Oldest Americans 1.3 millon years???

Our story begins 6 years ago...

Like everyone else they naturally assumed these footprints were 40,000 years old... Below I'll add pictures of the discovery site





Obviously everyone was thrilled with the new find...as long as the date of said footprints conformed to long standing tradition and belief of when the first Americans were supped to have first arrived...

But then in steeps Paul Renne, director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center at University of California, Berkeley. and guess what they found?


As if to confirm their findings they also discovered that the rock grains in the volcanic ash had polarity opposite to the Earth's polarity today. Since the last magnetic pole reversal was 790,000 years ago, the rock must be at least that age. Because the Earth's magnetic polarity changes, on average, every 250,000 years, the argon/argon date is consistent with a time between 1.07 and 1.77 million years ago when the Earth's polarity was opposite to that of today.

However modern Science hates it when their beautiful theories are spoiled by an ugly fact... and in comes the experts to refute the findings...



This little story will not be settled anytime soon... there are two camps on the truth of these findings... both sides insist they are right and the other full of BS...
I'll supply links so you may read both sides of this argument... I'll leave it up to you to decide if these are or not real footprints and if they are how old? in either case it seems the first Americans are far older than anyone every guessed at.
UC Berkley
British teams web site
National Geo

fantastic

more proof that defies the common grain

reply to post by DaddyBare

---

Hiya DB, the links in your OP are slightly out of date and reflect the genuine speculation of 2005. The date of the 'footprints' has been tentatively accepted as being around 40, 000ya Footprints in the ash (2008). This is still a hard date to accept for many as it predates popular conceptions of N America being populated by the Clovis near the 12-16kya mark with allowances up to 20kya. This paper: Human Footprints found in Central Mexico could be at least 40,000 years old explains how earlier dates of 1.5mya were mistaken. Skip through the paper and read the final paragraph.

There appears to be a slow extension to the period when people first arrived in the Americas. Certainly pre-Clovis evidence is growing, Pre-Clovis tools and a discussion about Valsequillo's other finds.

JohnnyCannuck, Hanslune and Harte will likely have more to say. Good thread

If true, I wonder how they got there. Most likely by boat. I love it when this kind of evidence comes up to test the accepted theories of the human experience.

I don't know why, but for some reason I get this feeling that the PTB don't want us to know our true origins. Could this be a coverup?

Perhaps I'm too paranoid.

reply to post by Kandinsky

---

I have read the papers and when I was done I had to wonder if rather than stick to the original findings of 1.3 million years they edited themselves to prevent being ostracized and keep their funding... that is how modern science is done you know... keep the foundations and peers happy ya know... publish or Parrish... have others confirm your findings... that wasn't going to happen when the so called experts were already dismissing the prospect out of hand... I think there's a hidden story here but for sake of conforming no ones willing to go out on that limb

reply to post by DaddyBare

---

I don't think (who can say?) that the 1.3million dating would be denied or edited by the people that discovered the 'footprints.' Rather than a cover-up or a conspiracy, I see it being part of a self-checking system....

They find the prints and get all manner of figures to analyze Geological, paleomagnetic and charts to compare volcanic ash layer dates (see the pdf link). They have the numbers crunched and get back two possible dates. One date is 1.3 million ya and the other is the 40kya period. Both dates have them scratching heads and thinking 'WTF!?' The dates are at least 20ky out of whack with established models.

Two choices. Choice 1 (1.3 million years old) or Choice 2 (40 thousand years old)?

Choice 1 is in conflict with every known piece of evidence regarding human evolution and migration. Choice 2 pushes the boundaries of human migration a little bit further. Choice one is like trying to force the wrong jigsaw piece into a mostly complete puzzle. These are informed folk and their logic would naturally opt for Choice 2.

A few guys will already be uncomfortable about the creeping extension to the dates of human habitation in the Americas. I love it, it keeps it all very interesting...

So, what is actually the job of science? To support existing theories?

I say, there's so much sacrificed to that. And the reason is obvious, such new evidence threatens the authority of science and those who are financing it.

reply to post by Kandinsky

---

But that means they have to deny a big part of their own discovery... remember this part..



So they have to toss that bit of evidence out and fudge a new set of findings more acceptable to the masses

No the role of researchers is to secure funding for projects and to do that you have this board to answer too... as long as that board thinks your mostly right you get your funding... if not... your paper gets filed away in the also ran section of the stacks. Unless you can hold up the "Smoking gun" as proof then you simply cant drift to far from accepted idea's and get those all important grants...
Thus we have science by committee...

reply to post by Kandinsky

---

Hello Kandinsky,

Your wrote:



SC: Within the currently accepted consensus opinion of evolution i.e. as being monophylogenetic. There is every reason to consider the polyphylogenetic evolutionary model as having been the likelier model in which case all bets are off as far as evolution providing a reliable chronolgy of hominid evolution and activity on Earth.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by DaddyBare

---

They didn't toss it out or fudge it.

Same link as above

Basically, a volcanic event from the the period 45ka - 39ka would account for the reverse polarity of the rock layers the footprints were found in. Like I said, they had two choices of equal merit. One choice was invalidated on the grounds that it conflicted with all models of evolution and migration. The second choice only requires an extension to existing models of 20 000 years.

It's true! And almost everyone passes me by refuses to hold open doors for me and forgets my birthday!

Oh well, my poor aching back!

reply to post by Scott Creighton

---

Hello Scott,
If you mention Steen-McIntyre, you're going on ignore



I have no problems with a 'currently accepted consensus opinion of evolution' it is exactly that.



There isn't any reason to think your polyphylogenetic model is a likelier model. You have a reason, because it makes some of your unusual theories less problematic. I would not be surprised if, on balance, you opted for 'Choice 1.'

reply to post by Kandinsky

---

Hello Kandinsky,



SC: Well I guess we shouldn't let the facts (of VSM's findings) get in the way of consensus opinion, should we? An inconvenient truth me thinks.



SC: Given that the model I have proposed explains some of the key shortcomings of the currently accepted model, I think there is every reason to consider polyphylogenetic evolution more likely. Furthermore this model could easily explain the many anomarts (anomalous artefacts) found the world over, including, perhaps a human footprint of 1.3 million years old.



SC: It is not MY theories that are problematic - it is the anomarts (anomalous artefacts) the world over that is problematic for the prevailing historical paradigm which takes the short-sighted view of either ignoring such evidence or distorting evidence in order that it agrees with the prevailing model. The ONLY reason I have in proposing such 'alternative' or 'unusual' scenarios is in a bid to try and explain the all too obvious shortcomings of the prevailing evolutionary/historical model and to try and offer answers to those mysteries of our past that 'consensus opinion' singularly fails to address.

Now, if you are truly serious about seeking the truth of our past it would serve you better to consider ALL sides of the debate (including my 'unusual' ideas) evenly and fairly and simply not clicking the 'IGNORE' option simply because such views do not concur with your own. But I guess some people would rather take the easy option.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Nice find. S&F!
I like stuff like this, people keep finding more and it always gets thrown out. Sooner or later there will be too much thrown out to ignore. People just like to cling to their ideas of science they same way they do with religion. When they are confronted with something that prooves their idea false is always "That is not true" and it is blammed on the devil or faulty testing.

i'm having a hard time understanding how testing a rock's age is the same as the age of a footprint on it? does anyone know how that process works?

It was ash when the so-called footprint was made.

It became rock later.

The age tested is the age of the rock grains that are in the (former) volcanic ash.

The grains tell how long it's been since they were part of the volcano from whence they came.

Harte

reply to post by DaddyBare

---

Fascinating find on the footprints. Thank you for sharing it.

I do have a question:
If there are any anthropologists out there, when did the modern human foot evolve? That has me puzzled a bit.

reply to post by Scott Creighton

---

Hello Scott,
Do you believe the footprints are from 1.3 million years ago? If so, why?

reply to post by Kandinsky

---

Hello Kandinsky,



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 'primordial goo'.

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?

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 26/5/2009 by Scott Creighton]