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 DID NOT come from Apes????

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Chromosome count has nothing to do with origins. Some animals have a lot, some have a few, and they can be closely related. Human beings are part of the 'great apes' group and have evolved from them. It's the same way that a bird is a dinosaur is a reptile but is still a bird. A human is an ape is a primate but is a derived human.




posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Oh, also a common misconception is the whole "there isn't enough time for DNA to have evolved on earth!" That isn't true at all. DNA can change very rapidly and you have to remember that cells evolve much more rapidly than multi-cellular organisms. And all complex life shares a high percentage of DNA because we all do the same cellular functions. You share as much as 90% of your DNA with all other mammals. Something like 60% of your DNA with a banana.

And, in case you're curious, I've spent the last 7 years studying this so I have a few ideas about it.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by goldengladiator
 



gg...I wish you'd contribute more to this thread....we need better science.

I've seen a lot lot of 'Dish Network' satellite feeds that teach me about real science.....but, an actual scientist who cares enough to post on this ATS site, that means a lot.

I can only do so much, as a layman in this field. My expertise stops at aviation....but my intelligence doesn't stop, it just gets tweaked by what I see and read.....

(edit) was for typos....


[edit on 2/8/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Until things can be proven in black and white it is theory. Theory is an educated guess.
A Guess. Think about it. It can not be proven, hence the world "Theory".

What I learned in school anyway. Maybe they teach theory is fact now.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
There may be no hope for humanity. This thread is evidence for that. For a moment there I was sure I was watching Idiocracy again.

I can only fall back on the hope that the genetics revolution will allow the intelligent among us to engineer a better human for the future.

But they had better hurry. Bush, Obama, and the American people are doing their darnedest to make sure we lack the resources to support such progress.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
As I understand it when two things combine they make one.

So if you have 24 and two things combine would it not give you 23????

Mabey I just can't add or subtract.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Evolution is false. I'll just quotes an article here, and do with it what you will.


The recent news about a footprint found to be 1.5 millions years as evidence for human evolution is based on circular reasoning. First, many don't realize the evolutionary assumptions involved in dating fossil layers, but that is another story. Readers who wish to pursue the subject may find the Pravda.Ru article "Are Fossils Really Millions Years Old?" of interest. Many have wrongly believed that evolutionists use infallible scientific dating methods.

Concerning the recent discovery of a 1.5 million year footprint, it is assumed that because humans did not exist 1.5 million years ago that this footprint, which evidence shows belongs to a creature who walked erect, must have belonged to a simian being that was in the process of evolving into a human. This conclusion, actually, is based on a whole series of assumptions.

Millions of people are taught in schools and textbooks all over the world that the fossil record furnishes scientific proof of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?

The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry. In fact, all of the fossils, with their fancy scientific names, that have been used to support human evolution have eventually been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not both human and non-human. Yet, many modern school textbooks continue to use these long disproved fossils as evidence for human evolution. Evolutionists once reconstructed an image of a half-ape and half-man (known as The Nebraska Man) creature from a single tooth! Later they discovered that the tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig! The "Nebraska Man" was used as a major piece of evidence in the famous Scopes Trial in support of Darwin's evolutionary theory.

At times evolutionists have used various bones gathered from many yards of each other and classify them as belonging to the same creature (even when there's no proof). They then reconstruct from these bones whatever will support their hypotheses. The fossil case "Lucy" is an excellent example of this. Scientists have only forty percent of the bones for Lucy. The bones were found yards from each other, some were found even a mile or more away! The knee joint (the main evidence used) was found two hundred feet below ground from the rest of the bones. Many of the leading scientists doubt that the bones all belong to the same species or individual. And, some of the key bones are crushed. Yet, from all of this evolutionists have reconstructed a drawing of an ape-man creature (in full color)for display in textbooks and museums! Many experts are not convinced that Lucy was an ape-man because they're not convinced all of the bones belong to the same individual or even the same species. Many leading authorities have said that "Lucy" is really an extinct ape, but not an ape-man. Those scientists who are convinced that Lucy was an ape-man are the ones that receive all the attention from the mainstream media.

Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?

Scientist Dr. Walt Brown, in his fantastic book "In The Beginning", makes this point by saying "All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing."

A lizard with half-evolved legs and wings can't run or fly away from its predators. How would it survive? Why would it be preserved by natural selection? Imagine such a species surviving in such a miserable state over many millions of years waiting for fully-formed wings to evolve!


For the whole story:
english.pravda.ru...



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by frivolouschick
Theory is an educated guess.
A Guess. Think about it. It can not be proven, hence the world "Theory".

What I learned in school anyway. Maybe they teach theory is fact now.


See here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by vasaga
 


That article is almost too ludicrous to pick apart piece by piece but it's extremely short on facts yet high in ignorance.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Goathief
 


Enlighten me, because it only seems logical, and denying it seems ignorant.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Are there a non-theological thread on evolution here in ATS?
I want to discuss about some possible reasons of occuring a consciousness and self-consciousness. Whether was that an evolutional leap or a normal evolutional process etc..



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
ERVs (endogenous retro-viruses) prove we and apes came from a common ancestor....

[edit on 4-3-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by deccal
Are there a non-theological thread on evolution here in ATS?
I want to discuss about some possible reasons of occuring a consciousness and self-consciousness. Whether was that an evolutional leap or a normal evolutional process etc..
Dismissing anything a theologists says is considered an ad hominem, and is in fact not relevant at all. If you don't know what that is, look it up. Keep on the matter.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


No it is not ad hominem. For me it is sure (my opinion) that it has nothing to do with theos, and therefore I do not want to lose time and discuss more specific issues. My opinion, my choice.
Did you research Göbekli Tepe? I want to discuss the evolution of mind and consciousness. Can I? And let theos be out of discussion. Not on this thread. I am looking another one.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
If you want to know about evolution of mind and consciousness, researching ancient philosophy and how it developed to our current times might be a good start.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


I am a teacher of philosophy in university, so I began to study it

But I want to talk with people who has intense arheological and/or biological knowledge.
I find a book called "The prehistoric Mind" and it seems very promising.
Oh, we are way too Off topic sorry



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
HUMANS came from the rib of another human - duh

Why do you think we all have ribs?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


Where did that other human come from to get the rib from in the first place?



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
mm, and vasaga.....

assuming you ARE serious.....in your responses.....

No, Humans did NOT 'come' from apes....we actually ARE apes.

More specifically, we, Homo Sapien Sapien, are a branch of others.....those that we put into zoos, and call 'Apes'....

We didn't 'come' from them....we share a common ancestor......this is a very differenent component to perceive. One that is usually misunderstood... to tragic results.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by KaginD
 


I wholly agree. We share some DNA and some traits, but we are far removed from Apes, as tropical fish (pond fish) are to sharks. Similiar DNA, but sharks didn't evolve from goldfish, or vice-versa-so I find that the idea of man evolving from ape is not possble. Granted we share some DNA, but so do fish with sharks. It doesn't mean one evolved from the other.

This is my opinion and not to tread on anybody's else's opinion on the subject. I am just stating how I perceive the idea that man didn't evolve from apes.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by KaginD
 


Humans evolved from parasites or pigs, at least with a pig some of the anotomical features are similar, maybe its a conspiracy to keep us in the dark about it so we can continue to eat pork.

:-p haha



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join