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.

Answer 1

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 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

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 4

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.

Answer 5

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.