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.

 

Oldest "Human" Skeleton Found--Disproves "Missing Link"

page: 2
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
title should read "oldest missing link skeleton". It's not "human" and it doesn't disprove anything. it's an important find just for what it is, no need to exagerate folks




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAmazingK
It also raises a few questions in my head about how self aware chimps might be, by this point in their evolution. But that's just me.


Watch these three videos, they won't answer your question completely, but they will partially answer it and really make you wonder perhaps even more than you already do!

The monkey waiters the restaurant is hiring can't work too many hours due to animal rights laws so he's having to hire more monkey waiters. And he says they obey even better than his kids do! They seem almost too human in this video:

Monkey Business: Monkeys as waiters in japan


Chatting with chimps: How close are wild animals to humans? - BBC wildlife (Warning, contains some animal behavior-don't watch if this offends you). Chimps being taught to communicate with humans through a special graphical language. Sometimes they act almost human, but sometimes they act like horny bonobos.



Alcoholic Velvet Monkeys! This video shows that monkeys have about the same rate of alcoholism as humans do, the parallels are amazing!!! The only difference is, the monkey alcoholics get a lot more respect than the human alcoholics do!


My take is, monkeys have far more in common with humans than I was giving them credit for, so finding more evidence in the evolutionary tree of primates like the OP is fascinating. It helps paint a clearer picture of how current and historical primates are (or aren't) related.


[edit on 1-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia


A quadruped????


"What Ardi tells us is there was this vast intermediate stage in our evolution that nobody knew about,"

This is very interesting, i'd love to know more about this intermediate stage. And why? Why the need for it?
Adaptation... but to what?


Lovejoy sees these changes as part of an epochal shift in social behavior: Instead of fighting for access to females, a male Ardipithecus would supply a "targeted female" and her offspring with gathered foods and gain her sexual loyalty in return.

To keep up his end of the deal, a male needed to have his hands free to carry home the food. Bipedalism may have been a poor way for Ardipithecus to get around, but through its contribution to the "sex for food" contract, it would have been an excellent way to bear more offspring. And in evolution, of course, more offspring is the name of the game


Ok, this Lovejoy person has irritated me with his suppositions. Why is it that the male learned to walk upright to bring food home to the female?

Quite possibly the female learned to walk upright first, so she could lug the offspring around while she prepared the food for the male!



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Well this is cool, does this mean we did'nt come from chimps? I'd like to think so, because that never did make much sense to me. If we evolved from chimps would'nt the chimps uh..not be here anymore? Also the bible does not say the Earth is 6,000 years old, some bishop came up with this calculation centuries ago.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


ugggh, please supply credible evidence to this "Truth"?

So Neanderthals, were a different species ? or were they also "put here in current form" How about the other 4 or 5 branches of Homo erectus where they also "put here" ?


I hope it's something other than "the Bible says so." But... I doubt it will be.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
3.2 million years ago, wow. Such insanity.

Everyone knows that god created earth like 6000 years ago. So I don't even know why were discussing this, god put those fake fossils there to test our faith. And for myself, I would rather be in heaven then believe in this ludicrous NONSENSE.


Okay, I just have to ask this cause I honestly can't tell... are you being serious with that?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Centurionx
Well this is cool, does this mean we did'nt come from chimps?


No we didn't evolve from chimps, we shared a common ancestor - the missing link.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Angus123
 


It's something called 'sarcasm'. The poster was be facetious.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angus123

Originally posted by king9072
3.2 million years ago, wow. Such insanity.

Everyone knows that god created earth like 6000 years ago. So I don't even know why were discussing this, god put those fake fossils there to test our faith. And for myself, I would rather be in heaven then believe in this ludicrous NONSENSE.


Okay, I just have to ask this cause I honestly can't tell... are you being serious with that?


This is almost word for word Bill Hicks stand up. As a previous poster identified, it's almost certainly sarcastic.

If not, I will feel like hammering testicles. my own, and those of others.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
its simple the million years missing was made by Alien working on our DNA
many scientist love to play and put two DNA into one body this is manipulation or we have the other way like the girafe and the zebra their baby was the start on a new species but nothing more no huge advance
but with manipulation from outerspace help ...Alien and some monkey guy starting to walk on 2 feet DNA was matched and here we are
thats the missing link the only thing they will find from old fragment of bone nothing very much different then what we are today

we have to realise it everyone we have Alien DNA
God created us in is image
depend on who we can say that of course



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ben81
its simple the million years missing was made by Alien working on our DNA
many scientist love to play and put two DNA into one body this is manipulation or we have the other way like the girafe and the zebra their baby was the start on a new species but nothing more no huge advance
but with manipulation from outerspace help ...Alien and some monkey guy starting to walk on 2 feet DNA was matched and here we are
thats the missing link the only thing they will find from old fragment of bone nothing very much different then what we are today

we have to realise it everyone we have Alien DNA
God created us in is image
depend on who we can say that of course



The bible does speak of the sons of god breeding with the daughters of men and their offspring was hairless. I'll have to look that up again but I'm pretty sure it's in Genesis.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nivcharah
reply to post by Angus123
 


It's something called 'sarcasm'. The poster was be facetious.


I actually know people that believe that though, so while it may seem to be obvious sarcasm, I have learned from experience that one can never be sure.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Word... believe it or not, the smartest person, most logical person I know, believes just that. Obviously that one little thing is not what I base is intelligence on. But still, it shows how STRONG of a hold Christianity still has on some people, that they can be so smart, and so dumb at the same time.

He say's all these means of dating they have are innacurate. Also, that the Bible say's how when we get close to the end times, man will make all these discoveries that change our history....Kinda like, the OP. Hmm...

I dunno, either way wierd and crazy interesting stuff.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
We are never gonna find the missing link dudes, coz there is no such thing.

I believe this because i also believe that the people reporting bigfoot seeings cant all be wrong and cant be bored enough to go around stomping huges fooprints.

So if there is such a thing as bigfoot, where does he come from ?
I believe he is the last evolution of the darwin chain, like a cousin to us or so.

If you want to know more about this theme i recommend you the following video from Lloyd Pie:

Google Video Link



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I believe that's correct Arbitraguer......... this is a hominid that predates Lucy by more than 3 million years and yet has physiology that has both pre-human and ape traits. I think it's probably about as close to a missing link -- the interim and common creature at the cusp of the branch-off between ape and humanoid. 4 million+ years old. Amazing. This creature's distant ancestor might have been THE creature who was common to both branches.

Agree with you that this doesn't disprove the "missing link" at all -- but more reinforces it, and like you, I realize that the OP was copying the title of the article.

Wouldn't you just love to be a part of the testing and analysis of this?? I would. Quite a bit of the creature was recovered, unlike many of the fossilized remains of other human links.

Very cool.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Lovejoy sees these changes as part of an epochal shift in social behavior: Instead of fighting for access to females, a male Ardipithecus would supply a "targeted female" and her offspring with gathered foods and gain her sexual loyalty in return.
To keep up his end of the deal, a male needed to have his hands free to carry home the food.


Sounds like a stab in the dark guess to me, couldn't help but laugh though.
Does this mean prostitution predates hands? do we owe our nimble fingers to an ancient primal syndicate of monkey whores? Or maybe this researcher just has marital issues.


Seriously though, very interesting. Thanks for posting.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Agree, complete stab in the dark. Various clues can be garnered by the other small mammal and bird fossils found within the same layer, but how we could even hypothesize the sociology of a 4 million year old fossil is beyond me. For all we can tell, perhaps this hominid danced for food and invented the drum, collecting shiny trinkets of obsidian and chert in order to trade for sexual favors.

Love the "monkey whores"
good stuff
Perhaps the world's oldest profession wasn't a cleric after all. good job



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
I'm not trollin anyone when I say this...

We were put on earth IN CURRENT HUMAN FORM.
There are no missing links, they are just "different species"


/thetruth.


So is this just the normal Bible rhetoric?

Or do you have an interesting theory to elaborate on?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
3.2 million years ago, wow. Such insanity.

Everyone knows that god created earth like 6000 years ago. So I don't even know why were discussing this, god put those fake fossils there to test our faith. And for myself, I would rather be in heaven then believe in this ludicrous NONSENSE.



LMFAO! "...to test our faith". My god I hope you were joking. And by "Everyone" you must mean the Christians, which is not everyone. You can go to your "heaven" so you don't have to believe in this "ludicrous NONSENSE" and we'll stay here and figure out what is actually going on in the world.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
I'm not trollin anyone when I say this...

We were put on earth IN CURRENT HUMAN FORM.
There are no missing links, they are just "different species"


I agree, and I will add that many of the so called links are also considered by paleoanthropologists as being nothing more than variations of one and the same species. I have a video produced by evolutionists to prove this point if anyone wants to test me on it.

3.2 million years old? How do they know that? Dating methods are not all that accurate, so I take them with a grain of salt.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join