Ancient DNA Raising New Ideas About Colonization of The Americas

Ancient DNA Raising New Ideas About Colonization of The Americas

DNA recovered from a body buried in Montana 12,600 years ago has been linked to modern American Indians, and its ancestry has been traced back to Asia.

Researchers have recovered DNA from a baby buried in Montana 12,600 years ago and linked it to today's American Indians, as well as other native peoples of the Americas. Based on artifacts found with the body, the boy is believed to have been a part of the Clovis culture, which existed in North American from about 13,000 years ago to about 12,600 years ago.

The boy's genome is the oldest ever recovered from the New World, and it revealed that his people were direct ancestors of many of today's native peoples in the Americas. While the skeleton was discovered in 1968, scientists have only recently developed the ability to recover and analyze complete genomes from such ancient samples.

The DNA also pointed to ancestry originating from Asia, which lends further credence to the standard idea of ancient migration to the Americas by way of a land bridge that has long since vanished. According to Dennis O'Rourke, an ancient DNA expert at the University of Utah who wasn't involved in the project, the results of this research will "raise a whole host of new ideas and hypotheses" about the early colonization of the Americas.

Source: Sante Fe New Mexican

Permalink

Yes, but will they use it to create an army of zombie cavemen?

That's the real issue here.

Reed Spacer:
Yes, but will they use it to create an army of zombie cavemen?

That's the real issue here.

I hope they do.

holy shitt, do they just have a fort knox of old shit like that lying around? that fucker was found 46 years ago...

still pretty cool though, if only this was here before the big bill nye debate to give his side some fresh material.

gmaverick019:
holy shitt, do they just have a fort knox of old shit like that lying around? that fucker was found 46 years ago...

still pretty cool though, if only this was here before the big bill nye debate to give his side some fresh material.

Nah, they'd just deny that the dating is off because of reasons and other reasons and conspiracies and satanic cults. Trust me, I've been there more times than I'd wish to remember.

that solves a mystery. they have always been wondering where the clovis people came from

wombat_of_war:
that solves a mystery. they have always been wondering where the clovis people came from

And they would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids scientists...

"lends further credence to the standard idea"

Yeah...not that exciting to have yet more proof for something generally accepted anyway.

Having said that, there'd be other implications of this, just not so much that one.

"Ancient DNA"

I was going all stargate, but then I read the rest of the title.
I want to go to atlantis, dammit!

Pohaturon:
"Ancient DNA"

I was going all stargate, but then I read the rest of the title.
I want to go to atlantis, dammit!

damn you I was going to bring up stargate (^_^) But this is still cool even though its less awesome then finding an ancient

This doesn't really raise any new ideas about the colonisation of the Americas, it just backs up what scienctonomisers already thought. It's still cool that we can sequence genomes that old and is a little 'fuck you' to creationists to add to the ever growing pile of 'fuck you's.

Reed Spacer:

wombat_of_war:
that solves a mystery. they have always been wondering where the clovis people came from

And they would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids scientists...

Now let's find out who they really are!

thaluikhain:
"lends further credence to the standard idea"

Yeah...not that exciting to have yet more proof for something generally accepted anyway.

Having said that, there'd be other implications of this, just not so much that one.

Yeah, I was unimpressed.

Pohaturon:
"Ancient DNA"

I was going all stargate, but then I read the rest of the title.
I want to go to atlantis, dammit!

"It means 'the place of our legacy.' Or it could be 'a piece of our leg....'"

CriticalMiss:
This doesn't really raise any new ideas about the colonisation of the Americas, it just backs up what scienctonomisers already thought. It's still cool that we can sequence genomes that old and is a little 'fuck you' to creationists to add to the ever growing pile of 'fuck you's.

Did you see the Ham/Nye debate? All they need to say is "you weren't there!" and apparently all of "historical" science is invalid.

Zachary Amaranth:

CriticalMiss:
Snerp

Did you see the Ham/Nye debate? All they need to say is "you weren't there!" and apparently all of "historical" science is invalid.

I missed the debate itself but have seen a few videos of people pointing out (as usual) the nonsense Ken Ham said, like 'proving' that fitting all of the animals in to Noah's Ark would be really easy if there was a way for animals to gradually change in to different animals over time. But definitely not evolving because evolution isn't a thing!

CriticalMiss:

I missed the debate itself but have seen a few videos of people pointing out (as usual) the nonsense Ken Ham said, like 'proving' that fitting all of the animals in to Noah's Ark would be really easy if there was a way for animals to gradually change in to different animals over time. But definitely not evolving because evolution isn't a thing!

Unfortunately, the people who believe him are going to keep believing him. I only saw about half the debate because the stream kept screwing up on me, but Nye buried him with the math: using assumptions of Biblical kinds and being fairly generous with the number of "kinds," there would need to be 11 new species a day to account for the expansion in 4,000 years.

Still, it's hard to argue with "but you weren't there!"

...Right?

Also, the Mormons. This is nothing new, but it is always nice to have further proof that my ancestors were not a lost tribe of Israel just because a con artist said so.

Pohaturon:
"Ancient DNA"

I was going all stargate, but then I read the rest of the title.
I want to go to atlantis, dammit!

As a huge fan of SG1, I am disappointed with myself that SG never once crossed my mind while writing that article. I have seen every SG1 episode at least 3-4 times, and SGU 2-3 times. Sorry, never got into Atlantis, though.

Rhykker:

Pohaturon:
"Ancient DNA"

I was going all stargate, but then I read the rest of the title.
I want to go to atlantis, dammit!

As a huge fan of SG1, I am disappointed with myself that SG never once crossed my mind while writing that article. I have seen every SG1 episode at least 3-4 times, and SGU 2-3 times. Sorry, never got into Atlantis, though.

Atlantis is my favorite, personally, and I've seen all three.
I can't really put my finger on why, but somehow it ticks more than the other two.

Even taking my own cultural bias out of the mix I think this is pretty badass.

Discovering new things is always awesome but being able to add foundation to support established hypothesis is also pretty damn spiffy.

CriticalMiss:
This doesn't really raise any new ideas about the colonisation of the Americas, it just backs up what scienctonomisers already thought. It's still cool that we can sequence genomes that old and is a little 'fuck you' to creationists to add to the ever growing pile of 'fuck you's.

Zachary Amaranth:
Also, the Mormons. This is nothing new, but it is always nice to have further proof that my ancestors were not a lost tribe of Israel just because a con artist said so.

image

You know, we, as creationists in general, don't have all the answers. But neither does science. And you guys don't need to be so freaking insulting.

I'm sorry, is this news? I thought it was already accepted knowledge that the Americas were first colonised by Asian peoples via Ice Age land bridges.

Pretty soon news articles will be discovering bronze.

Arnoxthe1:

You know, we, as creationists in general, don't have all the answers. But neither does science. And you guys don't need to be so freaking insulting.

As creationists, you don't really have any answers. As creationists, you believe something despite evidence instead of evidence and that's fine, but don't pretend you have answers. Or reason. Or anything. At best, creationism is an unsubstantiated belief. At worst, it is an attack on science and knowledge and used as an attempt to circumvent church-state separation when people are upset they can't use public funds to indoctrinate kids.

I'm also really curious as to what about quoting Ken Ham when talking about Ken Ham is insulting. Or what pointing out that the Book of Mormon is factually incorrect is insulting. Mormon doctrine teaches that the Natives of North America are a lost tribe of Israel. That's wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Or was it calling Smith a con artist? Because he was. Even most Christians tend to hold that or similar beliefs, so again, I'm not sure why you'd be insulted. Unless, mind, you're specifically a Mormon, and since the LDS' beliefs don't jive with Ham's, that makes the earlier bit a little baffling.

Zachary Amaranth:

Arnoxthe1:

You know, we, as creationists in general, don't have all the answers. But neither does science. And you guys don't need to be so freaking insulting.

As creationists, you don't really have any answers. As creationists, you believe something despite evidence instead of evidence and that's fine, but don't pretend you have answers. Or reason. Or anything. At best, creationism is an unsubstantiated belief. At worst, it is an attack on science and knowledge and used as an attempt to circumvent church-state separation when people are upset they can't use public funds to indoctrinate kids.

I'm also really curious as to what about quoting Ken Ham when talking about Ken Ham is insulting. Or what pointing out that the Book of Mormon is factually incorrect is insulting. Mormon doctrine teaches that the Natives of North America are a lost tribe of Israel. That's wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Or was it calling Smith a con artist? Because he was. Even most Christians tend to hold that or similar beliefs, so again, I'm not sure why you'd be insulted. Unless, mind, you're specifically a Mormon, and since the LDS' beliefs don't jive with Ham's, that makes the earlier bit a little baffling.

The only thing I'm going to say to this entire rebuttal is that this matter with Joseph Smith isn't nearly as cut and dried as you think. Maybe you should look at a couple of things we have to say? How about the fact that ALL ELEVEN of the witnesses of the Plates swore ON THEIR DEATHBEDS that it was all true? Look it up.

And what was so insulting? Hm. LET'S THINK.

CriticalMiss:
and is a little 'fuck you' to creationists to add to the ever growing pile of 'fuck you's.

Zachary Amaranth:
just because a con artist said so.

Why don't I just call all the scientists who support your claims a bunch of quacks?

Whether they are or aren't is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is, it would tick you off. And please don't tell me it wouldn't.

I don't care what you all believe. I'm not going to get into a religious debate with any of you. Instead, I want you both to think for two seconds and be just a little courteous to the other people who don't believe as either of you do.

Arnoxthe1:

The only thing I'm going to say to this entire rebuttal is that this matter with Joseph Smith isn't nearly as cut and dried as you think. Maybe you should look at a couple of things we have to say? How about the fact that ALL ELEVEN of the witnesses of the Plates swore ON THEIR DEATHBEDS that it was all true? Look it up.

I could get 11 people to swear I was in Japan last week. So what?

Also, part of the problem here is that you act as if I haven't heard this before. Trust me, I've probably heard every piece of Mormon apologetics you can throw at me.

W

hy don't I just call all the scientists who support your claims a bunch of quacks?

Go ahead. We have repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence. You do not.

The point is, it would tick you off. And please don't tell me it wouldn't.

Why? Do you have some strange aversion to honest statements? I hear it all the time. I usually just laugh. That's kind of why we're here. Ken Ham's "you weren't there" logic kind of spawned this whole thing. It's funny, so instead of getting offended that a guy with no clue how evolution works is decrying it because Bill Nye wasn't there, I laugh. I joke. I have fun with #hamlogic. If you're secure in your belief, maybe you would, too.

I don't care what you all believe. I'm not going to get into a religious debate with any of you. Instead, I want you both to think for two seconds and be just a little courteous to the other people who don't believe as either of you do.

And you can believe what you want. But when it's not supported by facts or demonstrably wrong, there's an issue. When "God" says something that's demonstrably untrue and people cleave to the falsehood because "God" said so, there's a problem. And if you're defending a belief that my people are Jews and black people are stained by sin, yeah, I'm only going to be as courteous as to not deprive you of your opinion. That doesn't mean I can't think it's both wrong and utterly ridiculous.

Zachary Amaranth:
And you can believe what you want. But when it's not supported by facts or demonstrably wrong, there's an issue. When "God" says something that's demonstrably untrue and people cleave to the falsehood because "God" said so, there's a problem. And if you're defending a belief that my people are Jews and black people are stained by sin, yeah, I'm only going to be as courteous as to not deprive you of your opinion. That doesn't mean I can't think it's both wrong and utterly ridiculous.

I don't care if you think it's "demonstrably wrong." I don't care if you think it's "utterly ridiculous." I'm not going into a debate with you as I said before. I'm asking you to be more courteous. You two didn't need to bring this up AT ALL, but you did. And now I'm telling you, those two original statements I first quoted from you guys were uncalled for. Don't just make some thoughtless statement and expect that, on a forum as massive as this, no one will be offended. A lot of people are LDS and we aren't hurting anyone, so there's no good reason for such insensitive statements.

Arnoxthe1:

I don't care if you think it's "demonstrably wrong." I don't care if you think it's "utterly ridiculous." I'm not going into a debate with you as I said before.

I find it weird you brought up "debate" points just a post ago. Even as you were saying you weren't going to "debate" me. This is irrational and unreasonable. You want to argue, but you don't want anyone else to argue back. You want to make points, but you don't want anyone to say things to the contrary.

And you're complaining in a thread about science that disproves the beliefs you're espousing. I don't think you're demonstrably wrong. I know you are.

You two didn't need to bring this up AT ALL, but you did.

Actually, as long as people are trying to teach mythology as science in schools, I kinda do. Cuoild Critical Miss have said something less hostile than "fuck you?" Probably, but it's still a slap in the face of creationism. Maybe instead of taking umbrage you should adapt your mindset.

A lot of people are LDS and we aren't hurting anyone, so there's no good reason for such insensitive statements.

The leading group of homeless people in Utah are gays kicked out by those LDS folks who aren't hurting anyone. The LDS church is spending money across the country to try and get gay marriage and rights either banned or revoked. LDS groups are oppressive and harmful to women. If you're paying into that system, if you're supporting them, then you are hurting me and mine. And since you went down that route, I find the Church of Latter-Day Saints to be the most reprehensible mainstream religious organisation in the US because of those facts.

And saying you aren't hurting anyone is not only false, but horrifying coming from someone who wants more courtesy from others. There's a passage from the Bible about removing the plank from your eye before removing the speck from your neighbour's. Maybe instead of demanding I be more civil, you should make your own organisation more civil.

This is completely old news. Genomic studies on living native Americans have shown that America was colonized mainly over the bering straight, with some additional migration across the Pacific Ocean from Polynesia to South America. Like, we know this, we have known this for a long time, this is not news.

Zachary Amaranth:

I find it weird you brought up "debate" points just a post ago. Even as you were saying you weren't going to "debate" me. This is irrational and unreasonable. You want to argue, but you don't want anyone else to argue back. You want to make points, but you don't want anyone to say things to the contrary.

And you're complaining in a thread about science that disproves the beliefs you're espousing. I don't think you're demonstrably wrong. I know you are.

Actually, as long as people are trying to teach mythology as science in schools, I kinda do. Cuoild Critical Miss have said something less hostile than "fuck you?" Probably, but it's still a slap in the face of creationism. Maybe instead of taking umbrage you should adapt your mindset.

The leading group of homeless people in Utah are gays kicked out by those LDS folks who aren't hurting anyone. The LDS church is spending money across the country to try and get gay marriage and rights either banned or revoked. LDS groups are oppressive and harmful to women. If you're paying into that system, if you're supporting them, then you are hurting me and mine. And since you went down that route, I find the Church of Latter-Day Saints to be the most reprehensible mainstream religious organisation in the US because of those facts.

And saying you aren't hurting anyone is not only false, but horrifying coming from someone who wants more courtesy from others. There's a passage from the Bible about removing the plank from your eye before removing the speck from your neighbour's. Maybe instead of demanding I be more civil, you should make your own organisation more civil.

Actually, the only reason why I even had a single point at all in there was simply to show you that there was more to this than meets the eye. But apparently you knew it already so whatever. I thought you were smart enough to pick that up on your own.

But hey, you know what? Fine. You can tell me whatever points you want and talk up and down that my religion somehow deserves to be hated and scorned but as I said for the third time, I'm not getting into a debate with you in this thread. Which, if you pardon my french, sounds more and more to me like a pissing contest to be honest. Some people are just bound and determined to see us from the worst point of view, no matter what evidence to the contrary.

Arnoxthe1:
Which, if you pardon my french, sounds more and more to me like a pissing contest to be honest.

Which is interesting, because you're the one that made it an issue.

Some people are just bound and determined to see us from the worst point of view, no matter what evidence to the contrary.

You've provided no evidence, so don't claim it exists. It's hypocritical to scoff at real evidence, then claim that people aren't willing to accept evidence you haven't offered (and frankly, isn't real). Especially when you claim that you're not getting into it and accuse someone else of a "pissing contest."

Seriously, dude, at least practice what you preach.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here