Archaeologica.org

Why couldn't they have simply evolved independently here? Why is it thought that just because we haven't found the evidence, then it must not be there? (just questions)

Who knows?

The Tianyuan skeleton is definately human. Appears to be early modern human. Without a cranium however, there is no way to tell if this person looked Oriental.

ravenwing5910 wrote:Why couldn't they have simply evolved independently here? Why is it thought that just because we haven't found the evidence, then it must not be there? (just questions)

Nice thought, but there is no evidence of early humans in North America. In fact there is no evidence of primates at all in NA.

I would think, that we simply haven't found any evidence of early humans in North America. But in my original question I should have said in the New World, rather than 'here"

First you've got to prove that Erectus made the crossing Min. Using the distribution of NW Monkeys if Erectus did make the crossing then southern Africa to South America still seems to be the most likely route.

No argument here. And they had plenty of time to do it.

ravenwing5910 wrote:I would think, that we simply haven't found any evidence of early humans in North America. But in my original question I should have said in the New World, rather than 'here"

In my mind, Raven, nothing is impossible. But this would come close. There is an almost unbroken chain of fossil evidence in Africa of mans' evolution to Homo Sapien.

Australopithecus (southern ape) is 4 million years old, and she walked erect. There are more in the pithecine (ape) chain until we get to one that can be called human (Homo). Homo Habilis evolved eventually into H. Erectus. After that it gets a little dicey to me.

So far, we have nothing in the New World, although it wouldn't surprise me to find out that Erectus managed to get here.

Yes, you are right Beag. The last couple of years I have had the pleasure to take several classes that discussed the current theory of evolution. But I can't help but wonder about it, I keep thinking that we find little bits and pieces and develope a theory. Then we find more bits and pieces and either make them fit the theory or on a good day adjust the theory to fit the evidence. On top of all that this earth is 4.6 billion years old, it is vast and we are so very small, and anthropology so very young. Are future archaeologists going to look back at us and laugh at our silly theories?

Are future archaeologists going to look back at us and laugh at our silly theories?

I'm sure they will. I agree with all of your post.

Almost certainly Raven, which is why I kept arguing against Marduk for his devotion to modern results. Today's ideas are tomorrow's history, if it was otherwise we would know all the answers, till we do we will keep up dating our knowledge.

Beagle wrote:Nice thought, but there is no evidence of early humans in North America. In fact there is no evidence of primates at all in NA.

Are you sure? Before it got so far off topic, this was exactly the topic of "Texas Monkeys".

Forum Monk wrote:

Beagle wrote:Nice thought, but there is no evidence of early humans in North America. In fact there is no evidence of primates at all in NA.

Are you sure? Before it got so far off topic, this was exactly the topic of "Texas Monkeys".

Hmm.. Texas is in North America isn't it? I should probably go back and read the original post in that thread.

If you lose a day in this forum - you're way behind. When I did look at it, it was already way off topic. Thanks.