2017-11-08 21:35:23 UTC
a brief, warm pause between two glaciations.
Now the conventional, dumb hypothesis is
that humans arrived here in the Americas
at the start of this interglacial, when
the ice was receding but there was still
enough of it keep sea levels low, and a
land bridge open. But...
This all happened before!
Before our interglacial was a glacial period,
right? And before that glacial period was
another interglacial, an earlier interglacial
where all the same circumstances existed. And
before THAT was yet another glacial period
preceded by yet another interglacial... and
so on & so forth.
So why wouldn't humans have come over at
the start of any of those other, earlier
interglacials? Why only during this one?
There may actually be a reason for it. I'm
not saying that there isn't one. But what I
am saying is that WITHOUT A REASON to stop
humans from coming here, even archaic types,
then we have to assume that they did.
Isn't that logical?
...if there was nothing stopping them from
coming here, they should have come here.
That *Is* logical.
It makes sense.
It is the single most safest, most conservative,
most likely answer; if there was nothing stopping
them from coming here, they had to come here.
So why does paleoanthropology insist on the
Either something was stopping humans from coming
to the Americas at the start of the previous
interglacial, or they came here.