It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do coconut genomes indicate pre-Columbian settlement of America?

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I am not an expert on this and I have no opinions on the subject of who arrived in America first. But I know many of you are and do, so I'm posting this for your information and discussion.

It seems that a study of the genetic information preserved in coconuts indicates that they were originally domesticated and cultivated in two locations (one being, incidentally, the region where I live) and carried to the Americas from one of these regions by Austronesian seafarers.

The possibility of natural distribution is also considered and discussed.

I found the article interesting. I think you will too. It was originally published in 2011, but I couldn't find a thread about it in this forum.


edit on 12/3/16 by Astyanax because: of spelling errors




posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Interesting way for them to wonder about early migration. This thread reminds me of a story just this last week where a bottle was found in France, (I believe) that a couple had thrown in the ocean in North Carolina, US, (I believe). And of course, that is not the first time that has happened. Within the last year there was a similar story from a transport from the US to Ireland (I believe). Rare, but not unknown. So as far as opinions go, I'll say "half of one and a half a dozen of the other" as the old saying goes.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

If I remember right, they have found old ancient coconut sandals or shoes in Nova Scotia / Canada on Oak Island in the mysterious unknown hole that nobody seems to be able to fully explore.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Thanks for the information

It seems these trees' genetics along with Columbian & contemporary accounts do indicate previous settlement of America and thus corroborate the accounts of today's "Indians" or "Native American" peoples, both in quotation marks for their equally misleading references, since anyone born in America would be a native American, meaning that the nations who did settle America before Columbus don't even have a proper English denomination which in itself means a lot.

Long sentence, not sure where to cut

Cocos nucifera is most definitely an interesting angle, as is Ceratonia siliqua, "St John's bread tree" or "carob" tree also found in the Caribbean archipelago & mainland America: both better imports than indentured employment & sheriffs imho. Something about Vikings too.

Who were the first people in America, and did they evolve from monkeys? Did they come in boats? From where?

Isn't William Blake a dead man?




posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: DumpMaster




Oak Island


Yes: Canada, oak

The Viking thing I was looking for, thanks



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Why would First Nations people be descendants of monkeys when no other humans are? Common ancestry with the other great apes and being descended from monkeys are two very different things.

To get coconuts to the Americas you have 4 options.
1. They walked across Beringia carrying seeds
2. They arrived by boat following the coast line. Not at all out of the question as we know that Neanderthal were on islands that were impossible to reach without a boat.
3. Seeds drifted across the ocean until beaching in the Americas and sprouting.
4. A combination of 2 or more of the above.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Apes are monkeys. Granted, nobody's ancestors are monkeys, I was being humorous.

A fifth option is coconuts being indigenous to the Americas.

First Nations of America I assume you mean?



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Or....have a look at the clay "doll" that is 2million years old and unearthed in Idaho. Pretty fancy detail work on it.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

In all fairness, Apes are not monkeys. Sorry for mistaking a humorous jab for a statement born of ignorance. Text doesn't always translate as well without hearing changes in tonality and gauging body language.
The genetic study indicates that coconuts aren't indigenous to the Americas so I wouldn't lean too heavily towards #5



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
To get coconuts to the Americas you have 4 options.
1. They walked across Beringia carrying seeds
2. They arrived by boat following the coast line. Not at all out of the question as we know that Neanderthal were on islands that were impossible to reach without a boat.

Both unlikely, actually.

The cocoanut only grows in certain latitudes (drawing of the distirbution here) and requires a lot of rainfall and certain types of soils. No one would travel all the way up from the jungles of China carrying heavy cocoanuts to plant generations later (after the cocoanut seed had dried to beyond revival, I should add) to try and plant it in southern Mexico (or vice-versa.)) Nor would they have been able to successfully plant it all along the route.



3. Seeds drifted across the ocean until beaching in the Americas and sprouting.


In stages (establishing on Pacific islands before hitting the Americas), yes.


4. A combination of 2 or more of the above.

Brought across the ocean by the Pacific Islanders, yes.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar




The genetic study indicates that coconuts aren't indigenous to the Americas


This isn't how genes work.

Apes are monkeys, you're thinking of man keys: apes are not man keys.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

That's exactly how genes work. As an organism, be it plant or animal, spreads across one side of the Pacific to the other there will be different mutations demonstrating the length of time the organism has been isolated from the point of origin. The organisms from the point of origin will have higher degrees of genetic diversity. The further out from the point of origin, the lower the genetic diversity.

Apes aren't monkeys. Homo Sapiens Sapiens are apes. Monkeys have tails. Apes do not. All homininae are apes and share common ancestry.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Oh I agree that bringing seeds from a subtropical tree is extraordinarily unlikely. It's not as if there was a straight path from SE Asia up the coast to Beringia and then down the western coast of NA. Well, technically there was a straight path but it's much more likely that the migrations North and East were staggered over successive generations which means nobody is going to be in possession of viable seeds handed down by their great grandparents. The only way that would work is if there were established trade routes along the coast lines. I haven't seen any evidence of that and if it occurred, those coastline are under 20-30 meters of water. As highly unlikely as the scenario is, I'm ok with allowing a little bit of imaginative leeway and being open to the possibility. It wasn't that long ago after all that Clovis First was a foregone conclusion and anybody attempting to put forth data contrary to Clovis First was flogged for it. With that said, there was far more data supporting CF as far back as the 70's than there is for humans assisting the spread of the coconut.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Cease your attempts to change my use of the word monkey, which is sanctioned by better linguists than you including but not limited to my self and Oxford dictionary authors: www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Your understanding of genetics is also flawed: diversity does not correlate with geographic origin unless the import is more recent than the diversity, but from someone who understands time the way you do (time according to your unoriginal narrative makes monkeys into people, well fish into people, well soup into people) this is hardly surprising.

Good luck



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 01:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar

Cease your attempts to change my use of the word monkey, which is sanctioned by better linguists than you including but not limited to my self and Oxford dictionary authors: www.oxforddictionaries.com...


From your own link, 1. is the scientific definition.

A small to medium-sized primate that typically has a long tail, most kinds of which live in trees in tropical countries.


I'm guessing that number 2 is what you feel to be your "ace in the hole". In the English language we have these things called qualifiers. For #2, the qualifier is (in general use). This means that we don't expect people who can't tie their own shoes or walk and chew gum at the same time to know better. That doesn't mean I won't waste my time trying to help the willfully ignorant gain a better understanding of the world around them. Your link, supports what I've already told you, monkeys have tales, apes do not. You can choose to remain blissfully ignorant inside your bubble wrap reality astreamif that's what suits you. But if you can't bother to understand a topic, expect to be pointed in the proper direction.

(In general use) any primate




Your understanding of genetics is also flawed: diversity does not correlate with geographic origin unless the import is more recent than the diversity,


Please support your BS with an appropriate citation. I'm sure the Oxford dictionary has something that you can easily misinterpret.



but from someone who understands time the way you do (time according to your unoriginal narrative makes monkeys into people, well fish into people, well soup into people) this is hardly surprising.



awww... that's so cute. Instead of having a legitimate dialogue you resort to ad hominem's and trolling. Now THAT is unoriginal. Hurry up and get to bed before your mommy finds you up on a school night.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar





I'm guessing that number 2 is what you feel to be your "ace in the hole"



1.1(In general use) any primate.


How do you get number 2 from 1.1?




you resort to ad hominem's


Is that so?





diversity does not correlate with geographic origin unless the import is more recent than the diversity,

Please support your BS with an appropriate citation.


You quoted it, then called it BS.




Hurry up and get to bed before your mommy finds you up on a school night.


I resort to that kind of ad hominem? Oh my, I must be such a you.

It's all right, just keep on topic next time.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd


Brought across the ocean by the Pacific Islanders, yes.

That's the means of transport proposed in the study. The authors explain how the genetics bears this out.

Wisvol, there is information in the OP article relevant to your speculations. Have a look.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax




Wisvol, there is information in the OP article relevant to your speculations. Have a look.


I did read the article before posting. Got sidetracked with the monkey thing, clearly swallows carry coconuts across oceans ut John Cleese & co.

As for genetic evidence of the trees' provenance: having albinos on both sides of the river, even with higher frequency on one side isn't solid ground to determine the geographic origin of albinos.

Supposing a specific breed of cocos nucifera appreciated by civilisation was transported by forethinking gourmets holds water so to speak, yet its presence on separate islands/continents is a hint that it may have been brought, not a hint that it was brought from one specific place to the other because both locations would cultivate said specific breed of cocos nucifera, and the soil, the sun, the water & c. would slightly influence this specific breed in ways undisclosed by the authors of the article, and unknown to them, without evolving the cocos nucifera's specific breed into another plant because again, that's not how genetics work despite & c.

And even then, who brought wheat and cows/buffalo everywhere? Did they also evolve from soup in the same exact way through natural selection? Cows and buffalo being interfertile, they are indeed the same species, comforting the idea that the origin of species isn't other species, and hence confirming the article's authors' theory that similar species on different locations may have been brought rather than evolved from some other species in the same way.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Where is this place Oak Island? Pictures?



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Finally! Somebody brought swallows into the discussion. My day is complete. I must go to bed before mommy discovers me on her computer.




top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join