One Million-Years-Old (Human) Footprints Found At Margalla Hills (Pakistan)

ISLAMABAD, July 27: In what appears to be a major discovery, archaeologists have found two over one million years old human footprints preserved on a sandstone at the Margalla Hills.

The Indusians Research Cell, which is working under the supervision of world renowned archaeologist and historian Dr Ahmad Hassan Dani of Taxila Institute of Asian Civilisations, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, has made the discovery, which is likely to add a new chapter to the archaeological history and heritage of the federal capital and attract visitors.

A footprint of 1 feet is in complete and well preserved form while another is broken from the finger side which is also of the same size in comparative manner. The notable marks of the feet are the clear veins and opposite folded appearance.

“A huge stone on the top of the hill is the secure home of these prints since about over one million years ago,” says A.K. Azad, an archaeologist and head of the project.

Further research may give more clues of the foot marks through anthropological and geophysical methods, he observed.

The recent discovery is the continuity of the Indusian Research Cell’s earlier research about human evolution which previously revealed a fossilised upper jaw from the site of Dhudhumber, foot and hand prints from Attock and Palaeolithic cave from Margalla hills.

Pakistan’s geomorphologic research was conducted to compare with the Alps of Europe during the period of 1930-1939 by a French mission. Since then, lots of other dimensions of the research opened the doors of scientific research in Pakistan as the country provided the glacial sequence, fossilised evidences of Pre-Cambrian to Holocene epochs, earliest evidences of the anthropoid existence, earliest cultural centre at Mehargarh (contemporary of Jericho and Jarmo) and most advanced civilisation of the world (Indus valley).

Indusians Research Cell started the second phase of the project “Post-earthquake Explorations of Human Remains in Margalla Hills” under the supervision of A.K. Azad.

According to Mr Azad the formation of the Margalla Hills goes back to the Miocene epoch. The dominant limestone of the Margalla is also mixed with the sand stone.

“So we can assume that due to availability of the water in ancient times many marks of the zoological as well botanical significance may lead to our objectives,” the young archaeologist hopes.

In 1976, Pakistan opened another chapter of human evolution, which makes case for Asian anthropoid origin from this region.

During the ‘60s and ‘70s, Pilbeam led expeditions to the Siwalik Hills badlands of northern Pakistan, searching for further Ramapithecine remains.

In March 1975 and January 1976 team members made surface recoveries of four bone fragments which fit together to form the most complete mandible recovered yet. The mandible shows that Ramapithecus did not have a parabolic, human like dental arcade, as originally thought, but rather a V-shaped, more apelike arcade. Though the shape of the arcade is not now regarded as one of the more anatomically important characters, Ramapithecus is no longer granted the high status that it once received.

Different scholars have defined the word ‘Potohar’ differently. But, anthropological research marked it, as the grand father of hominid, also known as Punjabicus found from the Potohar region.

So the government of Pakistan had given the name to this specie Potoharmans.

According to Mr Azad, the problem of human evolution is still hanging around that when and where Anthropoid got physical changes from the Apes?

After India, Kenya and China, he says important discovery was from the Potohar region from fossils of the similar species found in 1976 and 1982. The probable dating given to this specie was 20 million years.

“It has provided a missing link, which was spread of 6 million years. So Potoharmans declared as the grand father of hominid, which evolved from the different stages and reached at the Homo sapiens,” he observes.

The stories behind the similar marks are also significant in mythical associations with saints and renowned people i.e. hand prints of the Baba Guru Nanik near Hassanabdal, foot prints of Hazrat Ali in Hyderabad, foot prints of the Guru Padma Sambhava (Second reincarnation of Buddha) in Swat, Adam’s peak of Sri Lanka etc.

“If these are true than we can also claim of the mother Eve’s foot prints from Margalla Hills,” Mr Azad observed.

"Still, for all that he said that, he speaks of "The Old One" when speaking of his own personal religious experience. ...I think The Old One is his name for the God Jehovah...."

Einstein Quotes

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
(The Human Side, 1954)
“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”
("Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 1930)

Do you have any in context quotes from Einstein which counter these two?

Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. Quantum theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice.
(Albert Einstein, On Quantum Physics, Letter to Max Born, December 12, 1926)

Where is the tie between his use of the phrase "the old one' and any belief in a personal God, specifically 'Jehovah'.

"An agnostic Jew (who often poked fun at other people's religious commitments), Einstein had a life-long affinity for what he called "The Tribe" -- the Jewish nation, who were "under God," in a personal relationship."

Without the full quote I can only surmise that Einstein, in making this statement, was claiming an affinity to the 'people' not their God.

I believe your leap of faith that Einstein considered 'the old one' to be Jehovah ill founded. Perhaps it was wishful thinking at work?

BTW, what does agnostic mean? I hope you aren't using it in some manner different than 'Darwin's Bulldog' (T. Huxley) did when he originated the word.

Where is the tie between his use of the phrase "the old one' and any belief in a personal God, specifically 'Jehovah'.

That was my own musing. You evidently have a musing, too, one that pleases you. It's just not the same as mine. Meanwhile, Eisntein continues to be Einstein.

As you know, I already stated that Einstein had a habit of "poking fun" at other people's religious commitments and expressions. On the basis of such statements, you seem to conclude that he was an atheist. That you do so seems quite naive to me. Or is it simply the case that an atheist Einstein gives you comfort in some way? If so, I wonder why.... [I haven't got a clue about Thomas Huxley's views on "agnosticism"; but wouldn't mind at all if you were to explain them to me.]

My view is Einstein was not "conventionally religious." But he was religious down to the bottom of his soul, in this sense:

"A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation."

That's Einstein speaking here. He continues by admitting that he is a religious person in that sense: He knows that the splendors of the universe are not the product of chance.

For another Einstein quote that speaks to this point, see my tagline.

Anyhoot, Einstein has such a sense of the divine that it is as if he has a direct pipeline to The Old One -- who evidently has assured Einstein that "he does not play dice" in some meditation or other.

But it is so difficult to convey the subtlety and profound spirituality of an Einstein to someone of positivist attitude, such as yourself.

If you are unfamiliar with positivism, here are some quotes (as long as we're having a "battle of quotations" here) that speak to the issue -- all from Einstein's close friends and colleagues:

"Positivism makes the mistake of refusing to see the overall connection, and of wanting to deliberately keep this in the dark. At any rate it does not encourage anyone to reflect on this matter." (Werner Heisenberg, Der Teil und das Ganze, p. 294)

Further quotes from Physics and Beyond (the English edition of Der Teil und das Ganze), by Werner Heisenberg:

Niels Bohr, p. 205: "Some time ago there was a meeting of philosophers, most of them positivists, here in Copenhagen, during which members of the Vienna Circle played a prominent part. I was asked to address them on the interpretation of quantum theory. After my lecture, no one raised any objections or asked any embarrassing questions, but I must say this very fact proved a terrible disappointment to me. For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. Probably I spoke so badly that no one knew what I was talking about."
Wolfgang Pauli, p. 206: "The fault need not necessarily have been yours. It is part and parcel of the positivist creed that facts must be taken for granted, sight unseen, so to speak. As far as I remember, Wittgenstein says: 'The world is everything that is the case.' 'The world is the totality of facts, not of things.' Now if you start from that premise, you are bound to welcome any theory representative of the 'case.' The positivists have gathered that quantum mechanics describes atomic phenomena correctly, and so they have no cause for complaint. What else we have had to add -- complementarity, interference of probabilities, uncertainty relations, separation of subject and object, etc. -- strikes them as just so many embellishments, mere relapses into prescientific thought, bits of idle chatter that do not have to be taken seriously. Perhaps this attitude is logically defensible, but, if it is, I for one can no longer tell what we mean when we say we have understood nature."
Heisenberg, p. 208: "Positivist insistence on conceptual clarity is, of course, something I fully endorse, but their prohibition of any discussion of the wider issues, simply because we lack clear-cut enough concepts in this realm, does not seem very useful to me -- this same ban would prevent our understanding of quantum theory."
Heisenberg, p. 213: "The positivists have a simple solution: the world must be divided into that which we can say clearly and the rest, which we had better pass over in silence. But can anyone conceive of a more pointless philosophy, seeing that what we can say clearly amounts to next to nothing? If we omitted all that is unclear, we would probably be left with completely uninteresting and trivial tautologies."
Heisenberg, p. 216: "Unfortunately, modern positivism mistakenly shuts its eyes to the wider reality, wants to keep it deliberately in the dark. I may be exaggerating, but, at the very best, positivism does not encourage people to reflect on this subject."

But Einstein was not a positivist; and evidently he did reflect on this subject.... Add to that the fact that not once in Abraham Pais' magisterial biography of Einstein, Subtle Is the Lord (note the choice of title -- it's a direct quote from Einstein), is there any mention of Einstein's claiming (or being understood) to be an atheist, and no direct statement from him to that effect.

"That was my own musing. You evidently have a musing, too, one that pleases you. It's just not the same as mine. Meanwhile, Eisntein continues to be Einstein."

My musing as you call it, is taken from Einstein's own words, it is not simply my interpretation of those words. Your musing is not taken from his words but from some hopeful interpretation of those words. Einstein did not believe in a personal God such as Jehovah. He did not believe in a literal reading of the Genesis story. He did not believe in a ~6,000 to ~10,000 age for the Universe and the Earth.

I'm afraid that our 'musings' do not carry equal weight.

"As you know, I already stated that Einstein had a habit of "poking fun" at other people's religious commitments and expressions. On the basis of such statements, you seem to conclude that he was an atheist. That you do so seems quite naive to me. Or is it simply the case that an atheist Einstein gives you comfort in some way? If so, I wonder why.... "

Where did I even suggest that Einstein was an Atheist? Where did I suggest that I cared that he was an Atheist? Do not put words in my mouth.

Einstein very pointedly stated that he is atheistic towards a personal God and always has been. His definition of 'atheist' is the correct one, that atheism is the lack of belief rather than the belief in an alternate religion. That he is an atheist towards a personal God does not mean he does not believe in a God, nor that he is not spiritual. His spirituality and belief in an impersonal God figure, which I suspect is closer to that of Spinoza than of yours, who started the universe then sat back and watched it unfold, is hardly the same as your belief in a God who created the Earth in 7 days ~6,000 years ago. You persist in dragging in any person of fame who could be said to believe in some form of a higher power, someone who is not a classical Atheist, to validate your belief system. I wonder why...?

I don't care whether Einstein was an atheist, or an agnostic, or a deist, or a Biblical literalist for that matter. What I do care about is the contribution to science which he made, incidentally, through the use of rational naturalistic methodologies.

" My view is Einstein was not "conventionally religious." But he was religious down to the bottom of his soul, in this sense:

"A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation."

What exactly do you believe that comment means?

Here is the complete paragraph that includes your quote:

At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

That's Einstein speaking here. He continues by admitting that he is a religious person in that sense: He knows that the splendors of the universe are not the product of chance."

Nowhere in the article does Einstein admit that he is a religious person in the sense of that partial quote. In fact I believe that the meaning of that quote when taken within context is different than what you intend it to mean when you post it without context. Before you engage in the wishful interpretation of a quote you need to include all of the context.

You are equivocating meanings of 'chance'. In one sense it means non-directed, with no intelligence guiding cause and effect. In another sense it means that it is non-deterministic. Einstein believed that the Universe is deterministic, he stated that belief repeatedly, but you are impling that he believed the universe is guided. Einstein believed that once the Universe 'became', whatever started it, stepped back and did nothing to guide or interfere with its natural course.

"It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities."

You will note that Einstein's definition of a religious person also includes Spinoza who thought that God 'is' the natural world and without personality.

It seems that from the article written by Einstein and presented to "The Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc.,New York, 1941." you have cherry picked two quotes which you feel in some way, I suppose through the validation of an important authority figure, gives your belief system some scientific backing. Yet if you were to read the entire article you will find that it does nothing of the sort but disagrees with many of the tenants you have posted here in the past.

"For another Einstein quote that speaks to this point, see my tagline."

You mean as taken from this quote, contained in the same article?

But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

It seems pretty obvious when you include the preceding sentences and the over all context of the article, Einstein's definition of religion does not include the necessity of a God figure but rather is based on what we now call 'spirituality'. Einstein in this quote was equating the faith, or trust, that the universe is consistent, rational and open to scientific methodology, with a religious attitude.

"Anyhoot, Einstein has such a sense of the divine that it is as if he has a direct pipeline to The Old One -- who evidently has assured Einstein that "he does not play dice" in some meditation or other."

So, Einstein's disbelief that the Quantum world introduces inconsistencies within a purely rational world, inconsistencies that he did not like nor believe, tells you that he had a direct line to 'The Old One'?

That is quite the leap.

"But it is so difficult to convey the subtlety and profound spirituality of an Einstein to someone of positivist attitude, such as yourself."

Of course not, I am too simple, too narrow, too shallow and probably too stupid to understand. The fact that I was born into a highly religious family, was taught and beleived that the literal interpretation of the Genesis story was correct for much of my youth, had intended on becoming a Lutheran Minister and have examined my beliefs, not just religious but societal and moral, throughout my life, and came to the conclusion that no God exists through intense and lengthy investigation, means that I have never reflected on the bigger picture and I'm a positivist.

Of course it is impossible in your world for anyone to have considered the big picture and come to a different conclusion than yours without being a closed minded positivist.

I guess that means even after we conclude the validity of something based on large quantities of evidence that we must continue to try to prove its validity for an eternity.

"(as long as we're having a "battle of quotations" here)"

You and AG are the 'quotemeisters' on FR. Neither of you seem to be able to make a post without including a quote from some authority figure or other. Unfortunatly many times those quotes are given without context. I, and those few of the pro-science group still here, simply try to add the correct context back into your quotes.

"But Einstein was not a positivist; and evidently he did reflect on this subject....

Actually, according to the definition of 'positivist' given in your quotes, Einstein was indeed a positivist, he positively hated the idea that quantum physics was inconsistent with his conception of reality. That is why he made the statement that 'God does not play dice'.

Here is another quote, this time from Stephen Hawking:

"Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly."

And a quote from here which describes Einstein's distrust of some of Quantum physics. He in fact did 'not' accept the 'bigger picture'.

"He said it because he found himself in profound disagreement with many of the most outstanding and influential physicists of his time: physicists like Neils Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and Max Born who had adopted what came to be known as the "Copenhagen interpretation" of the then-new field of quantum mechanics.
His disagreements with them were philosophical. Just as he rejected their claim that experimental results in quantum mechanics implied that nothing exists unless it is being observed by a conscious human being, so also he disagreed with their claim that these results implied that the so-called "deterministic" philosophy of Newtonian mechanics was false."

"Add to that the fact that not once in Abraham Pais' magisterial biography of Einstein, Subtle Is the Lord (note the choice of title -- it's a direct quote from Einstein), is there any mention of Einstein's claiming (or being understood) to be an atheist, and no direct statement from him to that effect."

I never said he was an atheist. I simply debunked your claim that he believed in Jehovah or some other personal God and removed him from that set of 'authority figures' you rely on to give your belief in a personal God some sort of legs.

Your musing is not taken from his words but from some hopeful interpretation of those words. Einstein did not believe in a personal God such as Jehovah. He did not believe in a literal reading of the Genesis story. He did not believe in a ~6,000 to ~10,000 age for the Universe and the Earth.

I did not aver that Einstein thought any of those things, b-sharp. That was your own hasty conclusion based on carelessly evaluated evidence and your own pre-disposition and preferred attitude. Need I add that your own special brand of religious bigotry shines through your post?

(Though I did suggest Einstein seemed to think he had some sort of pipeline into the mind of The Old One. We can infer that from his own statements.)

You seem to have some idea that people who believe in God are stupid morons. You seem to equate belief in God with membership in particular churches and creeds.

Probably you could give a pass to a "religious" person, provided he were Buddhist. (A beautiful religion, BTW, but IMO not completely complete or "true.") To Christians, you give no quarter.

Yet in all likelihood, there would be no science at all, had Christianity never come into the world. (It is doubtful science could logically obtain or evolve from Buddhist philosophy.) You bite the hand that feeds you, and seemingly declare it a "victory" every time....

You wrote:

His spirituality and belief in an impersonal God figure, which I suspect is closer to that of Spinoza than of yours, who started the universe then sat back and watched it unfold, is hardly the same as your belief in a God who created the Earth in 7 days ~6,000 years ago.

Time out. Have you ever directly visited Spinoza's philosophical musings? (You should, if you care at all about Einstein's personal philosophical predilections.) His entire system is built out of 19 principles, each successive one depending for its own legitimacy on the validity of the one (or cumulation of ones from the original one) that precedes it. But the first principle, on which all the other 18 ultimately rest, does not itself have a demonstrated ground in truth. We might just as well call it a conjecture, or even a speculation. And the funny thing is, the entire course of its subsequent development is of the sort to prove the validity of the initial premise. Go figure.

Better that you go read Spinoza than accept my testimony. Still, my view is: His is a magnificent edifice of human thought and imagination. Fundamentally, I'd describe it as an "artificial construct," one that is logically internally consistent.

But -- is it true? It seems devoid of any logos by which it may be appraised, and incapable of contact with the real flesh and blood of actuality and human experience, personal and cultural.

Plus I never said that I believe in a "~6,000 to ~10,000 age for the Universe and the Earth." I gather you think that since I'm a Christian and therefore so benighted, dumb, and inarticulate, that you have every right (even a duty perhaps), not only to complete my sentences for me, but to make them up in the first place.

Continuing:

You wrote "What exactly do you believe that comment means?" (i.e., the quote in my last, for which you kindly provided the expanded text).

I just wonder in what way you can possibly evaluate either mine or the "fuller statement" in light of "rational naturalistic methodologies." Einstein is first of all not speaking of "rational" things (see quote); and they are "naturalistic" only in the sense that they actually do occur -- rountinely -- in Nature -- which after all, includes human nature.

But that's the sort of stuff that positivists want to send down the rathole of human memory....

In conclusion, it seems clear we have a serious "observer problem" going on here. We two are not even on the same page.

Still I'm grateful and thank you for all the thought and effort of your last, b-sharp.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.