It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:57 PM

Originally posted by John Matrix

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.

I need some kind of decoder ring to tell which posts in this thread are serious and which are snark!

Laugh or rebutt, I'm so confused...

[edit on 1-10-2009 by candide]

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:58 PM
Ok, I get the whole dating back the skull thing, but how can you know their behaviors? Were any of those scientists alive back then? Did they observe how these beings lived? I don't think so. So why are they saying they know males would gain female's sexual loyalty by showering her with food? Where's the proof? Where's the science?

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Angus123

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.

This is true, but the offspring were also super strong, soulless, wicked, giants, that defiled the entire human DNA of the planet with the exception of Noah and his family who's DNA were kept uncontaminated.
How come the Bible calls these evil angels Sons of God?
My research led me to find this VERY interesting article:

[edit on 1/10/09 by John Matrix]

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:13 PM
I've always wondered why only our species have evolved to it's current state of superior intelligence. 3.2 billion years to develop our advanced way of life and all our technologies.

Why have most species/types of fish stayed essentially the same. Take the Shark for instance. Its only gotten smaller over the millennia.

Point being it seems unlikely that through evolution of and refinement of species that only ours have evolved brains and no other species on this planet have developed beyond what they have always been. Simple life forms, animals operating primarily on natural instinct or small undeveloped social groups such as Wolves or Bees/Ants. But ants/bees/etc. fossils have been discovered and show limited to no evolution over millions of years.

How could this be, if time is the common denominator in the formula that is used to base species advancement/evolution, that we are the only advanced form of life on Earth? How could it be that a planet filled with life has only one superior life-form that benefits from evolution?

On an interesting side note:
Cheetahs have the genetics of both the dog and cat family and due to interbreeding each Cheetah is 99% identical. Google Cheetah genetic diversity. Why has this species not advanced? Its movement through the ages allowed them to stay essentially the same skeletal make up, same dietary habits. How is it that only Humans evolved to benefit from intellectual growth .. this is to say that only our species was subject to evolutionary improvements as per the argument of the survival of the most fit shows that other animals on this planet are essentially, as they have always been according to fossil record, at their evolutionary peak.

This is poorly written .. and not fully thought through .. im being rushed by friends to go to lunch .. ill refine this when I get back

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:34 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

In regards to your three videos.

I think you could train a bear to do both things in the first two videos.
And I know for sure that bears love beer.

I'm not saying this to say that humans and monkeys are unrelated as far as ancestry goes, just sayin.
Also, dogs can do some amazing things. A lot of times without having to be trained. Through observation.
I once had a rottie that liked to smoke. He liked it a lot.

Good videos, though.

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:36 PM
In regards to the topic more specifically,

I've always liked the idea that human ancestors way back learned to stand and move upright so they could see above the grasses.

Not to bring food home for sex.
Although I must admit that is a possibility.

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:41 PM
reply to post by Angus123

"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."

This is true.

Someone else mentioned that people who believed this way weren't on the internet.
I can assure you they are.
If anyone here is familiar with what used to be known as the "Atheist Vs. Christian" chat on yahoo, you will realize this.

We used to encounter all sorts of weirdos in that chatroom.
I've even seen a flat-earther on the internet.

Normally I would laugh that off as a troll, but this person maintained this position for quite some time.

So yeah, there are definately people out there who believe that the Earth is precisely 6,000 years old and that fossils were planted by Satan to deceive man. (I've seen the fossil argument many times)

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:52 PM
I have plenty of food, but no sex. Why? What happened to that "food for sex contract"?

Just kidding of course.

This story is interesting, and kudos to you for bringing it to our attention.

However, as others have already posted, how do we know that the males learned to walk upright because the females wanted food for lovin? It certainly sounds plausible, but to be honest, it sounds like people are grasping at straws here, I don't see how they deducted the reasoning behind their theory.


posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:53 PM
I would say the answer to why they were called Sons of God in the bible is due to their being so like an angel that humans could not possibly distinguish the difference. The book of Enoch from the dead sea scrolls and other books like the Apocropha clue us in on what was recorded in ancient times concerning these creatures.

I believe that the only way we are given to decide as to whether one or another of these entities might be a fallen one would be to, theritical of course, ask one if it believed Jesus/Yeshua was the true Son of the living God. I remember Art Bell having Fr. Malichi Martin of the Catholic Church on Coast to Coast AM saying those exact words. If they would deny the Christ was his major clue toward the evil intent of a demon. Maybe.

As a Methodist by practice, I believe it makes total sense that these representatives of, lets say, the heavenly dimensions exist and have within them a group who are here on Earth as fallen ones. Seems to fit the results of the recorded earth history. One would have to believe like me in such spiritual entities to begin with to follow this line of thought but I am sure from posts I have read here that many believers are mixed in with some of these crazy trolls and decent minded free thinking people.

One theory that interests me is Richard C. Hoaglands about a war in heaven and humans moved here afterward. Mars being the God of War for Romans was kinda covered in the Dead Sea Scrolls. As in the book of Enoch the fallen angels were beings cast out of heaven. There probable advanced knowledge would make them God like as previously stated. Maybe instead of humans being the "Martians" in Richards interpretation it is the fallen angels who are from the planet that Mars was a possible moon of. I recall that was stated in Immanual Velekosky's(sp?) exploding planet theory that Mars was a moon. I am sure I am not giving credit to where all these thoughts originated but the rest of the "Angels" MUST be in the heavens not yet ready to return. Hopefully when/if they do it is to purge the earth of the evil these fallen ones do to the inhabitants of this earth as Revelation declares rather intriguingly. Surely, there is nothing wrong with a man of some amount of faith wanting to end evil and it's affect in his and others lives. If that could ever be I would welcome that day on my knees in thanksgiving prayer, no doubt. If we would all try to ask God for a healing of the earth and a purging of evil, what would it hurt? Even the non believers can try. The way things are in this world, it certainly makes me realize we might need a miracle to stop some of the more serious issues.

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:32 PM

Originally posted by John Matrix

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.


So how 'not at all' accurate are they then?

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:49 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Thanks for the videos, they were certainly interesting. Monkeys have no shame. It's the best!

It seems like maybe their bodies just don't translate their thoughts as adeptly as ours do. Nowhere near as adeptly. If only science could tell me how much they think and feel, as opposed to what their bodies are capable of expressing. Hmmm...

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:50 PM
Totally stole my thread,

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:53 PM
reply to post by silver tongue devil

not at all in this case means...pretty accurate.

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 10:22 PM

Originally posted by antithesis.
Totally stole my thread,

Wow you're right!

You beat them by 11 whole minutes, but that makes yours officially the first!

They allow breaking news stories to duplicate threads in other categories, but that's the only type of duplicate thread they allow I think.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 10:36 PM

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.

Well thats me done with this thread, this ^^ nonsense ruins any thing else to be said.

Damn it...

( Unless I was caught out with a flat battery in my sarcasm meter, which might be the case it appears.. oO )

[edit on 1/10/2009 by Ha`la`tha]

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 10:40 PM

Originally posted by TheAmazingK
I just finished reading the small article CNN has on their website. Very interesting! It's crazy to see how long our evolution has taken. That skeleton is a million years older then our previous oldest skeleton. Which wasd 3.2 million, I think.
It's hella lucky she got trapped in volcanic rock. Otherwise there's no way this skeleton would still exist. Great also to see that the scientists who thought we evolved straight from chimp some new food for thought. Both our species evolved from a common ancestor?
Makes alot more sense.

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.

ugh...seriously? no evolutionary scientist has ever thought we evolved straight from chimpanzees. we share a common ancestor. that doesn't mean we were ever chimps, we both branched off from the same ancestor species but evolved into two seperate species, they the chimps and we homo sapiens. why do so many people still not understand this simple but important part of darwinian evolution???

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:15 PM
The "disproves missing link" part of the articles title is misleading...

...There are no anthropologists today who say that humans evolved from chimpanzees, so of course there will be no "missing link" that has characteristics of both chimpanzees and humans -- That's not the way the theory goes.

The theory actually says that humans, chimps, gorillas and other apes all evolved from a common ancestor. Therefore, there is no guarantee that any early humans would have chimp characteristics, because the family tree that spawned chimps and humans diverged long before "chimps were chimps" and before "humans were humans".

What you would find if we had a complete fossil record of both early humans and early chimps (back to that common ancestor) is characteristics in early chimps that they share with that common ancestor, and characteristics in early humans that they share with that common ancestor -- however, there is no guarantee that humans and chimps would share any characteristics.

That common ancestor is the missing link -- and this discovery does not in any way "disprove" that fact.

It seems that National Geographic has dumbed down its writing to appeal to the scientifically ignorant people who think humans evolved from chimps. Anthropologist have never said that.

[edit on 10/1/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:22 PM
Even way back then, all we cared about was sex, huh? Amazing! Of course, I am just making a joke. Nice find!

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:34 PM
nice article, although the title was misleading (I know you copied it from the source, but it was misleading there too), I was about to get ready for the weekly evolution versus creationist debate for a moment there.

So the history of primate evolution will need to be tweaked to fit this new piece of evidence from what i understand; this shows science is not static and ever-changing.

The only thing I wonder about is the part about the the males getting food to be able to mate with the females, I wonder how they got this from a fossil

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:37 PM
@ Mr. Hyde & JayinAR:

~I believe~ evolution in Africa was influenced by a change in the Ecosystem...

When the Forests started changing to grassland/savannas primates had to adapt...

The ~standing up~ to see over the tall grasses is but one reason...

With the wide open spaces and lots of predators they also had to increase their mobility speeds...on all fours couldn't cut it...and limited their visibility/viability for escape...

And around that time, with the Ecosystem changes, they had to change their diets from the fruits they were used the grains of the flatlands, which weren't enough nutrition and they incorporated meat into their rise to more protein in their diets...leading to more ~energy~ for a developing mind which was needed to ~out smart~ the predators of the flatlands...

Of course the CT guy in me thinks all the different branches were trial and error DNA experiments by Aliens also...

~Grain of Salt~

[edit on 10/1/2009 by Hx3_1963]

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in