See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: DINOSAUR and HUMAN FOOTPRINTS TOGETHER
Source:
POKERFACE E MAIL
URL Source: http://184.154.224.5/~creatio1/inde ... tent&task=view&id=48&Itemid=24
Published: Oct 14, 2011
Author: Paul and Poker Face
Post Date: 2011-10-14 06:12:12 by HOUNDDAWG
Keywords: None
Views: 714
Comments: 66
Introduction: In early July, 2000 Alvis Delk, assisted by James Bishop (both of Stephenville, Texas), was working in the Cretaceous limestone on the McFall property at the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas and discovered a pristine human footprint intruded by a dinosaur footprint. This discovery was made in the vicinity of McFall I and II Sites where the Creation Evidence Museum team has excavated since the Spring of 1982. The eleven-inch human footprint matches seven other such footprints of the same dimensions in the “Sir George Series,” named in honor of His Excellency Governor General Ratu Sir George Cacobau of Fiji.[2] Scientific Verification of Footprint Authenticity: The fossil was transported to a professional laboratory where 800 X-rays were performed in a CT Scan procedure. Laboratory technicians verified compression and distribution features clearly seen in both prints, human and dinosaur. This removes any possibility that the prints were carved or altered. Importance of Discovery: Professor James Stewart Monroe, writing in Journal of Geological Education candidly asserted that “Human footprints in geologically ancient strata would indeed call into doubt many conventional geological concepts.”[3] Professor David H. Milne of The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington and Professor Steven D. Schafersman of the Department of Geology, Rice University, Houston, Texas made further admissions in writing that “Such an occurrence, if verified, would seriously disrupt conventional interpretations of biological and geological history and would support the doctrines of creationism and catastrophism.”[4] Professor Steven M. Stanley in The New Evolutionary Timetable opined that “any topsy-turvy sequence of fossils would force us to rethink our theory…As Darwin recognized, a single geographic inconsistency would have nearly the same power of destruction.”[5]
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 49.
#3. To: HOUNDDAWG (#0)
(Edited)
I just finished reading Origins, by Phillip Day. Among other things, the author uses math to prove that evolution is bunk. Paraphrasing his work, at a rate 1/10 of proven population expansion rate through written history, if humanity began 2 million years ago, the earth would now be populated by 18,932,139,737,991,000,000,000,000,000,000... people, give or take. Where are all these people, and where are all of the ancestral remains? Starting with two original ancestors, it would take 4,400 years to arrive at today's population, using historical population growth rates. Gotta love math. :)
DNA tests have shown that at one point human populations were reduced to near extinction. Who is to say it didn't happen more than once?
It would have needed to happen about 400 times.
This is consistent with the Toba catastrophe theory that suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 15,000 individuals[4] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidences of sudden climate change and on coalescence evidences of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[5] and the relatively low level of genetic variation with humans.[4] However, such coalescence is genetically expected and does not, in itself, indicate a population bottleneck, because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA are only a small part of the entire genome, and are atypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively. Most genes in the genome are inherited from either father or mother, and thus can be traced back in time via either matrilineal or patrilineal ancestry.[6] Research on many genes finds different coalescence points from 2 million years ago to 60,000 years ago when different genes are considered, thus disproving the existence of more recent extreme bottlenecks (i.e., a single breeding pair).[4][7] On the other hand, in 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[8] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.[9]
HERETIC! Here you are preaching catastrophism. Just because the evidence points out repeated planetary catastrophes is no reason to ignore what all of the academics have written. Word!
#50. To: Original_Intent (#49)
I can hardly say the word but am convinced of its geologic truth. At least in the arid south west.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#42. To: Critter, Original_Intent (#3)
#46. To: farmfriend (#42)
DNA tests have shown that at one point human populations were reduced to near extinction. Who is to say it didn't happen more than once?
#47. To: Critter (#46)
It would have needed to happen about 400 times.
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has postulated that human mitochondrial DNA (inherited only from one's mother) and Y chromosome DNA (from one's father) show coalescence at around 140,000 and 60,000 years ago, respectively. In other words, all living humans' female line ancestry can be traced back to a single female (Mitochondrial Eve) at around 140,000 years ago. Via the male line, all humans can trace their ancestry back to a single male (Y-chromosomal Adam) at around 60,000 to 90,000 years ago.[3]
#49. To: farmfriend (#47)
Replies to Comment # 49. Here you are preaching catastrophism.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 49.