Hyperbol 9
New Blood
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 12
Right, my second post, so I might as well jump in at the deep end. Having had a looksee at the creationist V evolution thread it put me in mind of.... Ancient Traces, which was a very mixed read, and I quite liked some of the theories thrown up. Okay, I've researched them as much as the author, so who's to say whether it's claptrap or there is something in it? But it's all good clean fun. Later. I was asked to write something for a office rag and so offered up the following. I attempted to toe the line a little as my colleagues would be reading and I had to live/work with them. However, shock horror. I work with more woo woo brigade members than you can shake the preverbial stick at and much black-eyed looks did I receive.
So I thought I'd chuck it in here where we can have a PROPER chat about it.....
In museum and university basements the world over boxes are being opened and archaeological finds that have been accidentally misplaced for the last century or so are being examined, often for the first time. Why should this be? A century ago Darwin published his famous work and launched a new religion, the belief in evolution. Since that time the supporters of Darwin have run the show and staked reputations, careers and pride on making the theory of evolution puzzle fit precisely to their every whim. Any who dare dig up (literally) an alternative to the established view are shot down in flames, careers ruined. The problem is Darwinian theory has as many holes in it as a fishing net. That is not to say that there are no doubt elements of truth in it but for every so-called fact or truth that has added to the mainstream orthodox view there are many more discoveries that throw it all into doubt. By setting their theories in stone, destroying the careers and credibility of those who dare find conflicting discoveries and by brainwashing the world at large with the help of an unwitting media, the Darwinists have become as staid in their claims as the preachings of the churches they deny. However, the day of the Darwinists is at best looking glum as a new generation of scientist decide that enough is enough and true science must again reign.
I’ve always had a bit of a problem with Darwinian evolutionary theory. This is not to say I’m a creationist, heaven forbid, but some aspects of natural selection have never added up. It never sat quite right. Indeed, there is much more to the story of mankind than we have been lead to believe. Darwin himself admitted, and indeed wrote at length, that the fossil record that should reveal evolutionary change was not merely lacking but completely missing. He hoped that his ideas would be proven accurate as the years went by and more discoveries were found. A century later we are all still waiting for this evidence to emerge. By this I mean that the fossil records only ever produce fully formed species, there are no traces of the half-way creatures, giraffes with short necks, elephants with long noses and so on. Life, both flora and fauna burst into existence fully formed in what is referred to as the Cambrian Explosion, 530 million years ago. But we hear none of this in the popular media, instead a carefully contrived truth is presented to us. Many of you will remember the acclaimed BBC series Apeman a few years ago. We have all heard of Mitochondrial Eve and the Out of Africa theory. All makes perfect sense doesn’t it. But does it?
Before I go any further let’s take a look at some suppressed archaeological findings that do not fit with orthodox scientific teachings. Some of these discoveries date from the 1800s to the 1950s, well before the major Darwinian discoveries, particularly of the 1970s.
Timescale (years since strata was formed):
590 – 505,000,000: Sandal imprint found inside split shale, Antelope Springs, Utah.
320 – 260,000,000: Eight-carat gold chain found inside lump of coal, Illinois, USA.
Carat is an alloy and eight carat not a mix made in recent times.
250,000,000: Human footprints found in rock, Kentucky, USA.
248 – 213,000,000 (Triassic): Shoe imprint found in rock, Nevada, USA.
150,000,000: Human footprint found in rock alongside dinosaur tracks, Turkmenistan.
55- 33,000,000: Stone pestle and mortar found at Table Mountain, California.
25 – 5,000,000: Tool markings on rhinoceros thighbone, France.
5 – 2,000,000: Tool markings on whale fossil.
3.8 – 3.6,000,000: Laetoli footprints. Human footprints in lava.
3.5,000,000: Lucy, Australopithecus (Southern Ape – considered early human).
2.5 – 2,000,000: Red Crag, Suffolk, Drilled holes in shark teeth from sea that had
been there.
250,000 – 25,000: Neanderthals existed.
200 – 150,000: Mitochondial DNA “Eve” in Africa. All human DNA
traced to one woman!? Out Of Africa theory.
125,000 – 65,000: North American tools found. (12,000 is accepted belief of
colonization via Bering Strait).
115,000 – 100,000: Homo Sapien skeletons found below Neanderthal skeletons in
Qafzeh Caves, Israel.
90,000: Proof of Homo Sapien and Neanderthal co-existence.
60,000 – 50,000: Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals diverge
50,000: Orthodox scientific view of out of Africa migration of first Humans.
40,000: Accepted Darwinian supporters view that first Homo Sapiens (anatomically
modern humans) evolved.
I remember seeing the film One Million Years BC in which Raquel Welch screamed her lungs off while being chased by dinosaurs. I remember my parents telling me how ridiculous this was because humans, even primates, didn’t come along for millions of years after the dinosaurs became extinct, which in any case was 65 million years ago. Thus I grew up appreciating that it was a daft film. The archaeological evidence above tells us that it may not be such a daft film afterall, well not from a historical perspective anyway. And one other thing, are all dinosaurs extinct? That’s another story, but it goes far beyond such narrow view bandwagon pop culture as the Loch Ness Monster. As with aliens and UFOs and so on, pop culture blinds us to more possibly believable fantasies. Another time perhaps.
Research came to the conclusion that all humans alive today have the same origin in a relatively small population of who lived in Africa 200,000-150,000 years ago. Scholars sometimes referred to this finding as the “African Eve” or “Mitochondrial Eve” hypothesis. All anatomically modern people, Homo sapiens sapiens and groups like the Cro-Magnon’s, can trace their history back to this time through DNA found only in females. This belief supports the “Out of Africa” theory that all humans evolved from Africa and migrated outwards approximately 50,000 years ago. But what if this is nonsense? For starters, even if we accept the more conservative archaeological data that is not generally disputed, MDNA Eve only takes us half way back to the development of Homo sapiens. This fact is nothing short of a bottleneck in the middle of the human story. And then there’s the Baboon Marker.
Scientists recently discovered that millennia ago a virus nearly eradicated the primate population of Africa. Initially baboons were tested and a defensive gene against the virus was found. The gene is akin to humans eventually evolving a defensive gene to say, for example, cancer. All other African primates were found to have the now redundant, but nevertheless present, gene. Primates on other continents do not have the gene, it is unique to African primates. Humans, we are told, evolved from African primates and therefore should logically possess the gene. Afterall, 97% of human DNA is junk, not used, it would still be there surely. It is not. How then could humans have evolved from African primates that to this day possess the gene?
Darwin told us that natural selection is a species way of evolving, primarily to live in harmony in it’s environment, which we all know means survival skills. We know that primates came down out of the trees and spread onto the African savanna, possibly because the forests were in retreat. But consider this fact for an opener; humans are the only mammals that sweat, thus losing water and salt. Bodily salt can be depleted in three hours in the right conditions and in extreme cases can lead to death, conditions such as an African plain. Look out natural selection, your argument has started to look decidedly fragile. Furthermore, the savanna is full to brimming with four legged animals. This arrangement is the most efficient way to travel at speed by using the least amount of energy, which is a good idea for predators and prey alike. How then can we sit comfortably with the notion that primates that could move at speed on four limbs, even in spite of being tree dwellers, would give up this ability to walk or run on two legs, most of the energy being used to balance and hold the body upright. Not such a great fad gadget when a tiger is after you. We would have at best been prey, yet we have forward facing eyes. In nature all predators have forward facing eyes, whereas prey, such as a rabbit, has eyes on the side of its head so as it has a good idea of what’s going on around it.
In fact humans have physiognomy more akin to aquatic mammals such as whales, seals and sealions. Ever stopped to think about bodily hair? Most people with an average IQ will know that the absence of hair in a typical climate doesn’t make an awful lot of sense as an evolutionary imperative. Why would we need clothes otherwise? In fact could bodily hair be evolution in reverse to the accepted view, could humans actually be developing hair as part of ongoing climatization to evolutionary imperative? So do we have anything to account for the lack of a hairy coat like all other sensible animals. In fact we do, a layer of fat under the skin, which no other land based mammals have. In the sea, however, the aforementioned whales and company share this attribute, which is a great insulator in water but not so effective in air. There is of course more. These same marine mammals are the only other species that mate facing one another (humans have a choice I suppose, but you get my gist), and the larynx of humans and marine mammals in what is called a descended larynx. Again, no other land-based mammal has this arrangement, which allows humans to not only speak but to control breathing. Basically the windpipe and gullet are not separated by the structure of the throat and the ability to control breathing is advantageous to aquatic mammals when diving. It helps humans to choke on food that has gone down the wrong hole. It is obvious, however, that humans did not descend from aquatic creatures in the not-so-distant past. So, based on these few points alone, natural selection doesn’t pass the test. A theory that is gathering support is one of chaos theory whereby, rather than a progressive and improving evolution, small mistakes, both good and bad, in generation after generation have resulted in the creatures we see today. But if natural selection is still your thing, how about a credible alternative to the savanna theory? One scientist has an interesting theory that considers several separate ideologies and brings them all together. Lateral thinking at last!
The Danakil Highlands in Ethiopia border the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. At about the same time as primates were believed to be taking to the savannas it became an island after a sea had receded leaving, if you like, a giant lake. As the sea level at the base of the island dropped the whole area would have become swampland and the primates living in the trees would have been cut off from the rest of Africa. Not only would this microcosmic condition enable breeding without contamination from other species, as is required to account for evolutionary development, but they would have been shielded from the plague that nearly wiped out the African primates and thus would not have developed the defensive gene. When leaving the trees they would find themselves in water and so a layer of fat beneath the skin might be preferable to fur. Furthermore, if they were not natural swimmers in the first instance they would need to keep the head above water thus rearing up on the hindquarters, especially when wading in the shallows. As the water receded the primates would then be free to go exploring the big wide world. An interesting theory you would have to admit. But as with all of the points raised here, it is just a theory, just as natural selection is a theory. There are no definitive answers and to show that anything is up for grabs there is an argument that if the primate virus wiped out most of the population, then there would be few survivors, which in turn could account for the MDNA Eve bottleneck problem.
I later stuck the above on the Fortean Times boards and, as usual, upset those poor souls who do not have the mental capacity to even consider ammending their mindset, be it creatinist or evolutionary/Darwinian. All good fun eh.
So I thought I'd chuck it in here where we can have a PROPER chat about it.....
In museum and university basements the world over boxes are being opened and archaeological finds that have been accidentally misplaced for the last century or so are being examined, often for the first time. Why should this be? A century ago Darwin published his famous work and launched a new religion, the belief in evolution. Since that time the supporters of Darwin have run the show and staked reputations, careers and pride on making the theory of evolution puzzle fit precisely to their every whim. Any who dare dig up (literally) an alternative to the established view are shot down in flames, careers ruined. The problem is Darwinian theory has as many holes in it as a fishing net. That is not to say that there are no doubt elements of truth in it but for every so-called fact or truth that has added to the mainstream orthodox view there are many more discoveries that throw it all into doubt. By setting their theories in stone, destroying the careers and credibility of those who dare find conflicting discoveries and by brainwashing the world at large with the help of an unwitting media, the Darwinists have become as staid in their claims as the preachings of the churches they deny. However, the day of the Darwinists is at best looking glum as a new generation of scientist decide that enough is enough and true science must again reign.
I’ve always had a bit of a problem with Darwinian evolutionary theory. This is not to say I’m a creationist, heaven forbid, but some aspects of natural selection have never added up. It never sat quite right. Indeed, there is much more to the story of mankind than we have been lead to believe. Darwin himself admitted, and indeed wrote at length, that the fossil record that should reveal evolutionary change was not merely lacking but completely missing. He hoped that his ideas would be proven accurate as the years went by and more discoveries were found. A century later we are all still waiting for this evidence to emerge. By this I mean that the fossil records only ever produce fully formed species, there are no traces of the half-way creatures, giraffes with short necks, elephants with long noses and so on. Life, both flora and fauna burst into existence fully formed in what is referred to as the Cambrian Explosion, 530 million years ago. But we hear none of this in the popular media, instead a carefully contrived truth is presented to us. Many of you will remember the acclaimed BBC series Apeman a few years ago. We have all heard of Mitochondrial Eve and the Out of Africa theory. All makes perfect sense doesn’t it. But does it?
Before I go any further let’s take a look at some suppressed archaeological findings that do not fit with orthodox scientific teachings. Some of these discoveries date from the 1800s to the 1950s, well before the major Darwinian discoveries, particularly of the 1970s.
Timescale (years since strata was formed):
590 – 505,000,000: Sandal imprint found inside split shale, Antelope Springs, Utah.
320 – 260,000,000: Eight-carat gold chain found inside lump of coal, Illinois, USA.
Carat is an alloy and eight carat not a mix made in recent times.
250,000,000: Human footprints found in rock, Kentucky, USA.
248 – 213,000,000 (Triassic): Shoe imprint found in rock, Nevada, USA.
150,000,000: Human footprint found in rock alongside dinosaur tracks, Turkmenistan.
55- 33,000,000: Stone pestle and mortar found at Table Mountain, California.
25 – 5,000,000: Tool markings on rhinoceros thighbone, France.
5 – 2,000,000: Tool markings on whale fossil.
3.8 – 3.6,000,000: Laetoli footprints. Human footprints in lava.
3.5,000,000: Lucy, Australopithecus (Southern Ape – considered early human).
2.5 – 2,000,000: Red Crag, Suffolk, Drilled holes in shark teeth from sea that had
been there.
250,000 – 25,000: Neanderthals existed.
200 – 150,000: Mitochondial DNA “Eve” in Africa. All human DNA
traced to one woman!? Out Of Africa theory.
125,000 – 65,000: North American tools found. (12,000 is accepted belief of
colonization via Bering Strait).
115,000 – 100,000: Homo Sapien skeletons found below Neanderthal skeletons in
Qafzeh Caves, Israel.
90,000: Proof of Homo Sapien and Neanderthal co-existence.
60,000 – 50,000: Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals diverge
50,000: Orthodox scientific view of out of Africa migration of first Humans.
40,000: Accepted Darwinian supporters view that first Homo Sapiens (anatomically
modern humans) evolved.
I remember seeing the film One Million Years BC in which Raquel Welch screamed her lungs off while being chased by dinosaurs. I remember my parents telling me how ridiculous this was because humans, even primates, didn’t come along for millions of years after the dinosaurs became extinct, which in any case was 65 million years ago. Thus I grew up appreciating that it was a daft film. The archaeological evidence above tells us that it may not be such a daft film afterall, well not from a historical perspective anyway. And one other thing, are all dinosaurs extinct? That’s another story, but it goes far beyond such narrow view bandwagon pop culture as the Loch Ness Monster. As with aliens and UFOs and so on, pop culture blinds us to more possibly believable fantasies. Another time perhaps.
Research came to the conclusion that all humans alive today have the same origin in a relatively small population of who lived in Africa 200,000-150,000 years ago. Scholars sometimes referred to this finding as the “African Eve” or “Mitochondrial Eve” hypothesis. All anatomically modern people, Homo sapiens sapiens and groups like the Cro-Magnon’s, can trace their history back to this time through DNA found only in females. This belief supports the “Out of Africa” theory that all humans evolved from Africa and migrated outwards approximately 50,000 years ago. But what if this is nonsense? For starters, even if we accept the more conservative archaeological data that is not generally disputed, MDNA Eve only takes us half way back to the development of Homo sapiens. This fact is nothing short of a bottleneck in the middle of the human story. And then there’s the Baboon Marker.
Scientists recently discovered that millennia ago a virus nearly eradicated the primate population of Africa. Initially baboons were tested and a defensive gene against the virus was found. The gene is akin to humans eventually evolving a defensive gene to say, for example, cancer. All other African primates were found to have the now redundant, but nevertheless present, gene. Primates on other continents do not have the gene, it is unique to African primates. Humans, we are told, evolved from African primates and therefore should logically possess the gene. Afterall, 97% of human DNA is junk, not used, it would still be there surely. It is not. How then could humans have evolved from African primates that to this day possess the gene?
Darwin told us that natural selection is a species way of evolving, primarily to live in harmony in it’s environment, which we all know means survival skills. We know that primates came down out of the trees and spread onto the African savanna, possibly because the forests were in retreat. But consider this fact for an opener; humans are the only mammals that sweat, thus losing water and salt. Bodily salt can be depleted in three hours in the right conditions and in extreme cases can lead to death, conditions such as an African plain. Look out natural selection, your argument has started to look decidedly fragile. Furthermore, the savanna is full to brimming with four legged animals. This arrangement is the most efficient way to travel at speed by using the least amount of energy, which is a good idea for predators and prey alike. How then can we sit comfortably with the notion that primates that could move at speed on four limbs, even in spite of being tree dwellers, would give up this ability to walk or run on two legs, most of the energy being used to balance and hold the body upright. Not such a great fad gadget when a tiger is after you. We would have at best been prey, yet we have forward facing eyes. In nature all predators have forward facing eyes, whereas prey, such as a rabbit, has eyes on the side of its head so as it has a good idea of what’s going on around it.
In fact humans have physiognomy more akin to aquatic mammals such as whales, seals and sealions. Ever stopped to think about bodily hair? Most people with an average IQ will know that the absence of hair in a typical climate doesn’t make an awful lot of sense as an evolutionary imperative. Why would we need clothes otherwise? In fact could bodily hair be evolution in reverse to the accepted view, could humans actually be developing hair as part of ongoing climatization to evolutionary imperative? So do we have anything to account for the lack of a hairy coat like all other sensible animals. In fact we do, a layer of fat under the skin, which no other land based mammals have. In the sea, however, the aforementioned whales and company share this attribute, which is a great insulator in water but not so effective in air. There is of course more. These same marine mammals are the only other species that mate facing one another (humans have a choice I suppose, but you get my gist), and the larynx of humans and marine mammals in what is called a descended larynx. Again, no other land-based mammal has this arrangement, which allows humans to not only speak but to control breathing. Basically the windpipe and gullet are not separated by the structure of the throat and the ability to control breathing is advantageous to aquatic mammals when diving. It helps humans to choke on food that has gone down the wrong hole. It is obvious, however, that humans did not descend from aquatic creatures in the not-so-distant past. So, based on these few points alone, natural selection doesn’t pass the test. A theory that is gathering support is one of chaos theory whereby, rather than a progressive and improving evolution, small mistakes, both good and bad, in generation after generation have resulted in the creatures we see today. But if natural selection is still your thing, how about a credible alternative to the savanna theory? One scientist has an interesting theory that considers several separate ideologies and brings them all together. Lateral thinking at last!
The Danakil Highlands in Ethiopia border the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. At about the same time as primates were believed to be taking to the savannas it became an island after a sea had receded leaving, if you like, a giant lake. As the sea level at the base of the island dropped the whole area would have become swampland and the primates living in the trees would have been cut off from the rest of Africa. Not only would this microcosmic condition enable breeding without contamination from other species, as is required to account for evolutionary development, but they would have been shielded from the plague that nearly wiped out the African primates and thus would not have developed the defensive gene. When leaving the trees they would find themselves in water and so a layer of fat beneath the skin might be preferable to fur. Furthermore, if they were not natural swimmers in the first instance they would need to keep the head above water thus rearing up on the hindquarters, especially when wading in the shallows. As the water receded the primates would then be free to go exploring the big wide world. An interesting theory you would have to admit. But as with all of the points raised here, it is just a theory, just as natural selection is a theory. There are no definitive answers and to show that anything is up for grabs there is an argument that if the primate virus wiped out most of the population, then there would be few survivors, which in turn could account for the MDNA Eve bottleneck problem.
I later stuck the above on the Fortean Times boards and, as usual, upset those poor souls who do not have the mental capacity to even consider ammending their mindset, be it creatinist or evolutionary/Darwinian. All good fun eh.
