Oldest Americans 1.3 millon years???

Originally posted by NephraTari
Why do people always wonder how people go to the america's?
You accept that people developed in asia, africa and europe but not here?
Native Americans cannot truly be native?

We are. We got here first.

Hopi legends tell of how we survived many global catastrophe's with help from our brothers and sisters from the stars.

As someone who has studied the REAL Hopi legends (and I can put you into contact with Hopi tribal members), this is not true. There are no such legends. Many Native American lore and legends have been appropriated by the New Age bunch and twisted into something very deceitful.

reply to post by Byrd

Hello Byrd,

Thank you for your post.

SC: 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.

Byrd: Yes. This is what I've been saying for the past innumerable posts,

SC: Good. Then we agree on this.

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?

SC: 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.

Byrd: We'd see the precursor species, then

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? Has anyone actually looked at the fossil record through the lens of "polyphylogenetic evolution" Is it not the case that certain fossils do not easily fit into the linear, singular model of evolution i.e. there are some fossils that have apparently been found in the "wrong" strata?

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 misinterpreted. 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.

Regards,

Scott Creighton


[Edited to add third point]

[edit on 8/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]

Originally posted by NephraTari
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Evolution is still a theory as is creation. We still have no real proof how exactly we got here. People need to stop referring to theories as if they are fact.

What is known in science as a theory is not the same as a hypothesisHere's a notation from wiki:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. en.wikipedia.org...

You can't call creation a process that is observable and repeatable. We watch things evolve in nature. It's different.

That's the quick and easy answer, and for those who don't like wiki as a reference, just jump in and give the appropriate journal citations.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Evolution is fact, it's observable in small scale through ought our life times.
Large scale evolution is theory, however that theory is based on modern understanding of observed evolution coupled with the fossil rcord.

So, it's both fact and theory.

This is a good page that explains the difference between 'theory' and Theory. The Theory of Evolution is different to the 'theory' that the shortest queue at the checkout is quicker...

Not Just a Theory

Everyone knows that Sod's Law owns the 'checkout theory'

Originally posted by RuneSpider
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Evolution is fact, it's observable in small scale through ought our life times.
Large scale evolution is theory, however that theory is based on modern understanding of observed evolution coupled with the fossil rcord.

So, it's both fact and theory.

Scientific theory is different from "Well, I have a theory about that..." I urge you to investigate the difference, so as not to be hobbled in any serious discourse.

Here is an interesting article about this problem of parallel evolution.
It is about the so called Mungo Man, from Australia. The dispute is whether his remains are 60 or 40.000 years old, but mitochondrial DNA shows that he was not descendant of the African Eve.

www.donsmaps.com...

The Eve theory, which has been in vogue for 14 years, implied that no modern human outside Africa, alive or dead, would have an older mtDNA signature than Eve herself. What odds, then, that one of the first mtDNA signatures to be recovered from an ancient Australian skeleton would be older than Eve's?

LM3 is at least 40,000 years younger than Eve. Desiccated blood cells from his bone marrow yielded overlapping, fragmented mtDNA that, when digitally reassembled with a Silicon Graphics supercomputer, revealed a signature both unique, yet oddly familiar.

Part of LM3's ancient mtDNA signature survives in a small minority of living human beings - not in their mitochondria, but inserted in one of their chromosomes.

reply to post by DangerDeath
Mungo Man shares a common ancestry with us that appears to have diverged at an earlier date.

Sequences from the lineage that includes LM3’s mtDNA no longer occur in human populations, except as the nuclear Insert on chromosome 11. The fact that LM3’s morphology is within the range of living indigenous Australians indicates that the lineages of the alleles contributing to this gracile phenotype have survived

Mitochondrial DNA sequences in ancient Australians

As you can see, parts of their genetics live on...

There's widespread discussion as researchers attempt to come to a consensus. Much like the date human arrival in the Americas is being gradually pushed back, so our the dates of of our arrival out of Africa.

The original theory of 'Eves' isn't regarded as final, it's a work in progress and subject to change as new information is discovered. That there is a debate shows how healthy the field is.

Our analysis has shown that anatomical features and the mtDNA of particular individuals may have different evolutionary paths, and some nuclear gene lineages have genealogical andyor geographical patterns that are different from those of mtDNA (8–10, 14). This difference limits the use of ancientDNAin tracing human evolutionary history because, in most cases, only mtDNA can be isolated and analyzed from ancient material. A fuller understanding of the genetic basis of recent human evolution will require more extensive investigation of nuclear genome variation.

Conclusion from link above)

This raises questions about the accuracy of using mtDNA and DNA until we have a greater database of the human genome.

The growing thought, (Byrd can correct me here!) seems to be that we left Africa earlier and had spread into Europe and Asia. The out of Africa model is, therefore, still the accepted model, but with increasing sophistication. Instead of one migration descended from the 'Eves', it allows for several populations that predated Eves, but where related.

Taking this into account, it makes it increasingly reasonable for humans being in position to cross into Americas at the earlier date (

Well, Scott...

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 America.

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 thing was.)

SC: Three things.

1) We are always being told that the fossil record is incomplete.

Quite true.

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?

That depends.

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 misinterpreted.

Nooooooo kidding.

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 details.)

reply to post by Byrd

Hello Byrd,

Thank you once again for your informative post.

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?

Byrd …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 thing was.)

SC: That’s not quite accurate. I started out with a Precambrian ocean brimming with single celled organisms. I was seeking the point before these proto-organisms created the first plant(s) and animal life forms. I suggested that it was possible that such proto-organisms (i.e. more than one) could have evolved their own (similar but different) forms of life elsewhere on the planet that could – ultimately – have led to a lineage of intelligent species not unlike humans, developing elsewhere in parallel (or even long before our own lineage). The mistake I made was not making it clear at the start that such a species (had it evolved) would not be identical to humans, from having evolved in a different environment (thanks for your input that allowed me to clarify that).

The main objection I think you have to such a scenario occurring is that we would see the precursor species in the fossil record even though you agree that the fossil record is incomplete. Who knows what fossils might be found under the Arctic or Antarctic ice when these areas were much warmer millions of years ago.

I shall investigate some of your other comments regarding Cremo & Thomson and their work.

Regards

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Kandinsky

The growing thought, (Byrd can correct me here!) seems to be that we left Africa earlier and had spread into Europe and Asia. The out of Africa model is, therefore, still the accepted model, but with increasing sophistication. Instead of one migration descended from the 'Eves', it allows for several populations that predated Eves, but where related.

Taking this into account, it makes it increasingly reasonable for humans being in position to cross into Americas at the earlier date

Okay, but this is only one way of seeing things. There is another theory, theory of morphogenetic field, which is actually a metaphysical theory, that says that all of, for example, homo erecti mutated at the same time into the new species, wherever they were at the given moment. (actually in two species).

This is possible, because knowledge is a metaphysical feature and is not inherited through genes or other physiological means.

Evolution needs a quantum leap, or else we're stuck in believing in "gradual change", believing that quantity can eventually produce quality.

If this theory is correct, than "out of Africa" may be an event of secondary importance, reflecting only how people mixed after the evolutionary leap occurred.



[edit on 9-6-2009 by DangerDeath]

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Taking this into account, it makes it increasingly reasonable for humans being in position to cross into Americas at the earlier date

Oh, man? Don't go opening that one up. I've been slightly haunted for a while by the concept that there are pre-glacial landforms about that have been simply filled with debris as the continent was scoured by ice...and what goodies could exist in archaic riverbeds and valleys that have been sealed for millennia.

You know I hate to feed the troll, but there is that bothersome Sheguiandah site on Manitoulin Island in Ontario. Cremo (I dread to say) cites the case, and how the career of a prominent archaeologist was ruined by his assertions that he found stone tools that dated somewhere between 65k-125kya.

Louis Leakey, as I recall, spoke of artifacts in the high arctic that he regarded as being of deep antiquity. This was considered at the time to be the result of youthful folly.

Frankly, these cases are examples of how inconsistencies have, actually, been swept under the carpet because they do not fit into an orthodoxy...the Sheguiandah case in particular because I have never seen an adequate accounting for Lee's observations and he was, indeed, ruined by the mandarins.

And inconsistencies like that feed the 'true believers', encouraging them to doubt everything because the system has fallen down in some fairly apparent instances. However, I still refer to the breaking of the 12.5kya paradigm for the peopling of the Americas to offer hope that the orthodoxy is not unassailable, but that it maintains very high standards of proof.

That's why it's called science...

reply to post by Byrd


Legends are always subject to interpretation and I am sure you can find people to back up your theory of how you would like to interpret the stories of our people. I do not however need for you to introduce me to any HOPI people. I am part Hopi. A fact that I had always instictively known, but only recently confirmed from my grandmother. Our people have long awaited the return of our brothers and sisters from the stars. And denial of what that means will not make it any less real when the time comes.
You can continue to take anything you hear or read and take from it what you need to suite your ideas, but it will not change anything.
The opinions on the meaning of our people's legends will always vary, but no one is to say who is right and who is wrong until the day that we will know without a doubt what is true.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Yeah, I looked at the suggestions in the u2u from a while back. Needless to say, I'm not going into them in this thread but if they arise elsewhere, there's probably a lot to think about. Sheguiandah mostly. Admittedly, I'm not immersed in the field of anthropology and archeology etc. I can't claim to know how 'orthodox' ideas can be obstacles. A subject turns up and I read up on it extensively to get a balanced idea. I'm not allied to anything much so pre-Clovis lithics don't upset me at all.

These footprints are a great example to me. Two dates get put on the scales and the one with weightier evidence is taken, on probability, as being the correct date. The Valsequillo/ Hueyatlico dates are for the 'Jedis' in the field to discuss...pending new research. Reading the Talks About the Valsequillo Region (HoM thread) is a great way to see how an academic consensus is reached. Sam Vanlandingham has a great pedigree, but the dates of the diatoms surrounding the lithics aren't supported by other fields?! Pedantic attention to details most people aren't aware of drives discussion and who knows what the results will be?

However, I still refer to the breaking of the 12.5kya paradigm for the peopling of the Americas to offer hope that the orthodoxy is not unassailable, but that it maintains very high standards of proof.

That's why it's called science...

Damn right..."high standards of proof" is what science represents. Not expediency, possibilities or 'what ifs,' just supported evidence. Years back, I worked on a lot of building sites and you soon learn to appreciate a good scaffold. It's not a suspended platform in the air. It's an interconnected structure with cross braces, verticals and safety bars on solid ground etc. When the 40k ya date was accepted...it was part of a scaffold.

I'm only an enthusiast and find it all fascinating

wOW...I had been away for quite a long time and this is the 1st topic i have sat and read from start to finish.

Thanks Daddybare for posting this topic!!

I must admit, this has been a hell of a debate and a sociable debate without any name calling, flame baiting stuff.

kudos daddybare / kandinsky / scott / byrd / harte / johnnycanuck / punkinworks....

i have leanred a great deal today.

now parallel evolution has seemed to catch my interest. I am going to google and read...thanks a lot.

[edit on 11/6/09 by coredrill]

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Is it possible that some of the anomalous artefacts that you keep throwing out ther, such as wood and stone tools, could have been produced by a primate much like some of the Chimpanzees today seem to be starting to do?

My source:

www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu...

True these "tools" are very primative in their applications, but given enough time is it possible that they might create even more specialized tools, or that others like them thousands possibly millions of years ago underwent the same evolution?

Not trying to be argumentitive, it is just I thought that I thought I would share to see what others thoughts might be.

[edit on 6/11/2009 by AlienCarnage]

Originally posted by coredrill
wOW...I had been away for quite a long time and this is the 1st topic i have sat and read from start to finish.

Thanks Daddybare for posting this topic!!

I must admit, this has been a hell of a debate and a sociable debate without any name calling, flame baiting stuff.

Thank you for your comments. While some of us here are engaging in an ongoing debate, and not really making much headway against each other, it is gratifying that we are serving a higher purpose...that of sparking curiosity of a hugely intricate subject.

When this all shakes out, the results won't change our day-to-day lives...but it will give us a clearer picture of the Human adventure. A star for your post.

reply to post by coredrill

Hello Coredrill,

Very nice post and it is especially nice to see that debate is being appreciated from afar. In the end we are all in search of the same thing - the truth of our history and origins. It remains my hope that, one way or another, we will find that truth.

Star for you.

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


I understand that it is well substantiated, but it is not fact. While something remains a theory it is not 100% proven beyond any doubt as the correct solution or fact. My point is we still do not know everything. We are constantly growing and learning more about the nature of life and the universe. We cannot close ourselves to possibilities while the question still remains uncertain.

reply to post by coredrill
Hiya Coredrill, good to have a guy with your experience back on the boards

I must admit, this has been a hell of a debate and a sociable debate without any name calling, flame baiting stuff. kudos daddybare / kandinsky / scott / byrd / harte / johnnycanuck / punkinworks.... i have leanred a great deal today.

Not too sure about the 'name calling' bit, I think me and Scott walked a fine line on the T&Cs and got fairly juvenile at times Still, it's been one of the most interesting threads in a while. I also learned a great deal. see on the boards....

K