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.

 

How Much Do We Really Know

page: 10
13
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Crowdpsychology


How can you be sure that this really is a head from a dinosaur that got extinct 65 million years ago?


Because that's the head of an extinct whale. "Orcinus citoniensis"

That image actually appears on its Wikipedia page

en.wikipedia.org...

Fire your researcher.





posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I wasn’t pointing that remark especially at you, but there are different ways of explaining things and one can also have a conversation without treating it as some sort of contest. Pointing out flaws is only knowledgeable if one put up contradicting evidence from creditable sources. If a person can’t do that, don’t point out flaws out and supposed ignorance according to your own preconception or pre-disposition.



If we were still in the 19th century and having access to 19th century tools and methodologies then sure. But we aren't. Science and its diagnostic capabilities have increased exponentially in the nearly 160 years since 'On the Origin of Species' was published and everything from the fossil record to stratigraphy and more recently, the massive leaps in genetics have all allowed us to confirm with such a degree of veracity, that there really is no question about evolution being a fact. What Darwin wrote was based on actual, physical observations and this can be corroborated. More recent science has been able to corroborate much more and there were some errors made by Darwin as well. But there was no fabrication on his end.


My question was pretty simple, basically a yes or no! If you convince the majority of the scientific community and population that the cornerstones of the theory of evolution is undoubtable how would a individual go about if they wanted to prove this theory wrong? It’s almost impossible, this individual will be alienated from the scientific community and he/she will never get funding for future work. It's har du teach an old dog new tricks..

Please elaborate what the past 160 years have given us and how it strengthened the theory of evolution when it comes to the points I have talked about. And correct me if I’m wrong, but the things that you imply have strengthen the theory of evolution is in fact supported (and based) on previous work, work which I enlightened might be fraudulent based on a number of reasons.

Could there be a chance that all the ”missing links” in hominid evolution which have been found in the past 50-100 years are forged in some ways, that the almost complete or complete physical remains have been fabricated to fill in the blanks and to further strengthen the theory? Combining human and ape remains..

How many people/institutions are entitled to view and examine these remains? The alleged dinosaur bones are keep far away from prying eyes, and almost every fossil that are shown in museums are resin reproductions, and then painted to look like the real thing. 90% of the population don’t even know this, and they believe that real fossils are shown in museums, many also say that there are dinosaur bones which in itself is laughable and sad at the same time.

If a creditable institution or person/team examines a remain and they conclude that it is for example one of our ancestors, other scientists and people will automatically fall back on that verdict, no? Or can every individual backed by a trustworthy institution go in and examine these remains?



No, that is not the basis for hominid evolution at all. There are numerous complete skulls and complete or nearly complete physical remains going back several million years. Furthermore, Bonobo and Chimpanzee are similar to our genetic line because they were our most recent genetic ancestors. If hominid fossils are only malformed ape and human skulls, then why are the morphologies consistent with one another for the same time periods? Australopithecus skulls are definitely Australopithecus skulls and all afarensis skulls from the same stratigraphy in various locations are consistent, H. Habilis skulls, multiple specimens, consistent morphologies, Antecesor, Ergastor...all the same thing.


Well, it is! So you are telling me that there are complete remains of all our different ancestors, yet someone is keeping these specimens a closed secret? The only specimens I know of are the following: en.wikipedia.org... and according to the pictures the majority are pieced together sculls and no where near full remains.

How are the sculls consistent and what do you and the scientific community base that on? 1-4 examples of pieced together sculls and the appearance of them when pieced together? Could the pieced together sculls and remains have been put together wrong based on cognitive conservatism/ confirmation bias, and the wish for strengthening the theory and the individuals life-work in this field? Scientific misconduct..

Could all our supposed human ancestors just be descendants to apes without any connecion to humans at all on a natural evolutionary scale? Or does it have to be our ancestors because, like I said before, our DNA/physical/anatomical traits are similar? Smells like confirmation bias..

I know that the theory implies that our DNA is similar to bonobo because it is according to the theory our closest living ancestor, but yet again, I don’t see the complete evidence of us deriving from bonobo. Give me 50 years and I can make a hybrid from bonobo and humans and then based on the hybrids genome you and others can say that the hybrid derived from evolution and must have been living in isolation in some deep forest up until now.. Intelligent design..



If hominid fossils are only malformed ape and human skulls, then why are the morphologies consistent with one another for the same time periods?


I can’t even get my head around this question! Please elaborate. Are you implying that we have found 1000 upon 1000 distinct and complete (not pieced together) specimens of our different ancestors and based on that, science can conclude that the different specimens are in fact different specimens and that humans are related to them?



There are no other Homininae specimens in the same stratigraphic levels at the same sites and the dating is wide enough that we can say without doubt that these are exemplars of distinct species, not "deformed apes or humans”


Sites that allegedly dig up numerous remains (2-3) from different individuals and then piece them together to form a ”whole”, 40% reconstruction of the real thing. Could one of these individuals possible be a human who died fighting/killing the other mammals?



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar



If there are other possibilities, then demonstrate the evidence, provide citations and link the peer reviews. The science doesn't ever rule out possibilities. What it does do is talk about things that are known, quantifiable and provable within a reasonable margin of error. If there was evidence or data of things like ID or your other mystery explanations, then it would be looked at seriously. However, that data simply does not exist.


Pretty easy to fall back on what other are saying, right? But I guess that's how it always have worked in the scientific community, that and the quest for pride and acceptance. Well the oldest and most notorious scientific society (royal society of England) sure ruled out possibilities when they started to restrict certain fellows after getting criticism from one of them in 1830 (during a time they probably needed full support without questioning for the creation of the theory of evolution) Intelligent design is according to me a very plausible explanation, can I back it up with anything but ”what if’s” and past/present questionable practices and conflict of interest, No! But for the time being, I will not go around and preach something obtained by others, which is not directly subjected to verification, when there are many questionable aspects in the theory and the history of it.



A mutation on the OCA2 gene


Science looked for the answer to my and many others question, and they found it because they looked for it, right? Interesting that the last few years a number of papers have come out that showed that OCA2 was probably the main eye color gene. But yet, here you are preaching that it is for sure the reason why some humans have blue eyes. Confirmation bias?



Did Chimpanzee and the other Apes die after I went to bed last night or something? There are a multitude of factors that are involved in scenarios of large extinctions. Drastic climate change, natural disasters, combinations of those 2 such as after the Toba event ~70KA led to the near extinction oh HSS for example and added to the stresses on a declining Neanderthal population and caused the near immediate demise of surviving H. Erectus in S. East Asia This is the type of topic papers and entire books are dedicated to, you can't expect instant gratification from a paragraph or 2.


Yes, they all died when you were asleep and before you take the buss home from your elementary school today you can leave the childish strawman remarks in the sandbox. But my bad, I thought someone like you, who's trying to be all-knowing and scientific in your comments would understand what I meant instead of mentioning all the other species, you do realize that bonobo is our closet relative according to the theory of evolution, right!?

So mr all-knowing scientific guy who must have read all of the topics and entire books which are dedicated to this question, explain it then! I love that you never fully answer my question, instead you fill it with obvious remarks and then try to humiliate the person you are talking to.. Guess it’s a scientific thing, right..

Here I go again: How come that all our human-like ancestors died out but humans and bonobo is still alive? Give me the facts mr science, or should we fall back on assumptions again?



Going by your prior post to this, are you implying that secret societies got together decades ahead of time to plan the TOE and Darwin was just a puppet in this mad scheme that somehow has got a stranglehold over all of the Earth and Life Sciences? It's well known that some early dinosaur reconstructions were definitely in error. That doesn't mean there is a nefarious plot to fool the world and set us up for evolutionary theory to be more easily accepted. If you think otherwise, then by all means provide evidence of this grand conspiracy or at least evidence of complicit 19th century naturalists. Dinosaurs were cool but in the early 19th century, there really wasn't any need for them to prop up TOE. It was an entirely separate thing at that point.


You mean the lengthy post I made with nothing but facts which you so happen to ignore? You surely don’t know your history when it comes to scientific institutions and the people involved, do you!? The amount of conflict of interest, who found what/when/how, the timeframe of the unearthed objects and the nail in the coffin for the theory of evolutions is whiteout a doubt suspicious. Ans when it comes to artifacts and specimens the smithsonian institution is widely know for keeping certain things a secret as well as making stuff disappear. I wrote a short part of it in my previous comment, and if you don’t find at least a couple of aspect suspicious you do not have a scientific mind and way of evaluating things.



technically, anything is possible but without anything to support the sentiment, all you have is conjecture and supposition. Evolution has been discussed since Ancient Greece though so it's not anything brand new that just appeared out of nowhere.


Here comes the ”conjecture and supposition” phrase when talking to people who believe that contradictory statements automatically comes with a box of shiny facts. Love it! No its nothing that came out of nowhere, and before Charles Darwin presented his piece Jean-Baptiste Lamarck published a more developed theory in 1809 and before that Erasmus Darwin had a hypothesis of transmutation of species..

The interesting thing here when you say "technically, anything is possible but without anything to support the sentiment, all you have is conjecture and supposition” is that basically anything is not possible. I assume you know how the scientific community and the founding of studies are functioning, and based on which criteria the founding is granted, right? So you see, if someone would adress a contradictory thesis to evolution the founding would most certainly not be granted.

The problem is that the scientific community are many times seeing things in black or white instead of evaluating (to some people) licentious and improbable studies, and based on that we are only looking in a narrowed hole instead of in a wider tunnel for answers. This have to do with like I said, money/founding, but also the fear of being ridiculed and or alienated because you think to far out of the box.



You're completely misrepresenting the science here. It's not that DNA can't be traced farther back than 100KA, it's that the DNA isn't viable enough to get quality results from with current levels of coverage and testing. We can trace the DNA back much farther than 200KA if we have a napped genome because we can account for mutation rates and look much farther back in time and see what that genome would have looked like. We can find traces of archaic genetics in modern populations and identify whos they were and when that genetic ingression was.


Well it’s a matter of opinion, what’s the point of tracing DNA when you can’t get the answers you are looking for.. Hence me asking the things I did.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

My main question to you at this stage is, have you read anything except scientific journals/books? Have you brainstormed outside of your comfort zone and already established dispositions? If the answer is no, then unfortunately you might be blinded my confirmation bias and cognitive conservatism and you will only search for things that straightens your already established opinion. Which could be wrong...

Like I said in my initial comment, what if the theory or parts within it have been deliberately fabricated to benefit certain people and agendas during the mid 19th century.. If this is the case then what if this is still happening, and what if the remains that are unearthed are forged by mixing remains from humans and apes?

Like I also stated in my initial comments, there are many upon many aspects in this story that makes a logical person think, ”what if”. Especially between 1840–1890, events and discoveries that almost magically popped up in the exact right time for the theory to get as much lift as possible. I mean just take the discovery of the Neanderthal in 1856, 5 years after the great exhibition, 3 years before Darwins publication on Origin of species, which he delayed on publishing for 20 years, and 4 years before the 1860 Oxford Evolution Debate, that put the scientific debate to an end.

I'm sure as hell not convinced and I have made a pretty extensive research on this matter, without clouding my mind with scientific preconceptions, confirmation bias or ego. The only thing I look for is the truth, I hope you all do the same.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk



Because that's the head of an extinct whale. "Orcinus citoniensis"
That image actually appears on its Wikipedia page
Fire your researcher.


Correctamundo!! I added it and the text to see if someone would blindly support it.. But I see you know how to do a image search, good for you



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: rebellion7

Something something Operation Ivy,
Something something incomplete.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
What if most of what you have been thought in school about western history is wrong. What if there was no Roman civilization. What if there were no Greek Philosophers. What if the Dark Ages did not exist and our timeline was about 1,000 years wrong and we're actually living in about 1,000 AC. What if our so-called ancient history is a complete lie and mostly written by Jesuit priest and everyone who opposed this "revised" version of history were simply killed. What if. Think. Research for yourself.

-MM


What if I told you spouting nonsense does not make you sound intelligent? I guess they spent a lot of money making, hiding, properly aging, etc. artifacts from these cultures.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Crowdpsychology
a reply to: Marduk



Because that's the head of an extinct whale. "Orcinus citoniensis"
That image actually appears on its Wikipedia page
Fire your researcher.


Correctamundo!! I added it and the text to see if someone would blindly support it.. But I see you know how to do a image search, good for you


I know what a whales head looks like
thanks



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Crowdpsychology

it was very pleasant to read your posts!

It seems to me that evolution isn't as strait as an arrow, like some of posts here tries to convey.

Very interesting info! thanks!



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Crowdpsychology

it was very pleasant to read your posts!

It seems to me that evolution isn't as strait as an arrow, like some of posts here tries to convey.

Very interesting info! thanks!

Not sure which posters you refer to here.

Nobody has suggested any linear progression of fossils.

Your own origins can be traced through your "family tree." Several people in your family tree aren't actually related to you at all.

Evolution branches, it doesn't proceed in lockstep from one species to the next, "more evolved," species.

Harte



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity



it was very pleasant to read your posts!
It seems to me that evolution isn't as strait as an arrow, like some of posts here tries to convey.
Very interesting info! thanks!


You are welcome, and thanks for the kind words, I hope they made your hink outside the box and maybe questioning things that sounded undoubtable before.

I want to emphasize one thing.. Evolution is a broad term and it involves many different living organism and how they have evolved. I’m not saying that the whole concept of evolution is made up or fabricated/forged/cooked. I absolutely believe in evolution in some aspects, for example, I believe that all plants adapt to their environment to survive, this also goes for certain animals. I also encourage the scientific community and the striving aspect off it. But when it comes to the events that led up the acceptance of the theory of evolution and certain parts within it, I’m not very convinced. I feel like there are too many assumptions when it comes to hominid evolution and there could be more explainable reasons to how humans (as we know them on earth) started to exist.

One thing that is present and most certainly was present during 1830- is the cherry picking that is taken place in the scientific community. Institutions willfully are suppressing evidence while pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm their particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. This is done because individuals and/or sponsors involved want to see the results they are looking for and they want to succeed. The monetary contribution if they can prove that the research is successful is off course a big incentive. All this can compromise the results, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the odds of it being worse around 1800-1960 is pretty high..

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data



A popular view propagated by the media and by many scientists sees fraudsters as just a “few bad apples”. This pristine image of science is based on the theory that the scientific community is guided by norms including disinterestedness and organized scepticism, which are incompatible with misconduct. Increasing evidence, however, suggests that known frauds are just the “tip of the iceberg”, and that many cases are never discovered.


For link, copy the headline of the article and search in google (can't for some reason make the attached link work)

Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?


Fraud was found to be involved in 94% of the 228 cases of misconduct identified by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity from 1994–2012.


For link, copy the headline of the article and search in google (can't for some reason make the attached link work)

Side note:

Natural selection and survival of the fittest seems like a good way of granting old royal families and ultra wealthy people the mental mindset of being above other individuals that is less fortunate. Maybe they (also) wanted evidence that some people are more valuable than other and by a global acceptance of this idea they could continue their extravagant lifestyles in good conscience. This idea also made it easier for big corp (which in that day was pretty slim) to obtain more power and wealth during the industrial revolution without a negative reaction from the rest of the population. If someone said anything about greed or power they could simply respond with saying - that it's natures way of defining the order of life.

EDIT: links didn't work
edit on 2-7-2015 by Crowdpsychology because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk



I know what a whales head looks like
thanks


Thanks for destroying my bull# detector!



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

I won't point fingers. but just the fact that only one member from science background argued with crowdpsychology tells me that his posts has a lot of weight. And it was just the medicine that doctored order here in this thread. Because some member are so hardcore convinced about the evolution even though it is evidently based on some shaky grounds from the start...and I don't mean to deny it, just to question its validity about the progress of human or other animals development which is believed by some folks here as absolute truth.

The point is that science is exact. But people are not. They want to hear what they like and close off to other opinions, we all do that sometimes. And because of that science is not based on truths alone, but it depends a lot on the one who has the money, but many people just believe everything published because it comes from science, then it must be true, right?

So how can we even know, how much do we know if we don't know what is true and what is based on false facts



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Harte

I won't point fingers. but just the fact that only one member from science background argued with crowdpsychology tells me that his posts has a lot of weight. And it was just the medicine that doctored order here in this thread. Because some member are so hardcore convinced about the evolution even though it is evidently based on some shaky grounds from the start...and I don't mean to deny it, just to question its validity about the progress of human or other animals development which is believed by some folks here as absolute truth.

The point is that science is exact. But people are not. They want to hear what they like and close off to other opinions, we all do that sometimes. And because of that science is not based on truths alone, but it depends a lot on the one who has the money, but many people just believe everything published because it comes from science, then it must be true, right?

So how can we even know, how much do we know if we don't know what is true and what is based on false facts

You made a blanket statement concerning "certain posters" I replied to. No such posters as you describe have actually posted in this thread, which was what I wanted to point out.

In other words, you wish to fight a straw man.

People who don't thing evolution is a fact are simple minded and self-deluded.

Most thinking people have no time for any interaction with such purposefully ignorant people.

Harte



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

uuuh ok ... now I understand what you have meant. Nice point!

... but I think that some posters here wanted to sold evolution as it is known today as a fact and absolute truth, which is not the case at all. If they were a salesman, I would not buy it. Maybe for cheap price


Facts, heh...I could say the same about spirit/soul. It is clear as day to some of us, yet here we are...I can do the reverse of your statement and it would apply to a lot of people.

Most spiritual people have no time for any interaction with such purposefully thinking people.

Ok, it sounds way better in your version
but thinking is supposed to be bad in this context, because when your mind is still then meditation start to have a real effect on a practitioner...



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Harte

uuuh ok ... now I understand what you have meant. Nice point!

... but I think that some posters here wanted to sold evolution as it is known today as a fact and absolute truth, which is not the case at all. If they were a salesman, I would not buy it. Maybe for cheap price


Evolution is certainly and forever an established fact.

The only "adjustments" made are to the theory behind exactly how it works.

There is no question whatsoever that evolution has occurred, and has resulted in (among other things) our very presence here in this epoch.

Harte



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte
Hi there i have seen some of your posts over the years and it seems you are out to disapprove of many "theories" such as paranormal/aliens etc. May i ask if you believe in the occult/life readings/Karma or such things? No offence just a curious guy here...



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: dna221277
a reply to: Harte
Hi there i have seen some of your posts over the years and it seems you are out to disapprove of many "theories" such as paranormal/aliens etc. May i ask if you believe in the occult/life readings/Karma or such things? No offence just a curious guy here...

Great question for you, Harte! Any engagement with the more ethereal realms? I spent an hour once with an academic and a government archaeologist as they swapped ghost stories. Fascinating, and truly creepy!



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I know who you mean. You introduced me to his work a few years ago...

Doesn't time fly?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: dna221277
a reply to: Harte
Hi there i have seen some of your posts over the years and it seems you are out to disapprove of many "theories" such as paranormal/aliens etc. May i ask if you believe in the occult/life readings/Karma or such things? No offence just a curious guy here...


When I was small, I can remember seeing ghosts flying through the walls in and out of my room.

These ghosts were black as coal, and they all had jackal heads. I have distinct memories of the long pointy ears standing straight up.

This was well before I ever even heard of Anubis.

I can't explain it, but I don't actually believe Anubis or his minions were involved.

That's about it.

Harte



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join