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 Proof of Recent Human Evolution

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   
For the people who see my posts is being irrelevant to the subject I would like to remind you again that the topics I am posting completely disapprove any current theory that evolution happened only three to 4000 years ago.
Check and Mate.




posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by untouchable
They also did carbon dating on the stones and found that they could date back as far as 13 million years. Sorry, I meant NASA did carbon dating on the stones and proved their age and authenticity.


I don't where this came from but carbon dating is only valid for timescales of around 50,000 years and only for substances which contain organic derived carbon. Plus even if they were authentic stone carvings, dating using other methods used to date rocks in periods of millions of years, would tell you when the stones were formed, not when they were carved.

Thus I could go to the top of Snowdon mountain in Wales and take million year old rocks and carve them today with some such thing. If dated they would date, as expected, millions of years old.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Umm ...NASA carbon dated the rocks? You can't carbon date rocks. Only organic material can be carbon dated. You can learn about Carbon Dating here: How Stuff works, Carbon Dating Given that statement from you about NASA carbon dating rocks, I believe it is you who should do more research rather than believing in Hoaxes without proper evidence. In your earlier post you made a few errors which I tried to illuminate.

Many people choose to believe in amazing things. That's fine. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they wish. Science however doesn't allow that option. Things must be proven and backed up by additional information.

It was claimed that an Iron Axe was found embedded in stone, when it was a stone Axe. That proto-humans used primitive tools is no surprise, yet that particular axe is in question. Even the scientists who made the discovery do not positively claim otherwise. It is well established that Homo Sapiens were not the only tool users. Heck, even chimpanzees use tools.
more ifno on proto-human tool use

It was claimed that human footprints were found alongside dinosaur prints in Turkmenistan. There is no proof in Turkmenistan of humans walking alongside Dinosaurs. Others made such claims about a site in the Paluxy River in Texas, This also was shown to be a fabrication and even most Creationists have backed away from the claim. The Palauxy "man Track" controversy

The ICA stones have been discussed in detail all over the web. Show me where credible scientists have examined that caves where they were found. ICA Stones a Hoax

I offered one link to each point but there are other sources you could look at if you wish. Scientists do not hide their findings.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Untouchable, I never claimed that Humans evolved only recently. The Thread is about recent evolutionary changes in some humans as outlined in the original article I posted.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Terapin & melatonin,


I'm curious to know if you are atheists. And if so, how does evolution effect that belief. Likewise, if you believe in your creator, how does evolution effect that belief. Thx



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Evolution and Religion are seperate topics. Some may choose to believe that evolution is part of Gods design. Some choose to deny evolution happens for a variety of reasons. I know that evolution happens and science backs me up with facts. Religion has no bearing on my understanding of the facts.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Total Dodge man. Simple question.

Edit: Reply reminds me of the Outfinite Insanity learching around here.

[edit on 7-1-2007 by HimWhoHathAnEar]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   
I simply choose to keep my religious beliefs private, where they belong. I am not like those who seek to impose their religious beliefs on others. The thread topic is about fairly recent evolutionary changes in Homo sapiens, not about wether I believe in God, Vishnu, or the Flying Spagetti Monster. Bringing religion into the thread adds nothing.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Terapin & melatonin,


I'm curious to know if you are atheists. And if so, how does evolution effect that belief. Likewise, if you believe in your creator, how does evolution effect that belief. Thx


I'm an agnostic-atheist.

Biological evolution is not a major effect on my belief, as it only falsifies one group of deities - those that created all the species individually in a genesis type event.

I see gaps for god-like things but see placing such beings in holes in knowledge quite philosophically bankrupt.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   

by melatonin
I see gaps for god-like things but see placing such beings in holes in knowledge quite philosophically bankrupt.


I can agree with this statement. Holes in our knowledge, of which there are many, are no place for God to reside. He is either God of All, or God of Nothing. I personally believe He is the God of All and that he was kind enough to take human form in an act of Forgiveness.

But, if I were wrong? Won't change a thing. A win-win situation for me.


Terapin, I'm sorry you feel too ashamed, or whatever, to state your belief, but I respect your right to silence.

On another note, How does sex play into evolution. It seems to me that the 'gene pool' is the god of evolution. So spreading ones genes around as much as possible would be the thing to do. But, as we know, there are many negative consequences to doing so.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
On another note, How does sex play into evolution. It seems to me that the 'gene pool' is the god of evolution. So spreading ones genes around as much as possible would be the thing to do. But, as we know, there are many negative consequences to doing so.


You can achieve the same effect by producing lots of children in a monogamous relationship. One thing to note is that mongamy was actually found to be less common than polygamy on anthropological examination.

You also seem to mix morals and theory of evolution. ToE is just a biological theory and provides no moral impetus (although your moral sense is due to evolution), just like the theory of gravity. Thus it might be an advantage from an evolutionary point of view to produce many children, but from other POVs it probably isn't - due to overpopulation, inability to support excessive numbers of children etc.

ABE: the win-win bit you speak of sounds like pascal's wager. Problem is that there are numerous god's spoken of and if these gods take the line of the christian god (i.e. infidels go to hell [in some interpretation of the NT at least]) and they are the actual god that exists, you don't win.

[edit on 7-1-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   
As I said earlier, Religion has no bearing on my understanding of the facts. It is interesting that you seem to think that perhaps shame may be involved.

Lets say for example, that I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as some apparently do, would that prevent me from understanding science?

Flying Spaghetti Monster

I base my understanding of evolution on the evidence before me. I could choose to be a creationist and then deny evolution, but that would be like burying my head in the sand. You have stated that you choose to believe in God. There are many, but I assume the judeo/christian god is what you speak of. That's fine with me as it is your right to make such a choice. My choice in the matter doesn't make a difference as I have stated that I do indeed believe in evolution, thus, my religious beliefs do not interfere with my acceptance of the facts. If I had stated that I believed in Vishnu, and also accepted evolution, then again, said beliefs did not interfere. Having seen many creationists, of various religions, choose to deny evolution, I simply choose to separate my religion from any discussion of science. If I said that I believed in Shintoism, or Buddhism, would that change any of my statements?



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

by melatonin
You also seem to mix morals and theory of evolution.


I do. Because I believe in One Truth that runs through everything.




You can achieve the same effect by producing lots of children in a monogamous relationship.


You could not produce the diversity of genes from a single donor as you could from multiple donors.





Problem is that there are numerous god's spoken



Well, from that point of view, I've increased my position by One in relationship to your Zero.



by terapin
It is interesting that you seem to think that perhaps shame may be involved.


It's just that when I see someone spend far more energy running away from something than it would take to type a word or two, it makes me wonder what the issue is.

Religious beliefs are a world view. That would mean that pretty much everything fits into that world view. I simply asked how it fit in, Sorry!



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
You wish to involve religion in the discussion of evolution. One is faith, the other is science. I wish to extricate evolution from the boundaries imposed by many religions. Remember, freedom of religion, is also freedom from religion.

Explain to me, in a logical manner, why my religious beliefs HAVE TO effect my understanding of science, and perhaps I will tell you my personal beliefs to demonstrate that you would be in error.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Here is some additional information on recent evolution in humans:
HapMap Yields Evidence Of Recent Human Evolution

From the article...
"Human evolution did not stop tens of thousands of years ago. We are more different from each other due to genetic factors than left-liberal political ideologues would have you believe. We are still evolving and adapting to local environments."



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
I do. Because I believe in One Truth that runs through everything.


You believe that the theory of gravity has a moral component?

Does god also run through those little parasitic worms that live inside innocent children's eyeballs and eat them from the inside out?




You could not produce the diversity of genes from a single donor as you could from multiple donors.


From an individuals point of view in the evolutionary domain, those that reproduce most are more successful - i.e. create descendents with your genes.

It doesn't matter whether you have 10 kids with 1 partner, or 10 kids with numerous partners, each kid will have 50% of your genes. Maybe the fact the 10 kids from numerous partners will have a greater spread of genes will produce a slightly greater advantage, but that would depend on the partners in question. Ultimately, you have 10 kids with 50% of your genes either way.

If you are saying that an individual who lives a harem life with multiple partners, i.e. polygamy, will, from an evolutionary viewpoint, be very successful, I agree, they could have 10 wives each with 10 babies. That is probably why polygamy was the most common form of human social arrangement across the social world when examined. Thus, those people who could support such a harem did very well, generally they were very rich and powerful in most societies. They would also have dozens of very jealous men trying to take their position (like most harem social structures in the animal world).

Those who could not support these numbers of wives & kids would not do very well. If all men have multiple partners, say 5 wives producing around 25 kids, no real difference compared to monogamous situations competition wise (obviously it couldn't happen because there wouldn't be enough women to go around). But you'd find overpopulation a bit of an issue.

So finally a gigolo-type smooth operator who has the ability to spread his genes to multiple women in a monogamous society. Yeah, he can do well, but not every act of copulation produces a pregnancy (only a few days per month of ovulation). And it is a fact that only women can be sure that a child is theirs and we do find a fair number of cuckoo children when this is examined


So what was the point again? Yeah, morals and evolution. There is no moral incentive to follow what is best from an evolutionary point of view, otherwise, no-one would use contraception.


Well, from that point of view, I've increased my position by One in relationship to your Zero.


Maybe some gods prefer those who have no god than those who worship another. Or, maybe there is a god that rewards those who use critical analysis, logic, rationality, and evidence to the best abilties they can.

I think FSM may do so and I could look forward to an eternity of pasta-type dishes and pirate parties, RAmen


[edit on 7-1-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   

by Terapin
Explain to me, in a logical manner, why my religious beliefs HAVE TO effect my understanding of science, and perhaps I will tell you my personal beliefs to demonstrate that you would be in error.


Not saying anything of the kind. Merely asked 'How' they fit together. Like I said before, If the How is too much for you to explain, that's Fine.



by melatonin
There is no moral incentive to follow what is best from an evolutionary point of view


My point exactly.




Maybe some gods prefer those who have no god than those who worship another. Or, maybe there is a god that rewards those who use critical analysis, logic, rationality, and evidence to the best abilties they can.


God's who prefer being ignored?
Or maybe there's a god who's looking for your superior analytical ability?
Sorry, but you're an Atheist remember. Me +1, You Zero. Unless you would like to change your bet.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Sorry, but you're an Atheist remember. Me +1, You Zero. Unless you would like to change your bet.


and the religious consider the atheists to be the ones that are arrogant!

see, just because i (along with other atheists) have ruled out one more deity, it doesn't mean anything

belief in a deity doesn't give you the right to be smug and arrogant
it doesn't make you any better than us



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   


belief in a deity doesn't give you the right to be smug and arrogant


I think you're reading something into my post that is not there! melatonin brought up a wager, I was merely responding. I'm afraid I don't know how to do smug and arrogant, I'm not that good a writer. Thx anyway.


Edit:



see, just because i (along with other atheists) have ruled out one more deity, it doesn't mean anything


I could not agree with this statement more. It doesn't mean anything!

[edit on 7-1-2007 by HimWhoHathAnEar]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 10:18 PM
link   
HimWhoHathAnEar, you seem to have implied an adapted version of pascal's wager

however, pascal's wager is logically bankrupt



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join