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: 6
44
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Great posts there Lurch, enjoyed reading that.


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" ?


Neanderthals are a different species (although there is some debate over that). A difference in cranial capacity of 200cc or more is the convention for naming a new species. Both Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon had larger cranial capacities than modern humans (about 1600cc to our 1200cc for adult males).




posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
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 more with you than that this find is human. I'm not basing my opinion on any religous influence or beief either. Why is it everytime they find a bazillion year old ape-ish or human-ish bone they call it humanoid and find a place ofr it an evolutionary line? I think there were different species.... and so does the Indonesian archeologist who found Hobbitman.
As far as proof goes, scientists have a long way to go before they prove anything about human existance.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
I just watched the two videos. I just get so frustrated...can an ape be human? aren't we really just apes? Those questions seem to bely an attitude that comes from a point of view that is in my opinion trying way to hard to prove the darwinian theory of evolution. Why can't the researchers just observe how a species acts, thinks, communicates without trying to put a human overlay on it?
I think we would all be alot better off without the darwinian/creationism argument and just study it for what it is. Throw of the boxes and I think we'd get a really surprizing new theory. or five.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I posted a few days ago requesting proof that the bones all came from the same creature.

I haven't had any response yet... strange.

Let's not forget, people, the last... oh... ten or so "missing links" that made creationist like me look like baboons turned out to be...
Frauds.

The pigs tooth especially amuses me.

So, until someone can prove that the animal all came from the same creature, genetically, and that it isn't just an undiscovered ape with slightly different features...

I will continue to think that Ape-human evolution is a farce.

And yes I think that the earth is millions of years old. What egotistical fools we are for thinking that we could possibly be the ONLY stage of creation God has ever made!

HELLO! We believe that God is eternal. That means always there... always going to BE there.

Does anyone HONESTLY think that He waited MILLIONS of years in NOTHINGNESS just to create us!?

Dinos were just a different stage of creation than us. I believe that He's created "aliens" on other planets. We may not even be the only sentient species out there... who knows?

The bible states that a day is as a ten thousand years and ten thousand years are as a day to God. He lives outside time.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by sisgood
 



Originally posted by sisgood
I posted a few days ago requesting proof that the bones all came from the same creature.

I haven't had any response yet... strange.


I see 2 replies to your post but not really clear answers:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So I don't think it's fair to say you didn't get any response. You got responses, but maybe not the response you were looking for.

I'll try to answer you more directly:

As far as I know the fossils are too old for reliable DNA tests:

www.scientificamerican.com...

Hundred-thousand-year-old samples of DNA have been recovered from fossilized bone, but contamination with modern DNA is rampant in many ancient DNA studies and previous claims of DNA that was millions of years old could not be reproduced.


So I think it's way too old for DNA tests. They could try but the tests may not be at all reliable like previous attempts.

So my guess is that proof in these cases boils down to other scientists being able to view the fossils and excavation records for each one, and then agreeing or disagreeing that they all belong to the same creature.

You may not agree but I'm not sure your opinion counts a lot in the field of paleontology (nor does mine).



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Lol thanks for responding. I was just about to hit the hay. I must have missed those as I have been busy with life stuff over the last couple of days...
@_@

I know my thoughts don't mean much to you, but I am a little amused that they are too old for genetic tests. I'm sure that in a couple of weeks or days this new "missing link" will be debunked.

Before "Lucy" the last couple of "missing links" were a bunch of bones from different animals put together by scientist LOOKING for a missing link.

Putting together a skeleton is so easy to screw up even when you're trying to do it right. Remember the Brontisourous? (sp?)
I'm not saying they were trying to be dishonest. I just think when you find a bunch of bones and you are LOOKING for something specific... you are automatically going to "know" that bone is connected with that one.

That's all I'm saying.



[edit on 3-10-2009 by sisgood]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by sisgood
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

I know my thoughts don't mean much to you, but I am a little amused that they are too old for genetic tests. I'm sure that in a couple of weeks or days this new "missing link" will be debunked.


I didn't say your thoughts don't mean much to me. I said your thoughts and my thoughts about the paleontologist's work don't mean much to the paleontologists.

Yes of course there was the pigs tooth, incorrectly assembled fossils, etc. And I agree a lot is not intentional but it can be really hard to piece together old bones when you aren't sure what you've got.

Sometimes it takes a while but science does tend to catch its own mistakes so we have to let this play out and see if other paleontologists find any objections to the results.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   

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.


Scientists DO NOT think that we evolved straight from chimps.

Scientists are convinced that we have a common ancestor with the chimp.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr.Hyde

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.



It is incorrect to say that Cheetahs have the genetics of both the dog and cat family. They are all cat.

That said, however, they do have certain characteristics that resemble common dogs characteristics, like their teeth and their foot pads. That doesn't mean they have dog genes, only that they evolved similar solutions to similar problems.

It is correct that they are in trouble due to lack of genetic diversity. They have stopped evolving (that's my interpretation) for some reason. There are quite a few papers discussing this problem on the web.

[edit on 3/10/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frontkjemper

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.



We don't. This is just someone making an educated guess, probably summarizing the educated guesses of many others before him, and with the knowledge of the development of behaviors of other species that do some pretty bizarre things to ensure their genes get passed on.

So it is a guess, yes. But it is plausible, has some evidence to back up its plausibility, and has survived discussion and debate with other guesses. But somebody may come up with an even better guess in the future.

I doubt anyone will ever come up with a way to test this guess, so I doubt it will ever make the status of an hypothesis, let alone a theory.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Lurch
 


Hi Lurch/

The Bible Scriptures teach that it is the Word of God, why should man change Gods Word to fit in with Modern ideas?
At least the Bible has been consistent with what it teaches and doesn't change it's mind every few years or so!

EDIT...spelling..
ICXC NIKA
helen

[edit on 10/3/2009 by helen670]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Great posts there Lurch, enjoyed reading that.


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" ?


Neanderthals are a different species (although there is some debate over that). A difference in cranial capacity of 200cc or more is the convention for naming a new species. Both Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon had larger cranial capacities than modern humans (about 1600cc to our 1200cc for adult males).


Not true about cranial capacity being "the convention" for naming a new species. There are many criteria.

For example, adult humans have a cranial capacity between 1200cc and 1850cc. So if John Doe has a cranial capacity of 1300cc and Fred Nurks has a cranial capacity of 1600cc, it doesn't mean they are different species.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by sisgood
I posted a few days ago requesting proof that the bones all came from the same creature.

I haven't had any response yet... strange.



What is strange about it? Do you think the researchers are reading this thread? We all have just as much information about their find as you do - next to nothing.

If you want to see their evidence, you would do much better to contact them, or at least access their paper and read it.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Yes of course there was the pigs tooth, incorrectly assembled fossils, etc. And I agree a lot is not intentional but it can be really hard to piece together old bones when you aren't sure what you've got.



Please see CC002: Nebraska Man. The pigs tooth was never positively identified as a hominid tooth, even by the researcher who found it. It was mostly a beat-up by a popular magazine pandering for readership. Of course this type of thing doesn't happen today (Oh, did I miss something about the title of this thread?)

To quote from the link I provided above:


Nebraska Man is an example of science working well. An intriguing discovery was made that could have important implications. The discoverer announced the discovery and sent casts of it to several other experts. Scientists were initially skeptical. More evidence was gathered, ultimately showing that the initial interpretation was wrong. Finally, a retraction was prominently published.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by helen670

The Bible Scriptures teach that it is the Word of God, why should man change Gods Word to fit in with Modern ideas?
At least the Bible has been consistent with what it teaches and doesn't change it's mind every few years or so!



Its interpretation changes all the time, from year to year, minute to minute, reader to reader, authority to authority, denomination to denomination, ...



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
The hypocrisy of the religious gang attempting, as per usual, to discredit anything that doesn't suit there believe system is laughable. Please before questioning anybody else, give a logical summary of why you knock these findings/beliefs when the very faith you hold states earth is only 6000 years old?

Oh wait, a fairytale is answered with a, fairytale. The lord of lords planted everything just so he can make the unworthy not believe! For a man that demands and wants faith be shown, that is a mighty strange move. People that find bones they can date, which causes them to question there faith must be evil after all! Gods way of determining the 'worthy' is certainly questionable.

Just accept it guys, you'll be changing the Biblical story once again to fit whatever scenario arises. While your at it, go and bore some other sect with your laughable arguments.

And as for the guy asking for proof these bones are from the same animal. Your questions is nonsense that is why people choose not to respond, it doesn't take Einstein to connect the Jigsaw!

Why don't you start being really true, and faithful to your religion. By doing that you should show your hate to every gay and disabled person like the Bible truly preaches. Go keep yourself occupied with spreading hate elsewhere following your religion, instead of boring us with 'holy' nonsensical dribble.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by helen670
reply to post by Lurch
 


Hi Lurch/

The Bible Scriptures teach that it is the Word of God, why should man change Gods Word to fit in with Modern ideas?
At least the Bible has been consistent with what it teaches and doesn't change it's mind every few years or so!

EDIT...spelling..
ICXC NIKA
helen

[edit on 10/3/2009 by helen670]


Perhaps you should read up about the history of Christianity.

Arianism? Catharism? Any of these ring a bell? The interpretation of the Bible has been such a sticking point that it has inspired crusades against other Christians. The Bible is not even internally consistent, and is so vague as to allow thousands of heresies and variations to spring from it.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Lurch
 


I agree. Carl Sagan never spoke truer words. AT LEAST science changes. Religion doesn't! The "truths" in the Bible, while accepted as truth way back in the Renaissance 1600s because of lack of scientific knowledge, are STILL being accepted as truth now, and there really should be no reason for that, because technology and proofs are EVERYWHERE!

Yeah, sure, a rainbow arises as a sign of peace between God and Man.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by newworld
something seems off. How come this thread has not been hijacked by those who claim evolution is pure lies and sensationalist nonsense and that there does not exist one shred of evidence for it?

By now this would have turned into an evolution versus creationist debate, did they leave ATS


I'm suspicious too. You're right... it's been 6 pages and only THREE, maybe FOUR posters have defended creationism... Something is up.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by rocknroll
What if this news is just a "spin" thrown into the media? Maybe the TPTB want people to think, "There was no Adam and Eve, we all came from apes, so stop believing in a higher power." Maybe this is an attempt to turn people away from religion.


Firstly... Ooookay...

Secondly, what would be so bad about turning people away from constructed religion, which IMO is worse than constructed media because religious brainwashing has been happening for centuries! For one thing, a little less terrorism and seclusion.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join