Anthropology

but my point is that these various theories get presented that way. As in my original response to the article I point out that these conclusions are not universally accepted. The OP I responded to mentioned that certain languages on this continent had some similar bits to languages from Siberia. Perhaps so but it doesn't mean that all languages did and we know of many extinct languages. Also as I pointed out we know about "x" number of extinct tribes and languages. That knowledge does not mean there are not additional extinct tribes and languages we don't know about and have yet to discover. If we ever will.

Even in more heavily studied regions such as the Mediterranean we have little true knowledge of some peoples like the Weshesh. We have speculations and contradictions. There is an old saying that goes "Science knows less than 10% and must interpolate the rest." I trained as an engineer and have great respect for the scientific method but also being an engineer I do not make guesses about these things and present them as fact. The old saying for engineers is "when you drive by a house and see that 3 sides are white never assume the unseen side is also white." So I see what the science says about land bridges, migration etc. but I also see what many tribes here say. Keeping in mind that some may have come over a land bridge or by boat and found that there were already people here. Those may be as unknown as the Weshesh or maybe even more. Maybe to the point of being lost forever but just because we cannot find them does not mean they never existed. As I pointed out our old books show the extent of our knowledge and conclusions drawn was quite different than today. Perhaps it would go better for science in the quest to discover knowledge if they look for the 4th side of the house sometimes.