• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

40Ky old human footprints in North America are not human...

At least there's good news. No matter what the answer decided on is, it's just a minor revision in the just-so-story of The theory of Evolution.
 
hammegk said:
No matter what the answer decided on is, it's just a minor revision in the just-so-story of The theory of Evolution.
Click to expand...
Your review of the article appears to have been somewhat hasty. There are questions about the methods used in dating some fossil footprints, hence questions about whether they are human, or whether they are even footprints at all. Resolving this dispute is unlikely to involve even a minor revision to the TOE.
 
Uh...

I fail to see the implications of the doubt cast over the evolution theory by the new data. Even if it were proved its a >1My footprint of a creature from the Homo genus, it would pose no problem to this particular aspect.

Paleozoogeography and anthropology would be affected, but evolution?
 
Dymanic said:
Your review of the article appears to have been somewhat hasty. There are questions about the methods used in dating some fossil footprints, hence questions about whether they are human, or whether they are even footprints at all. Resolving this dispute is unlikely to involve even a minor revision to the TOE.
Click to expand...


I don't see where the TOE comes into it at all.

I mean, we've got a well-established theory about how old humans are, and a footprint that was believed to be human (and of appropriate age). Now they say that the footprints are not human and much older.

I mean,.... Say I have a theory that only the Zloch beer company makes spherical beer cans, and someone finds something that they think is a spherical beer can. I then conclude that it was made by Zloch.

Someone else comes by and proves that a) it wasn't made by Zloch, and b) it wasn't a spherical beer can in the first place. It's just a piece of junk that happened to look like a Zloch beer can.

I see no implications for my theory at all.
 
hammegk said:
Evasion noted.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I answered the question the first time you posted it.

If you insist upon a repeat, I repeat my previous answer:
The original BBC report appears to have nothing to do with the theory of evolution
 
Yes, you did. My question was, is the phrase "40Ky old human footprints in North America are not human..." a topic for The Theory?

See if you can answer that one.
 
hammegk said:
Yes, you did. My question was, is the phrase "40Ky old human footprints in North America are not human..." a topic for The Theory?

See if you can answer that one.
Click to expand...


Neither the BBC report OR this thread posted by Correa Neto mentioned evolution.

Actually all the BBC report stated was the footprints were not humans because they were too old to be. That's it.
 
hammegk said:
Yes, you did. My question was, is the phrase "40Ky old human footprints in North America are not human..." a topic for The Theory?

See if you can answer that one.
Click to expand...

The phrase "40Ky old human footprints in North America are not human..." is not a topic that bears on the Theory of Evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is an attempt to explain the biological diversity that we see around us. It is about how populations of organisms change over time. The fossil record is a history of those changes and there are individuals who specialise in studying particular aspects of that history. For those specialists particular finds may upset theories that they hold, for instance about the evolution of humans.

Such finds do not, however, upset the over-arching theory of descent with modification because the theory does not stand or fall on individual finds. Like all true scientific theories it stands or falls on its ability to predict the outcomes of investigations. As far as I know the Theory of Evolution has proved more than capable of doing that.

The Theory of Evolution, like all things in science, is subject to change over time as new knowledge becomes available. In the future a new theory may emerge that seriously challenges the current theory but there is no serious contender at the moment.
 
I think some important to remark, is the fact that even if there is a slightly opportunity that this discovery has a "negative" impact about what we know in paleontology, antropology and (yes hammegk) even evolution.

Scientists are not trying to dismiss this kind of thing just because it may go against what have been discovered, and they are willing to debate and reconsider the premises and conclusions that may be wrong about our knowledge in this matters, they are trying to come with a rational explanation and submitting all the data to revision and verification (through an research paper in a indexed journal). They are not trying to delude themselves or jumping into fantastic conclusions based in so loose "evidence" (such as some persons in this very forum), neither are trying to "hide it from the general public" as many science conspiracy lunatics try to think... And that's just the way science works :)

See ya
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom