Archaeologica.org

Comparing the DNA found in the tooth with that sampled from 3,500 Native Americans, researchers discovered that only one percent of modern tribal members have genetic patterns that matched the prehistoric sample.

Frankly, this seems fairly thin to be making a definitive conclusion. This must be one of those examples of "extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims," huh?

Yeah, very thin. I'm not taking issue with the study - that is relatively simple. But there is nothing there that would suggest that they should be called "The First Americans".

A few bands of people crossing the land bridge at that time has been known for many years. The archaeology tells us that. But evidence now suggests that people came by way of the sea long before these groups.

That 1st American statement is going out on too long a limb.

Charlie should whomp them upside the head with a hand axe.

deleted

deleted

Yeah, that's a ridiculous conclusion, Beag. Are we missing something?

That just seems like too big of a screw up

yup
you are missing a basic understanding of genetics

I'll try and explain

the artifacts that are being found that predate these studies are either from

1) a race that died out entirely
2) a race that was absorbed by the newcomers who vastly outnumbered them and had better weapons technology and social organisation

you get it yet ?

they are tracing the dna from one 15,000 year old tooth among 3500 known samples
were they to find a 50,000 year old tooth with a viable dna sample they would be able to use that

we're not to the level yet where we can take a strand of dna and cut it up into its component parts and analyse each of them for origins
we are at the level where if we know what a certain piece looks like we can match it to another piece in a different sample

I don't think its possible to explain it any easier than this

deleted

Charlie Hatchett wrote:

Charlie should whomp them upside the head with a hand axe.

Hey, was it on my end, or was this server down all day yesterday?

Down pretty much all day except for Beagle. He's "special."

There are other tell-tale clues in the article that cause one to raise their eyebrows.

Fragments of mtDNA and Y DNA were recovered and compared to the database. The researcher concludes that the rate of mutation is 2 to 4 times faster than anyone thought possible, suggesting an early entry. You approach this one of two ways: either you say there were 'x' number of mutations which are known to have occurred. These occur on average every 'y' years so the sample is divergent from the database by x * y years. Or you say, the sample is 'z' years old and 'x' changes have occurred so rate of change is z/x. Now when you look at that rate (based on tooth age) and compare to other determined rates and find it 2-4 times greater, perhaps you conclude, environment or other factors affected the rate of change or the date of the sample is flawed, or the fragments samples are not complete enough to reach any valid conclusions. It would appear that one tooth does not a study make.

It would appear that one tooth does not a study make.

Unless it supports orthodoxy. If it does, they treat it as the goddamn holy grail.

deleted

Minimalist wrote:Down pretty much all day except for Beagle. He's "special."

There's a class of computer viruses which launch DoS (Denial of Service) attacks. They bombard a server with so many requests, no one else can get in.

Beagle????

There's a class of computer viruses which launch DoS (Denial of Service) attacks.

The Club Strikes Back.....or perhaps....Revenge of the Nerds?

deleted

Charlie Hatchett wrote:That's what I came up with, Monk. It appears Kemp makes a definitive conclusion, stating that humans, period, didn't arrive in the Americas until somtime not much past 15,000 B.P.(cal). Of course the archeological record is at odds with that conclusion.

To be sure, the individual that owned that tooth was probably born about 10,000ya. It really says nothing about his parents, grandparents, gg.....ggparents, etc. The study makes an inference based on rate of change (and I'm sure many other details that National Geographic didn't bother to illuminate). Perhaps they are assuming that modern samples are direct offspring of the guy who lost his tooth. You could probably just as easily conclude that this individual and the natives he was compared to, had a common ancestor x * y years ago. Anyway, what little I know, that's my opinion.