reply to post by Scott Creighton
No Scott, it doesn't. The sources and links provided reveal evidence that the footprints are around 40ka. The evidence is supported across many
fields, as repeated time and again. You use 'possibility' over and over again. That a separate phyla has managed to evolve into a bipedal hominid in
the Americas is without evidence.
Please be clear and explain your understanding off our history. It would 'possibly' explain why evidence is dismissed because VSM was initially
ignored. Why evidence is dismissed because, 'well...errmm...there 'could' have 'possibly' been a pre-Cambrian evolution of bipedal hominid in the
Americas.' You are painfully inconclusive and when I asked what age you 'think' or 'believe' the footprints to be..?
What I 'believe' or what I 'think' is quite immaterial. It's what can be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) that actually counts.
What does that mean
? Your 'reasonable doubt' is as slippery as your argument. Your 'reasonable doubt' is greater than that allowed for
in peer-reviewed papers. You use the anti-Evolution arguments favored by ID proponents and Creationists to bolster your own concepts of...what? Are
you ever going to be clear about your view of our history, Scott?
Between your, frankly wonderful, 'Steen McIntyre Defense,' the 'possibility' of polyphylogenetic..oh wait...parallel evolution, you haven't
really left any room for reappraising your ideas. Is the 'Pre-Cambrian Parallel Evolution model' going to be a new patented defense to protect your
intellect from accepting the footprints are probably 40ka?
Before this thread began, the best evidence was 'beginning' to show that life came earlier than Clovis to the Americas. As pointed out, the other
findings are still in dispute so Clovis points etc was where the best evidence kind of rested. Following this thread some of us have adapted to the
idea that the 'best evidence' is beginning to rest between 20ka and 40ka. Not conclusive, but 'beginning' to rest around that period...
I point this out because, as usual, it's hard to be clear about what you've achieved or learned here. It seems like you have brought the same old
ideas and arguments to yet another thread. As usual, it 'appears' that you will leave with exactly what you arrived with. Your apparent dogmatism
makes your obvious intelligence sadly redundant....
Has your view changed at all, on anything? Is your understanding of history the same as when you joined the thread? Finally, please, please explain
what your understanding of our history is in clear terms...possibilities and all.