Alright, so the first human to get to the Americas made it roughly 15.000 years ago, right? In the meantime...

not really. most europeans are generally a mixture of hunter gatherer and eef dna with some steppe components.

you can no more call pre-admixture europeans genetically european than you can compare current northern indians to the dravidians living in that area prior to the r1 invasions.

their genetic foundation and lineages are wholly european/eurasian though, and they contributed significant ancestry to modern europeans.

and you realise there are lots of groups in india right? dravidians aren't just found in southern india they're also found in pakistan and in pockets in northern india.

I'm a 1/8th, 4th cycle descendant of the Atlantean Unity. Ask me anything.

modern europeans are a hybrid people. they are no more the same as proto-europeans than are mestizos "the same" as the hunter gatherers who still roam around the rainforest coating their arrows in frog sweat

that's literally not how it works. historically, cultural explosion follows admixture events, leading to arms races of various sorts, leaving a population that is neither genetically similar, nor culturall similar, to what came before

never said they were the same. regardless, they still contributed ancestry to contemporary europeans.
most modern groups with the possible exception of a few who have survived largely in isolation are hyrbrid populations made up of several ancestral groups that came together over a period of thousands of years. even native americans who were largely isolated from the outside world until recently can trace their ancestry to several different ancestral asian groups in northern asia over the lgm, along with some late comers like proto-arctic and athabaskan groups. what do you mean by "proto-europeans"?

mestizos can be a mixed bag with many retaining significant amerindian admixture.

proto-european is intentionally vague.

the corded ware cultures didn't begin to encompass europe until 2.5k b.c. and stil hadn't reached france or britain yet. these eople were almost certainly the largest contingent of r1b admixture. it's hard to say europeans were really "european" before the genes that makes up some 60% of their entire genome got ntroduced to them.

monumental architechture begins to follow immediately following corded ware admixture, which started around 2.5k b.c.

it's just a fact that europeans weren't around for very long.

There was some cool stuff in the neolithic and bronze age but nothing massive. Look up Old Europe, the Danubian cultures, etc.

corded ware wasn't the only culture in europe at that time, and it was largely confined to central and eastern europe. their genetic makeup was different to most contemporary europeans too as they had a significantly larger steppe component, whereas most europeans still retain considerable ancestry from their mesolithic and neolithic past. it's tricky to say exactly when, where and with whom western european r1b originated, although i think the consensus is back east. although i think the villabruna hunters carried it too but that doesn't necessarily imply paleolithic continuity as others have suggested. iirc there was a study published which showed no longitudinal or latitudinal patterns in diversity, contrary to others. it definitely did undergo massive expansion from a few population centers in the late neolithic and early bronze ages.

even so, haplogroups can only tell you so much, that's where autosomal dna comes in. for example look at europeans who carry e1b1 and other novel haplogroups, yet are entirely or almost entirely european autosomally with only a small outside input.

They couldnt develop the redskin ancestors lived in Siberia AKA the land of no civilization possible in fucking ever from scratch.

everything you've said I think is largely correct

I find that the most convincing argument is that the majority of the changes post-admixture are due to cultural acceleration due to genetic and cultural arms races that occurred in the immediate aftermath.

people who are on principle, liable to reject strong genetic interpretations of culture are, ironically, the ones who tend to put MORE emphasis on genetics.

the convincing argument goes that genetic mixing caused the arms race. it's unlikely that the r1b strains had significant IQ advantages of more than ten points or so over most of the natives. the civilizational gains resulted from the arms race that ensued afterward. which would mean basal DNA is less important than selection pressure and culture itself, in contributing to IQ gains.

bt because "anti-genetics" people are so apt to jump down the throat of genetics at the first point of mention, they then end up putting MORE emphasis on basal DNA differences because they reject that gains can initially result from mixing. they say "look, only half of europe is r1b, that means that since they have less r1 than eastern euro groups, they should be dumber."

this is what happens, I think, when a lot of tenured professors aren't forced to study new genetic methods to keep their chair.

I think the most reasonable conclusion is the arms race argument for iq gain. when two very distinct groups in the same are are all intermixed to some degree, it gives a number of new selection mechanisms to operate for proxy traits, such as skin color or light hair for IQ, without actually relaxing any of the survival requirements.

the earth is only 6,000 years ago

checkmate, atheists.

>Alright, so the first human to get to the Americas made it roughly 15.000 years ago, right?

>new evidence

I'm assuming you got a link or at least a book recommendation for me.

40k? WTF where did you get that fact?

competition, and fear

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

>Romans & Greeks visit the Western Europe.
>Fucking nothing.
>Most sophisticated organizations being Gallics and their small, confederated settlements scattered across Gaul/Eastern Iberia/Austria.

Meanwhile in the Americas, you have evidence scattered all over the place of layers of layers of civilization.

Lanuage elevated us from biological to cultural evolution.

>[citation needed]: The thread

>>Fucking nothing.
Read a book, Pablo.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_civilization

>So is it possible that europeans have had a big civilization a long time ago that's been forgotten or am I spouting bullshit here?

Why has no trace of it ever been found? In b4 MUH DOGGERLAND, even when it was above the water it would have been a frozen tundra, not a suitable site for a civilisation, and given how common it is for civilisations to build on top of hills and mountains,you would expect at least ONE site from a lost pre-historic civilisation to be above the modern sea level.

The civilisations of the Americas are over-looked it's true, but Europe has had comparable cultural development for much longer. Pic related is some 7,500 years old, older than any American site and almost older than the period of human occupation in the Americas.

...