SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Friday April 28 2017, @11:47AM
from the shoulda-made-a-left-at-Albuquerque dept.
from the shoulda-made-a-left-at-Albuquerque dept.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39710311
A study that claims humans reached the Americas 130,000 years ago - much earlier than previously suggested - has run into controversy.
Humans are thought to have arrived in the New World no earlier than 25,000 years ago, so the find would push back the first evidence of settlement by more than 100,000 years.
The conclusions rest on analysis of animal bones and tools from California.
But many experts contacted by the BBC said they doubted the claims.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Humans may have Arrived in the Americas 100,000 Years Earlier than Thought
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 16 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
TOO BAD YOU CAN'T BUY a voodoo globe so that you could make the earth spin
real fast and freak everybody out.
-- Jack Handey, The New Mexican, 1988.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @12:21PM (3 children)
If this is true all of our models of human migration out of Africa are wrong.
I'm not surprised there is some debate
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 28 2017, @12:23PM (2 children)
They took the route over the sea perhaps?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @12:46PM (1 child)
I agree it was probably giant sea otters that smashed up the bones, we can see them doing that sort of thing now, they where just bigger back then like everything else
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 28 2017, @01:47PM
I think it's in a circumstance like this where expert opinion tells. I'm an amateur flintknapper, but most times I can only detect the signs of paleo-flintknapping after one of the experts have pointed it out. And many times scientists will point to rocks or bones or something and say, "Look, see, there's clear evidence of human activity," and I'll have no idea what they're talking about because I'm looking at the wrong details.
Kind of how folks like us can look at code and see flaws, make a judgement about how well it's structured, etc., whereas most laymen would only see an eruption of gobblety-gook.
Scientists can disagree about whether or not humans broke those bones, but they're disagreeing on the basis of arcana that most of us on the outside have no idea about.
Washington DC delenda est.