Archaeologica.org

Interesting series!
But the presenter raises my eyebrows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHNU6_er3Ks

6 parts.

Have fun.

Oh Boy - the M.O.M. That show has been the subject of abject derision for 10 years. I really enjoyed it, except for the stuff about man being around at the time of the dinosaurs. That's all part of Young Earth Creationism. I'm sure Arch loved it.

Can you imagine how the club reacted to Charleton Heston on TV presenting this stuff? I'm sure some of them had heart attacks. If you google the MOM you'll see that they still spew venom toward it. OTOH, a lot of it does not meet scientific muster. But it was good.

It was fun to see Virginia Steen-McIntire from a decade ago. I may take this link to her site. Some will get a kick out of it.

Beagle wrote:
[...] I really enjoyed it, except for the stuff about man being around at the time of the dinosaurs. That's all part of Young Earth Creationism. [...]

What I got out of that is the suggestion that human evolution and development restarted a number of times and subsequently failed/fizzled again. One such cycle would have produced the human footprints along the dinos'. Another one Atlantis. And right now we would be experiencing yet another such cycle.

However, in that scenario, 'human' footprints from the "65 KTA cycle" (the ones alongside the dinos') look completely identical to what current Homo Sapiens Sapiens (dunno the version number . . . ) produces on the beach: 2 feet, left and right, arches, the 'balls' of the feet, 5 toes each foot, all at the front . . . Identical in every aspect!
Would the roughly same organism in different, subsequent evolutionary cycles end up exactly the same each time?
Unlikely, imo.

Interersting and fun to watch - guess I missed it when it was televised some time ago.

I was stunned to think the earth's crust could slip 2000 miles. Especially since the center of gravity is at the core, not the bottom (i.e. southern most point). A very misleading graphic as if the earth was an out of balance ball, rolling over. Its next to impossible.

I do, in fact, think earlier civilizations existed that we are unaware of. Not the sci-fi stuff, but a highly developed civilization for it's time. However, at the time of the demise of the dinosaurs, only very small burrrowing mammals existed. So that footprint just doesn't date to that period, imo.

FM, Charles Hapgood came forward with that theory. A truly brilliant man, he was wrong, and later conceded that he was in error. The crust of the Earth does not slip. I know you know that.

Rokcet Scientist wrote:However, in that scenario, 'human' footprints from the "65 KTA cycle" (the ones alongside the dinos') look completely identical to what current Homo Sapiens Sapiens (dunno the version number . . . ) produces on the beach: 2 feet, left and right, arches, the 'balls' of the feet, 5 toes each foot, all at the front . . . Identical in every aspect!
Would the roughly same organism in different, subsequent evolutionary cycles end up exactly the same each time?
Unlikely, imo.

True. But what if the ape-like ancient ancestor/s was a constant, regularly churning out the deviant DNA which would evolve into 2-footed, 10 toed prototypes for HSS?



Just as unlikely I suppose.

Forum Monk wrote:

Rokcet Scientist wrote:However, in that scenario, 'human' footprints from the "65 KTA cycle" (the ones alongside the dinos') look completely identical to what current Homo Sapiens Sapiens (dunno the version number . . . ) produces on the beach: 2 feet, left and right, arches, the 'balls' of the feet, 5 toes each foot, all at the front . . . Identical in every aspect!
Would the roughly same organism in different, subsequent evolutionary cycles end up exactly the same each time?
Unlikely, imo.

True. But what if the ape-like ancient ancestor/s was a constant, regularly churning out the deviant DNA which would evolve into 2-footed, 10 toed prototypes for HSS?

Just as unlikely I suppose.

Mebbe it's simply a fairly successful model. Or we would have seen 3-legged variants with interlocking toes on the insides . . .

All that on the rather adventurous presumption that humanoid evolution recurs/restarts every so often anew, usually after one or other cataclysmic event.
That's still a little much to swallow, thanks.

I've got the book but I considered it so preposterous that I stopped reading it about a hundred pages in.

Maybe I should give it another try?

Minimalist wrote:I've got the book but I considered it so preposterous that I stopped reading it about a hundred pages in.

Maybe I should give it another try?

Sure, if you want some entertainment.

Like all experts these people are riding their pet hobby horses, but they are correct about what tends to happen with 'anomalies'. This is very strange to this observer as the archaeology is driven by anomalies, a case in point is the current, heated, debate about colonisation of NA. That argument is all over bar the shouting, and to the next generation of experts the new dating will become as sacrosent as Clovis is with the present generation.
The best way of dealing with anomalies is, of course, to find out how they came about, but as the vid showed, it is a risky occupation, for that the 'club' should be shot!
My signature sums that up very well.

If climate change isn't the next cataclysmic event – which will accelerate evolution once again – then the next 'big one' http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiap ... index.html is! And don't forget stuff 'coming down from the heavens'. Could happen every day.
And what if all of those happen simultaneously . . . ?

I see you had your big morning glass of "glum" today.

Why so happy?

It's his sunny nature!

Minimalist wrote:
I see you had your big morning glass of "glum" today.

Yup. Improves perspective.