Oldest Americans 1.3 millon years???

reply to post by punkinworks09
There might be no evidence yet. The 'mystery' points I was nodding to in this The Phylogeny of the Four Pan-American... article (early in the thread) seems to allow for an earlier crossing into the Americas.

On the other hand, it is quite plausible that some intra-haplogroup variation – hardly noticeable at the level of HVS-I motifs – already existed in Beringia and was carried directly further south into the American double-continent.

Interesting? Also...

In any case, all the abovementioned scenarios do not support the ‘Clovis-first’ hypothesis, but are well in agreement with the undisputed ages of the earliest Paleoindians in South America [42].

This is what makes it all so interesting to armchair enthusiasts like me. Charlie Hatchett and others, Valsequillo, Huyetlico, Central Texas indicates a pre-Clovis population and the haplogroup evidence does too

reply to post by Kandinsky


Hey there K.,

While doing some speedreading for this thread i found references to a couple of other sites of anomolous age, both have disputed dates of more than 100k bp.

These were referenced in a reputible journal. But until a skeleton or parts of a skeleton it is just supposition.

reply to post by Kandinsky


Hello Kandinsky,

You keep asking but you ain't listening

SC: I keep asking because you are not answering my direct question.

Kandinsky: You are trying to allow for the possibility (again) that a separate bipedal hominid evolved in the Americas.

SC: It is not me that allows it - it is evolutionary theory that allows for it. You see, whilst you readily accept that parallel evolution can, has and does occur within different branches of your single-phylo-tree model you then contradict this by not allowing for such to occur at the very outset of animal and plant life i.e. at the Precambrian stage.

The evidence clearly shows us that parallel evolution (wthin single phylo-tree branches) does occur so there is every reason to suggest that it occurred at the very outset of animal/plant life on Earth.

In short, if you accept that parallel evolution can occur within branches of the exisiting evolutionary model then you simply have to accept that such could also have occurred at a much earlier stage (Precambrian) in the evolutionary path.

To deny this is self-contradictory to current evolutionary facst and, therefore, makes your position untenable.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Mozzy

Hello Mozzy,

Thanks for your question. I'll do my best to try and answer.

Mozzy: I have a question for you. i can't seem to understand the difference between mono and poly phylogenetic evolution. how can it be that polyphylogenetic evolution is any different than mono?

SC: The evolutionary processes are exactly the same for both models - it is rather a question of time.

The single model cannot explain anomalous artefacts found in the Americas because that model precludes any intelligent hominid species from having been extant in the Americas at any time prior to 20kya because no species of hominid had sufficiently evolved in the Old World to make the crossing to the New World.

But the evidence found in the Americas seems to tell a different story. How did that evidence get there at such an apparently early date?

Either homo sapiens sapiens had evolved sufficiently to have made the crossing at a much earlier period than is presently accepted or some other intelligent hominid species had evolved entirely independently in the Americas, in parallel with the hominid evolution occurring elsewhere around the world.

Present evolutionary theory accepts that parallel evolution occurs within the single tree model (in different branches). If it can accept this then there is little reason not to accept that parallel evolution of species could have occurred much earlier in the evolution of species i.e. at the Precambrian stage.

Hope this answers your question.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

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.

Oh no...it's happened...so it begins...

To compliment the circular and undefeatable argument that is the 'Steen-McIntyre Defense.' We bear lucky witness to the introduction of an even more circular argument...'The Pre-Cambrian Parallel Evolution Defense.'

No evidence? They are similar to the famous 'dog ate my homework defense' and every shiny student's retort to a Professor...the 'Yeah, so YOU say defense.'

In combination, these defenses mean you will never have to provide a source or read a link again...ta dah!!

If it can accept this then there is little reason not to accept that parallel evolution of species could have occurred much earlier in the evolution of species i.e. at the Precambrian stage.

Seriously Scott, if you need to travel 600million years in time to re-write history and allow for the 'possibility' that "insert your beliefs here" can happen, your beliefs might just be mistaken. Just a thought....

reply to post by Kandinsky


Hello Kandinsky,

Kandinsky: Before this thread began, the best evidence was 'beginning' to show that life came earlier than Clovis to the Americas.

SC: Before this thread began no one had ever given consideration to the idea of parallel evolution as a possible explanation for a hominid species being extant on another continent. The 40kyo date does not prove the owner of the footprint arrived on the continent that day, does it?

The disputed VSM evidence indicates an intelligent hominid species in the Americas far longer than mono-evolutionary theory can allow for. Parallel evolution offers a simple and logical solution to this paradox of evolution. Your hostility to this solution truly baffles me.

Once again, given that parallel evolution occurs within branches of the phylo-tree, do you accept that parallel evolution could then have occurred at a much earlier stage, including Precambrian? Yes or No? It's a straightforward question.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky,

Kandinsky: Seriously Scott, if you need to travel 600million years in time to re-write history and allow for the 'possibility' that "insert your beliefs here" can happen...

SC: Parallel evolution is not a "possibility" - it is a FACT as I have repeatedly demonstrated to you. Do you accept this? Yes or No?

As for there being "no evidence" I have one thing to say to you - VSM's evidence.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton

Once again, given that parallel evolution occurs within branches of the phylo-tree, do you accept that parallel evolution could then have occurred at a much earlier stage, including Precambrian? Yes or No? It's a straightforward question.

It's not a straightforward question. It's another hoaky argument that you'll trot out without thought to subsidize the VSM Defense. There's no evidence. Saying yes or no will encourage you to respond for another 5000 words without saying anything at all. My response on another thread to your circular arguments of 'possibilities' and bad evidence remains accurate...

I'm minded of a dog that chases its own tail. The observers know it is just a tail and the dog can't catch it. So why does the dog carry on? Why doesn't it understand this? It's simple...it's too busy chasing his own tail to notice

Come clear..are you so embarrassed by your understanding of our history that it remains forever concealed? What is it? Aliens made us? Anunnaki? Intelligent Design? Did God create fossils to ruin the minds of those 'Doubting Thomases', the academics? You certainly seem versed in the arguments of at least two of these interests. Bauval, Hancock and Cremo are authors you favor...lost civilization perhaps? Advanced n'est-ce pas? I don't expect a coherent or relevant answer, but I'm in a good mood, it's pay day and the sun is shining

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Kandinsky

 

Hello Kandinsky,

Kandinsky: Seriously Scott, if you need to travel 600million years in time to re-write history and allow for the 'possibility' that "insert your beliefs here" can happen...

SC: Parallel evolution is not a "possibility" - it is a FACT as I have repeatedly demonstrated to you. Do you accept this? Yes or No?

As for there being "no evidence" I have one thing to say to you - VSM's evidence.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Starred! For combining the two 'defenses' into one post with few extraneous words. Let no scientific evidence or studies have validity from this moment forth in your world. Genius

reply to post by Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky,

Hello Kandinsky,

Kandinsky: Seriously Scott, if you need to travel 600million years in time to re-write history and allow for the 'possibility' that "insert your beliefs here" can happen...

SC: Parallel evolution is not a "possibility" - it is a FACT as I have repeatedly demonstrated to you. Do you accept this? Yes or No?

As for there being "no evidence" I have one thing to say to you - VSM's evidence.

Kandinksy: Starred! For combining the two 'defenses' into one post with few extraneous words. Let no scientific evidence or studies have validity from this moment forth in your world. Genius.

SC: And on that note, the case for the defense rests, M'lord!

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Wow, I must say. I am not usually really much into evolutionary research, nor do I have much knowledge of the subject matter. But I have been reading this thread since the beginning, and the debate between Kandinsky and Scott Creighton is by far (dare I say it) the best and most informative debate I have ever seen on ATS.

Although K, to be honest, I think you are being a tad harsh in your responses to Scott. Though, not sure I am understanding what is so frustrating about a polyphylogenetic evolutionary theory even being a possibility.

Regards,

reply to post by Majorion
Hiya Majorion, how's things?
As you pretty much know, I prefer easy-going to argumentative. Maybe you'd need a bit more experience of Scott on other threads to understand any 'harshness.' He stands for nothing, claims no 'beliefs', professes not to 'think' and will argue for fanciful 'possibilities' without supplying much more evidence than a book by Cremo. He picks the evidence that he likes and dismisses all the rest with the simple statement, "Yeah, but look at Steen-McIntyre." Now he adds another impenetrable layer...the PreCambrian Parallel Evolution Defense.

Here's some of the evidence brought by me and others on the thread (Harte, Byrd, DaddyBare, J Canuck etc)...
Offered a reason why the footprints weren't 1.3 million ya. Sourced it.
Explained why the date was 40ka. Sourced it.
Explained the Lachamp event. Sourced it.
Explained why haplogroup models concur with the geomagnetic data. Sourced that too.

Each source was academic, peer-reviewed and accepted by models in science ranging from genetics through evolution and geological time periods based on volcanic ash and geomagnetics. They all support each other and that is why they form an acceptable model of history.

What does Scott offer? "That's what THEY say!" and takes us on a little journey back 600 million years to allow for 'possibilities' that a separate bipedal hominid evolved in the Americas. He provides a quote from a book written by a man that believes the Old Testament is a science paper. He adds to that by offering Cremo as another science journal. He's the creator of the whole idea of a second-string humanoid in the Americas. There's a well known saying "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."
Scott won't even tell us what he hears and it's clearly not horses.

When most people see a small dog, they agree it's a small dog. By this logic, if you see a small dog can we be sure it's a small dog? Is it not 'possible' that it's actually a very large dog some distance away?

K

I've just been playing catch up and after reading where this is going I have a thought to add...

Now remember I would like to believe those footprints are in fact 1.3 million years old. my gut tells me the consensus is very wrong on the dates when humans first arrived in the new world....
Having said that I have to point out one flaw in the poly phylogenetic theory...
if we say Lucy evolved from great apes or an off shoot of that line then the problem with poly phylogenetic happening in the new worlds is there are no great apes or anything close in the new world to make that evolutionary leap from...

reply to post by Scott Creighton
Hello Scott,

SC: And on that note, the case for the defense rests, M'lord!

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Hardly....

I'm smiling at your bloody-mindedness and myopic view of history I think I've worked out your world view of our history. It isn't new and it isn't that embarrassing, many hold it too. I think you believe in Intelligent Design and an alien intervention in our dim past that gave rise to an advanced people. That would explain your familiarity with the anti-evolution arguments favored by Creationists. It would explain your 'dog ate my homework' approach to evidence and the need to remove all that darn silly business of facts and evidence from a good story...

What would happen if Steen-McIntyre disagreed with the Pre-Cambrian Parallel Evolution Defense? I think you'd say, "Hmmm. That's what YOU say. Look at Galileo..." Groan Utter incapability to change a dogmatic mind-set.

reply to post by Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky,

Kandinsky: Utter incapability to change a dogmatic mind-set.

SC: And still you refuse to give a simple "Yes" or "No" to my question (above).

Regards,

Scott Creghton

Originally posted by DaddyBare
... if we say Lucy evolved from great apes or an off shoot of that line then the problem with poly phylogenetic happening in the new worlds is there are no great apes or anything close in the new world to make that evolutionary leap from...

Just a reminder, that Lucy didn't evolve from great apes...rather that they had a common ancestor back on the old evolutionary scale. But just to throw a fuel on the fire...there are New World monkeys, and they are substantially different from their Old World cousins.

Ain't science fun?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Hello Johnny,

I was just about to say the same thing. Here's a couple of links to early North American primates:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.pnas.org...

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
You see, whilst you readily accept that parallel evolution can, has and does occur within different branches of your single-phylo-tree model you then contradict this by not allowing for such to occur at the very outset of animal and plant life i.e. at the Precambrian stage.

Ah... wait. Are you suggesting that hominids evolved in the Americas separately from the ones that evolved in Africa?

If so, the answer is "No. Positively not."

We do have species that came into the Americas before the Beringia land bridge of 20,000 years ago, and we know how they evolved differently here in the Americas. I'm working on one that came into North America 65,000 years ago.

I'm not sure how many parallel evolutionary species you've seen, but I've seen several. There are many differences between them, and they would not be cross-fertile or only occasionally cross-fertile (African and Indian elephants would be an example.)

My grandmother and my own lineage is proof that Native Americans are quite cross-fertile with Europeans.

The genetic markers as well as the shape of the bones tell the story. While there's support for the idea that humans were here as long as 50,000 years ago, an independent evolution from the time of the earliest hominid primates (5 million years ago) or from groups like homo heidelbergensis isn't supported. The resulting population would be too different, genetically.

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Hello Johnny,

I was just about to say the same thing. Here's a couple of links to early North American primates:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.pnas.org...

Not all primates are in the human lineage. There are many which aren't. The New World Teilhardina are more closely related to marmosets: en.wikipedia.org...