DNA from chicken bone shows Polynesians found South America

You know, most of the people on this site with tens of thousands of responses, in my opinion, let me phrase this to be kind, are here because they are either lonely, loony, or such egotistical idiots (and I use the term idiot in it's true cognitive sense) they can't find anyone who can stand them long enough in real life to hold a conversation with. Sorry that's as nice as I could manage. Not in all cases but in LOTS of cases. I just wanted to let you know, for what it is worth, I think you are one of the refreshing exceptions.

You're like a well read friend who happens by with a great article (on just about any and every subject) he just read and wants to share. Your habit of only adding your own thoughts to questions or correspondence from others rather than using the article just to start an ex cathedra process of propounding your superior knowledge on the subject is also rare and well appreciated. I almost exclusively read this site for comic relief. Your posts never strike me that way. Just thought I ought to say that.

Relative to the article: I would have been a little dubious of this. I always thought the theory was a stretch because of the probable process of the population of the Pacific from Asia. But if this turns out to be correct the dates seem to fit extremely well with when this would most probably have to have happened.

It has been obvious for many decades that the Pacific was populated from Asia but the question of reaching S.A. has been stubbornly recalcitrant.

Thor Hierdal's ideas were intriguing, probably possible (as he demonstrated), and obviously never happened.

TheCorrectResponse
TheCorrectResponse, thank you for your interest and your kind words. They took me by surprise because I get constant complaints from many posters who don't like my cut and paste articles that are of interest to me. Unfortunately, I've had a life long habbit of wanting to share information with others to get their opinions. My main reason is to provide conversation opportunities to keep A2K interesting instead of posts filled with boring nit picking debates of verbal combat that evently kill a thread.

Re the article, I'm glad someone saved their chicken bones to leave them to us to learn more about our planet. I've always though Columbus was a "Johnny-come-lately."

BBB

Do you mean Thor Heyerdahl TheCorrectResponse? http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/before-columbus.html

Apparently Phoenecians discovered America (sorry, its not on topic, but it is related). In my mind it is quite clear that Europeans weren't the first to "discover" America (that is, the North and South continents), the questions is who were the first people to discover it?

QUINCY:

Yes I meant Heyerdahl, I just knew BBB would know who I was talking about, wouldn't be pedantic, and so didn't take the time to look up the name. Hurray, after 34 of my posts you finally found a grammar/spelling error to point out, congratulations.

The Phoenicians: Oh for Christ's sake! I would go into detail based on pottery, linguistics, genetics, etc. that diffusion could ONLY have come from Asia via island hopping as to why this idea was put to bed years and years ago but what would be the use? They may not have made it all the way to the Americas, but the new evidence that BBB's post is about means they may have, but it certianly wasn't the Phen. This is the standard conclusion by experts who spent years researching the subject and so would be by definition: wrong. You just can't believe ANY standard theory. The Phoenicians discovered America just like special relativity is wrong, general relativity is wrong, quantum theory is wrong, Astronomers are wrong. It never seems to get old with you does it? Just because someone can "Google" a topic and then comment on it is irrelevant. It would carry a little more weight if your posts didn't show that you do not have a very good grasp of the concepts that you disagree with. Sorry: of the concepts with which you disagree.

Here is an example. This is the basic equation of one of the concepts in astronomy you seem to have a problem with. Please explain what is wrong with it and what changes you would make to correct its flaws.





It is a very well know, ubiquitous equation and anyone with the depth of knowledge that your concerns show would recognize in an instant. Of course the problem is it is not in pros so it would be a little tricky to "Google Up". Makes it a bit harder to find fault huh?

Here is another thing you won't believe. In your "Astrology" post…That astrology, or more correctly, ASTRONOMY has played a role in much of the basis of religion is NOT new. To provide one specific, it was used to explain the mystery of the Mithraism mystery religion. It was their discovery of the precession of the equinoxes that their religion was based and which explains the iconography of the Tauroctony. I would recommend the principal book on the subject "The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries" by David Ulansey to you. But since this is about 20 years old by now and generally considered the correct interpretation of Mithraism I'm sure you wouldn't believe it. You could also read Sir James Frazer 18 volume "The Golden Bough"; THE seminal work on mythology.

You know, I have a couple of fields in which I have a great deal of knowledge, a few in which I have a lot of knowledge, a lot in which I have, at best general knowledge, and most in which I know practically nothing. It is only on sites like A2K where 95% of the people are experts on any and everything and all of the real experts are, amazingly, wrong.

It's a good thing the experts are spending their time on A2K, I doubt even Princeton could afford them all in their advanced studies program.

So Quincy this is for you: You are correct, all of standard physics and chemistry is wrong. Astronomers are idiots and the Phoenicians discovered America; flown here on Erich von Däniken's "Chariots of the Gods". As I assume he was a bit before your time I looked up the name to make it easier to "Google"

BBB:
Sorry to use your post for a rant but it just gets me sometimes. This would have been a nice topic to discuss but you see how quickly it would have gone off on a ridiculous tangent. I really don't even dislike Quincy ( I'm guessing he is still young) but I just get so much of this from clients and from students (when I'm stupid enough to agree to teach as an adjunct). And blowing off steam in those situations is not professional and relative to a client can cost me some coin. Hang in there. I just don't have the energy for this!

Obviously those living there. How can you discover some place which has inhabitants? This shows great disrespect for the natives of the land as if they were animals to be discovered.

Jeezus TheCorrectResponse, did your granny die and your husband leave you?