Truth Facts
|
Truth Facts
|
Finding Ancient Human Relatives Scientists are constantly trying to find missing links which would explain the evolution of humans. There is no doubt they have made some interesting finds, but does this mean we actually evolved from the creatures whose bones were found? Someone once said to me, give me a pile of enough bones and I can make a case for the evolution of the human race. He was not referring to the fact he could find proof, but was referring to the fact he could invent what looked like proof. This always make me wonder, because it seemed like a logical statement. Some of the evidence for evolution looks very compelling, but so did the rebuilding of dinosaur skeletons until it was found some of the important ones had the wrong parts inserted into them. This was eventually corrected, but how can we ever be sure the reconstruction of some sort of table showing our evolution is correct? When we find bones which are ancient and declare them to be some ancient ancestor, they could just as easily be the bones of some sort of ape. Just because some bones are similar to ours doesn’t necessarily mean we evolved by these creatures. There are a lot of similar features between animals on earth and even humans. Think about it, animals have lungs, hearts, legs, sometimes arms, etc. Now think about a time millions of years in the future where some anthropologist finds the bones of a gorilla from today and a human from the same time. The bones are misdated and the anthropologist thinks the gorilla bones are a million years older and declares the gorilla is an ancient ancestor to the human whose bones he found. You have to wonder how many times things like this are happening today. So much carbon has been dumped into the atmosphere scientists have had to reset the table for dating objects. What does this say for the dating of past finds? The scale has been slowly reset since the 1960s. What a lot of people don’t know is the levels of carbon-14, the element used to date objects is not the same in the ocean and the atmosphere, making dating even harder. Even if we ignore carbon dating when reassembling bones, the only way we can know for sure if we reconstructed the skeleton correctly is if we find an entire skeleton, but many times only partial ones are found and assumptions are made as how other bones found in different places must fit into these skeletons. Many years ago a science fiction story was written which had a fascinating premise. Sometimes science fiction writers come up with some incredible ideas which come to pass at some future time. This story was about a ship which was able to travel out into space far enough to catch up and reassemble photons which traveled from earth at the speed of light. When these photons were reassembled one could see a particular moment from the past. In other words the claim was everything that happened on earth was saved by the photons it produced, into pictures. Maybe someday we will find out this could happen, but of course for now it is just science fiction. This brings me to another point. Why is it we always assume these older creatures which are supposed to be related to man had dark skin? Since skin doesn’t survive we could be shocked to find out they might have had blue, red or some other color skin. They could even have had some combination of colors and could have had skin like a salamander. Some have said my ideas are far out, but if you think about things rationally, who is to say with certainty that what we have been shown, which has been reconstructed to give us an idea of what they looked like, is correct? The idea which seems to be pushed in science is the bigger the brain the smarter the person. This idea is used to demonstrate how human supposedly got smarter than their ancestors, because we are told brains kept getting bigger in our ancestors until they reached their present size. Did you know this isn’t true? Neanderthals had bigger brains than we do. This presented a problem for scientists, they had to explain this away or the whole idea of evolution would fall apart, so here is what they said. They claimed the Neanderthals dedicated more of their brain to controlling their bodies and their vision. This explanation appeared in the Smithsonian Magazine. Even if this is true they apparently had more resources to start with and therefore more to spare which meant they still could have had enough brain power left to be our equals, even if you buy this story. We are told Neanderthals had no written language and never learned to farm in the many hundreds of thousands of years they were on earth because they were too dumb. Was that really the reason or could it have just been too dangerous to stay in one spot? We don’t really know what happened to them and why they died out. Perhaps they were even more warlike than us and finally killed each other. For years we were told they didn’t have the capacity for speech, but recently this was reversed. When we determine what ancient brains were like, we usually don’t have a brain to look at, we do this by looking at a skull and sometimes only a part of a skull. We assume the brain must fill the skull, because that is the way it usually is, but was it always that way or could we have had some other organ sharing the skull in very ancient times? Knowing the way archaeology works I have to think paleontology has similar parameters. There have been many cases where things have been overlooked on purpose in archaeology, because they don’t fit into the accepted time lines. This makes me wonder about paleontology. I have to wonder if the same is true in that field. In truth I haven’t heard much about this, but have heard about a lot of errors in assuming the assembly of skeletons was correct. It is amazing to me we continue to find more previously unknown species of what paleontologists believe are human relatives. Just when you think there can’t possibly be anymore, a new one is found. There is no doubt there was a tremendous amount of diversity on this planet, but does that mean they were all related to us? |
    |
