight of land, can get to lots of other places just as easily: the Philippines, Japan, the Aleutians, etc. Particularly when sea level is 120m lower.
- bigDinosaur 4y ago
  The null hypothesis (if that's even a good one, which I'm unconvinced about, but whatever considering we see plenty of animals that have evolved in the same area without leaving it) is not some ultimate arbiter of what's true. I don't know why you keep referring to it like your claim must be true because it's your null hypothesis or something.
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    The null hypothesis is what you legitimately need proof to refute. That is not to say that the rule is applied correctly everywhere.
- kuhewa 4y ago
  > The null hypothesis is always that mammals go where they can. Period. That's not how null hypotheses work
- jstanley 4y ago
  The null hypothesis is that 2 variables are uncorrelated. You can't just call your hypothesis "the null hypothesis" to try to make it sound more likely.