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: 20
13
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Actually creationists have historically shown a dislike to the idea that we are in any way related to apes.




posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

Hmm Homo sapiens sapiens is not really used anymore now that we know from the Neanderthalian genome that they were a separate species. But yes, from other primates.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden


Human–chimpanzee genetic divergence varies from less than 84% to more than 147% of the average, a range of more than 4 million years


Time and genetic difference pegged to each other isn't following the scientific method.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden




Hmm Homo sapiens sapiens is not really used anymore now that we know from the Neanderthalian genome that they were a separate species.


No

"Neanderthal" is a place where bones were found of people who look a little bit different, but still interbred with other people, while species has a definite meaning.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Neanderthal is a place?

Where exactly is this place?



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

He (? sorry if gender is wrong) is talking about Neandertal Valley, and ignoring that there is a species (Homo neanderthalensis). Typical tactics when avoiding getting into a discussion one is not armed for



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Really, show how this is
I did not know you understood bioinformatics
So explain how a molecular clock is not scientific.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

While this is a place, it is also a species H. neanderthalensis aka the neanderthal. You keep using the oxford dictionary for scientific terms, which while ok, is missing the point, the scientific community have placed the name in species (neanderthalensis) as opposed to subspecies (sapiens neanderthalensis).



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I get that, but he/she said that Neanderthal is a place.

Neandertal Valley is a place.

Homo Neanderthalensis is a species.

Homo Neanderthalensis was named after Neandertal valley.

The arguments just get more and more hilarious as the years go on.
edit on 2132016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Well it is clear that wisvol is not totally informed about certain things. It is refreshing however not to get "it was GOD!!!!!" and that is as far as it goes.

To be fair a valley is a place. But it is an intellectually dishonest place to stop, and not acknowledge that Neanderthals were a species all by themselves, unless he (?) stopped reading science a decade ago. Then it is just poorly informed.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Something I've never quite figured out (and you might be the person to ask). Why did they drop sapiens?

It used to be Homo sapiens sapiens, Homo sapiens Neanderthalensis etc.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

There were two schools of thought either Neanderthals were separate species, or a subspecies which evolved to suit cold climes better. Once they sequenced the geneome of the first neandethal, it became clear it was a distinct species. There is not enough difference inside current humanity for subspecies, thus "sapiens sapiens" is redundant. Denisovians are a species too, so I expect a Homo denisovia or similar soon.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I never actually thought of that. Makes a lot of sense though.

I thought homo denisova was already a classification for Denisova hominin back in 2010 or there abouts?



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I think the evidence is still a little light, so they need a couple more genomes, OR more of a skeleton (a skull would be grand). So its a classification in waiting. Given the back and forth over Homo floresiensis, it will take time.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Well atleast they can't be blamed for just jumping in and making conclusions without evidence. Floresiensis is proof of that.

Wasn't it only about 10 years ago there was a big thing about it being or not being a separate species?
edit on 2132016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Floresiensis was argued to be "dwarf" H.erectus and honestly it could have been that, but they have some genetic analysis now (DNA really does NOT like tropical locations, so they really had to work hard), and it appears that yes, they are their own species.

Denisovians appear that way (last time there were only 2 analysis performed, though I am sure more is "in press") too.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Floresiensis Has got to be my favourite.

Why?

That's where I believe (and so do some professionals) believe a lot of the old myths come from.

Imagine seeing a group of 3 foot "people" thousands of years ago? Goblins, leprechauns, gnomes, pixies etc.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Yeah I am pretty sure that species was not quite THAT well spread across the planet (Leprechauns in Eire, Gnomes in Europe, etc). Myself I see a LOT of the european myths about other peoples coming from other H.sapiens who looked much different, or if not looked, had very different cultures. Mind you as a pagan, I think about this a lot



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I know they're all different regions from floresiensis, but I believe it was a lot to do with where "we" travelled 15,000+ years ago.

All it takes is 1 person to say they saw a short person then it spreads to goblins, dwarves etc.

It's just my theory anyway. Be it wrong or right I still find it interesting lol.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Its not a bad theory, I'm just not sure how far the little bugger spread in Asia. But if mythology is to be believed .... quite far! Even the Maori have myths of this, so either New Zealand had some (nah) or during the polynesian voyages they came across them.

What is MORE interesting is that they were around till about 12 000 years ago. Its not unbelievable that its even more recent. Remember Mammoths were alive in 1650BC!




top topics



 
13
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join