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: 4
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
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]


Thank you, so very much. I have been SO confused on this for a long time now. I have even asked questions on here before, but didn't get anywhere close to this answer, I think the person thought, like me, that the theory was that we came from chimps/gorillas or whatever.. I had questions like where did our strength go, and why do chimps still live as chimps, why didn't they all evolve?

I was given false information.
I've always been told when it comes to evolution, that we came from monkeys. Okay, maybe it's not false, but it's misleading.

So we came from some form of ancient monkey, as did the current monkeys still living? Makes much more sense. Thanks for explaining it to us morons.




posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   



Equality kicks ass, look at all the benefits it's given us!

- Just over 50% divorce rate
- The other 50% of the population is now taxable, where as prior only men were taxed CHA-CHING
- Breakdown of the family structure
- Large portions of generations having no parent in the house
- Children being raised terribly or left to raise themselves
- Heavy declines in population growth (thanks in part to this, but definitely not because of ONLY this)


But seriously, its worth all the great side-effects.

You are on my foes list for a reason but I have to agree with you on this.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 12:45 AM
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" ?


Go to youtube and look for Lloyd Pye. He has about 9 videos of his theory of the origins of the human species. It's really illuminating because he says our bodies aren't really adapted to this planet etc. etc.. Also I will post his website too.

www.lloydpye.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blanca Rose

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!


LOL! That's pure comedy gold!

Personally I think the use of tools (finding more constructive uses for the forelegs) was one of the big reasons we evolved into bipedal creatures. We became much more efficient/productive creatures & killers... and so rose our ascendancy in the animal kingdom. It may also explain our genetic disposition to war and industrialism.

I think it's possible we were probably in direct competition with a 'sister species' as well. This is another reason to stand on our hind legs to appear larger to gain a competitive edge. For instance, look at other quadrupeds that do this, such as the bear. When they fight each other for territory etc, they often raise to their hind legs to appear larger and intimidate the competition. Perhaps we realized that walking around like this constantly was a plus?

An article I read a long time ago suggested this and also pointed to the array of lower spinal problems humans still suffer. The type you would expect from a quadruped that has (and is still) evolving into a genuine biped.

IRM


[edit on 2/10/09 by InfaRedMan]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia



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


They got all that from bones some 3+ million years old?

I think their in the wrong profession, they should right scripts for Hollywood.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by optimus primal


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???


Oh. Pardon me. When I read the line:

" Ardi's findings help challenge earlier beliefs that humans evolved from chimpanzees, their closest genetic relatives, scientists say. "


I must be entirely mistaken. Not being an evolutionary scientist myself, I think I have a fair understanding of rudimetary Darwinian evolution. So, I was more intrigued to see, that yes, some evolutionary scientists believe we evolved from chimps. In fact, it was the prevailing line of thought at the beginning.

Just so you know.

www.cnn.com...

[edit on 2-10-2009 by TheAmazingK]

[edit on 2-10-2009 by TheAmazingK]

[edit on 2-10-2009 by TheAmazingK]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Burginthorn
 


Don't you know they are magic?


They just love to brag about stuff that they don't fully understand. Darwin did 50% of the job at best and yet nobody dares to question him. They just make stuff fit in that ludicrous puzzle referred as Darwinism.

But hey... what would you expect from people that still think that about 95% of the human DNA is junk.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAmazingK
Oh. Pardon me. When I read the line:

" Ardi's findings help challenge earlier beliefs that humans evolved from chimpanzees, their closest genetic relatives, scientists say. "

I must be entirely mistaken.


Yes and not just you, but the reporter too.

My advice is, if you want to read stories, read what the reporter wrote.
If you want to read science, read what the scientist wrote.

The reporters seem to get a lot wrong about science a lot of the time because they aren't scientists. Especially watch out for those "scientists say" claims. Now if they provide a direct quote from a named scientist, that should be more credible, but of course it only represents that one scientists' point of view.

Even the title of the story is very misleading scientifically, but it's attention-grabbing from a media perspective.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 02:06 AM
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.


So glad this isn't a serious post lol.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Excellent points. All of which I will keep in mind. I have caught back up with the thread, and I now see the accepted opinion.
Always read more than one article is the lesson reaffirmed today.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Wow!

Great find. Sorry I'm late. I loved the pics.

Reading up on it.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry

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.


So glad this isn't a serious post lol.


It's completely impossible to tell if posts like that are serious or not. They seem so ridiculous that you have to think they are joking, but some people really believe that and ARE serious.

While not a foolproof indicator, I find that many times when people make jokes like that they might put a smiley or laughing emoticon after the joking statement. If you see those, it means they are joking. If you don't see those, you don't know. They might be serious. There are more young Earth creationists around than I imagined.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Very interesting indeed... Indeed Lucy couldn't have been "the missing link", since there are so many differences between Lucy and modern day gorillae/apes. And of course the further back we go the more about evolution we discover... It's CLOSE you guys!! I can feel it!



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


YEAH, sure... God put fossils on Earth to test our faith... May I know HOW he put them there? Did he bury them like Easter eggs in a backyard? The Earth has NOT been around for 6000 years... such a notion is so unbelievably freaky. That a unilateral BEING has access to the universe is a flawed notion, dictatorship in its political essence. If you ask me, I think we all VOTED for God to put fossils on Earth to test our faith.



As if God would be that free anyway, even if he DID exist.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by TheAmazingK
Oh. Pardon me. When I read the line:

" Ardi's findings help challenge earlier beliefs that humans evolved from chimpanzees, their closest genetic relatives, scientists say. "

I must be entirely mistaken.


Yes and not just you, but the reporter too.

My advice is, if you want to read stories, read what the reporter wrote.
If you want to read science, read what the scientist wrote.

The reporters seem to get a lot wrong about science a lot of the time because they aren't scientists. Especially watch out for those "scientists say" claims. Now if they provide a direct quote from a named scientist, that should be more credible, but of course it only represents that one scientists' point of view.

Even the title of the story is very misleading scientifically, but it's attention-grabbing from a media perspective.


It's like "BRAD PITT GETS INTO AN ACCIDENT!"

And when you open the magazine, hey presto! He accidentally bumped into a coffee table or something on his way out of a restaurant. Sensationalism and science do NOT go together. I wish reporters would report the science the WAY it is, but I guess that can't be helped because they aren't scientists. What CAN be helped, however, is getting the info RIGHT and not blowing it out of proportion.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by OpenMindCuriousMind
 


Yeah, it's basically like humans evolved ALONGSIDE chimps. The common ancestor BRANCHED out into two different genus, and humans just had the environmental factors in for them/us to develop brains, speech patterns, etc. Chimps probably evolved so much they are able to use their toes to fling themselves around, while humans, clearly, cannot.

It's very misleading, but to go into the genus-branch-family etc, would be too confusing for someone not interested in knowing the in-depth details of human evolutionary patterns.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by candide

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]





Just go ahead and laugh anyway.

If they're joking, it's funny.

If they're serious, it's hilarious.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Well, the whole food-for-sex thing, i think, is way overrated.

Look at it in a purely SURVIVAL way, and don't look at it in an "I'm-educated-to-know-what-sex-is-and-how-it-brings-pleasure". Back then, English wasn't existent.

1) Food. Is used to SUSTAIN OURSELVES. And clearly, it is pretty darn obvious we can't sustain ourselves on insects, because if we could, the world would be pretty much depleted of roaches.

So it makes sense that humans needed to stand up, become erect, to run, to hunt, to kill animals for food, and yet still be able to retain motor reflexes to hide behind tall grass in the presence of large, destructive mammalians or lizards.

And therein lies the difference, where chimps STILL eat insects and fruit.

Why this branch?

Environmental reasons. There're whole papers on what PUSHED humans to stand erect, and a large aspect of those papers is about food.

2) Next. Sex. Which is important for PROCREATION. Humanoids procreate just like ANY other animals do. Why do dogs f***? Why do turtles do it? There is no deep emotional connection to it - humans back then procreated for the same reason all other animals do.

The pleasure aspect probably developed when humans developed more control over their motor functions, when brains became larger, when nerves became more complex, when hormonal glands developed beyond "fight-flight" instinct, and arousal came beyond just the "mating hormones", though we are still turned on by the release of the opposite sex's mating scent.

There is no compromise between food and sex... Each were important to human survival in their own way. And Christians, you might want to argue that humans are above that "bestial" thing, blah blah, Humanism, Great Chain of Being, we are so much more better than pure animals, which is true in some aspects, but untrue in others.

Scientifically, no. We are still programmed to procreate. We are still programmed to "defend the herd/den", we are still programmed to "fight or fly".

We just know literature, math, and biology to go along and explain how and why we do the things we do.

P.S. Did you know dolphins are the only creatures other than Man to have sex purely for pleasure and not for procreation? Interesting, no?

[edit on 2-10-2009 by KarlG]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by candide

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]





Just go ahead and laugh anyway.

If they're joking, it's funny.

If they're serious, it's hilarious.


That is quite true.



OR




posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


S&F, I have been looking a lot today at news articles (mostly top stories on some new websites I found), and I haven't seen this article yet, or anything about it what so ever. So thanks for bringing it to my (and everyone elses) attention.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join