• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

The First Native American Settlers May Not Have Entirely Been Who We Had Thought

Discussion in 'Non-Mainstream and Controversial Science' started by Contenders Edge, Nov 19, 2020.

  1. Contenders Edge

    Contenders Edge Well-Known Member Supporter

    +339
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +15,101
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
  3. Strathos

    Strathos No one important

    +4,309
    Christian
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I thought that "white" people (and what we would recognize as other modern ethnic groups) didn't even exist back then.
     
  4. Ophiolite

    Ophiolite Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

    +6,793
    United Kingdom
    Agnostic
    Private
    A couple of comments:
    • It has not changed my understanding of how to service petrol driven lawnmowers.
    • Standford's hypothesis, dealt with in the third link andmentioned in the first, dates to at least 2012 and his publication of Across the Atlantic Ice with Bruce Bradley. Hardly news.
    • I share @Speedwell 's reservations about the tone of the first source.
    • The author of the first source seems to think, erroneously, that
      • Races are fixed in character
      • Mixing between races is surprising
      • Prior understanding of pre-history North America was solid and undisputed
    • And, as expansion on the last point, this topic is a moving target. I would expect another fifty years of research might clear much of it up and give us real insight into who the Clovis people were.
     
  5. Bungle_Bear

    Bungle_Bear Whoot!

    +2,563
    Agnostic
    Married
    Did I somehow miss the part where it said the baby was actually white? I thought it said she was more akin to Europeans, but there is debate about when their skin colour became fixed.
     
  6. Contenders Edge

    Contenders Edge Well-Known Member Supporter

    +339
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    What was so racist about my source? Which source? I have two listed in my end notes.
     
  7. Contenders Edge

    Contenders Edge Well-Known Member Supporter

    +339
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others

    While Thema News did say that the DNA of the baby discovered indeed appeared to be largely of European descent, it did go on to say that it still possessed genetic evidence of also being descended from Asiatic people groups, thus suggesting that the two groups of people did indeed intermarry and thus had migrated to the Americas within roughly the same time period.
     
  8. Contenders Edge

    Contenders Edge Well-Known Member Supporter

    +339
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others

    Discoveries like this also suggest that man became ethnically diverse much more rapidly than what was first believed. If that is the case, what does that say about pace of variation amongst other life forms?
     
  9. Contenders Edge

    Contenders Edge Well-Known Member Supporter

    +339
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others

    I did not get the impression that the author of the news item thought that races were fixed or that mixing between races cannot occur. What was it about the piece that gave you that impression? As for mainstream understanding about the history of North America, it cannot be denied that the belief that Asiatic peoples were the first to arrive in North America has been held almost unanimously amongst scientists, historians, archaeologists, and anthropologists, and that they established themselves in Alaska and spread throughout the Americas from there although I have personally found that to be doubtful.

    But it is discoveries like those reported by Thema News and the UK based Guardian that can potentially change everything we thought we knew and overthrow even unanimously held beliefs regarding science and history.

    As for what another fifty years of research might uncover, anything is possible.
     
  10. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +15,101
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    It's statements like this that are problematic:

    "They have believed for generations that they were the first to discover the Americas and that the white man, in most cases, stole the land from them, but now what must they be thinking when confronted with the possibility, that maybe, they were not the sole owners of the Americas after all, but that white people also had shared in the ownership as well at one time in history?"

    Giving the impression that the author believes that the "ownership" of North America is some kind of racial contest.
     
  11. Contenders Edge

    Contenders Edge Well-Known Member Supporter

    +339
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others

    That is not a racist statement. It is an acknowledgement of a virtually unanimously held and the challenges to which discoveries that the cited news items report do pose and which could potentially change what we thought we knew about history. The author has not written or said anything about the ownership of America being a racial contest, but if, as the reported discoveries suggest, not all of the first settlers on the continent were of Asiatic origin, then so be it.

    There is nothing racist about it. No one is being condemned, put down, or judged on the basis of their ethnicity or skin color in either the blogpost or the cited news items.
     
  12. Bungle_Bear

    Bungle_Bear Whoot!

    +2,563
    Agnostic
    Married
    Did you understand my post? You didn't answer my question. Allow me to repeat - where was the claim that the baby had white skin? Or even that European people necessarily had white skin at that time?
     
  13. Contenders Edge

    Contenders Edge Well-Known Member Supporter

    +339
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    What other skin color would they have had? Perhaps you missed the part where the item stated that the baby possessed genetic evidence showing it to have descended from a lineage different from the Asiatic peoples who migrated there as well?
     
  14. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +5,504
    Atheist
    It seems to me that simply describing the situation in terms of skin colour has racist overtones. The skin tones of these groups are not relevant to the various ways they migrated, any more than their height or the width of their noses.

    If the description was about the cultures of these groups, then appearance, including skin colour, might well be relevant (to the way they interacted and described each other).
     
  15. Contenders Edge

    Contenders Edge Well-Known Member Supporter

    +339
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    No one is claiming that skin color was relevant to methods of migration. The point about the discoveries reported in the cited news items contained in the blogpost is that even unanimously held beliefs can be overthrown by new discoveries which in this case involve discoveries that show that migrants to the Americas may have been more ethnically diverse than previously thought and that man became ethnically diverse at a more rapid pace than what has been believed by many, and if a wave of white people, as genetic evidence suggests, did indeed migrate to North America roughly around the same time as Asiatic people before the Vikings and Columbus discovered the continent, then that is just simply acknowledging a fact previously unknown. There is nothing racist about that, but what should be discussed is how this affects what we know about history.
     
  16. Bungle_Bear

    Bungle_Bear Whoot!

    +2,563
    Agnostic
    Married
    When an article includes such claims as "more genetically identical with white [bolding mine] Europeans" and then relies on that claim for racist overtones, the question is "who said they were white"? There is uncertainty about whether or not Europeans had fixed skin colour 20,000 years ago. So where is the support for the claim they were white?
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2020
  17. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +5,504
    Atheist
    If it's not relevant, I wouldn't expect to see it in such a text.

    A 'wave of white people'? I thought you said colour wasn't relevant?

    Do we know how pigmented the various groups were? Is it important?
     
  18. Lost4words

    Lost4words Jesus I Trust In You Supporter

    +7,758
    United Kingdom
    Catholic
    Single
    The stone age boat sank immediately as the granite used was not a good material to float on water! :p
     
  19. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +15,101
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    "I may not be a Native American, but it is discoveries like this that can really knock you flat on your butt and overturn everything you were taught in school and college. It can change everything you thought you knew about history and if news and discoveries like this are mind-blowing enough to someone who is white, what must it be like for someone who is Native American and being is confronted with information like this? What must be going through their mind?

    They have believed for generations that they were the first to discover the Americas and that the white man, in most cases, stole the land from them, but now what must they be thinking when confronted with the possibility, that maybe, they were not the sole owners of the Americas after all, but that white people also had shared in the ownership as well at one time in history?"


    What is probably going through their mind is that it doesn't make a bit of difference to history. The fact is, that modern Europeans stole the land from its inhabitants and the previous migration of individuals from Europe during the stone age doesn't justify it as the author of that article is trying to suggest..
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  20. Contenders Edge

    Contenders Edge Well-Known Member Supporter

    +339
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others

    If genetic evidence suggests some of the ancient migrants who first settled in America were of a different ethnicity and lineage than that of the other peoples who also migrated here, then why would it be unreasonable, base on that evidence, to assume that they did not all share the same physical features which do include skin, eye, and hair color?

    And again, you have not shown how the news items are being racist. They are just reporting scientific, archaeological, and anthropological discoveries that could potentially change the way we look at history. You keep asking for support for the claim that some of these migrants were white when the genetic evidence uncovered and analyzed should have just settled that argument.

    It would be one thing to argue against a baseless claim, but you are not arguing against a baseless claim. You are arguing against science itself. If you can produce something suggesting that ancient Europeans were not white, then that would be one thing. But you haven't.

    And finally, I do not believe that man started out with a fixed skin color. He, like all other forms of life, possessed in himself the genetic potential for variation and as he began to spread out from his place of origin, humanity became much more diversified and distinct ethnic groups began to arise much more rapidly than what has been believed and, just like with any other life form, if a people become isolated enough long enough, they will begin to exhibit physical features that set them apart from the rest of the people from whom they have been isolated and thus become a distinct ethnic group possessing distinct hair, eye, and skin color, and even other physical characteristics not necessarily exhibited in other ethnic groups as the genetic potential to produce offspring displaying any traits different than what that particular ethnic group ends up possessing becomes lost until that ethnic group begins to intermarry with people of other ethnic groups.

    It has been undeniably a widely held belief that as the different ethnic groups became established that they had not come into contact with one another for thousands of years, but the discoveries reported by the Thema and Guardian news items seem to prove the point that the different and distinct ethnic groups that arose did not remain as isolated from one another as has been commonly believed but that they continued to interact with another, live side by side with one another at times, and in some cases, even intermarry.
     
Loading...