Buddy, you’re taking it a little personal. Nothing what I said is untrue: there IS NO genetic evidence as far as the mound builders go. Your links do not include any sort of analyses of genetic material from any of these supposed giants.
I didn't give you links, I gave you names. Both bodies of work are more extensive than my preference to type.
By the late 1870s, however, scholarly research led by Cyrus Thomas (1825–1910) of the Smithsonian Institution and Frederick Ward Putnam (1839–1915) of the Peabody Museum reported conclusive evidence that there was no physical difference between the people buried in the mounds and modern Native Americans. Subsequent DNA research has proven that time and again. Scholars then and today recognized that the ancestors of modern Native Americans were responsible for all of the prehistoric mound constructions in North America.
Wow, you just quoted a website that barely summarized a Smithsonian researcher that died more than 50 years before any sort of basic research into DNA, let alone discovery of haplogroupjng and mRNA analysis. You didn’t even check the links that your website is quoting. Do better than accusing others of being ignorant just because you found a random website with horrible sources for their “debunk” claims. Fucking idiot.
Wow, you just refused TWICE to look shit up on your own. Then you complained when sources were spoon fed to you.
Do better with your ignorant methods attempting to keep your ignorance rather than being open minded enough, and caring enough to do more than nay say topics that you don't understand, and clearly dont care enough to learn enough to understand.
It is currently ILLEGAL to touch native graves. That means all legal methods have to be from the past. Too bad you enjoy your ignorance more than learning.
You do understand that genomic analysis has not been possible until the 1980’s, right…? And you Do understand that nothing you’ve quoted includes any sort of DNA analysis, right…?
So you see how you look quoting a website that has the word “debunk” with respect to a study published in 1895 from the Smithsonian, right?
Not only is my comment not speculation, I cited two amazingly extensive sources that I've spent weeks learning from.
Your ignorant comment moments later speaks poorly of your willingness to learn.
Buddy, you’re taking it a little personal. Nothing what I said is untrue: there IS NO genetic evidence as far as the mound builders go. Your links do not include any sort of analyses of genetic material from any of these supposed giants.
I didn't give you links, I gave you names. Both bodies of work are more extensive than my preference to type.
https://www.thoughtco.com/moundbuilder-myth-history-and-death-171536
What you said was wrong, and rather than trying to learn, you chose to stay wrong.
https://www.edgarcayce.org/the-readings/ancient-mysteries/ancient-dna-research/
Wow, you just quoted a website that barely summarized a Smithsonian researcher that died more than 50 years before any sort of basic research into DNA, let alone discovery of haplogroupjng and mRNA analysis. You didn’t even check the links that your website is quoting. Do better than accusing others of being ignorant just because you found a random website with horrible sources for their “debunk” claims. Fucking idiot.
Wow, you just refused TWICE to look shit up on your own. Then you complained when sources were spoon fed to you.
Do better with your ignorant methods attempting to keep your ignorance rather than being open minded enough, and caring enough to do more than nay say topics that you don't understand, and clearly dont care enough to learn enough to understand.
It is currently ILLEGAL to touch native graves. That means all legal methods have to be from the past. Too bad you enjoy your ignorance more than learning.
You do understand that genomic analysis has not been possible until the 1980’s, right…? And you Do understand that nothing you’ve quoted includes any sort of DNA analysis, right…? So you see how you look quoting a website that has the word “debunk” with respect to a study published in 1895 from the Smithsonian, right?