You think that human developments didn’t occur in the Americas before European came in?
Dandelions are a very human centric plant which makes sense that they traveled with humans as they traveled around the globe. This travel could be accidental or brought on purpose like many other different plants.
No, they are saying that it would be strange for them to be native here, like how apples are not native here.
They are saying that they would be interested to see the archeological evidence that backs up the oral tradition, because oral tradition is a great way to start your research, but is insufficient as evidence for a scientific claim. Just like how (since we’re talking about European arrivals in the americas) I can say that there’s oral tradition that St. Brendan landed in america in the 6th century. However, since there’s fuck all to support it, that’s not a very convincing claim, but it sure would be interesting if someone discovered archeological evidence for it. The Icelanders claimed to have landed in america for hundreds of years with oral tradition, and few believed them because there was fuck all to support the claim. Then, all of a sudden, they find remnants of viking settlements in Canada, and now its very interesting.
You specifically cited DNA evidence. Then, when someone asked about it, you immediately accused them of European exceptionalism in a ridiculous strawman. So, either your claim can be very interesting, since it’s backed by archeological evidence, or I can treat it with the same amount of credibility as St. Brendan over there in his leather raft.
You think that human developments didn’t occur in the Americas before European came in?
Dandelions are a very human centric plant which makes sense that they traveled with humans as they traveled around the globe. This travel could be accidental or brought on purpose like many other different plants.
No, they are saying that it would be strange for them to be native here, like how apples are not native here.
They are saying that they would be interested to see the archeological evidence that backs up the oral tradition, because oral tradition is a great way to start your research, but is insufficient as evidence for a scientific claim. Just like how (since we’re talking about European arrivals in the americas) I can say that there’s oral tradition that St. Brendan landed in america in the 6th century. However, since there’s fuck all to support it, that’s not a very convincing claim, but it sure would be interesting if someone discovered archeological evidence for it. The Icelanders claimed to have landed in america for hundreds of years with oral tradition, and few believed them because there was fuck all to support the claim. Then, all of a sudden, they find remnants of viking settlements in Canada, and now its very interesting.
You specifically cited DNA evidence. Then, when someone asked about it, you immediately accused them of European exceptionalism in a ridiculous strawman. So, either your claim can be very interesting, since it’s backed by archeological evidence, or I can treat it with the same amount of credibility as St. Brendan over there in his leather raft.