It is taught that during the last Ice Age, the ice glaciers took up a lot of the water in the world and the sea levels were lower, revealing land bridges most of the way to Austraila and thereby leaving the water portion of the trip to a small gap of water to cross.

In the picture below, the dark green areas represent the lowest ocean level of the Ice Age and the maximum extent of land expansion. The modern day shorelines are illustrated in the lighter green with the possible routes of entry in red.

     The section in the book looks at this argument and discovers that the "small gap of water" would actually have been 60 kilometers of deep choppy seas. So a crossing would require that a very sea- worthy craft to be constructed. This would also entail having a crew well trained in seafaring, as well as a command and control structure to coordinate the sailing and crew members.
     Now this crossing is supposed to have taken place between 60,000 and 50,000 years ago. At this time, East Asia was in the heart of the Stone Age (Hunter/Gatherer Age), when technology only consisted of crude stone tools and animal bone. This would be nowhere near the level of technology needed for this major seafaring adventure.

     As in the case of the Peopling of the Americas, the oldest sites in Austraila are found on the Southern Coast at Lake Mungo and Keilor (older than 30,000 years before present); Mammoth Cave and Devil's
Lair (older than 25,000 years before present).
     In the northern part of New Guinea, there are sites dating to a similar age at Kuk and Huon Peninsula (older than 25,000 years before present).
    The two areas of oldest occupation are separated by thousands of miles with the younger sites found in between them. If there was a link between them, then why would the younger sites be between the two older sites. It would seem that there should be a gradual migration, when there are jumps of thousands of miles, followed by a general slow dispersion.
     So then question comes up.....who peopled Australia??
     Answer....no one knows.

A Blurb About Lucy

In the most recent edition of the Scientific American [exact data coming shortly], it has an article on how new examinations of the supposed "oldest" ancestor of we humans....an ancient ape known as "Lucy", may acutally be more evolved han previously thought based on the size and structure on her legs.
     The ones thought to be her decendants and next level in the development of Mankind, has less developed legs and habits. It even makes the statement that there is a division among scientists whether or not Lucy is even in the lineage of humans. Yet, this is still taught in schools today as being a fact solid and true.
 

On to A look at Molecular Evolution.
or
Back to the Evolution Index.
or
Return to the Main Page.