It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy evolution

page: 31
39
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

It's not that complicated. To figure out the answer, you only need to ask a few basic questions.

1. How long have homo sapiens been on this planet?

2. How old are those rock carvings?

3. Using the data above, were homo sapiens smart enough to devise technology to create those carvings at the time they were carved?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. 200,000 years give or take

2. 4000 years or so

3. Humans 4000 years ago were just as smart as today, so the answer is yes. They were intellectually capable.


I'm pretty sure it's been brought up before but evolution is the wrong word to use in this thread. If you want to say they suggest the current historical record may be off, or that an ancient advanced civilization existed in our past, that's fine. But it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. 200,000 years is a long time and considering humans went from candle light and horses to machinery, space travel and internet within just a few hundred years, logic would say that some similar type of technology boom could have happened in the past. I find this idea fascinating, but there is a problem, and that's lack of evidence. Africa isn't exactly the most conducive environment for fossilization, but you'd think that if those tools and technology existed, we would have found some it by now, but who knows.
edit on 4-9-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

No doubt a decent retort. I can live with that.

But.....


there is a problem, and that's lack of evidence.


Do you agree that there is a total lack of transitional fossils
in the record per capita? I say a total lack as compared to the
obvious amount that should exist, as suggested by the amount of
species that has and does exist on this planet. The evidence would
therefore be overwelming and with out doubt. As opposed to sketchy
and contrived.


edit on Ram90414v432014u55 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs


Do you agree that there is a total lack of transitional fossils
in the record per capita? I say a total lack as compared to the
obvious amount that should exist, as suggested by the amount of
species that has and does exist on this planet. The evidence would
therefore be overwelming and with out doubt. As opposed to sketchy
and contrived.



Every organism is a transitional form and if fossilized will become a"transitional fossil". Unless, you are arguing that evolution is impossible due to the fact that not every creature has fossilized.

Besides every time you bring this subject up and are presented with evidence that shows transitions between species you disregard it every time anyways



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Cypress




Besides every time you bring this subject up and are presented with evidence that shows transitions between species you disregard it every time anyways


I don't recall any of that. But if I did I just G-D told you why!



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs

No doubt a decent retort. I can live with that.

But.....


there is a problem, and that's lack of evidence.


Do you agree that there is a total lack of transitional fossils
in the record per capita? I say a total lack as compared to the
obvious amount that should exist, as suggested by the amount of
species that has and does exist on this planet. The evidence would
therefore be overwelming and with out doubt. As opposed to sketchy
and contrived.



What is your criteria for a transitional fossil? Technically every fossil is transitional because it is in between something that used to exist and something that exists today (or went extinct). For example homo heidelbergensis is transitional between homo sapien and homo habilis. Fossilization is rare so we aren't going to find everything.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
For example homo heidelbergensis is transitional between homo sapien and homo habilis. Fossilization is rare so we aren't going to find everything.

The gap is not that wide.

Heidelbergensis is likely the transitional species between Homo Erectus and Early Modern Humans.

Harte



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs



Technically every fossil is transitional


With respect to you Barcs.
But there is no proof of that. That's one thing gets me, is
this double standard that exists among scientists. So here
we have an extraordinary claim?



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs



But there is no proof of that. That's one thing gets me, is this double standard that exists among scientists.


Wrong... Only for those undereducated in evolution or in denial of the evidence.

There are many examples of transitional fossils, we even have fossils that show precisely the process of speciation.


Tony Arnold and Bill Parker compiled what may be the largest, most complete set of data on the evolutionary history of any group of organisms, marine or otherwise. The two scientists amassed something that their land-based colleagues only dreamed about: An intact fossil record with no missing links.

"It's all here--a virtually complete evolutionary record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this group of organisms has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth."

The organism that Arnold and Parker study is a single-celled, microscopic animal belonging to the Foraminiferida, an order of hard-shelled, planktonic marine protozoans. Often shortened to "forams," the name comes from the Latin word foramen, or "opening." The organisms can be likened to amoebas wearing shells, with perforations through which their protoplasm extends. The foram shell shapes range from plain to bizarre.




We've literally seen hundreds of speciation events," syas Arnold. "This allows us to check for patterns, to determine what exactly is going on. We can quickly tell whether something is a recurring phenomenon--a pattern--or whether it's just an anomally. This way, we cannot only look for the same things that have been observed in living organisms, but we can see just how often these things really happen in the environment over an enormous period of time.


Link




we have an extraordinary claim?


No, we clearly see that when there are no causes preventing the reservation of fossils, or for disrupting fossils after deposition, that there is indeed the well preserved record of evolving life year after year, generation after generation, species after species...for millions of years.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

But what about the more complex organisms?
I see no higher life form in your example.
And this only points to an exaggeration as I could
choose to see it. No?



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs




But what about the more complex organisms? I see no higher life form in your example. And this only points to an exaggeration as I could choose to see it. No?


The process is the same for complex organisms, can you explain why you think it wouldn't be the same? The reason why I posted the marine protozoans example is because it's the largest, most complete set of data on the evolutionary history of any group, and easy to understand.
But there are many other smooth fossil transitions that are being recorded of higher complexity.


Here is a good example Pelycodus, a primate.


A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a
primate





The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.


This fossil record clearly shows the steps from generation to generation. Note that the (gaps) in time for the fossils are more than covered by the overlap in the variation within each level, each level has organisms similar to the ancestral population below it and to the descendant population above it.

Again, Clearly transitional fossils exist at the species level, fossils that clearly show the steps from generation to generation.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

No I can't explain to much Fly I'm no scientist and as
admited before I even lack an education aside from
trade schools. I do try to ask the intelligent questions.
But I know I'm out matched. I concede.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs

But there is no proof of that. That's one thing gets me, is
this double standard that exists among scientists. So here
we have an extraordinary claim?


Here is just one link to an article about the evolutionary lineages of certain foraminifera. There are many more such articles out there and I'll admit that they are pretty heading reading to the uninitiated. That doesn't mean that they are talking bunkum however. Foraminifera are widely studied and their evolutionary sequences are well-known, as are those for radiolaria, cnidaria, ostracoda, corals, trilobites and cetera.

Edit: Oh, I see flyingfish has already covered foraminifera.

The reason foraminifera are used is because their tests are so well preserved and the sheer numbers, in stratigraphical order. It is a great introduction to evolution to study forams.

It's not an extraordinary claim, it's a claim founded on years and years upon years of research, investigation, comparison, and many different methods and techniques.
edit on 7-9-2014 by aorAki because: (no reason given)


Edit: also, the majority of land animals do not get fossilised in the same manner as marine animals due to the environment of 'deposition' etc. More often than not they become disarticulated, scavenged, fractured.

We are fortunate in New Zealand that we have one of the pre-eminent researchers into Cetacean evolution,as well as some excellent fossil sites. Here is a radio interview with Professor Ewen Fordyce, and here is a fascinating look into whale evolution as produced by our national museum.

Here is Professor Fordyce's web page, with information that you might find useful. I hope you enjoy yourself, and maybe learnt a little about evolution and the scientific process.

We scientists aren't your enemy. We're here to learn too, as well as investigating.

edit on 7-9-2014 by aorAki because: (no reason given)


Further, here is a small piece by one of the principal researchers into human evolution; Ian Tattersall, and this interactive Q&A may be of use to you as well.
edit on 7-9-2014 by aorAki because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2014 by aorAki because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: aorAki

Ian Tattersall seems like a genuine human being.
I especially like his answer to the fifth question.
Thank you for the links.

He says humans are no longer evolving. Does that
mean other species are? If so which ones?
I'm just glad he's no Dawkins.
edit on Rpm90714v14201400000052 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs



Technically every fossil is transitional


With respect to you Barcs.
But there is no proof of that. That's one thing gets me, is
this double standard that exists among scientists. So here
we have an extraordinary claim?




Well, are you going to answer my question? I asked for your criteria for a transitional fossil. I'm giving you the answer that is understood by scientists the world over and there are many pieces of evidence to suggest this is true. I'm going by the scientific definition. If you have a different definition or standard, I'd like to hear it.

Calling that an extraordinary claim, when all currently known scientific data about the topic points that way seems a little over the top, but I'd like to hear your answer on this.


But what about the more complex organisms?
I see no higher life form in your example.
And this only points to an exaggeration as I could
choose to see it. No?


There are 20+ examples among hominids alone. But you seem to have a different explanation?
edit on 8-9-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Criteria? I guess I was thinking in terms of Dinosaurs
into birds. As there doesn't seem to be any that I know
about. Or is there?



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

I'm still confused. I asked you what your definition of "transitional fossil" is, so I can figure out what you actually want examples for. You don't seem to think the hominid lineage counts, but fossils between dinosaurs are birds do. What is a transitional fossil? I consider all fossils transitional, but you don't. I'm interested in what you mean by transitional. Are you looking for intermediary species instead? Are you looking for some exact hybrid creature that's half dino half bird?


edit on 8-9-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


Ok this one.


Are you looking for some exact hybrid creature that's half dino half bird?



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

I guess Archaeopteryx is unknown to you?

Perhaps this will help?



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: randyvs

It's not that complicated. To figure out the answer, you only need to ask a few basic questions.

2. How old are those rock carvings?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. 200,000 years give or take

2. 4000 years or so

The carvings are barely over 500 years old.

Harte



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

I was referring to the rectangular blocks cut from the mountain side, which I could have sworn was source for the granite pyramid blocks of Egypt. I must have mistaken that picture, because you are probably correct, although it makes my point even more crisp as humans were virtually identical 500 years ago to today.


The gap is not that wide.

Heidelbergensis is likely the transitional species between Homo Erectus and Early Modern Humans.


It's relative to where people decide to draw the species lines. You don't have to list the exact lineage to show a transitional fossil between 2 organisms. In reality there are a few other undiscovered species in there as well.
edit on 9-9-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
39
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join