Earliest Americans Arrived In Waves, DNA Study Finds 131
NotSanguine writes "Nicholas Wade of the New York Times has written an article about a new DNA study that suggests the earliest Americans arrived in three waves, not one. 'North and South America were first populated by three waves of migrants from Siberia rather than just a single migration, say researchers who have studied the whole genomes of Native Americans in South America and Canada. Some scientists assert that the Americas were peopled in one large migration from Siberia that happened about 15,000 years ago, but the new genetic research shows that this central episode was followed by at least two smaller migrations from Siberia, one by people who became the ancestors of today's Eskimos and Aleutians and another by people speaking Na-Dene, whose descendants are confined to North America.' The study, published online (paywalled), investigated geographic, linguistic and genetic diversity in native American populations."
Re:But, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
It depends on the definition of "native" I guess:
- if it means "first humans to inhabitate a certain territory", then they are.
- if it means "first humans to be born in a territory", then almost no human but a small fraction of Africans is native to anywhere.
Re:Sciodiots (Score:4, Insightful)
I am never ceased to be amazed at seeing Scientists make "amazing discoveries" of what should be COMMON SENSE principals.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Albert Einstein.
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:ahm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes but you can always quote "some" scientists old theory of 1 wave from decades ago and claim your research is new to get more media attention and funding.
No you can't. Every scientific paper and grant application, in every subject, includes a literature review section in which you cover the state of current relevant research, and to get the publication or the grant you have to demonstrate how your findings are different from what's currently known.
What you can do, if you're a layman sniping at science from a distance, is mention some garbled memory of something you read once that's kinda sorta related to the subject at hand, and dismiss current research as "old news." Bonus points if you throw in something about how scientists are only in it for the money, fame, and groupies.
Re:Thought that term had faded out (Score:2, Insightful)
What term do you propose? Not all Eskimos outside Canada are Inuit, and this very item underlines the need for a term grouping Inuit and Yupik peoples, on genetic and linguistic grounds.