• Does this collaborate the Noahaic Account of History?

  • Where did the orginal inhabitants go if they disappeared from the gene pool?


WASHINGTON (AFP) – Two distinct groups from Asia settled in the New World and not one single migration as suggested by previous genetic studies, experts said Monday after comparing the skulls of early Americans.

Paleoanthropologists from Brazil, Chile and Germany compared the skulls of several dozen Paleoamericans, dating back to the early days of migration 11,000 years ago, with the more recent remains of more than 300 Amerindians.

"We found that the differences between Early and Late Native American groups match the predictions of a two-migration scenario far better than they do those of any other hypothesis," they said.

"In other words, these differences are so large that it is highly improbable that the earliest inhabitants of the New World were the direct ancestors of recent Native American populations."

Their landmark research found differences in the cranial morphology that could only be explained by the fact that the last common ancestor of the Early and Late Native American groups came from outside the continent.

The experts agreed the differences were best explained by a scenario in which a first wave of settlers came across the Bering Strait from Northeast Asia followed by a second group from East Asia much later via the same route.

"We conclude that the morphological diversity documented through time in the New World is best accounted for by a model postulating two waves of human expansion into the continent originating in East Asia and entering through Beringia," they said.

"This disparity between our results and those of most genetic studies points to a large gap in our understanding of the peopling of the New World."

Views: 120

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

North America was once part of Russia and South America was a part of Africa. When north america separated from russia it was too cold for humans to live on the continent. South america, however, was not. When Christopher Columbus stumbled into the New World the natives that swam out to greet his ships were obviously of part-african origin. This brings me to broach the question: What about the Olmec's? Could they have been on the south american continent when that continent separated from africa? And while I'm at it I might mention that the Tibetian-Sherpa female folklore goes back to a time when Asia was once a solid part of northern africa and India was still a part of southern africa. Asia separated from Africa, drifted north eastward away from Africa, and the afro-asian women watched as Africa sank slowly out of sight over the horizon. Then one day the women saw a tiny speck on the horizon to the south that eventually grew and grew (and pushed up the land the women lived on higher and higher) until that continent crashed into Asia some 65 million years ago. Now when India crashed into Asia the first thing the Indians tried to do was conquer (steal!) the asian land. So that the battle for the asian land began 65 million years ago, the indians went on to lose tens of billions
of men, and never won a single battle from those Tibetian-Sherpa women who seldom allowed their tribe to number more than 300 women and children. Today, the indian males deny that they ever fought the Sherpa for their land but the indian females have a very different story.
There is evidence of a negroid race existing in South America at least ten of thousands of years ago prior to the second way of migration across the Bering Straits. How they got there is a mystery.

Though advance civilization existing 65 million years ago is an intriguing thought, no direct evidence has ever been found outside anomalous manufactured objects that are documented on Michael Cremo's site. However Dr. Cremo's views are not accepted by mainstream scientist.
According to the indian female folklore the indian males were fighting for religious supremecy while India was still a solid part of south africa. India than separated from africa, drifted some 2300 miles northward and crashed into asia, with the males fighting over religion all the way. The males are still fighting for religious supremecy (Hindu v. Moslem) and with both sides having nulear weapons the chances are very good that they will be using those weapons. Anyways, the insistence on finding 'direct evidence' puzzels me because, as anyone can see, india and the indians came from somewhere other than where they are now. And India didn't make the trip with a hop, skip and a jump, either. It took hundreds of millions of years for that continent to travel that 2300 mile distance. I believe the paleintologist, anthropologist, el al, are wasting their time and someone else's money looking for 'hard evidence' when the folklore is clearly supported by the evidence india and the indians came from somewhere else.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service