Oldest Skeleton In New World Discovered

Death Metal Maniac writes "Dubbed Eva de Naharon, or Eve of Naharon, the female skeleton has been dated at 13,600 years old. If that age is accurate, the skeleton along with three others found in underwater caves along the Caribbean coast of the Yucatán Peninsula could provide new clues to how the Americas were first populated. The skeletons' skulls hint that the people may not be of northern Asian descent, which would contradict the dominant theory of New World settlement. 'The shape of the skulls has led us to believe that Eva and the others have more of an affinity with people from South Asia than North Asia,' González explained."

Dominant theory?

[wigle]

I am not an anthropologist, but I thought the dominant theory was that the New World was populated from various Asian populations in several waves. No one believes that it was just one group, or that it was just one wave. This finding further supports that thesis, along with other findings such as Kennewick Man [wikipedia.org] in 1996.

Re:Dominant theory?

[MightyMartian]

The predominant theory for several decades has been the Beringia model, where North Asians out of Siberia migrated across Beringia (which now sits beneath the Bering Sea), but couldn't get any further until the glaciers had sufficiently receded somewhere around 12,000 years ago to permit access into the interior of North America. This model is most certainly true, for at least those Siberian populations that came that way.

What the few finds of what appear to be non-North Asiatics suggests is that peoples out of South Asia most likely gained access to North America even during the last glacial period. These peoples may have simply boated from South Asia, skirting along the coasts. Evidence out of Alaska and British Columbia suggests that even during this period there were "oases" that were not covered in ice, where such people could have found food.

What I would suggest, however, is that such a migration path would likely be fairly limited. There wouldn't be sufficient resources to support a larger-scale migration like Clovis, and thus these South Asian migrants probably never had the population density of the later North Asian migrants, who, within a couple of thousand years, seem to have occupied virtually ever region within the Americas (suggesting larger founder populations). These people were likely, like so many small indigenous populations, sublimated into the Clovis peoples.

There are more waves than that to be sure. The Inuit arrived in the Americas somewhere around 6000 years ago, and there's some suggestion that Polynesian peoples may have made it to the Americas, though my understanding is that that's not a foregone conclusion.

Polynesian Link

[Shadowhawk]

There is also evidence of Polynesian contact in South America: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080729133618.htm [sciencedaily.com]

SciAm or Discover

[Fishbulb]

Either Scientific American or Discover magazine had an article on this about 12 years ago. Mostly it had to with a settlement they found on the tip of Tierra del Fuego, and postulated that they had been driven down through the Americas by the Asians. Likely descendants of Australian aborigines, iirc.

Re:this can't be right

[morgan_greywolf]

Um. Actually, yes, yes I am.

Re:Everyone?

[OwnedByTwoCats]

You don't know Jack Chick [wikipedia.org]

Evolutionists don't go to court to get science taught in Sunday School. Creationists go to court to get their Sunday School taught in Science classes. That's pretty assholish...

Re:Polynesian Link

[the phantom]

It should be pointed out that Polynesia wasn't colonized until long after the New World was colonized. So, while there may have been some contact between the Polynesians and residents of the New World, that contact most likely has only occurred in the last thousand (or maybe two thousand, at the outside) years. These skeletons are reported to be 13.6 years old (and I assume that the dates they are reporting are radiocarbon years, which might make them closer to 14-15k years old, if I remember the calibration tables correctly), which is an order of magnitude farther in the past than Polynesian contact.

Re:Everyone?

[duckInferno]

The founding fathers of America recognised the danger of interspersing religion with state. If you do the research, you'll also find that most of them were deists - which was pretty much as close as you could get to athiest, back then. Anything more radical than a deist was considered godless and wretched at best.

The introduction of religious elements (such as "in god we trust" on money, swearing on the bible, etc) came at a much later date. All founding fathers (the creators of the Declaration of Independence) had long since expired.

Re:Everyone?

[arminw]

...The bible is an archaic, brutal, ridiculous text of ancient folklore...

You are obviously misinformed about the nature of this unique book. There is no other one like it.

Even if you do not accept the Bible as truth, or as God's message to mankind, you certainly should be able to consider that it is a very unusual book. Actually it is a collection of 66 books penned by 40 different writers over a time span of at least 1500 years. Yet it has a very unified central authorship and message concerning the dealings of God with mankind. Much of it depicts human history, some of it written down before it ever took place. Some of this history, written in advance, is taking place right before our very eyes in our time. We can read the content of tomorrow's newspaper headlines in some of the passages of the Bible.

For thousands of years, all human writing had to be laboriously copied by hand. When the art of printing was finally invented by Johannes Gutenberg, guess which human writing was first printed? Guess which human writing is distributed more widely than any other and translated into more languages and dialects than any other? Guess which book its enemies have endeavored to destroy more than any other? There are many religious writings, but none of them come even remotely close to the content and distribution of this remarkable book.

(..and that God gave us reason and logic in his own image..)

Exactly, and that is why we read in the Bible:

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, says the LORD;...

It is an admirable and good goal, which is encouraged in a number of biblical passages, to study the universe which the Creator God of the Bible brought into being. It is a good thing to learn about the theories and ideas of Einstein or other great scientists, but it is quite a greater honor and higher goal to get to know such people personally and interact with them face to face.

That is the ultimate goal the Creator God of the universe has in mind for you and me. He gave us humans not only the ability to observe and learn about his creation, but wants to honor us, by inviting us into a face-to-face, one on one relationship with himself.

Jesus DEFINES eternal life to be this knowledge of God:

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

This is not something you get after you die. You can experience it today, but only if you want to and are willing to believe.

The Bible is not about the religious trappings and rigmarole, which organized religion has brought us, but an intimate loving relationship which God desires for us humans, whom he has created in his image and likeness. If you were to dare read the Bible with that desire in your heart, it would become a new book to you.