Oldest Americans 1.3 millon years???

reply to post by Byrd

Hello |Byrd,

Byrd: In other words, while things are going on in x-location, its brothers and sisters and cousins and grand-cousins and kith and kin are all undergoing change in a-b-c-d-yaddayadda locations around the globe. Yes. That's the theory of evolution. That's how we are saying that life develops on the Earth.

SC; Well, Byrd - the Earth is a mighty big place in which there are many simliar and many varied environments and micro-environments.

Within environments of extreme cold and extreme heat, life forms that evolve will be severely limited. In more temperate (i.e. life-conducive) climes, however, then all manner of life can evolve - including (for example) one proto-bacteria laying the lineage for non-flowering plants whilst another proto-bacteria elsewhere in a temperate region of the world laying the lineage for flowering plants.

In my view it is entirely feasible then that in such "tempearte zones", similar life forms could have evolved all over the planet (within the temperate zone), some of which could ultimately have produced consciously aware species.

As such I consider it entirely feasible still that consciously aware species (different from but not entirely unlike humans) could have evolved (in parallel) in such circumstances.

As an aside - and this really is my own personal opinion about evolution - so take from it what you will, or not, as the case may be. I see evolution not as a long series of "fortunate accidents" of mutation but rather as organisms proactively responding to environmental changes triggered perhaps by chemical reactions encoded within the orgamism's DNA. This is to say that there may be a programme within the DNA of an organism that triggers an "appropriate" response (change) in the organism when it encounters a different or changing environment. Speculation.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 4/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]

[edit on 5/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by Scott Creighton

SC: It's the ones that apparently "don't belong" that make us THINK.

Yes they do. Importantly, it's the ones that do belong that gives us a context with which to look at the ones that don't

If you had greater understanding of evolution and natural selection, the pre-Cambrian parallel evolution idea would not have seen the light of day. You would have worked out why it was unfeasible before your fingers hit the keyboard.

Evolution isn't a list of 'fortunate accidents.' Organisms are pro-active only in the sense that life seeks to continue to live and replicate itself. When an environment changes (movement, climate etc), those organisms that can survive and replicate pass on their genes to the next generation. Those that can't adapt become extinct in that environment and don't pass on their genes. It's basic natural selection.

A blunt example is the Black Death bacterium ( Yersinia Pestis ) that killed an estimated 1 in 3 people across Europe and the Middle East. It was and is carried by rodents and is constantly changing and adapting to its environment as it seeks to perpetuate itself.

At some point in time a gene mutation allowed it to cross to humans with well known results. The gene that allowed it to perpetuate across two species should be considered advantageous to the bacterium. The subsequent generations would have increased chances of survival due to the new environment.

Those humans that were susceptible to the bacterium died and were (obviously) unable to pass on their genes. The ones that didn't die had a gene combination within the DNA that enabled the immune system to defend itself successfully. They survived to pass on their genes; resulting in some populations with greater resistance to the bacterium. Natural selection.

reply to post by Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky,

Kandinsky: If you had greater understanding of evolution and natural selection, the pre-Cambrian parallel evolution idea would not have seen the light of day. You would have worked out why it was unfeasible before your fingers hit the keyboard.

SC: Sorry, Kandinsky - but, despite Byrd's detailed explanation (thank you, Byrd), I remain unconvinced that parallel evolution is not possible.

It seems that the argument against parallel evolution rests only on the assumption that there would not have been two environments on the Earth that were the same. Well, of course, there are areas on the Earth that have extreme heat and extreme cold, on land and undersea. Within this, however, there are temperate regions, tropical regions etc. To say that there are no two simillar environments (and micro-environments) on the Earth simply doesn't wash.

Sorry, I just don't buy it. I see no reason why, for example, a proto-bacteria in one temperate region of the Earth could not have laid down a lineage of, for example, plants whilst another proto-bacteria either in the same location or in a different location with a similar environment could not have laid down a lineage of similar plants.

Ultimately we are back to the original question - if two proto-bacteria (in different locations but within similar environments) can lay down a lineage that leads to a similar type of plant eventually arising from the lineage, then why can it not also be considered that the same could occur for higher, conscious life forms ?

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 5/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]

Has anyone seen this?

Epic carving on fossil bone found in Vero Beach

reply to post by jeffwm


Very interesting, can't wait to see the final results of all of the tests to see if it is confirmed to be 12,000 years old, but it looks like a good possibility.

reply to post by Scott Creighton
Hello Scott,
I've just written a few hundred words on prokaryotes to explain that there hasn't been a parallel evolution and deleted them. You won't understand.

There are many similar environments on Earth. None are identical. Something as unremarkable as greater acidity in the water would dictate that life would evolve differently. Identical acidity, but a different strength of current would dictate a different evolution. Bacteria are different and this would inform the selection of one gene over another. Prevailing winds, undercurrents, thermal vents, mineral content etc etc.

Now if two identical forms of prokaryotes were released 3.5billion years ago (for sake of argument) in two 'identical' locations at opposite sides of the Earth (Africa and S American landmass) would they evolve the same? Would any of the conditions above (salinity, temperature etc) remain identical over great periods of time? They couldn't possibly.

An almost infinite amount of gene mutations have occurred in those millions of years before an intelligent bipedal humanoid existed in Africa. Such an occurrence could not be replicated in another part of the world.

Imagine identical twins separated and placed in Africa and the other one in America? Give them an identical letter and instruct them to learn the contents and pass them on to each descendant verbally. After a few generations at least one message would become garbled. Could both messages be the same after millions of years or would they be extremely different? The inheritance we pass on through our genes is that message to our decendents. Stature, health, susceptibility to the Black Death, intelligence etc are contained within the 'message.'

A parallel evolution arising in a bipedal, tool-using and intelligent humanoid is not a reasonable theory.

A parallel evolution arising in a bipedal, tool-using and intelligent humanoid is not a reasonable theory.

Modern humans and Neanderthals are opposed to this conclusion.

reply to post by DangerDeath


Here, here!

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky,

Kandinsky: A parallel evolution arising in a bipedal, tool-using and intelligent humanoid is not a reasonable theory.

SC: Says who? If it can happen once then there is nothing - NOTHING - to say it cannot happen twice (or more). Such highly intelligent, sentient, conscious life forms may not have evolved identically to HSS but the evolution of such a species would essentially be the ultimate "goal" of evolution.

If the 'purpose' of life is to 'survive' (as you stated in a previous post) then that survival will ultimately hinge upon "life" (DNA) evolving as many highly intelligent, conscious speices as it possibly can, as quickly as it can. In so doing, "life" can ensure that "life" has the best possible chance of continuing/surviving when the resources of this planet are thoroughly exhausted. The development of highly intelligent species could, in fact, be life's ultimate goal in order to ensure continuation of life, i.e. propogation of the DNA code. Naturally, in this regard, it is essential that life produces as many opportunites as possible for highly intelligent species to evolve.

It's all about survival - life "knows" the resources of this Earth (or, indeed, any environment/biosphere) are finite and will eventually become thoroughly depleted. By evolving highly intelligent species, life is creating the means through which it can continue when the Earth is exhausted i.e. by creating intelligent species that can develop the means/technology to eventually leave this planet (ultimately) and carry our DNA elsewhere into the cosmos. In this regard, there is every reason for life to evolve (in parallel) as many highly intelligent species as it possibly can and as quickly as possible. It's a race against time. It's all about survival - as you have already said. The Earth won't last forever. Ultimately survival will depend on us getting off this rock and successfully transplanting life (our DNA) elsewhere.

That is the ultimate objective of life - to continue not just on Earth but to propogate throughout the cosmos.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 5/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]

Originally posted by DangerDeath

A parallel evolution arising in a bipedal, tool-using and intelligent humanoid is not a reasonable theory.

Modern humans and Neanderthals are opposed to this conclusion.

They are related and come from the same phylum, class, order and genus...homo

Homo Neanderthal

Homo neanderthalensis (for members that completed school)

reply to post by Scott Creighton
Hello Scott,

SC: Says who? If it can happen once then there is nothing - NOTHING - to say it cannot happen twice (or more). Such highly intelligent, sentient, conscious life forms may not have evolved identically to HSS but the evolution of such a species would essentially be the ultimate "goal" of evolution.

I recommended that you ask yourself WHY you are the only human on planet Earth to believe that a pre-Cambrian parallel evolution is possible. You have confessed in this thread that you don't understand evolution and haven't surpassed a high school education. There are many self-taught people with amazing subject knowledge...you clearly aren't one of them. I'm going to add these tow images to somehow add context to the lack of support for your PCPE notion...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/465c3f1c413c.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aa5be9b4792c.jpg[/atsimg]
These are science libraries; one's NASA and the other is Oxford. Within science libraries, lies the collected works of hundreds of years of studies, research, evidence and peer-reviewed knowledge. Somehow or other, you've attributed to yourself a superior wisdom and can cheerfully dismiss the worth of a good university library. Not one book in any science library in the world suggests that PCPE has ever occurred. Not one. Have decades of experienced, informed and educated men and women overlooked the idea? Have they not been privy to the insight you afford yourself?

The development of highly intelligent species could, in fact, be life's ultimate goal in order to ensure continuation of life, i.e. propogation of the DNA code. Naturally, in this regard, it is essential that life produces as many opportunites as possible for highly intelligent species to evolve.

Again, evidence that you don't read links or research a subject you rely on to spread your ideas. Evolution isn't a goal. Life seeks to survive and replicate with evolution and natural selection an outcome of the process.

It's all about survival - life "knows" the resources of this Earth (or, indeed, any environment/biosphere) are finite and will eventually become thoroughly depleted. By evolving highly intelligent species, life is creating the means through which it can continue when the Earth is exhausted i.e. by creating intelligent species that can develop the means/technology to eventually leave this planet (ultimately) and carry our DNA elsewhere into the cosmos.

OMG Are you a weed smoker, Scott? Listen a bit of Bob Marley now and then, do we? I only ask 'in jest' because the last time I heard such mystical mumbo jumbo about genetics was at a barbecue and a guest was mashed on skunk. Life isn't intelligent. It doesn't have a little personality or thought process. I think you're getting dangerously close to finally confessing your secret ideas about everything....

In this regard, there is every reason for life to evolve (in parallel) as many highly intelligent species as it possibly can and as quickly as possible. It's a race against time. It's all about survival - as you have already said. The Earth won't last forever. Ultimately survival will depend on us getting off this rock and successfully transplanting life (our DNA) elsewhere.

A leap of pure 'Scotty' genius...truly amazing stuff and I congratulate your willingness to let us ride this crazy train to it's destination. From an OP that footprints were thought to be 1.3 million ya...we've gone through PCPE, liars in science, Atlantis, lost civilizations, Giza pyramids predicting cyclical cataclysms, your ragdoll VSM defense and now this! DNA is somehow scheming away to 'evolve' (God only knows what that means in your mind) intelligent humanoids so they can spread through the cosmos

As I've suspected for a long while, you have a belief in a creationist God, ID or 'aliens done it!' Where else can you explain the little DNA program designed to create intelligent humaoids? Seriously Scott, take your hand away from patting yourself on the back, you'll get a repetitive strain injury. Go to a university library (Strathclyde have a decent one) and read a few books on evolution, natural selection, archaeology, anthropology, Egyptology. I know you regard libraries as representing several thousand tons of paperbound lies and deceit, but go on...try it....I dare you It might help you break the habit of hijacking threads to spread your own utterly misguided agenda too...

There's more to life than a Bible, Cremo & Thompson and that Von Daniken book you keep in the bathroom

reply to post by Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky,

Kandinsky: They are related and come from the same phylum, class, order and genus...

SC: Well, ultimately everything is "related". That's evolution. Let us summarise this discussion here:

1) Parallel evolution is FACT within existing Earth species.

2) You accept the probability that Parallel evolution could have occurred at an early stage in evolution.

3) Whilst accepting the possibility that parallel evolution could have occured at an early stage in evolution, you do not accept that any other lineages could have eventually produced a species with high intellect i.e. that came close to, matched or surpassed that of homo sapiens sapiens.

4) You agree with Byrd's argument that the Earth is not a petri dish (i.e. one single environment) and as a result of this would have prevented another species of high intellect from evolving.

Okay then, what do we have? We have the fact that parallel evolution does occur. We are agreed that it could have occurred very early in evolution. You do not agree that evolution could have produced an independent lineage of intelligent species because the environment that "controls" evolution was not uniform all over the Earth i.e. a petri dish.

But we are not talking here about developing a highly intelligent species that is identical in every way to HSS - similar in many ways yes, but not identical. The variations in the environment surely would only act to ensure the species evolved differently but the variety of Earth environments is NOT a reasonable argument against the premise. The different enviroments would merely ensure that variations in the intelligent species could eventually evolve independently in different environments.

You cite the evidence on one hand and yet on the other are quick to explain that the fossil record is incomplete. So you are taking fragments of evidence and trying to build a complete picture. What you are failing to do is accept the very real possibility that the fragments you are trying to piece together into a single coherent picture may actually be fragments that belong to many pictures (lineages) of similarly evolved species. You see for example 50 skulls of different primate/hominid species and assume they all came from the one lineage when it is entirely feasible that, as a simple example, all even numbers evolved from one line and all odd numbers evolved from a comletely separate line. That's simplifying it, I know, but it's merely to convey the idea.

In short, two proto-bacteria (and their subsequent offspring) might not have evolved in identical fashion (as a result of being in different enviroments) but they could still have independently evolved two different types of e.g. grass - the difference in the two grass types being attributed to the different enviroments in which they evolved.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 6/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]

I really don't understand why insisting on linear evolution. It is obvious that many things happen in synchronicity. Why render all into one single line of perception?

This is ideological question and nature certainly don't respond to human ideology.

Science is not even sure whether things really begin in the past, since past is nothing but our projection, or in the now, since now is the only moment in "time" when things really get conceived - the moment of decision.

Insisting that all begun in one point in the past is actually creationists' ideology.
Together with the Big Bang theory.

Think about it.

reply to post by Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky,

Whilst I do enjoy reading your bluster and find it quite humorous (honestly), that's all you have. My admission was not that I knew nothing about evolution - I said I was not a scientist. Different. And I do know enough about evolution to know its shortcomings - something that is continually glossed over in this discussion.

You have already conceded the possibility of parallel evolution in this thread and, indeed, that it may indeed have occurred very early on in evolution. So, for you to then later say the idea is nonsense and infer that I am some kind of wack-job is entirely contradictory on your part. Are you actually following what you have said? Or is it perhaps some haluciongens on your own part that has taken over?

Kandinsky: Evolution isn't a goal. Life seeks to survive and replicate with evolution and natural selection an outcome of the process.

SC: I'd like to see a proof of this. What library do you suggest? DNA is a code, a 'programme' if you like. For all you know that 'programme' could respond to the environment proactively as well as reactively. Do you actually know what every single part of the DNA code does? If so, do you have a reference? Thanks.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 6/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]

DNA is impermanent as everything else. It is a program but this program doesn't have programmed its own changes. Linear evolution, therefore, as an anticipative action makes no sense. Evolution is nothing but passive observation of occurring changes and not some ideology which is supposed to justify all that is going on in this world.

reply to post by Scott Creighton
Hello Scott,

Whilst I do enjoy reading your bluster and find it quite humerous (honestly), that's all you have.

Bit of bluster, subject knowledge, links to evidence and supported documents. Throw in an academic education as experience of the 'lying academics' you refer to and it becomes clear you have even less than bluster...

You have already conceded the possibility of parallel evolution in this thread and, indeed, that it may indeed have occurred very early on in evolution. So, for you to then later say the idea is nonsense and infer that I am some kind of wack-job is entirely contradictory on your part.

I didn't concede the possibility of PCPE in any sense that resembles yours. It was conceded as an abstract possibility like centaurs existing. Without that concession you'd have done your usual trick of claiming victory for your crazy ideas and leaving the thread with those famous words..."My work here is done."

'Wack-job' is inaccurate. You've spent years believing in Atlantis, cyclical cataclysms, 'forbidden knowledge', lost civilizations and God only knows what else. If you had limited yourself to those ideas we wouldn't be having this discussion. I used to have the same ideas. Instead, you embark on an egotistical adventure of accusing academics of dishonesty and of scientists conspiring to hide the 'Truth' from the rest of us. Then you set yourself up as arbiter of the theory of evolution and find it wanting Ignoring decades of research and our old friend the university library, you seriously believe that you alone have discovered a PCPE...

A wack-job would ignore every single piece of evidence that conflicted with their wacky ideas. A wack-job would be ignorant enough to think that reading a Cremo book is an equivalent substitute for a PhD or any form of academic education. Damn, a wack-job would dismiss the explanations of archeologists and anthropologists with field-experience (Hans, Byrd, J Cannuck). You are not a wack-job, just misunderstood and I have no personal attacks or criticisms to level at you...because I value my points.

SC: I'd like to see a proof of this. What library do you suggest? DNA is a code, a 'programme' if you like. For all you know that 'programme' could respond to the environment proactively as well as reactively. Do you actually know what every single part of the DNA code does? If so, do you have a reference? Thanks.

What a surprise...the "Prove it!" defense. Geez, Scott, are we off on another 'possibilities' adventure? If you believe that there is a 'possibility' that DNA is an intelligent program designed to spread homo sapiens into space...why has life taken other directions? Look out of your window. The trees and plants aren't likely to be going into space. Neither are the spiders, flies, woodlice, common cold, flu virus, plankton ete etc ad infinitum. Is the dinosaur extinction (after millions of years on earth) the moment when intelligent DNA thought 'WTF?! These aren't intelligent hominids! Let's start all over again..this time doing it in parallel!"

To avoid accepting reasoned understandings of life's history and genetics on this planet you've invented PCPE. To explain why the reasoned understandings are wrong you've created the VSM Defense. With the PCPE notion being shown to be implausible, you've now created a message in DNA. Jeez, Scott! Does any of this embarrass you!? I've said it before...if all our theories, research and knowledge have to be dismissed to support a conclusion...the conclusion is wrong. Scott, there's no PCPE, no Atlantis, no Giza precession wheel, no 1.3 million ya footprints. No secret message in DNA, no million year old sphinxes.

Colleges do good night courses and they're reasonably priced. I strongly advise you to take a GCSE in science. You'll learn a few things and gain access to the library. Teachers enjoy characters with unfounded beliefs in their classes. It makes for great fun

A rare edit to remove an implied insult that was entirely unjustified. Apologies all round.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by Kandinsky]

reply to post by DaddyBare


Humanoids originated on Earth 1.2 million years ago and they originated from the planet Mars. The answers as you have shown are in the rocks as a time capsule of proof here in the Americas.

Most will say humanoids migrated from Europe and Asia to the Americas and can be traced by DNA. I say the opposite that the humanoids came from the Americas and spread throughout the Earth.

The Americas, the U.S. especially was a melting pot of all different races again that originated and came from Mars. The first colony on Earth from Mars was in the U.S. and has been covered up from the world. This cover up continues because the original colony to Earth is a protected site and has limited access.

Your question will be where is the proof and the answer is it has been covered up. The other question will be why the cover up and my answer is wealth and power by a few knowing the existence of the original landing site from Mars.

Why not divulge the landing site to the world? Because if the powers that be did it would be distroyed by artifact seekers. The first cover up of the original landing site happened swiftly as did the Roswell crash.

Where is the proof? It will be coming soon because the Gate Keepers are in charge. Many will blow this off but look at the human foot print embedded in rock that is said to be 1.3 million years old in Mexico. This is the start of varification that the 1.2 million year old Mars humanoid colony took place in the Americas.


[edit on 6-6-2009 by amari]

reply to post by amari


I don't know anything about this, but I do know that my circa-dial rhythm is 24 hours + 45 minutes, which is the day length of Mars. I could never adapt myself to 24 hours schedule, my biorhythm is different from that.

I have many reasons to believe that the reality which is being presented to us is very much a fiction, and being an artist, I am very well aware that central perspective ideology, which flourished from Renaissance times until today, is just another ideological "visage" of what things are not.

Since there is much of evidence missing, I have tor rely on my intuition most of the time, but intuition is a very accurate "proof" if you ask me.

If we stick to the point of time (or no-time) of the Now, much becomes more clear than is presented by science.

I can guarantee you that my struggle is not struggle to "survive". My struggle is to know, and that is something almost totally neglected by science, whit the exception of few scientists who have seen through the ideological curtain.

The ideology of struggle to survive is just that - an ideology, and the purpose of all ideologies is to conceal the truth. Therefore, if that is what science offers us, then I must say that science is in service of some very dark powers.

I don't even care to mention how much religion has contributed to this cover up.

Both science and religion have created a bubble, very much like the economic bubble that has burst at this time, in which people are hopelessly caught thanks to the enormous effort of the forces which for some reason want to stay "as a hidden source of power".

This bubble is now also bursting and all the effort being made to prevent something that has already happened is futile.

Neanderthals, homo sapiens sapiens, homo erectus, Hobbits, they all existed simultaneously and there is absolutely no proof that one of those species evolved from another one.

This "scientific" idea is exhausted and it is really very suspicious that some people still try to perpetuate it.

The "missing link" is really missing, and some fossil lemur from 45 million years ago is the sillies "proof" of evolution science has ever come up with

This game is over, so lets try to put the pieces of evidence in a different manner for once.

reply to post by Scott Creighton
Hello Scott,
I hadn't seen this post of yours and would like to make a couple of points...

Okay then, what do we have? We have the fact that parallel evolution does occur. We are agreed that it could have occurred very early in evolution. You do not agree that evolution could have produced an independent lineage of intelligent species because the environment that "controls" evolution was not uniform all over the Earth i.e. a petri dish.

You are misunderstanding parallel evolution and mixing several ideas into that misunderstanding. The parallel evolution that relates to marsupials in the S American landmass (for example) is not the same thing that you suggest. Marsupials in S America (extinct) evolved differently from their common ancestor shared with African mammals. It was a parallel evolution from the same ancestor and sharing the same DNA and coming from the same phylum.

Your version of PCPE (single-cell organism etc) cannot possibly have given rise to intelligent humanoids for some of the reasons described by Byrd and I.

You cite the evidence on one hand and yet on the other are quick to explain that the fossil record is incomplete. So you are taking fragments of evidence and trying to build a complete picture. You see for example 50 skulls of different primate/hominid species and assume they all came from the one lineage when it is entirely feasible that, as a simple example, all even numbers evolved from one line and all odd numbers evolved from a comletely separate line. That's simplifying it, I know, but it's merely to convey the idea.

The skulls are compared to existing (modern) skulls and existing fossil skulls. Differences are compared and contrasted. Such small differences are checked that the interior can help to predict if the owner had speech. Dependent on the features of the skulls, we can see from what point the skulls were likely to come from in the lineage. If you read a few articles about homo floriensis, you'll see how pedantic and pernickety scientists can be when a new type of skeleton appears. It's an adversarial system that ultimately resolves itself into a consensus.

(apologies if the tone of the previous post was a little snarky )



[edit on 6-6-2009 by Kandinsky]

reply to post by amari

Most will say humanoids migrated from Europe and Asia to the Americas and can be traced by DNA. I say the opposite that the humanoids came from the Americas and spread throughout the Earth

Amari...the idea doesn't really work or explain why fossils get progressively older as we get closer to Africa.