I did a presentation at the University of Utah a couple of years ago as an invited guest at the Transhumanism Conference, which is a movement where intellectuals from different disciplines are called to share thoughts on the origin and future of the human race. It was then that I shared some thoughts about the possible meaning of God creating man from the dust and then placing the breath of life in him (Genesis 2:7). It was also a personal attempt, not a firm belief, to try to reconcile the existence of hominids thousands of years ago, with the account of the creation found in the Scriptures. Several believing scientists have proposed similar arguments and I don't feel like I have shared anything new or sensational. I don't recall making any specific statements about Asians crossing the Bering Strait being sub-humans. You also admit that "nobody rational disputes that there were hominids more than 6,000 years ago" and you seem OK with the use of the term hominids, which is often used to define "human-like" creatures that are distant relatives to Homo Sapiens Sapiens (like Neanderthals). In all my scientific writing, I have always used the scientifically accepted general term of "Paleo-Indians" for the ancestors of modern-day Native Americans (see Perego et al. 2009 in Current Biology and Perego et al. 2010 in Genome Research). Your interpretation of what I might have said is probably based on what you would have liked me to say so that you would have a good reason to post something against me. Does that sound rational to you?

Dear Hoggle4, thank you for posting again on my blog. I hope all is well with you. Sorry for the "making games with words," but the questions you are asking are not simple ones that could be answer with a yes or no. Let me explain. The only way to know EXACTLY what happened tens of thousands of years ago with regard to our early ancestor is something that would require a time machine. The next best thing is drawing some sort of hypothesis or theory based on data available from different disciplines. Some of these data is based on science and science has modified their conclusions through the years. To give you just an example. A few years ago, based on mtDNA variation, scientists agreed that Neanderthals did not breed with Homo sapiens sapiens (our species), then in 2012, after the first draft of the Neanderthal genome, a group of scientists proposed that the 1 to 4% of Neanderthal genome variation observed in anatomically modern humans was evidence of inbreeding. This year, a new paper on the subject, moved away from this conclusion again. So, what is the answer? It is a yes or a no? It all depends on who you are talking to and on the latest research.

I once spoke with Dr. Luca Cavalli-Sforza (considered by many as the "father" of population genetics). We asked him questions about some of his early works and his answer was "I cannot be accountable for something I published more than ten years ago!". He was so right. The theories about the origin and dispersal of humans has changed a lot over time and it is still a matter of great debate among scientists from different disciplines. So, what does it matter what I believe at this point? I am just a drop of water in the ocean of individuals trying to understand the dynamics that characterized the peopling of the world using with my colleagues DNA variation as our model. I also believe in a Supreme Being and therefore I also enjoy trying to reconcile what I understand from the Scriptures from what I have studied or researched in science. I am very satisfied with the limitations of each approach in providing a full explanation of the facts. As I wrote above, no one as a time machine to know exactly how things happened. Faith and religion will deal with issues such as ethics, morals and the reason why certain things are the way they are. Science will try to address questions on HOW certain things came to be.

I would be interested in knowing what you think is the answer to the questions you ask me. Do you have a YES or NO answer for each one of them? What evidence do you have for a YES or for a NO? Does everyone in the religious or scientific world agree with your answers? Please share.

Regarding myself, Paleo-Indians are anatomically-modern humans like you and me. They are part of the great human expansion that started from Africa (based on genetic evidence and the molecular clock) approximately 70k years ago. The genetic data that has been produced to date shows that most like our ancestors followed a coastal route in Southern Asia with branches expanding into Europe and Central Asia. Later Micronesia was colonized and lastly the American double continent approximately 15-20k years ago. Here is a human migration map with approximate dates I found online that reflect the current view based on mitochondrial DNA variation among modern humans, including Paleo-Indians (http://www.worldfamilies.net/files/image/migration_map_wfn(1).gif).

Paleo-Indians were indeed Homo sapiens sapiens like us. They probably lived a nomadic life and were hunters-gatherers, living off of what the land has to offer. Eventually, like in other parts of the world, they learned to cultivate the soil and based their living on agriculture and domestication of certain animal species. In some areas of the Americas, as you know, this resulted in the flourishing of large and complex civilizations like the Maya and the Aztecs, which at their height surpassed anything you would have found in Europe.

Just to be clear, hominids can be used in a broad sense as to include us (Homo sapiens sapiens) and anyone that is considered a close relative to our species. These "relatives" have all become extinct. This is my preferred use of the world. In a more strict sense, hominid could also refer to apes since they have "human-like" characteristics, but this is not how I was using it.

Take care.

Hello again Hoggle4,

first, let me clarify to you that I use Homo sapiens sapiens, anatomically modern humans, and humans interchangeably as synonyms. Homo sapiens sapiens is the species both you and I and everyone else on the planet belongs to. For the past 40,000 years there has only been Homo sapiens sapiens on the earth. This includes Africans, Europeans, Asians, and Native Americans. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, our closest relative, has been extinct for approximately this much time. FROM A GENETIC VIEWPOINT, which is the only one I can speak for, there is no significant genetic difference between modern people and those that lived on this planet for the past forty thousand years. I don't know why someone has single out Paleo-Indians, when I originally spoke about the origins of mankind as a whole. What has been circulating on the net is not what I said, but what others would like to put in my mouth. Therefore, whatever thing could be said or speculated for Paleo-Indians, is the same thing for the rest of humanity's ancestors, regardless of their geographic origin. I don't know what happened back then, but my "reconciliation of religious beliefs and science", for how far off from truth it could be, applies to everyone that lived in the past, not to a single group of people. I never ascribed to terms such as savages or beasts as I, like many other geneticists, have promoted the notion that there are not races within the human race, but a single race and that is the human race. Our physical characteristics and traits are the expression of a very small number of genes compared to the amount of DNA we share with the entire human population. No other species on the planet is more similar genetically as any two humans, regardless if you are comparing a Swedish to a Pygmy. There is more genetic variation within a population than between populations. So, if anyone would ever promote that Paleo-Indians were "beasts" than everyone in the world needs also to be labeled that way because genetically we are pretty much the same. I hope this additional points helps you clarify where I come from as a scientist. If you heard differently, it was probably someone else trying to discredit me. Everything I said or wrote is online, and smart people like you make the choice to actually contact me for a clarification rather than writing left and right what they think I said. I hope this is helpful. Sincerely. Dr. Perego