It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Humans DID NOT come from Apes????

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 09:17 PM
reply to post by MaximRecoil

Evolution inevitably results in a loss of information over time, and genetic defects are a loss/corruption of DNA information.

First, define what you consider "information". Do you mean Chromosomes? Genes? Codons? Base Pairs? Do you know what "Information" is?

Secondly, evolution would not result in a loss of "information", whatever you claim to define it as.

Talk Origins: How genetic "Information" is added. Cited and Sourced.

Given the rarity of beneficial mutations, combined with the commonness of mutations in general, the overall effect over time is not only a loss of information, but a degradation of the system as well.

Actually, the vast majority of mutations are negligible. They have no discernible affect on the organism. Deleterious mutations are, well, deleted out of the gene pool usually by the organism's death. A self-solving problem. That means generally only the neutral and beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Since mutation can "add information" - what you end up with is a DNA strand that piles up with junk. Which is exactly what we see. Human are 95% junk DNA, and studies in mice conclude that pretty much all that junk can be safely removed with no ill effects.

The rarity in this case is the Puffer-Fish, which has almost no junk DNA.

The various breeds of domestic dogs compared to the wolf is a great example of this. Each breed of dog represents a slice of the pie, the pie being the wolf. Some of them represent a larger slice of the pie than others, for example, an Alaskan Malamute vs. a Chihuahua.

IIRC, Chihuahua's have the same amount of "genetic information" as Wolves. However, new studies suggest that domesticated dogs are generally more intelligent than wolves, and that studies in the past have been skewed due to the fact that domesticated dogs were less likely to act on their own without a human's permission than Wolves are. This gives the false impression that dogs are slower or less intelligent, when in fact they're simply more hesitant. So if dogs are more intelligent, where do you suppose that intelligence came from since they [sarcasm]could never be in any way superior than wolves, since they are the supposed archetype to which all others are inferior[/sarcasm]

Btw: Which wolf are you referring to as the "wolf"? The Arctic Wolf? Grey Wolf? Timber Wolf? Dire Wolf? Steppe Wolf? The Dingo?

If you were to allow all known breeds of domestic dogs to breed together for a long enough time, eventually you would get a mutt that is pretty close to the original wolf—putting the "pie" back together so to speak; but perhaps missing a few crumbs.

Evolution is not an expressor of pre-existent potentials that splits genetic information among it's progeny like some jigsaw puzzle. Evolution is more like a sculptor that slowly shapes and morphs a creatures philology. Breeding all the dog breeds in the world together will not create a wolf. It will create a new breed of dog that has the mixed features at some level or another of all the dog breeds used.

Seriously. Go to any professional dog breeder in the world and tell them your hypothesis. They'll laugh at you.

[edit on 28-8-2008 by Lasheic]

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 02:07 AM
I hope you were stating what you "Think" and not what you have read in books or learned from someone. Because they really lied to you. lol, omg we're losing DNA! I guess the first organism that ever existed had a vast load of genetic code...

Domesticated dogs are smarter, because they are taught to think rather than to use instict.

Humans of the future will be one simple celled organism!

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:48 AM
i am a strong believer that humans did not evolve from apes but aliens genetically engineered the human race useing some apes as a starting point useing some of ape dna to start us off

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:54 AM
It was sad to see the person who started this thread attacked. She posted nipples in her avatar. In the USA we don't allow nipples. We will call for a special meeting of congress If we see a nipple in public. Kill 600,000 innocent people and we just ignore that.

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:43 AM

Originally posted by the_watcher

what pray tell me does science have to say about the fact that when humans begin life as an embryo the embryo is reptilian.. and why do we humans carry a reptillian gene.. did we pick this up from walking with the dinos..

I'll tell you the honest truth here.

I have not run across this in any official scientific journal. It seems vaguely familiar to some hoax about how human babies seem to look like various animals, at various stages of development, within the mother's womb, but, as stated earlier, it was a proven hoax.

I will do some research and see what I can find. Now that you bring it up I'm actually quite curious about this.

ok brother
found the information i wanted to put you in touch with..
now it is not what i call proof but it will explain a bit of what i am on about

Our Reptilian Ancestors

As ridiculous and repugnant as this sounds, it is commonly accepted by modern science that humankind's early ancestors may have been reptiles. According to the Darwinian explanation of the origins of the human species, mammals evolved from reptiles and gained dominion over the Earth only after a great disaster of debatable nature destroyed the dinosaurs. It is theorized that only then were mammals able to proliferate and ultimately evolve into intelligent beings. It is rather remarkable that the ancient Sumerian story of creation should parallel so closely the Darwinian view. In both cases, humans are said to be related to a superior reptilian race and, in both cases, a great cataclysm eradicates the earlier species. (In The Bible, it was the hybrid race of giants known as the Nephilim that God wished to destroy.) Finally, in both stories, the survivors of the disaster start anew, eventually evolving into humans.

In his book, The Dragons Of Eden, esteemed astronomer Dr. Carl Sagan speculates on the reptilian origins of humans and on the mysterious leap in brain evolution that can be found in the fossil record. He notes that if people had evolved naturally from reptiles, as Darwinists claim, it should have taken 200 million years for mammals to first evolve, and then another five to ten million years for humans to evolve. But he notes, with extreme puzzlement, that the fossil record simply does not bear out this conclusion. In fact, the evolvement of mammals, and particularly humans, was accomplished very quickly, "in a major burst of brain evolution." The evidence for this is clear in the fact that stone tools do not appear gradually, but rather "they appear in enormous abundance all at once." In frustration, Sagan concludes that "there is no way to explain this unless Australopithecines had educational institutions," to teach tool-making. Of course, there is another explanation, but not one that any mainstream scientist would dare to consider. That alternative is to admit that God or god-like beings had a hand in accelerating the evolutionary process

The Reptile Part Of The Brain

Sagan goes on to puzzle over the similarities between the reptilian brain and the human brain. He points out that at the core of the human brain lies a vestige of our reptilian past. This part of the brain, known as the R-complex (reptilian complex), is said to be the part of the mind that performs the dinosaur functions -- aggressive behavior, territoriality, ritual, and establishment of social hierarchies. The middle layer is called the limbic system and is thought to generate love, hate, compassion, and sentimentality-characteristics believed to be strictly mammalian. The largest part of the human brain, the neo-cortex or outer layer, is believed to be the home of reasoning and deliberation and "the place where we know the difference between good and evil.

if you want the rest of the story you will have to go here..



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 04:54 PM
reply to post by daz__

He notes that if people had evolved naturally from reptiles, as Darwinists claim, it should have taken 200 million years for mammals to first evolve, and then another five to ten million years for humans to evolve. But he notes, with extreme puzzlement, that the fossil record simply does not bear out this conclusion. In fact, the evolvement of mammals, and particularly humans, was accomplished very quickly, "in a major burst of brain evolution."

Humans didn't evolve directly from reptiles. They evolved from Mammals, which themselves evolved from reptiles starting at about roughly 325 million years ago with the divergence of theropsids and sauropsids from a common ancestor into lines which would eventually encompass mammals and modern day reptiles respectively. The first "true" mammals (not just mammal like reptiles) appeared around 70 million years ago.

So really... I don't see where you're trying to make a point, because even if the timetables of evolution of specific traits were definitively calculable like that - we would still have plenty enough time from when the first divisions in reptile lineages leading up to mammals occurred and our own evolution.

Sagan concludes that "there is no way to explain this unless Australopithecines had educational institutions," to teach tool-making.

No. All it would take is a capacity to learn and to teach, which at it's basic level many animals can do. For example the Japanese Macaque, Crows, Dolphins, and the Bonobo Chimp has a great capacity for this - even if they're not quite on the same level our early ancestors were. One someone figured out how to make stone tools, and could teach the rest of the tribe, the knowledge would have spread in a very short amount of time geologically speaking. Even if it took 1,000 years to primitive stone tools to become widely used, geologically, it would look like it happened immediately.

Not to mention that we also have a clear progression of stone tool technology from the simplest Mode 1 flake cutting edges to Mode 5 polished and honed stone tools and statuary - and beyond.

As for similarities between the reptile brain and the human brain, these same similarities are expressed across all mammals, including all primates. I fail to see how this is puzzling (as it's exactly what we'd expect from common ancestry) or in any way proof of anything having to do with Reptilian aliens.

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 05:11 PM
reply to post by Lasheic

Brilliantly stated, Lash!! Bravo!! (or Brava!! as appropriate)

This is what always puzzles me, many peoples' incapacity to understand the sheer time scales involved, when it comes to life on Earth, and the pace of evolution. Our puny human lifespan is nothing by comparison.

For perspective, the entire history of the Earth has been compared to a 24-hour clock face. The entire existence of humans, based on that scale, only accounts for the last two to three seconds before Midnight.

EDIT...forgot to give you a shout out for your siggy!!!

[edit on 8/29/0808 by weedwhacker]

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 05:18 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker


I've always been more fond of the analogy of taking you arms and stretching them out to your side as far as you can. Consider the very tip of your left hands fingers to be the time when the Earth first formed and your very tip of your right fingers to be the present. All that space along your hands, arms, chest - everything between your two opposing fingertips is the history of the Earth and Life on this Earth. The entirety of Homo Sapien history - from the moment when our distinct species first emerged to today's high tech society can be erased with the dust that plumes from a single swipe of a finger-nail file.

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 06:26 PM
reply to post by KaginD

Who ever stated humans come from apes?
Apes are just one of our distant relatives, that survived. Other relatives, would be the Australopithecus, that did not survive, and possibly the Neanderthal (the "jury" is still out on whether, or not, the where a human subspecies, or a distant relative).

The origin of the tree, that evolved into humans and other related species, is the Ardipithecus Ramidus, ~5 million years ago, in, what is now, Ethiopia.

Even the various species of simians, like the Orangutan, the Baboon, the Chimp, the Gorilla etc., are not directly related to each other. They, like us, are different evolutions of species, that come from a common ancestor, but have followed different evolutionary branches...

For more info, please visit: or, even better:; also:

Hope this helps, good luck with your research!

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 07:45 PM
reply to post by NorthWolfe CND

Great job, NorthWolf!!

There is a particularly good video on YouTube ( I Know!! YouTube?? Has some good things, occasionally )

I can't remember the title, but if you search 'phylum' it may pop is an excellent description of the genetic 'tree' of life, and how species are related.

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by daz__

So really... I don't see where you're trying to make a point,

well technically i'm making my pint here on ATS

but i am also here at home with my lovely woman..

but seriously the only pint i'm making is guinness

and it is great..

anyway not to be too sarcastic..
you get YOUR point across quite well..
i personally would love to know which hat you picked your numbers out of
i jest of coarse.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 05:32 PM
reply to post by KaginD

Here's a basic evolutionary chart that shows the diversion between ape and man

Hope this helps

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 07:47 PM
Not to turn this into a evil-otion thread, But what happens to an animal's body today when it dies? Rots? Is picked clean by other animals and insects? The bones are even eaten... So how do we keep finding these fossils?

In order for us to find dead animals in such good condition, bones and sometimes flesh intact, The animals had to have been buried alive...

So try this one on for size, how about if they drowned and then were buried alive? Maybe by a Global flood?

I seem to recall that the Bible talks about a Global Flood, And I think it also talks about where Humans came from...

Do you believe George Washington really lived? How do you know? Did you ever meet him? Nope, just read stories about him, Right?

Then why do you have so many problems believing the stories in the Bible?

Science continues to prove the Bible correct, Yet you still won't believe?????

posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:00 AM
reply to post by Twilly

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...tsk, tsk, tsk...

"Did George Washington really live?" That is some convoluted logic.

Back to science class for you, I fear, my friend.

posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:09 PM
While I do agree that we did not evolve from apes. We did however evolve from the same species of mammal as the Apes and Chimpanzees did.

posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:41 PM

The secret to the mystery of man lies in the stars from which he came, what becomes of the body that was produced in another density state for his energy form to occupy in.

posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:42 PM
May I be allowed to interject a bottom line here? Rhetoric question, obviously...... however, here goes:

The only people who EVER suggested that humans were evolved from apes were predominantly either (a) those who wished to malign Evolution Theory by conducting a spin upon it to try and "tweak" E. Theory and thus make it radically inflammatory to many and (b) the misinformed.

I have heard this same, tired argument time and time again from hard religious folks and my ears always perk up ...... it's an easy argument to defeat. Reminds me of the Scopes Monkey Trial, and one of my favorite movies taken from it -- Inherit the Wind.

It is hypothesized, and backed up by fossil evidence, that humanity and apes once, waaaaaaaay back in the early years of mammal development, had a common ancestor. Nothing more. Australopithicus Afarensis was, I believe, the "missing link" between human development and more simian ancestors. That's another baiting tactic -- to ask what was the missing link. Link between what? Australopithicus had very simian physical traits -- the occipital bun (for greater jaw crunching power), but it was an upright walker.

To me, this science in no way is contrary to religious dogma. Different language to describe similar phenomenon. As always, I am NOT a creationist. NEVER!!!


posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 04:24 PM
reply to post by Twilly

First off, to those who say we didn't come from Apes but only share a common ancestor - this isn't entirely correct. While we didn't descend from modern day apes, our most recent common ancestor with them was an ape itself. So we did evolve from apes, just not Gorillas, Orangutans, Chimps, and their ilk. This is evident by the fact that Homo Sapien Sapien (us) are still classified as a Great Ape species.


When an animal dies, the vast - vast - VAST - majority of the time it's body is picked apart by scavengers and it's corpse spread. The bones eventually scatter and deteriorate and there is nothing left. However, ever so rarely, something will happen to a creature in which their body is exquisitely preserved and kept out of reach of scavengers. Such as the case as in a local flash flood that deposits sediment over the corpse, or getting stuck in the muck of a swamp, falling in quicksand, or other such fates. Once buried, if it's left undisturbed for long enough - the bones may fossilize. If you think of all the fossils we have discovered, and compare that to the staggeringly long age of the Earth or the almost innumerable amount of individual organisms which have lived on the Earth, then it's really not hard to see how we could seemingly have so many - yet only be scratching the surface of the tip of the iceburg in regards to cataloging past life forms.

The reason why those fossils cannot have been layed down in a flood is because they predictably occupy certain levels of strata and can only be found in certain geological time periods. Were there a global flood, we should have expected to see dinosaurs with man, lions with trilobytes, etc. There's no way they would have been "sorted" in just this particular manner by a flood. (We certainly don't see this kind of sorting of debris in localized floods)

Further, there's simply not enough water on the Earth to completely cover all the continental landmasses. Even if the Polar Ice caps were to melt completely (they have several times in Earth's history) you still wouldn't have enough. There's not enough water in the atmosphere to make up the difference - and even if you did sequester the water from there - it would have probably frozen the flooded Earth solid since water vapor is the largest contributing and most prevalent green house gas. When water freezes, it expands, so it's possible that the Earth could have been completely covered in Ice in that scenario (See Snowball/Slushball Earth hypothesis) wherein the oceans are frozen and the land masses are covered by thick glacial slabs, however that's a very different scenario than that of a flood. Especially as described in the bible.

As for George Washington, I believe he existed because we have ample physical evidence for his existence. We can visit his home and his gravesite, read letters to and from other figures of the time written by him, as well we also have legal documents pertaining to him from that time. The MYTHS about George Washington is probably not true, as the popular image of him has metamorphed in the public mind to varying degrees away from the actual historical figure. (The story of him chopping down the Cherry Tree is likely a fabrication), Think of the huge difference between the version of Christopher Columbus taught to elementary school kids differs from what we know of him historically. For example, it's often taught to children that Columbus was a hero who set out to prove the world was round, when in truth he was more of a ruthless and deluded man (He never accepted that he didn't find a new route to India) and most people already knew the shape of the Earth anyhow long before his time. The shape of the Earth was first theorized by Pythagoras and later confirmed by Eratosthenes around 240 BCE.

The problem is that the bible has really no historical evidence for it's accuracy. In regards to the discoveries of science, the bible has gotten damned near everything it states completely wrong - from the origin of man, to the nature of the universe, genetics, physics, mathematics, you name it. So no, Science does not prove the bible correct. No more than it proves The Iliad and the Odyssey were factual historical occurances.

Further, there's strong parallels between the bible and earlier creation myths from other cultures that predated the Jewish sects suggesting that much of the bible is indirectly plaugerized.

[edit on 31-8-2008 by Lasheic]

posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:01 PM
reply to post by argentus

Brilliantly said, sir!!

Where did I see, somewhere on this very forum....something about the Human middle ear bones being very similar to a reptile's jaw???

Mutation, adaptation......and lots and lots and lots of time....means evolution.

Somebody also said, that all dead organisms are devoured by predators, or just waste away. Well, most are....but not all, that's why we have fossils to study. Certain unusual circumstances can result in a preservation of, at least, the bones of ancient animals. This is not a Science Class, of course....but the processes are easily reserached.

OK....I'll try my hand at this....(any paleotologists in the audience, you can slap my wrist)....sometimes an animal will die, or be killed in a shallow pond, for instance. Sink into the mud.....(it's shallow, remember?) Now, let that cook for about 100,000,000 years.....and voila!! A fossil!!!

EDIT...Lash, ya beat me to it!! BUT, for once, I was your explanation, nonetheless.

[edit on 8/31/0808 by weedwhacker]

posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:08 PM
reply to post by Lasheic

Oh, oh!!! (raising hand in class)....about General Washington.

Ummm....while cameras hadn't been invented yet, in the 18th Century, they had a whole bunch of good painters.

THIS is how we know what certain historical figures looked like, because they posed for portraits.....and, I don't mean they 'struck a pose' for half a second....they 'posed' for, likely hours on be painted. (No, to have their 'image' painted, I meant)

OK, class dismissed.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in