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.

 

hasnt evolution been proven?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:13 AM
link   
The thing that seperates us from all other species is our ability to plan ahead, to regret actions, to ask why, to think of hypothetical situations. But I give credit to nature for that..




posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
The diference is UNDERSTANDING...god has given understanding to the mind..

Dolphin intelligence is comparable to humans.

on another note Riley...do not tell me what to talk about or debate about,,,you have no clue what i grasp. ... we both have the right to say and debate what we want, thank you very much

It seemed apparent that you don't undertand evolution when you sited the trade centre as an example. It is pointless and a time waster for me to debate with someone who refuses to accept logic.

...we are not animals and that sort of thinking leaves people with a lack of responsibility to the whole world...we have a part to play in the big picture..we are not here now by a mistake

I'm humble enough to admit we are just animals.. though that does not make me any less accountable for my actions or responsibilies. I would rather live in a loving world/enviroment than a hateful one.. so I try create the enviroment I want. Athiesm has never had a hand in holy wars [fought for 'god'] where millions have been slaughted. God never gave them a sense of responsibility did he? And evolution is not a mistake.. it's trial and error for whatever is evolveing. Absence of god does not devalue our existence.

....also just because you keep saying I HAVE SCIENCE TO BACK IT UP....but no facts, well then that leaves you with theory...hey!!its what we got...both of us.

Dna is proven scientific FACT.. as it is with chimps.. [yes they were tested obviously] just as the world is round and we revolve around the sun. My repeating this over and over again is not going to make it any less true. Perhaps you should indulge in some research before you reply again instead of trying to refer to it as a 'theory' so you can attempt to discredit it's credibility.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 02:01 PM
link   
cheeser...correct me if i am rong ...loks like the big bad F word up there thats what i meant by...profanity. why dont you answer this question for me? what is different about humans and animals? not why we are animals....just answer how we are different...can you do that? because who knows maybee you are an animal ...im not



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 02:08 PM
link   
riley...not all wars are holy wars....human beings are plenty capable of coming up with things to fight about....DNA...no kidding it has been prooven..check your sources, DNA prooves that all humans came from an original gene pair...not a group...check it out its true.......i like to call them adam and eve



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
riley...not all wars are holy wars....human beings are plenty capable of coming up with things to fight about....DNA...no kidding it has been prooven..check your sources, DNA prooves that all humans came from an original gene pair...not a group...check it out its true.......i like to call them adam and eve


YOur never gonna stop are you nikki? I respect sticking to your guns ,but when the bickering started, it when you said that

"might i suggest there is no evidence...so what we have here is 2 BELIEFS..."

But evolution has been proven, over millions of years how one animals MOrphed, evolved, Mutated into another , Sometimes in quick steps, some taking hundreds,thousands ,millions of years. There are some Holes in it,but it's a work in progress.

One of the biggest things is how advanced "human beings" are to their primate cousins ,that leads all the skeptics to point the finger and say "NO YOUR WRONG ,IF ONE THING DOESN"T FIT THEN ITS ALL WRONG"

there are alot of strange things about humans that doesn't fit , How many chambers our heart has, our reasoning ability, lack of hair , etc., but evolution is an "Evolving" theory , the more we learn , the more understand. The whole freaken theory might be disproven , given time and research, maybe our understanding is flawed. but at this point and time the theory has a pretty solid foundation. If you want to believe that man was made as he is now, and don't believe in evolution, then tell me something

Why are people on average a foot taller than they were a five hundred years ago?



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:21 PM
link   
JUST to add something , evolution in the animals that have walked this earth before us has been proven. evolution in primates have been proven, there has always been some speculation on people though, because of dramatically how advanced we are, so yes there is reason for debate when it comes to "OUR EXISTENCE" but not that there isn't evolution.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   
hasnt evolution been proven?...

and yet dawin himself acknowledged that even though evolution is the outcome of a scientific observation, it seems strangly uncomprehensible. Evolution might appear to exist yet we are physically unable to observe these changes. (bacterium are able to transfere plasmids, and with the formation of chiasmata, their exibition genetic variation does not necessarily mean evolution btw). From a scientific point of view, and after reading a combination of Popper, Kuhn and Chalmers works, one can only really say that evolution appears to have occured, but proving it is another matter altogether, grand assumptions need to be made, and this is hardly the basis of any solid proof.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
cheeser...correct me if i am rong ...loks like the big bad F word up there thats what i meant by...profanity. why dont you answer this question for me? what is different about humans and animals? not why we are animals....just answer how we are different...can you do that? because who knows maybee you are an animal ...im not


ninki... ninki... ninki...
when are you going to not be scared and embrace it. There is no thing that sets us apart from the animals. Work with other primates has demonstrated an awareness of 'right' and 'wrong'. Conceptualization, judgement, abstraction are all there. ANY, i would like to reinforce that because you don't seem to be able to get facts in your head to easy... ANY single aspect of the human mind can be found in animals to some extent. MOST people are simply uncomfortable with the thought, not naming anyone in particular.
Chimpanzees, humans' closest living relatives, use simple tools extensively and even have culture to some degree. Different chimpanzee social groups develop their own unique tendencies and behaviors, which may be in stark contrast to the behaviors of another group. Gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans exhibit extensive language capability as well, though they do not have the necessary physiological adaptations to produce speech. Scientists have taught apes of all three species to use sign language, as well as special computer keyboards. Apes have even invented their own words in these languages, demonstrating higher cognitive ability.
so what sets us apart? physiological adaptations?
The facts are there ninki, i dont know why you are so scared to accept them



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Cheeser..i have healthy fear for nothing but the god whom made me...i do not understand why, when you are pushed for evedence you resort to slams on my mental capabilitys?...personal jabs, about ones being stupid,still do not proove your point......here is a question for you?assuming all the modern tribes and races developed from a common ancestral stock that evolved in africa....where do we get all the varietys of men? if races developed through mutation,natural selection,recombination,and segrigation...it would require upwards of 50,000 years to get 1 new race established..according to evolutionists...PROBLEM...this would make some races more advanced than others.....see i believe all the physical characteristics of all peoples were already present by creation CREATING ALL MEN EQUAL.................................................................................and now for BORDNLAry...answer to your question is arthritis...and calcium buildup....read the bible they lived alot longer when the eartth was still covered by a bio dome...an atmos dome...this would make skealital remains to appear stooped or shorter...now for you a question...what about the giants we have uncovered...where did they come from? just because we been short dont mean we been monkeys...



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   
ohh and i would also like to add this to put forward more facts that might make you see logic.
If you think about it ninki the lifestyles of some "hunting and gathering" peoples, such as North American Indians, the small tribes roaming present day equatorial rain forests, the aborigines of Australia, etc... is similar in many ways to that of wild animals in that they roam over the land and live directly from it.
Just because we have had the ability to produce agriculture doesnt mean we dont belong to the animal Kingdom. Some theory will say that humans have been set apart from other animals because of agriculture... humans had spare time because they werent hunting and gathering food all day, they had time to 'think'(let me suggest you do the same:roll
, and that obviousally lead onto what we have today.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
BORDNLAry...answer to your question is arthritis...and calcium buildup....read the bible they lived alot longer when the eartth was still covered by a bio dome...an atmos dome...this would make skealital remains to appear stooped or shorter...now for you a question...what about the giants we have uncovered...where did they come from? just because we been short dont mean we been monkeys...


, but how do you know they werent' an evolutionary offshoot? and not all people were short, in africa people have been tall for a while?

[edit on 7-12-2004 by bordnlazy]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
Cheeser..i have healthy fear for nothing but the god whom made me...i do not understand why, when you are pushed for evedence you resort to slams on my mental capabilitys?...personal jabs, about ones being stupid,still do not proove your point......here is a question for you?assuming all the modern tribes and races developed from a common ancestral stock that evolved in africa....where do we get all the varietys of men? if races developed through mutation,natural selection,recombination,and segrigation...it would require upwards of 50,000 years to get 1 new race established..according to evolutionists...PROBLEM...this would make some races more advanced than others.....see i believe all the physical characteristics of all peoples were already present by creation CREATING ALL MEN EQUAL.................................................................................and now for BORDNLAry...answer to your question is arthritis...and calcium buildup....read the bible they lived alot longer when the eartth was still covered by a bio dome...an atmos dome...this would make skealital remains to appear stooped or shorter...now for you a question...what about the giants we have uncovered...where did they come from? just because we been short dont mean we been monkeys...


*it would require upwards of 50,000 years to get 1 new race established*
*where do we get all the varietys of men?*
*CREATING ALL MEN EQUAL*
do you even know the theory of natural selection? Im persuming you right about this the 50,000years thing? But all humans have different genetical variation, Do you understand this concept, if we appear different on the outside, without doubt we would have differences on the inside. This variation comes from random DNA mutation. Why are some people good at maths and some are not? Why are some people good at English and some are not? All men arent equal, we are all different. Just because we are from the same race race doesnt mean we are all the *same*-clearly, we produce sexually and as a by-product we have gentically variation. Giving our appearing, interlect etc... variation

*this would make some races more advanced than others.....see i believe all the physical characteristics of all peoples were already present by creation *
Ninki. Did you ever consider that physical traits evolve at a faster rate than psychological traits. And i would also like to say that i believe that to a very slight degree, very slight. That different groups would have different mental capabilites. But now we are all mixing and #... its all getting into a jumble... this would exlplain why americian are so violent (lol JUST JOKING) and why germans are good engineers.




BORDNLAry, this is all you'll need to know about giant humans

Genesis 6:4 claims: "There were giants in the earth in those days;"




Gigantopithecus and Meganthropus

In 1935 palaeontologist Ralph von Koenigswald came across an unusually large molar while looking through fossil teeth in a Hong Kong drugstore, where they were known as ‘dragon’s teeth’ and sold for medicinal purposes. He realized that the tooth belonged to a new primate species, which he named Gigantopithecus blacki. Many hundreds of teeth have since been found, along with 4 jawbones. Gigantopithecus (‘giant ape’) is regarded as the largest primate ever to have existed.
Another species, known as Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis, is thought to have appeared in India between 6 and 13 million years ago, while Gigantopithecus blacki is thought to have lived in Southeast Asia and to have gone extinct about ****300 to 400*** thousand years ago. The teeth, though large, have a few similarities to human teeth, and this led some scientists to speculate that the creatures might have been giant hominid ancestors. However, the scientific consensus today is that Gigantopithecus was a hairy, quadrupedal, vegetarian ape.1 It is estimated that Gigantopithecus would have been 2.7 to 3.7 m (9 to 12 ft) tall if it stood on its hind legs, and weighed between 270 and 545 kg (600 to 1200 pounds); the largest gorilla is 1.8 m tall and weighs 135 to 180 kg.
In 1941 Von Koenigswald unearthed the fragment of an enormous jawbone containing 3 teeth in Java. They were even more humanlike in appearance than those of Gigantopithecus but slightly smaller. He named this new find Meganthropus palaeojavanicus. Since then there have been similar finds in China, Southeast Asia, the Near East, and Africa. Meganthropus is believed to have lived 1 million years ago, and is estimated to have stood around 2.4 to 3 m tall and to have weighed 270 to 365 kg. Like Gigantopithecus, its remains are scant. It is generally considered to be a very robust form of Homo erectus, though it has also been compared to the robust australopithecines.3
In Apes, Giants, and Man (1946), palaeoanthropologist Franz Weidenreich argued that both Gigantopithecus and Meganthropus were actually giant hominids on the line leading to man; in other words, the ancestors of man were not apelike pygmies, as usually supposed, but apelike giants.4 The conventional view is that Gigantopithecus walked on its knuckles like a gorilla, but anthropologist Grover Krantz believes that it was a bipedal hominid, and that Bigfoot may be a living relative. In addition to the semi-human dentition of Gigantopithecus, he points out that the back of its lower jaw spreads much more widely than the jaw of a gorilla, suggesting that it carried its head vertically and was capable of erect, bipedal locomotion. After examining their jaws and teeth, anthropologist Ivan Sanderson, too, concluded that the gigantopithecines were probably tool-making hominids.


and if you dont like that explanation for your bibles *gaints* here another explanation...





Giant humans
The races of humanity are highly diversified in stature. They range from pygmies some 1 m (3 ft) in height to the tall, slender Watusi of Ruanda-Urundi, whose adult males commonly grow to heights of over 2.1 m (7 ft). About one in a million people suffer from giantism or the growth disorder acromegaly, which causes various infirmities in additional to exceptional height. The tallest man ever reliably measured was 8 feet 6 inches by the time he was 8 years old, and 8 ft 11.1 in (2.72 m) when he died in 1940 at the age of 22. The shortest person was a Dutch woman who was only 23.2 inches (58.9 cm) tall at the age of 19.
Modern ‘experts’ firmly reject the idea that there have ever been entire races of giants, and are adamant that our distant ancestors were primitive apelike creatures much smaller than ourselves. Worldwide legends and traditions, on the other hand, assert that there were races of giants in days of old. Theosophy agrees, and says that just as many modern animal and plant species had giant ancestors, so did modern humans.1 Over the past few hundred years, humans have grown slightly taller, but the long-term trend, measured over millions of years, is towards a reduction in stature, with relative ‘dwarves’ and ‘giants’ probably existing in every age.
A surprising number of giant human skeletons have in fact been discovered, some of them reaching heights of 4.6 m (15 ft) or more. In many cases, the present whereabouts of the remains is unknown, and many details about the skeletons and the circumstances of their discovery are lacking, including indications as to their possible age. But to dismiss every such find out of hand as a delusion or hoax would seem to owe more to rank prejudice than to healthy scepticism.
During the exploration of North American mounds in the 19th and early 20th centuries, hundreds of bones were recovered, including remains of human giants, mostly 2.1 to 2.4 m (7 to 8 ft) tall, but sometimes as tall as 3.1 m (10 ft).2 The official view is that they were just isolated cases of giantism among the Indians, but some of the skeletons seem to have belonged to an extinct, non-Indian race, and many Indian tribes have traditions of giants once occupying the land. In the case of some burials, the skeletal remains appeared to be uncommonly old and crumbled to dust when exposed to the atmosphere. Scientists from the Smithsonian Institution were involved in some of these finds; many of the bones were shipped off to its huge museum and have never been seen again! Only a small proportion of over a million artifacts in their collection are on public view – but no giants are among them.
A stone mound over 21 m in diameter was excavated near Brewersville, Indiana, in 1879; it contained several skeletons, at least one of which was over 2.9 m (9 ft 8 in) tall. The artifacts were kept in a basket near a grain mill on the property where they were found, but in 1937 a flood swept the mill away and with it the contents of the basket.3 In 1925 a group of amateur investigators dug into an Indian mound at Walkerton, Indiana, and unearthed the skeletons of 8 prehistoric humans, ranging from 2.4 to almost 2.7 m tall, all wearing substantial copper armour. Unfortunately the evidence was scattered and lost.
In 1833 soldiers digging a pit for a powder magazine at Lompock Rancho, California, hacked their way through a layer of cemented gravel and found the skeleton of a man about 3.7 m (12 ft) tall, surrounded by carved shells, huge stone axes, and blocks of porphyry covered with unintelligible symbols. The giant had double rows of upper and lower teeth – a commonly reported feature that is also mentioned in ancient traditions. When local Indians began to attach religious significance to the skeleton and artifacts, the authorities ordered them to be secretly reburied. The remains of a giant man with double rows of teeth were also dug up on Santa Rosa Island, off the California coast.
There are countless, often very sketchy reports of giant human skeletons being discovered in other parts of the world. A human skeleton 5.2 m (17 ft) tall was unearthed at Gargayan in the Philippines, and bones of other human creatures over 3 m tall have been found in southeastern China; one palaeontologist put their age at over 300,000 years. At Agadir in Morocco, the French captain Lafanechčre discovered a complete arsenal of hunting weapons including 500 double-edged axes weighing 8 kg, of a size that would require a man some 4 m tall to wield them. Other giant stone implements have been found in Moravia and Syria, and the bones of their users were discovered close by. In Sri Lanka explorers found the remains of humans about 4 m tall, and at Tura in Assam, near the border of Bangladesh, a human skeleton measuring 3.4 m was discovered. Bones of humans from 2.6 to 3.1 m tall were found under a French dolmen.



[edit on 11/24/2004 by cheeser]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
riley...not all wars are holy wars

Just most of them. You remember how people of jewish faith were exterminated? That wasn't that long ago.. 'god' is the perfect example of something that doesn't evolve very well.

....human beings are plenty capable of coming up with things to fight about

Religion always provides the perfect cause though.. someone says their god is better than someone else's and.. 'dems fightin words'

....DNA...no kidding it has been prooven..check your sources, DNA prooves that all humans came from an original gene pair...not a group...check it out its true.......i like to call them adam and eve

So why do chimps share dna? Did a human give birth to one if we come from only two sets of dna? They must be our decendants. Could you provide a source on this 'adam and eve' 'proof' please? .oh.. and could you please tell me who Adam and Eve's parents were?

It's possible everything comes from a base pair. Everything.. conditions were right to create one single celled organism.. and it spilt.. and gave rise to every organic thing that has existed since. This is a theory but it is actually a realistic one considering all dna is compatable. [Thats how someone was able to grow a human ear on a mouse].

[edit on 8-12-2004 by riley]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Out of all of that, the best thing you have said was "this is a theory"....thank you, i rest my case...its a good one tooo...but mine is better .. to answer your question who were adam and eves parents? i think you could see this one coming...GOD.i still believe all men to be created equal....even if they have a diferent race or skin color...not slightly inferior or superior.....why do you keep asking my if i can comprehend the truth?, when you are actually trying to make me believe your theory?....i would say you want a holy war yourself..lol....also yes i know about the jews...i am jewish...i dont think that hitler or that situation was gods fault, or his cause, it had to do with the evil of man....you can be an animal if you want to i say ok to that.....i am stickin with a creator who will bring me into glory...oooohhh man what a hope we have



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
Out of all of that, the best thing you have said was "this is a theory"....thank you, i rest my case...its a good one tooo...but mine is better ..

This is incredibly infantile.. you've taken 'theory' out of context so you can say "I win" and be free to lather up in your ignorance. You could argue that the sky is purple with pink poca dots and win the argument but thats not going to make it true.. it could just mean people got tired of arguing with someone who's trump card is 'so there' 'god dunnit' or 'nanana i can't hear you'. You cannot change facts. I was refferring to how life FIRST came into existance.. not human evolution which occured maybe a billion years later.. I made that clear. The discussion is about how HUMANS were created not life in general.

to answer your question who were adam and eves parents? i think you could see this one coming...GOD.

So.. exactly how did this happen? All these apes and other animals were already residing on earth.. and suddenly, somewhere dirt transforms into two fully formed human beings. What about the primates already in existance.. and..


again.. the last time I ask.. despite it seeming futile having already asked it about ten times to no avail [take note if I don't get a realistic and logical [or any] answer I'll just give up and will not reply again]:

WHY would chimps share the same DNA with humans if we are not related? You STILL have not [can't] answered that question.

And you conveniently neglected to provide your source of dna 'proof' that all humans a decendent from two human beings.
I'm seriously starting to think you just made it up.. prove me wrong.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 07:26 PM
link   
apparently its true...
the mitochondrial DNA doesnt change, every human has the decendant of a woman, whose mitochondria we all share, a woman who was nicknamed Mitochondrial Eve. The mitochondrial DNA from a woman who lived approximately 170,000 years ago.
Now about adam...
Men pass down a Y chromosome to their sons, which remains almost completely unchanged in the process. Y chromosomes are harder to study than mitochondrial DNA. But thanks to some smart lab work, scientists began drawing the Y-chromosome tree. They also found that all Y chromosomes on Earth can be tracked down to a recent ancestor in Africa, they found that their "Y-chromosome Adam" lived about 60,000 years ago.

It seems very strange, Adam never met Eve. They lived approximately 100,000 years apart.

*Can God answer for this one? Ohh wait thats right Its just like that cause its like that, God made it that way..... pfft*

You might think how this is possible. The answer is simple. Each region of the human genome has a different evolutionary history. It turns out there is more than one Adam or Eve depending which part of the genome you are looking at.




[edit on 11/24/2004 by cheeser]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:29 PM
link   
WELL I HAVE FOUND SOME FACTS. YOU CAN LOOK IT OVER AND LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK, AT LEAST IT WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY AND TO THE POINT RILEY....


Where did the "97% similarity" come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA [2]. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology) [3]. Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the 'melting' curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   
short and sweet...try mating a monkey and a human what do you get?.................nothing.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   
quote from ninki


*One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate. *


quote from ninki


we are not animals


scientifically illiterate? clearly your the one that has the facts wrong.
And can you please explain about ur adam and eve statement, what do you have to say about my upper post?
Dont just ignor me and take the easy strikes on other people



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:57 PM
link   


Where did the ‘97% similarity’ come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re–form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA.2 However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology).3 Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the ‘melting’ curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.


www.answersingenesis.org...

can everyone reading ninkis above post see that he has clearly copy and pasted directly from the *answering in genesis* website. I think ninki doesnt know much of what hes talking about now... and he is more and he is probably the scientific illiterate one
ninki ur clutching at straws now arent you, copy and pasting without giving the true author the credit. if you going to be quoting, do it correcting so you dont lead people to believe you wrote it

tisk, tisk


[edit on 12/09/2004 by cheeser]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join