Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Byrd: except that we know the differentiation took place after plants more complicated than single celled algae arose and after plants moved
from the water to dry ground.
SC: And there is nothing in the science of evolution that would have precluded such from occurring elsewhere on the planet (in a simillar but not
identical environment) thereby producing (in parallel) different types of plant - the differences being attributed to the different local
environments? We're agreed on this?
That's just basic evolution. From a parent stock, things adapt and become different. They don't produce the same types of species in different
environments. For instance, you don't get the exact same sabertooth tiger from a parent stock that lived in California and also moved to South
So, yes (heavens above) as we've both been saying for the past umpteen pages, we both believe in evolution.
You started out, however, with multiple proto lifeforms and I think you've now seen that only one parent stock originated life on earth (whatever the
SC: Three things.
1) We are always being told that the fossil record is incomplete.
2) How do we know we are not already looking at (some of) the precursor species of a parallel evolution in the extant fossil record?
If they evolved from something different, they can NOT have genes that express traits found in fossils and modern lifeforms. That's like saying
"why can't I produce a nice fetuccini alfredo with my chemistry set? It's got all the proper elements in it."
Has anyone actually looked at the fossil record through the lens of "polyphylogenetic evolution"
Yes, Scott. As I said, there was a recent paper that reexamined it from a very rigorous genetic standpoint and found it false.
Is it not the case that certain fossils do not easily fit into the linear, singular model of evolution
Evolution isn't a "linear, single model."
i.e. there are some fossils that have apparently been found in the "wrong" strata?
I have seen this claimed by people who weren't geologists or paleontologists (who have to take a lot of geology) and who never had their hands on the
original material and who never did a dig.
I have not seen this claimed by anyone who works in geology or paleontology. I've been in the field and I've seen lots of things that would be
inexplicable to many (such as fractured and overturned rock layers from a meteor impact and resedimentation and so forth)... but I've studied some
geology and when you just simply look at things with a little knowledge, it becomes pretty clear what's going on.
3) Cremo & Thomson's Forbidden Archaeology cites numerous examples of "anomalous" skulls/skeletons and other anomarts (anomalous
artefacts) some of which are apparently millions of years old. I can accept that some of these finds are probable hoaxes or have perhaps been
I should point out that neither has actually studied any ancient culture in any depth. Nor do they know beans about forensic anthropology. Cremo's
claim to fame is that he's a writer and he's studied Hindu spiritual literature (www.mcremo.com...
) -- which I don't think gives him
any insight on any ancient culture. Thomson seems to be a reporter.
This means that their deep understanding of cultural material is on the same level as my understanding of Navy jets.
I think, however, that it is stretching credibility somewhat to consider that all the evidence they present in FA is the result of a
hoax or a misinterpretation of the data. There's just too much of it.
We've been over the data with a fine toothed comb in other threads (just search) until it's gotten a bit tiresome.
This is not the place to discuss this.
We were talking about the misidentification of some footprints.
If you'd like to visit those other topics, I invite you to do a search and comment there... this thread has been derailed for far too many pages.
And I will be glad to give you chapter, verse, and evidence for any claims you'd like investigated (along with the boring cultural and biological