Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Humans may have Arrived in the Americas 100,000 Years Earlier than Thought

posted by martyb on Friday April 28 2017, @11:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the shoulda-made-a-left-at-Albuquerque dept.

takyon writes:

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.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday April 28 2017, @01:46PM (1 child)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday April 28 2017, @01:46PM (#501156) Journal

    Expert doubt is worth about as much as expert conjecture... i.e., not much without evidence.

    Generally the entire meaning of the word "expert" is that one has knowledge on a topic, knowledge which presumably is based on a wide set of evidence used to create that knowledge. Expert "conjecture" is, by definition, conjecture, which means it's likely founded on less (or no) evidence.

    Obviously experts can be wrong. And obviously fields sometimes have assumptions that are less grounded in firm evidence. But the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" comes to mind. "Expert knowledge" again doesn't come out of nowhere -- it's often based on substantial accumulated evidence over time. If you want to challenge that accepted knowledge, your evidence had better be enough to overcome the previous evidence that was used to create that knowledge.

    So, no, I'd say "expert doubt" against extraordinary claims is often based on a LOT of evidence.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @03:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @03:19PM (#501185)

    I'm waiting to hear what the "geniuses" at Apple store thinks.