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: 7
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Phantom423




What don't you get about this?? Two separate species cannot reproduce. No-brainer.


Read some intesting stuff about humans sharing the same dna as pigs although monkeys dont.. A little mind candy..



Doesn't surprise. Genetically Modified Crops were thought to be completely safe because it was believed that genes from our stomach cannot enter the human bloodstream. They now know that genes from food can enter the bloodstream , so we are, what we eat.

If humans once survived on a diet of monkeys that could explain human DNA similarities with monkeys as well (some still consider a monkey brain a delicacy today).




posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Cypress

Superman-Doomsday gives a good synopsis of how evolution can equate to intelligent design. Genetic and epigenetic changes are highly influened by environment.

Evolution is a brute force method of problem solving, for sure. It throws anything it can at every problem, and what sticks becomes the solution. It may not have "intelligence", but the result is still "intelligent design" (as dumb as that sounds), as the design is still the result of logic and elimination.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Genetic and epigenetic changes are highly influened by environment.


We hear this all the time, about how the "environment" influences evolution. I find this to be a rather loose and ambiguous term, because it doesn't really explain much. Environment can mean a lot of things, and is different for every organism.

Evolution more aptly is the result of intelligent interactions between organisms and their environments.

Basically it's driven by behavior.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Genetic and epigenetic changes are highly influened by environment.


We hear this all the time, about how the "environment" influences evolution. I find this to be a rather loose and ambiguous term, because it doesn't really explain much. Environment can mean a lot of things, and is different for every organism.

Evolution more aptly is the result of intelligent interactions between organisms and their environments.

Basically it's driven by behavior.


That behavior is there due to their biology which molds to their respective environments.
edit on 5/2/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
In evolution a solution to a problem may result in other problems while simultaneously making survival in a certain environment workable.

For example, there may be an evolutionary advantage that allows a creature to survive in a new hostile environment long enough to breed while also shortening total life expectancy by creating health problems later in life. Since this advantage allows for a breeding population in this new hostile environment, despite the disastrous consequences later in life it will pass on and possibly become the norm or a dominant trait. Meanwhile those critters of the same original species not exposed to this new hostile environment do not acquire this new trait.

Now let's say the hostile environment subsides, and the two creatures, the altered ones, and the non altered ones interact. This allows for the new "adaptation" to pass between them. It becomes a common genetic disorder that shortens the lifespans of those afflicted with it. While true it was beneficial at one time, now that it is not, it is simply a genetic disorder.

This is why intelligent design is bunk, things like this are littered throughout species including humans everywhere. What kind of crappy engineer must God be to design all these flawed beings with genetic disorders due to situations that no longer exist?

Creatures have hold overs like the appendix which no longer serves any purpose, humans don't need them, and they often result in death in humans while giving no advantage.

Evolution is imperfect and messy, the signs of this fact are everywhere. If we're to believe someone intelligently designed things this way, then we must also take away their engineering degree. Hear that God, you're fired, now hit the books and learn how to build a proper critter.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
I think we first need to very carefully define what is meant by Intelligence. Because something can seem very intelligent, problem solving, calculating, etc. and be nothing more than recursive non-intelligent actions or functions that over time and with each cycle produce results that from the outside look like an intelligent process happening.

Then again maybe that is all intelligence really is. Repeating a set of functions and integrating those results for the next cycle on and on. Is there any reason why we assume intelligent actions require some kind of unique will of it's own??? Even we build machines that would give the impression of intelligent thought but it's not, or is it??? Maybe we give the idea of intelligence too much credit. Maybe we give the idea that we have our own will too much credit too.
edit on 5-2-2016 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Very nice reply. Survival of the fittest.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

I read that and think how ridiculous

Appendix have no value?

You should go do a little study on vestigial organs before saying things that are just wrong

If we believe in intelligent design then the design is perfect, the environment has changed, the situation since the designer created the perfect design

Nothing gets better with age



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   
The mods say it's on topic, so I may as well respond the the many misconceptions being written here.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Puppylove
If we believe in intelligent design then the design is perfect, the environment has changed, the situation since the designer created the perfect design


You're absolutely correct if we were to believe in intelligent design then the design would be perfect. However, it isn't even remotely perfect. The very existence of extinction shows that it isn't perfect. The very existence of reproduction with variation shows that it isn't perfect.

As for your argument on vestigial organs:

"Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974, 769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."

Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.

Some vestigial organs can be determined to be useless if experiments show that organisms with them survive no better than organisms without them.

So, on to the appendix: the appendix appears as part of the tissues of the digestive system; it is homologous to the end of the mammalian caecum. Since it does not function as part of the digestive system, it is a vestigial part of that system, no matter what other functions it may have.

The human appendix may not be functional. Its absence causes no known harmful effects (other than surgical complications from removing it). When it is present, there is a 7 percent lifetime risk of acute appendicitis, which is usually fatal without modern surgical techniques (Hardin 1999).

Co-opting a part for an entirely different function, such as turning part of the intestines into part of the lymphatic system, is entirely compatible with, and even expected from, evolution. However, it argues against design because

~ it rarely occurs with known (human) designs, and
~ it invalidates design arguments, such as irreducible complexity.


References:
Hardin, D. M. Jr., 1999. Acute appendicitis: review and update. American Family Physician 60(7): 2027-2034.
G. & C. Merriam. 1974. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Morris, H., 1974. (see above).
Yamamoto, Y. and W. R. Jeffery., 2000. Central role for the lens in cave fish eye degeneration. Science 289: 631-633.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
if we were to believe in intelligent design then the design would be perfect. However, it isn't even remotely perfect. The very existence of extinction shows that it isn't perfect. The very existence of reproduction with variation shows that it isn't perfect.



He said was perfect. The fall of humankind described in Genesis and various other historical accounts misnomered as "mythologies", describe a sort of glitch in the original perfect coding (allowed by free will) which led to imperfections such as predation, thorny (undesirable) plants, work, etc. This glitch disallowed our body to heal indefinitely ("eat of the tree of life"), which theoretically it could, and activated stress hormones through the sympathetic nervous system ("Tree of knowledge"). The parasympathetic (tree of life) and sympathetic (tree of knowledge) nervous system are two subdivisions of the autonomic nervous system, deemed the reptilian brain by contemporary scholars. If you look at the post-fall circumstance in Genesis, Eve and Adam undergo all the hallmarks of the sympathetic nervous system (tree of knowledge): pupil dilation, fear response, stress-related work, and childbirth. How the writers of Genesis knew the intricate dichotomy of the reptilian brain and were able to integrate it with the genesis of humankind is mind-boggling.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

That behavior is there due to their biology which molds to their respective environments.


Could this be any more nebulous of a statement?



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Ghost147

That behavior is there due to their biology which molds to their respective environments.


Could this be any more nebulous of a statement?


Their behaviour is driven neurologically/biologically, and their biological makeup is driven by random mutation as well as environmental factors that influence their DNA.

DNA is not driven by behavior what so ever. It's random mutation primarily, and environmentally secondly. Behavior may certainly lead an organism to a different environment, but it is the environment that effects the organism.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I've read genesis multiple times and it said nothing about such things. Over time however, with the help of apologists all those scientific discoveries you mention have been read into genesis by people who try and make religion fit with current knowledge anyway they can. But they do it while at the same time dismissing the obvious problems and illogical ideas that don't fit. Trying to mix old mythology and modern science for the purpose of proving any religion which also commands a rejection of science IMO is a bad idea for both Religion and Science.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

The appendix seems to serve a rather important purpose: to repopulate the abdominal biome after severe gastric events.

In prehistory, water was not always safe. In fact, it was rarely safe. Sure, you could make some light alcohol to try to make safer drinking mediums....but even that wouldn't guarantee you wouldn't end up sick. Same with food...especially with food.

Once you recover from your week long bout of bilateral explosions, if you recover, being able to eat beef and grains, while drinking milk might have proven to be an evolutionary advantage to keep you from starving to death.

Forgot to add: politicalblindspot.com...


edit on 2/6/2016 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
He said was perfect.


The mythology makes no difference if it ever was or wasn't. The reason it makes no difference is time-line.

If Genesis is taken literally, then everything we observe in nature on and around Earth goes against a young earth/universe.

If Genesis isn't taken literally, then why take the 'was perfect' literal over everything else?

This logic makes no sense.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I find it hilarious that most of the anti-evolution folks are YEC people too. But they contradict themselves so many times it's unreal.

They say the bible is meant to be taken as fact. But the 10,000 years is metaphorical.

And they normally wear a cross or have something around their home depicting Jesus. And go to church. The things the bible says not to do.

So, the bible is meant to be taken literally, apart from some parts. Because those parts would go against what you believe and would show how evolution is more than just a possibility, it is and has happened.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: cooperton

I've read genesis multiple times and it said nothing about such things.


Obviously Genesis is not going to use modern day medical terminology... All the following are activated by the sympathetic nervous system, and they all occur after eating the tree of knowledge:

Pupil dilation = opening of the eyes
fear response = hiding from God
child birth = "Adam knew his wife and bore Cain"
work = they had to work the ground

The tree of knowledge seems to be a reference to the sympathetic nervous system


Over time however, with the help of apologists all those scientific discoveries you mention have been read into genesis by people who try and make religion fit with current knowledge anyway they can.


The bible has not changed. The autonomic nervous system, the reptilian brain, has not changed. This is the caduceus; the two coiling snakes are the two subdivisions of the reptilian brain in the midst of the body. I'd be going off topic if I went into great detail


But they do it while at the same time dismissing the obvious problems and illogical ideas that don't fit. Trying to mix old mythology and modern science for the purpose of proving any religion which also commands a rejection of science IMO is a bad idea for both Religion and Science.


originally posted by: Ghost147

If Genesis is taken literally, then everything we observe in nature on and around Earth goes against a young earth/universe.


I think carbon dating is going to be an integral part of discerning the truth of the matter. Dinosaurs which were carbon dated were shown to be between 4,000-40,000 years old according to C-14 data:

Carbon dating dinosaur fossils

Insistent data is obviously required, but this is a curious empirical observation. Finding DNA and other soft tissues in dinosaurs indicate these organisms are not millions of years old, and carbon-dating agrees with such a conclusion.
edit on 6-2-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

And that's why C-14 dating isn't used to date dinosaurs as it will give a false reading.

C-14 dating is only accurate upto about 50,000 years. Anything after that and we use other dating techniques.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I find it hilarious how the theory of evolution is constantly evolving to suit it's own needs and attempt to cover up its own mistakes...

Rather funny how you assume to know how most think and feel about thier faith and what is literal or symbolic...

But then again it's no real surprise coming from one who prescribes to a science filled with little more then assumption itself...

Perhaps you would find the bible more realistic if it was re written on a daily basis then it too could be a work of evolution for you just like the science of evolution...
edit on 6-2-2016 by 5StarOracle because: word



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: cooperton

I've read genesis multiple times and it said nothing about such things.


Obviously Genesis is not going to use modern day medical terminology... All the following are activated by the sympathetic nervous system, and they all occur after eating the tree of knowledge:

Pupil dilation = opening of the eyes
fear response = hiding from God
child birth = "Adam knew his wife and bore Cain"
work = they had to work the ground

The tree of knowledge seems to be a reference to the sympathetic nervous system


Over time however, with the help of apologists all those scientific discoveries you mention have been read into genesis by people who try and make religion fit with current knowledge anyway they can.


The bible has not changed. The autonomic nervous system, the reptilian brain, has not changed. This is the caduceus; the two coiling snakes are the two subdivisions of the reptilian brain in the midst of the body. I'd be going off topic if I went into great detail


But they do it while at the same time dismissing the obvious problems and illogical ideas that don't fit. Trying to mix old mythology and modern science for the purpose of proving any religion which also commands a rejection of science IMO is a bad idea for both Religion and Science.


originally posted by: Ghost147

If Genesis is taken literally, then everything we observe in nature on and around Earth goes against a young earth/universe.


I think carbon dating is going to be an integral part of discerning the truth of the matter. Dinosaurs which were carbon dated were shown to be between 4,000-40,000 years old according to C-14 data:

Carbon dating dinosaur fossils

Insistent data is obviously required, but this is a curious empirical observation. Finding DNA and other soft tissues in dinosaurs indicate these organisms are not millions of years old, and carbon-dating agrees with such a conclusion.


We covered this befor in a previous thread. You cannot carbon date dinosaurs. Lets keep it to that thread since it is off topic from the op.




top topics



 
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join