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: 19
13
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

No worries at all. I enjoy these verbal sparring matches. It may not sound like it but I have quite a bit fun doing it and I type fast so it's not a big deal. I'll be the first to admit that I am argumentative and I do get defensive when people take shots at science. I just never understood what is accomplished by trying to reduce science to the level of a subjective belief system when it's literally the exact opposite and has produced so many important things for us as a society. You and I have a lot more in common than we both would care to admit, we just come from different perspectives as you said.

But with that said, I think you dug yourself a little too deep here. There is no way the concept of round can be taught as square or square as round. It is simply not possible without changing the shape itself, which makes the concepts far from subjective. That's the short and sweet version, I just tend to over explain things because I have this need to be extremely thorough and try to rule out all possible rebuttals in my response itself. You are a good debater and you do keep me on my toes, that's for sure. I appreciate you humoring me.
edit on 3 21 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Amazes me when you look at stunningly beautiful women a people say we came from Apes ,then they will just start adding to it off the top of their heads ''well there was these apes that branched off and decided to leave the trees and do other stuff '',yeahthen what happened ? ''ummmm arrrrr they just decided to evolve ummmmm '' yeah then what ????.Not a missing Link, a missing story ,Apes ? just not believable ....................



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ozb1777

No one educated says we came from apes, we know a lot about our ancestry, but yes it has gaps, thankfully with DNA sequencing we know a lot more than we will from fossils.

You don't have to believe we share an ancestor with other primates, that does not mean it is not so neigbhour



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden




You don't have to believe we share an ancestor with other primates, that does not mean it is not so neigbhour


While this is true, the opposite is equally exact: believing it doesn't make it so.

The claims that we come from apes was repeatedly made on this and other threads as well as in public schools in the form of suggesting common ancestry with contemporary apes: the common ancestor fitting the definition of "ape" to perfection.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ozb1777

No one educated says we came from apes, we know a lot about our ancestry, but yes it has gaps


How far can you trace your lineage... Great Grandparents? Great-Great Grandparents? The people around 0 AD were much more concerned with their human lineage - they could trace their lineage back to Abraham. Abraham knew his lineage back to Adam. There is a complete lineage from Adam to Jesus, with patrilineal and matrilineal detail, found from information in Genesis, Chronicles, Matthew and Luke.

Some people think their ancestors were fish, others believe it is God's semblance.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Humans ARE technically apes, so claiming we came from them is beyond silly. In order to deny the common ancestry that humans have with other apes and primates, you would have to explain why the fossil record clearly shows 22+ distinct species of hominid, and why when analyzing the skulls and other features, you clearly see a slow change over time. Cranial capacity has slowly increased in most cases, which is exactly what evolution predicted before we had found SINGLE hominid fossil. Now there are well over 20 species and counting, and every single one fit the theory perfectly. If common ancestry is false, we would find fossils out of place in the column, but this has never happened and there are millions of fossils found.

So much for created in god's image. I don't see how that could be possible when the image of humans have changed so much in the past 2-3 million years.


edit on 3 21 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




Humans ARE technically apes,


no
This is what ape means.




the fossil record clearly shows 22+ distinct species of hominid


no
This is what species means.

=> Fossils don't show what species a bone is from, it allows us to guess.




analyzing the skulls and other features, you clearly see a slow change over time


no

Phrenology was bunk science from inception and is now accepted as such by former phrenologists: www.historyofphrenology.org.uk...




humans have changed so much in the past 2-3 million years.


How do you know this? Phrenology? Millions of years? Please share



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

You really aren't of English origin are you?

You do know that we are (according to your very own source) apes.

This is the very first definition from your link...."A large primate that lacks a tail, including the gorilla, chimpanzees, orangutan, and gibbon"

Well we are primates and last time I looked we didn't have tails.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


1A large primate that lacks a tail, including the gorilla, chimpanzees, orangutan, and gibbons. Families Pongidae and Hylobatidae Example sentences Synonyms 1.1Used in names of macaque monkeys with short tails, e.g. Barbary ape. Example sentences 1.2(In general use) any monkey. Example sentences 2An unintelligent or clumsy person. Example sentences 3 archaic An inferior imitator or mimic: cunning is but the ape of wisdom


By semantic derivation, some of us may be considered apes: the only reference to people being called apes is


1.2(In general use) any monkey. Example sentences 2An unintelligent or clumsy person.


This however does not mean "humans ARE technically apes", the statement I am refuting.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

You're just being semantic, again.

We are primates. Apes are primates. Technically, due to definitions, we are apes.

Yes, there are a lot of differences between Homo sapiens and apes, but if you go purely on definitions then we are apes.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

No, from earth.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

Many opinions expressed here syncretized on common ground.

Well done



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

No, from earth.


No.. From apes, Homo sapiens sapiens..



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
This is a common simplistic misunderstanding. Of course hominims did not evolve from contemporary fish or monkeys, but somewhere back there was a creature that, if you saw it at first glance, looked damn close to a contemporary monkey. It wasn't, of course, because monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, etc. have evolved into what they are today right alongside us. The contemporary hominids: Gorillas, chimps, orangutans, gibbons, and homo sapiens do have a common ancestor, which looked very very close to a "monkey." And before that, way back when, there was something that looked suspiciously like a fish.

When creationists--or anybody else--make a general statement either for or against the idea that "we evolved from monkeys" they are not being precise and generalizing, of course. They are not professional anthropologists, but to call them out on it is really splitting hairs and being pedantic about it. If the people you criticize said, "We evolved from something that looked millions of years ago very much like a monkey looks today," they would be technically correct, and you would not have an argument. The fact that you do doesn't really add much to the argument one way or the other.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Very true, however scientific proof has shown this to be so, and as a consequence you don't need to believe a thing, just understand what is shown. Between transitional fossils (remember fossils are a very rare occurrence, especially in jungles settings) and genomic analysis, we can date when this divergence occurred. Unless you think that is the devils work, then well sorry you will never get it
(Oh and yet again, a reminder, I am a spiritual and religious person, just not Abrahamic, so don't throw the word atheist around)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I can trace my lineage reliably several 100 years neighbor, depending on how accurate clan records are close to a thousand ( I don't think that they are that accurate to be honest). I'm not a member of an Abrahamic faith, so I am not tied to the problem you seem to have, of the Bible, or Torah, etc being infallible. Similarly as a scientist (I hold degrees in Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Bioinformatics in the sciences (and an Masters in Business) I am willing to re-evaluate my stance, based on new evidence.

Quite simply, as per scientific method, there is ample evidence that we split from Chimps between 5 and 7 million years ago. I've done the genomic experiments on DNA data (as part of my education) to see this.

So feel free to talk about Abraham, except I don't see him as an ancestor of mine. I'm an Indo-European in culture and he's not part of that



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden




scientific proof has shown this to be so


Wonderful, this will end the debate. Please present this proof.



Between transitional fossils (remember fossils are a very rare occurrence, especially in jungles settings) and genomic analysis, we can date when this divergence occurred.


Great, would you tell me how?

Unless you take genetic difference and time to be directly correlated and proportional, or believe radioactivity to be a consequence of novelty.




so don't throw the word atheist around


Your word



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

I have bad news for you neighbour but we are in the same order (different family, genus, and species) as the Apes viz primates. They are relatives. You don't have to like this, but unless you want to get into some science, that will not be changing any time soon. You best make peace with it.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden




They are relatives.


everything is

As for the assumption that the origin of species is other species, I'll need some scientific proof.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Ok, though I have access to scientific journals which are not free to the public, and I doubt you are trained in the disiplines involved, so don't whine at me if you do not understand it, or can not access it.

www.nature.com...

science.sciencemag.org...

www.pnas.org...

Start there.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join