Bruce Fenton, A Better Human Origin Story |429|

#83
I thought the mainstream view was that Australia was populated from 50-60 thousand years ago?
Yes, that is my understanding too... Bruce is pedalling this million years thing but I can’t see how this fits in with the peopling of Australia. I’m sure I must be misunderstanding something from the podcast.
 
#85
I thought the mainstream view was that Australia was populated from 50-60 thousand years ago?
Steven and Evan Strong show dates for Aboriginal artefacts from about 180,000 ya in a chart that can be seen on page 5 of their book 'Out of Australia. Aborigines, the Dreamtime and the Dawn of the Human Race' for e.g. Tools found at Jinmium 176,000ya and Rock engraving at Devonport 115,000ya

Wilson and Cann acknowledged miscalculations in their genetic data leading to a proposed 'out of Africa' theory of 100-200,000ya which has led to the mainstream assumption that Australia can have been populated only 60,000ya to allow time for humans to migrate eastwards.
 
#88
Steven and Evan Strong show dates for Aboriginal artefacts from about 180,000 ya in a chart that can be seen on page 5 of their book 'Out of Australia. Aborigines, the Dreamtime and the Dawn of the Human Race' for e.g. Tools found at Jinmium 176,000ya and Rock engraving at Devonport 115,000ya

Wilson and Cann acknowledged miscalculations in their genetic data leading to a proposed 'out of Africa' theory of 100-200,000ya which has led to the mainstream assumption that Australia can have been populated only 60,000ya to allow time for humans to migrate eastwards.
Wow! I was way off!! I couldn't find that book on Kindle, but did find another of Steven Strong's: Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Out of Australia Theory. Thank's Alice :)
 
#89
Looking forward to the discussion and tackling questions or criticisms!
Hi Bruce. Thanks for a very interesting interview and hypothesis. I had to listen 3 times because (I'm slow) you are proposing a huge turnaround, not just the reversal of human origins, but also requires a completely new concept of proof. Thanks also Alex, you were great too!

These are some reasons why I support the Out of Australia proposition and that the Aboriginals are indeed the first modern humans, based on my own observations whilst living in Australia over 5 years.

The Aboriginal People of Australia, I think rightly called the Originals, look like their land. It takes a long time in a place to physically manifest 'belonging' to and being derived from it, in a way we transient 'bitzer' Europeans can barely imagine, let alone compare with, in our few thousand years. Aboriginals look 'elderly', their limbs are slim and their movements and personality are peaceful and relaxed, as compared to Polynesians who look 'young', like wearing flowers and laugh like children. It is also significant that the generation that holds most influence and esteem indicates the comparable human 'age' of a culture, for e.g. in white western society, it is the 'middle-aged' group who hold sway, they have the most money and golf is rated highly, while the very old are treated with indifference and little respect, so the white culture is middle-aged. By contrast in Aboriginal society the Elders are influential and held in high regard, which says to me that their knowledge is valued, and that they are a very old race. Imaging now putting a 55+ yr old and an 80+ yr old in a room together, they are unlikely to have very much in common; sadly such is the case between the invading white race and the original inhabitants. But I digress..

As the father and son Strong authors say, the verbal handing down of history is far more accurate than a written one, which can be distorted by time, loss of language and opinion, yet still be held up as 'true'. In Aboriginal lore for e.g. there is a conical hill in north Queensland created by a volcanic eruption that happened 10,000 years ago and is described in story form as a local legend as if it happened yesterday. Their concept of time brings the past into the present in this way; I doubt if we could rustle up a story that described an event from so long ago.

Likewise Bruce, we will need to change our perception of how information is exchanged to understand that there are other possible ways of communicating knowledge, such as by 'reading' a stone. The Aboriginals have telepathy, as shown in the story 'follow the Rabbit Proof Fence' about 3 aboriginal girls who made it home across 2,400km/1,500miles of desert (more than once) and their family came to meet them, without the assistance of phones, letter or telegraph. If information can be held in a stone, as modern culture 'holds' information in silicon chips(?) then we have to accept that there are ways of receiving it, unknown and unconventional to us. This way of knowing may once have been inherent in the wisdom of our own decimated pre-christian culture, and opening to accept this is part of the formula.

For me, the Originals of Australia are truly tellurian, and we are not.

One question: Why do you disagree with Sitchin's theory of ET genetic intervention? It sounds similar to yours, but placed at the later date of 400,000 years
 
#90
I think the problem the idea of ID is that it is crafted absent the idea of evolution - as if the only notion of evolution is Darwinian. I like the Kabalistic notion that there is a number of emanations that constitute the 'foundation of being' - a bit like a chess game requiring a certain number of pieces. If the intent is to 'game' strategy, then the 'game' evolves to then point where it satisfies the need in terms of minimal functional conditions.
If I am reading Behe correctly, the only evolution that happens by RM+NS is very small scale stuff - essentially the sort of thing that involves damaging stuff in a useful way. This sounds paradoxical, but isn't.

Example: if you damage the gene for haemoglobin and that helps you avoid malaria, that will spread in areas prone to malaria - but it is actually damage. That is what Behe means by devolution. If you absolutely need to drive through a pit of fire, it might be helpful to cut and remove your tyres so they can't catch fire - but that is obviously damage - not something an autodesigner would find useful!

Incidentally, I think concept of evolution by damage explains why antibiotic resistance is a nuisance, but has no way made antibiotics irrelevant - even penicilin derivatives. I.e. the mutations that let bugs resist the various antibiotics, also damage them somewhat so they can't compete very well in the wild.

Outside of that very limited form of evolution, it isn't clear that any other evolution is possible. So from my understanding I would say all other evolution is intentional or is mediated by a mechanism that nobody has come up with.

BTW most alternative mechanisms of Evolution boil down to RM_NS. Sexual selection still needs a random mutation to make tail feathers more prominent (say), followed by sexual selection to pick out this change.

Epi-genetics might fill the gap somewhat - I'm not sure.

Hopefully T.E.S. will jump in if this is wrong.

David
 
Last edited:
#91
Yes, that is my understanding too... Bruce is pedalling this million years thing but I can’t see how this fits in with the peopling of Australia. I’m sure I must be misunderstanding something from the podcast.
Malf, I supported you briefly above, but why not accept that there are several people here who know a lot more about this subject, rather than using words like 'pedalling'?

David
 
#92
Wow! I was way off!! I couldn't find that book on Kindle, but did find another of Steven Strong's: Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Out of Australia Theory. Thank's Alice :)
Y're welcome. I don't do kindle's and am waiting for a copy of Bruce's book in the post, chose it as it looks more wide-ranging, but the Strong's collection looks a feast.
 
#98
awesome! love the rigor. a little late to the party but jumping in now :)

First DNA is a true code, the debate is over - neither biologists, evolutionists, nor bio-geneticists are trained to recognize code. It does not matter how many phyla one has studied/memorized, such a person is speaking out of school. 'Code' is the domain of cryptologists, communications systems designers, systems engineers, computational physicists and theoretical statisticians. Nassim Taleb is more highly qualified to speak of DNA as a set of ergodicity, than is Richard Dawkins. This is a reality which our religious refuse to accept - we have to side-step them and simply move on. Shake off the false stigma given this idea - and continue with ethical science.
TES has educated me on this... much appreciated.

one lingering doubt / loose end... what do you make of jeffrey schwartz from UCLA and his neuroplasticity work:
250. Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz, Science's Inability to ... - Skeptiko

he seems to be demonstrating a real world example of consciousness ( in this case is specific form of meditation) that leads to physical changes in the brain. it's only a small step (and maybe not even a step at all if we had the means to analyze DNA to this level) to assume that a meditator in schwartz's experiment could modify DNA code. thoughts?
 
Last edited:
#99
Well I can be pretty sure that Malf knows less:) I hope you stay with us for a long time, in which case you will understand that remark.

David
True, we all know less than Bruce on his theory. But that should not deter from equal right to contribute or question, although it always becomes a student, as we are of each other's ideas, to show true humility, and be polite :)
 
I→ Inductive Predicate - Original (not First) Americans resemble Aboriginal Australians of 20 - 40,000 ya
∧ Heteroduction point - Conservatism and dishonesty favoring the Clovis paradigm, holds too much power
∧ Heteroduction point - Field is over-dominated by Europeans and their North American allies (The Royal 'We')

I→ Inductive Predicate - A set of consilient events in Australia exist, which are compelling
∧ Deductive inconsistency between genetic and archeo-datings for 'Out of Africa' singular migration hypothesis
Into Africa 73 Kya
∧ Eurasia migrations Out of Africa 50-60
Kya
∧ Ocean coastal navigation from Australia to Africa is a very natural outcome of social-survival activity, even in paleo-antiquity

D→ Deductive Predicate - The genomic regions in which the principal homo HAR changes occurred are 'highly conserved' (change is extraordinarily rare) regions of the genome which had not changed (and have not changed in pan troglodytes) for 300 My.
∧ This same ergodicity repeated over and over at least 43 (maybe hundreds) times inside this highly conserved and functionally constrained region of homo genome
∧ These areas are not mere genes, rather they are switching centers (like the FoxP2 region)
∧ These same changes were not paralleled inside other hominin, and should have had analogue progressions occur
∧ The HAR changes were enormously successful on the first try, as there existed no neutral interea mutations in the conserved genome
great stuff. I highlighted a couple of points I was hoping you might have further thoughts on... pro or con.
 
Top