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.

 

12 Ways Humans Are NOT Primates - Lloyd Pye

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
You have got to be joking, ChemBreather.

Many people have tried to explain it to you but you ignore all their evidence and just make up something that has nothing to do with the situation. Man to bear to whale to pig? Who said that? Is that how you think it works?




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChemBreather
reply to post by Omniskeptic
 




If there was 100% similarity, then humans and "apes" (by which I think you mean chimpanzees?) would be the same animal.


I dont think I mean chimp, since they are still here, they couldnt have evolved to humans.


Then I'm not sure what you are talking about. There is a 100% similarity between humans and the type of great ape called "humans"... what exactly are you expecting there to be a 100% similarity to? (I have a strong feeling that this question doesn't make sense, but that is because I am really perplexed as to what you want...)

Also, it is entirely possible for a species to coexist with their evolutionary descendants. See: wolves and dogs, as someone earlier mentioned.


What or when will the next type of 'ape' evolve to a new breed of 'humans' ? Let me Guess: it was a one time thing ?


The evolutionary niche of large-brained tool-making highly social ape has been filled. There's no reason to believe that such a strategy would be successful any more.


Sitting here and thinking how only 2.5% difference between the two species, should'nt we have atleast ONE visible similarity ?


First of all, which species are you talking about? "Great ape" is a family containing chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and humans.

We have many, many visible similarities with all of these species. The basic structure of the body is identical.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChemBreather
reply to post by JScytale
 


Drawings ? I was expecting some visible undenialbe proof.. Tomorrow I draw You some pictures of how it is, and it is common knowledge and widly accepted among experts all over..

That was sacrasm, dont look so smart ? only shows I follow the common belief, you seriously dont have to convinve me of any thing.

Until some one shows me a polaroid of this animals, or fossils that without any doubt is not contaminated by its surroundings and accepted be experts on both sides of the fence, I will not waste my time on it..

If a seal is on land for 30 million years, what kind of animal will he be ?
im thinking he will die and Not evolve into any thing other than dirt.._D


Oh dear, you want spoon-feeding information. No wonder you are so clueless! You have much to learn, start by reading an introductary book on fossil records and how this DOES constitute to evidence of evolution.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniskeptic

What or when will the next type of 'ape' evolve to a new breed of 'humans' ? Let me Guess: it was a one time thing ?


The evolutionary niche of large-brained tool-making highly social ape has been filled. There's no reason to believe that such a strategy would be successful any more.


First off, yeah 100% similarity means identical.

But back to my point - this point you made.

Not to be nit picky, but dozens of animals in our exact niche have evolved before and competed with us. They aren't around these days for two main reasons. One, we were more successful and drove them to extinction by being more competitive when it came to resources; and two, the Toba catastrophe. Basically, a supervolcano erupted and killed off millions of species. Every single competitor to homo sapiens' niche (except homo neanderthalensis) went extinct in that event, and homo sapiens was reduced to 5,000-10,000 individuals (this has been demonstrated by genetic analysis). That's right, at one point in humanity's history there were less human beings surviving on the entire planet than could fill half of a modern sport stadium.

en.wikipedia.org...

Within the last three to five million years, after human and other ape lineages diverged from the hominid stem-line, the human line produced a variety of species, including Homo habilis, H. ergaster, H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis, H. sapiens, and possibly H. floresiensis.

According to the Toba catastrophe theory, the consequences of a massive volcanic eruption drove the world's human population to the brink of extinction between 70,000–75,000 years ago when the Toba caldera in Indonesia underwent an eruption of category 8 (or "mega-colossal") on the Volcanic Explosivity Index. This released energy equivalent to about 1 gigaton of TNT (4.2 EJ), about three thousand times greater than the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens,[5] and forty times greater than the largest human-made explosion, the October 30, 1961 detonation of the Soviet Union's Tsar Bomba thermonuclear device. It is hypothesized that the Toba explosion may have reduced the average global temperature by 3–5 °C (5–9 °F) for several years and triggered a glacial period.[5] According to Alan Robock et al.,[4] the Toba incident did not initiate an ice age, but rather exacerbated an ice age that had already been underway. The simulations demonstrated a maximum global cooling down of around 15 °C, approximately 3 years after the eruption (6 Gt SO2/ 300 × 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption). As the saturated adiabatic lapse rate is 4.9 °C/ 1,000 m for temperatures above freezing,[6] this means that the Tree line and the Snow line were around 3,000 m (9,000 ft) lower at this time. Nevertheless, the climate recovered over a few decades.

Ambrose proposes that this massive environmental change created population bottlenecks in the species that existed at the time; this in turn accelerated differentiation of the isolated human populations, eventually leading to the extinction of all the other human species except for the two branches that became Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) and modern humans (Homo sapiens).[2] More recently several geneticists, including Lynn Jorde and Henry Harpending have proposed that the human race was reduced to approximately five to ten thousand people.[7]


[edit on 29-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by BaronVonGodzilla
You have got to be joking, ChemBreather.

Many people have tried to explain it to you but you ignore all their evidence and just make up something that has nothing to do with the situation. Man to bear to whale to pig? Who said that? Is that how you think it works?


He doesn't understand, or more likely doesn't want to understand!

His brain is programmed by years of brain-washing to deny and ignore evidence. The problem with this is his fellow deluded peers bounce their idiocy off of each other which falsely enforces their beliefs amongst themselves, and they switch off whenever somebody provides a more logical factual and evidence based approach.


[edit on 29-7-2009 by john124]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by BaronVonGodzilla
You have got to be joking, ChemBreather.

Many people have tried to explain it to you but you ignore all their evidence and just make up something that has nothing to do with the situation. Man to bear to whale to pig? Who said that? Is that how you think it works?


He doesn't understand, or more likely doesn't want to understand!

His brain is programmed by years of brain-washing to deny and ignore evidence. The problem with this is his fellow deluded peers bounce their idiocy off of each other which falsely enforces their beliefs amongst themselves, and they switch off whenever somebody provides a more logical factual and evidence based approach.


[edit on 29-7-2009 by john124]


While this is a pretty good characterization of many creationists, not all are this way. Some simply haven't learned how evolution actually works, and don't know of the evidence for it. I was one of those for years, until I started doing my own research.

Not only is it unfair to ChemBreather, but it's also a bad argumentative strategy to state publicly that you think your opponent is brainwashed.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
In essence the problem with many people's views on evolutionary facts are down to a lack of understanding, which is often from a lack of education on this subject.

We can use the term "ignorance to apply to those in utter denial".

But the term "lack of education" I think applies to a significant number.

The older and wiser you get, the more obvious that the "education problem" is so prevalent that it makes you want to bang your head against the wall.


Even the media do it... they treat science articles as if they were tabloid trash. For example... the Times falsely accusing the MET office. It's ridiculous... how to solve this??? Have critical thinking classes at school enforced on top of science and maths maybe to show kids where the understanding comes from? Or provide better opportunities for those with abilities to understand go into further education? And do we give up on those that can't understand?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by theufologist
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Yes, and besides, I've recently been struck by the fact that man is the only living being on Earth who must ARTIFICIALLY PROTECT HIMSELF FROM THE WEATHER (!!!). Isn't that striking!


I'm surprised I skipped over this post.

This is entirely untrue. In fact there are even caterpillars that bend the leaves over themselves and secure them in that position with silk to protect themselves from rain and predators.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniskeptic

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by BaronVonGodzilla
You have got to be joking, ChemBreather.

Many people have tried to explain it to you but you ignore all their evidence and just make up something that has nothing to do with the situation. Man to bear to whale to pig? Who said that? Is that how you think it works?


He doesn't understand, or more likely doesn't want to understand!

His brain is programmed by years of brain-washing to deny and ignore evidence. The problem with this is his fellow deluded peers bounce their idiocy off of each other which falsely enforces their beliefs amongst themselves, and they switch off whenever somebody provides a more logical factual and evidence based approach.


[edit on 29-7-2009 by john124]


While this is a pretty good characterization of many creationists, not all are this way. Some simply haven't learned how evolution actually works, and don't know of the evidence for it. I was one of those for years, until I started doing my own research.

Not only is it unfair to ChemBreather, but it's also a bad argumentative strategy to state publicly that you think your opponent is brainwashed.


Really... I suppose I placed a slightly opinionated observation over the well being of a possible creationist's mind. But if I were a teacher I would accept it inappropriate, but being on a forum I doubt I caused much harm.

OK he may not be brainwashed, but he is mistaken and confused.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by john124]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
In essence the problem with many people's views on evolutionary facts are down to a lack of understanding, which is often from a lack of education on this subject.

We can use the term "ignorance to apply to those in utter denial".

But the term "lack of education" I think applies to a significant number.

The older and wiser you get, the more obvious that the "education problem" is so prevalent that it makes you want to bang your head against the wall.


Even the media do it... they treat science articles as if they were tabloid trash. For example... the Times falsely accusing the MET office. It's ridiculous... how to solve this??? Have critical thinking classes at school enforced on top of science and maths maybe to show kids where the understanding comes from? Or provide better opportunities for those with abilities to understand go into further education? And do we give up on those that can't understand?


The US could start by actually challenging students and significantly raising the bar on what it takes to pass like every other country on the planet. This way, students have to actually have to work to earn a high school diploma, and will only get one if they actually understand what they were taught.

This is of course specific to US elementary to high schools, which are pretty much the lowest quality in existence. (For example, my American parents refused to enroll me in an American school when we lived in Ecuador, instead preferring to enroll me in a local school because of the vastly superior curriculum. Ecuador. I must say, the school was terrific.) American higher education is of course top-notch.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
If I was designed by either a God or a "Advanced Alien Race" I am MIGHTY Ticked off.

REAL Freaking Funny Joke putting a bunch of hair on my Gluteus Maximus so Fecal Matter gets stuck to it when I empty my bowels through my Sphincter.

I think that is a Knee Slapper.

Either it was a joke or the designer(s) needs to retake Engineering 101.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I have one basic point to make. Just because it is called the "THEORY" of evolution, does not mean that it is say, to be taken in the same way a policeman might have a theory of a crime.

If something is postulated in science, it is called a hypothesis. It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. Once a hypothesis is proven, or disproven, it moves from being a hypothesis, to being a theory, or a disproved theory.

To use examples that should be familiar to most, that are not part of the evolution debate, we can look at Einstein and Newton.

As in, Newton's theory of gravity. What goes up, must come down, and further more, will come down at a rate that can be predicted to a reasonably high degree of accuracy on planet earth.

It's a theory. By the logic of those of you who are anti-evolution, simply because it's a "THEORY", that means that ya know, you could throw an apple up in the air, and it's not exactly certain that it will come down again. Maybe god will catch it, or an alien...

Einstein, too, has a theory. His theories of relativity (both special, and general relativity), in some cases, can prove Newton was wrong. Even newton's LAWS of motion, can be proven wrong by einstein's theories.

Now, when science calls something a theory, that means that basically, we can prove the theory is correct, for everything we can test for, either mathematically, or actually. A theory explains all current knowledge to date. So Newton's theories, his laws, they're not wrong just because einstein was around a bit later, and had a lot of other work to draw upon (including Newton's). They were more than good enough to explain everything he could test, everything he could see. Newton's laws are actually included in Einstein's - the equations reduce to the same things if you're looking at macroscopic scale, and normal speeds. Einstein's just explains the things that newton didn't even have to - things on subatomic scale, things at very high energy, or speeds.

So, neither one was wrong.They're both right. Einstein, though, his theories don't even explain everything. I'm sure sooner or later, one of those very bright people at CERN will be able to disprove some of his work.. Maybe show that there are special cases where even einstein's stuff breaks down.. And yet still, Einstein and Newton's theories won't be considered disproven.

Darwin's theory of evolution should be regarded in the same way. It's not something that can be disproven. It's actually been proven to a high degree of accuracy by now. There's a lot of stuff Darwin didn't know - like DNA, for example, that support what he did. You don't have to look at his stuff as existing in isolation.. His theories have been expounded upon, improved upon, just as newton was improved upon by Einstein. Sure, there may come a time when Darwin's theory of evolution breaks down a little. Special cases, special requirements. But that doesn't mean it's a theory that can ever be disproven. It will still exist, and still be the best explanation for what science could see at the time.

Science "THEORY" and common language "THEORY" are not the same word with the same meaning.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Inannamute
 


excellent post.


a lot of people fail to understand the distinction, and your example of newtonian physics on the human scale and einsteinian physics on a broader scale was an excellent one.

i'd also like to add that einstein's theories do break down on the extremely tiny and extremely huge scales and we've already noticed it. I remember reading that gravity behaves EXTREMELY oddly at very very long distances, like between galaxies. Apparently it can even become a weakly repulsive force. And Quantum Physics are a great example of how our understanding of physics is really just the understanding of the most common behavior of groups of particles so large that only the average is really what we measure. inside any object, individual particles are doing things that not only defy conventional physics but defy all logic. However, you're talking about a conglomeration of trillions of particles, which on the larger scale is very easily predictable because all the random little oddities are meaningless when you're talking in the trillions and our brains have evolved specifically to understand the world around us on our own scale of time and space - so that comes extremely naturally to us.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Griffo515
 


I believe that video is one of the worst, most illogical arguments I've ever seen! Thanks for the entertainment though.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
This video is one of my favorite videos on human evolution.

Human Evolution Made Easy

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Griffo515
 


what UTTER TWADDLE , no insult to the OP - its mr pye who i am deriding

the gentleman , to use the term loosely is a fooking idiot

his ` opinions ` on genetic disorders are the most blatant examples of psuedo science - and fortunatly - the easiest to counter

his claim that genetic disorders that kill thier victims before puberty " should " be ` self erradicating ` and disapear from the gene pool is a absolute hoot - ALL genetic disorders are rescesive - and need to be passed on by BOTH peraents - neither of whom are harmed by thier being a carrier of the faulty gene - thats why genetic disorders do not self erradicate

PS - it would be interesting to see pye explain hoiw his claim of ` genetic manipulation ` provides an " answer " to this question - his claims are not even internally consistent

another topic i would like to see pye address is sickle cell anemia and malarial resistance - i shudder to think how he might tie himself in knots over that one - but it would certainly provide entertainment



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Point of order: What has this to do with the topic of UFO's? I respectfully submit that this topic be moved to a more appropriate forum.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by rwiggins
 


if you watched the vid - you would realise the connection


in short mr pye is claiming that ` aliens dun it ` hence it is in the correct forum

one could argue that it should be in hoax - but hey thats a job for staff not me



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale

The US could start by actually challenging students and significantly raising the bar on what it takes to pass like every other country on the planet. This way, students have to actually have to work to earn a high school diploma, and will only get one if they actually understand what they were taught.

This is of course specific to US elementary to high schools, which are pretty much the lowest quality in existence. (For example, my American parents refused to enroll me in an American school when we lived in Ecuador, instead preferring to enroll me in a local school because of the vastly superior curriculum. Ecuador. I must say, the school was terrific.) American higher education is of course top-notch.


1) Great idea, but it has been proposed many times before and always hits a brick wall; the government. Schools in this country were forcibly applied (many parents raided schoolhouses in the early days to retrive their kidnapped children) and schools in this country have never been about teaching children to be their best. It's about making dull, obedient little sheep who will work at McDonald's like it's a career.

2) Public schools are for making slaves, private schools are for making smart kids.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   
This thread is evidence enough of regressive evidence - I am gob smacked at what can only be described as unbridled stupidity - total, complete and utter moronic, asinine, intellectualy barren posts, comments, and general ignorance of the worst kind - shocking.

Questioning evolution is NOT a theory which is entertained ANYWHERE except the most brackish of American backwaters - profoundly stupid stuff -

There are literally millions of studies which have proven evolution beyond all possible question, there are only completely repudiated claims by obscure morons from the US which raise even the most gossamer questions in the most undeveloped minds -

It is profoundly baffling that you allow yourselves to engage in such intelelctually insipid thought processes -

The understanding, mapping and manipulation of DNA is so advanced, so incredibly beyond the meager minds on this thread that for evolution NOT to be true would be the equivalent of thermal dynamics being false and planes suddenly falling from the sky - the complete human genome project should be testament to even the most intellectually mundane amongst you that the laughable attempts of creationists to discredit the universally accepted (albeit outside the amusingly idiotic landscape of America) theory of Evolution is so profoundly ridiculous that to engage with it, and to simply not even attempt to grasp the fundamentals of evolution, is perhaps the most grave personal injustice to intellectual development an individual can inflict upon themselves -

On the whole there is not much more one can say about such cretinous discussions - intellectually puerile.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join