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.

 

Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

page: 11
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh I dunno I'll take a guess...
They were living far under ground cause they were scared of dinosaurs...
That or they were not created until after dinosaurs were eliminated...
If dinosaurs are humans ancestors and they went extinct how did we evolve from them?


If Homo sapiens lived under ground we would have evidence. Unfortunately, there is none.

What happened was a mass extinction, not a complete extinction. Some animals and bacteria still survived.




posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Show how that is so, otherwise you are throwing words around with out knowing the meaning neighbour


Scientific evidence is expected to be empirical, and repeatable. It does not have to be continuous however as long as the levels of agreement within the evidence are acceptable. Since we have been able to "quickly" sequence DNA it has increased our knowledge and evidence of evolution many fold. Another example would be that most evidence shows that the genetic mutation that allows for lactose tolerance can be dated to the time (and locations) when humanity was domesticating cattle. Again that is evolution. Similarly we can tell that we interbreed with at least two other species, Homo neanderthalensis, and the Denisovians (who are yet to get a taxomic name). That last one we know strictly due to DNA data.

SO can you elucidate your comment?

SO there are no leaps of faith. Just because you don't understand them, does not mean its wrong.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Come on you have to be playing silly buggers here right ? You are not going to do the "if we came from chimps how are there still chimps" argument?

Or do you really think that the dinosaurs were all wiped out in an instance?

Clearly you do not understand evolution at all!



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Not everyone has lactose intolerance...



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

How come there are no more pure , Homo neanderthalensis, and the Denisovians?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh I dunno I'll take a guess...
They were living far under ground cause they were scared of dinosaurs...
That or they were not created until after dinosaurs were eliminated...
If dinosaurs are humans ancestors and they went extinct how did we evolve from them?


If Homo sapiens lived under ground we would have evidence. Unfortunately, there is none.

What happened was a mass extinction, not a complete extinction. Some animals and bacteria still survived.


If there was evolution we would have lots of transitional fossils, uhhmm, no?

You play with out thinking through the game



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

As I said, it doesn't matter where it came from or who did it, if anyone. The process is the same. Science is about discovery and evidence. There's no evidence for a "who". But there is evidence for a "how". Evolution is about process - how things happen.

If there is a "who", that's fine. But until the hard evidence shows up, we work with what we have.



Valid points, but, the process is what i am disputing. You claim that commonalities/consistencies in genes prove descent through modification, but it does not. commonalities/consistencies in genes would also be expected with a Designer crafting life in a relatively short period, as discussed in Plato's Timaeus and Genesis.


originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
many species evolved, lived, and died out long before anything even remotely resembling a human being existed.


Like the Coelacanth or the trilobite? They presumably were never with humans, until we found living coelacanths.

Trilobite in human sandal-print

also, Soon it'll be accepted that Humans observed Living Dinosaurs


The Coelacanth's are not identical to the ones from hundreds of millions of years ago. Ginko trees are remnants as well with the Ginko Bilboa as the last known species of its genus. Coelacanths are just unique becuase the genus was thought to be extinct only to be rediscovered during our modern era.

Also, humans and dinosaurs did not coexist and we all know how you like to highjack threads with that nonsense.
edit on 9-3-2016 by Cypress because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Well that is a good question, but chances are Homo sapiens out breed, and out competed with them. Technically there are fewer "pure" Homo sapiens as well, as you need to be sub Saharan African to be free of those two influences.

Why do you ask?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh I dunno I'll take a guess...
They were living far under ground cause they were scared of dinosaurs...
That or they were not created until after dinosaurs were eliminated...
If dinosaurs are humans ancestors and they went extinct how did we evolve from them?


If Homo sapiens lived under ground we would have evidence. Unfortunately, there is none.

What happened was a mass extinction, not a complete extinction. Some animals and bacteria still survived.


If there was evolution we would have lots of transitional fossils, uhhmm, no?

You play with out thinking through the game


And as has been explained time and time again, literally every fossil is a transitional fossil.

You play the game without understanding science.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

There are plenty of fossils which can be called transitional. The chance of finding ANY fossil is low, as the conditions to have something fossilize is rather stringent. If it was not, every single stone we had would have a fossil of some sort.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh you and your logic


We have several sorts of fossil, I mean we are BURNING the largest supply to run engines



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Another leap of faith?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Tolerance not intolerance. The mutation was tolerance to lactose in adulthood, not lack of said tolerance.

Also the highest levels of intollerance (the pre mutated form) is in groups where cattle was not herded.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Prove it rather than say it. This is not politics where shouting the loudest wins.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

krilloil.com...

Proof dinosaurs are not oil...
edit on 9-3-2016 by 5StarOracle because: ...



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Noinden

krilloil.com...

Proof dinosaurs are not oil...


Try reading it.

It states that...

"A fossil is not only the bones of a long-dead animal but also other parts, such as the skin and flesh that may have been preserved over time."



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

I said fossils not dinosaurs. Do you perchance have a problem with reading comprehension? They are called that due to their age. Or do you think petroleum coal etc is magically appearing due to Jehovah's largess?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

me. In modern times, we mostly associate fossils with large dinosaur bones. This fact is so misleading that for a long time, it was even taught to children that fossil fuels were derived from dinosaurs. Although dinosaur bones do not contribute to fossil fuels, other organic matter did contribute after 



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Awesome

Your words are like butterflys

Can you prove that all fossils are evidence, transitional, not unique

Can you prove that



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

me. In modern times, we mostly associate fossils with large dinosaur bones. This fact is so misleading that for a long time, it was even taught to children that fossil fuels were derived from dinosaurs. Although dinosaur bones do not contribute to fossil fuels, other organic matter did contribute after 


Yep. Precisely what I said.

The bones don't contribute to the fossil fuels, the organic matter does.




top topics



 
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join