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.

 

evolution: The greatest conspiracy

page: 15
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I think you replied to the wrong person. I was talking about MRSA.




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Lookingup
 


i replied to that in the post about microevolution. i have no problem with small changes over time in an otherwise closed system. what i have a problem with is alphabet soup being forced to spell whatever you need it to in order to arrive at your conclusions (and by chance, this also covers the idea that a bacteria could account for the missing gene sequences because the letters more or less match. ya know?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
houston, we have a problem.

hold unto your hats, this could get bumpy.


did you say train wreck ? i thought i was holding my own. i guess not! at least i haven't called you an idiot yet. made guffawing gestures and feigned intellectual superiority over the fact we don't agree on just every little thing. want me to?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Lookingup
 


those were fascinating cases!
but what we need here is an entire race of 'em, ya know, living somewhere on this planet (preferably, although i'd accept extra-planetary possibilities as potentialities provided they originated from there and came here).


Fascinating cases are how species move forward. There have been several well-known chimps who have preferred to walk on two legs. Google Oliver. Humans likely began as a fascinating case about an ape who was a little tiny bit smarter than his buddies. Evolution isn't boring - in my opinion, it is far more exciting then any story about a wizard. That's not a derogatory remark. What is a different word for a guy who can make things appear out of thin air? You come from your parents - they created you, in their image, both in body and mind. You owe a hell of a lot more to them than a wizard. They raised you and made you who you are today.

Now, take that concept and think back a few million years. Your ancestors then looked a lot different but you would not exist without them. How would you feel if I told you that your parents did not have anything to do with your existence? That's how I feel when you disregard millions of years worth of precursors to mankind that fought to survive in a hostile world? They deserve as much respect as your parents. Your parents, my parents had all the benefits of modern life. A few million years ago, our ancestors were lucky not to be eaten by something.

You look at your species' history with shame and disbelief. I don't. That's the difference between you and me. I am proud of that history and I am amazed by it.

Lucy is the common name of AL 288-1, the nearly 40% complete skeleton of an Australopithecus afarensis specimen discovered in 1974 at Hadar in the Awash Valley of Ethiopia's Afar Depression. Lucy is estimated to have lived 3.2 million years ago. The discovery of this hominid was significant as the skeleton shows evidence of small skull capacity akin to that of apes and of bipedal upright walk akin to that of humans, providing further evidence that bipedalism preceded increase in brain size in human evolution.





I became an attorney because I like to argue but please let me know if I am wasting my breath because I do have other things to do besides trying to get blood from a stone.


[edit on 5-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
that is not an ape skeleton. that's an ape and ......what looks like a reptile head, mixed together. and the missing bones from the pelvis upward are the give away. now if you said there was at one time a species of reptiles on the planet that were bipedal and shared some characteristics with monkeys (which pretty much everything with dna does), i'd be inclined to agree with you. but that is not an ape head. she doesn't even have an ape jaw. they extrapolated all that data! if you look at the actual fossils of the head, it isn't remotely ape.

sigh. okay now you're getting into the real nitty gritty as far as i'm concerned. if you can look at a skeleton that's missing more bones than the plot holes in star wars 3: revenge of the sith, and still see a full bodied ape, then i'm gonna need glasses or something. cause that's not what i'm seeing.



[edit on 5-10-2009 by undo]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


oh you're a lawyer? well by all means, go about your business. i'm just a disabled housewife these days. chances are you won't get much different from me than you already have, so yeah, i don't want to waste your time.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by andrewh7
 


oh you're a lawyer? well by all means, go about your business. i'm just a disabled housewife these days. chances are you won't get much different from me than you already have, so yeah, i don't want to waste your time.


Ummm..don't get defensive. I was explaining why I have been arguing, and pointing out that if there is nothing I could possibly say or present that could sway your opinion in any way, then asking me for explanations that you intend to summarily disregard is a waste of my time. If you expect to elicit sympathy by framing yourself as poor disabled housewife being persecuted by lawyer, it's not going to work. My mom is a also disabled house wife but she certainly doesn't play that card in order to silence criticism.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


it's the truth. you said you're a lawyer and a busy person? i'm not employed or busy. reason i'm not employed, i'm disabled. reason i'm not busy, i'm not employed. hehe! so because i'm not employed or busy, i have lots o'time to discuss stuff. you don't, i guess, so yeah..... i have no clue where you got the translation that i was saying anything else!

as far as your pics of the monkey lady go, isn't that drawing of the new find? cause those toes in the photo are not the same toes as the drawing. whereas the toes on the magazine cover i showed, are the same as the toes in the drawing. so you have two different references there. i think?

i'm starting to not like you very much, which is a bad thing.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
that is not an ape skeleton. that's an ape and ......what looks like a reptile head, mixed together. and the missing bones from the pelvis upward are the give away. [edit on 5-10-2009 by undo]


The reason I posted about Lucy is that she is famous for being the very first skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis. They have found more complete skeletons since. Forgive me if I favor the opinion of the world's anthropologists about the skeleton over your own.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


do you favor the word of the world's archaeologists?

this oughta be good



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
that is not an ape skeleton. that's an ape and ......what looks like a reptile head, mixed together. and the missing bones from the pelvis upward are the give away. [edit on 5-10-2009 by undo]


Excuse me. I saved the wrong picture. My mistake. I have corrected this above.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by andrewh7
 


do you favor the word of the world's archaeologists?

this oughta be good


I'm not sure I get your point? The fact that you used the term archeologists when my statement said anthropologist seems to imply you don't think I used the appropriate title for those studying fossils of human ancestors

Anthropology includes three broad subdisciplines that offer unique but overlapping perspectives on who we are:

1) sociocultural anthropology (which includes linguistics),
2) archaeology, and
3) physical (or biological) anthropology

Did I understand your comment correctly?

If anthropology was not the correct term, it was strange that my anthropology class in college spent a significant amount of time discussing the precursors to modern humans.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


ah thank you. was confusing.

i saw the drawing and thought......huh, no jaw bones for the drawing so why's the photo have a jawbone but the magazine cover doesn't? and i still don't get how they ended up with a jaw the size of an ape, when the bones don't show that. is the magazine cover showing the skull from beneath it?

as regards your comment about my seeming embarrassment of having ape ancestors: you have no idea what i think about having ancestors. why do you insist on injecting your stereotypes in to places where you haven't even investigated? if you must know, i don't think homo sapiens as a species are indigenous to this particular planet. so now you really have a problem. my theory is, this planet is the domain of the reptiles and to be more specific, the reptilians, and they brought us here a few thousand years ago.

*brushes off hands* that takes care of THAT stereotype. got any more?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
O_O my baby thread is all growed up! lol

Sorry I haven't been around today. I sang in a hour 15 min program (including a solo that I NAILED
) hung out with family, and slept the rest of the afternoon.

Now, let me clarify a few things. I am not arguing with micro evolution... not at all but in a previous post (I will try and find the site again) I posted a source that stated that the earth has not been habitable long enough for evolution to have progressed as far as it has.

For those of you who believe that evolution only happens during climate change and believe in global warming... (I was a bit of a believer but this has been one the coldest years on record soooo...) Keep a close watch. If the waters continue to get warmer and we don't lose coral, polar bears and a lot of other species. Present me with your evidence then.

Now: as for micro evolution, from what I remember, experiments were done on a certain strain of bacteria. They were trying to find a bacteria with a certain mutation. They found it in only two days.

HOWEVER, for the mutation to take (even with a little help from the scientist) it would take (I am pretty sure, again, from memory) 10,000 generations for that one, tiny, insignificant mutation to become common.

Instead of Billions of years old, the earth would have to be a couple of trillions of years old.

Thank you to all the debaters that kept this thread active and interesting while I was gone. I'll be playing catch-up if you need me.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


nope, i meant archaeologist.

archaeology is a science, yes? think where i'm leading you on this one! watch yerself.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


*ahem*


Originally posted by sisgood
Concerning the "evolution of man"

I learned all about this in school and it's nice to have everything in one place.

This is long, I'm tired. I'm not quoting much at all. All the information presented is sited with references.

The quotes I will focus on (but I am pointing to the entire article as "proof") is in reference to the Cave in France that Germaine Henri-Martin found evidence of how the "early families lived". And the ancient human footprints found in volcanic ash.

Link



Germaine did indeed discover plenty of evidence to very nicely flesh out a very good story of how the first French people lived. For example, the site is full of flint, which was interpreted as being worked into tools. Various "hearths" were also found throughout the site where the first families cooked, prepared their food, and ate. Evidence of these meals, in the form of animal bones, were everywhere. And, she found the hominids themselves, or at least their bones. So, the evidence for a rather complete an intricate life for the earliest French people seemed rather obvious and fairly easily interpreted. After the1950s, the years rolled by without any similar finds of modern human remains below those of Neandertals. In the early 1970s, a young graduate student, Erik Trinkaus, started asking some questions. He found that the reason the skull fragments lacked browridges was because that area was completely broken off. Given this evidence, the interpretation of modern human features seemed to be based on little more than wishful thinking.





The animal bones were problematic as well. They showed no signs of deliberate butchering and they were generally oriented in a parallel or perpendicular fashion with respect to the cave walls and to each other. Such orientation is not consistent with people randomly dropping these bones on the ground of the cave-home surface. They would have to be extraordinarily neat and unusual people indeed to place the remains of dinner in such neat alignment. Of course, such orientation is much more consistent with a watery deposition, and that is exactly what McPherron and Dibble concluded.



Germaine had interpreted the flint stones as very "primitive" tools, even more primitive than those used by Neandertals. Little did she know how primitive these tools really were. As part of their research McPherron and Dibble noted that known manmade tools all have certain features, like a sharpened regular modification of a flint edge. None of the "tools" found out Fontéchevade had such features. They were in fact indistinguishable from naturally broken rocks!





An excellent example of a dating problem in the news appears in an article from National Geographic magazine. It describes some footprints made in volcanic ash that are said to be 3.6 million years old.
As I kneel beside the large print and lightly touch its sole, I am filled with quiet awe. It looks perfectly modern. "I thought that at three and a half million years ago their prints might be somehow different from ours," says Latimer. "But they aren't. The bipedal adaptation of those hominids was full-blown." 23
Mary Leakey discovered this 73-foot long trail of fossilized footprints consisting of 20 prints of an individual the size and shape of a modern 10-year-old human and 27 prints of a smaller person. The paleoanthropologist Timothy White, who was working with Leakey at the time, said:
"Make no mistake about it, they are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you. The external morphology is the same. There is a well shaped modern heel with a strong arch...

[edit on 5-10-2009 by sisgood]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
The post above explains "Lucy"
And lets quite a few, pardon the pun, skeletons out of the closet of evolution to play.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by andrewh7
 


if you must know, i don't think homo sapiens as a species are indigenous to this particular planet. so now you really have a problem. my theory is, this planet is the domain of the reptiles and to be more specific, the reptilians, and they brought us here a few thousand years ago.

*brushes off hands* that takes care of THAT stereotype. got any more?


Hmmmm. Well, I'm speechless. I have no idea how to respond to that without being banned from this forum as a result of using harsh language.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


so do you or do you not agree that archaeology is a science? and you are going to cuss me out for disagreeing with you ? whatever for? disagreeing is one thing, but methinks you're perhaps objecting too much?

1) it explains why they can't find us in the fossil record! we weren't here at the time -- not because we weren't anywhere at the time, we just weren't HERE at the time.

2) if the earlier anthropologists weren't so secretly dead set on proving that the biblical account was still true, per the roman catholic translation, we wouldn't still be looking for our ancestors on this planet. we'd at least address carl sagan's cosmology, and hopefully re-examine the ancient histories and artifacts of human civilization. instead we have to sit here and pretend they were all lying, just so we can find ourselves on a planet that wasn't our own in the first place.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
I have a question for those who believe in evolution.

Why don't we have transitional species wandering around today?
Not just humans (and if you tell me about the lung fish, I'll scream... That's ONE!) but all other animals.

Show me protozoa in between evolutionary stages. Show me a species of three wings bees.

I'm not talking about mutations here. I'm speaking of a living, breathing species that walks on earth today that shows a clear path from one existing (or past, I'll be nice) to another existing creature on earth today.

If species to species evolution were true, we should have thousands of transitional species running about today shouldn't we?

Perhaps if the Yetti and Bigfoot really are real (no legends either please, I want proven data here.)

I tried to do a search for living missing links and all I got was the lung fish that I've known existed since I was a child.

This shouldn't be too hard should it. I mean the world hasn't changed that much since, according to you, ancient humans came on the scene.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join