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: 8
39
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I'm not sure you ever really had an argument, but this video crushes the argument you were attempting to make. I can't ever get links to work so here is the URL. www.boreme.com...

edit on 19-5-2014 by stopbeingnaive because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2014 by stopbeingnaive because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Double post.
edit on 19-5-2014 by Honcho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs



Ya, because it's so easy to see it happening around us every day.
Or was that God?





It actually is quite easy to see it happening today.

Humans have been capable of selecting and breeding desired traits in animals and plants. We've been able to create plants that are seedless. We've been able to create various new species of dogs and cats due to specified breeding techniques. We've been able to keep certain livestock animals carrying mutated genes that cause them to be leaner. We've even been able to make a lion and tiger hybrid; a Liger. Even humans having animals domesticated over time changes their traits and behavior. There are many more examples to choose from.

This does not happen in nature, well some do, some don't. It depends on the specific case. Sometimes we plan for certain traits to be made, other times we simply notice it and try to keep it going in the following generations. But in essence, we've figured out genetics enough to the point where we can make certain plants and animals possess desired traits. Making it an advantage to us. Nature on the other hand basically spits out random mutations here and there. Some are beneficial, some not so much.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Threads like these make me miss my old ATS friends.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
This is one of the things I love about ATS. You can show up in a thread that makes no sense and seems doomed before it starts, but when you leave it you've gotten a new idea...you've stopped and pondered on a thought.

I'd like to think devolution is not possible. We change. Something was probably given up to get something else.

Tadaman, you've posted an intriguing theory that opens my eyes to some assumptions I've held. It kind of makes sense that we might retard the role of the Neanderthal if they had held this position in a past age. It made me realize that I've assumed that all of the top sentients of ages past were all homo sapiens (with the exception of possible alien races I guess lol). Also, I completely assumed the homo sapien would continue in future ages...which might not be the case.

Imagine if, say dogs, gained a high level of sentience in the future and, because of our role in their current lives, we were relegated to some sort of god-status in their collective consciousness...and we might not even exist anymore.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
It's all about the beer!




posted on May, 19 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: MrSpad

What's wrong with my tailbone?

Ok so I know evolution has come pretty far from Darwins
Origin of Species and Humans now share a common ancester
at least with other primates. So humans should be able to
trace themselves in line back to that common ancester.
Of which there is no proof at all anywhere on the planet.

And we can't.

And IMO there never will be. But what we do find all over
the planet is evidence of a world erased from our memory.
And just happens to line up well with scripture. Now if
Oilantaytambo is !2,000 yrs old as some archeaologist suggest?

Then who knows how far back that pushes the date of
those blocks being carved. And isn't that beginning to press
on the model for an evolutionary time line? Also if time and
history are cyclical for us doesn't that at least begin to defy the
model for evolution? I don't believe a prediluvian world fits in
so well with the theory.

Or am I wrong?

EDIT Sorry


If anything, a 12,000 year old carved rock presses the Biblical timeline does it not? Unless something has changed, I was still under the impression that the Bible puts human history at half that time.

And I know by now that others have alluded to this already, but having humanity technologically put back to square-one due to some sort of cataclysm or whatever =/= devolution.

I agree with you though on this: there is a missing link that we might not ever find, and a missing history.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
why wouldn't a far more advanced society than ours not have survived a flood? We have early warning systems. They didn't? Boats? Only one guy in this advance society had a boat that fit 2 of every animal?



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Ahhh,bad Randy, thank you for
bring'n that to my attention pachi. I thought I sourced
the pics but I must have messed up starting two threads
so close together. As per your request NP. Now I realise
there is literally no accurate chronology involving these
historical sites.
And only controversy rules the day in regards to all
speculations. But I posted these two pics because, I believe
12,000 yo to be conservative. And these are the best examples
of that. So,,, my thinking still is, if the high tech it takes as I
see it, was reached even further back in time than 12,000 yrs.
Then
add all the time it took to reach that level of high tech. Set
the dates back some more, speculatively speaking. Then try and
fit evolution in there, amidst the fact that we don't have one
recollection, not one recording, as meticulous record keepers you
and I both know we are, as the human race. No memory of any of
this world wide way of building, that once was and we don't even
know when it was? So it seems to me that every time someone
from science camp, mocks creation that alone defies evolution.
Because they're mocking a better discription of what took place
that is the only recording, we have that was closer to the time
they were built. How can science defend that kind of BS?

But mock away down mockingbird lane. Just notice the sign that
says one way street. And evolution is jacked up moving in the
wrong direction. IMO of course.




edit on Rpm51914v162014u14 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   
whatever happened to entropy?

nothing gets better.


edit on 3156135931pm2014 by tsingtao because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: mikell
It's all about the beer!



Thank you !!!!!

I almost let the market close.

Thank you.

edit on Rpm51914v252014u41 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
And there is far more than these two pics from around the
world, that evolution doesn't begin to explain.

It does indirectly, in that it explains the biological process leading to the modern species of Ape responsible for this. Other than that, it's a different subject.


I am against
evolution even more than I am atheism. Because with out
evolution? Atheism hasn't the boniest leg [snipped]
to stand on.

?

How? Disproving evolution would just mean our understanding was wrong. Nothing to do with god.

If you could provide one of the thousands of different versions of god for perusal (even the biblical idiot would do) it would undermine atheism somewhat more IMO.


Even the theory of Ancient Aliens points to a flood,
or some " Great cataclysm "to have wiped away the inhabitants
and the tools, it would take to do this.

There is no ancient alien theory. There is a loose collection of claims and fanciful speculation.

There is no evidence of a biblical flood.


Because not one tool that
could have achieved these grooves has been found. So how did they
get there?

Who knows, perhaps with the tools that weren't found?



And this pic I believe to be the most damaging evidence on the face
of the earth, when it comes to evolution. Notice how the rock has
sheared off after the rectangular blocks were tapped from the hill side.

Would it be possible to expand on this? Seems a bit cryptic.


I'll rest my case against evolution right here for now. And invite all who
may be displeased to express themselves.

Why would anyone be displeased? If you could genuinely point out something to invalidate the commonly accepted fact that life on this planet evolved, you would be the toast of ATS. Nothing here is inconsistent with evolution, many are having a problem finding any direct relevance.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

ps. Have you done any research into the latest ideas from science/archaeologists, or perhaps even historians regarding this (and other) sites? Not saying you will necessarily get sufficient explanations, just wondering if you have researched and considered it thoroughly.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   
evolution could exist but not to the extent that everyone thinks it does.

To a biologist, Everything is gene secquenced to allow proteins to beild the cells and chemicals needed to create an organism.

Things just don't *change* overnight. Species have to be adapted to enviroments only they can exist in. It takes a thousand or several thousand years for a species in general to adapt to a less hospital enviroment.

Example, if a lizard goes into a cave, there is pre-existing dna that will sequence the albino gene and adapt for a life of blindness. But that lizard isn't going to become a bat. Nor will that lizard become a crocodile.

A lizard cannot become a crocodile. Just like an Ape cannot become a human.
I could make a billion comparions. Since there are billions of species that CANNOT be other species.
A fish does not become an elephaunt. An elephaunt is a mammal. Not a fish. You can have sea lions and and seals, But a sealion will never be a whale.

This should all be pretty obvious. A daulphin is not a whale, Completely different species. A crab is not a lobster. A squid is a squid and an octopus is an octopus. A squid does not evolve like a pokemon into octopusomon.

Neither does a squirel evolve into a rabbit. Or w.e. The only thing that links us back to any animal or any species is genetics.

And proteins can only be altered by pro-creation and diseases.
Since our genes are mostly viral in origin, its safe to say that the most physical changing things out there in existance is viral and bacterial symbiosis.

Where species conquer virus and change the genetic code by adding new genes to the sequences that wern't present in any of the populations gene pool.

You may domesticate a dog, you may shrink it's size. You may do so within a period of a couple centries. But it is not evolution.

Inter breeding for specific desired genetic traits. But given enough time of repressed genes and the ancient dna sequences that are more dominate will become the norm. If dogs were to be let free and we were to look at them 500 years in the future, most of dogs would be of average height with no * pure breeds* selective breeding only works if its tended to precariously generation to generation. In the wild, IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.

Evolution by everyones terms is flat wrong.

A seal may make it to land, but it will still be a SEAL. And will still very much look like a seal, only with legs. It's not gunna get up and start talking on the news about the weeks weather. But that kind of adaptation would take millions and millions of years alone.... if seals ever needed to spend more time hunting on land which they don't.

So seals walking would pretty much never happen. You can change a seal with viral engineering to alter the limbs, Everything in the animal and through methods of cloning can create a whole new species. Such as a humanoid seal, Blended with human to look semi human and to have our brains, We would be doing the same thing the aliens did to us.

But by all means, Not evolution.

You wanna walk evolution?

Apes did evolve into a scentient species, But that ape is a completely different species on its own. It could of been created too but who knows.

True humanoid *evolution* would not occure for billions of years. So only a species that has been around for billions of years would beable to speed up the *evolution* of another species using various teqniques.



^ Neanderthals are bigfoot. And bigfoot has been around forever, we have the bones to prove it.

Neanderthals are the sasquatch, and we have fossilized bones that show that they have been inhabitating the planet as long or even longer than humans... the mitchondrial dna ( The womans egg) of Neanderthals are millions of years older than ours which is only 100,000 years old.




This is why they are studying GMO genetically modified organisms so that they can create new species and alter species drastically. Something that surely happened in the passed.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr



Most of your post is exactly wrong, you should wait until you know what the theory of evolution is before you start lecturing people on it.

Just to address one point in your long string of nonsense is going to take more time I don't have. But don't worry, there are plenty of other members that can clean up your classic Gish gallop.

I will be back..



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

origi ally posted by: Quadrivium
It may serve you well to read the quote you selected diplay at the bottom of each of your post.
With that quote in mind, please read what you have written above...........
See the problem?
Even the theory of "relativity" is still a theory.
The "theory of evolution" does not explain diversity on this planet any better that creation and adaptation.
We were given the ability to adapt and we do just that.
Quad


It may serve you well to.....ahh enough with the pomposity......just read this and realise how incorrect and just plain wrong that entire post was.


Maybe a class in scientific theory would do you some good.

Perhaps you can explain to me, after reading this (your link), how my post was "incorrect and just plain wrong"?
Is Relativity a Theory?
Is Evolution a Theory?
A little more time reading and a little less time being a wise ass does everybody good.
edit on 20-5-2014 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Quadrivium

Neil said it better than me so please look below.

I could not agree more



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr

A lizard cannot become a crocodile. Just like an Ape cannot become a human.

What seems more relevant is that they are both reptilia. Humans are a species of Great Ape.


The only thing that links us back to any animal or any species is genetics.

Paleontology? Anthropology? The fossil record, morphology, geology etc? The more recent molecular biology studies overwhelmingly supports this. Even if genetics were the "only thing" (which it isn't), it still supports it.


We would be doing the same thing the aliens did to us.

...and your reasons, firstly that these aliens exist, would be...


^ Neanderthals are bigfoot. And bigfoot has been around forever, we have the bones to prove it.

The (popular modern notion of Bigfoot) does not physically exist in North America. We have no reason to believe Neanderthal was 8'-15' tall, to begin with. It is a sociological phenomena with many parallels and correlations to religious belief. Or a paranormal being, if your that way inclined...

In regions of the planet where such creatures are more plausible (though still extremely unlikely) such as Orang Pendek, they aren't described in any way resembling what we know of Neanderthal. Though Neanderthal lives on to some extent in modern humans.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Maybe a class in scientific theory would do you some good.


A class in scientific theory?.......


Because you think there are 'scientific theory' classes I suspect you didn't give the link even a cursory glance and that you are a infact a stereotypical creationist.....


Perhaps you can explain to me, after reading this (your link), how my post was "incorrect and just plain wrong"?


.......a suspicion further cemented by the fact you seem to think 'theory' in this context refers to an idea or hypothesis (even after I gave you a link explicitly explaining the difference), which is very typical in most (if not all) cases of creationists and their lack of scientific understanding and intellectual honesty, and is to be expected.


The "theory of evolution" does not explain diversity on this planet any better that creation and adaptation.
We were given the ability to adapt and we do just that.


I could post links explaining why evolution does explain the bio-diversity on this planet, but we both know you wouldn't read them as you're obviously uninterested in anything that might threaten your beliefs . Facts be damned amiright?


A little more time reading and a little less time being a wise ass does everybody good.


Double irony!

Have you already forgotten the post I was replying to? the one in which you attempted to lecture another ATS member on what is and what isn't a theory? .......of course you have....


edit on 20-5-2014 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr
evolution could exist but not to the extent that everyone thinks it does.

To a biologist, Everything is gene secquenced to allow proteins to beild the cells and chemicals needed to create an organism.

Things just don't *change* overnight. Species have to be adapted to enviroments only they can exist in. It takes a thousand or several thousand years for a species in general to adapt to a less hospital enviroment.

Example, if a lizard goes into a cave, there is pre-existing dna that will sequence the albino gene and adapt for a life of blindness. But that lizard isn't going to become a bat. Nor will that lizard become a crocodile.


Um no.... You do realize that as one species continues to mutate and receive more adaptations it slowly stops looking and behaving like it started out as right? Eventually those changes add up and we call that new animal a different species. Why don't you try explaining why we can trace evolutionary lineage all the way back to single celled organisms through DNA gene sequencing?


A lizard cannot become a crocodile. Just like an Ape cannot become a human.
I could make a billion comparions. Since there are billions of species that CANNOT be other species.
A fish does not become an elephaunt. An elephaunt is a mammal. Not a fish. You can have sea lions and and seals, But a sealion will never be a whale.


First, humans ARE apes. Second, you aren't getting it. It's not about two different species breeding and creating a new species. It's about changes accruing over time to create a new species. It's not like a lizard decides one day to evolve into a squirrel, it just happens as different traits are bred out and new ones bred in.


This should all be pretty obvious. A daulphin is not a whale, Completely different species. A crab is not a lobster. A squid is a squid and an octopus is an octopus. A squid does not evolve like a pokemon into octopusomon.


Obvious to someone who made up their own version of evolution.


Neither does a squirel evolve into a rabbit. Or w.e. The only thing that links us back to any animal or any species is genetics.


You do realize that genetics speaks to DNA, also known as the building blocks of life. I'd say that links through genetics are pretty solid proof of evolution. But besides that, there is PLENTY of evidence outside of genetics that we can trace lineages of species back to where they started. Here are humans: Timeline of Human Evolution


And proteins can only be altered by pro-creation and diseases.
Since our genes are mostly viral in origin, its safe to say that the most physical changing things out there in existance is viral and bacterial symbiosis.


Which we evolved from.


Where species conquer virus and change the genetic code by adding new genes to the sequences that wern't present in any of the populations gene pool.

You may domesticate a dog, you may shrink it's size. You may do so within a period of a couple centries. But it is not evolution.


Selective breeding is forced evolution. Do you have ANY idea how different dogs looked millions of years ago? Origin of the domestic dog. Notice it says that it humans originally domesticated a grey wolf. Now look at a dachshund, does that look ANYTHING like a grey wolf?


Inter breeding for specific desired genetic traits. But given enough time of repressed genes and the ancient dna sequences that are more dominate will become the norm. If dogs were to be let free and we were to look at them 500 years in the future, most of dogs would be of average height with no * pure breeds* selective breeding only works if its tended to precariously generation to generation. In the wild, IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.


Yes it does, it just takes longer to happen since it isn't forced.


Evolution by everyones terms is flat wrong.


According to random guy on the internet #485,234,594 with ZERO evidence to support his dissertation.


A seal may make it to land, but it will still be a SEAL. And will still very much look like a seal, only with legs. It's not gunna get up and start talking on the news about the weeks weather. But that kind of adaptation would take millions and millions of years alone.... if seals ever needed to spend more time hunting on land which they don't.


Things don't evolve immediately. First off, seals DO make it to land. So I'm not sure what you are on about there, but if they were to become truly land dependent through generations of breeding, they'd probably develop legs and other accessories to help them cope. Of course we can't say what they will be since natural selection is all about the first mutation that successfully fills a niche and survives to propagate that mutation and not so much the BEST mutation for the niche.


So seals walking would pretty much never happen. You can change a seal with viral engineering to alter the limbs, Everything in the animal and through methods of cloning can create a whole new species. Such as a humanoid seal, Blended with human to look semi human and to have our brains, We would be doing the same thing the aliens did to us.


So you say that evolution is not real by the majority of standards (despite OVERWHELMING amounts of proof) but then you go on about crazy mad science and science fiction... Wow.


But by all means, Not evolution.

You wanna walk evolution?

Apes did evolve into a scentient species, But that ape is a completely different species on its own. It could of been created too but who knows.


You are right, they did evolve into a sentient species. We call them Homo Sapien Sapiens, humans.


True humanoid *evolution* would not occure for billions of years. So only a species that has been around for billions of years would beable to speed up the *evolution* of another species using various teqniques.


EVERY species has been on the plenty for millions (its not billions) of years in some form or another since they can all be traced back to a single celled organism.



^ Neanderthals are bigfoot. And bigfoot has been around forever, we have the bones to prove it.

Neanderthals are the sasquatch, and we have fossilized bones that show that they have been inhabitating the planet as long or even longer than humans... the mitchondrial dna ( The womans egg) of Neanderthals are millions of years older than ours which is only 100,000 years old.


How can you try to claim that evolution is wrong (without any proof whatsoever) then in the same breath go on about psuedo-science and unconfirmed animals like they actually ARE real? Do you just believe whatever you want, evidence be damned?


This is why they are studying GMO genetically modified organisms so that they can create new species and alter species drastically. Something that surely happened in the passed.


GMO science is based off of evolutionary science.







 
39
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join