Slashdot Mirror


Earliest Americans Arrived In Waves, DNA Study Finds

NotSanguine writes "Nicholas Wade of the New York Times has written an article about a new DNA study that suggests the earliest Americans arrived in three waves, not one. 'North and South America were first populated by three waves of migrants from Siberia rather than just a single migration, say researchers who have studied the whole genomes of Native Americans in South America and Canada. Some scientists assert that the Americas were peopled in one large migration from Siberia that happened about 15,000 years ago, but the new genetic research shows that this central episode was followed by at least two smaller migrations from Siberia, one by people who became the ancestors of today's Eskimos and Aleutians and another by people speaking Na-Dene, whose descendants are confined to North America.' The study, published online (paywalled), investigated geographic, linguistic and genetic diversity in native American populations."

131 comments

  1. ahm... by jythie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Kinda old news. I thought the 'single wave' theory had been abandoned decades ago, though some tribes have been lobbying to rewrite history since their mythology mandates they were the 'first' ones there, so waves conflict with doctrine.

    1. Re:ahm... by SilverJets · · Score: 2

      Yeah. Very old news.

      I guess Nicholas Wade was part of the last wave.

    2. Re:ahm... by Haawkeye · · Score: 0

      Ya where I live you can't mention this because the whole mytho thing. Very annoying science is science.

    3. Re:ahm... by BeanThere · · Score: 4, Informative

      The study review, acceptance and publication dates are:
              01 September 2011
              25 May 2012
              11 July 2012
      so I don't see how you can say this "old news"?

    4. Re:ahm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all studies are original.

    5. Re:ahm... by Omineca · · Score: 2

      I would say that the study may add new evidence in support of long existing theory. The three wave theory, precisely in the format described in the write up here on slashdot, has been in first year university history textbooks for at least a decade, if not longer.

    6. Re:ahm... by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      If you read the nytimes article you see that the genetic evidence appears to confirm the linguistic work done by Joseph Greenberg in 1987. So that is probably what the grandparent is thinking of as the "old news". However, the theories of Joseph Greenberg aren't widely accepted.

    7. Re:ahm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      They come in waves.

    8. Re:ahm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the OP posted a long list of studies that this one copies from?

    9. Re:ahm... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      If you read the nytimes article you see that the genetic evidence appears to confirm the linguistic work done by Joseph Greenberg in 1987. So that is probably what the grandparent is thinking of as the "old news". However, the theories of Joseph Greenberg aren't widely accepted.

      All it vindicates about Greenberg is his specific proposal of three waves of immigration. Most historical linguists utterly reject his "mass comparison" method for identifying languages. I don't think this work is going to change that, no matter how enthusiastic Ruiz is.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    10. Re:ahm... by dewatf · · Score: 1

      Yes but you can always quote "some" scientists old theory of 1 wave from decades ago and claim your research is new to get more media attention and funding.

    11. Re:ahm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The important part is that we should all be speaking our native Russian, not Cherokee!

    12. Re:ahm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why in the world would you imagine that Russian was the native tongue in Siberia until relatively recently? I mean on the scale of a century or maximum two here.

    13. Re:ahm... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes but you can always quote "some" scientists old theory of 1 wave from decades ago and claim your research is new to get more media attention and funding.

      No you can't. Every scientific paper and grant application, in every subject, includes a literature review section in which you cover the state of current relevant research, and to get the publication or the grant you have to demonstrate how your findings are different from what's currently known.

      What you can do, if you're a layman sniping at science from a distance, is mention some garbled memory of something you read once that's kinda sorta related to the subject at hand, and dismiss current research as "old news." Bonus points if you throw in something about how scientists are only in it for the money, fame, and groupies.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    14. Re:ahm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure that Luigi Cavalli-Sforza argued for a three-migration theory about 20 years ago, based on DNA evidence. It has certainly been largely accepted since then. I'll be curious to find out what this study has to add.

    15. Re:ahm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's the catch: you get to choose how you represent the current state, so pick and choose.
      the guy deciding the grant is supposed to know if you're bullshitting, though technically it's not bullshitting if you just choose articles carefully.

      but does he? fuck no.

    16. Re:ahm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old...as in I heard about DNA studies showing 4 migration waves years ago.

    17. Re:ahm... by dissy · · Score: 1

      Bonus points if you throw in something about how scientists are only in it for the money, fame, and groupies.

      Oblg.:

      <Leela> After 14 years of graduate school, Professor Farnsworth settled into the glamorous life of a scientist: Fast cars, trendy nightspots, beautiful women - the Professor designed them all working out of his tiny, one-room apartment.

    18. Re:ahm... by flyneye · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then don't forget the "mini-waves" of out-of-towners that the local babes found appealing enough to breed with including: Celts, Vikings, Africans, Minoans, Romans (galley wreck off Florida was tell-tale), Chinese( Anchor stones with carvings along Pacific Coast) and any others that made it here long before Columbus. Yup, Ethnic diversity indicates there is no such thing as just an "American Indian". We all donated some DNA.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    19. Re:ahm... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      On the contrary. It issue additional evidence that his linguistic theory may have some truth to it.

    20. Re:ahm... by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      and yet we still have to call them "native" americans lol. At this point, some sort of small mammal would be the only thing I call a native american lol.

    21. Re:ahm... by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because I read an article propounding this same three-wave theory (based mostly on linguistic studies) in Scientific American back in about 1993?

      But then I'm not a Science Reporter, so what do I know about news?

    22. Re:ahm... by g1zmo · · Score: 1

      Romans (galley wreck off Florida was tell-tale)

      Do you have a source for this? My Google search only turned up a story about a pretty questionable claim of a "Roman" shipwreck near Brazil that is more likely just a 15th-century Spanish ship.

      --
      I have found there are just two ways to go.
      It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow.
      -REK, Jr.
    23. Re:ahm... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Very old news.

      Yup. But note that the earlier hypotheses were based on different kinds of evidence than this. So this is what in scientific circles is called "independent confirmation". For things as conjectural as how many "waves" of immigration to the Americas have happened, the scientific process typically refuses to consider an idea valid until several different kinds of evidence have been examined, and all of them are consistent with the hypothesis.

      In particular, this one seems to show a strong connection between DNA and language group (na-Dene, Eskimo/Aleut, "everyone else"). This is a bit surprising, since language isn't genetic. But it's not the only place in the world where such a connection exists.

      In any case, the scientific mantra "Further Research Is Needed" applies.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    24. Re:ahm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is absolutely no credible evidence for any groups you name making it to the Americas besides the Vikings, and as far as I am aware, there has been no genetic analysis showing nordic genetic heritage in Native American populations either.

    25. Re:ahm... by Disfnord · · Score: 1

      Because people didn't read the summary, let alone the article.

    26. Re:ahm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Though they can be made to behave like particles.

    27. Re:ahm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and mostly at night....mostly.

    28. Re:ahm... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      I think it may have been a Mel Fisher find. We were diving wrecks with a robo-sub and a camera around various Atlantic Islands ourselves. Would've been the late 80s so my memory is foggy.( if you can remember the 80s, you weren't there)
      Interesting link you gave though.I worked with a Dr. Walter who had a working theory about Egyptians making it to S. America. in pitched reed boats. I guess some friend of his tried it a couple times and got fairly close but had to be rescued not too far from S.Am. both times.
      Marine accidents, miscalculations,weather,etc., produce mostly death and misery, but occasionally phenomena and mysteries.
      It's a damn crazy world. Drink with an Archaeologist and find out.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    29. Re:ahm... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      You should check that again with Harvards Archaeology dept. whom Dr. Walter and I worked with during inspection of the Celtic Ogam writings on Oklahoma riverbank walls. Harvard has a wonderful Native American Archaeology dept. Oddly some writings were recent , but correct, Some weren't recent, at all.
      It doesn't take a hard look at both cultures to notice too many similarities, concepts,and customs to be coincidental. Indians aren't crazy about the idea, Indians are central to the funding of research, so dig deep, all this and more is there, some of it just gets more funding and review that others.( who says science isn't repressed or highlighted by political bias?)

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  2. Windover Bog People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not as old, about 9000 years.. but it seems Caucasian people from Europe made their way to North America long, long before even the Vikings are known to have done so. Genetic material from the burials was sequenced by scientists back in the 1990s. It isn't (as far as I know) thought that any ancestors from this group of people survive today. They died out somewhere along the way.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/americas-bog-people.html
    www.thescienceforum.com/history/27178-pre-columbian-american-european-contacts.html

    1. Re:Windover Bog People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't (as far as I know) thought that any ancestors from this group of people survive today.

      Being ancestors from 9000 years ago, they wouldn't.

    2. Re:Windover Bog People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Not as old, about 9000 years.. but it seems Caucasian people from Europe made their way to North America "

      Even younger, Caucasian people from Europe came in waves the last 500 years and fucked over the ones that came 15000 years earlier.

    3. Re:Windover Bog People by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Or they were absorbed by interbreeding with a larger population of the dominant genetic stock.

  3. They were Turkic People by rainhill · · Score: 0

    The distant cousins of Turkish, and Turkic peoples of central Asia

    1. Re:They were Turkic People by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      The distant cousins of Turkish, and Turkic peoples of central Asia

      Can you please tell us just what you are trying to achieve here?

      Racial superiority of the Turks, or something like that??
       

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  4. Native Americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact means that America was settled in waves pretty much blows the "Native" theory out of the water. I'll bet the first people that came over would have a bone to pick with the later waves...if they were still here that is.

    1. Re:Native Americans? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The fact means that America was settled in waves pretty much blows the "Native" theory out of the water.

      There are people who will continue to believe that Native Americans are one of the lost tribes of Israel.

      One of them wants to be President.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Native Americans? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Source, please? I know politicians are crazy and all, but that's pretty far out there.

    3. Re:Native Americans? by aevan · · Score: 2

      You're kidding right? It's a poke at the Mormon candidate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamanites

    4. Re:Native Americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calm down. He wasn't referring to black jesus.

    5. Re:Native Americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact means that America was settled in waves pretty much blows the "Native" theory out of the water.

      There are people who will continue to believe that Native Americans are one of the lost tribes of Israel.

      One of them wants to be President.

      Can Romney be President of the 57 states, too?

      Even Dan fucking Quayle knew there are 50 states in the US, unlike Obama.

    6. Re:Native Americans? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      According to the Book of Mormon, a Lamanite (play /ËleÉ.mÊOEn.aÉt/)[1] is a member of a dark-skinned nation of indigenous Americans that battled with the light-skinned Nephite nation. Although mainstream archaeologists, geneticists, and historians do not recognize the existence of Lamanites, adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement typically believe that the Lamanites comprise some part, if not the entirety, of the indigenous peoples of the Americas and the Polynesian people.

      The Book of Mormon describes the Lamanites as descendants of Laman and Lemuel, two rebellious brothers of a family of Israelites who crossed the ocean in a boat around 600 BC. Their brother Nephi founded the Nephite nation. The Lamanites reputedly gained their dark skin as a sign of the curse for their rebelliousness (the curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of God), and warred with the Nephites over a period of centuries. The book says that Jesus appeared and converted all the Lamanites to Christianity; however, after about two centuries, the Lamanites fell away and eventually exterminated all the Nephites. By the end of the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites were defined less by their skin color than by their lack of Christianity. Many Mormons believe that the Polynesian people originated from the descendents of Hagoth who led his people off on a ship and was never heard from again. Although Hagoth was a Nephite, these Mormons regard Polynesians as Lamanites.

      Within the culture of Mormonism, indigenous Americans and Polynesians are sometimes referred to as "Lamanites".

      From Wikipedia. Don't tell me Scientology is any wackier.

      The best line from the source is,

      "There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God."

      "...no manner of -ites" And, no -ists or -ishes or -ans, I bet.

      I do not know how The Cat in the Hat has not been adopted as holy scripture by some new religion.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Native Americans? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Wow. I knew Mormons were kinda crazy too, but that's pretty impressive.

      I would, however, like to point out that that doesn't make them a "lost tribe". The word "tribe" generally only refers to one of the original tribes of the twelve sons of Jacob. The lost tribes are the ones that don't appear to have survived through all of the exiles, which are more or less all of them except for Judah and Levi. It doesn't look like they believe that an entire tribe of Israel sailed to the Americas, but only a few people.

    8. Re:Native Americans? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The lost tribes are the ones that don't appear to have survived through all of the exiles, which are more or less all of them except for Judah and Levi.

      I didn't know that. Thank you for the historical correction.

      That makes sense. If they were here, they probably weren't lost, unless my "lost" they mean, "Got on the #6 bus instead of the #11 bus and ended up on by trainyard on the west side". Your explanation makes more sense.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  5. But, but... by msauve · · Score: 1

    if they migrated here from Siberia, they're not native Americans, are they?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:But, but... by r1348 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It depends on the definition of "native" I guess:
      - if it means "first humans to inhabitate a certain territory", then they are.
      - if it means "first humans to be born in a territory", then almost no human but a small fraction of Africans is native to anywhere.

    2. Re:But, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You spelled Thai wrong.

    3. Re:But, but... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      And if it means their distinctive culture and ethnicity originated there it includes everybody in the Americas today.

    4. Re:But, but... by r1348 · · Score: 1

      In that case, I suppose that speaking English is a major setback for Americans...

  6. Thought that term had faded out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The article itself is sort of interesting, not really surprising, but it's cool to have more multi-wave evidence. What did catch me off guard was the use of "Eskimos". I grew up learning that it's an offensive term and shouldn't be used. Saying eskimo is kind of like saying negro. It's old fashioned and inappropriate for a public conversation.

    1. Re:Thought that term had faded out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's a U.S. paper. While Eskimo is offensive in Canada and Greenland it isn't in the U.S. including Alaska.

    2. Re:Thought that term had faded out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What term do you propose? Not all Eskimos outside Canada are Inuit, and this very item underlines the need for a term grouping Inuit and Yupik peoples, on genetic and linguistic grounds.

    3. Re:Thought that term had faded out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all Eskimos outside Canada are Inuit

      True, very true !

      But then, not all "African Americans" are from Africa either
       

    4. Re:Thought that term had faded out by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      That's why I been saying we should call them black fellas. It clears up a whole lotta confusion

    5. Re:Thought that term had faded out by Jmc23 · · Score: 0

      Mainly because US'ians can't be bothered to change any mistakes they've ever made. Almost half a millennia after realizing they weren't in India and they still call the natives Indians!!

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    6. Re:Thought that term had faded out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inuit is the general term more on the eastern part of Canada, as thats what the people there call themselves. Eskimo is the general term in western parts of Canada and Alaska as, well, thats what the people call themselves. It's just as much of a mistake to call all Ekimos Inuits as it is to call all Inuits Eskimos.

  7. Not surprising by Grayhand · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only thing I question is they are still sticking by the Clovis dogma and insisting that the two other waves were later. Why this has always been an issue is the oldest bones found were always very far south. It seemed South America and the southern US were populated before the Clovis migration. Even Clovis itself is questionable since Asians never made that type of point the only other place they were made was Europe. They are ignoring the likelihood that there were migrations earlier that have no decendants. Just look at things like native american long houses. They are the same as Viking ones. Odds are there were multiple migrations from Europe that were wiped out. There have been skeletons found that were potentially European but the local indian groups have always fought testing. Look at another one the Mound Builders. That definitely started in the UK and it coincidentally showed up later in the Eastern US. There are simply too many coincidences related to the northeast and Europe.

    1. Re:Not surprising by dewatf · · Score: 1

      The log houses are the same because that is the best way to make a log house out of those type of trees with an axe.

      When the Clovis people settled the sea level was lower so the coast areas they may have lived in the North are now on the sea floor. That has always been part of the Clovis theory.

    2. Re:Not surprising by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Informative

      The only thing I question is they are still sticking by the Clovis dogma and insisting that the two other waves were later.

      I think the field of anthropology is finally abandoning the Clovis-first model that was believed for so long. There have been too many anomalous findings that challenge it, mostly in the past 15-20 years I think.

      There's a pretty good summary of the evidence on Wikipedia, if you're interested.

      Interestingly, a bit further down in that article they mention a publication that firmly established a single-wave model. Looks like there's some reconciliation to be done.

      IMO the most interesting thing about settlement of the Americas is the whole haplotype X thing, which strongly suggests a genetic relation between the early peoples of northern North America and Europe or the Middle East. Though that fact is well established, I recommend skepticism when reading interpretations of what it means, because a lot of people take that ball and run a long way with it. However, as best I can tell it can't simply be dismissed as a parallel mutation, because of the way X is embedded down at a specific point in a whole tree of haplotypes.

      The problem is that any interpretation of what haplotypes mean tends to get very political very fast, especially with people who want to use it to support crank claims or religious/nationalist primacy fantasies.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Not surprising by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      making mounds and long houses are not unique to vikings and native americans

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:Not surprising by dasunt · · Score: 1

      IMO the most interesting thing about settlement of the Americas is the whole haplotype X thing, which strongly suggests a genetic relation between the early peoples of northern North America and Europe or the Middle East. Though that fact is well established, I recommend skepticism when reading interpretations of what it means, because a lot of people take that ball and run a long way with it. However, as best I can tell it can't simply be dismissed as a parallel mutation, because of the way X is embedded down at a specific point in a whole tree of haplotypes.

      Have the possibilities of an early European people moving east and then over Bering been ruled out? After all, Caucasians have been found everywhere from western Europe, to southern India, and Xinjiang.

      Then again, I suppose movement over the sea ice across the northern Atlantic is more probable.

      Could even be that the Europeans weren't as advanced as the Siberians. Say early Europeans went over the sea ice across the north Atlantic, settled in northeast North America. Later came people from Siberia with slightly better technology/organization/whatnot, came in conflict with the Euro-americans, vanquished them and allowed the women to live, while killing the men. (Not an uncommon occurrence in history.) Hence the X-haploid mtDNA survived.

      Then again, there are records of native Americans washing up on European shores. Why can't the reverse happen (although the currents don't favor it as much). Or perhaps its contamination from the Viking settlements. Who knows. Perhaps the European traits ended up having some sort of mystical or exotic appeal that made them more likely to be passed on.

      Its really interesting what DNA can and cannot tell us. Obviously genetics isn't everything, but it can help us track the flows of people. Combined with archaeological evidence, it also can give us a slightly clearer picture of what happened. Then again, it can open up a lot of unresolved questions.

    5. Re:Not surprising by Sperbels · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By this same line of reason we could conclude that the Olmecs, Mayans, and Aztecs were Egyptians because they built pyramids.

    6. Re:Not surprising by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Have the possibilities of an early European people moving east and then over Bering been ruled out?

      I don't think so. In fact, the map at the Wikipedia article seems to suggest that.

      Then again, I suppose movement over the sea ice across the northern Atlantic is more probable.

      I think that's the popular view. I don't know whether there's an established scholarly view. And I try to resist the urge to speculate, since I'm utterly unqualified.

      Its really interesting what DNA can and cannot tell us. Obviously genetics isn't everything, but it can help us track the flows of people. Combined with archaeological evidence, it also can give us a slightly clearer picture of what happened. Then again, it can open up a lot of unresolved questions.

      Precisely.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    7. Re:Not surprising by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      He said long houses not log houses.

    8. Re:Not surprising by dwye · · Score: 2

      Thor Heyerdahl, is that you?

    9. Re:Not surprising by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      By this same line of reason we could conclude that the Olmecs, Mayans, and Aztecs were Egyptians because they built pyramids

       
      ... and this same line of reason makes the Cambodians Egyptians !

      http://whgbetc.com/mind/pyramids-cambodia.html

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    10. Re:Not surprising by nut · · Score: 2

      He said long houses not log houses.

      GP's point is still valid though. Given similar materials and tools it's not unreasonable to theorise that two geographically separate cultures simply came up with the same general solution to the same problem.

      --
      Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
    11. Re:Not surprising by bjdevil66 · · Score: 0

      The problem is that any interpretation of what haplotypes mean tends to get very political very fast, especially with people who want to use it to support crank claims or religious/nationalist primacy fantasies.

      I'm LDS/Mormon, and I agree. Trying to use the evolving knowledge and understanding of DNA evidence to support or refute anything of a religious nature is a dangerous undertaking. Just a few years ago, people were saying there's no way anything in the Book of Mormon could be factual because of the preliminary findings. Now with this haplotype X information, there's DNA evidence that possibly supports it. If they're wise, the same Mormon apologists from a few years ago shouldn't turn it around and use the DNA evidence to support the religion, either. Who knows where this research will be 10 years from now.

      Besides, the spiritual foundation of a church member (of any Christian or Muslim faith, for that matter) is their personal faith or testimony (usually based in spiritual and life experience) - not in what scientist X thinks is true or proven at that point in time.

    12. Re:Not surprising by Disfnord · · Score: 1

      Oh my fucking god. How is this garbage moderated 5, Interesting?

  8. Waves?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sounds more like they arrived in a corpuscular fashion, perhaps in 3 discrete groups of particles. i.e. ships traveling across an ocean and hitting the shore each with a distinct 'thud'.

    1. Re:Waves?? by able1234au · · Score: 1

      maybe they existed in both sides of the ocean at the only time but only appeared in North America when we observed them? I heard they had a cat

  9. First nations by quenda · · Score: 5, Funny

    In a related announcement from Ottawa, Canadian Aboriginals will henceforth be known as "First, Second and Third Nations Peoples".

  10. Waves, yes. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny

    The earliest immigrants arrived in waves, more recent immigrants arrived in boats...

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Waves, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how much organic matter could a series of really big tsunamis bring on the shores. There is currently a significant amount of drift from Japan at the Alaskan coastline. The sea level was significantly lower during the last ice age, however.

    2. Re:Waves, yes. by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      The earliest immigrants arrived in waves, more recent immigrants arrived in boats...

      While the most recent immigrants are arriving in planes
       

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  11. Kinda Makes You Wonder... by IonOtter · · Score: 5, Funny

    Animals: What the heck are those thing...OHSHI-*thump* ARRRGH! *dies from rock to head*

    First Wave: Who they heck are those gu...OHSHI-*thunk* ARRGH! *dies from fire-hardened spear to the guts*

    Second Wave: Who the heck are those gu...OHSHI-*THOCK!* ARRGH! *dies from Clovis point to the chest*

    Third Wave: Who the heck are those gu...OHSHI-*BOOM!* ARRGH! *dies from musket ball*

    Makes you wonder what the next wave for us is going to look like?

    Probably something like: "What's that in the sk*FLASH! sizzle-pop*

    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:Kinda Makes You Wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An entire armada of extraterrestrials looking to take over the solar system? Like in ID4, never discount the possibility of highly intelligent locusts.

    2. Re:Kinda Makes You Wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Makes you wonder what the next wave for us is going to look like?"

      Fourth Wave: Who the heck are those gu...OHSHI-*BOOM!* ARRGH! *dies from carpet knife induced plane crash*

  12. They may have come in waves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...but they also behaved like particles.

    1. Re:They may have come in waves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 of ACs modpoints...

  13. Of course they came in waves, they where in Ships by Nexusone1984 · · Score: 1

    I am sure others see the humor in this stories title.

    LOL

  14. Re:sam by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    Hook up with biker enthusiast and friends on bikerwoo.com Our members come from all over the world. Meet up with thousands of local biker singles who ride on a Ducati, Harley, Triumph or BMW etc.

    Did the Triumph and BMW people arrive as a single wave, or are you saying that there were actually four waves of immigration?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  15. Re:Sciodiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I am never ceased to be amazed at seeing Scientists make "amazing discoveries" of what should be COMMON SENSE principals.

    Look -- the smaller something is, the more of it will exist, nothing ever happens all at once and no group of creatures have ever acted in a singular manner not repeated by others of their species.

    So yes-- people migrate in waves of herds just like any other animal. Assuming that humans are singular and only do something once is completely fucking retarded and there was never any evidence of it. Just look at South American and North American Indians -- they are wholely different ethic groups and most certainly not from the same herd migration.

    And yes -- life exists elsewhere in this solar system, maybe not intelligent, by there sure as fuck is bacteria to be found. And yes, there is intelligent life out there, but advanced life is far more rare than simple life like bacteria, and therefore harder to find -- Just as Suns are more rare than Planet -- oh, we DON'T KNOW THAT hurrrr durr, we need to find out if there are more planets than Stars -- durrrp.

    Why agree these concepts so damn difficult? Why can't we take these as solid theory instead of wild and insane concepts needing to be proven? We have enough empirical evidence of their likelihood that the questions should be to disprove these things.

    Assuming something in Nature is singular and non-repeating borders on the ignorance and close-mindedness of Religion.

    I don't think you understand how science in general, and science publishing in particular works, really.

    It's not that no one thought of it, it's that if you're going to publish it, you'd better have done your homework and have the data and analyses done to accompany your 'wouldn't it be great' or 'COMMON SENSE SUPREMACY!' point. Otherwise it's no better than alien pyramids.

  16. From 2009 "Earliest Americans took two paths" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090108/full/news.2009.7.html

  17. Who says they weren’t 1 wave of 3 *mixed* gr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just saying...

  18. This does no explain Clovis culture. by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

    Clovis culture is very European. Perhaps all Clovis people died out so there is no DNA evidence.

    1. Re:This does no explain Clovis culture. by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Clovis culture is very European.

      You're basing this on what? The shape of some arrowheads, right? I'd hardly call that a basis for such a bold statement.

    2. Re:This does no explain Clovis culture. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously their Time Machine, duh. When I used mine it was pretty obvious they were European.

    3. Re:This does no explain Clovis culture. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What are the odds of them choosing that name by chance? Well, eh?

      Charlemagne would have been a dead giveaway.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  19. Obviously impossible by Swampash · · Score: 2, Funny

    A migration from Siberia 15,000 years ago? I'm calling bullshit. If it happened, it would be in the Bible. And as if the Earth even existed 15,000 years ago!

    In conclusion, Jesus.

    1. Re:Obviously impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it would have been in the Bible, but for the records having been redacted at the Council of Nicea.

      It was at the behest of para-temporal travelers who were trying to conceal the activities of an ancestor whose abuse of the proto-Aryan people needed to be concealed for the shame it was.

  20. Re:Sciodiots by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am never ceased to be amazed at seeing Scientists make "amazing discoveries" of what should be COMMON SENSE principals.

    "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Albert Einstein.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  21. Re:Sciodiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

    2) Scientists choose what to study based on guesses and hunches. They then investigate it by running experiments. Well investigated ideas with significant supporting evidence are then termed "theories". This doesn't mean everything in it is 100% correct, but that it's more or less our best guess to date. Theories are not often thrown out completely (thought it does happen), but more typically refined like tasty tasty sugar.

    3) Recognize yourself from previous eras?

    "Of course heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones!"
    "Of course the earth is flat!"
    "Of course the sun goes around the earth!"
    "Of course smoking is good for you!"

    etc.

  22. Re:sam by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 3, Funny

    At least we could hear the Harley people coming from a few continents away.

    --
    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
  23. Re:Sciodiots by jheath314 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, there are examples of "one off" events in early human history, such as the migration out of Africa by a subset of the ancestral human population some 50,000 years ago.

    According to Nicolas Wade's fascinating book "Before the Dawn" (yes, the same Nicolas Wade from TFA), all the genetic evidence points to a single band of maybe 150 people leaving the rest of the ancestral human population behind in Africa, and populating all the rest of the world. Of course, the natural question is, why didn't other waves follow them in all the millennia since then?

    The answer is, in part, that the first migrants already blocked the exits. The original departure from Africa was less a migration than it was an expansion... individuals tended to live in roughly the area they were born, and it was only the ever-growing population numbers that drove the advancing wave of modern humans through Asia and Europe generation after generation. The modern humans had a strong advantage (probably language) over the archaic hominids already occupying the new lands, but the human population in Africa had no such advantage over their brethren once the first wave spread out past the Red Sea. Hence, the migration out of Africa appears to have been a one-time event of the type you so quickly derided as nonsense.

    --
    Procrastination Man strikes again!
  24. Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Earliest Americans arrived in waves?

    If they were the earliest, who the fuck were they waving at?

    1. Re:Wait, what? by TheABomb · · Score: 1

      The other spectators at the llamaliztli courts, followed shortly be the ones directly to their left.

      --
      MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
  25. Re:Sciodiots by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

    Every single thing you list in your post as "common sense" was once an amazing discovery that overturned the prevailing wisdom. Every. Single. Thing.

    If "hurrr durr durrrp" sums up your attitude toward science and the people who do it, just turn your computer off, throw away all your modern conveniences, go outside, and dig in the dirt for grubs. Try living without the benefits of thousands of years of very smart people working very hard to understand how the world works. We'll be here when you come crawling back.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  26. Earliest Americans Arrived In Waves, you say by TheInternetGuy · · Score: 1

    Earliest Americans Arrived In Waves, DNA Study Finds

    I think it would be safe to say that the Earliest Americans, arrived in the first wave. Yes?

    --
    If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
    1. Re:Earliest Americans Arrived In Waves, you say by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Wave zero. They're all Java zealots round here.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  27. Really? by sgunhouse · · Score: 1

    I thought the summary said "earliest"? We have bones that predate that quite substantially ...

  28. Blood types by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ya where I live you can't mention this because the whole mytho thing. Very annoying science is science.

    I recall reading (maybe 20-30 years ago) that blood types were significantly different between North American and South American natives. According to these maps, South and Central Americans are almost exclusively blood group O, while blood group A exists in North America, especially in arctic and subarctic regions. FYI, native Americans and East Asians often have Diego positive blood, whereas the rest of the world is exclusively Diego negative.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  29. how long has the Higgs Boson been in textbooks by decora · · Score: 0

    this whole situation is like rain on my wedding day.

  30. Duh! Indians arrived in waves. Well recorded. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 0
    The Indians came to USA in dribs and drabs till 1960s. That was the time the employment based visa rules allowed the first wave of doctors and engineers to immigrate. Once the doctor shortage was declared to be over by AMA, there was a wave of nurses in 1980s. Then engineers were coming in small numbers till 1990s. Then the IT boom and the Y2K scare created a wave of 130,000 H1B visas per year that went mostly to Indians. After it has been reduced to 65000, due to off shoring and local labor market improvements, the Indian immigration has slowed down considerably in recent years. It is so well recorded, why is it even published?

    Wait

    You talkin' about feathers not dots, right? oops.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  31. Nicholas Wade and trees. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
    The author of the article, Nicholas Wade, compares the inheritance and mutation trees of different things to deduce what happened in the prehistory. Actually professional scientists do it, and Wade makes it readable for others.

    In hist book, Before the Dawn, he describes the mutations in the parasite body louse (different from head louse) that lives of humans. From it you can build a tree of migration of human bands. You can also look at the mutations in Y chromosome. Or the mito-chondrial DNA. Or the language families and their inheritance traits.

    The most significant finding is that, all these lines of evidence agree. They don't contradict each other. And they are not very broad either so the concordance is significant. Other interesting things are, we started wearing clothes 75000 years ago. Body louse can live only in clothing, it split off from head louse 75000 years ago. There was a Y chromosome Adam, last common ancestors to all living humans about 75000 years ago. There was a mitochondrial eve, last common female ancestor who lived in Africa some 130000 years ago.

    I think he mentioned that dogs were domesticated in East Asia/Siberia some 20000 years ago. Did Amerindians have domesticated dogs? That would be a very interesting marker.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Nicholas Wade and trees. by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      Yes native americans had domesticated dogs, that is not something that couldnt have developed independently though. Dogs and cats probably domesticated themselves as an easy way to get food.Yes

  32. Re:Unless You Are Mitt Romney by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    the United States is very close to electing its first Mormon President.

    He couldn't be any worse than the Muslim one.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  33. Racial Theory meets Comedy Central. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Posting anon...

    The distant cousins of Turkish, and Turkic peoples of central Asia

    Can you please tell us just what you are trying to achieve here?

    Racial superiority of the Turks, or something like that??

    ^^ This. Ever since these "Turanian Theory" Lunatics discovered the Internet, they have been all over it (youtube, forums, etc) claiming the most inane shit, that everyone with the slightest physical characteristics of the so-called "North Mongoloid" type is a descendant of Turks. Yeniseans, Mongols, Tungus, Siberians, Japanese, Ainu, Native Americas, they all magically descend from the Blue Wolf clan (as if they were some fucking magical mother race that has existed unaltered from the beginning of time.)

    It gets worse when they pile up pseudo-science on top of it. It also gets funny when you see Turkic-speaking peoples of Turkey and Greater Iran calling their linguistic northern brethren (Kazakhs or Altay) ugly epithets like "mongol monkeys" (and viceversa with the later calling the former "Turkic speaking Persians/Greeks".)

    Racial Theory meets Comedy Central.

    1. Re:Racial Theory meets Comedy Central. by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      Ever since these "Turanian Theory" Lunatics discovered the Internet, they have been all over it (youtube, forums, etc) claiming the most inane shit, that everyone with the slightest physical characteristics of the so-called "North Mongoloid" type is a descendant of Turks. Yeniseans, Mongols, Tungus, Siberians, Japanese, Ainu, Native Americas, they all magically descend from the Blue Wolf clan (as if they were some fucking magical mother race that has existed unaltered from the beginning of time.)

       
      I do not understand those "Turanian" lunatics either
       
      The truth is, today's Iranian stock is not the same as that of the Turks
       
      In fact, the bloodline of Iranian is more closer to that of the Jews than the Turks
       
      It is because of the Assyrian civilization, which occupies much of the northern portion of the Mesopotamian basin some 6,000 to 7,000 years ago - leaving the lower portion to another tribe of people, whose descendants, those who migrated to the South, became the Jews; those who migrated to the East, became the Persians (Iranians); those who migrated to the North, became the Armenians
       
      While there may be some mixing among the Jews / Arabs / Persians throughout the millennia, there are still some stark differences in between the Arab / Turk / Central Asian stock and those of the Iranians, the Jews and the Armenians - both culturally and in the level of cognitive agility
       

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  34. Back in the early 70s.... by MEK · · Score: 1

    ... when studying anthropology -- in college and grad school -- the three wave theory seemed to already be commonly accepted. And Eskimos have been recognized as belonging to a separate wave forever (or almost so). This testing may be new and useful because it provides additional confirmation of a long-standing theory -- but it does not amount to any sort of new theory as to the population of the americas from Siberia.

    --
    Credo quia impossibilis -- Tertullian
  35. haplotypes alone don't suggest geographical origin by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2

    Have the possibilities of an early European people moving east and then over Bering been ruled out? After all, Caucasians have been found everywhere from western Europe, to southern India, and Xinjiang.

    It is a possibility, but it is one best confirmed with an archeological/anthropological find, not one via haplotypes. The reason for this, and using haplotype X as an example, is as follows (a pausible theory):

    Some population X (called so because they carry haplotype X) at some point migrated somewhere in Asia, and from there split into several groups, of which two survived long enough for their genetic contribution to persist to the present day. One moved Westward and contributed their version of haplotype X into what would constitute the "European" gene pool. The other moved Eastward and contributed their own version of haplotype X into "some" of the Siberian immigrants that would survive and become "some" of the Paleo-Indians.

    Other splinter and distinct populations from the original population X might have existed across Eurasia and the Americas, with their generic contribution nixed off the generic pool.

    For all we know, haplotype X could have originated from, say, a splinter group of Australoids that went North, separated from the rest who were on their way to South Asia and eventually Australia. And the splinter group developed haplotype X (or haplotype X became extinct among the other Australoids.) The splinter group then became intermixed with some of the Eurasian population that would give birth to the the so-called "Caucasian" and "Mongoloid" populations. I'm pulling this out of my ass, but this would also be possible.

    Heck, what if haplotype X is of Neanderthal or Denisovan stock. The former is almost certain to have intermixed with early Eurasians (before the Caucasian-Mongoloid split), or at least with the European/Middle Eastern precursors. The later is known (via DNA analysis) to have left a genetic heritage among the Melanesian people.

    Or what if haplotype X were to come from a yet undiscovered hominid (neither Neanderthal or Denisovan)?

    So the point of all this speculative soup is that we cannot ascertain a Caucasoid/European origin to haplotype X just by looking at the haplotype alone. You will need:

    1. some archaeological evidence (artifacts known to be, or being closely related to an "European" origin far east in Siberia or the Americas dating on or prior the peopling of the Americas, or
    2. some anthropological evidence, a fossil that is clearly of a "European" stock and with DNA evidence suggesting it being closer to the root of haplotype X (or the fossil being old enough to assume primogeniture... for lack of a better word.)

    I for one find the Solutrean hypothesis of Ice Age people migrating from Europe into Eastern North America (by walking/kayaking their way along the North Atlantic Ice Sheet) very tantalizing. Hey, it could be feasible (if people were able to boat their way to Australia 50-60K years ago, why not this?) But it is one that needs archaeological evidence.

  36. Truly marvelous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The way creation works always astonishes me. We have three waves, but, in six days, God created the earth and the heavens! And people! While this seems like mystery, my faith shows me how it makes perfect sense! This looks just like the Holy Trinity, you know? Where we have the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but still one God, the Lord.

  37. Re:Sciodiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    populations tend to expand as a balloon, each generation further out from the center, until it meets fence. there it changes to a bubble shape, after all who can make a square balloon, but can generate a odd shaped bubble. So the first generation had its followers, and needed more land to gather on, they moved to the next square. It's no a migration of peoples, but an expansion of peoples. One of the latest ideas is maybe applibicle, the humanoid from china, the humanoid from south america could also have been.
    Next, there are many places where we have not looked, covered with permafrost, or ice now, remember it was not always so. It may have started there. and we are seeing the sign of previous expansions. how many expansions have been here?

  38. Unintended *GROAN* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Archaeologists who study Native American history are glad to have the genetic data but also have reservations

  39. Evidence for Genocide by fadethepolice · · Score: 1

    Since there is an increasing wealth of archeological sites that predate 15,000 years ago it seems these people must have eliminated the original native inhabitants of the americas.

  40. Must be a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The earliest Americans arrived via the land bridge -- specifically NOT via waves.

    1. Re:Must be a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One if by land, two if by sea?

  41. Re:Unless You Are Mitt Romney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the United States is very close to electing its first Mormon President.

    He couldn't be any worse than the Muslim one.

    Yes, he can be very much worse. Especially if he has a Republican congress backing him.

  42. Re:Sciodiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In "The Ancestor's Tale" Richard Dawkins references a reconstruction based on DNA evidence involving lots of genes by Alan Templeton. Templeton named his theory "Out of Africa Again and Again". Templeton found three major migrations from Africa, followed by a major migration into Africa, and in between there were small migrations going on all the time.

  43. Re:Unless You Are Mitt Romney by g8oz · · Score: 1

    -1 wackjob

  44. Assume spherical immigrants... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

    ...of uniform density, in a frictionless vacuum....

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  45. that ain't the Queen's English by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    Americans speak distinctive dialects.

    1. Re:that ain't the Queen's English by r1348 · · Score: 1

      So do the British, within British borders.