Originally posted by NephraTari
reply to post by Kandinsky
I understand.. the migration is exactly what I am arguing here. There are no stories or legends passed down that relate that we came here from another land.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by punkinworks09
Hello Punkinworks,
PW: ...there's several pages of post by someone hanging on to the idea that humans evovled separately in the americas, an idea that has been thouroghly refuted.
SC: I guess that would be me.
The idea may have been refuted in this thread but that does not been it has been disproved or debunked.
Fact is, the science of evolution - as we presently understand it - simply cannot preclude the possibility that an intelligent life form - different to but not entirely unlike humans - could have evolved its own independent lineage on this planet long before our own lineage and become extinct many millions of years ago, when our lineage was still lemurs flying about trees.
Anomalous artefacts (anomarts)? Many incnclusive.
The fossil record? Incomplete.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Byrd
Hello Byrd,
Byrd: If you mean "capable of having complex language with abstract ideas and capable of forming complex tools by combining many simple tools (a wagon created from wheels, axles, etc)" then I believe that humans are the only species (so far) to exhibit this kind of behavior.
SC: You "believe" this to be the case, Byrd, but can you prove it?
I also note your caveat here - "so far". If evolution permits intelligent species simillar but different to ourselves to arise in the future (as per you "so far" caveat), I see absolutely no reason to suppose that intelligent species (different to but not entirely unlike humans) could not also have arisen in the past (along an entirely separate lineage to our own) and become extinct. You simply cannot use the fossil record as proof against such a conjecture since the fossil record is far from complete.
PW: ...there's several pages of post by someone hanging on to the idea that humans evovled separately in the americas, an idea that has been thouroghly refuted.
SC: I guess that would be me.
Byrd: Yes. It would.
SC: The idea may have been refuted in this thread but that does not been it has been disproved or debunked.
Byrd: It has been, Scott.
Byrd: If you mean "capable of having complex language with abstract ideas and capable of forming complex tools by combining many simple tools (a wagon created from wheels, axles, etc)" then I believe that humans are the only species (so far) to exhibit this kind of behavior.
SC: You "believe" this to be the case, Byrd, but can you prove it?
Byrd: Certainly. Show me something created by another species that involves combining multiple simple tools into a more complex tool.
SC: I also note your caveat here - "so far". If evolution permits intelligent species simillar but different to ourselves to arise in the future (as per you "so far" caveat), I see absolutely no reason to suppose that intelligent species (different to but not entirely unlike humans) could not also have arisen in the past (along an entirely separate lineage to our own) and become extinct. You simply cannot use the fossil record as proof against such a conjecture since the fossil record is far from complete.
Byrd: You haven't defined "intelligence" nor the capabilities of such a species.
Byrd: they didn't build cities here on land in the Americas or leave footprints 1.3 million years ago.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Kandinsky
Hello Kandinsky,
Kandinsky: I was cautiously trying to work out your view on the OP's question. Other than a cursory acknowledgment of the 40ky, your replies have somehow eluded any reference to the footprints or their age.
SC: As I said - I go with the evidence and more specifically the scientific analysis of that evidence. If that science is carried out with due care and dilligence and the results are not later fudged by the scientist then I have to accept the date. If the science (not the scientist) says unequivocally 1.3 million years then why shouldn't that date be correct? If we are to then conclude that the science must be wrong then we have to throw out all past findings and conclusions based on that flawed scientific rigour.
In this particular example the science says one thing (1.3 million yrs) but the evolutionary/historical model we have constructed for ourselves forces us to conclude it must be flawed. Why not trust the science? Why not conclude that the evolutionary/historical model we have constructed might actually be flawed? As I have previously said - the present consensus view of evolution has effectively placed a straight-jacket over itself. You are asking me to answer a question that science itself cannot provide a definitive answer to. Don't you consider that a tad unfair?
Kandinsky: Would a polyphylogenetic model support the 1.3million ya or the 40ka conclusion?
SC: Polyphylogentic evolution is not about accepting one date over another but a means through which we can make sense of what are otherwise regarded as 'anomalous artefacts' and, of course, maintaining the integrity of the scientific method.
That such artefacts are regarded as anomalous is done simply by virtue of the fact that they do not fit into the cosy, linear evolutionary path that the prevailing monophylogentic evolution model insists they must. Some of these artefacts are forced to fit into the model - square peg in a round hole. Ultimately this only serves to construct a history of our past that is severely wanting and fundamentally flawed.
Regards,
Scott Creighton
[edit on 27/5/2009 by Scott Creighton]
Who or what you call Martians landed inside the boundaries of what is known today as The United States Of America 1.2 million years ago. They did not need to drop a probe on Earth when they physically could land on Earth and permanently settle.
Kandinsky: I'm afraid I was being satirical about people believing in knowledge 'falling from the sky'
My circa dial rhythm, and of many people I know, is 24 hours and 45 minutes. And it just happens so that Martian day lasts that much.
The myth of the 25-hour day Early investigators determined the human circadian period to be 25 hours or more. They went to great lengths to shield subjects from time cues and daylight, but they were not aware of the effects of indoor electric lights. The subjects were allowed to turn on light when they were awake and to turn it off when they wanted to sleep. Electric light in the evening delayed their circadian phase. These results became well known.[20]
Modern research under very controlled conditions has shown the human period for adults to be just slightly longer than 24 hours on average. Czeisler et al at Harvard found the range for normal, healthy adults of all ages to be quite narrow: 24 hours and 11 minutes ± 16 minutes. The "clock" resets itself daily to the 24-hour cycle of the earth's rotation.[20]
