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.

 

Evolution, It's only a theory

page: 71
65
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Neanderthals DNA proves to be the exact same as mine is compared to yours andre, THAT MEANS THEY WERE HUMAN JUST LIKE US.

Human genome = 3 billion base pairs
Neanderthal genome = 3,2 billion base pairs

i'd love to know where you are getting those numbers


Have you ever seen a Neanderthal skeleton?
i have, and based on their bone density and the size of their craniums; i think it's safe to assume they were a lot stronger than us AND a lot smarter than us.

i still consider them human none the less . . .

[edit on 4/20/2009 by JPhish]


Some people believe that the neandrathals have left their mark on people, that some of their traits are present in people living today.




posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by griffinrl
 


If all the facts are not known, then how is evolution not a theory, all the facts are known about gravity, hence i 'know' it is true (notice how i dont use beleive, because you can believe what you want but it dont make it true...i.e. my nephew believes in santa..you get the drift)



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by black.sunday2099
reply to post by griffinrl
 


If all the facts are not known, then how is evolution not a theory, all the facts are known about gravity, hence i 'know' it is true (notice how i dont use beleive, because you can believe what you want but it dont make it true...i.e. my nephew believes in santa..you get the drift)


You need to figure out what you're talking about first.

Evolution is a fact. How evolution works is a theory. Or, if you wish, you can ignore evidence that has been accumulating for nearly three (3) hundred years now.

And, btw, all the facts about gravity are NOT known. Like how it works. That's just a theory.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Yeah we don't even know what transmits gravity. At least we know what transmits evolution: genes. We know a lot more about how evolution works than how gravity works. Or that's to say that the theory of evolution describes the phenomenon of evolution a lot better than any theory describes the phenomenon of gravity.


I guess the big difference is that black.sunday2099 can observe gravity at work. It's pretty hard to observe long term evolution (like proper speciation) at work given that we don't live that long. However it's pretty easy to picture it in your . if you understand how it works (something most creationist unfortunately don't).

[edit on 20-4-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
About genome sizes.

I actually contacted the Neanderthal Genome Project. I've been told that the genome size is probably ~3 billion base pairs, about equal of human genome size. Those articles that state that it's ~3,2 billion bp in size clearly had misunderstood something. Oh well, it's not like they were scientific publications or anything. Interesting fact, there are still > 300 gaps in the human genome too. Didn't know that.

So anyways I'm sorry for spreading some misinformation. However this does not change the fact that Neanderthals were not "just like us".



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Not sure if it was addressed but i liked the idea that the intent if only subconcious of a creature to overcome an obstacle or adapt is what triggers evolution on the quantum level.

Personlly I think the name just needs to be changed to adaptation, then there will be a lot less arguements.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Yeah, don't criticize me but I believe there is an infinite amount of knowledge to be learned. I also believe that mankind is smart. But, I also believe that mankind has learned less than a fraction of 1% of what there really is to know about everything in this life. Mankind will keep on learning, but we will never get the answers to the original questions that we asked when we went on a journey to answer them. It all comes down to three things with me. My physical reality, my emotional sense, and my spirit. Did all of this come out of a big bang? I don't know, and neither do scientists. You can provide as much hard stamped evidence as much as desired but I still fail to see how all three of my main acts of life can luckily come out of a big bang? Yeah, like I said, science can prove lots of things and it always will, but it will never prove anything beyond what it already is. And therefore, I can care less about what happened and what will happen and who is right, mainly because, we are human and we have no idea to begin with. But that does not mean I don't care about Earth and the life living on it. I just can care less of how we got here. The point is, I'm here and it just didn't happen by accident. So why are we here? I has not a clue and neither do scientists. Why try to figure it out at all? We came this far and we will get farther but I believe we will never know. Just don't read a scientist's book or published notes and take that as right because that could be strictly his/her opinion which has a pretty hard case of not being right anyway. So the question to myself is: "Do you believe that Evolution is right?"

No. Enjoy.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 

Yeah we don't even know what transmits gravity.

Speak for yourself



At least we know what transmits evolution: genes.

I highly doubt that genes are "responsible" for evolution. That's like saying a bullet is responsible for gunning someone down and not the shooter.


We know a lot more about how evolution works than how gravity works.

Well that wouldn't be saying much, if it were true.


I guess the big difference is that black.sunday2099 can observe gravity at work. It's pretty hard to observe long term evolution (like proper speciation) at work given that we don't live that long.
you meant to say it’s currently impossible. "pretty hard" insinuates it can be done.


However it's pretty easy to picture it in your . if you understand how it works (something most creationist unfortunately don't).

Something being comprehensible does not expel it from the land of fiction.


So anyways –concerning genome sizes- I'm sorry for spreading some misinformation. However this does not change the fact that Neanderthals were not "just like us".
yeah, and Negroids aren’t “just like” Caucasoids, and they both aren’t “just like” Mongoliods. What exactly do you think “just like” means?

[edit on 4/22/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   

I highly doubt that genes are "responsible" for evolution.

That's not what I said. Gravitons are the hypothetical elementary particles that mediate the force of gravity. Genes serve a similar function in evolution.


What exactly do you think “just like” means?


In this case it means "of same species".



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Water-tastes-good
Just don't read a scientist's book or published notes and take that as right because that could be strictly his/her opinion which has a pretty hard case of not being right anyway.


Yeah that's how scientific journals work. You just submit an opinion there and they publish. How clueless are you?



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

I highly doubt that genes are "responsible" for evolution.

That's not what I said. Gravitons are the hypothetical elementary particles that mediate the force of gravity. Genes serve a similar function in evolution.
that works, sorry i misunderstood you.


What exactly do you think “just like” means?



In this case it means "of same species".

well in that case i'm going to have to disagree. I'd be willing to bet that if Neanderthals were around today, they'd be able to mate with us and baer fertile offspring. There are not enough apparent differences between us that would lead me to believe otherwise at the moment.

[edit on 4/23/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
well in that case i'm going to have to disagree. I'd be willing to bet that if Neanderthals were around today, they'd be able to mate with us and baer fertile offspring. There are not enough apparent differences between us that would lead me to believe otherwise at the moment.


According to preliminary analysis we share 99,5 % of our genes with Neanderthals. That means we've got about 100 genes that they didn't have. Assuming modern human population hasn't gone thru a bottle neck since Neanderthal's extinction it means that the two species did not interbreed successfully. I mean a hole is a hole. There's no way a modern man did not stick his penis inside a Neanderthal woman back when our two species coexisted. Also there's no way 100 genes came to be during the short time between their extinction and present day.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 




We were so different genetically we couldn't interbreed. We don't cary neathderthal genes and we evolved as a seperate line in paralel with the neathderthal line.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


"According to preliminary analysis we share 99,5 % of our genes with Neanderthals. "

That's about what we share with chimpanzees. I think a couple of my relatives have crossbred with some kind of ape, from the looks of their kids.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
According to preliminary analysis we share 99,5 % of our genes with Neanderthals.


This recent news article from the New York Times disagrees with you.



there is no significant trace of Neanderthal genes in modern humans. This confounds the speculation that modern humans could have interbred with Neanderthals

www.nytimes.com...


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Huh, I guess I'm wrong. Oh well.

Does anyone else find it ironic that evolution says that we're a series of genetic mutations, in other words, the human being, which is supposedly a series of genetic accidents has risen to dominance on our planet?

That's why I believe in neither evolution or Creation, because neither of them make sense to me.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by JPhish
 

We were so different genetically we couldn't interbreed.

perhaps


We don't cary neathderthal genes and we evolved as a seperate line in paralel with the neathderthal line.
i never suggested otherwise.

[edit on 4/23/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kiltedninja
Huh, I guess I'm wrong. Oh well.

Does anyone else find it ironic that evolution says that we're a series of genetic mutations, in other words, the human being, which is supposedly a series of genetic accidents has risen to dominance on our planet?

That's why I believe in neither evolution or Creation, because neither of them make sense to me.


I think the rest of the planet's lifeforms would consider the human race a plague on the Earth. We are NOT the lords of creation, we're an ape that got too clever for our own good.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


No offense, but what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


No offense, but what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?


"risen to dominance on our planet? "

I don't think we are such a good idea for the rest of the lifeforms here. Our "dominance" is their disaster.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join