reply to post by Kandinsky
Kandinsky: Do you believe the footprints are from 1.3 million years ago? If so, why?
SC: What I 'believe' is totally immaterial - it is what can be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) that matters. What is certain, however, is that the
minimum date orthodox folks are prepared to accept (i.e. 40,000 years) means the history books have to be re-written anyway.
So, your question is moot.
I will, however, add this - the conventional view of monophylogenetic evolution has placed a wholly unnecessary straight-jacket over conventional
evolutionary opinion. Everything must conform within the chronology of this rigid framework of human development that places our species at the top
of a single evolutionary tree. However, take the polyphylogenetic view and all manner of evolutionary possibilities suddenly open up and also, the
flaws in the monophylogenetic persepective of evolution suddenly evaporate like mist and those anomarts we keep finding all over the world that makes
conventioal scholars squirm suddenly have a context that is explainable within conventional parameters. What could be simpler?
Human evolution may not be as simple or as linear as we are led to believe by mainstream opinion. And I can tell you - I am more than comfortable
with my own 'unusual' theories on this subject.
It simply makes more sense to me that if one evolutionary tree could have taken root (pre-Cambrian explosion) then it is entirely likely that two, or
three, or ten, or a zillion such phylogenetic trees could have taken root, producing all manner of species based on the same DNA from the original
I have said to you before - we have not found a link, for example, between non-flowering and flowering plants. This may simply be because THERE
ISN'T ONE. What we categorise as "plant species" might just as easily have been entirely different species of plant (i.e. flowering/non-flowering)
that evolved along entirely different phylogenetic trees hence why there are no "intermediuary species" between these two disparate species.
And if such can be said of plant species then it can be said of animal species too, including hominids. Homo Sapien Sapien might not, in fact, be the
cumulative evolved species of all previous hominids - there could just as easily have been a phylo-tree that developed other intelligent hominid
species (not entirely unlike our own species) millions of years ago that became extinct and that these are the anomarts we are now finding.
Yes, there will be a lineage from the 'primordial DNA goo' to our own species but we should not be so arrogant to think that we are the top of the
evolutionary tree in so far as hominid species go. In the polyphylogenetic model of evolution, we may only be the latest, most recently evolved line
of many such intelligent hominid species that once roamed/ruled the Earth, evolved from entirely different 'root phylogenetic trees'.
Why just one tree?
[edit on 26/5/2009 by Scott Creighton]