"At the very least, human culture reaches much further back in time than conventional history admits." -- Stephen Wagner, author, February 2004
Only an evolutionist would be gullible enough to believe that Homo sapiens magically and miraculously appeared for no reason 200,000 years ago in Ethiopia: Tool-making Human Ancestors Inhabited Grassland Environments Two Million Years Ago.
ScienceDaily (Oct. 21, 2009) — In an article published in the open-access, peer-reviewed journal PLoS ONE on October 21, 2009, Dr Thomas Plummer of Queens College at the City University of New York, Dr Richard Potts of the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History and colleagues report the oldest archeological evidence of early human activities in a grassland environment, dating to 2 million years ago.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
18 comments:
Soo much forgotten history.
Velikovksy's diagnosis: mankind in amnesia...=)
"...Homo sapiens magically and miraculously appeared for no reason 200,000 years ago..."
No one thinks that. No one. To suggest otherwise is to lie, or to be stupid.
Take your pick.
Jeffery,
You are wrong. No one thinks that? So when does evolution say Homo sapiens appeared and where?
Gradually, over tens of thousands of years with most modern features identifiably in place approximately 195000 years ago.
As I've said before, and you failed to comprehend, evolution is a gradual process, species do not appear overnight.
If, by chance of a time machine or a really clever shovel, you could dig up every human fossil ever, there is no one fossil that changes from Homo heidelbergensis to Homo s. sapiens.
Or, if you like, some Homo heidelbergensis didn't get pregnant and give birth to a Homo s. sapiens.
The only reason there are fossils labeled one name or another is because we don't have them all. There are gaps. When a fossil is found that fits in a gap, we name it, if we can attribute behaviors and tools of a given type, we describe it's possible culture.
But there's no poofing. Maybe in your bullshit Vedic Creationism, but not in the real world.
Jeffery,
"Gradually, over tens of thousands of years with most modern features identifiably in place approximately 195000 years ago."
Like I said 200,000 years ago. Why did these gradual changes take place then and not before or after?
2 million year old tool-making humans contradicts your 195,000 year old hypothesis.
I'm confused. The article doesn't talk about H. sapiens. It discusses H. erectus and paranthropus.
You asked when H. sapiens appeared. I answered, then you doubled back and suggested I was wrong because you didn't comprehend the article? I guess we know which one you'd pick.
H. erectus is human. They aren't modern. Does the article discuss modern humans? No.
Why did these gradual changes take place then and not before or after?
Take your pick: diet, climate, predation (in both directions), sexual selection, morphological latitude in the genome (some changes can only happen after certain others and some changes aren't possible at all (wings on horses, etc)).
Get a clue, either start comprehending or leave evolution to those who understand it. You don't.
What evidence is that?
Petroglyphs of sauropods, theropods, and plesiosaurs.
No need for Gort back in those days, obviously because our ancestors back then hadn't eaten from the banana tree of brain enlargement yet.
lol.
Petroglyphs of sauropods, theropods, and plesiosaurs.
When these petroglyphs were discovered, dinosaurs were already in the literature. If the petroglyphs had been known prior to the dinosaurs, they'd have some weight.
A lot of petroglyphs are BS. The astronomic ones are probably real, as most of them are, but the dinosaur ones are weak when you compare it to, say DNA evidence and everything else backing up human evolution.
Jeffery,
"When these petroglyphs were discovered, dinosaurs were already in the literature."
So? It doesn't matter when the petroglyphs were discovered, it matters when they were made. The petroglyphs are at least 5000 years old. Dinosaurs did not exist in any known literature of the time.
"If the petroglyphs had been known prior to the dinosaurs, they'd have some weight."
You expect the Anasazi indians to have crystal balls?
"A lot of petroglyphs are BS."
LOL. Not the ones I'm referring too.
"The fact that some prehistoric man made a pictograph of a dinosaur on the walls of this canyon [Havasupai Canyon, Arizona] upsets completely all of our theories regarding the antiquity of man. Facts are stubborn and immutable things. If theories do not square with the facts then the theories must change, the facts remain." -- Samuel Hubbard, paleoanthropologist, November 1924
You expect the Anasazi indians to have crystal balls?
We don't know that they made them. What I'm saying is that they are fakes. Deal with it.
Jeffery,
They aren't fake; your Victorian theories are fake.
Evolution is no longer a Victorian hypothesis. It's the best supported theory going today. No one has anything to compete with it. Period.
Your constant denial of Evolution makes you out to be a creationist bumpkin of the worst sort, a first-class history denier and a fraud who beleives anything he reads so long as it is prefaced with a tale of ivory-tower prejudice, self-righteous goofballs, conspiracy theory and woe.
Enjoy your failure. Try an evolution post again when you learn to discuss it rationally.
Jeffery,
"Evolution is no longer a Victorian hypothesis."
Does Darwin have the same time machine you've allowed the Anasazi indians?
One day (and I'm not holding my breath) you might be willing to actually discuss these sorts of things like an adult.
At least with you blogging about zero-point energy and flying saucers, biology is safe for the time being.
Post a Comment