Page 25 of 30
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 6:41 pm
by Charlie Hatchett
Minimalist wrote:Charlie, you are correct. No H. erectus DNA has been isolated yet, so no geneticist on earth can know whether or not any admixture occurred
Hence......they know that it just COULDN'T be similar to HSS or HNS because.............
because..........................
because...................................................
Actually, H Erectus could be identical and these bozos would not know one way or the other...................would they?
Because.............. it would screw up a long told story...a legend...like Clovis First.
We had to come somewhere...Erectus/ Ergaster seem like the most likely suspects.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 8:01 pm
by Forum Monk
Charlie Hatchett wrote:Settle down there, you two crouching tigers!!
Screw it..fight, fight, fight!!
Charlie,
I think Cogs could take me. If not, he could definitely out run me.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 10:25 pm
by Minimalist
If not, he could definitely out run me.
Ah...The Dick Cheney approach.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 4:48 am
by Charlie Hatchett
Forum Monk wrote:Charlie Hatchett wrote:Settle down there, you two crouching tigers!!
Screw it..fight, fight, fight!!
Charlie,
I think Cogs could take me. If not, he could definitely out run me.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 8:52 am
by Beagle
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/ma ... gine08.xml
Australia's Aborigines were formed from a single group of migrants who left Africa about 55,000 years ago, DNA evidence suggests.
Once there the settlers evolved in relative isolation, developing genetic characteristics not found anywhere else and leading to unusual fossil finds that threatened the "out of Africa" hypothesis of human origins.
However, research published today confirms that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa and spread throughout Eurasia.
Here's another very strange Club report. I don't know who generated this stuff, but it goes against everything we know to be true. This is also the first time that I've seen it suggested that Neandertal man might have migrated to Australia.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 9:20 am
by Digit
You people have posted everything I thought when I first read the post. I refrained from saying anything because I was so disgusted that such 'propaganda' for discredited ideology was actually published. Don't reporters ever check what they are told? When did somebody manage to get DNA for Erectus? Even the dates for the suggested migration don't fit with the suggested dates for the colonisation of Australia.
I sometimes despair!
Challenge
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 9:34 am
by Cognito
Charlie,
I think Cogs could take me. If not, he could definitely out run me.
Hey Monk, why don't we just step 10 paces, turn, and fling hyperboles at each other? It's safer.
OOA
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 10:11 am
by Cognito
Beags, thanks for the article. I love the following quote regarding the OOA sapiens:
This group replaced early kinds of humans -such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus, who had already colonised Australia - rather than interbreeding with them.
According to Erik Trinkaus, Neanderthals never made it farther east than the Caucasus and Near Eastern areas. How they arrived in Australia is beyond me. And, by the way, where are the Australian
H. erectus finds? I'd love to see pics.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 10:22 am
by Minimalist
Professor Glen Milne's inundation charts that Hancock used in Underworld show that Australia and New Guinea were connected at the LGM. However, New Guinea was not connected to anywhere else.
If people got to New Guinea OR Australia it was by boat.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 10:30 am
by Beagle
I seem to remember that we established that, in the old aborigine thread (without hunting). Orthodox science has it that man had to cross 50 miles of ocean to get to Australia.
It will be interesting to see just what those genetic studies showed. I've checked the Hawks website - nothing yet.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 10:56 am
by Charlie Hatchett
And, by the way, where are the Australian H. erectus finds? I'd love to see pics.
Now that would really f**k some people up, if true!!
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 12:04 pm
by Minimalist
Guess what I found?
Milne's inundation chart, world view.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 12:10 pm
by Minimalist
Next, we have a closeup of Timor Island.
The map legend did not make it into the photo but I going to estimate that the distance of the deeper blue in the strait to the area of pale blue which says Timor Sea and Indian Ocean is about 115 miles.
Not impassable by boat but certainly over the horizon.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 12:33 pm
by Digit
No disrespect intended Min, but I don't care if the distance was 1500 miles. They made it!
And they sure as Hell didn't swim it! That leaves a Red Sea type miracle or boats.
I leave the choice to you my friend.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 12:39 pm
by Minimalist
No, I agree, Dig, they sailed there but how did they know where it was?
Looking at Milne's chart it is pretty easy to see how humans could have moved along the Indonesian archepelago, always knowing there was another island further out. But at some point they reach the east end of Timor and then what?
Standing on the shore and looking out across the Pacific should have led to an empty feeling.