About 50,000 years ago, a small band of humans landed in northern Australia, arriving on a primitive boat or raft. It is likely that the journey was planned because enough men and women arrived to found a new population there. Perhaps guided by rivers, the group ventured deeper inland, where they found giant mammals, birds, and reptiles ripe for hunting, and no other humans to challenge them. This intrepid group had stumbled upon a new continent, and they had it all to themselves.

The ocean crossing from Asia to Australia is one of humanity’s great early achievements, but it’s one that is shrouded in mystery. Why modern humans made the journey, and when, are still open questions that scientists are keen to answer because they could hold the key to understanding when our ancestors first left Africa and whether they did so in one wave or in a staggered exodus spread out over millennia.

Archaeological evidence reveals that modern humans had spread into Southeast Asia from Africa by about 60,000 years ago, and that they were in Australia by about 50,000 years ago. The earliest known evidence of human occupation in Australia is a rock shelter in the Northern Territory that is about 55,000 years old, while the oldest human fossils ever discovered in Australia are about 10,000 years younger. Spencer Wells, a geneticist and a National Geographic explorer-in-residence, has speculated that the first Australians landed in northern Australia and Papua New Guinea—then part of the same landmass—and gradually moved inland by following the river systems of Queensland and southern Australia.

The First Explorers?

Anthropologists have long debated whether modern humans left Africa only once and then radiated around the globe, or if there were multiple journeys out of the continent. Previously, the most widely accepted theory was that all modern humans derive from a single out-of-Africa migration wave into Europe, Asia, and Australia. According to this model, the first Australians branched off from an Asian population that had already separated from the ancestors of Europeans.

But in 2011, this conventional wisdom was challenged by a new discovery. Using modern gene sequencing techniques, researchers sampled the DNA from a lock of hair that a young Aboriginal man had donated to a British anthropologist in 1923. When DNA in the hair was compared with the genomes of people living in Asia, Europe, and Africa, scientists discovered that Aboriginal Australians are more closely related to Africans than they are to modern Asians and Europeans.

This suggests humans migrated into Eastern Asia in multiple waves and that today’s Aboriginal Australians are descended from an early wave that left Africa about 70,000 years ago, before the ancestors of Asians and Europeans. If confirmed, the finding means that present-day Aboriginal Australians are the oldest population of humans living outside of Africa.


https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/migration-to-australia/

The idea of our current science being false is not quite the correct way to think of it. Real science fact is fact. The thing that is wrong is the scientists who tell us what science fact is when they know that it is not fact, and the scientists who lead us to believe that some things are fact when these things are not fact.

Unfortunately, many of the lies are at the core of our scientific thinking. The serve the interests of scientists and big business and politics. But they don't serve the interests of truth.



EDIT: Need an example? Big Pharma controls a lot of medicine and medical information. They come up with chemicals and vaccines and procedures that they say will help people with all kinds of medical problems. But the better way is with nature and nutrients. Yet Big Pharma tends to downplay the natural things that work, because there is no money in it. They get into government/the FDA and try to force their "stuff" on us, stuff which kills rather than heals. See http://naturalnews.com/ and their associated websites for all kinds of examples of this.

Why should I find it arrogant as long as anyone who has followed my tips so far is in much more profit than a mere 20% a week. If you don't like my postings or find it arrogant, you just don't reply to my thread. Maybe it may look a bit arrogant, but as long as statistics are backing it up why not , as I say statistics speak for us all. So if you read this thread from the beginning until the end page you will see the number of my victories is considerably higher compared to the losses. Odds are of no importance to me as long as I am making money anything is justified regarding odds.

I have seen your tipping thread, and you are not impressive at all so I really don't understand your presence here, you are just another tipster who plays 3-4 games per day and I see you have not yet made 15 wins in a row. I challenge you to make it, even using 1.3 odds in sportsbook.

Again i agree with the OP.

It is more important to get constant wins than getting rare wins with higher odds. When you always win, you always make money. When you play with higher odds, chances are losing your capital is higher.

1.5 is more than enough. You are making %50 profit in one bet ffs. Don't bother this man for this crap anymore.

Now that even the church is helping... Actually discutions with them where prettt funny. A girl gave an ideea to me. To make a list of hotels and to ask for free host for a night. Now im pretty acceptabile i washed my T-shirt and îm going Back.
Ill take autostop and Ill keep secret that im not havin at id.
I got this messages yesterday: it is very important that you go SECIICALY for truck driers cause the only way you can get around the id-check is that. officcially hey aren't allowed to take ANYONE at all, so once they take you, you're safe. in the sake of fair play you should keep your illegal existence in secret. now go and hunt truck drivers, be patient. they drive day and night.


Even if im having a lot of experiente with autostop and She never did. I dont know why She motovated me. If i can enter into the country Ill close the topic. If not ill come with a reply
Have a good day

Maybe in your dimensions 

No one is having any issues with legal immigration. There are millions of legal immigrants in the United States, and they are contributing a lot to the local economy. Trump and others are having problems only with illegal immigrants, especially the ones with criminal background. And what about "more taxis paid"? Taxis or taxes?

Yes we know and this is why when we brexit no more muslims will be able to enter and mosques closed down too many

When we brexit the only way a muslim will be able to enter is on a flying carpet

It's funny Australia is way way bigger than the UK but for some reason they can control the vast area's of there boarders but the UK being so small
can't do this?
Now if you ask me it's easier to control a small space than a big one would you all agree..But maybe us British are all going blind and find it hard to see..

DON'T EVER THREATEN US BRITISH..BAD IDEA..YES WE WOULD RATHER HAVE A WAR THAN BE BULLIED..

Family planning is the key. All the middle eastern nations must enforce the one-child policy, and control their population. First of all, 99% of the area in these countries are desert, and the remaining land is not capable of sustaining such a rapidly exploding population. This is a form of invasion, which can be termed as the "demographic jihad".

There is no gender gap this time around. The younger voters are in favor of remaining in the EU, while the middle-aged and the elderly are voting for Brexit.

Isn't the eurovision songfestival known for it's blatant corruption? Honestly, I hate it more than sellery so I don't really care but this circus is heavilly biassed and has been for years.

But it keeps women and gays happy, so live and let live I guess.

Not much surprising. Around 15% to 20% of the population is Muslim there. And the Muslim turnout was around 90%, compared to the 40% to 45% reported for the other groups. In addition to this, the white and non-Muslim votes were split by the UKIP, Liberal Democrat, and Green Party candidates. The Britain First candidate also received more than 30,000 votes.