“Even a fleeting look at a map”
Like the fleeting look you had before while you were disagreeing with me, only to later state the same thing I had already said!

Improvements in technology have always allowed groups with the improvement to expand their range. For example we know that historically improvements in technology allowed the Polynesian expansion, and the evidence can easily be interpreted to indicate that progressive improvements had led to an earlier series of expansions through and from Southeast Asia.

“I invite you to tell me what, apart from changes in sea level, is different in the region today than what it was 30,000 years ago.”
Look at the map and tell me the land bridges aren’t there and I’ll tell you to look again. There was alot more land 30000 years bp than there is now, its that simple.

Unless you have anything further to add that tells me you are now really reading what I am saying or sheds new light on this discussion by showing me you are taking it seriously I will no longer respond. I know I have already said something similar but I had to respond to your wild assumptions.

Regarding the original comment I made that you take such exception to; I assumed you would be a southern coastal migration theory acceptor because you seemed to believe in a single origin for modern humans. The southern coastal migration theory seems to be a required belief for those people who believe in a single origin, including many who are actually creationists.

Yes I do now about the Chromosome dstribution, so what?

“The landforms of 30,000 years ago were much the same as today. Basically only sea level was different, although this led to vegetation changes.
Oh is that right, well all those maps that show PNG and Tasmania being connected to Australia are incorrect are they? Sorry TerryT but you know for a fact that Australia was not the same as it was 30000 years bp. Yet another instance of you saying something you know to be incorrect.

“So, as far as I can tell, you are now prepared to accept there were a series of movements into Australia at various times. Great.”
Your a crack up, or are you just being silly. Stop reading things into my words that I haven’t said and start reading my words as they are. I never said I accept that theory, I have said it s a theory and it is an old one.

Sorry to disappoint you TerryT but I have had enough of this, your attitude here is not good, your penchant to twist things in a discussion is childish, and your lack of a coherent discussion by chopping and changing is just plain annoying.

The landforms of 30,000 years ago were much the same as today. Basically only sea level was different, although this led to vegetation changes.

So, as far as I can tell, you are now prepared to accept there were a series of movements into Australia at various times. Great.

Thank you for agreeing with me that the landforms 30000 years bp would have been totally different than what the are now, you have just vindicated my discussion for me, so very kind of you.

“according to Wikipedia”
OMG, you use Wikipedia for something like this? I’d love to see a university lecturers face if they saw a bibliography entry forWikipedia in an assignment past Anthropology 101.

Enough said.

“the Red Sea was nothing like it is now, in fact the straits we have now did not exist as they did then”. True, but again the shape of the underlying geological formations have changed little. Lowered sea level certainly forms several virtually land-locked, inter-connected, island-studded seas in Southeast Asia. The main one being the South China Sea, connected through narrow channels to the Suluwesi and Celebes Seas. The Andaman Sea forms another relatively land-locked sea at times of lowered sea level.

Further north the Sea of Japan also becomes virtually land-locked at such times. In fact there seems to have been periodic connections and exchange between the northern and southern land-locked seas. Lowered sea level extends the mainland coastline between Taiwan and Japan substantially east towards the Ryukyu Islands.

It is quite possible to interpret various lines of evidence as indicating all these regions have been tied up with various genetic expansions at various times. For example Y-chromosome C*, according to Wikipedia, is found: “throughout the Philippines, Indonesia, and Micronesia”, around the shore of the South China Sea. It is also: “found at low frequencies along the southern coast of Asia from India to Vietnam and into the interior of Yunnan province in China”. And: “Haplogroup C* Y-chromosomes have also been detected, but only at even lower frequencies, among populations of coastal New Guinea and island Melanesia”. However derivatives of C* are spread further afield.

“I have been studying Polynesian origins for more that 20 years. In order to understand that origin it’s necessary to study the even earlier prehistory in the region. Therefore, yes, I do have a lot of knowledge on the subject.”
Well done, I applaud your persistence. However, I must say that even though you say you have done this how do know your not just joking around again and basically saying things you don’t believe?

“Most seem to believe that’s what happened in spite of there being no evidence for it so I was demonstrating how illogical generally accepted views of the first settlement of Australia are.”
Most? Have you got statistics on this? What I am demonstrating here in my post is how illogical your discussion is. The best way to be convincing is to not contradict yourself, or claim you were just joking.

“Sea level has gone up and down, leading to climate change (expanding and contracting deserts and forest) but the shape of the land masses has changed very little. And I checked a better map.”
Hmmmm, well then, you should also realize by now that the Red Sea was nothing like it is now, infact the straits we have now did not exist as they did then. Furthermore if there was a water course from the Indian Ocean into the Red Sea it would have been through a channel that was very shallow and not very wide at all. To make an even finer point on it, shipping movements only occur in the Red Sea currently because of the trenching and blasting that is done to allow the freighters through. Now you cannot tell me that the freighters have 160 metres below water level and it is to achieve depth clearance they trench the straits.

“Yes, and it was a lot drier than at present between 35,000 and 25,000 years ago.”
In certain parts yes it was, but in others no it wasn’t. Lake Mungo is a curious case in point as even though there was less rainfall in that area a higher level of run-off from the western side of the Great Divide allowed the lake system to remain full and support a Human population for many thousands of years to come. Now how did the western side of the Great Divide have more run-off if it was drier? answer is it wasn’t drier there.

“you just want to brag about your apparent level of knowledge and how far back you can remember”. I have been studying Polynesian origins for more that 20 years. In order to understand that origin it’s necessary to study the even earlier prehistory in the region. Therefore, yes, I do have a lot of knowledge on the subject.

“Why bring it up if you don’t believe it? ” Most seem to believe that’s what happened in spite of there being no evidence for it so I was demonstrating how illogical generally accepted views of the first settlement of Australia are.

“That’s now, you have no idea what it was like 30000 years bp”. Sea level has gone up and down, leading to climate change (expanding and contracting deserts and forest) but the shape of the land masses has changed very little. And I checked a better map. Within 100 kms of the Hadramawt and Baluchistan coasts the sea floor drops to 2000 metres and along most it the land onshore rises to 2000 metres. A rise or fall of a couple of hundred metres along that coast would not change the nature of the shoreline in any meaningful way. So, even though “PNG and Tasmania were connected to Australia during the last glaciation” this wasn’t because the shape of the underlying continental material had altered.

“Australia was alot wetter than it is now or was even 5000 yeas ago’. Yes, and it was a lot drier than at present between 35,000 and 25,000 years ago.