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.

 

Disproving Darwin

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Hello ATS. This is my first post besides a few anonymous posts here and there over the past few years.

I have thought about Darwin's teachings on evolution many times but here is why I don't buy it;

Here is Darwin's Evolutionary diagram depicting humans evolution from an ape.
External Picture: Darwin's Evolutionary Chart

Good work Darwin. The only problem is that "Point A - Ape/Gorilla" are still naturally alive on the earth and "Point Z - Human" is obviously alive and well too. Now the problem is that if we have "Point A" and "Point Z" then every in-between point of man should be alive too, or "Point A - Ape/Gorilla" should be extinct...

So where did humans come from? That's a whole different topic... We could be a gift from "God" or maybe even advanced three dimensional genetic engineered organisms created by advanced civilizations that some call aliens, I really don't know, you tell me...

Thanks for reading, any input is appreciated.

[edit on 8-9-2008 by Barrere42]

[edit on 8-9-2008 by Barrere42]




posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Try this link,

www.icr.org...

hope it helps



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Barrere42
 


I have thought about Darwin's teachings on evolution

But you don't seem to know what they are.


humans evolved from apes.

Why don't you read The Descent of Man and see what Darwin actually said?

You may need to read The Origin of Species before that, though.

Yes, I know, all that reading. All those books. Strains the brain.

That's the trouble with science. It's hard.

Too hard for some people, obviously.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Humans didn't evolve from apes.

We share a common ancestor.
And yes, there is a missing link, a gap in the fossil record. But thats the naiveity of human scientists, they dont know everything.

We could have been created by God, or maybe the missing link exists because we just so happen to have not found any in-between fossils yet.
Oh yeah, and with all these supposedly submerged continents mooching about, the missing link could be at the bottom of an ocean.

Who knows? Not me. I don't really care. I have my beliefs, that'll do me.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I appreciate the suggestion and I will check both of those books out. I could have done without your sarcasm, but I can see why you seem to be annoyed with me because I think that I offended you with my lack of knowledge...

I need offer no explanation for what I know or don't know, only that what I know was forced upon me in public school, and that by itself is why I am asking...


Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Barrere42
 



humans evolved from apes.

Why don't you read The Descent of Man and see what Darwin actually said?

You may need to read The Origin of Species before that, though.

Yes, I know, all that reading. All those books. Strains the brain.

That's the trouble with science. It's hard.

Too hard for some people, obviously.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Hey! Thanks for joining up and leaving those rascally anons
(I seriously thought Anonymous ATS was actually a member's username for awhile...)

I think that the reason Neanderthal man and other branches of Humans died off because they were in competition with the more advanced evolutionary form (Neanderthal and Homo-Erectus for example).. and the smarter humans just drove them to extinction.. or possibly mated with them if that new National Geographic program "The Neanderthal Code" turns out to be true.

As for why other primates haven't evolved as much as we have, I don't know, maybe they just didn't need to. For whatever reason, we left the protection of the trees and had to adapt. Why we got smarter instead of faster and stronger I haven't a clue. Maybe someone more educated here can explain things better.




posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   


I have thought about Darwin's teachings on evolution many times but here is why I don't buy it;

It's interesting that most nonscientific people intuitively dislike the idea of being animals or possibly evolving from apes, but have no issue with other scientific teachings such as physics, astronomy, geology, et cetera which are similarly supported by evidence as evolution is.

As to why man and apes co-exist, evolution does not work like a pillar, but rather like a tree, with branches of evolution and not just one continuous line. This is why modern evolutionary theory isn't disproved by the continued existence of, say, springtails (tiny insect like creatures).



As for why other primates haven't evolved as much as we have, I don't know, maybe they just didn't need to. For whatever reason, we left the protection of the trees and had to adapt. Why we got smarter instead of faster and stronger I haven't a clue. Maybe someone more educated here can explain things better.

Because natural selection produces species better adapted to survival, not necessarily faster, stronger or more complex. If humans had remained on the ground, we would have found ourselves being outcompeted by gorillas or chimps in the "early days". However, with the evolution of our sapience, they are now at our mercy (read: we got guns, biotch); so extreme intelligence turned out to be more advantageous for us than did strength or speed, because we could invent things to replace or defeat strength/speed in other animals. Of course, if for some reason the environment did not favour extreme intelligence, we would have become extinct, or not evolved in the first place.


[edit on 8-9-2008 by SlyCM]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
First off, welcome to ATS!! I'll break it down for you real quick. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. When I first learned this, I had the same skepticism as you do now. What happened was the ape chromosomes 2p and 2q merged together making 1 chromosome, I'm pretty sure its called Polymorphism. Anyway, Chimps and humans match on 1, 2p, 2q, 5, 7 - 10, 12, 16, and Y. Meaning that we share 11 similar chromosomes with the ape. Some people say that after the initial evolution of chimps to humans, there may have been some interbreeding between the two species which caused yet another split and further evolved the chimp into what we are today. Which explains the unmatched number of chromosomes and that we share only 11 similar chromosomes with the ape as opposed to more.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Barrere42
 


I can see why you seem to be annoyed with me because I think that I offended you with my lack of knowledge.

No, you annoyed me by repeating, for the umpteenth time on ATS, the creationist lie that, according to Darwin (or evolutionary theory in general), humans are descended from apes. If you've spent any time at all on this forum you know that this is not a claim made by Darwin or by modern evolutionary theory, which means you're deliberatey promoting ignorance, not denying it; using this site, in fact, to spread creationist disinformation.

It's been tried before. Here's a thread about it.


what I know was forced upon me in public school

You didn't learn the lie that evolutionary theory claims we are descended from apes in public school.

Your original post was in bad faith and so was your reply to me.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Saying "humans evolved from apes" is like saying "trout evolved from fish".



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Thank you for the thread, it was a great read. (quote from thread: These pointless threads are created and sustained by a new breed of ATS member)

I see why you were annoyed by my repetition, lesson learned.



Your original post was in bad faith and so was your reply to me.


Actually my first post was in good faith, but my reply to you was in bad faith, which I do apologize for... I'm really not trying to project that type of energy to anybody.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Barrere42
 

Accepted and welcome to ATS.

I apologize in turn for the defensively hot reception.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   
I really like the above analogy about a tree and its branches. All primates (humans, monkeys, gorillas etc...) all share the same tree trunk (the common ancestor) however diverged into different species because they adopted different life strategies because of their different environment. So apes and humans aren't a direct evolutionary lineage but they share a common ancestry (trunk). Also, the only species that remain are the tips of the branches as the section of branch before them evolved into the tip, this process continues can tips can give rise to more branches

Hope that helps.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by KaginD
 


im not sure if this will be read but i will give my opinion on this. im not a scientist but im not sure cromosomes can combine naturally out of nowhere. polymorphism can maby happen through interbreeding being that the mixture of dna would change the baby. so two chimpanzee's do not eqeal a combination of chromosones making a human. and interbreeding only exists because humans play with life. in nature animals will never naturaly interbreed. so what you said that chimpanzee's must have interbred since they're different. and lastly just because 11 of our 23 chromosones match does not represent anything to me. they probably only match because we both have arms and legs. you can believe you evolved from a monkey if you want, but i was created through intelligent design.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Barrere42
 


I should point out at this stage that darwinian evolution is the first form the theory of evolution took 150 years ago. In that century and a half, many strides have been made, not the least of which is the discovery of DNA.

That first form was no where near as solid and rigorous as it is now as all it had to go on was Natural Selection but he didn't have any mechanism to drive it, which is the DNA I just mentioned.


BTW, man is ape by definition.

[edit on 11/3/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by selfisolated
 


The missing link, is Jesus Christ and He is still alive today!



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I think the Coelacanth is a problem for Darwin. Thats the ancient fish found alive and well after being listed as extinct for 360 million years. I guess he didn't get the whole evolution thing and decided to ignore it for those 360 million years. Im sure theres a re-education camp waiting for him to break and give in to growing those legs out the rest of the way. coelacanth



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barrere42
Hello ATS. This is my first post besides a few anonymous posts here and there over the past few years.



Welcome!




Good work Darwin. The only problem is that "Point A - Ape/Gorilla" are still naturally alive on the earth and "Point Z - Human" is obviously alive and well too. Now the problem is that if we have "Point A" and "Point Z" then every in-between point of man should be alive too, or "Point A - Ape/Gorilla" should be extinct...



Why, if 'A' and 'Z' are still around, does it follow that 'B-Y' must also be? You may appreciate it more from a creationist source. Answers In Genesis:


Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

[...] many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there’s nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.



Originally posted by Astyanax
the creationist lie that, according to Darwin (or evolutionary theory in general), humans are descended from apes. If you've spent any time at all on this forum you know that this is not a claim made by Darwin or by modern evolutionary theory,



Not to nit-pick(you seem to have that under control) but, if not an ape, then what would you call - or how would you describe - our last common ancestor? Surely your frustration is not over him/her not saying, 'humans descended from some hitherto unknown ape-like species'? Either way, it is not a "creationist lie" nor is it contrary to Darwin's theory or the Modern Synthesis. It's, as they say, close enough for jazz.



Or, as paleontologist G.G. Simpson said:


“In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.”



Just sayin'




[edit on Mon Jan 26 2009 by Rren]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


Evolution doesn't state that something must change, only that something changes when conditions call for it.
And, that over time these changes can build up ad result in a different species.
TO state it basically.

Similarly to the coelocanth, sharks, crocs, and several other species have changed little since their first recognizable appearance.
Mostly they are in niches that have changed little since then.

Since they had no reason to change, they didn't.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
I think the Coelacanth is a problem for Darwin. Thats the ancient fish found alive and well after being listed as extinct for 360 million years. I guess he didn't get the whole evolution thing and decided to ignore it for those 360 million years. Im sure theres a re-education camp waiting for him to break and give in to growing those legs out the rest of the way. coelacanth



The 'problem' with the Coelacanth, from a creationist's perspective, is not that it was wrongly thought to be extinct. The problem, they'd say, is that it appears to have changed little to none from it millions-years-old ancestor (ie., static versus evolved, if you will.) Although, that doesn't appear to be a problem for evolutionists to explain either.


Guess sometimes a fin is just a fin... and not a 'soon-to-be proto-limb.'
*shrug*

[edit on Mon Jan 26 2009 by Rren]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join