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.

 

Ancient Ancestors Had More DNA Than We Do Now: Have we Devolved?

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: sophie87
a reply to: chr0naut
maybe


Agreed, it is ignorant to assume that current science has the right idea. It has been very wrong so many times before.





posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I believe instead, that the DNA we appear to have shed, could well have been DNA that we were no longer using. It is possible that as we shed unnecessary or unused data from our genomes, the structure of that data may become more efficient at doing what we still need it to do.



This ^

Its not like we need the same built in genetic functions that Chimpanzee's who live in harsh/extreme conditions need. Do we need to produce vitamin C? Not really, we are smart enough to ship fruit across the world if need be, smart enough to recognize what vitamin C is.

I am going to guess genetics may be similar to computer code in a way, where taking out one thing, or adding in another, may cause a "bug" and its entirely possible taking one small beneficial thing out also potentially prevents some other negative function in the code.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

I believe that what you say about the difference between people making advancements, and people who make use of them, is somewhat ill advised.

For a start, the invention of the smartphone and the tablet, and all the jazzy gear that is out there in the world of big science, would mean nothing if the people who were to be using these items were not advanced enough, in and of themselves, to use those technologies. Now, obviously, in the case of things like the James Webb Telescope, and the Large Hadron Collider, those are not designed for use by any but the finest minds in their fields. But smart gear, street level technology, these things have to be taken up, in order to take off. If those who use the stuff are not advanced enough, they will not be able to operate these technologies. That they have been taken up in such numbers, that people are doing all manner of things with them, using them inventively, developing their own software and jailbreaks for them, and so on, suggests to me that actually, the users are not as far away from the designers of these things, as one might think.

The fastest growth of advancement within a species, can only move as fast as the advancement of its slowest thirty percent of members. Otherwise too many people would be left behind by the advancements entirely, and what would then happen, is that tension would arise between those who get it, and those who do not, and this would have inevitable and awful results.

And it has to be said that there is more to understanding how to work a smart device, than the simple ability to read and write. One has to be familiar with icons, following pictographic prompts, understand the network in order to get the best out of their kit, and out of their data usage plans, know the net, know memes, and know which apps are going to give them the best results for their personal needs. Knowing what we want to get out of them, and having the understanding necessary to go out there and get it, is actually an advancement without which the smart explosion would have gone off with a whimper, rather than the vast thump we are riding through this decade.

Once more, I would posit that we are not devolving, but that our evolution is one of efficiency and economy of structure, rather than of complexity heaped upon complexity, in terms of our genetics.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: gspat

I think that the assumption that there is an overall "direction" to genetic change (which I believe is observationally obvious) is anathema to most evolutionists. So they will disagree with the idea of 'devolution'.

My belief is that humans have become increasingly 'cephalised', our advancement due to brain power alone. This then drives us towards greater brain power in evolutionary and social terms.

At some point, we will have achieved maximum brain power possible (currently we are limited by biology). Pierre Teilhard de Chardain (one of the founders of the modern evolutionary synthesis and the discoverer of 'Peking man') described this as the "Omega Point".



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

So you're somehow equating the use of technology with the creation of it? You lost me in that first paragraph. We're speaking two different languages.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
A thought occurred to me...

If we continue to shed DNA, at what point would we no longer be human and become something else?

Homo Technicus?
edit on 14-8-2015 by gspat because: My grammar is terrible sometimes!



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: chewi
a reply to: gspat
We still have our appendix. That is left over from our days of grazing the plains.
I think a better explanation would be we have SHED some of our DNA not lost.

The purpose of the appendix was once unknown but now it is known. It serves as a storm shelter for gut microflora that we need to be healthy. Without it, beneficial bacterial cultures are often flushed out of the body entirely when the animal has an illness that causes diarhea. with the appendix even if the illness is severe and the cultures washed out of the rest of the gut the cultures have a chance to repopulate the gut.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

No pl3bscheese, I am not equating creation of technology, with use of it. What I am saying, is that without users advanced enough to use the tech effectively, the things would not sell. I am suggesting that in order to use a device like the one I am typing this response on, one must be more than literate, but be capable of rapidly adapting to new concepts.

It is not just the technology on this planet which is growing and changing, but the minds using it also, and I believe that in order to comprehend the tech enough to use it well, one cannot be too many steps of advancement removed, from those who created it, else we would be incapable of interacting with he stuff at all!



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   
we were not created to Evolve physically. We were created as a species to procreate and develop in science/technology and philosophy in order for us to replace our aging space bretheren who do not inhabit physical bodies. So there is no need for evolution as we are trancidental species. The population is reaching peak capacity and soon they will come and scoop up a majority of the population as the means of an energy beings reproduction. This is just one colony of humans. And our DNA requirement is very low for what is optimal and works. Few seqences of chromosomes allows fewer diseases genetic space which ward of tampering to a degree such as evolution which is negated by our low chromosome count. This is why other species that have higher chromosome count have wide variations in their species, Such as varients to form Apes, Varients for Gerillas and varients for chimpanzees. The DNA similar to one another allowes multipul subspecies to exist thus diluting the core DNA through sub-species mixing.

With humans though, Sub-species diluting is very minimal. The farthest we see is what we call *Race* such as cocasian to negroid, to mongolian asian decent to other varients such as Indiginious peoples from North America to the other sub-species around the globe. All men and woman are very similar that our subspecies isn't dramatic. Intelligence strenghth and culture is very closely related allowing every human on this planet to learn at the same pace and to excell at the same pace with the small but compact number of chromosomes with its DNA packets.

We are aliens and were engineered this way becase if not, periods over millions of years would dirastically change us through disease.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: gspat
A thought occurred to me...

If we continue to shed DNA, at what point would we no longer be human and become something else?

Homo Technicus?


When we can no longer naturally procreate.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: gspat
A thought occurred to me...

If we continue to shed DNA, at what point would we no longer be human and become something else?

Homo Technicus?


Yes, but humans have existed on Earth for millions of years. And we have our compact number of chromosoms with its DNA packets to thank for that. Otherwise we would be very different from our early ancestors. Who were not much different than the humans that walk on this planet today. It is the smartest way to engineer a long lasting species. Since disease can disrupt a species physical and mental capacity dramatically. From reptile like avians infected with the Flu, to de-evolving into Birds. Technically evolution isn't exactly real. It's just rolls of the dice if a species survives disease and enviromental changes. Most outcomes may lead a thriving species into unwanted changes that may cause the species to ultimately die off.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: gspat
A thought occurred to me...

If we continue to shed DNA, at what point would we no longer be human and become something else?

Homo Technicus?


When we can no longer naturally procreate.


Well if that is the case it won't take long, seeing that the world is now encouraged to sleep with the same sex. Off topic, I know, but I had to say it, lol.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: gspat

Hmm. I wonder if this means we have less genetic diversity, and not because we've devolved. It could well be from population bottlenecks.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

That's just people trying to self identify with something to make them seem unique. It's no different than a Vegan going on a plant based diet because of an ideology. Pink unfortunately has been confiscated by woman as a feminine colour. So when these kids grow up enjoying feminine things, they self identify as Females. Also hormonal imbalences play a part. Similarly such things also develop pedophiles and beastialitiacs, The culturally accepted form is called furries.
It's all just taboo. Basically people trying to *Get off* and self identify. It has nothing to do with the actual biology of the person but more or less life choices. It's all thrown into the same boat as reprodutive organs as well as DNA Identify a person as either X/X Female X/Y male. Or XX/Y female dominated male hermaphrodite. Or YY/XX female male dominate hermaphrodite.
There is nothing inbetween. Trans gender is just an identification fad and i believe if people would stop identifying things as strictly feminine or strictly masculine we would see a lot less *Gay * people. There's nothing wrong with liking ponies, dolls, Perfume, Pink, Flowers ect. But it is mostly stigmatized as taboo for males to enjoy. Which causes most of the divide in my oppinion. People will do crazy things to self identify or go against a status quo.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker
According to the theory of evolution that the public school taught me, anything that stands in the way of reproduction is considered disease. So in light of evolution, what does that say about homosexuality?



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

It probably says something like "backward douches take note... logic is supposed to move the species forward and promote tolerance and understanding. This is not a tool for people to use to bash those they disagree with on religious grounds. Have a nice day"... or something like it. Most tools come with a health and safety label these days. The only common exception to the rule that tools come labelled, is the two legged kind.

Those really ought to come with warnings, but rarely do.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker
According to the theory of evolution that the public school taught me, anything that stands in the way of reproduction is considered disease.

Being ugly isn't a disease is it?



So in light of evolution, what does that say about homosexuality?

Try and stay on topic old chap.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement
Just pointing out one of the many inconsistencies in the unproven theory of evolution.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Yet so hilarious that your two points in this thread, gays=bad and evolution is a lie, come across as a religious person having a jab. Nobody cares about your offtopic opinions on gays. Let's not bring up Genesis either please.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

yes, species don't gradually get more complex over time. Evolution isn't real. It's adaptive diseases that play a role in how a species changes.

Many diseases can severely alter a human. Take giantism for example. Or perhaps hemophelia? When you bleed but can't stop?

There are diseases that cause the skin to overgrow with fungus such as tree man.
All species diverged off of disease and not nessiarly personal ambitions. Darwin tries to make it seem like a species wants changes and just suddenly gets them for some reason not specified and calls it adapting. However the truth is stranger than the fictional *Evolution* plagued in education systems.

The truth is, its exactly how i described. A role of the dice. There are 3 to 10 times the amount of viruses than bacteria on this planet. And even futher than that there are 10-100 times more bacteria than human cells in existance inside and outside the body. Viruses are the building blocks of any cell organism, Viruses make up all the DNA as viruses are nessisary for programing the RNA required to develop DNA so that a celled organism has the proteins nessisary in order to form a cell. That includes the proteins to develop a cell wall to begin with.

Since viruses can effect any matter of life and are interchangable with any organism it means virus can inject their RNA reguardless if its useful or not. So its all chance if an organism gets a good change or not. similarly viruses regularly infect reproductive cells such as sperm and eggs. By infultrating they assure their procreation through the linage of the host who then procreates. Cells can combat viruses to a degree but ultimately they will infect a cell and go dorment no matter what. There is no way to remove a virus once living organism has been compromized. Meaning any * Evolutionary* changes are all roles of the dice and are not totally intended by the consiousness of the organism its infecting.

It's completely random. This is why organism go extinct for the most part because a genetic defect caused by a virus is enough to wipe out a whole species in many cases. Factor in enviromental changes which effect bacteria and viruses first and all of the sudden new genetic codes are created. New bacteria and new viruses for an already changing enviroment makes survival slimmer. It's an even smaller chance that an organism will be unchanged by such an event. And when that event happens people call it * Evolution*? It's not evolution. Its something so much more.




top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join