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.

 

"Lucy" finished and debunked

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   
No Missing Link to link Humans to Apes exists! Skepticism and atheism down the toilent yet again!
link

No missing link
www.jpost.com...



[edit: fixed long link]

[edit on 29-5-2008 by 12m8keall2c]




posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Actually, this IS a "skeptic" article: it is skeptical of a set of traditional scientific findings.


Anyway, it is interesting.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


1: nothing in the first article "debunks" lucy, it only says that it's not a direct ancestor. it states that she is still an ancestral relative. like a great great great great great great aunt instead of a grandmother
2: one study does not make an idea completely valid.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vanitas
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Actually, this IS a "skeptic" article: it is skeptical of a set of traditional scientific findings.


Anyway, it is interesting.







When I say "Skepticism", I'm actually referring to popular religous belief system.

You know atheists, materialists, etc. People like James Randi, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, and all their little fanboys and followers who hate all paranormal research and hate religions.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   



When I say "Skepticism", I'm actually referring to popular religous belief system.

You know atheists, materialists, etc. People like James Randi, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, and all their little fanboys and followers who hate all paranormal research and hate religions.


I know what you meant.
It's just that I am a skeptic - a true, healthy, open-minded skeptic - and so I don't like the term to be hijacked by people who are anything BUT skeptics, only their object of veneration (positivist "science") is different...


It's time that thinking people of all persuasions reclaim the term back.




[edit on 29-5-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
This is probably old news, but how many read the book 'everything you know is wrong' by Lloyd Pye?

He speaks how Lucy is a fraud, and when they laid out her skeleton, her arms should have been lower down her body, representing hominid arms.

I saw a documentary by him in 1999. Very interesting, but again, could be old news.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Great stuff Hollywood. I have to replicate the abstract so people can read this properly:


Published online on April 10, 2007, 10.1073/pnas.0606454104
PNAS | April 17, 2007 | vol. 104 | no. 16 | 6568-6572



BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES / ANTHROPOLOGY
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

Yoel Rak*,, Avishag Ginzburg*, and Eli Geffen

*Department of Anatomy and Anthropology, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, and Department of Zoology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel

Edited by David Pilbeam, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved February 26, 2007 (received for review July 28, 2006)


Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.


Peer reviwed and with evidence galore.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Lucy is just another ape, not an ancestor of humans



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Snip

[edit on 30-9-2008 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Lucy is just another ape, not an ancestor of humans.


Hollywood, We KNOW THAT. We have know that afarensis is not our ancestor species for along time. Get up with the times man.

Human evolution is not a strait line like depicted in those chimp to man charts, its a family tree with the branch complexity of a thicket. However Lucy is still an important part of human evolution because it, like us and the rest of our ape cousins, share a common ancestor so deserves to be part of the family xmas photo.

So I'm not sure what you're trying to debunk, because no one who actually knows his stuff will be saying that lucy is an ancestor of humans.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Hollywood ... if this is an attempt by you to "debunk" evolution it is a really, really bad attempt.

This is an excerpt fro the article that you posted:


They should therefore, the Israeli researchers said, "be placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours."


Bold by me.

This article says is that there is a possibility that Lucy is not our direct ancestor (which, as Good Wolf says we have known for a while) and that A.afarensis EVOLVED in parallel to the branch that eventually become modern humans.

So not only are you giving us information that we know already ... this article is over 2 years old ... but also evidence that supports, again, the fact of evolution.

Thanks!



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza


Hollywood ... if this is an attempt by you to "debunk" evolution it is a really, really bad attempt.

This article says is that there is a possibility that Lucy is not our direct ancestor (which, as Good Wolf says we have known for a while) and that A.afarensis EVOLVED in parallel to the branch that eventually become modern humans.



Uhhhhh, this so called "parallell branch" that humans evolved out that lived side by side with Lucy is called what again? what species? oh yeah, i forgot, it's never been found and is only theorized......how convenient, claiming an animal existed that has never been found.....


See the point now?




So not only are you giving us information that we know already ... this article is over 2 years old ... but also evidence that supports, again, the fact of evolution.

Thanks!



Again you are missing the point of the article and the point of the thread. You can claim that apes are related and evolve all you want, but when people take that belief to the extreme of thinking humans also evolved and are related to apes, then that is when people take their ideas too far and are applying it in an extreme way



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
So I'm not sure what you're trying to debunk, because no one who actually knows his stuff will be saying that lucy is an ancestor of humans.


I am saying there is no lineage constructed of what humans were before they were humans let alone a lineage plotting humans back to a common ancestor with apes.

That's pretty damning to the theory that humans evolved, seeing as there is no actual lineage tracing humans back to apes or animals.

No lineage means it is all theoretical.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11

Originally posted by Good Wolf
So I'm not sure what you're trying to debunk, because no one who actually knows his stuff will be saying that lucy is an ancestor of humans.


I am saying there is no lineage constructed of what humans were before they were humans let alone a lineage plotting humans back to a common ancestor with apes.


No you're not. Your saying that "Lucy" is debunked [somehow] and that showing that we did not evolve from it means that human evolution is out the door.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11
I am saying there is no lineage constructed of what humans were before they were humans let alone a lineage plotting humans back to a common ancestor with apes.

That's pretty damning to the theory that humans evolved, seeing as there is no actual lineage tracing humans back to apes or animals.


Well then, Hollywood, I suggest you get a shovel and start digging!
The sooner you go through every trace of Earth and find no evidence to support the relationship of man to ape, the sooner I will kiss your feet, for surely you must be the God of Anthropologists. Mere man, with his foolish tendencies to be dwarfed by the vast expanses of land and hindered by silly things like geological process, will surely swoon with envy and beg to join your Highness as your apprentice.

I bid you farewell on your journey, and good luck!
Lucy herself clangs her cymbals together at you from the grave! Indeed, all apes yearning to be free from their weary tie to mankind are chattering away happily in anticipation of your success!



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I really don't want to get involved in a discussion on a topic like this that gets people foaming at the mouth, but...


Originally posted by Hollywood11
No lineage means it is all theoretical.


I can't trace my family lineage past the 1700's or so (not even that far, in some branches). As I have no known lineage from before the 1700s, are my ancestors then also theoretical in your opinion? The logic behind your post would suggest that.


Also, I have never known anyone who could (genuinely) trace their lineage back to Adam and Eve. To me, that "means it is all theoretical."



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11

Originally posted by Horza

This article says is that there is a possibility that Lucy is not our direct ancestor (which, as Good Wolf says we have known for a while) and that A.afarensis EVOLVED in parallel to the branch that eventually become modern humans.


Uhhhhh, this so called "parallell branch" that humans evolved out that lived side by side with Lucy is called what again? what species? oh yeah, i forgot, it's never been found and is only theorized......how convenient, claiming an animal existed that has never been found.....


See the point now?


Aaaah .. no ... what about this?

en.wikipedia.org...



Again you are missing the point of the article and the point of the thread. You can claim that apes are related and evolve all you want, but when people take that belief to the extreme of thinking humans also evolved and are related to apes, then that is when people take their ideas too far and are applying it in an extreme way


So ... looking at the evidence and coming to the most logical conclusion, that evolution is a fact, is extreme?

Naaah

There are no leaps of faith, there are no metaphors and there are no miracles.

The evidence has been tested and retested. It has stood up to rigourous scientific examination and has pass the test.

What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that the theory of gravity is an extreme way of thinking.

What I would have to argue is that saying:

A book, that was written by some men nearly 2000 years ago, is the definitive ad exact word of "God" and that any evidence in any field of science, including history, is wrong if it contradicts the writings in this book ... is extreme.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Thanks Hollywood!

Yes, it's just another (in a long line of un-publicized) fallacies!
Here's a good site for you;
Tha skulls that demolish Darwin



[edit on 30-9-2008 by Clearskies]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Any evolutionists want to make a quick EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS? Just please remember me when the time comes. I accept a 25% finder's fee. Heck, make it 1%.

$100 mil for a finder's fee is pretty cool.


Originally posted by Good Wolf
Hollywood, We KNOW THAT. We have know that afarensis is not our ancestor species for along time.


Oh wow. Good to know. I was just talking about Dear Miss Lucy the other day in another thread. Nobody called me out on this little factoid. Phew! That would have been embarrassing.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Thanks Hollywood!

Yes, it's just another (in a long line of un-publicized) fallacies!
Here's a good site for you;
Tha skulls that demolish Darwin

[edit on 30-9-2008 by Clearskies]


My gosh, that site is one of the worst I have ever seen.

So many fallacious and lines of argument that are even contradicted by other Creationists ... I don't even know where to begin ... so I won't

But, Clearskies, it is admirable to see that you will use an Islamic source for your arguments ... Very multi faith of you ...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join