Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I often wonder if what science often insists is the "earliest" human is really just the earliest human they have found evidence of. It's a long time ago and not a lot of places on Earth had the exact circumstances that would preserve that evidence for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. So the "earliest" civilizations are actually just the earliest we've discovered, yet. And the earliest humans? I have a feeling it will go back farther as time goes on.
I sometimes wonder if civilization on this planet has waxed and waned several times in the past, and it was so long ago and the end was so destructive that we know nothing about it. For it to take nearly all of the 200,000 years for humans to get with the program seems highly unlikely to me.
You didn't give a prize for the last one, and think I will give you more of my time?Evolution is random mutation and other processes acted upon by non-random selection giving rise to new genotype frequencies in a population gene pool.I disagree. Evolution is very poorly understood, we know it happens, but we don't know the rate at which it happens, or the percentage of beneficial mutations. The fossil record is so incomplete that the holes that we could drive trucks through and not ever find a thing are legion.
Utterly ridiculous. Evolution is very well understood it is only layman that think it isn't. It's like saying 'we don't know what caused the big bang so physicists are entirely in the dark about the universe'. I find people that have a religious bent tend to try to cast scientific facts and theories as 'well we just really don't know' if there is some area that research is still taking place while at the same time they believe in something for which there is no physical evidence. Don't know who is religious here it is a general statement.
It's like when they were still filling in the periodic table of the elements. 'Well there are still many elements that they 'think' are out there but they haven't found them so the entire table of the elements is just guessing and we don't really know, the whole thing could be wrong'. Sorry that isn't how it works. Go to ANY local college and talk to a biologist and ask them if footprints that are 'human-like' from 6 million years ago could be human. They'll laugh and then explain why it's impossible.
But fantasy has it's fans.
It is? Describe how it works then. Use your own words, not a cut and paste job.
Whar's mah prize?
What causes the mutations? What are the "other processes"? Describe them in detail. Define non random selection and how it specifically applies to evolutionary theory.
So far you get nothing.
LOL
I believe Naeandethals were us, just a subspecies. That would be too much convergent evolution for me.No, I actually meant to say "parallel" which is more appropriate IMO, save for the time frame obviously. If this is indeed a pre iteration of hominid, who's to say this branch didn't evolve into the Neanderthal, etc.
I believe Naeandethals were us, just a subspecies. That would be too much convergent evolution for me.No, I actually meant to say "parallel" which is more appropriate IMO, save for the time frame obviously. If this is indeed a pre iteration of hominid, who's to say this branch didn't evolve into the Neanderthal, etc.
The biggest problem I have with this paper is this
The footprints were discovered by Gerard Gierlinski (1st author of the study) by chance when he was on holiday on Crete in 2002. Gierlinski, a paleontologist at the Polish Geological Institute specialized in footprints, identified the footprints as mammal but did not interpret them further at the time. In 2010 he returned to the site together with Grzegorz Niedzwiedzki (2nd author), a Polish paleontologist now at Uppsala University, to study the footprints in detail. Together they came to the conclusion that the footprints were made by hominins.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm
He specializes in footprints & thought they were only mammal? LOL. Eight years to return! Seven years to publish and was obviously rejected by major journals.
I can't wait to see the peer review.
He should have used a different excuse like he didn't think they were old.
Over the years we have lumped fossils together a LOT. It used to be much much worse.I often wonder if what science often insists is the "earliest" human is really just the earliest human they have found evidence of. It's a long time ago and not a lot of places on Earth had the exact circumstances that would preserve that evidence for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. So the "earliest" civilizations are actually just the earliest we've discovered, yet. And the earliest humans? I have a feeling it will go back farther as time goes on.
I sometimes wonder if civilization on this planet has waxed and waned several times in the past, and it was so long ago and the end was so destructive that we know nothing about it. For it to take nearly all of the 200,000 years for humans to get with the program seems highly unlikely to me.
I think my biggest problem with all of the paleo research done on proto humans is the assumption that all of these skulls etc. are different species. I have long felt that in fossil assemblages where you have the different skulls it is just normal variation of the same species. Look at modern humans, we have loads of different features, I find it odd that the paleontologists can't wrap their heads around the concept that the proto humans were the same as us.
The gradualists are all dead, except for the creationists.You didn't give a prize for the last one, and think I will give you more of my time?Evolution is random mutation and other processes acted upon by non-random selection giving rise to new genotype frequencies in a population gene pool.Utterly ridiculous. Evolution is very well understood it is only layman that think it isn't. It's like saying 'we don't know what caused the big bang so physicists are entirely in the dark about the universe'. I find people that have a religious bent tend to try to cast scientific facts and theories as 'well we just really don't know' if there is some area that research is still taking place while at the same time they believe in something for which there is no physical evidence. Don't know who is religious here it is a general statement.
It's like when they were still filling in the periodic table of the elements. 'Well there are still many elements that they 'think' are out there but they haven't found them so the entire table of the elements is just guessing and we don't really know, the whole thing could be wrong'. Sorry that isn't how it works. Go to ANY local college and talk to a biologist and ask them if footprints that are 'human-like' from 6 million years ago could be human. They'll laugh and then explain why it's impossible.
But fantasy has it's fans.
It is? Describe how it works then. Use your own words, not a cut and paste job.
Whar's mah prize?
What causes the mutations? What are the "other processes"? Describe them in detail. Define non random selection and how it specifically applies to evolutionary theory.
So far you get nothing.
LOL
You weren't specific enough. You gave nothing more than the bare minimum of what wiki has. Big deal. You ignored the conflict between the gradualists and the punctuated equilibrium supporters, so no, what do think you deserve a prize for?
Amazing discovery.
The footprints older than feet
HUMAN-like footprints have been found stamped into an ancient sea shore fossilised beneath the Mediterranean island of Crete.
They shouldn’t be there.
Testing puts the rock’s age at 5.7 million years.
That’s a time when palaeontologists believe our human ancestors had only apelike feet.
And they lived in Africa.
<more>
You should thank God for global warming. It pulled Hillary to the left and got your boy Crazy Ivan rino trump selected by the electoral college.You are a goddamned fraud. Your posts on this board have proven that beyond doubt. You are repeatedly shown your disdain for science and real scientists.
"I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". "
I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". I consider them to be criminals. Face it clown boy, every time you trot one of their tall tales out it is easily refuted by real observed data. The only fraud is you and your fellow travelers.
"I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". "
And there it is... "They're all liars, I'm the one telling the truth"
Applause for honesty. Yes, it's an absurd idea, but you actually believe it and you had the guts to say it. None of this "dog whistle" bullshit we are inundated with. No sir...westwall will suck it up and come right out and say they're all lying.
Can I put you on TV? I mean that. I would like people to see you make this claim. Far and wide.
When they are caught lying, as they have been repeatedly, they are no better than charlatans. What happens to charlatans when they get caught? Hmm?
What is stunning to me is your desperate defense of the indefensible. You must be one of the swine.
You are commenting on the most well-founded theory in the history of humanity. It is supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence from every field of science, and by physics and mathematics. It is literally the of all of biology, which has blossomed spectacularly in its light.
You pointing out scientists caught lying does not undermine the theory. It is ridiculous that you think it does. And then you claim authority on all manner of scientific topics by saying you are a scientist. What a crock. You are no scientist.
AGW is the least supported theory ever in the history of science. It is almost entirely based on computer models and fools like you can't seem to understand that computer models are not data.
And yes, I am a scientist. And a damned good one.
And, for the record, "consensus" is a political word. It is NOT a scientific one.
You should thank God for global warming. It pulled Hillary to the left and got your boy Crazy Ivan rino trump selected by the electoral college."I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". "
I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". I consider them to be criminals. Face it clown boy, every time you trot one of their tall tales out it is easily refuted by real observed data. The only fraud is you and your fellow travelers.
"I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". "
And there it is... "They're all liars, I'm the one telling the truth"
Applause for honesty. Yes, it's an absurd idea, but you actually believe it and you had the guts to say it. None of this "dog whistle" bullshit we are inundated with. No sir...westwall will suck it up and come right out and say they're all lying.
Can I put you on TV? I mean that. I would like people to see you make this claim. Far and wide.
When they are caught lying, as they have been repeatedly, they are no better than charlatans. What happens to charlatans when they get caught? Hmm?
What is stunning to me is your desperate defense of the indefensible. You must be one of the swine.
You are commenting on the most well-founded theory in the history of humanity. It is supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence from every field of science, and by physics and mathematics. It is literally the of all of biology, which has blossomed spectacularly in its light.
You pointing out scientists caught lying does not undermine the theory. It is ridiculous that you think it does. And then you claim authority on all manner of scientific topics by saying you are a scientist. What a crock. You are no scientist.
AGW is the least supported theory ever in the history of science. It is almost entirely based on computer models and fools like you can't seem to understand that computer models are not data.
And yes, I am a scientist. And a damned good one.
And, for the record, "consensus" is a political word. It is NOT a scientific one.
Uh, the common ancestor theory doen't mean what you claim it does."I am a firm supporter of evolution, I am also however a scientist, so unlike you, I have actually studied the subject and understand its limitations"
Then why is it the scientific community at large doesn't share this understanding with you? Have they not also studied evolution? Yes, they have...in fact, the experts are the ones who discovered everything you studied.
This reminds me if you claiming authority on the climate by saying you are a geologist, yet having an opinion at odds with the scientific consensus endorsed by every major geological society in the world.
In either case, I have yet to understand what makes you so special, and how you think claiming this authority is any substitute for the consensus or for published science.
Ahhhhh, but they do. We all agree that evolution is a "thing". But there are huge arguments going on about how it comes about. First there was evolutionary theory, then "phyletic gradualism, then there was "punctuated equilibrium", in other words there are MULTIPLE lines of thought on how evolution occurs, but simple people, like you, don't even understand the basics.
Well understood my ass, they are arguing over the processes involved all of the time!
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
08 October 2014
- Kevin Laland,
- Tobias Uller,
- Marc Feldman,
- Kim Sterelny,
- Gerd B. Müller,
- Armin Moczek,
- Eva Jablonka,
- John Odling-Smee,
- Gregory A. Wray,
- Hopi E. Hoekstra,
- Douglas J. Futuyma,
- Richard E. Lenski,
- Trudy F. C. Mackay,
- Dolph Schluter
- & Joan E. Strassmann
Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently
Without an extended evolutionary framework, the theory neglects key processes, say Kevin Laland and colleagues.
Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.
Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
"We all agree that evolution is a "thing". "
No, the consensus is that evolution is the reason every species, including us, has ever lived, and that we all have a common ancestor (one individual, in fact). If you don't agree with this, you don't agree with evolutionary theory. And it is clear that you do not. Spare me the equivocation.
No, you do not get to misappropriate the theory of evolution into your completely opposed viewpoint buy putting it in air quotes. You are diametrically opposed to it, and that is the position you have chosen. Own it.
By all means point to a single post I have ever made where I don't support evolutionary theory. That's the problem when you silly people lie, it is very easy to catch you in them. As far as us all coming from one common ancestor, that sounds an awful lot like Adam and Eve, which is kind of religious don't you think? I am fully versed in evolutionary theory and the evidence supports a common ancestor, that is absolutely true, but no scientist worth his or her salt will ever proclaim that that is the only "truth".
There is far too much uncertainty in evolutionary theory to support that. Far better is to assert that yes, mankind evolved from a common GROUP. That is a supportable statement. The claim that there is a mitochrondial "Eve" has some support, there is also evidence for a singular "man" from 60 or so thousand years ago. The problem is they didn't live near each other.
Whenever you read the studies they use the word "suggests". Guess what, that is not definitive. That is a weasel word that is great for the news headlines, but in the real world of science means, "but could also not be true". Non scientific people, such as yourself, leap all over the "suggests", but ignore the follow on.
That's the difference between a scientist, and a non scientist. A scientist MUST think about the follow on, because invariably it is the follow on that screws up your theory.
Here's a Live Science article and look at that, there's that magic word "suggested".
"Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women.
The findings, detailed today (Aug. 1) in the journal Science, come from the most complete analysis of the male sex chromosome, or the Y chromosome, to date. The results overturn earlier research, which suggested that men's most recent common ancestor lived just 50,000 to 60,000 years ago.
Despite their overlap in time, ancient "Adam" and ancient "Eve" probably didn't even live near each other, let alone mate.
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered
Let's take Mitochondrial Eve. What we mean is that her line is the oldest has has carried down unbroken through history, not that she was the only one.
Of course we are talking about a group.
What field of science do you come from?
Apparently you have a problem with boastful claims made in papers presented. You obviously are not an evolutionary biologist. We always made bold assertions when we publish. It's politics. LOL
"This is the oldest and obviously a new species. We can tell how he walked just from these three teeth! This specimen is obviously in the direct path to us and deserves a new genus and we have named it!"
Of course you make boastful statements. The problem is that's not scientific. I'm a retired geologist.
Uh, the common ancestor theory doen't mean what you claim it does.Ahhhhh, but they do. We all agree that evolution is a "thing". But there are huge arguments going on about how it comes about. First there was evolutionary theory, then "phyletic gradualism, then there was "punctuated equilibrium", in other words there are MULTIPLE lines of thought on how evolution occurs, but simple people, like you, don't even understand the basics.
Well understood my ass, they are arguing over the processes involved all of the time!
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
08 October 2014
- Kevin Laland,
- Tobias Uller,
- Marc Feldman,
- Kim Sterelny,
- Gerd B. Müller,
- Armin Moczek,
- Eva Jablonka,
- John Odling-Smee,
- Gregory A. Wray,
- Hopi E. Hoekstra,
- Douglas J. Futuyma,
- Richard E. Lenski,
- Trudy F. C. Mackay,
- Dolph Schluter
- & Joan E. Strassmann
Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently
Without an extended evolutionary framework, the theory neglects key processes, say Kevin Laland and colleagues.
Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.
Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
"We all agree that evolution is a "thing". "
No, the consensus is that evolution is the reason every species, including us, has ever lived, and that we all have a common ancestor (one individual, in fact). If you don't agree with this, you don't agree with evolutionary theory. And it is clear that you do not. Spare me the equivocation.
No, you do not get to misappropriate the theory of evolution into your completely opposed viewpoint buy putting it in air quotes. You are diametrically opposed to it, and that is the position you have chosen. Own it.
By all means point to a single post I have ever made where I don't support evolutionary theory. That's the problem when you silly people lie, it is very easy to catch you in them. As far as us all coming from one common ancestor, that sounds an awful lot like Adam and Eve, which is kind of religious don't you think? I am fully versed in evolutionary theory and the evidence supports a common ancestor, that is absolutely true, but no scientist worth his or her salt will ever proclaim that that is the only "truth".
There is far too much uncertainty in evolutionary theory to support that. Far better is to assert that yes, mankind evolved from a common GROUP. That is a supportable statement. The claim that there is a mitochrondial "Eve" has some support, there is also evidence for a singular "man" from 60 or so thousand years ago. The problem is they didn't live near each other.
Whenever you read the studies they use the word "suggests". Guess what, that is not definitive. That is a weasel word that is great for the news headlines, but in the real world of science means, "but could also not be true". Non scientific people, such as yourself, leap all over the "suggests", but ignore the follow on.
That's the difference between a scientist, and a non scientist. A scientist MUST think about the follow on, because invariably it is the follow on that screws up your theory.
Here's a Live Science article and look at that, there's that magic word "suggested".
"Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women.
The findings, detailed today (Aug. 1) in the journal Science, come from the most complete analysis of the male sex chromosome, or the Y chromosome, to date. The results overturn earlier research, which suggested that men's most recent common ancestor lived just 50,000 to 60,000 years ago.
Despite their overlap in time, ancient "Adam" and ancient "Eve" probably didn't even live near each other, let alone mate.
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered
Let's take Mitochondrial Eve. What we mean is that her line is the oldest has has carried down unbroken through history, not that she was the only one.
Of course we are talking about a group.
What field of science do you come from?
Apparently you have a problem with boastful claims made in papers presented. You obviously are not an evolutionary biologist. We always made bold assertions when we publish. It's politics. LOL
"This is the oldest and obviously a new species. We can tell how he walked just from these three teeth! This specimen is obviously in the direct path to us and deserves a new genus and we have named it!"
Of course you make boastful statements. The problem is that's not scientific. I'm a retired geologist.
As we all know, it is the lab leader who is the political one. The real science is done by underlings.
A geologist! Cool! Looking for oil type?
This is the biggest image I have seen so far
Something tells me the one clear print and the other one that is not clear at all might just be the best or even only
You should thank God for global warming. It pulled Hillary to the left and got your boy Crazy Ivan rino trump selected by the electoral college."I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". "
And there it is... "They're all liars, I'm the one telling the truth"
Applause for honesty. Yes, it's an absurd idea, but you actually believe it and you had the guts to say it. None of this "dog whistle" bullshit we are inundated with. No sir...westwall will suck it up and come right out and say they're all lying.
Can I put you on TV? I mean that. I would like people to see you make this claim. Far and wide.
When they are caught lying, as they have been repeatedly, they are no better than charlatans. What happens to charlatans when they get caught? Hmm?
What is stunning to me is your desperate defense of the indefensible. You must be one of the swine.
You are commenting on the most well-founded theory in the history of humanity. It is supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence from every field of science, and by physics and mathematics. It is literally the of all of biology, which has blossomed spectacularly in its light.
You pointing out scientists caught lying does not undermine the theory. It is ridiculous that you think it does. And then you claim authority on all manner of scientific topics by saying you are a scientist. What a crock. You are no scientist.
AGW is the least supported theory ever in the history of science. It is almost entirely based on computer models and fools like you can't seem to understand that computer models are not data.
And yes, I am a scientist. And a damned good one.
And, for the record, "consensus" is a political word. It is NOT a scientific one.
The shrilary is merely a crook. She has no political party other than who she felt could get her elected. She is all about power for her.
I don't thank God, but i do thank Nature for global warming. It is far superior to cold. Where I live just a few thousand years ago was under a mile thick slab of ice. It's a lot nicer now.
You should thank God for global warming. It pulled Hillary to the left and got your boy Crazy Ivan rino trump selected by the electoral college.When they are caught lying, as they have been repeatedly, they are no better than charlatans. What happens to charlatans when they get caught? Hmm?
What is stunning to me is your desperate defense of the indefensible. You must be one of the swine.
You are commenting on the most well-founded theory in the history of humanity. It is supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence from every field of science, and by physics and mathematics. It is literally the of all of biology, which has blossomed spectacularly in its light.
You pointing out scientists caught lying does not undermine the theory. It is ridiculous that you think it does. And then you claim authority on all manner of scientific topics by saying you are a scientist. What a crock. You are no scientist.
AGW is the least supported theory ever in the history of science. It is almost entirely based on computer models and fools like you can't seem to understand that computer models are not data.
And yes, I am a scientist. And a damned good one.
And, for the record, "consensus" is a political word. It is NOT a scientific one.
The shrilary is merely a crook. She has no political party other than who she felt could get her elected. She is all about power for her.
You conned cons keep throwing trump's attributes onto Hillary. It makes me laugh.
I don't thank God, but i do thank Nature for global warming. It is far superior to cold. Where I live just a few thousand years ago was under a mile thick slab of ice. It's a lot nicer now.
For the record I am far from an alarmist on global warming. Politically it has done a lot of good. Research into new technologies, alternative fuels, fuel efficient cars, got rid of CFC's in aerosols, etc. I am more concerned about oil wars of the future.
LOL Consensus in science means that most accept a theory or hypothesis as the best explanation at present for a given phenomena. It does not mean it is true, it means that nobody at present has presented a better explanation. AGW is the best present explanation for the rapid warming we are presently seeing. Those that have tried to present other explanations, such as Mr. Westwall, with his continued predictions of a cooling, have fallen on the faces in a rather spectacular fashion. The support for AGW is pretty simple. That is the absorption spectra of the GHGs, first measured in 1859. And we have observed a rapid warming as we have increased the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. Warming proven by the melting of the alpine glaciers and continental ice caps, and the reduction of the Arctic Sea Ice. I cannot recall anyone stating that models prove AGW. However, since the effects of AGW are costing us billions right now, it is wise to model what is happening as best we can so we can plan for the future.You are a goddamned fraud. Your posts on this board have proven that beyond doubt. You are repeatedly shown your disdain for science and real scientists.
"I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". "
I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". I consider them to be criminals. Face it clown boy, every time you trot one of their tall tales out it is easily refuted by real observed data. The only fraud is you and your fellow travelers.
"I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". "
And there it is... "They're all liars, I'm the one telling the truth"
Applause for honesty. Yes, it's an absurd idea, but you actually believe it and you had the guts to say it. None of this "dog whistle" bullshit we are inundated with. No sir...westwall will suck it up and come right out and say they're all lying.
Can I put you on TV? I mean that. I would like people to see you make this claim. Far and wide.
When they are caught lying, as they have been repeatedly, they are no better than charlatans. What happens to charlatans when they get caught? Hmm?
What is stunning to me is your desperate defense of the indefensible. You must be one of the swine.
You are commenting on the most well-founded theory in the history of humanity. It is supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence from every field of science, and by physics and mathematics. It is literally the of all of biology, which has blossomed spectacularly in its light.
You pointing out scientists caught lying does not undermine the theory. It is ridiculous that you think it does. And then you claim authority on all manner of scientific topics by saying you are a scientist. What a crock. You are no scientist.
AGW is the least supported theory ever in the history of science. It is almost entirely based on computer models and fools like you can't seem to understand that computer models are not data.
And yes, I am a scientist. And a damned good one.
And, for the record, "consensus" is a political word. It is NOT a scientific one.
LOL Consensus in science means that most accept a theory or hypothesis as the best explanation at present for a given phenomena. It does not mean it is true, it means that nobody at present has presented a better explanation. AGW is the best present explanation for the rapid warming we are presently seeing. Those that have tried to present other explanations, such as Mr. Westwall, with his continued predictions of a cooling, have fallen on the faces in a rather spectacular fashion. The support for AGW is pretty simple. That is the absorption spectra of the GHGs, first measured in 1859. And we have observed a rapid warming as we have increased the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. Warming proven by the melting of the alpine glaciers and continental ice caps, and the reduction of the Arctic Sea Ice. I cannot recall anyone stating that models prove AGW. However, since the effects of AGW are costing us billions right now, it is wise to model what is happening as best we can so we can plan for the future."I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". "
I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". I consider them to be criminals. Face it clown boy, every time you trot one of their tall tales out it is easily refuted by real observed data. The only fraud is you and your fellow travelers.
"I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". "
And there it is... "They're all liars, I'm the one telling the truth"
Applause for honesty. Yes, it's an absurd idea, but you actually believe it and you had the guts to say it. None of this "dog whistle" bullshit we are inundated with. No sir...westwall will suck it up and come right out and say they're all lying.
Can I put you on TV? I mean that. I would like people to see you make this claim. Far and wide.
When they are caught lying, as they have been repeatedly, they are no better than charlatans. What happens to charlatans when they get caught? Hmm?
What is stunning to me is your desperate defense of the indefensible. You must be one of the swine.
You are commenting on the most well-founded theory in the history of humanity. It is supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence from every field of science, and by physics and mathematics. It is literally the of all of biology, which has blossomed spectacularly in its light.
You pointing out scientists caught lying does not undermine the theory. It is ridiculous that you think it does. And then you claim authority on all manner of scientific topics by saying you are a scientist. What a crock. You are no scientist.
AGW is the least supported theory ever in the history of science. It is almost entirely based on computer models and fools like you can't seem to understand that computer models are not data.
And yes, I am a scientist. And a damned good one.
And, for the record, "consensus" is a political word. It is NOT a scientific one.
There's no proof that it's even a footprint, let alone a human footprint.Amazing discovery.
The footprints older than feet
HUMAN-like footprints have been found stamped into an ancient sea shore fossilised beneath the Mediterranean island of Crete.
They shouldn’t be there.
Testing puts the rock’s age at 5.7 million years.
That’s a time when palaeontologists believe our human ancestors had only apelike feet.
And they lived in Africa.
<more>
It most definitely is a footprint, but not a human footprint.There's no proof that it's even a footprint, let alone a human footprint.Amazing discovery.
The footprints older than feet
HUMAN-like footprints have been found stamped into an ancient sea shore fossilised beneath the Mediterranean island of Crete.
They shouldn’t be there.
Testing puts the rock’s age at 5.7 million years.
That’s a time when palaeontologists believe our human ancestors had only apelike feet.
And they lived in Africa.
<more>
It looks like we have some sad breaking news
Fossil Footprints of Early Human Ancestor Stolen from Crete
A number of fossilised footprints believed to belong to an ancestor of modern humans have been stolen from Kissamos on Crete,authorities revealed on Thursday.
Ten of some 40 footprints on the Kasteli site have been cut away and removed from the rock, where they were found by a Polish paleontologist in 2002.
The theft was reported by a member of the public that visited the site on Tuesday and alerted local police, and was later confirmed by the Natural History Museum of Crete.
Fossil Footprints of Early Human Ancestor Stolen from Crete | GreekReporter.com ~ Posted today
