posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:47 PM
After reading through this thread I'd just like to make some general and perhaps unrelated points. I'm not arguing specifics here.
First, we're not in an "either/or" situation here. Things like migrations can happen both ways. An example is the "Out of Africa" theory. I see
some people reject that. Sorry, but it's a done deal. Unless someone has screwed up the evidence, mitochondrial DNA proves the issue. We are ALL
related to Mitochondrial Eve, and African, and the Out of Africa Theory is true.
That does not mean that there were not other migrations into and out of Africa. Indeed, the Sahara Desert has been called a "Great Pump" because
over time the Sahara has been more or less hospitable to human life. When it is more hospitable, people move in. When it is less hospitable, people
are pumped out into the Middle East. Hominids may have come into and out of Africa many times in the past. The fact that the Out of Africa Theory is
true does not mean all the other ideas are false. It's not a fallacy to say they are all true.
The same is true with the Bering Strait migration theory. Once again, DNA studies show that all Native American groups originated in Asia and that
this was possible because the Ice Age sucked up enough ocean water to create a land bridge from Asia to Alaska. That does not mean that some
Portuguese fishermen could not have followed the coastline of the Atlantic counterclockwise to the East Coast of North America, or that some Japanese
Admiral couldn't have scoped out the West Coast, or that some South Sea islanders couldn't have Kon Tiki'd there way across the Pacific. All those
things could have happened. Indeed, it would be unusual if they did not. But if they did, they did not survive. Once again, there is no need to
counteract or dismiss prevailing theory to make room for your own speculation. There's plenty of room for both.
Now, I studied anthropology and archaeology formally in the past just like some others here (B.A., 1971). I see no contradictions between what was
taught in the late sixties and what we see today. It certainly was simpler; there were fewer choices. And in some sense it was wilder. The Leakeys
were pushing their agenda while Carlton S. Coon was embarrassing himself with his, but if you take the newspaper sensationalism out of it, the pieces
have fallen together like a jig saw puzzle. There is no missing link and never really has been. The story of hominid evolution is more solid now than
it has ever been, particularly with the help of genetics.
To throw out academia so you can put some wild theory of your own in place seems to me to be nonsensical. There is no need to invoke space aliens to
explain our presence. There is no need to toss off a hundred years of study just because you read about someone discovering a couple of arrow heads
(I'm sorry; the proper term is "projectile points.") they can't explain. If you are going to come up with something new and different, you are
going to have to place it in context with what we have painstakingly pieced together over the years. If you can find a flaw, great! Let's set it
straight, but pissing into the wind is not very helpful. If you want to find Atlantis, look towards Santorini. Really. It doesn't have to be
And the thing is, there's plenty of room for radical ideas! Just as an example, there is nothing in the archaeological record, nor in the timeline of
human evolution as we know it today, that would prevent the postulation that there was a near-Renaissance level worldwide civilization 14,000 years
ago that was destroyed by a catastrophic rise in sea level as the ice melted. There's plenty of room to speculate that the Romans mined copper in
Canada. There is ample space to discuss the ancient and advanced civilizations in India.
The point is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you are willing to put things in context with what we think we know, you'll be
contributing to a more robust understanding of our past. You will also be much more likely to be taken seriously.