It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

300-million-year-old human fossils falsified evolution

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   
300-million-year-old human fossils falsified evolution

A human skull cap of 300 million years old: ireport.cnn.com...
A human leg bone of 300 million years old: wretchfossil.blogspot.com...




posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   
While on the site I also found this

Aliens are not our ancestors:

ireport.cnn.com...



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by linliangtai
300-million-year-old human fossils falsified evolution

A human skull cap of 300 million years old: ireport.cnn.com...
A human leg bone of 300 million years old: wretchfossil.blogspot.com...



Not exactly peer reviewed papers..
Ones a blog and the others well, about the same..

So you know: iReport is the way people like you report the news. The stories in this section are not edited, fact-checked or screened before they post.


Do you have any collaborating sources?
300 million years would be quite the find..



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Collaborated can also mean compromised one only has to look at the "global warming" scientists.
But now what does this mean?
300 million year old human?
My anscestors may have had a pet named dino?



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Amazing if its true and with the age of the world why should we be such late arrivals.

I always come back to the same thought though, why do we have so few fossils? I know today I am struggling to adjust to the available evidence that this planet can easily shake life off its top layers, alter what was below the sea to suddenly rise up and tower above it, thereby putting what was above unceremoniously below.

I wondered if any excavation has been done deep under our desert areas, how far does the sand go down, because those areas seem to have odd myths about once having been huge cities or at least populated, yet all we know is desert? Perhaps we might find further corroboration in areas we haven't dug our shovels into.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


My anscestors may have had a pet named dino?


The Flintstones...



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Aaah out of place fossils, see i dig this sort of thing.
I can put clean water on the tenth floor of an apartment, and make crap flow downhill but,...
This old stuff boggles me, things like this are found all of the time and unless you are constantly scanning the news you'll never hear of it.
Chances are the story in the OP will soon be discredited and never heard of again.
I do believe humans have an ancient history on earth, just every so often Mother Nature decides to thin out the criminals, to save her life.
I'm not saying we're overpopulated just overstupid.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
OP, how much source criticism you're practising? Perhaps you haven't heard, but everything in the Internet is not true. Also you should have used the search function, this bogus finding has already been discussed here.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Thank you, interesting.
You might want to check out the Petrified Finger Story also.


When confronted with these fossils one must be open for the the idea it possibly being fossils indeed, rather than try to fit it in a known paradigm, just "because it's not possible".

I'm not too sure if far out ideas can always count on an objective, unbiased peer review.
They're often judged from the start.


I'm not familiar with this Ed Conrad (from the second link), but I'm interested by his finds. Dubious? Maybe.
A list of pics:


Note 1: Other “human fossils” found by Mr. Ed Conrad in Carboniferous strata:

www.edconrad.com...
www.edconrad.com...
www.edconrad.com...
www.edconrad.com...
www.edconrad.com...
www.edconrad.com...
www.edconrad.com...
www.edconrad.com...
www.edconrad.com...
www.edconrad.com...
www.edconrad.com...
www.edconrad.com...

Other discoveries:

www.edconrad.com...
www.edconrad.com...
www.edconrad.com...
www.edconrad.com...
www.edconrad.com...
www.edconrad.com...
www.edconrad.com...


Source

Edit: After reading further through the links, I'd like to make clear I'n not a creationist, nor anti-Darwinist in any way. Just interested.

edit on 14/4/11 by Movhisattva because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I think stuff like this is a good case for time travel or even weirder dimensional time shifts that suck objects from our present into the past.Or it could be what happened to the people in the Philidephia Project. I like to think outside the box. In a world of infinite possibilities anything is possible.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Scientists don't want to talk about the out of place fossils and artifacts that are found because it disrupts their reality.

www.youtube.com...

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, it's just a pain in the neck to change our whole timeline, and no one wants to say, "hey, we were wrong." It's not farfetched to think the human race could be older than we think it is now. Science always changes, as it should as we find more evidence. There are plenty of these thingsm that by current understanding, just should not be there. I think there have been many cycles of civilization rising and falling, and it as been going on for EONS. We're a bit full of ourselves to think we're at the sumit of human acomplishments, and have it all figured out.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roselyie
It's not farfetched to think the human race could be older than we think it is now.

Yes it is, if you imply that humans could have existed 100s of millions of years ago. This does not agree with genetics, at all. Nor does it agree with the fossil record, one 300 million year old fossil, then a gap of 290 million years before the next fossil? I don't think so.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Ok, ignore the mountains of other evidence (being a member here, I know you have seen examples), and stubbornly stick to a stagnant understanding that SHOULD be altered, but hasn't been. What makes you think we are the best example of humans to ever have existed?

Please explain the genetic aspect to me, because I havent studied genetics. I'm not saying we are definitely 300 million years old, but civilization definitely reaches farther back in time than we are taught to believe.

www.youtube.com...

I'm possitive this video has been posted before, but it's relevent to this topic also.

Its important to understand, that although this guy may not be a mainstream scientist, these things have been found, and the reason he isn't mainstream, is because he doesn't adhere to the mainstream theory. Not simply because he *must* be a quack.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roselyie
Ok, ignore the mountains of other evidence (being a member here, I know you have seen examples), and stubbornly stick to a stagnant understanding that SHOULD be altered, but hasn't been. What makes you think we are the best example of humans to ever have existed?

The mountain of evidence is on my side, not yours.


Originally posted by Roselyie
Please explain the genetic aspect to me, because I havent studied genetics. I'm not saying we are definitely 300 million years old, but civilization definitely reaches farther back in time than we are taught to believe.

If you haven't studied genetics, I'm not so sure you can appreciate the evidence. I'm not a geneticist neither, thou it's very much related to my field. Well, where do I begin. Perhaps these so called molecular clocks like 16S (in archaea and bacteria) and 18S (in eukarya) rDNA. It's called rDNA, because this DNA is only transcribed to RNA, but never translated to proteins. The end product is a part of the small ribosomal subunit. Basically it folds into a 3-dimensional structure, and then functions as part of a ribosome. It's assumed that this gene accumulates very few mutations over time, because its role to the cell is fundamental. So when we compare the 16S and 18S rDNA sequences of different species we can build trees of how these species are related. So there for example we see that humans are extremely related to chimps, bonobo, gorilla, orangutans and gibbons. We can also compare sequences of other house keeping genes (that is genes which are also fundamental to the cell), for example something that is related to RNA polymerase, and these trees agree with the other trees. Another thing we can compare is DNA-DNA hybridization, how well DNA from 2 species hybridises. The more closely they're related, the more they hybridize. Human DNA of course hybridises the most with chimp and bonobo DNA. These are just a few example techniques out of many.

Another line of evidence is the telomere sequences in the middle of human chromosome 2. You see, telomere sequences are only supposed to be found from the ends of linear eukaryote chromosomes, because their function has to do with how the ends of the chromosomes are replicated. So why are they in the middle of human chromosome 2? Well, it's because human chromosome 2 is actually two separate chromosomes in for example the chimp genome. So what happened sometime after the human and chimp lineage separated is that these two chromosomes fused in the human lineage. Now, if humans were a really old species these telomere sequences in the middle of human chromosome 2 would have disappeared over time, because they have no function what so ever.

Totally different way to prove our species late arrival to the scene is to see how human populations between different areas differ. The vast majority of human genetic diversity is in sub Saharan Africa. The reason why all the other populations are very homogeneous in comparison is that it was only relatively little time ago (like less than 100,000 years ago) that a small group of people left Africa and inhabited the other continents.

There's a lot more to this, but I think this is a good start. Go ahead and ask if you don't understand something, or you have related follow-up questions about what I mentioned. Also take a look at this picture.

Skulls in picture are:

A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

My = million years old

Now, I think it's possible that human civilization is slightly older than we think, perhaps even 10,000 years older, but there's a long way from 10,000 to 300,000,000.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I'm not disputing evolution...
maybe I just belong in the ancient and lost civilizations forum. I agree it's(evolution) impossible to ignore it unless you cover your ears, clench your eyes shut, stamp your feet and scream , "nonononono!!!". I don't see how finding a 300 million year old human fossil helps creationists case though...earths not suppose to be that old, let alone people.

I'm finished...we don't really have anything to debate about.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roselyie
Scientists don't want to talk about the out of place fossils and artifacts that are found because it disrupts their reality.

www.youtube.com...

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, it's just a pain in the neck to change our whole timeline, and no one wants to say, "hey, we were wrong." It's not farfetched to think the human race could be older than we think it is now. Science always changes, as it should as we find more evidence. There are plenty of these thingsm that by current understanding, just should not be there. I think there have been many cycles of civilization rising and falling, and it as been going on for EONS. We're a bit full of ourselves to think we're at the sumit of human acomplishments, and have it all figured out.

Your idea is elaborated in the following message:
All evolutionists believe in young Earth. All evolutionists believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. In fact, the Earth is forty million billion years old as mentioned in “God’s story” wretchfossil.blogspot.com...

God said there has never been a new star in the universe. That means our sun and Earth is as old as all the other stars. At present, scientists are unable to test rocks for ages over 500 billion years old.

All human civilizations proceeded in a circular rather than linear way. All civilizations went in small cycles of 12,000 years. Many such small cycles form a large cycle of about 50 million years. At the end of each large cycle there was a mass extinction event. The latest small cycle began 6000 years ago for much area on Earth. That’s possibly why some Creationists mistook the present 6000-year-old civilization for a 6000-year-old Earth.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Roselyie
 

That's it? I spent freaking 30 min writing a reply and you just basically ignore the whole post?



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Heres a tip, dont link to a cnn report that you wrote yourself, and if you do want to link to something you authored, have it peer-edited, fact checked, and confirm all the information and sources validity. The same thing goes with that blog post.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by linliangtai

Originally posted by Roselyie
Scientists don't want to talk about the out of place fossils and artifacts that are found because it disrupts their reality.

www.youtube.com...

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, it's just a pain in the neck to change our whole timeline, and no one wants to say, "hey, we were wrong." It's not farfetched to think the human race could be older than we think it is now. Science always changes, as it should as we find more evidence. There are plenty of these thingsm that by current understanding, just should not be there. I think there have been many cycles of civilization rising and falling, and it as been going on for EONS. We're a bit full of ourselves to think we're at the sumit of human acomplishments, and have it all figured out.

Your idea is elaborated in the following message:
All evolutionists believe in young Earth. All evolutionists believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. In fact, the Earth is forty million billion years old as mentioned in “God’s story” wretchfossil.blogspot.com...

God said there has never been a new star in the universe. That means our sun and Earth is as old as all the other stars. At present, scientists are unable to test rocks for ages over 500 billion years old.

All human civilizations proceeded in a circular rather than linear way. All civilizations went in small cycles of 12,000 years. Many such small cycles form a large cycle of about 50 million years. At the end of each large cycle there was a mass extinction event. The latest small cycle began 6000 years ago for much area on Earth. That’s possibly why some Creationists mistook the present 6000-year-old civilization for a 6000-year-old Earth.


If a mass extinction event occured every fifty million years, than how would you explain the 100 million year period between the late devonian event and the permo triassic event in which no extinction events happened, the same goes for the period between the triasso-jurrassic and the cretaceous-tertiary



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by linliangtai
 


While Israel has found the oldest human remains to be dated back 400,000 years:

www.msnbc.msn.com...

the report says more research is yet to be done to solidify the claim; we have to wait and see.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join