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.

 

If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

page: 9
29
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: secretboss

Wow, I'm glad someone finally asked what I've been wondering for decades.

Rebel 5




posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: wisvol


Louis Pasteur, an actual scientist, disproved Darwin, a theologian,'s most basic assumptions in real time by disproving what the Darwinians called "spontaneous generation".
He also went ahead and proved that living cells aren't as simple as rancid soup.


How exactly did "Darwinians" promote spontaneous generation when Pasteur disproved it BEFORE 'On the Origin of Species' was published? And how do you figure it's associated with Darwins Theories when Spontaneous Generation was first formulated by Aristotle? You must be using new math to make these nonexistent connections work in your mind.

For the record, Darwin put forth the idea of descent with modification. He had absolutely nothing to do with spontaneous generation nor did it ever figure into evolutionary theory.


And since, scores of actual scientists have continued to gently show that the origin of species isn't other species.
Preventively I say spontaneous generation isn't *the same* as speciation but is widely understood even today by the state religion's priests including Dawkins to be a prerequisite, thus Pasteur got the root of the chimera.


So you can support this rubbish with citations and names of your alleged "scores of scientists" then correct? If there are scores of them it should be no problem for you to cite some papers.


But the monkey business went on with the likes of Charles Lyell who published


"The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, with remarks on theories of the origin of species by variation1”


Explaining that there are no monkey-men simply because they died millions of years ago.
Millions of years after the dragons, whose bones abound, but no monkey-man skeleton was found and not proven to be a gross forgery or a human skeleton, or an ape skeleton.


Ohhhhh... I get it, you're working on material for a comedy routine! Sorry for the confusion earlier.


For perspective, here is a cranium of an adolescent chimp:

photo

Now of course, human skulls vary in shape and size, and necromancy isn't my strong suit but check out Monsanto's "agent orange" campaign in Asia to see what genetic mutations do to people and their skull shapes.


No context and no obvious point. Maybe I'm just slow though. Feel free to explain what exactly you're trying to get at. You can do so monosyllabicly if necessary.


Oh and hint: not one spiderman or monkeyman or even Piltdown man.



And finally we get to a truthful statement. About damned time.


I'm glad you tackled this, vlar. Trying to figure out where to start to unravel such a tedious mess was starting to make my head hurt.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebelv
a reply to: secretboss

Wow, I'm glad someone finally asked what I've been wondering for decades.

Rebel 5




How bad must our educational system be if this is a question you and others have been wondering for decades?

Read the thread. It's been addressed soundly. For starters, we did NOT evolve from monkeys. I'll leave you to peruse the thread for further elucidation.
edit on 11-7-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
If we devolved from God, why is there still no God around?



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: wheresthebody
a reply to: DeathSlayer

The only things that have come from monkeys are other monkeys



This vid is all about our chromosomes and common ancestry, it's pretty freakin' cool!

Watch until the end, I think you'll appreciate the last comment, it's about him believing in god still.



LOL yeah ... 46 + 2 the Telemere Fusion of the 2nd Chromosome

98% difference between modern MAN and the Great Apes yet two Less Chromosomes
what is the 2% difference ?? Dont for get we are Part VIRUS too! well Retro Virus that is
,linked with immunity




Hominids is the in between progress Stage



we have Plenty of Junk DNA which Science doesn't have a Clue what its supposed to a connect TOO...

Hell we have Body parts of yet to be explained why we have them !
more less from descendants of Different Species you know the Useless body parts of Man ..

here is a Strange Note ...

MAN has Transplanted Chimps Organs.. in Humans for a a Brief Temp Period ... and it functioned ..

Chimpanzee Heart Was Not Rejected by Human Recipient
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Man Has Transplanted Pig Organs into Apes and they Functioned ! for a Brief Period ..

Surgeons Smash Records with Pig-to-Primate Organ Transplants
www.technologyreview.com...

Let that sink in !!


Body Parts from a Pig and Ape and Human are Very Similar



when its all said in done we and the Animal & Plant Kingdom

we have the Isotope Signature from the Same Planet from the Same Star!! SOl / Sun

but had Humans been Altered ,Manipulated BIO Engineered

from something not from this Planet, this Dimension ...
this TIME FRAME Frequency ...


That could be a possibility in a Theorized Hologram Universe






posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: rebelv

one has to wonder how such a " question " has managed to vexx a person for "decades "

esp now you have had internet access for at least 4 years - yet you still claim not to have independantly discovered the correct answer



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 01:40 AM
link   
That's right, we evolved from a bunch of holographic apes.




posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 03:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar


1.How exactly did "Darwinians" promote spontaneous generation when Pasteur disproved it BEFORE 'On the Origin of Species' was published? And how do you figure it's associated with Darwins Theories when Spontaneous Generation was first formulated by Aristotle?

2. You must be using new math to make these nonexistent connections work in your mind.

3. For the record, Darwin put forth the idea of descent with modification. He had absolutely nothing to do with spontaneous generation nor did it ever figure into evolutionary theory.

4. So you can support this rubbish with citations and names of your alleged "scores of scientists" then correct? If there are scores of them it should be no problem for you to cite some papers.


Ohhhhh... I get it, you're working on material for a comedy routine! Sorry for the confusion earlier.


No context and no obvious point. Maybe I'm just slow though. Feel free to explain what exactly you're trying to get at. You can do so monosyllabicly if necessary.


And finally we get to a truthful statement. About damned time.



Ah, Peter Vlar

Long time, no read.

A long post.. You pretty much nailed it with just


Maybe I'm just slow though.


Yet I'll address your points out of sport:

1. You can disprove any point before it's made, watch carefully:

man: " It seems that based on our science of geography, and the accounts, measurements and maps brought forth by our geographers, that our city is closer to the beach than it is to the mountains"

woman, later: " I think our city is closer to the mountains than it is to the beach"
man: "your theory has been preventively disproven, you're welcome to measure again"

Also, Aristotle mentions spontaneous generation as a popular theory, then destroys it. Read Greek from old Greek universities, not waltdisney.com

2. you said "You must be using new math", which to a certain extent is true. It would probably be new to you, and I included none of it on this website yet. Darwinism can be disproven without math: logic, theology, biology, philosophy, sociology, physics, chemistry, psychology, medicine, & c. can do the job each on their own, yet some would benefit from a lesson or two in math as well.

3. you said "For the record, Darwin put forth the idea of descent with modification"

which is not true. The first man had children, who were similar to him, but not identical. He figured out procreation implies what you call descent with modification. No woman has laid eggs since, or before, or during that time.

4. Yes, I can support my statements with precise textbook quotes from good textbooks. It would cost you my secretary's time, and she gets dental.

Be polite



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 03:45 AM
link   
This thread got me watching stuff here is a new one for me.

Chimps kill each other but Bonobo's have never been seen killing each other...just sex a lot.




posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha
If we devolved from God, why is there still no God around?


The reason you dont see God arround is because You dont know what God is.

Asking questions like this is the same as asking why there are no other sigularities arround forming a New universe like Ours.

People tend to forget that the singularity is what have evolved and formed everything we know of and can observe.

WHen the singularity was formed, all the Properties to form life as we know it was already present in that energymass. All the energymass needed was time to change. In other Words Our time line is predetermined by the expansion of Space time. God never had to form man from dirt because man was to arrive anyway.

As God said: Let the Earth bring forth.........
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 04:30 AM
link   
a reply to: secretboss

Damn op you out smarted us all. Who can argue with logic like that? I guess believing in an invisible being in the sky makes so much more sense now. I've seen the light.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 05:52 AM
link   
A little off topic, but I'm curious how someone who registered on July 6th acquires so many stars so fast!!
Are you super troll?




The OP is asking a question that has been answered ad nauseam on this board and in the ATS library.

Here's an idea: How about doing some research yourself? Please report back when you have the answer.

Thanks for playing.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Barcs




a reply to: wisvol [quoted: Millions of years after the dragons, whose bones abound, but no monkey-man skeleton was found and not proven to be a gross forgery or a human skeleton, or an ape skeleton.]

Liar, liar pants on fire!


That's not what liar means.
I'll take the bait: show us a monkeyman.


When you make false claims suggesting the fossils have not been found for all those numerous species is a flat out lie, just like claiming dragons bones are all over the place.

define: monkeyman


edit on 7 12 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   
If we supposedly "evolved" from monkeys, why do we still act so much like they do.

Mankind is just the dumbest member of the animal kingdom.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: secretboss

originally posted by: georgeglass
a reply to: secretboss

I think we are alien to this planet!


Well, I fully agree with Richard Dawkins theory that extraterrestrials may have seeded life on earth, and that life on earth may contain the signature of an intelligent designer.

But if evolution were true why are there still monkeys still swinging from trees?


For the same reason wolves still exist: they haven't gone extinct.


I don't understand how the existence of humans is supposed to mean monkeys wouldn't exist. If I could understand why people think this, perhaps I could explain it, but...I don't know, do people think one day monkeys either turned into humans or died?



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




When you make false claims suggesting the fossils have not been found for all those numerous species is a flat out lie, just like claiming dragons bones are all over the place. define: monkeyman


Yea thanks for the straw buddy.

The false claim quoted is yours: fossils have been found of numerous species.
Resembling species (such as monkey and man or cat and dog) aren't determined through necromancy because dead things don't breed.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Barcs




When you make false claims suggesting the fossils have not been found for all those numerous species is a flat out lie, just like claiming dragons bones are all over the place. define: monkeyman


Yea thanks for the straw buddy.

The false claim quoted is yours: fossils have been found of numerous species.
Resembling species (such as monkey and man or cat and dog) aren't determined through necromancy because dead things don't breed.


I have a hard time following your post because of the unfortunate sentence fragment. Are you saying the statement "fossils have been found of numerous species" is false?

What?



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers




I have a hard time following your post because of the unfortunate sentence fragment. Are you saying the statement "fossils have been found of numerous species" is false? What?


Always glad to clarify

As you've quoted, I've written: "
The false claim quoted is yours: fossils have been found of numerous species. "

Since the sentence fragment (assuming punctuation?) is unclear, try with "because" instead of ":"

Does this answer your question?



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Since poodles exist, how can wolves also exist? Shouldnt all wolves have evolved into poodles by now?



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
A lot of dog-related comparisons, which beg the following comment:

First, dogs and wolves are the same species, because they are interfertile, the species is called canis and has been for a minute.

Second, monkeys and men aren't the same species, because they are not interfertile (and don't have the same number of chromosomes), so the comparison should stop right there.

And yet it's worth noting that poodles mixed with german shepherds and the mutt mixed with a different mutt will always make the same kind of coyote.

Dog breeds (not species, breeds) look different and weird because they are highly inbred.
People look weird too when they marry their sisters consistently for centuries.

Mixing dogs with wolves or different dogs fixes genetic mutations, which never add structural change.

Genetic mutations, as proven through multiple scientific experiments on animals and people, are a hindrance to procreation, not a source of diverse abilities and species.

It's not rocket science, it's just difficult to admit that we're not the apex of mind and that some concepts such as right are derived from our Creator and not our officials.

It's quite liberating though, try it just for giggles.




top topics



 
29
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join