CSNbbs

Never thought about this but I decided I would put it as my first History forum post. I was surprised to find out what I did about this.

Native American Ancestors Came From Asia In Three Migrations


The ancestors of Native American populations from the tip of Chile in the south to Canada in the north, migrated from Asia in at least three waves. In what they describe as the most comprehensive survey of genetic diversity in Native Americans so far, the researchers studied variation in Native American DNA sequences. They found that while most Native American populations descend primarily from one migration, there were two later ones that also made a significant genetic contribution.

The first migration, that led to the majority of Native American populations, was of a single group called the "First Americans" that crossed from Asia to America in a land bridge called Beringia, that existed during the ice ages more than 15,000 years ago, say the researchers, whose efforts were co-ordinated by Professor Andres Ruiz-Linares of the department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment at University College London (UCL) in the UK.

The later migrants probably arrived in boats, after the land-bridge disappeared at the end of the ice ages.

So they arrived just like the Acadians but several thousand years before and with less sunburn?

Jk

I have seen so many papers on this that I have no idea what to think.

(06-04-2014 03:03 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]So they arrived just like the Acadians but several thousand years before and with less sunburn?

Jk

You mean ARcadians??? Lol, being from Louisiana, you should pick that joke up...

(06-04-2014 03:09 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]I have seen so many papers on this that I have no idea what to think.

I know, Indians were red skinned (I have a red complexion bc of my Indian background) and Asians are usually a pale white color...

(06-04-2014 03:46 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2014 03:09 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]I have seen so many papers on this that I have no idea what to think.

I know, Indians were red skinned (I have a red complexion bc of my Indian background) and Asians are usually a pale white color...

That depends. Han Chinese and Koreans are usually a pale white color but Mongolians, Japans, Filipinos, and may others are dark.

Other Asian origin people are Indigenous Australians and Pacific Islanders and they are darker.

(06-04-2014 03:44 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2014 03:03 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]So they arrived just like the Acadians but several thousand years before and with less sunburn?

Jk

You mean ARcadians??? Lol, being from Louisiana, you should pick that joke up...

I thought they are the lost tribes of Israel!

(06-04-2014 03:09 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]I have seen so many papers on this that I have no idea what to think.

This^ it makes sense for a different routes to be taken instead of just one but at the same time, it's a long way in a boat with what technology is believed to have existed at the time. One would think if vessels that large could get here from Asia or the pacific islands, the civilizations would have been more advanced than they were just as a product of time.

I have wondered what kind of event in Asia would have triggered the natives to come over here. I mean, that must have been cold as f*ck and it couldn't have been just a stray family or an adventurous tribe. This had to have been a mass migration of thousands of people assuming the land bridge theory verified. There is plenty of evidence for it, but common sense still has me questioning.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

A good book on the subject is North American Sun Kings: Keepers of the Flame.

(06-06-2014 05:23 AM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ]I have wondered what kind of event in Asia would have triggered the natives to come over here. I mean, that must have been cold as f*ck and it couldn't have been just a stray family or an adventurous tribe. This had to have been a mass migration of thousands of people assuming the land bridge theory verified. There is plenty of evidence for it, but common sense still has me questioning.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

They followed the mammals who were doing it. It was hunter and gatherer all the way back then.

Woolly Mammoth.....Woolly Rhino

There were 3 migrations to America, according to some scientists. There has been some DNA testing that apparently backs that up.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/...-migration

There have been numerous shows recently about this topic. America Unearthed is one. If you haven't watched that show I would recommend it.

While on topic I will share a quick story regarding this topic. I work for a global company and we hired an associate from India. Said associate came to the US for 4 weeks for training. This was the first time he has ever been out of his home country. While here we went out to a Mexican restaurant for lunch. He was blown away by how the workers there looked so much like him. He couldn't believe how much someone from India and someone from Mexico could look so similar.

The Clovis point people, originally discovered in Clovis, NM, are one of the early peoples nobody can agree upon. Some scientists prefer to think of them as a purely American people, some say the first American people. But there's evidence in Oregon for an older people, and there's evidence pointing to the origins of the Clovis people as coming from France.

The Atlantic was smaller at that time, since it's been widening at about 1 1/2" per year since that time. Ocean levels were probably a bit lower then too. So crossing the ocean wouldn't be the daunting task it is today. It's not as outrageous an idea as some scientists suppose.

But since that was over 20,000 years ago, it's kind of hard to tell.

(07-08-2015 04:06 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ]The Atlantic was smaller at that time, since it's been widening at about 1 1/2" per year since that time. Ocean levels were probably a bit lower then too. So crossing the ocean wouldn't be the daunting task it is today. It's not as outrageous an idea as some scientists suppose.

But since that was over 20,000 years ago, it's kind of hard to tell.

Taking your numbers at the rate of 1.5 feet per year, 20,000 years ago the Atlantic was about 5.5 miles less wide than it is now.

Do you think 5.5 miles would make a difference when the Atlantic Ocean when its 3,000 miles wide?

(07-11-2015 12:48 AM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2015 04:06 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ]The Atlantic was smaller at that time, since it's been widening at about 1 1/2" per year since that time. Ocean levels were probably a bit lower then too. So crossing the ocean wouldn't be the daunting task it is today. It's not as outrageous an idea as some scientists suppose.

But since that was over 20,000 years ago, it's kind of hard to tell.

Taking your numbers at the rate of 1.5 feet per year, 20,000 years ago the Atlantic was about 5.5 miles less wide than it is now.

Do you think 5.5 miles would make a difference when the Atlantic Ocean when its 3,000 miles wide?

The last 5.5 miles of a trip are always the longest.................

(07-11-2015 12:48 AM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2015 04:06 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ]The Atlantic was smaller at that time, since it's been widening at about 1 1/2" per year since that time. Ocean levels were probably a bit lower then too. So crossing the ocean wouldn't be the daunting task it is today. It's not as outrageous an idea as some scientists suppose.

But since that was over 20,000 years ago, it's kind of hard to tell.

Taking your numbers at the rate of 1.5 feet per year, 20,000 years ago the Atlantic was about 5.5 miles less wide than it is now.

Do you think 5.5 miles would make a difference when the Atlantic Ocean when its 3,000 miles wide?

That's one and one half INCHES - not FEET.

Had I meant FEET I would have written it 1 1/2' instead of 1 1/2".

Note the difference?

(07-11-2015 11:50 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-11-2015 12:48 AM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2015 04:06 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ]The Atlantic was smaller at that time, since it's been widening at about 1 1/2" per year since that time. Ocean levels were probably a bit lower then too. So crossing the ocean wouldn't be the daunting task it is today. It's not as outrageous an idea as some scientists suppose.

But since that was over 20,000 years ago, it's kind of hard to tell.

Taking your numbers at the rate of 1.5 feet per year, 20,000 years ago the Atlantic was about 5.5 miles less wide than it is now.

Do you think 5.5 miles would make a difference when the Atlantic Ocean when its 3,000 miles wide?

That's one and one half INCHES - not FEET.

Had I meant FEET I would have written it 1 1/2' instead of 1 1/2".

Note the difference?

In the context of the Atlantic Ocean it doesn't make a difference.

A half mile, 5.5 miles what is the difference.

(07-12-2015 10:08 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-11-2015 11:50 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-11-2015 12:48 AM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2015 04:06 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ]The Atlantic was smaller at that time, since it's been widening at about 1 1/2" per year since that time. Ocean levels were probably a bit lower then too. So crossing the ocean wouldn't be the daunting task it is today. It's not as outrageous an idea as some scientists suppose.

But since that was over 20,000 years ago, it's kind of hard to tell.

Taking your numbers at the rate of 1.5 feet per year, 20,000 years ago the Atlantic was about 5.5 miles less wide than it is now.

Do you think 5.5 miles would make a difference when the Atlantic Ocean when its 3,000 miles wide?

That's one and one half INCHES - not FEET.

Had I meant FEET I would have written it 1 1/2' instead of 1 1/2".

Note the difference?

In the context of the Atlantic Ocean it doesn't make a difference.

A half mile, 5.5 miles what is the difference.

Excuse me?

If you think the difference between one and one half inches per year and 18 inches per year over a period of 20,000 years is only 4 miles, you aren't capable of continuing this conversation on an equal intellectual footing.