Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[ChristineM]

There is much geological evidence for a flood, you just haven't bothered to research it. Virtually all cultures around the world have flood stories about a huge global flood. You aren't very familiar with creationist thought, you seem to think all creationists are "new earthers". IF humans were existed with animals the great scientific authorities say were separated from them by multiple, multiple, multiple millions of years, wouldn't that cast a little doubt on their reliability re other issues ?

Please provide citation for this geological evidence

 

[ChristineM]

I am a non-evolution denier like you but this is actually a serious subject (when you take away the religious context). I looked at the OP link and had already heard of this from another source before this. Something doesn't seem to fit current mainstream understanding,

Here's the article I had already seen before this thread. This adds to my suspicion that the past is more complicated than we know. I have now seen a list of findings that mainstream science doesn't know what to do with and they then (conveniently) get forgotten.

Fossilized Footprints in Crete

Any thoughts on this?

Thoughts, yes, there is no identification of the "paleontologists" involved in the claimed discovery and no citation, which i find highly suspicious in a claimed scientific article.

 

[Skwim]

Some modern man like footprints have been found.

Nowhere does it say or even imply this. Stop making up stuff. Or can't you?

This could easily be pre flood man prints.

Even if there was a "Flood," so what? It's already been established the prints are millions of years old.

Man would have evolved since the flood,

This is kind of cute, particularly when you claim that

"Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt."​

"Evolutionary theory is doubtful: however, it isn't in doubt when I want to use it"

In any case, why would man have evolved since the flood? Is there some evidence that in 2,300 BC people were significantly different from those of today? So different that only evolution can account for it? If you don't have any evidence then I think we can safely chalk up your statement here as pure fabrication.

so changes in heel or feet could be expected.

Why could we expect it? What specific evolutionary processes are you working with that could make us expect such a thing?

Yet science fantasizes only about some supposed ancestor to man.

But far less a fantasy than the first Homo sapien on earth being created out of dust in one day, and that the second Homo sapien being created out of the rib of the first. Got any evidence for this, I mean other than a couple of lines from a single fallible book?

Besides showing their stories were wrong, it shows they have a very limited pool to draw water from intellectually.

I think your rather ludicrous statements above have shown that any opinion you have on the subject, this one included, isn't worth our time.


.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Some modern man like footprints have been found. This could easily be pre flood man prints. Man would have evolved since the flood, so changes in heel or feet could be expected. Yet science fantasizes only about some supposed ancestor to man. Besides showing their stories were wrong, it shows they have a very limited pool to draw water from intellectually.

Fossil footprints challenge established theories of human evolution

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm

Oh dear God. I've encountered this "dad" (with the identical avatar) on other religious forums spewing the same nonsense about evolution. Don't you have anything else to do?

 

[Milton Platt]

Some modern man like footprints have been found. This could easily be pre flood man prints. Man would have evolved since the flood, so changes in heel or feet could be expected. Yet science fantasizes only about some supposed ancestor to man. Besides showing their stories were wrong, it shows they have a very limited pool to draw water from intellectually.

Fossil footprints challenge established theories of human evolution

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm

Neither evolution, nor the theory of evolution, which describes the process by which it operates are in question. Dates are subject to refinement as new evidence is found.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

First
By 6 million years we already have very good evidence of upright walking bipedal hominins in Ororin of Kenya.

6-Million-Year-Old Human Ancestor 1st to Walk Upright?

To figure out if the species was bipedal, Richmond and co-author William Jungers of Stony Brook University in New York measured telltale indicators of bipedalism, such as joint size and thighbone shaft strength, and compared them to other early hominin fossils, living apes, and bones from about 130 modern humans from around the world.

O. tugenensis's thighbone, or femur, was different from that of modern humans and living apes but surprisingly similar to species that lived three to four million years later.

"It really closely resembles the thighbone structure of early hominids like Australopithecus, the species that [the well-known female specimen] 'Lucy' belongs to," Richmond said.

Donald Johanson, director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and Lucy's discoverer, agreed.

"I had occasion to see the material about five years ago in Nairobi, and I was struck by the similarities—particularly between the femur and Lucy's femur," said Johanson, who was unaffiliated with the research.

Second
Sahelanthropus fossil shows that multiple hominin species existed and had a wide distribution. They were not only limited in the East African Rift Valley but ranged through much of Central and North Africa.

Toumai is a 6-7 Million Year Old Ancient Hominoid Ancestor

Third
Between 6-5 million years Northern Africa was completely contiguous with Southern Europe. What is now Sahara was then savannah, and there was no Mediterranean Sea. The basin was dry land filled with lakes and marshes.

Messinian salinity crisis - Wikipedia

The Messinian Salinity Crisis(MSC), also referred to as the Messinian Event, and in its latest stage as the Lago Mareevent, was a geological event during which the Mediterranean Sea went into a cycle of partly or nearly complete desiccationthroughout the latter part of the Messinian age of the Miocene epoch, from 5.96 to 5.33 Ma (million years ago). It ended with the Zanclean flood, when the Atlantic reclaimed the basin.[2][1]

This massive desiccation left a deep and dry basin, reaching a depth of 3 to 5 km (1.9 to 3.1 mi) below normal sea level, with a few hypersalinepockets similar to today's Dead Sea. Then, around 5.5 Ma, less dry climatic conditions resulted in the basin receiving more freshwater from rivers, progressively filling and diluting the hypersaline lakes into larger pockets of brackish water (much like today's Caspian sea). The Messinian Salinity Crisis ended with the Strait of Gibraltar finally reopening 5.33 Ma, when the Atlantic rapidly filled up the Mediterranean basin in what is known as the Zanclean flood.[4]



Conclusion
Given the above facts, there is no reason to be surprised that several hominin species had extended their ranges into well watered and forested Mediterranean basin and Southern Europe during this 5-6 million year period.

Don't forget skull anatomy as a proxy for bipedalism. A skull can tell us whether the creature that had it walked on all fours or upright according to the location of the foramen magnum, the hole through which the fibers of the spinal cord enter and leave the brain and skull.

In a quadruped, the foramen magnum is located in a more occipital part of the skull, or the posterior aspect of the skull. The spinal cord that emerges from it will pass through the animal parallel to the ground.

In an animal that stands upright, it is on the inferior aspect of the skull. That cord will pass downward toward the animal's feet.

You referred to Lucy - Australopithecus afarensis (3.9-3.0 mya ) - who is closer to a chimp in stature and dimensions than a modern man, but has her foramen magnum under her skull, indicating that bipedalism was the first of several adaptations man made going from the jungles of Africa to its savannahs, the others being things like increased cranial capacity and change in diet from herbivore to omnivore

 

[dad]

Actually looking at the source, it's clear that this is still for sure millions of years old. It even notes that the point of contention is the location and the surprise at finding one of that age.

I'm not an expert though so I'm not totally sure what the implications would be here if it's verified with more findings, other than there is a mistake with the out of Africa hypothesis but it's abundantly clear that in either case the fossil is still millions of years old and so again disproving the Bible.

The implications are that possibly human prints were founds some 3.2 million (of their imaginary) years before they say man existed. How do we know that maybe that was pre flood man's footprints?

 

[dad]

It's not clear whether the footprint is from a hominid on the direct line of evolution leading to us or from a branch that died out.

They do not know. So why ask them?

 

[dad1]

Didn't the creationists submit "human" footprints alongside dinosaur footprints as evidence fifty or sixty years ago?

I think they are missing in action.

 

[dad1]

Maybe it is a hominid footprint. Maybe the sediments are that old. Maybe the print was made when the sediments were young. Time will tell and if it is so it will change the current view of human evolution ... and that's a good thing. On the other hand, if it is not true, we will have had a good time exercising the scientific method. I see no support for the YECs in either case.

I see no support for your beliefs.

 

[dad1]

It looks like it's contesting the branching of human evolution in the way that is thought to have developed. Not the origins of hominid evolution itself.

Whatever way they see it doesn't matter if they don't know, does it? Can't we think for ourselves?

 

[SalixIncendium]

The implications are that possibly human prints were founds some 3.2 million (of their imaginary) years before they say man existed. How do we know that maybe that was pre flood man's footprints?

What article are you reading? Clearly not the one linked in the OP.

 

[dad1]

Sorry, but evolutionary theory is not in doubt in the scientific community.

Nor is it proven. They think we share our ancestors with flatworms!

The objections come from religious sources that have a miserable track record. Just look at the intelligent design movement. Is anybody even trying to debunk any more of their specific claims of irreducible complexity?

Objections? Why would I object to findings that show they were very wrong? Great fun.

What you need to understand is that Darwin's theory doesn't specify any pathways or timelines in human evolution. The theory is about the mechanism that drives biological evolution, which is not challenged by any changes in the proposed pathways and dates that new findings suggest.

The theory of life from some little slime puffs or pond scum or asteroid fluff involves man having started what, 1.8 million years ago? If the prints were from early pre flood man, then what does that say about their stories?

There is no scientific theory of human evolution. The theory is about the evolution of all present and past life forms from a single common ancestor. Focusing on a particular transition such as from the last common ancestor of man and chimp to modern man (or chimp) does not give you a theory in the scientific sense.

Nonsense. Look up an evo tree of man sometime.

We have hypotheses about that transition in man that are flexible, conforming to the existing data at the time, which is always changing with new discoveries like this one.[/QUOTE]

Ever changing sands are not a good foundation. Rebuilding on sand is just not honest.

If the out of Africa hypothesis can be falsified, then it goes, but not the theory of evolution, nor the idea that man descended from earlier, now extinct primates. These findings challenge neither of those.

Religion (evolution) can't be falsified.

Science hypothesizes and then attempts to confirm or disconfirm its hypotheses using evidence.

None of which you have.

Creationists and Bible literalists fantasize, as with the claim of a global flood submerging all dry land using nothing but faith in a book full of errors.

Why insult God's word, and make claims you can't support here? (that there was no flood)

Whether man had ancestral forms from which he evolved is not disputed in the scientific community

Total fantasy and unsupported religion. Show us the ancestor. All you do is invoke magic old ages and pagan philosophy and appeal to imagination. No proof. No support. No truth. You need more than 'you share ancestors with flatworms'!

We already know that the present understanding of how and when man arose is incomplete.

WE never arose. So your story will ALWAYS be incomplete as lies must be.

 

[dad1]

#clickbait

There is nowhere in the article where this is even implied.

I find it rather annoying when the under-educated confuse scientific theory with conjecture.

Who cares what they imply when they are busted as having been very wrong? You thought we had to scramble back to the con men for a new guess?

 

[dad1]

Note: I forgot password for old profile of 'dad' so started the new one..dad1 I plan to erase the first one when I figure it out.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Who cares what they imply when they are busted as having been very wrong? You thought we had to scramble back to the con men for a new guess?

Thank you for driving my point home.

 

[dad1]

Hi, here is a link to more direct information: Possible hominin footprints from the late Miocene (c. 5.7 Ma) of Crete?

I don't know if you can see the image above, but its the prints found. The article is an interesting read.

Who knows, could be pre flood man. No?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I only read through the first few entries; 4 pages just seemed like a lot to read but I wanted to point out what I'm sure has already been pointed out.

FIRST, the article states:
Newly discovered human-like footprints from Crete may put the established narrative of early human evolution to the test.

The OP read is as such:
Newly discovered human-like footprints from Crete may put the established theory of evolution to the test.

... which, of course, is NOT what the article stated.

By indicating "established narrative of early human evolution", it means that there may now be new evidence that suggests that humans or human-like ancestors were around longer than what we originally thought. There is plentiful other research and data, from dozens of scientific fields, which serve to substantiate evolution.

So evolution is not in question; not even according to this article nor in light of this new find. What is in question is that the path evolution took or the time frame of human evolution may not be as we thought it was.

Fascinating!

PS -- There was no worldwide flood as there is absolutely zero credible evidence to verify such a fanciful tale.

 

[SalixIncendium]

They do not know. So why ask them?

Note: I forgot password for old profile of 'dad' so started the new one..dad1 I plan to erase the first one when I figure it out.

 

[dad1]

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
~ Bertrand Russell