The nail in the Evolutionary Coffin, the final spike placed there by the Royal Society itself.

Ok I will post 3 good arguments and then you can discuss them...
(Prefix "arg" so you reference the point if you want)

Arg 1)
Why do humans all have different faces when no other form of life has different faces including apes?

And if you say that it is due to sexual selection or natural selection you need to make a sound argument and show how such a modification of the genetic code could be possible to account for this major difference. For instance one mutation is not even close to good enough to accomplish this. And if you say well gee dogs look like they have faces to me, thats not a scientific argument. Do a google search for images, they all look the same. Face recognition software will not work on anything but humans. And not only that, but there are 7 billion humans, so you need to account for the fact that they all have distinct faces.


Arg 2) Why are there elongated skulls in Peru which have no fontanel? In fact their skulls are not plated in the same way homo sapiens are, In fact then, they are not homo sapiens. Not even close. So where did they come from and what is the evolutionary argument regarding them?

And if you say these are skulls that have been modified by planking etc as per common practices of South American Indians that is not true. Those skulls are easily identified. If you want more info look it up. Its there.

Arg 3) This will be divided into facts A, B and C.

Fact A) The Royal Society, held a special exhibition, in 2005, at the British Museum, displaying footprints in lava discovered in central Mexico of modern man. And I quote...

Adds to the global archive of human prints.
The presence of ancient human and animal prints is a rare occurrence in nature, because it requires special conditions for their preservation. The Valsequillo Basin footprints add to this literature and reflect specific environmental conditions for their preservation within this area of Central Mexico.

(Quoted from their Mexican Footprints Exhibition webpage from the Research link on the main page.)

Fact B) From the prestigious journal Nature Dec 1 2005

Paul R. Renne[1],[2], Joshua M. Feinberg[2], Michael R. Waters[3], Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales[4], Patricia Ochoa-Castillo[5], Mario Perez-Campa[6] and Kim B. Knight[2]

Here we show by 40Ar/39Ar dating and corroborating palaeomagnetic data that the basaltic tuff on which the purported footprints are found is 1.30plusminus0.03 million years old.

1. Berkeley Geochronology Center, Berkeley, California 94709, USA
   
2. Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
   
3. Departments of Anthropology and Geography, and Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-4352, USA
   
4. Laboratório de Arqueozoología, Subdirección de Laboratórios y Apoyo Académico, Instituto Nacionál de Antropología e Historia, CP 06060, México
   
5. Subdirección de Arqueología, Museo Nacional de Antropología, Reforma y Gandhi s/n, CP 11560, México
   
6. Proyecto Cuicuilco, Instituto Nacionál de Antropología e Historia, CP 06700, México
   

For those not familiar with the Royal Society, Charles Darwin was elected a member of the Royal Society on Jan. 4 1839

For those not familiar with Paul Renne his publication record would be too large to post. To say he is the leading expert on lava dating in the world would be an understatement. He is currently a professor at Berkely.
link to accreditation

And fact C) The lava was also examined as to whether or not it was sediment, or fresh when the footprints were placed in it, and it was determined that the grains were magnetically aligned, hence the prints were placed while the lava was fresh, at the time of the volcanic eruption. As stated also in the journal Nature.

Saying since they are 1.3 million years old they can't possibly be human footprints is not a valid scientific argument. See the quote above. Members of the Royal Society, home of Charles Darwin, through thorough scientific study, determined the prints were human, and should be preserved. If you want I can quote from a BBC science reporter who was taken there in person by a professor, and showed the prints, and he stated, clearly some of these are human footprints.

If you try to discount this evidence I am presenting by quoting articles from Evolution magazine, I will quote Bible passages as a reply. Otherwise you may do your best. Scientific approaches only please.

If you are unscientific in your arguments, with mere appeals to authority, I will quote Bible passages as a reply.
Look at it like a gong.

Evolution theory and the Out of Africa hypothesis have been disproved.
If you want my personal opinion, I think we are down to aliens did it. Maybe someday I will give you my theory.
But first, I would love to hear you defend the dead beetle of Evolutionary theory. The theory that was.

Can't deny it. We are an alien science experiment. I hope the alien child gets a good grade!

Originally posted by superman2012
Can't deny it. We are an alien science experiment. I hope the alien child gets a good grade!

Well I suppose I am not being objective when I say this, but, I give them an A+. Earth girls are hot.

reply to post by Rocketman7


Its interesting. When we create something, it is more or less for military applications. I wonder if we are the military for the aliens.

Originally posted by Rocketman7
Arg 1)
Why do humans all have different faces when no other form of life has different faces including apes?

Your claim is simply not true.
Other creatures do have "faces" which identify themselves as individuals.

Originally posted by Rocketman7
Arg 2) Why are there elongated skulls in Peru
In fact then, they are not homo sapiens.

Dont really care what the unusual shape might be.
Its the DNA evidence that tells for sure.
If its human DNA in those skulls then they're human.
Do you have evidence that the DNA isnt human?

Originally posted by Rocketman7
Arg 3) This will be divided into facts A, B and C.

Not even going to discuss this one.
You know perfectly well that this exact discussion is happening in the other thread, and its against the T&C of this site to spam the same discussion among multiple threads.

Originally posted by Rocketman7
Why do humans all have different faces when no other form of life has different faces including apes?

Consider that each species may be sensitive to facial differences only in its own species.

Arg 1 can be ruled out quite easily, the rest, not so much.

Regarding arg 1, many species can deseminate between each other quite easily. It has been determined that sheep can tell the difference between each other simply by the face.
www.thenakedscientists.com...

We're very interested in finding out and understanding whether sheep are in many way like humans in the way that they use facial cues to recognise each other.

Plus (and this may come across as racist, but it's not), people of different races often report that they have difficulty telling the difference between two males when asked to distinguish the perpetrator in a line up. This is another reason why eye witness testimony is so unreliable.
Please see this article:
www.sciencedaily.com...

So, arg 1 can be ruled out as a means of identifying that humans aren't unique in this aspect. Although gorilla faces look similar to us, they probably aren't this way to each other. Maybe gorillas think we all look alike.

The rest of your op is special and takes much more thought to rule it out. I honestly do believe that we are an alien experiment as one poster suggested. This is the only theory that makes sense to me once it's all boiled down.

Edit to Add: I think chemicals in our envirnment are another nail in the evil-lutionary casket as I explained in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Rocketman7
Arg 1)
Why do humans all have different faces when no other form of life has different faces including apes?

Your claim is simply not true.
Other creatures do have "faces" which identify themselves as individuals.

Originally posted by Rocketman7
Arg 2) Why are there elongated skulls in Peru
In fact then, they are not homo sapiens.

Dont really care what the unusual shape might be.
Its the DNA evidence that tells for sure.
If its human DNA in those skulls then they're human.
Do you have evidence that the DNA isnt human?

Originally posted by Rocketman7
Arg 3) This will be divided into facts A, B and C.

Not even going to discuss this one.
You know perfectly well that this exact discussion is happening in the other thread, and its against the T&C of this site to spam the same discussion among multiple threads.

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. (Matthew 23:14)”

"Other creatures do have "faces" which identify themselves as individuals."

Do you talk to the animals or something? How do you know that?

This thread is not spam. It is for the benefit of those who like this subject matter and it is on topic, and if you do not think there is a conspiracy, then you can do the following...

copy this link, and put it in your browser address, then copy the second link and put it there as well, so you have two links combined in one. Then remove the spaces in the HTTP
ht tp://web.archive.org/web/20070208174325/
ht tp://www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk/

After you have visited that site in the archives, click on the second link by itself.
I have to put spaces in the http because otherwise it won't work in this editor.

reply to post by Rocketman7


1. Too ridiculous. No two animals are like. Their faces different.

2. The Peruvian skulls have fontanelles.

3. This is a doozy. Either you did not do any research at all or you are purposely fibbing.

The team that claimed the marks were footprints has decided that they are not. They decided they were mistaken at 2 years ago.

Looks like 3 strikes and you are out!

reply to post by stereologist


What. No links to back up your comments?
I personally would like to read about the stuff you're speaking about.

The first piece of evidence that these are not hominid footprints is here
www.nature.com...

A report of human footprints preserved in 40,000-year-old volcanic ash near Puebla, Mexico (www.royalsoc.ac.uk...), was the subject of a press conference that stirred international media attention1. If the claims (www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk...) of Gonzalez et al. are valid, prevailing theories about the timing of human migration into the Americas would need significant revision. Here we show by 40Ar/39Ar dating and corroborating palaeomagnetic data that the basaltic tuff on which the purported footprints are found is 1.30plusminus0.03 million years old. We conclude that either hominid migration into the Americas occurred very much earlier than previously believed, or that the features in question were not made by humans on recently erupted ash.

This suggests that the original researchers did not properly date the rock.

So who is Renne and why should his dates be considered?

reply to post by Afterthought

What. No links to back up your comments?
I personally would like to read about the stuff you're speaking about.

Notice that the OP did not provide links. They quote and list some comments, but the OP does not really want you to follow links. The only link they provided was to have you believe Renne, not to follow any of the other material posted.

Originally posted by dbarnhart

Originally posted by Rocketman7
Why do humans all have different faces when no other form of life has different faces including apes?

Consider that each species may be sensitive to facial differences only in its own species.

Thats not even close to any sort of scientific argument.

Since that argument has already been punished with a Bible quote, I won't punish you again in case you posted before you realized how fallacious an argument that was which was made and have seen the error of your ways already.

reply to post by stereologist


The Op has proposed a theory. A theory doesn't always have to include references because it is an opinion/idea.

It is our job to prove to prove or disprove his/her theory with what we have learned and back it up with proof.
Although I appreciate theories that are backed with proof, we can't always expect this with one's belief.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Rocketman7

 

1. Too ridiculous. No two animals are like. Their faces different.

2. The Peruvian skulls have fontanelles.

3. This is a doozy. Either you did not do any research at all or you are purposely fibbing.

The team that claimed the marks were footprints has decided that they are not. They decided they were mistaken at 2 years ago.

Looks like 3 strikes and you are out!

sfappeal.com...

Gonggggggg...

15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.

The argument that since the footprints are 1.3 million years old they can't possibly be human footprints is not a valid scientific argument.
See fact A, B and C above.

So now let's get a little more background on this misrepresented issue posted by the OP.
www.berkeley.edu...

Earlier this year, researchers in England touted these "footprints" as definitive proof that humans were in the Americas much earlier than 11,000 years ago, which is the earliest firm date for human settlements after the first Americans arrived across a northern land-bridge from Asia.

These scientists, led by geologist Silvia Gonzalez of Liverpool's John Moores University, dated the volcanic rock at 40,000 years old. They hypothesized that early hunters walked across ash freshly deposited near a lake by volcanoes that are still active in the area around Puebla, Mexico. The so-called footprints, subsequently covered by more ash and inundated by lake waters, eventually turned to rock.

So there is the situation. Some marks were found in rock. The rocks are part of an active quarry. The marks are claimed to be footprints of some sort.

Read the article and look at the photos and learn that these marks are not necessarily footprints. One of the important parts of the article is learning more about the pros and cons of different dating methods.

reply to post by Afterthought

The Op has proposed a theory. A theory doesn't always have to include references because it is an opinion.

It is our job to prove to disprove his/her theory with what we have learned and back it up with proof.
Although I appreciate theories that are backed with proof, we can't always expect this with one's belief.

It's not anyone other than the OP to defend their claim.

In this case the OP is telling falsehoods. My opinion is that they did this on purpose.

I don't have to defend that because it is an opinion.

reply to post by Rocketman7

The argument that since the footprints are 1.3 million years old they can't possibly be human footprints is not a valid scientific argument.

Try learning some science for a change. You are wrong on that point as well.

Originally posted by superman2012
Can't deny it. We are an alien science experiment. I hope the alien child gets a good grade!

And i hope that the super sized alien kids who like to use earth for target practice,by shooting at us with their slingshot rocks we call asteroids and their napalm dipped snow balls we call comets,get expelled...

reply to post by stereologist


We all know it was the jet stream.