I confess, I had unconsciously bought into a piece of Science by Consensus without even knowing I had done it.
This from my piece on the deadliest plague in history:
In Euraisa you had a lot more animals that were domesticated because they had a lot more good candidates for that in the first place. There are really only four boxes on the domestication checklist but you do have to hit all of them.
They have to be reasonably friendly.
They have to be easy to feed, which is to say they will eat the stuff you won't.
They have to both breed and grow quickly.
And they need a family structure that you can subvert. Dogs for instance think of us as members of the pack.
So the first thing you need for a plague are animals that can be domesticated in the first place. There only animals in the Americas that were ever domesticated by the locals were Lamas and Alpacas. Lama's do have diseases but they were kept remotely in the mountains.
Turns out I was wrong. The natives of America did domesticate another animal.
The funny part is that I remember asking about this in college and getting a gentle pat on the head for being a stupid undergraduate who didn't have the sense to bow before consensus science.
I was informed in some 101 anthropology class that chickens had been domesticated in Asia some 7,500 years ago and were eventually introduced to the New World by the Spanish. This professor was given to pauses during her lectures to give freshmen the chance to prove that they had been paying attention by asking stupid questions. So I asked one.
In another class that actually did have my attention I had read Hernando de Soto's accounts of his travels in the New World. And he did mention the native chickens that were already present.
This was where the pat on the head came in. It turned out the de Soto had clearly gotten it wrong and according to Consensus Science, he didn't have the slightest idea what he was talking about because there were no chickens in the Americas before the Spanish imported them. This was a proven Scientific Consensus Fact. It is as well for my lower tier GPA that I chose to accept this rather than challenge it.
It turns out I would have been in the right but I would have gotten an F from that bitch for annoying her.
There appear to be two animals on Earth that are nearly self-domesticating. One is the dog. There is now some trace genetic evidence that the dog was domesticated in two different places and at two radically different times. This one is going to be hard to prove due to frequent wolf genetic admixture.
As you have already guessed, the other is the chicken.
The Aracuna breeds of chicken in the Americas are only distantly related to SouthEast Asia Jungle Fowl that were the progenitors of the European Gallus Domesticus. They are arguably a separate species. Yes, they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring but so can Lions and Tigers. Look, the defining trait of any species these days is where you plant the genetic markers.
The funny thing is that chicken bones have been found in archaeological dig sites through out North America for decades and because of Scientific Consensus, these artifacts were invariably thrown away as site contamination. The archaeologists who found them deeply resented doing so because it meant the rest of their finds would now be under a question mark.
Chicken breeders have been telling academics for years, Aracunas and European chickens aren't the same thing. Naturally they got the head pat as well.
The only reason the truth has finally come out now is a bunch of crackpots had an ax to grind.
The Kon-Tiki society heard about the chicken bones found in caves on the South American west coast and convinced themselves that they finally had proof. PROOF that they were right and that Polynesians had reached South America. All they needed to do was get these South American chickens genetically tested and then cross reference with Polynesian breeds.
Instead they managed to prove that chickens have been domesticated twice in two different places at two different times in history.
Which once again raises the question, if Consensus Science can be as blatantly wrong about something as obvious as the ancestry of the chicken how can it be trusted with something as murky as long term climate patterns?