Devolution Theory

[religion99]

What do you think about the Devolution Theory?

Essentially it stipulates that human beings have not evolved from other animals, but they have devolved down with time.

hdintro.html

http://www.mcremo.com/mysterious.htm

From their website:

San Diego, CA – Human Devolution: A Vedic Alternative to Darwin’s Theory (Torchlight Publishing,
September 2003), the highly anticipated sequel to the controversial bestseller Forbidden Archeology,
continues the literary drama with the same astute attention to detail and ground breaking revelations
as its predecessor.

Forbidden Archeology documented a massive amount of evidence showing that humans have existed on
earth for hundreds of millions of years. Such anomalous evidence, contradicting Darwinian evolution,
catalyzed a global inquiry, "If we did not evolve from apes, then where did we come from?" Human
Devolution is author Michael A. Cremo's definitive answer to this question.

"We did not evolve up from matter; instead we devolved, or came down, from the realm of pure
consciousness, spirit," says Cremo. He bases his response on modern science and the world's
great wisdom traditions, including the Vedic philosophy of ancient India. Cremo proposes that
before we ask the question, "Where did human beings come from? we should first contemplate,
"What is a human being?" Cremo asserts that humans are a combination of matter, mind, and
consciousness (or spirit).

Human Devolution contains solid scientific evidence showing how a subtle mind element and a
conscious self that can exist apart from the body have been systematically eliminated from
mainstream science by a process of knowledge filtration. "Any time knowledge filtration takes
place you can expect a great deal of resistance, criticism, and ridicule when it is exposed and
challenged," says Cremo.

Michael Cremo is no stranger to resistance. In 1993 when Forbidden Archeology was released
there was a vast array of response. From anthropologist Richard Leakey calling it "...pure humbug"
to Fingerprints of the Gods author Graham Hancock referring to it as "One of the landmark
intellectual achievements of the late 20th century," it has received both positive and negative
international attention. In addition, in 1996 when NBC aired its special The Mysterious Origins
of Man, hosted by Charlton Heston, and featured the book, establishment scientists felt so
threatened by this program that they lobbied the Federal Communications Commission to
censure and fine NBC for airing it (read the complete story in Forbidden Archeology's Impact).

Despite the criticism surrounding it, Forbidden Archeology is a huge success. Both it and Human
Devolution present human origins in a new perspective. The two books are the culmination of
eighteen years of research. The result, unlike the early creationist perspective, offers a new
scientifically based take on human origins. Forbidden Archeology gave us the cover-up and now
Human Devolution brings us the true story.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I think that devolution isn't a real word and creates a false image of what evolution really is.

 

[tumbleweed41]

What do you think about the Devolution Theory?

hdintro.html

Since biological evolution concerns changes and distribution of allele frequency in populations, and has nothing to do with some abstract conception of progressive complexity, the devolution idea is meaningless.
Nor is it actually a "theory" in the scientific meaning of the word. It is simply the pseudoscientific idea based on interpretations of Vedic scriptures that man is progressing backwards from a state of pure consciousness.

 

[religion99]

Since biological evolution concerns changes and distribution of allele frequency in populations, and has nothing to do with some abstract conception of progressive complexity, the devolution idea is meaningless.
Nor is it actually a "theory" in the scientific meaning of the word. It is simply the pseudoscientific idea based on interpretations of Vedic scriptures that man is progressing backwards from a state of pure consciousness.

The most important point I am trying to make is that there is Archaeological evidence of humans into millions of years in past and hence disproves Darwinism.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The most important point I am trying to make is that there is Archaeological evidence of humans into millions of years in past and hence disproves Darwinism.

Your "evidence" link is to The Archaeological Conservancy, an organization dedicated to preserving archeology in America, the article in question is about pre-clovis discoveries dating from 14,000 to 15,000 years ago. Not "millions".

What evidence do you have that modern or even advanced "humans" existed millions of years in the past?

 

[shawn001]

religion99

is confused with hominds evolving millions of years ago from the great apes to modern humans roughly around 200,000 years ago.

 

[religion99]

Your "evidence" link is to The Archaeological Conservancy, an organization dedicated to preserving archeology in America, the article in question is about pre-clovis discoveries dating from 14,000 to 15,000 years ago. Not "millions".

What evidence do you have that modern or even advanced "humans" existed millions of years in the past?

Sorry, I made a mistake in posting the link. Here are the correct links:

Anomalous Artifacts

Ancient Skulls and Bones

 

[religion99]

A Challenge to Darwinism

 

[tumbleweed41]

Sorry, I made a mistake in posting the link. Here are the correct links:

Anomalous Artifacts

Ancient Skulls and Bones

Ah, Forbidden Archeology. A book by the same person linked in your OP.

1. The claims made rely on very poor and cherry-picked 'science'.
2. Ask any archeologist and/or paleontologist in the world what they would do if they found that modern, or advanced humans, had been on the earth over 500,000,000 years ago. They would double check their findings. Ask others to triple check their findings, publish, be a worldwide sensation, and probably get a Nobel Prize! While the author of your book claims some grand conspiracy to hide his findings.
3. Cremo's claims have long ago been debunked in by archeologists and paleontologists.
4. Most "evidences" used are also used by David Icke to "prove" the reptilian agenda controlling our world.

Remember, when someone claims "science" and "conspiracy", and makes claims so outlandish as to defy natural explanation, you really should approach with a skeptical mind.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You could only believe in Devolution if you did not believe the science of genetics.

 

[religion99]

Remember, when someone claims "science" and "conspiracy", and makes claims so outlandish as to defy natural explanation, you really should approach with a skeptical mind.

This is exactly what I am doing.

Don't you think that the following sentnece is "as outlandish as it can get"?

All living beings in the world are related and are sprung from a common ancestor.

 

[religion99]

Ah, Forbidden Archeology. A book by the same person linked in your OP.

Cremo's claims have long ago been debunked in by archeologists and paleontologists.

Can you post a link to support this?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

All living beings in the world are related and are sprung from a common ancestor.

Not when it's actually backed by testable evidence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is exactly what I am doing.

Don't you think that the following sentnece is "as outlandish as it can get"?

All living beings in the world are related and are sprung from a common ancestor.

Yep, sounds pretty far-fetched.

However, that's what the evidence all clearly and uniformly points to, so it's the best possible explanation of the known facts.

 

[tumbleweed41]

This is exactly what I am doing.

Don't you think that the following sentnece is "as outlandish as it can get"?

All living beings in the world are related and are sprung from a common ancestor.

Apply Occam's Razor.

 

[religion99]

Apply Occam's Razor.

From Wikipedia:

In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.[10][11][12][13]

 

[Iti oj]

Why dude why? … are you aware of the overwhelming evidence? Or aware of the falicies these other people commit?… do you know how evolution works? Or have a timescale/

 

[McBell]

The most important point I am trying to make is that there is Archaeological evidence of humans into millions of years in past and hence disproves Darwinism.

Do you have a link to any actual archeological evidence that supports your claim?

And yes, I understand that the link in the above quoted post is the wrong one and you presented the correct ones in a later post.

Hidden History, Hidden Agenda

 

[McBell]

From Wikipedia:

In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.[10][11][12][13]

Not to mention that using it would completely destroy your claims...
Convenient yes?

 

[shawn001]

This is exactly what I am doing.

Don't you think that the following sentnece is "as outlandish as it can get"?

All living beings in the world are related and are sprung from a common ancestor.

However, the established scientific consensus is that Young Earth Creationism has no scientific basis. For example, a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin.

Natioanl academy of sciences position statement.