Oldest Americans 1.3 millon years??? , page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 10:45 AM by Byrd

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The rock is definately much older than 40,000 years.

Not according to the geologists, who have studied rocks more than I have (and more than you have, maybe?)

But who says they are human EARTHLING footprints?

The length of the stride, the shape of the foot, the weight indications of the track, the way they walk. It's the same as modern humans. If I see the footprints of a bird in the Lipscomb Quarry in Alaska (where they're finding dinosaur bones) should I assume it was a Real Bird (they were around then) or should I go "whoa! Alien!!"

If the footprints have something unusual about them, we can start speculating what caused them. But the footprints in ash are the same kind of footprints you make at the beach. There's nothing very odd about them other than they're in volcanic ash and thus were preserved.

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 10:56 AM by Byrd

Originally posted by DaddyBare
So what the folks here are eluding too is co-evolution while humans were evolving in Africa with no connection whatsoever Humans started to evolve here in the Americans as well... versus Land Bridge where they walked here...

That's exactly what they're alluding to.

Because modern Science has set a date for humans arrival in the new world and we know how deep into the ground to dig and look for clues to these ancient peoples it's rare anyone ever digs deeper looking for even older remains...

Ah... no. They actually do. I can say that from direct experience on an archaeological dig.

In addition, erosion from creek beds brings up all sorts of fossils and artifacts that get found and hauled into museums to be identified (I work as a volunteer in a museum paleontology lab, so I have seen this in action.)

in other words no real search for older Americans has been been done simply because the texts book all say they couldn't be here... so why bother looking?

In fact, there's a whole bunch of scientists who belong to the pre-Clovis group (I know one of them) and are actively researching sites in Georgia and Texas (and elsewhere) that are believed to be at least 20,000 years old and possibly older. This includes some underwater sites along the Carolinas.

You can see the major sites here:
centerfirstamericans.org...

(I'm more familiar with the Texas sites because I live in Texas.)
So, you see, they do look for them.

And... as an aside on the "rewriting textbooks", scientists do this all the time. I know, because I'm rewriting a chapter for a textbook on doing internet research (this will be for a book designed for college courses.) If we never rewrote history and science books, then our knowledge of the world would be that Rome was the big empire and bad air causes diseases (and so do curses) and that the Earth is flat.

We love to rewrite textbooks. It gives us a very important publication credit. However, rewrites are ONLY accepted if you've got solid documentation (and believe me it's a real headache to write and research and build your chapter.)

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 11:43 AM by Kandinsky

reply to post by Scott Creighton

Hello Scott,
For a variety of reasons, I'm not convinced you have read any of the links provided. In fact, I'm not sure you read your own link...

SC: Alas I do not have his book so I cannot shed any more light on this or confirm that it is "unsupported". If you have the full book and confirm this is indeed the case then I will gladly accept that.

The book was actually linked by you..."The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution"

Your views about polyphylogenetic origins are unsupported elsewhere. I've looked. Amusingly, a google search of the term shows you on ATS. The available theories do sufficiently explain the evidence. If you read the links, you'd see that. You refer to 'other evidence from other sites in the Americas' supporting the possibility that a separate species of bipedal humanoid existed. A source would be interesting. As far as anyone is aware there is not even a glimmer of a serious theory that a a separate species of humanoid existed in the Americas or elsewhere.

SC: I've read the links you provided. But as I have explained to you, given the possibility (if not indeed probability) of polyphylogenetic evolution, the prevailing model of evolutionary theory cannot - IMO - be 'casually' used as evidence to bolster this 40K date. The picture may not be as simple as monophlylogenetic evolution suggests.

Read the links. The picture isn't 'simple.' It's extensive research founded on prior scholarly work, explained and referenced. You can check the references yourself

Let me put it to you this way. I take the view that it is more than likely that many other lifeforms (some intelligent) exist in our galaxy and indeed, the wider universe. Such life forms developed entirely separately from life on Earth (though some might argue with that). If life can occur independently at disparate locations all over the universe then I see no reason why life could not have taken root at disparate locations here on Earth and evolved different lifeforms from many "trees of life".

Think about it - does it really make sense to you that just ONE such 'tree of life' took root on the Earth?

You have excelled yourself here. In evading looking at the evidence you even bring in possibilities of alien life in the universe to support the 'possibility' (always possibilities!!) that you might be right. Can you not see the amazing lengths you are going to rather than just accept the footprints are from around 40ka.

Is it so distasteful that they could be 40ka? Is it reasonable to create a completely new bloodline of bipedal hominids? Is it necessary to use aliens to support your position? You're prepared to create a new theory of evolution to avoid the possibility that your views are unsupported by evidence. The Steen-McIntyre Defense was a solid act of genius and yet you've created another elaborate method of avoiding a simple reappraisal of beliefs.

Chewbacca Defense

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 12:48 PM by punkinworks09

I have just read an article, where an reasearcher has pinned the clovis culture to a time span of less than 600 years.
Far to short of a time for a single culture to have spread so far across the continent, and to short a time to have developed such a defined point making industry.
Thats very important since there is no asian analog to the clovis point at that point in time.
When the clovis culture appears they are already large animal hunting specialists, not the generalized hunters that the people of siberia are at the time.
Given the specialization of the clovis hunters and the fact that some of the oldest sites in the new world are in south america its clear that humans were in the new world before the the clovis culture arose.

But there no way there were humans here 1.3 mya.

Bryd, maybe you can answer this question, have any human remains been found in conjunction with a clovis site, in particular skulls?
I ask because the answer as to who the people are that settled NA is in the dentition.
Ive brought this up before, and I will again, there is a clear division in modern humans, the dentition, we can be divided into 2 groups sinodonts and sundadonts.
There are distinctive diffrences in tooth structure between sondonty and sundadonty, differences that are unmistakable, like teeth having different numbers of roots and the sinodonts have a differnt structure to the incisors, that gives the "buck toothed" look to many asiatics.

Sinodonts comprise siberian asiatics( chinese, koreans and some modern japanese) and native americans.
Sundadonts are africans, the caucasians and australonesians, and the people of south east asia(thais, malays, philipinos and indonesians).
If they are sinodonts then they are asiatics, as are all modern native americans.
If they are sundadonts that clearly points to a non siberian lineage.
Kennewick man was a sundadont and remains found in brazil are also sundadonts. This combined with the very rare instance of the haplogroup X, 5% in the native american population and concentrated in the native americans of the north east part of SA, shows that at least one small population of non asiatic people found their way to the new world.

Recent gentic studies of the possibly now extinct( there was one individual left several years ago) native patagonians indicate that they were not likely decended from siberian asiatics, and the only other native americans found to have a similar genetic makeup are an isolated group of indians that lived on the pacific coast of baja. This supports the idea that some populations made it to the new world by following the pacific coast.

On a side note, while in baja on a motorcycle ride, a friend and I found what appeared to be very primative cliff dwellings in a very isolated canyon( at least 40 miles from the nearest town and 15 miles from the nearest rancho).
They were really basic rock walls built across the front of a set caves/overhangs about 300' up the canyon walls. There was an old fire pit that hadnt been used for quite some time, it was filled with stuff from rodents of some sort. And the roof of the cave showed an extensive use of fire.
Then later while visiting a very isolated mission, one of the locals told us there were other caves with drawings higher up in the mountains.
When we asked which way to go to get to the caves, he told us they dont show them to outsiders. He also told us he was descended from the original indians in the area and that his family has lived at the mission since it was built in 1703-4?.

I bet there are still lots of discoveries to be made in baja, but nobody is really looking, yet.

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 01:05 PM by Scott Creighton

reply to post by Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky,

Kandinsky: For a variety of reasons, I'm not convinced you have read any of the links provided. In fact, I'm not sure you read your own link...

SC: Yes – I read your links. Didn’t read anything I haven’t read before to be honest. As for my own link –

"The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution"
By Dr. A. E. Wilder Smith

Only the contents of the Preface and Chapter 6 are included here.

SC: Alas I do not have his book so I cannot shed any more light on this or confirm that it is "unsupported". If you have the full book and confirm this is indeed the case then I will gladly accept that.

Kandinsky: The book was actually linked by you..."The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution"

SC: See above – only Contents, Preface and Chapter 6 is available online.

Kandinsky: Your views about polyphylogenetic origins are unsupported elsewhere.

SC: Not according to Dr Smith.

Kandinsky: I've looked. Amusingly, a google search of the term shows you on ATS.

SC: Perhaps a better search would be to use the term, “Parallel Evolution”. Here’s a quote from Encyclopedia Britannica:

Parallel Evolution - the evolution of geographically separated groups in such a way that they show morphological resemblances. A notable example is the similarity shown by the marsupial mammals of Australia to the placental mammals elsewhere. Through the courses of their evolution they have come to remarkably similar forms, so much so that the marsupials are often named for their placental counterparts (e.g., the marsupial “wolf,” “mole,” “mice,” or “cats”).

Source: www.britannica.com...

And from Science Daily -

At this time, mammals on all three landmasses began to take on a much wider variety of forms and roles.

While some forms were unique to each environment, surprisingly similar animals have often emerged in two or three of the separated continents.

Examples of these include the litopterns and horses, whose legs are difficult to distinguish; the European sabre-tooth tiger (Smilodon) and the South American marsupial sabre-tooth (Thylacosmilus); the Tasmanian wolf and the European wolf; likewise marsupial and placental moles, flying squirrels, and (arguably) mice..

Source: www.sciencedaily.com...

Parallel evolution is FACT. And if such “parallel evolution” continues to occur even to this day, then how can it possibly be viewed that such could not have occured at the very beginnings of animal/plant life on Earth?

The available theories do sufficiently explain the evidence. If you read the links, you'd see that. You refer to 'other evidence from other sites in the Americas' supporting the possibility that a separate species of bipedal humanoid existed. A source would be interesting. As far as anyone is aware there is not even a glimmer of a serious theory that a separate species of humanoid existed in the Americas or elsewhere.

SC: Who made the artifacts found at Valsequillo, Mexico dated by VSM to be around 250,000 years old? According to prevailing evolutionary theory such a remote date precludes homo sapiens sapiens.

SC: I've read the links you provided. But as I have explained to you, given the possibility (if not indeed probability) of polyphylogenetic evolution, the prevailing model of evolutionary theory cannot - IMO - be 'casually' used as evidence to bolster this 40K date. The picture may not be as simple as monophlylogenetic evolution suggests.

The picture isn't 'simple.' It's extensive research founded on prior scholarly work, explained and referenced. You can check the references yourself

SC: The picture isn’t simple but I venture to guess that it is considerably more complicated than is presently imagined. We presently observe the fossil record as offering a chronology of life evolution on Earth. Problem is – we are taking the view that all fossils within the record are descended from the one phylo-tree; that the fossil record presents one massive jigsaw puzzle that if we piece together will give us the complete picture of life on Earth, provided, of course, we find all the pieces. I see, however, that there may be many phylo-trees all jumbled up within the fossil record; that there are many pictures to be made. First we have to sort out all the pieces, figure out which piece belongs to which picture and THEN begin the process of piecing them together to form the picture for each phylo-tree.

SC: Let me put it to you this way. I take the view that it is more than likely that many other lifeforms (some intelligent) exist in our galaxy and indeed, the wider universe. Such life forms developed entirely separately from life on Earth (though some might argue with that). If life can occur independently at disparate locations all over the universe then I see no reason why life could not have taken root at disparate locations here on Earth and evolved different lifeforms from many "trees of life".

Think about it - does it really make sense to you that just ONE such 'tree of life' took root on the Earth?

Kandinsky: You have excelled yourself here…. you've created another elaborate method of avoiding a simple reappraisal of beliefs. Chewbacca Defense

SC: I find this verging on derogatory and does not really warrant a reply. However, let me ask you the question again that you ignored – Precambrian Earth, a sea bursting with trillions upon trillions upon trillions of single, primeval cells. Do you really expect anyone to believe that only one of those cells was capable of taking root and producing all forms of life on Earth. If one of these primeval cells could achieve such then there is absolutely no reason not to suppose that two or three or ten or a thousand such cells could have achieved the same.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 02:22 PM by punkinworks09

reply to post by Byrd

Thank you for the link

"You can see the major sites here:
centerfirstamericans.org... "

Its a very concise collection of some of the work being done.

So it seems that the 1.3 million year old footprints are likely quarry marks, that fits ,seeing as how they were found in a working quarry

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 02:37 PM by punkinworks09

There seems to be a some question as to the methodology of the original digs at valsequillo, and that the items discovered were infact inbedded in a much younger layer.

As to the foot prints, I missed the part about them being in a BASALTIC LAVA.

that seals the deal, how is someone going to leave a FOOTPRINT IN LAVA

AHHHHHHHH
this discussion should have ended with that revalation.

Thats rich some one leaving a footprint in fluid stone at a temperature of at least 1300 degrees, come people use that thing between your ears called a brain.

EDIT:

Ok after doin some reading I am unclear as to wwhether the base rock is ash or a basaltic lava.

If its an ash then never mind the previous rant.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by punkinworks09]

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 07:52 PM by Byrd

Originally posted by punkinworks09
I have just read an article, where an reasearcher has pinned the clovis culture to a time span of less than 600 years. Far to short of a time for a single culture to have spread so far across the continent, and to short a time to have developed such a defined point making industry.

It's plenty of time, actually. That's three times as long as the United States has been a country. Remember that they had extensive trade routes fairly early on (cross-country) and that their traditions (probably ancient) were for yearly meetings of large bands of their people.

Thats very important since there is no asian analog to the clovis point at that point in time.

Bryd, maybe you can answer this question, have any human remains been found in conjunction with a clovis site, in particular skulls?

Brazoria woman is one of the older skeletons.
centerfirstamericans.org...

I'm sorry, but I don't see any good links to pictures of her skeleton or the genetics offhand. I'll continue to look.

Then later while visiting a very isolated mission, one of the locals told us there were other caves with drawings higher up in the mountains.
When we asked which way to go to get to the caves, he told us they dont show them to outsiders. He also told us he was descended from the original indians in the area and that his family has lived at the mission since it was built in 1703-4?.

Given the damage that people do to the petroglyphs, many owners are VERY protective of them. You have to have the right connections to see them.

I bet there are still lots of discoveries to be made in baja, but nobody is really looking, yet.

Some of the Mexican archaeologists and paleontologists are.

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 02:35 AM by Kandinsky

reply to post by Scott Creighton

Hello Scott,

"The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution" By Dr. A. E. Wilder Smith Only the contents of the Preface and Chapter 6 are included here.

Fair play, you got me

My point still stands as he doesn't add footnote or reference to the statement. It's rhetorical. Furthermore, Kerkud wrote books on evolution and it isn't clear why the creationist Smith overlooked that.

SC: Who made the artifacts found at Valsequillo, Mexico dated by VSM to be around 250,000 years old? According to prevailing evolutionary theory such a remote date precludes homo sapiens sapiens.

Evolutionary theory doesn't preclude anything at all.

It's clear that you disagree with the links, it's becoming clearer you don't accept Evolution until it can be bypassed in parts to make allowances for your hopes. You're quite happy to rebut decades of interlinked, corroborating evidence and studies with a quote from a book written by a creationist. Incredibly it's done without irony. If you are leaning towards Creationism, please state the fact. Not so I can go 'ad hominem' but so we can avoid these discussions in the future.

I'm not going over Valsequillo or VSM again. It's a fool's errand. Although you claim no beliefs and you don't think anything (

), the dates don't alter the fact that stone tools were found, not houses or theodolites. The advance ancients that underpin your hopes are still elusive. Instead, we have to create a second-string evolution of beings that leave footprints, chert tools and nothing else. Hmmmm?

Evidence of haplogroups (linked) that ALL humans fall within and share genetic commonalities make the parallel evolution moot. The single origin theory is almost unanimously held, yet it's redundant adding links as I could write your response for you.

The presence of humans in Americas is creeping further back into time. As Byrd mentioned and I linked early in the thread, pre-Clovis evidence is getting stronger. Hueytlico is being further investigated early next year. Science is a fluid concept, it changes every year. Floriensis? No problem! New planets? No problem. Methane on Mars? No problem. None of which appears to hold merit until science accepts your proposal that advanced ancients 'possibly' existed in our distant past. Dogmatism?

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 04:55 AM by Scott Creighton

reply to post by Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky,

Thank you for your reply.

SC: Who made the artifacts found at Valsequillo, Mexico dated by VSM to be around 250,000 years old? According to prevailing evolutionary theory such a remote date precludes homo sapiens sapiens.

Kandinsky: Evolutionary theory doesn't preclude anything at all.

SC: Except, it would seem, “parallel evolution”.

Kandinsky: It's clear that you disagree with the links, it's becoming clearer you don't accept Evolution until it can be bypassed in parts to make allowances for your hopes.

SC: I don’t disagree with your links. I simply don’t accept the prevailing opinion that all animal/plant evolution arose from a SINGLE phylo-tree – it’s my considered opinion that many such phylo-trees would have been involved. So, how exactly does that make me anti-evolution?

Kandinsky: You're quite happy to rebut decades of interlinked, corroborating evidence and studies with a quote from a book written by a creationist. Incredibly it's done without irony.

SC: And it is done without irony because parallel evolution happens to be a FACT of evolution. I posted some other links for you demonstrating this.

Kandinsky: If you are leaning towards Creationism, please state the fact.

SC: I am categorically NOT a Creationist. I am totally on the side of evolution – of science. I see, however, that the evolution picture is much more complex than few have hitherto imagined. I embrace the concept of parallel evolution because it makes more sense to me and because it explains some of the shortcomings of the prevailing mono-evolutionary model. Is that so bad?

Kandisnky: The advance ancients that underpin your hopes are still elusive.

SC: I have no idea what you are saying here. Show me where I have ever cited “advanced ancients”? If by that you mean people who could observe the stars, set out a straight line or create a 90* or 45* angle then I guess the AE must be those advanced ancients, right?

Kandinsky: Instead, we have to create a second-string evolution of beings that leave footprints, chert tools and nothing else. Hmmmm?

SC: What exactly would you expect to find after three ice ages have passed? In a little over 10,000 years there would be little of our own civilization remaining so what would you expect to find after 250,000 years have passed?

Kandinsky: Evidence of haplogroups (linked) that ALL humans fall within and share genetic commonalities make the parallel evolution moot.

SC: Can you tell me the haplogroup of the makers of the tools found at Valsequillo?

Kandinsky: The single origin theory is almost unanimously held,

SC: Which doesn’t actually mean it is correct, now does it? And if this is indeed the consensus view then it is inherently contradictory because the simple fact is, parallel evolution STILL occurs. So why not also from the very birth of life on Earth?

Kandinsky: The presence of humans in Americas is creeping further back into time. As Byrd mentioned and I linked early in the thread, pre-Clovis evidence is getting stronger. Hueytlico is being further investigated early next year.

SC: I don’t dispute this but what does it prove? Are you suggesting that homo sapiens sapiens were indeed in the Americas 250,000 or 1.3 million years ago?

And still you have not answered my question. Let me repeat it:

Precambrian Earth - a sea bursting with trillions upon trillions upon trillions of primeval single-celled organisms. Do you really expect anyone to believe that only ONE of those primeval cells was capable of taking root and producing all forms of life on Earth? Do you not accept that if one of those primeval cells could achieve such then two or three or ten or a thousand such cells could have achieved the same?

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 07:06 AM by Kandinsky

reply to post by Scott Creighton

Hello Scott,
Parallel evolution isn't precluded by evolution, it's still evolution. Marsupial examples etc etc. I'd write that there isn't any evidence of a parallel evolution of hominids in the Americas, but you'd reply 'So they say.' I'd write that there's no fossil record, you'll hint at academic misdeeds and paradigms whereby such evidence is ignored. You'd provide no evidence or links and offer possibilities.

Haplogroups show that we are ALL from the same phylo tree. If you wish to entertain the possibility that a separate phylo tree managed to evolve to intelligent bipedal humanoids without leaving a fossil record, I won't argue with it.

I am totally on the side of evolution – of science. I see, however, that the evolution picture is much more complex than few have hitherto imagined. I embrace the concept of parallel evolution because it makes more sense to me and because it explains some of the shortcomings of the prevailing mono-evolutionary model. Is that so bad?

I consistently fail to see where you are totally on the side of anything in particular...especially science. You are on record making fairly inflammatory generalizations about science and academics. Nevertheless, let's hope science catches up to the complexities you have long imagined. Why not start a thread that makes your views slightly clearer. "Scott Creighton's new guide to Evolution," perhaps?

SC: Can you tell me the haplogroup of the makers of the tools found at Valsequillo?

Would you even care? You haven't acknowledged that the age of the site is in dispute...

SC: I don’t dispute this but what does it prove? Are you suggesting that homo sapiens sapiens were indeed in the Americas 250,000 or 1.3 million years ago?

The evidence is not supporting human life in Americas 1.3 million years ago or 250, 000ya. Although, what matter evidence? You blithely dismiss all evidence anyway. The point that the footprints have been dated to 40,000 ya based on supported evidence is, as usual, thrown out on the basis of what? Possibilities? Possibilities that the evidence is fudged. Possibilities that an unknown humanoid evolved separately. Possibilities that the fossil record is misinterpreted on a grand scale. Even the possibility that you are one of the few that sees the problems of evolution. The one possibility that you often overlook is the people that come to such conclusions are probably correct.

Precambrian Earth - a sea bursting with trillions upon trillions upon trillions of primeval single-celled organisms. Do you really expect anyone to believe that only ONE of those primeval cells was capable of taking root and producing all forms of life on Earth? Do you not accept that if one of those primeval cells could achieve such then two or three or ten or a thousand such cells could have achieved the same?

Do you really believe that one of them resulted in a humanoid species (other than ourselves) residing in the Americas? Let me guess...it's possible?

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 09:37 AM by Scott Creighton

reply to post by Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky,

Kandinsky: Parallel evolution isn't precluded by evolution, it's still evolution. Marsupial examples etc etc

SC: Of course it is. But I ask - yet again - on what basis should it be accepted that all plant/animal life on Earth descended from ONE phylo-tree?. In an ocean bursting with trillions upon trillions upon trillions of single-celled organisms only ONE cell sprouted forth and produced all Earth life? Do you not accept that if one such cell could do this then there is a reasonable chance that OTHER cells would have done the same thereby establishing other separate phylo-trees?

Kandinsky: ' I'd write that there's no fossil record,

SC: And you’d be wrong. Read Cremo & Thomson’s ‘Forbidden Archaeology’.

Kandinsky: you'll hint at academic misdeeds and paradigms whereby such evidence is ignored.

SC: If I do this then I will do it because it is fact that such has occurred. Why do you have a problem with me highlighting such facts?

Kandinsky: You'd provide no evidence or links and offer possibilities.

SC: Again – read Cremo & Thomson’s ‘Forbidden Archaeology’. There’s evidence aplenty. The possibilities I present at least attempt to explain the evidence Cremo & Thomson present. Orthodox evolutionary/historical opinion ignores such evidence because it simply cannot answer such within its rigid framework. Parallel evolution of multiple phylo-trees is a means to reconcile this. I fail to understand why you find a possible solution to the shortcomings of orthodox evolutionary theory so abhorrent?

Kandinsky: Haplogroups show that we are ALL from the same phylo tree.

SC: Why shouldn’t it? But show me the haplogroup of the maker of the 1.3 my old footprint. Show me the haplogroup of the toolmakers of 250,000 years ago in Mexico? Everything came from an ocean brimming with the same single-celled organisms sharing identical DNA so it is no surprise that species will share similar DNA. All phylo-trees would have sprouted forth from the same primordial ocean of Precambrian single-cells with identical DNA.

Why can’t we find a link between non-flowering and flowering “plants”? Because we have classified such life-forms as “plants” and our model of evolution dictates that there must be a link (indeed many intermediary links) between the two species of plant. Parallel evolution takes the view that these two species of plant life evolved along entirely separate root phylo trees therefore there is no need to look for a link – it will never be found because there isn’t one. Hence why we can’t find it.

Why do we find fossils in the “wrong” rock strata? Either such fossils should be lower or higher (older or younger) in the strata according to the model/chronology of evolution that is being (re)constructed? Parallel evolution allows for similar life forms developing independently from separate phylo-trees. That such trees develop (evolve) at different rates could easily explain why similar fossil types are found apparently “out of sequence” in the rock strata.

Kandinsky: If you wish to entertain the possibility that a separate phylo tree managed to evolve to intelligent bipedal humanoids without leaving a fossil record, I won't argue with it.

SC: Again, read Cremo & Thomson’s ‘Forbidden Archaeology’.

Kandinsky: I consistently fail to see where you are totally on the side of anything in particular...especially science.

SC: Unfortunate but I’ve made my position clear in a number of posts.

Kandinsky: You are on record making fairly inflammatory generalizations about science and academics.

SC: If I have done so then I did so with good reason and with "witness" testimonies to back up what I have said. Or is it simply your preferance that such inappropriate activities by unscrupulous scientists should simply be brushed under the carpet, that we should turn a collective blind eye to such activity?

SC: Can you tell me the haplogroup of the makers of the tools found at Valsequillo?

Kandinsky: Would you even care?

SC: Yes. I think it would be interesting to know.

Kandinsky: You haven't acknowledged that the age of the site is in dispute.

SC: I do believe I have more than acknowledged such in other threads. You were the one here that “warned” me not to raise the topic or I’d be put on “ignore”.

Kandinsky: You blithely dismiss all evidence anyway.

SC: I have not dismissed evidence. I have pointed out to you that the evidence you present is moot in the context of parallel evolution.

Kandinsky: The point that the footprints have been dated to 40,000 ya based on supported evidence is, as usual, thrown out on the basis of what?

SC See above. Also, the issue of “anomalous evidence” is much wider than a 1.3myo or 40kyo footprint.

Kandinsky: Possibilities? Possibilities that the evidence is fudged.

SC: Now you are just making things up here. I have not suggested any findings relating to this particular site/artifact have been fudged. And I’d much prefer that you refrained from so casually making such inferences.

Kandinsky: The one possibility that you often overlook is the people that come to such conclusions are probably correct.

SC: Yes – that’s a possibility too.

Kandinsky: Do you really believe that one of them [Precambrian single celled organism] resulted in a humanoid species (other than ourselves) residing in the Americas? Let me guess...it's possible?

SC: Neat sidestep. Now can you actually answer the original question I have posted to you (several times now)? Thanks.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 12:49 PM by Harte

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

Kandinsky: ' I'd write that there's no fossil record,

SC: And you’d be wrong. Read Cremo & Thomson’s ‘Forbidden Archaeology’.

Why?

A book written by a college dropout and Hare Krishna advocate and published by a Hindu group whose stated aim is to promote Hindu religious creationist doctrine?

What on earth are you thinking?

Is there a large ring in your nose that can make it any easier for you to be led around by a bunch of fabulists?

Kandinsky is right about many things. But the two most obvious right now are:
1) there is no fossil record to indicate any "parallel evolution" leading to an entirely seperate phylum evolving into a bipedal hominid-type of creature,

2) you are willing to grasp at the most ephemeral of straws in your desire to live in your delusion.

Cremo's book is filled to the absolute brim with lies, half-lies, half truths, innuendo and outright fantasies.

Harte

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 01:19 PM by Scott Creighton

reply to post by Harte

Hello Harte,

Nice of you to drop by.

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

Kandinsky: ' I'd write that there's no fossil record,

SC: And you’d be wrong. Read Cremo & Thomson’s ‘Forbidden Archaeology’.

Harte: Why?

A book written by a college dropout and Hare Krishna advocate and published by a Hindu group whose stated aim is to promote Hindu religious creationist doctrine?

What on earth are you thinking?

Is there a large ring in your nose that can make it any easier for you to be led around by a bunch of fabulists?

Kandinsky is right about many things. But the two most obvious right now are:
1) there is no fossil record to indicate any "parallel evolution" leading to an entirely seperate phylum evolving into a bipedal hominid-type of creature,

2) you are willing to grasp at the most ephemeral of straws in your desire to live in your delusion.

Cremo's book is filled to the absolute brim with lies, half-lies, half truths, innuendo and outright fantasies.

Oops - guess I musta touched a raw nerve, eh Harte?

If the best way you can debunk the evidence presented in Forbidden Archaeology is to attack its authors as liars then I suggest this says more of your own sheer desperation and underhandedness than it does of these authors. It's an age-old tactic much beloved of skeptics but, alas, it rarely works.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 01:25 PM by Harte

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Oops - guess I musta touched a raw nerve, eh Harte?

If the best way you can debunk the evidence presented in Forbidden Archaeology is to attack its authors as liars then I suggest this says more of your own sheer desperation and underhandedness than it does of these authors. It's an age-old tactic much beloved of skeptics but, alas, it rarely works.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

"Regards?"

They are liars.

A spade is a spade.

I (and others) have shown in various threads here and elsewhere where they lie. I'm not going to re-do all of that just because some delusional popinjay has decided to defend Hindu creationism so that he may continue his residence in never-never land.

"Forbidden Archaeology" is full of lies, and the best parts of it are at the very least mistrepresentations of the facts. That is not in question, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

Harte

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 01:29 PM by Heisenberg

Perhaps the footprints were fake?

reply to post by DaddyBare

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 02:08 PM by Kandinsky

reply to post by Scott Creighton

Hello Scott,

SC: Of course it is. But I ask - yet again - on what basis should it be accepted that all plant/animal life on Earth descended from ONE phylo-tree?. In an ocean bursting with trillions upon trillions upon trillions of single-celled organisms only ONE cell sprouted forth and produced all Earth life? Do you not accept that if one such cell could do this then there is a reasonable chance that OTHER cells would have done the same thereby establishing other separate phylo-trees?

You keep asking but you ain't listening

You are trying to allow for the possibility (again) that a separate bipedal hominid evolved in the Americas. I'd write that there isn't any evidence, no fossil record. You suggest Cremo. I'd write that Cremo isn't a peer-reviewed or academic source. You'll no doubt question why it isn't and launch into another tired tirade about the misdeeds of established science and VSM. You rely on possibilities without the evidence to back it up. When evidence challenges your 'possibility' it's dismissed on the grounds that science is unreliable or dishonest.

SC: Why shouldn’t it? But show me the haplogroup of the maker of the 1.3 my old footprint. Show me the haplogroup of the toolmakers of 250,000 years ago in Mexico? Everything came from an ocean brimming with the same single-celled organisms sharing identical DNA so it is no surprise that species will share similar DNA. All phylo-trees would have sprouted forth from the same primordial ocean of Precambrian single-cells with identical DNA.

The footprints aren't 1.3 million years old. The Huyetlico tools aren't 250 000ya. As pointed out during a previous circular 'discussion' the age is in dispute. New research is due for early next year. The current oldest possible dating is 80ka based on diatoms in the layer of the lithics. That dating is still in dispute until further study. All this has been discussed during your Steen-McIntyre Defense' thread. Your pathological amnesia sees blank space where the words were supposed to be

Again and again you circumvent the evidence by traveling back 600million years to allow for the 'possibility' that a bipedal hominid evolved unseen in the Americas.

SC: If I have done so then I did so with good reason and with "witness" testimonies to back up what I have said. Or is it simply your preferance that such inappropriate activities by unscrupulous scientists should simply be brushed under the carpet, that we should turn a collective blind eye to such activity?

Please spare me. Your opinion (elsewhere) on the dishonesty of established science was good enough that I saved it as an example of rhetoric to show a couple of colleagues...I forget which thread it was, it was few months ago now...

... it is much easier to tear down than to build up. It is safer to cower in the trenches of stagnant orthodoxy than to battle across the minefields in search of one's own truth. And, in presenting what I discover, I do not do so in search of medals, or honours or money or baubels - I do so only in the hope that I will find a better truth of our history and origins at the end of my journey than the one that spouts forth from the fetid mound of perceived wisdom that you so readily accept as gospel.

Powerful stuff..?..or a tad too much?

SC: Now you are just making things up here. I have not suggested any findings relating to this particular site/artifact have been fudged. And I’d much prefer that you refrained from so casually making such inferences.

No Scott, you most certainly have not been that careless. One statement implies 'fudging', but you'll point out that you didn't quite say so, we'll leave your conscience clear on that one.

SC: Neat sidestep. Now can you actually answer the original question I have posted to you (several times now)? Thanks.

Rather than a neat sidestep, it avoids an interminable post for post 'discussion' on the 'possibility' that a bipedal hominid evolved separately in the Americas.

As I mentioned earlier, it would be fascinating if you nailed your colors to the mast. Why not launch a thread? It's almost clear what you disagree with...not so clear what you do agree with. 'Possibilities?' Reading between the lines, 'possibilities' is all you seem to offer....

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 04:12 PM by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by by Scott Creighton... it is much easier to tear down than to build up. It is safer to cower in the trenches of stagnant orthodoxy than to battle across the minefields in search of one's own truth. And, in presenting what I discover, I do not do so in search of medals, or honours or money or baubels - I do so only in the hope that I will find a better truth of our history and origins at the end of my journey than the one that spouts forth from the fetid mound of perceived wisdom that you so readily accept as gospel.

Scott...dude...let me introduce you to the word 'hyperbole'...I mean, really!

Now I agree that we need to exercise our imaginations to attain that knowledge which comes best to those at the fringes, but you can't use that line of reasoning to justify just any old nugget that sounds like it has a book in it.

You complain at length about the rigidity of Academe, yet ignore the fact that the paradigm of the peopling of the Americas has shifted radically in the last 15 years. The story is out there...and it is being told by those foetid guys you keen about...one need not make up stories and say..."Well prove it isn't so!"

Just because ya like it on the fringes, doesn't mean you have to be stoopid, too. (not an personal accusation, merely speaking in the abstract)

[edit on 28-5-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 10:39 PM by Mozzy

sorry to jump in the middle (i haven't read page 3 yet) but i do have a question.

first of all, thank you harte for the explanation about the footprint dating. evidently the rock is dated based off of the date of the orignal volcanic explosion? i'm assuming this has a reasonable +/- % of error to end up with a date of 40,000. it does seem to be rock solid (no pun intended) evidence because obviously the footprint could not have been there before the rock itself was there.

scott, i have a question for you. i can't seem to understand teh difference between mono and poly phylogenetic evolution. how can it be that polyphylogenetic evolution is any different than mono? even if a species does generate in several locations with several popluations with the end result being different species yet similar. how is this different from monophylogenetic evolution? surely we can all agree that a common ancestor is a necessary factor in all species. regardless of where or when on earth they orginated. (excluding alien experiments and protein filled space debris of course)

how could it possibly be that a polyphylogenetic species is somehow removed from the "mono" list?

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 10:58 PM by punkinworks09

I used to hold, and still some what do, the belief that modern man developed separately in maybe 2 places.

When homo erectus spread across the old world, I believe that HE developed independantly in to modern in the far east.
If changing environmental pressure cause man to develop in africa why not in central and east asia, he did in europe with neanderthal.

The fact that HE made it to asia fairly early on is undisputed. And the oldest modern human sites in central asia were also inhabited by HE as far back as a million years.

I also hold the very very remote posibility that HE made it to the new world, but only in a small and unsustainable population.

BUt there is absolutely no evidence for such things.