Oldest Americans 1.3 millon years???

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: Then point to me the killer blow.

It can't be human if it's not from the hominid line. Hominids didn't evolve in the Americas... they didn't diverge from the primate line until after the Old World separated widely from the New World.

You stated in an earlier post that scientists had already looked at the fossil record through the lens of polyphylogenetic evolution but had dismissed it (or words to that effect). Can you post me a link to their findings as I would really like to see who these scientists were, what they actually did and what their objections were. Thanks in advance.

Well, Scott, you changed the definition during this discourse. If you recall, your original statement was that life could have evolved in many places on Earth and you gave a picture of Earth with multiple polyphylogenic evolutionary trees.

And that is what I said has been disproven. Polyphylogenic development WITHIN the phylogenic tree as we know it seems to have occurred in simpler creatures.

If you accept this then you must also accept the logical extension of this line of reasoning i.e. that other higher life forms (and I mean here ultimately a species of high intelligence comparable to early humans) could also have independently evolved differently in two (or more) locations (along with many other animal species, of course).

Which early humans are we talking about, here? Australopithecus? Proconsul? Erectus?

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: Just humans? As in Homo sapiens sapiens? Neanderthal Man, Hom Erectus never had any "complex" tools?

Uhm... Scott, they're human and they created complex tool assemblages. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here, since you would obviously know I was referring to those.

SC: I am talking about a species that has similar (though not identical) physiology, with intelligence comparable to early man and with language.

Okay... we haven't seen bipedalism or encephalization and hand formation similar to humans. Chimps and gorillas are the closest thing. But they don't have the brain structures or the tongue structures (we know this from the hyoid bone).

SC: Just how much do you think would remain of our civilisation after 10,000 years let alone 1.3 million? Zilch!

You probably shouldn't use YouTube as your references. In fact, quite a bit remains after 10,000 years or 1.3 million years:

20,000 years: www.fragmentsoftime.com...
11,000 years: www.fravahr.org...
200,000 years (not h. sapiens) sci.tech-archive.net...
48,000 years: www.sciencedirect.com... 1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5cb1cf00b97693ffa452c2cd896e46b9
2.2 million years (not h. sapiens) : www.archaeology.org...

...and on and on and on. Note that what they're often finding includes bones and fibers, fairly fragile things and easily destroyed. Evidence of our civilization would be quite findable, unless someone turned the surface of the Earth into a molten ball of lava and then let it cool.

Also... you might note that advanced civilizations don't simply spring up overnight. They have lots of precursors.

reply to post by Byrd
Interesting posts, particularly the H. Erectus tools in China. Strangely enough, while reading the points you raised I had the sensation of 'deja vu.' How peculiar

The stone tools that are found in locations around the world also seem to evolve in design and complexity. Would you say this is a fair point? If so, it would indicate that although humans have possibly been around longer than we thought, they still used stone tools. In that sense, to refer to them as 'advanced' would simply mean 'relatively advanced.' For example a group or tribe slinging atlatls would be 'advanced' in comparison to another tribe still reliant on the spear. Both would still be 'stone age.'

There's an interesting pdf...Evolution of the lithic industry of Altai. It seems to support the evolution of humans by the 'parallel evolution' of their tool making abilities.

reply to post by amari

I was given the information years ago about the figure 1.2 million years ago not 1.3 million years being that man walked upon the Americas but that is close enough.

This has not been proven, what has been proven was that there was a footprint found in the Americas that has been dated to around 40k years ago, perhaps his ancestors were there 1.3 million years ago or even longer, but there is no proof to support that there was people there then, just pure conjecture.

Everyone has their opinion of how mankind started and the Bible has it's story of mankinds beginnings and about the duration of The Great Flood being 40 days and 40 nights. You have your story on how life from Mars came riding in on an Ark with probes a blazing.

The story I gave was purely sarcastic, it was meant to persuade you back OT of the age of the footprint, and off of your alien proclamation, if you want to spread such things, start a thread about it, don’t derail the topic at hand.


[edit on 6/16/2009 by AlienCarnage]

reply to post by AlienCarnage



Sorry to have affended you and derailed this thread so the show is all of yours now you have the spotlight. A wise man once told me that the day will come when nonbelievers will become believers when the Gate Keepers open the gates.

reply to post by Byrd

Hello Byrd,

SC: I am talking about a species that has similar (though not identical) physiology, with intelligence comparable to early man and with language.

Byrd: Okay... we haven't seen bipedalism or encephalization and hand formation similar to humans. Chimps and gorillas are the closest thing. But they don't have the brain structures or the tongue structures (we know this from the hyoid bone).

SC: Have we found all the evidence? Is the evolutionary puzzle complete?

SC: Just how much do you think would remain of our civilisation after 10,000 years let alone 1.3 million? Zilch!

Byrd: You probably shouldn't use YouTube as your references.

SC: Oh well – I guess I shouldn’t watch David Attenborough’s Life on Earth because it’s on YouTube.

Byrd: Also... you might note that advanced civilizations don't simply spring up overnight. They have lots of precursors.

SC: Indeed – just like the Sumerian civilization.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Byrd

Hello Byrd,

SC: Then point to me the killer blow.

Byrd: It can't be human if it's not from the hominid line. Hominids didn't evolve in the Americas... they didn't diverge from the primate line until after the Old World separated widely from the New World.

SC: This isn’t a killer blow to the theory of polyphylogenetic evolution, Byrd. All you have done here is merely present a statement of current evolutionary theory which is what I am partially questioning in this discussion.

SC: You stated in an earlier post that scientists had already looked at the fossil record through the lens of polyphylogenetic evolution but had dismissed it (or words to that effect). Can you post me a link to their findings as I would really like to see who these scientists were, what they actually did and what their objections were. Thanks in advance.

Byrd: Well, Scott, you changed the definition during this discourse. If you recall, your original statement was that life could have evolved in many places on Earth and you gave a picture of Earth with multiple polyphylogenic evolutionary trees.

SC: No – the definition was simply clarified (with help from you since I am not a scientist) - the basic premise of my argument remains exactly the same. Remember – I started from Precambrian with the Earth’s oceans brimming with proto-bacteria (and I’m sure also that I stated with identical DNA).. By stating this start point it should be obvious that I am talking about a root phylo tree. It is from THIS Precambrian point (i.e. oceans of proto-bacteria with identical DNA), however, that I have suggested (and always have been suggesting) that similar lineages of life forms could have developed independently in different parts of the world, their differences due to the local environment.

Byrd:. Polyphylogenic development WITHIN the phylogenic tree as we know it seems to have occurred in simpler creatures.

SC: Thus, if we are agreed that such can occur within “simpler creatures” then it follows that there is absolutely nothing in science that precludes such from having occurred in "simpler creatures " to evolve more complex creatures.

SC: If you accept this then you must also accept the logical extension of this line of reasoning i.e. that other higher life forms (and I mean here ultimately a species of high intelligence comparable to early humans) could also have independently evolved differently in two (or more) locations (along with many other animal species, of course).

Byrd: Which early humans are we talking about, here? Australopithecus? Proconsul? Erectus?

SC: You (i.e. science) are presuming here that ALL early primates ultimately evolved from a single source, and are part of one long single lineage. Given the above, however, I see no reason why it is inconceivable that other types of early primates could well have evolved entirely independent lineages elsewhere in the world, ultimately leading to an early hominid-type species evolving elsewhere in the world (not necessarily the Americas).

Regards,

Scott Creighton

There's a little confusion about the outcome of a separate phylogenetic tree arising form the prokaryotes of the preCambrian oceans. I believe the point has been made by at least two members in more than one post, but it never hurts to make a point as clear as possible. Humans can trace their ancestors through genetic and fossil records back for quite some way into distant history. So can rodents, cattle, horses, monkeys and elephants. Here's an excellent diagram of The Ancestors Tale Mammals Phylogenetic Tree in mya.

Notice how humans haven't evolved from the preCambrian oceans all alone? They are just one branch of the tree. As we trace the branches back to common ancestors it becomes clear that our phylogenetic tree has resulted in many other species.

This chart goes even further back...all the way to the preCambrian oceans of single celled organisms (prokaryotes etc). Notice the number and variety of separate species as they diverge over the millions of years?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4e1303bf3d54.gif[/atsimg]
Source

Naturally,not all these species will survive and many are extinct. How do we know they are extinct? We have the fossil record and we also have the cave paintings and rock art that feature some of them below...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7ff05b5847dc.gif[/atsimg]
Early Hominid

The sheer diversity of our phylogenetic tree is too immense to fully explain here (even if anyone could). It fills whole rooms in libraries and thousands of drawers in museums and collections. Just focusing on our own lineage still makes the point of diversity...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/13b6cf288ea9.jpg[/atsimg]
Human Evolution (2 of 2)

The timeline in the above image shows that we had a common ancestor with all monkeys and primates alive today. We have a fossil record of those that didn't make it. We have a fossil record of the steps in our evolution that led up to what we are today...homo sapiens. The fossil record isn't complete and how could it be? We've only been cataloging and piecing the evolutionary record together for a couple of hundred years. What we do have is linked and cross-referenced to provide a reasonably accurate picture of life's development on Earth since the preCambrian. Changes will be made, time lines will be extended or defined. Below is an image that reveals the development of our human origins...

How did humans evolve? About six million years ago in Africa, the chimpanzee lineage and our own split. What happened to us after that split? The hominid lineage did not march in a straight line to Homo sapiens. Instead, the early hominid lineage gave rise to many other (now extinct) hominids. Examining the fossils, the artifacts, and even the DNA of these relatives has helped us understand how this complex hominid tree evolved, and how modern humans came to exist.

Berkely: Evolution 101

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4aeaaaf24ce2.gif[/atsimg]
Paleos: Eutheria

Now, allowing for the 'possibility' of a different/ separate/ divergent/ parallel preCambrian evolution, where could the evidence be? Where are all the different species that would have arisen from that tree as it branched ever onwards to evolve a bipedal humanoid in the Americas? I'm sure some people could imagine 'possibilities' that explain where the evidence has gone. Until the evidence is presented, the current model of evolution (one phylogenetic tree) has to be accepted as being 'probably' accurate.

During the course of this magnificent ( and sometimes absurd!) thread the human aspect of the footprints has been overlooked or neglected. It's fair to wonder what the person was doing? Where were they going? Did they have family? Happy? Healthy? Whatever the circumstances, when they laid those footprints down around 40 000 years ago they couldn't possibly have imagined the interest they'd generate

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b5afa10449ce.jpg[/atsimg]

Edit for the credits & sources

[edit on 17-6-2009 by Kandinsky]

Homo sapiens, homo erectus, homo neanderthalensis and homo heilderbergensis - all existed at the same time, for a while at least.

So, how is this not parallel evolution?

Maybe for parallel evolution you understand parallel evolution of "identical" species? But when it comes to humans, what exactly is "identical"?

I think this kind of interpretation, the linear one, is way to simplistic and imprecise.

reply to post by Kandinsky


Itis a very clear picture you paint here. For some reason I still think there will be some who are not convinced even with the effort you have put forth.

reply to post by Kandinsky


In regards to the people who left the footprint,
Id say bthey were neither happy nor likely healthy, they were walking across a fresh volcanic ash field.
Id say they were "getting outa dodge" so to speak, and were fleeing their home in search of someplace that was not so ash covered.

Originally posted by DangerDeath
Homo sapiens, homo erectus, homo neanderthalensis and homo heilderbergensis - all existed at the same time, for a while at least.

So, how is this not parallel evolution?

Maybe for parallel evolution you understand parallel evolution of "identical" species? But when it comes to humans, what exactly is "identical"?

I think this kind of interpretation, the linear one, is way to simplistic and imprecise.

They all branched from the same tree some 60 million years ago and look at the varieties that are now spread across the continents? That's a lot of evidence of diversity. If we multiply that diversity by a factor of 10 to take it back to pre Cambrian (600 million years) where the separate 'root tree' supposedly occurred we are left without evidence of anything at all. No diversity. It is IMPOSSIBLE that some single-cell organism evolved directly into a bipedal humanoid.

If you think this interpretation is simplistic, it's a reflection of your own thoughts. It isn't simplistic in any sense, but fair enough, if you want to elevate possibility over probability that's your prerogative.

It's the wonder of ATS and enthusiasm for 'possibilities' that allows a supported dating of footprints to run into 15 pages and dozens of replies. Some points have been rebutted over and again with God knows how many sources of evidence, but if folk don't understand the rebuttal it's no less a rebuttal. If some pretend to misunderstand, there's really no point their being here and even less point responding to them...

Originally posted by AlienCarnage
reply to post by Kandinsky

 

Itis a very clear picture you paint here. For some reason I still think there will be some who are not convinced even with the effort you have put forth.

Thanks. I intended it to be 'high school' clear. I agree and would bet my house that at least one member will misinterpret, ignore the links and take a predictable position. Blind dogmatism is a hard thing to debate. The effort isn't wasted because I learned a few things whilst putting it together and maybe some other members will too?

How's this for a guaranteed 40 star thread?

Proof that neanderthals had underwater civilization!!!Debunk this skeptics!!!

reply to post by Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky,

Kandinsky: It is IMPOSSIBLE that some single-cell organism evolved directly into a bipedal humanoid.

SC: I don't recall reading anywhere in this thread of anyone actually saying that.

Kandinsky:... if you want to elevate possibility over probability that's your prerogative.

SC: Polyphylogentic evolution within the existing phylo tree is, according to Byrd, not a possibility nor a probability but is a fact:

"...Polyphylogenic development WITHIN the phylogenic tree as we know it seems to have occurred in simpler creatures." - Byrd

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Firstly sorry for the long delay

Unfortunately I will have little time to deal with this thread over the next months but will stop by on occassion.

I apology for the disruption in thought this might cause.

I know the Giza-Orion connection is right and I have proven so - beyond reasonable doubt.

So, lots of people have ideas they think are right. In science concensus rules - so you have ZERO experts that agree with your ideas........


You posted this piece of nonsense

I have personally spoken with archaeologists who have been working on digs around the world who were asked to 'lose evidence' since it did not fit the 'narrative'. And I am told also that this is not an uncommon occurrence.

So I asked if this really happens why are you still talkiing about your idea?

So your idea challenges the narrative but no one has tried to silence you? Why is that?

For goodness sake, Hans - calm down! I have claimed nothing of the sort, as well you know. Don't you think that is just a tad over-reacting? Play fair now.

Ah see the quote above Scott

So you cannot list scientists who agree with you.

But you proudly tout your self approval of you own idea

So what? Big whoppie! You really don't understand how sciences works do you Scott?

You cannot list mathematicians who agree with you.

YOU claim that evidence is being supressed but then act like you didn't say it - and by the way you aren't being suppressed at all.

So if they suppress evidence that conflicts with the narrative why are you being allowed to not "lose" evidence?

1. There is no suppression
2. Your idea doesn't need suppress as it isn't valid

Only someone comletely unaware of how science works would make these type of claims.

[edit on 21/6/09 by Hanslune]

Hello Hans,

Originally posted by Hanslune
Firstly sorry for the long delay

Unfortunately I will have little time to deal with this thread over the next months but will stop by on occassion.

I apology for the disruption in thought this might cause.

I know the Giza-Orion connection is right and I have proven so - beyond reasonable doubt.

So, lots of people have ideas they think are right. In science concensus rules - so you have ZERO experts that agree with your ideas........


You posted this piece of nonsense

I have personally spoken with archaeologists who have been working on digs around the world who were asked to 'lose evidence' since it did not fit the 'narrative'. And I am told also that this is not an uncommon occurrence.

So I asked if this really happens why are you still talkiing about your idea?

So your idea challenges the narrative but no one has tried to silence you? Why is that?

For goodness sake, Hans - calm down! I have claimed nothing of the sort, as well you know. Don't you think that is just a tad over-reacting? Play fair now.

Ah see the quote above Scott

So you cannot list scientists who agree with you.

But you proudly tout your self approval of you own idea

So what? Big whoppie! You really don't understand how sciences works do you Scott?

You cannot list mathematicians who agree with you.

YOU claim that evidence is being supressed but then act like you didn't say it - and by the way you aren't being suppressed at all.

So if they suppress evidence that conflicts with the narrative why are you being allowed to not "lose" evidence?

1. There is no suppression
2. Your idea doesn't need suppress as it isn't valid

Only someone comletely unaware of how science works would make these type of claims.

[edit on 21/6/09 by Hanslune]

SC: Alas everything you have said above has either already been dealt with elsewhere in this thread or is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

Here is what I propose - start a new thread in my ATS Forum and I will more than happily debate your points there.

Click here to visit Scott Creighton's Above Top Secret Forum

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 22/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]

Is it possible that the scientist knew the prints we're 40,000 years old all along and used the 1.3 million as a cushioning of sorts.

At least it's not 1.3 million years old, right !!

They we're only off by double , that's not so bad. ha

[edit on 5-7-2009 by Strictsum]

Just an update. The date has been accepted as being 1.3 million years old and the 'footprints' as recent quarry tracks.

"Dr. Gonzalez and colleagues from Liverpool John Moores University have accepted that the age of the Xalnene Ash is approximately 1.3 (million years)," Mark says, by e-mail. He adds the finding, "casts considerable doubt on the interpretation that the markings in the Xalnene Ash are hominid footprints."

Could they be footprints of some human precursor "hominid" species? Archaeologists have looked for signs of older human species, such as homo erectus, which was living in Asia more than a million years ago, but have seen no signs of them in the New World, Mark says. "Considering what we know about the timings of hominid migrations out of Africa up into Europe and Asia, it is highly improbable that hominids could have made it to the America's by 1.3 million years before present."

Prehistoric 'footprints' falsified by science.

This was a great and frustrating thread. The new findings demonstrate how the adversarial process of science is the best way to interpret the facts.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Just an update. The date has been accepted as being 1.3 million years old and the 'footprints' as recent quarry tracks.

This was a great and frustrating thread. The new findings demonstrate how the adversarial process of science is the best way to interpret the facts.

I have heard from some sideways communication that Monte Verde may well test out at 40k BP...but presently only provides proof to 14.5. Thanks for your update. It shows, once again, that one date is no date. I have a hunch , though, that this thread will not view the results as a victory for science.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Sounds interesting about Monte Verde. 40 000 is still pretty good from our perspective. I recently read Charlie Hatchett pointing out how Valsequillo, Hueytlico is still coming up 400 000! Unless something has changed, it still seems to hinge on Sam Vanlangringham's (is that the right name?) diatom analysis...controversial.