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.

 

New Resarch Suggests Chimp/Human Fossil Record May Be Inaccurate Depiction Of Divergence

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

So instead of asking the questions you go and attack the person?

That's grown up of you.




posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
So....to get this thread back on topic (sorry for my complicity...its mud i usually don't wallow in), the shared behaviors of humans and chimps has always fascinated me. Some of the behaviors are not readily apparent. For example, the tendency towards war and violence. We just do it on a grander scale.

The dichotomy of the chimp/bonobo is interesting as well. In all honesty, I would love to see more research devoted to the study of these two recently divergent species.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
You wont address them


You're absolutely correct! I wont address them in a thread where those questions don't apply to the topic at hand. That's why I've continuously let everyone, including yourself, know to post your questions, concerns and criticisms on the topic of evolution within a thread specifically designed for those questions.

The topic in the OP has nothing to do with the validity of Evolution what so ever.

In almost every single response to you I have never refused to address your questions, but have actually directly stated I would, if they are brought up in a place where those questions are relevant.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
You will answer the questions in a manner that appeases your own curiosity level, a level that is 100% accepting of evolution


How can this possibly be factual? I've stated to copy and paste yours and others' comments in a thread designed to take questions on evolution.

Your accusations are pure delusion.

Please get on topic or get out of the thread.

If you want to ask questions or make claims or anything else regarding the validity of Evolution copy and paste your comments here into this thread where it would be relevant to the OP. You are free to use any format or wording you wish in your question, it makes no difference to me what your question is about, and I will do my best to address it.
edit on 4/2/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Don't forget orangutans.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Getting back onto the subject.

This only adjusts the timeline for natural selection to occur, giving it more time. This timeline is virtually at a standstill compared to what we can achieve in a lab. Crazy how anyone could think this supports creationism.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

There is no evidence at all of Lactase Persistence demonstrating an epigenetic association and plenty of evidence that it has instead appeared independently at least 4 times and is associated with specific alleles


If what you say is true, that's fascinating. So rather than turning back on the lactase gene that was active during infancy, there is another gene that also codes for lactase that activates post-infancy? This seems redundant and counter-intuitive, why not just have an epigenetic mechanism to reactive the lactase gene that was active during infancy? Please present the source for this information so we can discuss it further.


No, I think you're misunderstanding me. It doesn't activate a new gene to allow for lactase persistence, it's that you never stop producing the enzyme(lactase) that allows you to break down lactose. Hence the terminology...Lactase Persistence. In people who are lactose intolerant, they lose the ability to process lactose slowly as they grow out of infancy and into toddlerhood. Typically around the age of 4 if I recall correctly. Some people can not handle lactose at all, others process it just fine and then there are varying degrees in between. But again, I'm going off of memory so in the interests of due diligence, I will find the appropriate citations.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

No, I think you're misunderstanding me. It doesn't activate a new gene to allow for lactase persistence, it's that you never stop producing the enzyme(lactase) that allows you to break down lactose. Hence the terminology...Lactase Persistence. In people who are lactose intolerant, they lose the ability to process lactose slowly as they grow out of infancy and into toddlerhood. Typically around the age of 4 if I recall correctly. Some people can not handle lactose at all, others process it just fine and then there are varying degrees in between. But again, I'm going off of memory so in the interests of due diligence, I will find the appropriate citations.



You may be misunderstanding epigenetics. Lactase persistence and non-persistence, in the way you are describing it (which is the way I believe it works also), is a textbook epigenetic mechanism. The genetic coding for the lactase gene does not get permanently spliced out and trashed, rather, it no longer gets expressed. The gene is still there, but epigenetic mechanisms either turn off the lactase gene (lactase non-persistence) or it remains turned on (lactase persistence). So this would make the following statement untrue:

"(post-infancy lactase expression) appeared independently at least 4 times and is associated with specific alleles in each of these episodes of convergent evolution"

I'm really interested in seeing the data that supports that^ statement, because it seems astronomically unlikely. Lactose tolerance is likely just the epigenome persisting its expression of lactase into maturity, rather than any form of convergent evolution in which a new gene is required for post-infancy lactose digestion.
edit on 4-2-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Please listen Ghost

I dont want to ask you any questions, sheesh
You wont answer my questions, you dabble at answers and answer those questions to satisfy your ego, not address the question

My accusations are as delusional as your answers.

I just want to call this out as a lie, an assumption, a best guess as I have stated

Stop stalking me



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147

Stop stalking me


Um, you do realise this was his thread, he posted the op, you came in and started throwing around accusations and then this comment?

How in the ???? is that stalking?
edit on 042904/2/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Um, you do realise this was his thread, he posted the op, you came in and started throwing around accusations and then this comment?

How in the ???? is that stalking?


Its a joke, maybe a little to subtle for some



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147

No Ghost
They have not been addressed anywhere

You may have dabbled at an answer and tried to dazzle others with words but
Objectively you have never addressed these issues in any way shape or form

Smoke and mirrors, flash bangs are not answers. Multiple words and lengthy boring posts are not answers.
You might fool all the Clinton voters but the reality is these issues have not been addressed


Yes, they have been addressed. Repeatedly addressed, either on this thread or on others. You are engaging in the standard creationist denial tactic of sticking your fingers in your ears, screwing your eyes shut and screaming at the top of your lungs. Bad news: it ain't working.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Yes they were addressed maybe according to your standard
Your standard is not good enough for me, I expect decent scientific evidence not mumbo ghost jumbo

If the scientific evidence was so solid why is it being studied at such length, why is evolution being refined on a daily basis?
Why? Because it is a stupid belief that has no valid scientific argument outside as was written in the OP post

I love the words and imaginary images in the quote

mired in uncertainty, new estimates, previously thought, time estimates appear, at odds ,
Based on this model, using what we know, suggests, supporting the notion of a mutational slowdown, time estimates reconcile , they suggest, may have occurred.

I am sorry, those words beggar belief in science, address how those words and phrases belong in science, are objective

What a joke

You can talk your hearts out but you wont address the issues

Standard creationist argument, wont touch it, still havnt, just ignore what you are to scare to confront an attack me

Here are the objective words again, deal with them

mired in uncertainty, new estimates, previously thought, time estimates appear, at odds ,
Based on this model, using what we know, suggests, supporting the notion of a mutational slowdown, time estimates reconcile , they suggest, may have occurred.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Congratulations. Thank you for proving that you do not understand science and that it is pointless to debate you as you will either fail to understand the points made against you, or will wilfully misinterpret what is said in an attempt to claim victory.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

First step

Here are the objective/subjective words again, deal with them

mired in uncertainty, new estimates, previously thought, time estimates appear, at odds ,
Based on this model, using what we know, suggests, supporting the notion of a mutational slowdown, time estimates reconcile , they suggest, may have occurred.



or deny them and walk away



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You wrote the following:


If the scientific evidence was so solid why is it being studied at such length, why is evolution being refined on a daily basis? Why? Because it is a stupid belief that has no valid scientific argument outside as was written in the OP post



I rest my case. It's pointless to debate you, you fail to understand the rationale behind science and you are rabid in your belief that evolution is 'stupid'. We can cite all the studies we like, your mind is welded shut. I pity you.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

How can someone provide the answers the experts do not have...
They are still scratching thier heads, that's what he's saying but your ignorance and pride leave you believe thier short comings and speculation is absolute proof of your own ideal...
In the future skeletons of midgets and chimps apes and average men will be compared and seen for what they are...
When evolution is discussed wise men will marvel at the metamorphosis of caterpillar to butterfly...
And all evolution will be bound to its own kind and referred to instead as progression...



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

How can someone provide the answers the experts do not have...
They are still scratching thier heads, that's what he's saying but your ignorance and pride leave you believe thier short comings and speculation is absolute proof of your own ideal...
In the future skeletons of midgets and chimps apes and average men will be compared and seen for what they are...
When evolution is discussed wise men will marvel at the metamorphosis of caterpillar to butterfly...
And all evolution will be bound to its own kind and referred to instead as progression...


(Facepalm)
Humanity is doomed.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 04:53 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Why would you say that?
I thought you believed in evolution surely there is hope for change?
You are just as undecided as the experts...
On second thought that makes you one too...
Heh
And on a serious note why did you rest your case?
Was it tired?
edit on 5-2-2016 by 5StarOracle because: add



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You still don't understand speciation. Yes, humans, in fact all organisms, have the ability to adapt. But adaptation doesn't necessarily imply speciation. Evolution is about speciation - genetic and phenotypic divergence.

The new species CANNOT reproduce with the original species because the genetic alterations prevent it from doing so.
It is a NEW SPECIES.

Humans can live at 20,000 feet for a million years and still may not evolve into a new species (although this isn't impossible). They may adapt to that altitude with alterations to their hemoglobin load to capture more iron, but until that human has DIVERGED genetically and phenotypically, they are still HUMAN.

Jeez, by now you should know this.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

"If the scientific evidence was so solid why is it being studied at such length, why is evolution being refined on a daily basis?
Why? Because it is a stupid belief that has no valid scientific argument outside as was written in the OP post "


For the same reason that the Model T Ford and the internal combustion engine has been studied, modified and produced new knowledge.

You don't understand how science works. It is always a WORK IN PROGRESS. Science is about discovery and evidence - that's it. More discovery, new evidence, new science, new knowledge. It's that simple. The science of evolution is no different - new discoveries, new evidence, new knowledge. Get over it.



edit on 5-2-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join