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.
Forgive my lack of clarity, brevity is an aspiration I fall short of...
Do you think the footprints are from 1.3 million years ago? If so why?
Polyphylogeny is a term used in the science of systematics. It describes a group of species that are classified in the same taxon, but do not share a single ancestor. Systematics is the study of biological diversity looked at through an evolutionary perspective. It was an outgrowth of taxonomy and has slowly become more sophisticated since the time Charles Darwin posed the evolutionary theory. Scientists who pursue this subject attempt to group organisms based on probable evolutionary relationships. They create genealogy diagrams, called phylogenic trees, that graphically show these relationships.
A polyphylogenic group would contain species that seem related, but have different evolutionary ancestors. These species are grouped using a variety of characteristics such as fossil records, comparative anatomy and DNA and protein analysis. While most phylogenic trees contain polyphylogenic groups, the ideal in systematics is for each group to have a common ancestor or be monophylogenic. Unfortunately, a large amount of conflicting data is often collected. For example, two unrelated organisms may be grouped together because they independently evolved similar traits. Incidents of this type of convergent evolution create errors in phylogenic trees. However, as more data is collected about various species, scientists hope to achieve the goal of a unified phylogenic tree.
Originally posted by mastermind77
are they accounting for the possibility of time travel, or a random wormhole from future to past..poor guy or gal must have been terrified to suddenly appear in the woods or something..
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...
Wiki for us non-genetic scientists
In the study of molecular evolution, a haplogroup (from the Greek: ἁπλοῦς, haploûs, "onefold, single, simple") is a group of similar haplotypes that share a common ancestor with a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation. Because a haplogroup consists of similar haplotypes, this is what makes it possible to predict a haplogroup from Haplotypes. A SNP test confirms a haplogroup. Haplogroups are assigned letters of the alphabet, and refinements consist of additional number and letter combinations, Example: R1b1.
Kandinsky: I was cautiously trying to work out your view on the OP's question. Other than a cursory acknowledgment of the 40ky, your replies have somehow eluded any reference to the footprints or their age.
Kandinsky: Would a polyphylogenetic model support the 1.3million ya or the 40ka conclusion?
Kandinsky: They actually prove a common ancestry and support the theories that we crossed over the Beringia land/ice bridge up to around 23ka.
For in the course of the last few years, a number of mostly young experts have become convinced that biogenesis, the origin of life, is to be understood polyphylogenetically (from many sources) rather than monophylogenetically (all life stemming from one primeval cell). So today well-informed experts exist who no longer believe that all species originated from one primeval cell by means of transformism. They believe in no common biological family tree for all species, possessing a single root for all forms of life. Rather, they hold the opinion that life resembles a field in which many organisms flourish side by side without necessarily being connected phylogenetically.
G. A. Kerkut, Professor of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southampton, England, is one of the Professors who has questioned the old Neo-Darwinian transformism. Professor Kerkut writes: "The attempt to explain all living forms in terms of an evolution from a unique source, though a brave and valid attempt, is one that is premature and not satisfactorily supported by present day evidence."(2) Kerkut adds that, personally, he would never state that evolution "has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt." He admits finding depressing the dogmatism of evolutionary theorist in many scientific circles.
In this particular example the science says one thing (1.3 million yrs) but the evolutionary/historical model we have constructed for ourselves forces us to conclude it must be flawed. Why not trust the science? Why not conclude that the evolutionary/historical model we have constructed might actually be flawed?
SOURCE
alternative interpretation suggests that the intermediate polarity of the Xalnene ash and the reversepolarity of the volcanic lava both originated during the Laschamp geomagnetic event, 45 ka to about 39 ka ago.The Laschamp geomagnetic excursion was fi rst discovered in the Massif Central, France, in the 1960s (5). It remains one of the best-documented recent geomagnetic excursions and has worldwide expression (6). Our interpretation would suggest that Valsequillo is one of the earliest sites of human occupation in America and that it represents significant evidence of early arrival of humans. The origins, the timing, and the route followed by the first colonizers of the American continent remain one of the important topics in human evolution (7-8).
Laschamp event
The discovery by Bonhommet and Babkine (1967) of almost reverse directions of magnetization recorded by the Laschamp and Olby lava flows triggered a wide interest. This was indeed the first significant observation supporting the existence of a short geomagnetic event referred as a geomagnetic excursion. Subsequent studies established that these flows were 30 and 40 kyrs old (Gillot et al, 1979) in coincidence with a period of low dipole field intensity.
SC: In this particular example the science says one thing (1.3 million yrs) but the evolutionary/historical model we have constructed for ourselves forces us to conclude it must be flawed. Why not trust the science? Why not conclude that the evolutionary/historical model we have constructed might actually be flawed?
Kandinsky: Since when did you trust science?!
Kandinsky: The results of the scientific analyses mentioned in a previous post offered two possible dates.
If the monophylogenetic evolutionary model can be proven over the polyphylogenetic model then I would say you have a strong case. Alas, however, the polyphylogenetic model is growing in favour amongst scientists and is doing so because it has strengths that the current evolutionary model simply cannot address.
Basically, a volcanic event from the the period 45ka - 39ka would account for the reverse polarity of the rock layers the footprints were found in
Kandinsky: Imagine we have two pallets of bricks. One represents the evidence for 1.3 million ya. The other (of two) represents the evidence for 40ka. The one for 40ka has a lot more bricks on it. The one for 1.3million ya has fewer bricks on it.
SC: If the monophylogenetic evolutionary model can be proven over the polyphylogenetic model then I would say you have a strong case. Alas, however, the polyphylogenetic model is growing in favour amongst scientists and is doing so because it has strengths that the current evolutionary model simply cannot address.
Kandinsky: The 'polyphylogenetic' model isn't growing in favor amongst scientists, furthermore there isn't really a 'monophylogenetic'....just a phylogenetic model.
Kerkut is one of the scientists in the USA, Europe, and England who is "on the move" regarding evolutionary theory. They no longer accept the old biogenetical dogmas concerning evolution. They regard them in the light of new knowledge in the fields of information theory and molecular biology. Against this background they examine the old theories. Highly qualified academics and professors of reputable universities in the Anglo-Saxon world and in Europe today no longer believe in a transformism of the old Neo-Darwinian type, where a primeval cell is supposed to have changed into all the species of our present biology solely through the forces of chance and natural selection. Today it is clearly not objective to state that only ignorant people refute the Neo-Darwinian theories. To classify doubting academics as ignorant is an emotional matter. Such outbreaks of emotion occurred many years ago in the defense of the Phlogiston theory which was formerly accepted by nearly all "educated" persons.
Originally posted by DaddyBare
Funny you said that as in recent times they have found remains of Caucasian-like people that predate what is generally accepted as Native Americans... if true where did they come from? how did they get here, and where did they go?
Highly qualified academics and professors of reputable universities in the Anglo-Saxon world and in Europe today no longer believe in a transformism of the old Neo-Darwinian type, where a primeval cell is supposed to have changed into all the species of our present biology solely through the forces of chance and natural selection
SC: As I said - I go with the evidence and more specifically the scientific analysis of that evidence.
Originally posted by DaddyBare
reply to post by Kandinsky
I have read the papers and when I was done I had to wonder if rather than stick to the original findings of 1.3 million years they edited themselves to prevent being ostracized and keep their funding...
that is how modern science is done you know... keep the foundations and peers happy ya know... publish or Parrish... have others confirm your findings...
that wasn't going to happen when the so called experts were already dismissing the prospect out of hand... I think there's a hidden story here but for sake of conforming no ones willing to go out on that limb
Kandinsky: Are you aware the author believed that God created the world some few thousand years ago?
Highly qualified academics and professors of reputable universities in the Anglo-Saxon world and in Europe today no longer believe in a transformism of the old Neo-Darwinian type, where a primeval cell is supposed to have changed into all the species of our present biology solely through the forces of chance and natural selection.
Kandinsky: This is unsupported in his book, his references or an online search through academic sites like Springerlink, Lancet or Evesier. Also G.A. Kerkud never made claims of polyphylogenetics either and is merely referred to by Wilder. Do you have a more neutral reference or source to support his or your claims that polyphylogenetics is becoming favored?
SC: As I said - I go with the evidence and more specifically the scientific analysis of that evidence.
Kandinsk: I've given you several sources direct from Silvia Gonzalez (that's the person who discovered the footprints and published the results). I've given you supporting sources. I've demonstrated that the haplogroups display common genes that are shared by all humans (phylogenetics). I've given you explanations for the Las champ event and how it relates to the dating of the footprints. I've indicated where you may check Gonzalez' sources and references.
Kandinsky: It's often difficult to define your position on any given subject.
Kandinksky: In this case, is it that (although you don't believe or think) the footprints are 1.3 million years old and possibly created by a (bipedal humanoid) species that evolved separately from a different ancestor?
Kandinsky: Is it also that Gonzalez has been dishonest in her conclusions?
Kandinksy: If you offer the 'possibility' that this is true (footprints being 1.3 million years old etc) whilst not being committed either way, I suggest you at least click on some of the links. If I've misunderstood your position, please correct me and be quite clear