An archaelogist presents a study which points to evolution being a flawed theory..

reply to post by Gaussq


Wow, this is incredibly silly...and nothing in archeology would ever be able to disprove evolution. Archeology is the study of human history via artifacts, not a study of biological progression of species.

There's science which presents evolution to be true, please show appropriate responses. None of the things you presented actually hint to aliens or any sort of insanely advanced civilizations or any refutation of evolution.

Evolution happens, get over it.

Originally posted by smthngmssnghr
I remember being introduced to the theory of evolution in 10th grade biology class. Looking back, I wonder in what context it came up, but cannot recall.

It is less than a theory, and will some day be in the realm of myth and propaganda, residing with creationism and intelligent design.

Actually evolution is more than a theory, as the phenomenon of evolution is an undeniable fact (only the ignorant and uneducated people fail to recognize this). The theory of evolution attempts to explain the working mechanism of the phenomenon of evolution.

Whoever denies the phenomenon of evolution, answer me this:

Why is it that there are no 300 million year old human/bear/dog/parrot/hedgehog/rat/rabbit/owl/camel/etc. fossils? Why is it that the younger the fossil, the more it resembles contemporary animals? Why is it that fossil lineages fuse as you go back in time? What is your reasoning for these observations?




Picture is for the ones who're thinking of writing some bs about micro/macroevolution.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by smthngmssnghr
I remember being introduced to the theory of evolution in 10th grade biology class. Looking back, I wonder in what context it came up, but cannot recall.

It is less than a theory, and will some day be in the realm of myth and propaganda, residing with creationism and intelligent design.

Actually evolution is more than a theory, as the phenomenon of evolution is an undeniable fact (only the ignorant and uneducated people fail to recognize this). The theory of evolution attempts to explain the working mechanism of the phenomenon of evolution.

Whoever denies the phenomenon of evolution, answer me this:

Why is it that there are no 300 million year old human/bear/dog/parrot/hedgehog/rat/rabbit/owl/camel/etc. fossils? Why is it that the younger the fossil, the more it resembles contemporary animals? What is your reasoning for these observations?

edit on 17-2-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

I just said that older bodies contain more information, so there is an evolution in terms of the body´s history of many lifetimes, he gets more and more experiences over time. The body is like a piece of clothes wrapped around the main spirit, if you wear clothes for many years(lives) they age just like you create more and more karma and virtue in each lifetime that you bring along... So the body(or rather the behavior of the person controlling the body) may improve a little over time, that is correct.

The more karma you have the sicker you get, the less wisdom you get, the more bad stuff you do, so if someone makes it through many lifetimes and an apocalypse he will have paid off alot of karmic debts from the past, and he will have a good wisdom in his body.

That does not mean humans(the main spirit or the body) originally come from apes, that is a different matter and all animals, plants etc exist to serve humans... I just means the body evolves with time, the main spirit does not age or evolve at all and it just waits for us to return up to higher dimensions again. And our bodies were created by higher beings who are built by more microscopic matter. So if a person after many lifetimes makes it through an apocalypse he is bound to have a precious body with little karma and lots of virtue.

If one has studied physics one knows about molecules, atoms, electrons, quarks, neutrinos etc. There is a world between the electron and the atomic nuclei etc and it is infinitely more vast than our world and the beings there are infinitely better and more powerful than us. We live in a repetitive crystal structure with 3000 worlds in a grain of sand like Buddha Shakyamuni said.. Then 3000 worlds in each grain of sand in each of the 3000 worlds... It is beyond any human concepts...

Such a being frm such a high dimension can go inside your brain and do whatever he wants to with you, including controlling your thoughts. It is nothing religious, it just common sense and it is scientific.

There are dark beings controlling people with lots of karma and there are good beings helping people with lots of virtue. The old saying of similar kids liking to play with eachother seems appropriate here.

Some alternative and ancient information etc:

www.pureinsight.org...

www.s8int.com...

www.pureinsight.org...

s8int.com...

www.morien-institute.org...

www.theepochtimes.com...

www.youtube.com...

sandwalk.blogspot.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.pureinsight.org...
________________________________


www.s8int.com...

The Washington Post Jun 22, 1925;
Large Skulls at the Ica Museum in Mexico.
Click and drag photo to resize.
Mexico City, June 21---Giant human skeletons…measuring from 10 to 12 feet have been discovered by prospecting miners in a new gold and silver district in the mountains of the State of Chihuahua, according to members of the party who arrived here today.

The miners say they found a group of these skeletons intact in a hidden cave. The feet measured from 18 to 20 inches. (A male with a U.S shoe size of 13 has approximately a 12 inch foot). The government anthropology department plans to send a commission to investigate the discovery.



Find Prehistoric Giant

Feb 3, 1909; New York Tribune
Skeleton 15 Feet High Unearthed in Mexico
News was received here Monday from Mexico that at Ixtapalapa, a town 10 miles southeast of Mexico City , there had been discovered what was believed to be the skeleton of a prehistoric giant of extraordinary size.

A person while excavating for the foundation of a house on the estate of Augustin Juarez found the skeleton of a human being that is estimated to have been about 15 feet high, and who must have lived ages ago, judging from the ossified state of the bones.

_____


My two cents, no truth offered whatsoever.

The study you're referencing only discusses "behavioral modernity", not the genetic changes in a population over time. Hence, it's hardly a refutation of the theory of evolution at all. You just appended your own ramblings that have nothing to do with the source material and said that it does. Further, the concept that people who subscribe to the theory of evolution somehow lack a moral code or think people should behave as animals is such complete hogwash.

reply to post by Gaussq

Your post is nothing but lines of nonsense. Address the questions I put forth.

Originally posted by iterationzero Further, the concept that people who subscribe to the theory of evolution somehow lack a moral code or think people should behave as animals is such complete hogwash.

Thanks for your reply but I never said that.

People can be wise in some respects and less in other respects, there are no generalizations to be made about people "believeing" in this or that. Belief has got to do with notions, education, inborn quality, stubbornness, career motives etc etc.

I said that a civilization will mostly be annihilated when it is no good anymore. Only good people(with more substance of virtue and less substance of karma) remain. Therefore, when Mr Shea says each stone age civilization was the same he gives further cred to this model? Today´s human beings are not special because of evolution, it has got to do with where they came from(higher levels), that is why they are a little more intelligent now.

Why did this kind of people come here now? Because they want to be part of the coming rectification of this world, such occurences can be seen long in advace from another time-space dimension, that is also why we have prophets. That is why the vikings could say we will have three eternal winters before the arrival of the apocalypse.

One world leaves and another one is created. Who can remain?

The same question each time an apocalypse arrives.


Just my two cents at my current wisdom level, no truth offered whatsoever.

Originally posted by Gaussq
Why did this kind of people come here now?

When Darwin published on the Origin of Species space-time-continuum collapsed for infinitely brief period of time and this made possible the time-portal-dimensionary jump from 67th dimension to here, and yeah, of course the "ancients" jumped. Even thou they now occupy our dimensions, they also bind to the 42nd dimension, and because of this we can't see them. In case you didn't know they live inside the great ones like Tesla, Einstein and Hawking. You can't disprove this, thus it's legit like your stuff. Everybody else, feel free to join in with your theories. After all this is the nonsense section of ATS where rationality and logics don't matter.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by Gaussq

 

Your post is nothing but lines of nonsense. Address the questions I put forth.

Didn´t you read my answer? I answerred your question about aging bodies. They get more and more information and hence a little bit better(more experienced) over time. Gods may change the bodies each time a new civilization is created. BUT it is just a single body in one single dimension and hence of marginal interest.



On a sidenote about the apocalypse; a person who can not see that modern people in general have low morals today(fame&gain&ego&desires is central to people today) he does not share my eyesight. I am of course not claiming evolutionists in general have low moral standards.

Therefore we have special times now. The evolution theory will fall down soon just like many other things will fall down. It is a disgrace for human beings to compare themselves with apes and believe they come from apes. It makes people loose faith in higher powers and now they only believe in science which is one-dimensional and extremely limited, it can not see a single plane of another dimension. Only human beings have the potential to see other dimensions with their third eye. We calculate other dimensions in maths and physics and yet nobody thinks about what beings from other dimensions can do to beings in this dimension....

So how can you blindly trust any everyday person presenting any kind of scientific theory to you? Isn´t his perspective very limited?

This thread is ineffably disheartening.

The archaeologist from Stony Brook in OP's original post only suggested an alternative theory to when our progenitors became anatomically as well as behaviorally modern. And to no degree whatsoever attempts to disprove evolution. The consensus is around 45,000 years ago, the average human had the capacity for complex behavior and the developmental flexibility seen in humans today. Basically meaning we could teach the first Cro-Magnon how to fly a plane. This scientist insists that date should be changed to around 250,000 years ago. In about ten years if by some chance this new hypothesis became the accepted world view amongst scientists (which is doubtful), it would still not dispel to any degree the understood mechanisms of how evolution works. Evolution has no means but genetic variation, and we, as well as all organisms, are simply taking up anatomical space. We are not the pinnacle of existence, or the top of a ladder from lower to higher forms, and we did not evolve from monkeys. In fact even the view of a "tree of diversity" is miscalculated. The pathways taken by evolution would be more appropriate to designate as the ocular view of a common bush; early anatomical disparity displaced by only a few anatomical designs that were fortunate enough to survive during mass extinctions of the Cambrian epoch, with rich genetic diversity constrained to a basic framework of phenotype. Please learn the theory of evolution before commenting further, it really is a fascinating field of study.

Establishing the first civilization with an intricate and specialized structure of government and dynamic urban institutions, from scratch, requires a highly dense population, accessibility to resources (domesticable plants and animals), thousands and thousands of years of sculpting a cloud of ideas fragmented from the various minds of the locale and distant tribes, which would require cultural dissemination and diffusion, appropriate orientation of the axis, favorable weather conditions, and low intensity climate change and low intensity natural disasters.

Our current understanding of the spread and settlement of our ancestors is calibrated accordingly to the probability assessed with our methods of study and analysis.

Originally posted by Gaussq
Didn´t you read my answer? I answerred your question about aging bodies. They get more and more information and hence a little bit better(more experienced) over time. Gods may change the bodies each time a new civilization is created. BUT it is just a single body in one single dimension and hence of marginal interest.

In no way does that answer the questions I put forth: Why is it that there are no 300 million year old human/bear/dog/parrot/hedgehog/rat/rabbit/owl/camel/etc. fossils? Why is it that the younger the fossil, the more it resembles contemporary animals? Why is it that fossil lineages fuse as you go back in time? What is your reasoning for these observations?

It is a disgrace for human beings to compare themselves with apes and believe they come from apes. It makes people loose faith in higher powers and now they only believe in science which is one-dimensional and extremely limited, it can not see a single plane of another dimension. Only human beings have the potential to see other dimensions with their third eye. We calculate other dimensions in maths and physics and yet nobody thinks about what beings from other dimensions can do to beings in this dimension....

Come from apes? We are apes! It's a disgrace that some of us fail to understand this. It's so obvious, everything points it. Why is so hard to accept? It's a disgrace that some people believe that humans are somehow special and thus have the right to exploit everything else living.

So how can you blindly trust any everyday person presenting any kind of scientific theory to you? Isn´t his perspective very limited?

I'm not trusting anything blindly. This is why my view of the world is scientific. I need to see evidence. I replicate studies (of course can't do this on every scientific field, just the one I chose). For example today I extracted total DNA from a bacterium I isolated from a water sample previously, I then amplified its 16S rDNA gene (PCR) and soon I'll send it for sequencing. The next week I'll compare the sequence to RDP to see if my isolate is a new (to science) species and also where it fits in the tree of life. While doing this I mostly applied methods that I hadn't used before (found a very nice DNA extraction protocol and modified it further). You on the other hand believe into things blindly. Your reality is something like this: "It says so in this dodgy website, thus it has to be true because it sounds cool."




Picture is of my PCR product. Left lane is lambda ladder, then my isolate sample, 1:10 dilution of isolate, reference microbe sample, 1:10 dilution of reference microbe, and finally another lambda ladder. What we're seeing there is what common ancestry "hypothesis" predicts. My bacteria had a 16S coding gene and a DNA polymerase from another organism amplified it.

Maybe......We were more advanced 250,000 years ago....Maybe apes are descended from humans...maybe we are evolving towards a more animalistic nature...

reply to post by uva3021


I was thinking the same thing. There are two different issues here. The traditional time line of human physiological and societal development, and evolutionary biology.

I personally question the traditional time line part. OOPARTS and various other discoveries have created enough evidence to at least give further investigation. What period did civilization really begin in an advanced form, and is there archeological evidence not yet discovered to prove it. This issues is important, and I believe the article helps illuminate that issue.

Evolution is an entirely different issue. Maybe evolution is flawed. I cannot say due to my lack of knowledge on the topic. It is unwise to try to use evidence from one topic as support for an argument on another topic.

Whatever the beliefs, experiences, and opinions we have are not always that convincing to others. It may seem obvious to you, but less so to me. Without convincing evidence against evolution this thread seems to be speculation. I am not saying it might not be correct, but it fails to convince the more scientific minded \. I happen to agree with the OP on the soul, and the reincarnation. That belief comes from non-sensory experience, and I fully understand why others would be skeptical. I have never thought about evolution in the context of metaphysical beliefs. It causes me to look at evolution in a different way, but that is from my own beliefs without scholarly support.

reply to post by Gaussq

I use to say (being a physicist)

You are not a physicist. Nor are you (it is safe to say) any other kind of scientist. What you are is a purveyor of quasi-mystical hypotheses with no basis in science. Please do not make transparently false claims.

The New Scientist article you quote speaks only of 'human' footprints. That doesn't mean they were made by Homo sapiens. If they are indeed 1.3 million years old, they were probably made by an ancestor species such as Homo erectus or, more likely, Homo ergaster. These guys could never have been mistaken for modern humans, but they had stone tools and probably a bit of primitive language. They could never have built civilizations; we know this from the quality of the relics they left behind. I'm afraid this article provides no more grounds for your cyclical view of human history than the other one did.

We have two kinds of people. Those who are stubborn, narrowminded with a limited knowledge base, then there are people who like to think for themselves without any notions.

That's right. We also have obsessive cranks strapped to the saddles of their hobbyhorses, and gullible chumps who will believe anything.

Originally posted by Gaussq
Thanks for your reply but I never said that.

Really?

Originally posted by Gaussq
The thing about aliens being our Masters/Gods(because their tech is superior) is just like the evolution theory, it is a ridiculous theory that makes people think they are primitive and come from monkeys. That is no coincidence either as I see it. Does that not make people loose belief in Gods(higher time-space dimensions in the micro/macroscopic directions) and serve the purpose of making people even more corrupt morally, thinking they should behave as animals?

My goodness what a bunch of hostility.

Archeology and anthropology often or rather usually cross paths. So for those of you stating what an archeologists does or doesn't do think about it. Research teams are comprised of technicians, anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians among other things. They often speak to each other on site. Even right papers together.

Evolution happens.

That doesn't mean it can't be manipulated. We do all the time. Most comercial agriculture and now Animals for consumption are genetically altered.

If a high tech explorer came to earth in search of minerals he could theoretically alter a primitive man species to "evolve" faster to help with work and be intelligent enough to take commands and form a hierarchy (to self govern).

Not unreasonable. We do it with our work animals and will to humans probably in the next 20 years.

So it is odd that we have bible stories, and sumarian stories hinting at genetic mingling between species.

The oldest known civilization is in south Africa. It's fairly complex and very close to the oldest gold mine in the world also from around the same time. 100,000 years ago.

One thing is for sure. We have no idea what has really gone on in the past. Artifacts keep popping up that refute what we thought were social evolutions linear progression.

reply to post by Movescamp

Why wouldn't "high tech explorers" bring robots to do the job? Also if they were after minerals, they wouldn't come here to begin with. They'd know physics and go to the parts of our galaxy that are far more mineral rich (inner parts). Also nothing in our genome/evolution suggests that it was tampered with, but let's not let facts get in the way of wishful thinking.

Also I'm very sceptical about the age of the oldest gold mine you mention, 100,000 years you say? How about you give us sauce? I was in South Africa recently and don't recall hearing anything about 100,000 year old mines. You'd think it was a tourist attraction or something..

Look, I think it's totally possible that the oldest cities remain undiscovered, and are perhaps under water now as the sea level is now much higher than some 50,000 years ago. However, most of the stuff you heard in that "ancient aliens" series is utter bull#. It's fiction, not fact. I mean according to that series the moon is for example surely hollow. Yeah..

I'm in school majoring in cultural anthropology and minoring in archaeology. Archaeology (depending on which institute and university) is one of the disciplines of Anthropology.

Interactions and living along side Neanderthals does not equate to an adequate answer to why 90% of humans contain the DNA.

Originally posted by Dendro
Interactions and living along side Neanderthals does not equate to an adequate answer to why 90% of humans contain the DNA.

Virtually everybody outside Africa has some Neanderthal DNA. This is because interbreeding happened after present day Asian/American/European ancestors (a small group at the time) had left Africa, but before they had separated into isolated populations.

You need credentials and peer review to get a paper published in journals such as Nature and the like. You do not get your papers unless you agree with common theory. Anyone submitting anything that goes against the evolutionary theory gets canned. Canned from their post, position, funding and paper rejected. Interviews on TV and radio are stopped, 'science' boycotts publishing houses that publish anything against what they want to teach, which means that the publisher loses many sales on standard textbooks that they rely on (MacMillan press being a fine example). This is a fact. 'Science' has almost become a regulatory body for public thought and does not allow theory against evolution to be discussed anywhere. 71% of American parents agreed that although the theory of evolution should be taught in schools, any opposing arguments so also be studied. Nope. Canned. Evolutionary theory only thankyou.
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
"Richard Milton is a science journalist. He had been an ardent true believer in Darwinian doctrine until his investigative instincts kicked in one day. After 20 years of studying and writing about evolution, he suddenly realized that there were many disconcerting holes in the theory. He decided to try to allay his doubts and prove the theory to himself by using the standard methods of investigative journalism.

Milton became a regular visitor to London's famed Natural History Museum. He painstakingly put every main tenet and classic proof of Darwinism to the test. The results shocked him. He found that the theory could not even stand up to the rigors of routine investigative journalism.

The veteran science writer took a bold step and published a book titled The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. It is clear that the Darwinian myth had been shattered for him, but many more myths about science would also be crushed after his book came out. Milton says:

I experienced the witch-hunting activity of the Darwinist police at first hand - it was deeply disappointing to find myself being described by a prominent Oxford zoologist [Richard Dawkins] as "loony", "stupid" and "in need of psychiatric help" in response to purely scientific reporting.

(Does this sound like stories that came out of the Soviet Union 20 years ago when dissident scientists there started speaking out?)

Dawkins launched a letter-writing campaign to newspaper editors, implying that Milton was a "mole" creationist whose work should be dismissed. Anyone at all familiar with politics will recognize this as a standard Machiavellian by-the-book "character assassination" tactic. Dawkins is a highly respected scientist, whose reputation and standing in the scientific community carry a great deal of weight.

According to Milton, the process came to a head when the London Times Higher Education Supplement commissioned him to write a critique of Darwinism. The publication foreshadowed his coming piece: "Next Week: Darwinism - Richard Milton goes on the attack". Dawkins caught wind of this and wasted no time in nipping this heresy in the bud. He contacted the editor, Auriol Stevens, and accused Milton of being a "creationist", and prevailed upon Stevens to pull the plug on the article. Milton learned of this behind-the-scenes backstabbing and wrote a letter of appeal to Stevens. In the end, she caved in to Dawkins and scratched the piece."

Sounds a bit like the global warming crowd of today to me but I digress.....

As for anyone who thinks that archaeology and evolution do not compliment each other, then look up the works of the genius Immenuel Velikovsky, read them and come back to this discussion when you have as I think he will change your mind.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Originally posted by Mez353
You need credentials and peer review to get a paper published in journals such as Nature and the like. You do not get your papers unless you agree with common theory. Anyone submitting anything that goes against the evolutionary theory gets canned.

Total bull#. For example keyword "epigenetics" gives 3976 results in ISI Web of Knowledge. Epigenetics is totally against traditional darwinian evolution, but as soon as quality papers introduced this phenomenon and studies were re-done and results confirmed it was accepted as part of modern synthesis. Science is not like religion. Science doesn't care about subjective opinions, only facts matter.

Quick google of Richard Milton reveals that he's not a scientist, but a writer. The reason you don't often see papers that go against evolution in scientific journals is that nobody can produce such papers. All observations and studies support evolution.