Heard something interesting about native americans?

Question

I heard that they found eveidence on native americans that probably lived 40,000 years ago or possibly more in the americas with fossilized footprints. do you guys think its true? why do you or not think its true? please no stupid ignorant responses, if i wanted ignorance i would just ask mel gibson what he thinks about jews. Most people are also part native american also and dont even know it or care much about it. Does that mean there some kind of half sub specie or something? does that mean ima half sub specie? I thought the the whole world was just one specie. Now i hear its possible that native americans are probably a sub species of of the the other modern humans.

sub species are 2 species that can inter bread but they have certain skeletal differences and other major genetic differences. native american traits and features can be found here. you also find some unque disntictive features like about the feet , crooked fingers and inverted chest bone. chimps are about 95 percent related to modern humans and they are not considered a sub species because they cant interbreed..

http://www.othermetis.net/AboGene/Gene.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p4507q6742333464/

chimps being unable to reproduce is due there different reproductive system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_species#Criteria

http://www.othermetis.net/AboGene/Gene.html#Physical

"Some of the information concerning Physical Characteristics which can help you determine if you are Native, were taken from an article by NAAH Contributing Editor Cones Kupwah Snowflower in NAAH #14 July 1996 "Let's Get Physical". Snowflower is a Shawnee Genealogist familiar with all of the tribes in the Ohio Valley area. She can be reached at 204 Rome-Hilliard Road Columbus Ohio 43228.

The scientific and medical information was gleaned from an article in the the Family Tree publication of the Ellen Payne Odom Genealogy Library P O Box 1110 Moultrie Ga 31776-1110 [phone] FAX [phone]. Back issues of the Family Tree, when available are $3.50 which includes s/h.

The information in the article was credited to T.L.& M. Genealogy published by the Talbot Library and Museum P. O. Box 349 Colcord OK 74338. "

The characteristics are amerindian related. Not all amerindians will have every single charcteristic thats listed there. It could be recessive or it could be that they just dont have the gene at all for a few of them.

You are right about them not being sub species and about the chimps tho.

The characteristics are amerindian related. Not all amerindians will have every single charcteristic thats listed there. It could be recessive or it could be that they just dont have the gene at all for a few of them.

You are right about them not being sub species and about the chimps tho.

However neanderthals are considered human yet there dna is proven to be incompatible with us modern humans.

Being dna compatible has nothing to do with just being human.

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=41

Native americans dont just come from the siberia land bridge theory. There is actual dna evidence that they resemble polynesans more and they have dna evidence that they are related to polynedian groups because sibearians dont have certain dna that polynesians do that are present in native americans.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1180280

made mistake that link is not good. i read it more carefully

my point is though they come from several migrations, not just 1

Answer 1

I'm a North American archaeologist, and I'm not sure where to begin telling you what's wrong with your information. Let's make a list, and not all of it is about what you said specifically.

1) The evidence that humans came across the land bridge 14,000 - 12,000 years ago is solid. There's a reason it's the prevailing theory. DNA evidence suggests a migration may have happened as early as 18,000 years ago, and suggests there was more than one migration. There is little doubt many, many people (if not all of them) took this route to the Americas.

2) Theories supporting other methods of migration to the Americas have less evidence backing them, and the evidence isn't always that great. Some of it is great, but most of it isn't. Still, any evidence of other theories does not negate a land bridge crossing, it just suggests other methods occured. People could have come here all sorts of different ways.

3) Evidence that people were here prior to 13,000 years ago is very, very slim. I have colleagues looking into this sort of thing, and believe me, they would love to have a significant body of evidence. They just don't. They're looking, but it's not there yet. Oral traditions and a small amount of physical evidence is provocative, but not enough to go to the papers with, so to speak.

4) Native Americans are Homo sapiens, just like everyone else. They are not a subspecies. Any consistent skeletal differences from other human populations are within normal variation. I just finished a course in human osteology. Native Americans do not have inverted chest bones (whatever that means...do you mean the sternum?), crooked fingers, or anything like what you describe.

5) Chimps are not able to reproduce with humans (or other species) because their DNA is incompatible, not because their reproductive system is different. It isn't that different, actually. Even in vitro fertilization would fail. Native Americans can interbreed with other humans because they are humans too.

6) Read your own wikipedia entry on subspecies there. Different human populations do not meet the requirements, especially #2, for being separated into subspecies. Globalization has demonstrated that gene flow can and will happen between pretty much any human populations. Native Americans have been interbreeding with other populations for many, many years now.

EDIT: My colleagues, and myself actually, are well aware of the evidence concerning other theories of migration into North America. We're not willfully ignorant, or particularly subborn. If we really thought the evidence was greater for other theories, we'd be pushing those other theories. Mitochondrial DNA analysis provides excellent support to the archaeological evidence that people migrated across the land bridge from Asia. There is evidence of other methods, and I make it a point to read up on things like that. It just doesn't have the mass to be a competing theory. Not yet. I imagine that someday it will among professional archaeologists, but as an archaeologist I simply can't say that it does at this time. Furthermore, evidence suggesting other methods of migration does not cancel out all evidence supporting a land bridge migration. It simply supports multiple paths.

Couple more things...

Neaderthals are NOT referred to as modern humans. They were probably a different species. The evidence that they interbred with Cro-Magnons is in tough dispute currently. Neanderthals would probably make a good example of a subspecies, if anything. Way better than Native Americans, anyway.

Like I said before, there is evidence supporting other migrations besides the land bridge from Siberia. I never said it was the only possible method! Never! Still doesn't make Native Americans a different species. If anything, they have had one of the more recent geographical isolations in human history. Finally, I have never read anything suggesing that Native Americans are more related to Polynesians than anyone else. I have read papers saying they are more related to Asian populations.

EDIT 2: Dang, almost missed the "Eve" theory. More accurately called "Mitochondrial Eve" (actually the inspiration for a semi-weird Playstation game years ago), the theory does not state that all people come from one woman. Studies of mitochondrial DNA, which traces the maternal line, provides evidence that all modern humans descend from a "mother" who lived in Africa 200,000 years ago, give or take. This "mother" is not thought to be a single individual, but more of a representative sample of early human women, perhaps the core population from which modern humans spread.

Answer 2

This is true. There is a LOT of evidence that shows Native people have been in America for quite some time.
That is one reason why we can say the land bridge theory isn't accurate. For more information you can read the book: "Red Earth White Lies". Footprints are not the only things they have found.

I am a Native woman, I know my history!

EDIT:
"Evidence that people were here prior to 13,000 years ago is very, very slim. I have colleagues looking into this sort of thing, and believe me, they would love to have a significant body of evidence. They just don't. They're looking, but it's not there yet. Oral traditions and a small amount of physical evidence is provocative, but not enough to go to the papers with, so to speak."
This suggests that there is evidence. And this evidence is more provacative and more so proven than other theories such as the land bridge. Most modern scientists, archeologists etc... don't even really look into this information. They just believe it because other scholars do.
If you read the book I suggeste above it'll explain all of this.

AND there is DEFINATELY no 100% proof that all humans genetically came from one woman. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Scientists are just now learning about the human genome. They can't possibly already have proven such a thing. And even if they think they did it doesn't make it true. So much science today are examples of scientific racism and are fueled by greed and not truth. And how many times is science proven wrong? Several, I mean we were sure the Earth was flat. To say this is 100% true is ridiculous and uneducated.

Answer 3

It could be true that there were anatomically modern humans in the americas that long ago but as to your question about subspecies...there is no such thing. We all share about 95% of the exact same DNA and therefore everyone can interbreed and is therefore of the same species...homosapiens. The very first peoples to populate the world were both anatomically human and neanderthal (a different lineage of apes brought these guys into the world and it isn't clear if we interbred with them). So,hope that answers your question!

Answer 4

I don't get the correlation...if humans did make it to the Americas 40,000 yrs ago, why would they be a sub-species? Modern humans have been around for 200,000 to 150,000 years...the only other (confirmed) sub-species of human living 40,000 yrs ago was the Neanderthal. Native Americans are supposed to be Neanderthal? Ridiculous. They are human.

Answer 5

You need to check out the Discover Channel progran "The Real Eve."
Its been proven, through genetics (DNA) that every person on earth originated from a single female about 150,000 years ago. No question about it. This makes all the talk about species and sub species nonsense,
Its also been proven that what we call North America has been occupied for about 50,000 years. Sorry Columbus.