November 12, 2022 | David F. Coppedge

Footprints in the Scams of Time

Evolutionists nearly triple the age of human footprints,
revealing the effrontery in their slimy dating schemes.

 

‘Ladies and gentlemen, these human footprints are 106,000 years old.’ The announcer turns to listen to a man whispering in his ear. He tells him that they just learned that the footprints are 200,000 years older than thought. Without breaking cadence, the announcer resumes his speech to the crowds at the Darwin circus wagon, saying, ‘Ladies and gentlemen, these hominid footprints are 295,000 years old!’ P.T. Barnum could hardly pull off a better prank.

Footprints indicate human presence in Spain in Middle Pleistocene, 200,000 years earlier than previously thought (University of Seville via Phys.org, 10 November 2022).

The discovery in June 2020 of hominin footprints more than 106,000 years old next to El Asperillo (Matalascañas, Huelva) was a revolution for the scientific world, so much so that it was considered one of the most important discoveries of that year. But now, the publication of this new paper has confirmed what some experts suspected at the time: those footprints were much older and are in fact 200,000 years older than previously thought.

Believe it or not. You are within rights to believe it not, for reasons discussed below.

The old story was that these must have been Neanderthal footprints. But since they are 200,000 years older “than previously thought,” the paleoanthropologists must (according to the evolutionary timeline) put them closer to the mythical species Homo heidelbergensis (“Heidelberg man”). Evolution comes first; data must fit the timeline of evolution.

At first the footprints were thought to be from Neanderthals, but that is now in doubt. The main hypothesis among the scientists is that the footprints came from individuals of the Neanderthal lineage, with which Homo heidelbergensis and Homo neanderthalensis have been associated. The hypothesis that the prints belonged to pre-Neanderthal hominins is feasible.

Feasible to whom? Did you get to vote on that? Did they use a feasibility-meter? What are the units?

What, exactly, is a “pre-Neanderthal”?

Curiously, evolutionists find widely-separated human tracks all over Europe at vastly different points on their timeline:

Until now, according to the Scientific Reports paper, footprints this period have only been found at Terra Amata and Roccamonfina (Italy), and were dated to between 380,000 and 345,000 years ago, with records of Homo heidelbergensis. They are the only ones older than those at Huelva in this era. After these, findings at the Biache-Vaast (France) and Theopetra (Greece) sites, from 236,000 to 130,000 years ago, are attributed to Homo neanderthalensis.

This evolutionary story requires belief that upright-walking, tool-making, fire-using human beings capable of migrating across continents walked throughout Europe (Spain, Italy and Greece) for 275,000 years, almost 30 times the length of all recorded human history (during which men went from shacks to exploring Pluto), without ever inventing a wheel, building a permanent house, planting a crop, riding a horse or raising cattle.

The scam also requires believing that those tracks endured for all that time and yet many of the 300 tracks remained “well preserved” after who knows how many earthquakes, floods, burrowing animals, and other natural disasters.

> Source paper: Mayoral et al., New dating of the Matalascañas footprints provides new evidence of the Middle Pleistocene (MIS 9-8) hominin paleoecology in southern Europe, Nature Scientific Reports (open access), 19 Oct 2022.

How sure are they about the dates and the classification of the track makers? Was Heidelberg Man even a real concept?

However, a more precise attribution seems complicated as there are many debates about the evolution of this lineage but also about the taxonomic definition of Homo heidelbergensis. Different models have been proposed for the evolution of the Neandertal lineage (e.g.,56 and references therein). This matter is still far from being solved, given the paucity of the fossil record and the new, more complicated evolutionary picture provided by the latest ancient DNA studies….

The scam, including the dating scheme, is all about Darwinian evolution from start to finish. If evolutionists can assume that Lucy had human-like feet (28 Jan 2022), what’s to stop them from fabricating any tale that keeps them busy in Darwin fantasyland? Nature, the publisher, has had a long history of foisting Darwinism on the public (7 Nov 2022).

The technical jargon in papers make the “science” seem irrefutable. They have charts and maps. They used Optically Stimulated Luminescence dating techniques. They posted geological maps. They used equations.

Bosh. If the conclusion is nonsense, the Jargonwocky is only so much hand-waving. Don’t be fooled.

Folks, the tracks are human tracks. They are not anywhere near that old. Human beings don’t sit around in caves for hundreds of thousands of years, hunting for the same old mammoth meat at the cave cookout. People are restless and creative. They speak. They think. They invent. And they do these things quickly, sometimes within months. Who needs the Gumby Darwin timeline? It’s just stupid.

For fun, read Matthew Connally’s essay, “What is a human being?” (World News Group, 16 April 2021). He watches materialist experts as they play the Blind Men and the Elephant with human nature, dependent on their prior commitment to evolution. These know-nothings, friends, are the ones who call themselves scholars.

Exercise: Deconstruct the evolutionary mythmaking in this piece in The Conversation (2 Nov 2022) by evolutionary anthropologist Vivek V. Venkataraman, with its Tontological headline, “The origins of human society are more complex than we thought.” Pay attention to the use of the word “evolution” and whether it fits the data. Notice also how wrong evolutionists have been in the past, according to the author. Example:

In the 19th-century, anthropologists like Lewis Henry Morgan categorized human social evolution into three stages: savagery, barbarism and civilization. These correspond to hunting and gathering, farming and urban life, respectively. These so-called “stage models” incorrectly view social evolution as a steady march of progress toward civilized life.

Scholars do not take stage models seriously today. There is little intellectual connection between stage models and modern evolutionary approaches toward studying hunter-gatherers.

Ask yourself if future “scholars” will take Venkataraman’s models seriously, or if his views just conform to the current fad.

As an evolutionary anthropologist and hunter-gatherer specialist, I believe both accounts miss the mark about the course of human prehistory. To see why, it is important to understand how anthropologists today think about nomadic egalitarian bands in the scheme of social evolution.

Freudian slip? “Scheme.”

A more accurate march of human evolution. Note: first figure at left is mythical.

(Visited 502 times, 1 visits today)

Comments

  • survivorbiasmonkeyman says:

    “Evolutionists nearly triple the age of human footprints,
    revealing the effrontery in their slimy dating schemes.”

    Slimey? Compared to what? Reading the bible literally and saying the universe was literally created in 6 days and literally 6,000 years old?

    If religious texts are allowed as “non slimey” ways of dating the universe, what non slimey method does one use to select only the christian bible as a valid source?

    Why not hindu texts? Bhuddist texts? Mayan texts? Texts of the ancient egyptians worship of Ra?

    How does one decide what religious text is valid for “age of the universe” calculations?

    • Thank you for commenting, but we have rules for comments:
      1. Read the article.
      2. Comment must be based on the article.
      3. No ad hominem or genetic fallacy.
      The article here is about human evolution from alleged hominin ancestors, and the date of tracks. Stick to that subject.

      • survivorbiasmonkeyman says:

        I AM sticking to the article. I was asking what is meant by “slimey”.

        One of the first estimates for the age of the earth estimated it to be millions of years old. Current estimates are that earth is billions of years old. The issue was that the first estimate was made long before we know about atomic fission going on in the core with elements like uranium. The original estimate was based off basic thermodynamics. Nuclear physics didnt exist at the time.

        Once we learned about nuclear fission, once we learned about elements in earths core are constantly undergoing fission, re re estimated the age based on that new information. Would that be considered “slimey”?

        • Once again, the article is about the “slimy” dating of human footprints, where evolutionists extended a date nearly triple its earlier value. You are straying far afield into other topics about the age of the earth and nuclear physics, which are not relevant to this article.

Leave a Reply