08 Dec 2017, 07:49 #74
> Australia wasn't visible on the horizon. There seems to be no genetic evidence of serious inbreeding (they are genetically very diverse, in fact) so it wasn't just an Adam and Eve situation; a lot of people ferried over. For that to be the case, it suggests a people who were able to navigate on the open sea at least far enough to discover the continent and then to purposely migrate there.
You have demonstrated you haven't considered all the evidence and have also violated your own statement above:
20 Nov 2017, 20:30 #1
> People are curious and push on to explore what is around them. What's over the next hill or around the bend?
I'm not a biologist, nor do I spend much time reading biology journals, but there are several tests that can refute the no "inbreeding" (evident today) must have equaled a large original population. DNA can indeed determine the last of the Neanderthals were seriously inbred. If you are going extinct, you are in a *declining* population mode and bad things happen. Not so for Australia, which had an *expanding* population over time. This, in my worthless biological opinion, suggests the bad effects from inbreeding were being weeded out over the immense amount of time (ca 50 to 60 thousand years). I might be wrong, but what little I know about biology is shored up by a comparrison of on-the-ground differences between Australia and Tasmania (assumed to be from the same parent population).
Test 1: compare the differences between Australia, Flinders Island, and Tasmania and note the differences between animal species, language, and cultural innovations. This shows that Tasmania was cut off from contact with the outside world for roughly 10,000 years, while the most parsimonious evidence shows Australia did have limited contact during this time. Microlithic tools, the dingo, and boats only show up after the 8000-year-old evidence for crude dugouts in the record. Could the dingo have gotten to Australia by flotsam? Sure, but are they inbred? Microliths could have been reinvented, but I don't think many will claim dogs were reinvented, at least in Australia. Both are missing from Tasmania and only show up in Australia after the 8000-year-rubicon (real boats in the archaeological record) had been crossed.
If boats (out-of-sight capable navigating) were known for 60,000 years and were so important (especially sea-going boats capable of navigating out of sight of land), how did Tasmania get cut off in either going to or having visitors from the mainland for 10k years? They both just happened to forget how to sail out of sight of land and both forgot where their own relatives were located? Give me a break. "POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC" (Thanks Hemmings!).
"People are curious and push on to explore what is around them. What's over the next hill or around the bend?" Which would mean that Australians and Tasmanians weren't curious for (60,000- 8000) 52,000 years. Meanwhile, after dugouts were in the record, curious modern humans exploded all over the seas, yep, even to Hawaii and Easter Island post 8000...but not until.
The only reasonable explanation for the paradoxes, between Tasmania and Australia, can only be explained by the hypothesis that *neither* Australians or Tasmanians had boats of any kind (well, maybe two logs lashed together), let alone ocean navigating types, more than ca. 10,000 years ago.
Test 2: Will Loren Davis and Jon Erlandson please step into this boat
http://www.surfresearch.com.au/rbRoth_A ... 9_p156.jpg
and navigate to Hawaii from Gwaii Haanas. Thanks in advance, I will be anxiously awaiting your peer-reviewed paper documenting your voyage.
http://www.history.com/news/dna-study-f ... vilization
I have a number of paper copies from the professional peer-reviewed papers on Australia and Tasmania, but for a really good online layperson's review, I doubt if it gets much better than this:
http://discovermagazine.com/1993/mar/te ... ndyears189