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.

 

Are Apes descendant of man?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Current evolution theory claims that man ascended from apes, and I would like to suggest that Apes could have descended from man.

The DNA is close right?

Now look at the historical Babylonians. And the tower of Babel. And the Egyptian god (Baba)Thoth, how he is represented by a Baboon. What if God scientifically changed the vocal chords and mouth formation when he caused the Babylonians to not be able to communicate.

Is it possible to believe the bible, and believe in science, and that science comes from understanding God's methods?




posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Current evolution theory claims that both apes and homonids evolved from a common ancestor.

Only creationists think humans evolved from apes



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Maybe I should have posted the question more clearly for you.

Is it scientifically possible that apes descended from man?




posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by cutbothways
 


Maybe you should have read the answer harder, he said apes evolved from a common ancestor of man.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Who is the common ancestor?



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   
No thats not the way evolution works.

Unless youre suggesting for some reason that apes would be better suited to survival in some situation than humans.

You also stated something about genetic interference by higher powers. This would be genetic engineering, not evolution.

Either way, I dont think its a realistic idea that apes descended from man.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   


You also stated something about genetic interference by higher powers. This would be genetic engineering, not evolution.


Sort of like ATU XX you mean?
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Maybe those who are just beginning to understand genetic manipulation are getting close to God's secrets, and should be careful how they play.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 05:19 AM
link   
We should know how important Babi is to the secret occultic societies.



Babi

Babi was a fierce, bloodthirsty baboon god who was ancient even in the realm of Egyptian gods. We find him mentioned as early as the Old Kingdom, when Babi "bull (i.e. dominant male) of the baboons" with his supernatural aggression is an attribute to which the monarch aspires. He controls the darkness and will open up the sky for the king since his phallus is the bolt on the doors of heaven. This virility symbol is carried over into a later spell where in order to ensure successful sexual intercourse in the Afterlife a man identifies his sexuality with Babi. Perhaps it is not entirely fortuitous that the Underworld ferryboat uses Babi's phallus as its mast.

This dangerous god lives on human entrails and murders on sight. Hence spells are needed to protect oneself against him, particularly during the weighing of the heart ceremony in the Hall of the Two Truths. where a person's fitness for paradise is determined. Naturally this hostile aspect of Babi leads to an identification with Seth. Conversely Babi can use his immense power to ward off dangers like snakes and control turbulent waters. Understandably in the Book of the Dead the deceased makes the magical progression to become Babi who in turn transforms into the "eldest son of Osiris".

www.touregypt.net...



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 05:26 AM
link   
I think we are connected to all living and dead species on this physical planet (that is the quantum physics bit)

DNA are basically all the same but contain different dots or lines. So all inter-related/similar.

I really feel now, LOL ... it is a matter of one in, all in. (That is the evolution bit) Perhaps Darwin is right or comes into play here, now it is a case of survival of the fittest/strongest.

edit for structure and grammar











[edit on 27-4-2008 by Thurisaz]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 05:48 AM
link   
I really don't see evolution, or survival of the fittest.

If an apple tree produced rotten fruit, that apple tree and it's seed will cease to exist, but if the tree produced good fruit, it continues to generate new generations, just like the bible speaks of a good bloodline, and how some will cease to exist, because they are rotten, in terms of how they interact with other people.

I suggest that monkey are cursed humans. Only once does the bible mention an ape, and it could be construed as a sailor off a ship, or "brass monkey". The rowers on the sailships where called "apes".

Think of the movie "Planet of the Apes"

Check out this quote.


But the two species have spent those millions of years evolving and adapting to fit very different lifestyles so researchers needed to find a less specialised primate as the model for early humans.

Baboons seemed to fit the bill. Although more distant relatives of humans, baboons share our African origins and spend most of their time out on the savanna, presumably dealing with the same problems our ancestors faced. Researchers discovered that baboons, and many of the 40 other African and Asian monkey species in their order, the cercopithecines, share a common pattern of behaviour. In their typical social system females remain with their mothers while males leave at sexual maturity and enter new groups. As adults, these unrelated males do not form strong social bonds and they must also actively compete for females in heat. Females, on the other hand, form close ties because they stay put. Both male and female cercopithecines interact through a network of social status, where one monkey ranks over another, and males outrank females. This pecking order is reinforced on a daily basis; they push each other from favoured places, turn their rears in a sign of submission to more dominant baboons and groom each other to bolster important connections

Old World monkeys and baboons in particular, soon became the anthropologists' "model primate", the best-guess picture of an ancient blueprint from which we humans evolved. Now some researchers are suggesting that for the past 30 years this "baboon bias" has warped the story of human origins. As Rendall points out, "Everyone latched on to the cercopithecine model because they were so well studied and they all seemed to be alike, and so everyone called that the normative higher primate." So the "female-bonded" system has become the standard monkey pattern against which all other systems should be compared. The apes, where females are most often solitary, were considered specialised - branching out at some point from the more basal baboon pattern

www.newscientist.com...

 


Replaced quote with 'ex' tags

Please read Posting work written by others

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 27/4/08 by masqua]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Shouldn't this thread be in the Origins & Creationism Forum?

Or does the OP wish to share with us some scientific evidence that humans and apes don't descend from a common ancestor? Or that baboons are our descendants?



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
No, apes couldn't descent from man if we see it through an evolutionist point of view. They are better suited for survival in certain situations but they aren't as intelligent as us and that is a disadvantage. I just don't see that trait dissappearing; if anything, animals (at least mammals) are becoming more intelligent and that makes us the dominant species even if we are not as strong and agile as other animals. The common ancestor theory is more logical.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by Halicarnassus]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Shouldn't this thread be in the Origins & Creationism Forum?

Or does the OP wish to share with us some scientific evidence that humans and apes don't descend from a common ancestor? Or that baboons are our descendants?


Would you like to share evidence of evolution. Why didn't some humans advance further than others?

Why don't some humans look like fish?



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by cutbothways
 


Would you like to share evidence of evolution.

That is not the topic we are discussing.

This is the Science & Technology Forum, where we only pay attention to people who provide some scientific evidence for their claims. You suggest that humans are descended from apes. Well, show us the evidence -- the scientifically valid evidence, not circumstantial speculation about ancient deities and analogies with outdated anthropological conventions.


Why didn't some humans advance further than others?

Is this a new topic you're starting, or is it somehow related to the first? And what, in evolutionary terms, do you mean by 'advance' and 'further'? Evolution is not teleological; it's a stochastic process like evaporation or erosion.


Why don't some humans look like fish?

I must disagree with you here. Some humans do, indeed, look like fish.

* * *


I repeat: this thread should be in the Origins & Creationism Conspiracy Forum Either that or it should not exist at all.

I hope some kindly moderator reads this, and takes the appropriate action.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by cutbothways
 


Humans are apes.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by cutbothways
 


Humans are apes.


Then Apes are Humans, by your logic.

Thanks for making my point.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by cutbothways
 

'All humans are apes' isn't the same thing as 'all apes are humans'.

That's like saying all mothers are women, therefore all women are mothers.

Nothing wrong with dave420's logic. Re-check your own and see if you're still satisfied with it.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by cutbothways
 

'All humans are apes' isn't the same thing as 'all apes are humans'.

That's like saying all mothers are women, therefore all women are mothers.

Nothing wrong with dave420's logic. Re-check your own and see if you're still satisfied with it.


Are female apes with offspring considered mothers?

Try some quantum logic.

But, I guess you would rather says we have ascended from apes.

So, we really are apes after all.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by cutbothways
 

Ah. Hairsplitting.

Right: 'All human mothers are women, therefore all women are (human) mothers.'

Quantum logic my glutea maxima.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
More evidence of the connection between apes, man and babylon.


The word "monkey" itself gives us an interesting play on words. "Mon" refers to Montu, Montauk or the earlier definitions provided for that phoneme while "key" refers to the "key to Montauk". Although there is some contention about it amongst scholars, "Monkey" derives from the Dutch word monnekijn which traces back to the Roman word monne, the origin of which is uncertain. The handwriting is on the wall. Manikan means little man or an imitation of man. Monne is intimately related to the root words already covered.

The word "ape" is said to be borrowed from a Teutonic word yet there is argument and some say it is really from the Celts. It all becomes clear when we consult the derivation of the word " apex". This means several interesting things. It is the highest culminating point of time and also refers to the vertex of a triangle or the conical top of a pyramid. Apex strongly suggests the concept of the Tower of Babalon or the mountain aspect of Montauk. The word itself derives from tip, specifically referring to the tip of a flamen's cap. (A flamen was a priest or magician in ancient Rome, the word deriving from the Sanskrit word brahman.)

synkronos23.vox.com...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join