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.

 

Humans vs. Apes

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


In your opinion, maybe. In the opinion of people who actually know about this, no. It was nonsense.




posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Sorry but you made the claim that my statements about chakras and human anatomy would not pass the so called "peer-review", and then i showed you a peer reviewed article proving that chakras exist and have been detected by modern scientific instruments.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Right lets look at your original claim:


Originally posted by Hollywood11
The existence of Chakras is scientifically proven and published in medical journals-


The article you posted wasn't about "Chakras" but about "Alternative medicine", which is mostly rubbish. Scientifically proven?


Conclusion

It is the opinion of the authors that the potential for the use of energy-based therapies in diabetes is great. At present, these therapies have few known side effects and many potential benefits. However, as with all unproved therapies, they should be approached with caution.

(Bold by me)

I repeat: "unproved"


None of the previous apes you claim are related to humans had a clear open third eye area, they all had ape brow ridges, only humans have a clear smooth open theird eye cavity without brow ridges interfering with it's fundtioning.


What third eye cavity? The is no cavity in the forehead. And how do you know that non-human apes can't have a functioning forehead chakra? Where is the peer reviewed and current paper on apes and chakras?

And even if they don't that is no evidence that we did not evolve from ancient apes. If anything it means that the "chakra" was higher on the head, hell they probably didn't even need one.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Read the article again, carefully. It says some certain therapies are unproven for treating diabetes, however the existence of chakras is proven.

It is not the existence of chakras which is at all in doubt, but rather how it treats diabetes and illnesses that is still not fully understood by some scientists.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


I'd rather see some more scientific papers showing evidence of chakras before I would call it "scientifically proven". However, point taken.


But I repeat:



Originally posted by Hollywood11
None of the previous apes you claim are related to humans had a clear open third eye area, they all had ape brow ridges, only humans have a clear smooth open theird eye cavity without brow ridges interfering with it's fundtioning.


What third eye cavity? The is no cavity in the forehead. And how do you know that non-human apes can't have a functioning forehead chakra? Where is the peer reviewed and current paper on apes and chakras?

And even if they don't that is no evidence that we did not evolve from ancient apes. If anything it means that the "chakra" was higher on the head, hell they probably didn't even need one.


These 'chakras' still don't have the evolutionary relevance that you seem to think that they do.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


H.W. This theory may explain some of the points you make:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Haha where do you think I found some of these points to begin with?



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Hollywood, I would make a refutation of every point but that's already been done. All I offer you is this advice. I hope you come to the beautiful plane of existence called reality. There are no shakras, humans don't have third eyes and aren't made of light, but we gain greater understanding everyday.



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Yes Aquatic ape theory is very interesting is it not?



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
It is quite interesting. I don't know exactly what to make of the Aquatic theory, but some of the facts it is based on do seem to throw a curveball to the the more conventional evolutionary theories.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Sigh....

If you believe that humans share a common ancestor with monkeys, then the HIGHEST possible animal that ancestor could be is...hmmm....well, A MONKEY! If it's not a monkey, then it has to be something even LOWER than a monkey

[edit on 29-5-2008 by Hollywood11]


Its the basic lack of understanding of evolution that causes so many people to get hung up on the whole 'our great grandfathers were monkeys' thing.
Or the other variation you also showed with the (roughly quoting) "a bunch of monkeys had butsex and a human was the result" thing.

I think a lot of people think of the 'family tree' in way to many straight lines.... the monkey branch doesnt just spit out some mutant offshoot that turns into man, while staying at the same level itself.

Yes, a common ancestor with a monkey can be....would be something lower than a monkey. Its not surprising.
Something somewhat monkey-ish, due to any number of reasons, started evolving on seperate paths. One led to us, one led to monkeys.
Within the then 'more man like' path, youd have futher examples of this, more splits...one more manlike continuing on down the path to man, the other off to..... orang utans, or any other branch. whatever.... The same splits would happen on the more monkey like side. Its perfectly logical.

One branch doesnt stop evolving when there is a split. It keeps evolving down its own path.

Just like there wasnt a time even further back, when some slime had butsex and had a person. Something somewhat slimy evolded down different paths. One of which ended up as man, one of which ended up still staying pretty slimy today, and pretty much everything else in between, including all those things that didnt actually make it to 'today'.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


No, they don't. They might for someone who has absolutely no idea about evolution, but for anyone with a modicum of understanding about the theory, they most certainly don't.

Please, learn about evolution. Then maybe you won't sound so silly in these threads.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Humankind is one of the family members, of the primate family.

Take a good look in the mirror and see a primate looking back at you and have a good laugh, because really a human primate, is a very funny species indeed.

Humankind, I think, is the only Species on Earth that B.S.'s himself....

Get over the thought, that humankind is somehow, something special.

It is only ignorance that puts the notion in peoples brains, that humankind is the superior one, on the planet and in fact many people, get very very upset when called a Primate or told they are of the Primate family.

Humankind did Not come from any primate they are Primates!

Humankind is just another of your every day animals, the only difference is he can't accept himself, others or his environment and is trying to force it to change for himself, without any regard whatsoever for what has produced it, no matter what that may be.

Your Consciousness, is a million times more valuable, than a primate that is only a holographic image.

Why deny the Life Force or Life.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Hi I read all of this with interest and would like to alert people to a new theory being presented by an independent reseracher that proposes that we evoloved in the tropical friut forest our large brain in relation to other primates was due to a variation of genetic transcription that was affected by hormones present in a fruit diet that we became increasingly aot at picking and consuming.

Our nakedness was due to the fact we moved from being in the trees to walking the forest floor, where sunlight is more limited therefore we needed a better assimilation system.

Our need for DHA was supplied in abundance bty breastmilk and humans would have had an extended weaning period. Primates breastfeed for 4-7 years, and elephants 6-10. Humans would have been similar.

To read more about the ideas presented you can read for free at:

books.google.com... hM-0&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA23,M1

Colin Groves recently said:

"This is a totally new way of looking at the evolution of the human brain. It is so totally fresh, unexpected and hitherto un-thought-of that it will probably take a long time before evolutionary anthropologists and psychologists begin to take it on board; but it will make an impact, of that there is no doubt. It will be, it must be, taken very seriously in any discussion of human origins."

Colin Groves - Professor of Biological Anthropology at the School of Archaeology & Anthropology, Australian National University and author of several books including A Theory Of Human And Primate Evolution and Bones, Stones and Molecules




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join