Darwin got it wrong, says Australian archeologist – Video

Catastrophic evolution occurs at magnetic reversals, says archeologist Peter Mungo Jupp.

Mankind has been repeatedly destroyed and reborn since time immemorial civilizations lay buried under rubble ruins abandoned in the middle of deserts and rain forests.

See fascinating video:

Lake Victoria lunette


At Australia’s Lake Victoria lunette are buried the bodies of up to 15,000 aborigines, says Jupp.

Most archeologists say it’s a vast burial ground accumulated over thousands of years, but Jupp disagrees.

He thinks their deaths occurred very quickly and blames the Lake Mungo magnetic reversal.

Jupp also believes that the same magnetic reversal triggered a sudden evolutionary leap.

See fascinating video:

12 thoughts on “Darwin got it wrong, says Australian archeologist – Video”

  1. Robert you have to have surviving members of a species in order to transmit genetic changes to the next generation that would be a new variant of the species. The new version of animal has to be able to survive and breed. New species do not materialize out of thin air as if by magic. They are adaptations and mutations in a species that survives and breeds. Otherwise there are no new species. Any species that can not survive predation, environmental hazard, disease or genetic change will go extinct.
    I still think those circular ponds are formed from ice lenses and frost lifting the ground and the wind blowing away the freeze dried soil, sand and stones creating a depression that fills with water when the temperature rises above freezing. Just like a pot hole in a road.

    • I cannot agree with your final statement – it is extremely rare for any lake in Australia to freeze and if it did it would certainly thaw during the daylight hours.

      Australia doesn’t get cold enough to freeze dry soil.

      Australia’s highest mountains are only little over 7000 feet with most of the country less than a few hundred feet – if that. Our snowfields only last a few months in only the highest areas during cold winters – for 8 months or more there is no snow anywhere in Australia.

      Snow over low lying arid areas is almost unheard of and frosts are gone by 9:00 am.

      There is no chance that the theory you have postulated could have been possible in the last 40,000 odd years – or more.

      • During an ice age it is possible because the tropical and temperate climate zones retreat closer to the equator. Those circular ponds are evidence of polar desert and tundra conditions like what is found today in russia, alaska and canada. Climate change happens and can be more dramatic and wide spread than what you might want to believe.
        Either way I expect that at some point in the near future we will find out the hard way.

      • Rosco;

        Sorry, but there is virtually nowhere on the earth that hasn’t experienced dramatic climate change in 40,000 years. Some places have seen dramatic changes in just the past 1000 years – Greenland and the American desert southwest to name just two.

        • Most geologists agree Australia is one of the oldest stable landscapes of any continent.

          At 34 degrees south in a flat arid area Lake Victoria is unlikely to have been subjected to any snowfalls in the time of aboriginal occupation – guesstimated to be more than 40,000 years.

          There is no aboriginal history of snow at other than the mountainous regions.

          The major change inland Australia experienced was when the sea levels fell and the great inland sea disappeared – that is likely to have been so long ago before the sea levels fell due to ice ages.

          I cannot see these lunettes in Australia forming as hypothesised by Steven.

          The aboriginal skeletons found there are more than 15,000 tears ago so about the time of the last ice age beginning to end.

          As I said 34 degrees south is too temperate for glaciation except in a major freeze unlike normal ice age times in an island continent.

          Even in the northern hemisphere it is unlikely glaciers came to 34 degrees north in flat arid landscapes – in high mountains maybe but not flat lowlying semi desert.

          • Rosco you don’t need glaciers you need tundra and polar desert conditions as was found in north america during the last ice age.
            I expect southern australia was basicly cold enough for some permafrost during the ice age just like in North Carolina. If you use google earth and look at the north coast of canada , russia and alaska you will see the same thing and all from melting permafrost. See for your self and judge wisely.

      • “There is no chance that the theory you have postulated could have been possible in the last 40,000 odd years – or more.” Are you absolutely sure? How did you arrive at this definitive conclusion? I think your conclusion is also a “theory.” And one which you would have tremendous difficulty proving as “fact,” unless you happen to be over 40,000 years old and lived in Australia at that time.

  2. It’s rather embarrassing to see this kind of assertion repeated. Darwin never posed a theory of “evolution.” That word is the child of Herbert Spencer, who purported to define a “law of evolution.” (See First Principles by Spencer.) If you go through Darwin’s “Origin of Species” the theory he poses is of speciation. He rarely used the word “evolution” and then only in the Victorian sense of persistent change – arguing that children for instance do not exactly replicate their parents and that these changes accumulate. Over time, if these changes are not uniformly and consistently redistributed through a population, different subpopulations eventually emerge as new species. He argued that in fact natural selective processes, which are precisely the same as selective agricultural breeding and that these processes would act differentially on different parts of a population and produce new species inevitably.

    Since his chief opponents were religious “young earthers,” his uniformitarian argument is posed to clear away the argument that the earth was simply not old enough, having been manufactured in 4,004 BC. He used Charles Lyell’s uniformitarian view of geological time and processes to argue that there was more than sufficient geological time and adequate opportunity for natural selective processes to act, for species to appear via processes that the Victorians were quite familiar with.

    Darwin and Wallace couched their arguments in terms of visible and well known processes that Victorians were quite familiar with and took advantage of – i.e. hunting, predation, selective breeding leads to new forms of dogs, cats, tomatoes, potatoes, etc. This argument did not rule out punctuated change, it simply argued that catastrophe is unnecessary to adequately explain the appearance of new species.

    When Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould advanced the idea of punctuated equilibrium, they did not “disprove” gradualism. Instead they showed that abrupt environmental changes could permit very rapid speciation. It is not a case of “evolution must be slow” or “evolution must be fast.” The only critical factor is the opportunity – the availability of ecological niches within the system that a species can move into advantageously and which will genetically isolate the subpopulation from their relatives. The process that permit evolutionary adaptation continue acting regardless of time scale.

    • Darwin, Spencer and Wallace wrote in Victorian England, where the political climate strongly favored the idea of gradual change and adaptation. The French revolution of 1789 and the Continental revolutions of 1830 and 1848 had traumatized the British upper classes, and their answer was to allow gradual, incremental change. “Evolution” is simply “revolution” without the “r.” The idea of lon-term stability “punctuated” by intervals of sudden change would be anathema to the Victorians. Let politics be politics and let science be science!

    • Mincing words does not change the basic premise of Darwin. “Speciation” still carries the implication that animals adapt to changes in their environment in order to continue the “Species.” Those that fail to do so perish ….

      Mince it how you will, “Speciation” or “Evolution” of “Species,” it is all representative of the same basic concept of development, continuation, and advancement of living things.

      And …. it is still a very unproven theory.

  3. This video make perfect sense. That’s exactly what happens – very rapid changes or “creation” occurs with species during magnetic reversals due to changes in radiation. (mainly cosmic rays, which is known to cause mutations) And this isn’t the only time this happened.

  4. Seems to me I remember a book written by a fella by the name of Robert Felix, that deals with this very subject…. He was all over this topic way before this Australian guy. Perhaps the Aussie read the book???? LoL

Comments are closed.