3 ms·

> 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"; t

> 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.
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    It is a matter of where the burden of proof legitimately is, and what evidence you need to bring. If you think humans were blocked from access to North America, you need a mechanism to have blocked them, and evidence for it. We know that the fossil record is absurdly thin, and get our noses rubbed in it each generation, but seem never to learn better.
inciampati 4y ago
A human being with the ability to hunt and gather their calories could easily walk across the planet. That endurance is practically our species' special sauce. Without a clear reason why that couldn't happen, we should be open to much more complex narratives of human history than existing dogma asserts. This is probably true for neanderthals, denisovans, and H. erectus too. They were outside of Africa for much longer than 200kya. These were by all measures humans, albeit very strange ones to our eyes. They almost certainly used language and tools. A basic premise of the posted article is that even monkeys use tools... As for language, it seems more of a religious than scientific question that any primates lack high information content vocal communication.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  It is, also, hard to see how tool use in capuchins could be anything other than cultural transmission. I know how biologists are subjected to years of withering abuse for ever mentioning cultural transmission outside Homo, but the excuses have worn thin. Cultural transmission outside Homo is everyday fact now.
- svnt 4y ago
  > A human being with the ability to hunt and gather their calories could easily walk across the planet. What evidence is this based on? This is fantasy, particularly 200kya. > neanderthals, denisovans, and H. erectus … were by all measures humans This is untrue. We have no evidence that any of them used language or even symbolic thought.
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    Burials with grave goods are reliable proof of symbolic thought. Beads are reliable proof. Denisovans used rotary drills 70,000 years ago. Nothing about H. sap. was different 200kya except culture. Physical remains are so thin, and so little even looked for, that lack of it anywhere tells you practically nothing.
    - svnt 4y ago

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.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  It is a matter of where the burden of proof legitimately is, and what evidence you need to bring. If you think humans were blocked from access to North America, you need a mechanism to have blocked them, and evidence for it. We know that the fossil record is absurdly thin, and get our noses rubbed in it each generation, but seem never to learn better.

inciampati 4y ago

A human being with the ability to hunt and gather their calories could easily walk across the planet. That endurance is practically our species' special sauce. Without a clear reason why that couldn't happen, we should be open to much more complex narratives of human history than existing dogma asserts. This is probably true for neanderthals, denisovans, and H. erectus too. They were outside of Africa for much longer than 200kya. These were by all measures humans, albeit very strange ones to our eyes. They almost certainly used language and tools. A basic premise of the posted article is that even monkeys use tools... As for language, it seems more of a religious than scientific question that any primates lack high information content vocal communication.

moloch-hai 4y ago
It is, also, hard to see how tool use in capuchins could be anything other than cultural transmission. I know how biologists are subjected to years of withering abuse for ever mentioning cultural transmission outside Homo, but the excuses have worn thin. Cultural transmission outside Homo is everyday fact now.
svnt 4y ago
> A human being with the ability to hunt and gather their calories could easily walk across the planet. What evidence is this based on? This is fantasy, particularly 200kya. > neanderthals, denisovans, and H. erectus … were by all measures humans This is untrue. We have no evidence that any of them used language or even symbolic thought.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  Burials with grave goods are reliable proof of symbolic thought. Beads are reliable proof. Denisovans used rotary drills 70,000 years ago. Nothing about H. sap. was different 200kya except culture. Physical remains are so thin, and so little even looked for, that lack of it anywhere tells you practically nothing.
  - svnt 4y ago