We Evolved From the Monkey, huh?

We Evolved From the Monkey, huh?

I for one do not believe we evolved from monkeys, chimps or apes, even though there may be people I met and you probably met them to, that seem to be exceptions to the rule. Its probably more the other way around, monkeys devolved from us as (experimental?) mutations, more likey. Why are there monkeys still around if they became us? Don't get me wrong I'm not signing up for the religious explanation either. Sometimes I wonder if we were not originally better beings that worked their way down to some lower level, namely us today.

I just got back from the 'Ball tapping' thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

For some reason believing we are indeed not that different from monkeys becomes just a tiny bit easier to believe.

Originally posted by impaired
Ok, I have my mind made up and I carry a strong conviction of how we got here. I may or may not get into it that so much. Why? Because people have their own beliefs and nothing can change it or open people's eyes. And who's to say *I'M* right?

But seriously, if we came from the apes and the monkeys, then how come the apes and the monkeys are still here in their present form and how come THEY haven't evolved?

[edit on 11/26/2009 by impaired]

You obviously don't even understand the basics of evolution. I recommend you find yourself a biology textbook or simply search google. Every animal alive today evolved to become what they are today through gradual natural selection.

Evolution has never stated that Man evolved from Chimpanzees or any other currently existing ape. Rather, both Chimpanzees and humans shared a common ancestor millions of years ago. When the two populations of Species A separated (ceased to breed with one another), both began diverging from one another genetically to become Species B and Species C, possibly driven by the unique challenges of their differing environments (e.g., types of and availability of food, presence of dangerous predators, or random mutations). The apes are "in their present form" because that's their present form, but it certainly is not the form they had millions of years ago. The only species on Earth that one could argue has effectively stopped evolving is human. Medical science has meant those with debilitating medical problems that would have once killed them may now be cured, allowing them to raise children. Also, humans are especially active in interbreeding with those from different parts of the world, making it difficult for populations to become sufficiently isolated in a genetic sense.

Evolution is supported by both the fossil records and a genetic comparison of humans and other apes, such as the chimpanzee. In the same way a father can be determined from a paternity test, two species genomes can be compared to find similarities indicative of a common ancestor.

Rather than spewing a poorly-reasoned strawman argument based on an outright lie about the workings of evolution, I suggest you find out what evolution actually is.



[edit on 27-11-2009 by andrewh7]

Originally posted by impaired
Ok, I have my mind made up and I carry a strong conviction of how we got here. I may or may not get into it that so much. Why? Because people have their own beliefs and nothing can change it or open people's eyes. And who's to say *I'M* right?

But seriously, if we came from the apes and the monkeys, then how come the apes and the monkeys are still here in their present form and how come THEY haven't evolved?

Because we didn't evolve from current ape species, we evolved from ape ancestors not from existing species that are around today. That's like asking

"If Lions are evolutionary related to Tigers why do Tigers still exist?"

I don't rule out the idea of ET influence in our evolution altogether but evidence is lacking while evidence for evolution itself is essentially self-apparent. Lifeforms are similar, something must explain these similarities and common ancestry through evolution explains genetic similarities and genetic differences between species.

We humans like to speculate about how everything got the way it is because for thousands of years we had no written language to keep track of our history so literally 250,000 years of human history and we only have record of about 6 or 7 thousand years of it. Until we find evidence of alien tampering with our genes we can assume we arose from natural processes.

One question, if aliens were involved with our creation why didn't they make us longer lived and shoot lasers out of our eyes


[edit on 27-11-2009 by Titen-Sxull]

Originally posted by Republican08
Occams Razor here. it is SO HARD TO BELIEVE that a common ancestor between us and the chimpanzee developed both of us, which one was obviously better, and thusly more intelligent, that the 'better' answer is that a mysterious being (eh maybe a god) came and made us about, and genetically interfered.

Alright, let me get this strait. You think that evolution is far fetched, and the "simplest explanation" is that aliens or a magic wizard altered our genetic code? You should really consider finding out the definition of simplest.

Intelligence is merely one of countless factors that are shaped by evolution. We were not always so smart - we only became so after separating from the common ancestor. Saying you believe that humans are "better" than chimps is nothing more than a subjective evaluation. Barring the intrusion of poachers, chimpanzees are successful at surviving and reproducing in their natural environment. From an evolutionary standpoint, that is the only thing that matters. Each successful species has developed its own advantageous features.

Examples: poisonous venom, protective armor like a turtle, size and speed, or the ability to build belly fat and a thick coat of hair for protection in cold weather climates. If I dump both you and a polar bear at the North Pole naked, we'd see who is truly "better" in that environment. If I put both you and a fish at the bottom of the ocean, we'd see who is truly "better" in that environment.

Intelligence is enormously valuable but it doesn't make us "better" - it justs makes us different. Even Einstein would have been mauled to death if we put him in a room with a wild panther.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by andrewh7]

Where did the information come from? That is the key question.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by peaceonearth]

Originally posted by The Alfer
We Evolved From the Monkey, huh?

I for one do not believe we evolved from monkeys, chimps or apes, even though there may be people I met and you probably met them to, that seem to be exceptions to the rule. Its probably more the other way around, monkeys devolved from us as (experimental?) mutations, more likey. Why are there monkeys still around if they became us? Don't get me wrong I'm not signing up for the religious explanation either. Sometimes I wonder if we were not originally better beings that worked their way down to some lower level, namely us today.

There's no such thing as "devolving." Every species are in a constant state of evolution and the process moves faster dependent on the extent to which portions of its population have separated and ceased to breed with one another.

You seem to think that the definition of evolution is the growth of intelligence. That is not the case - it is encouragement of any feature that makes a member of the species more successful at surviving and reproducing offspring. There's no natural incentive for losing valuable traits. If something like this happens, then it can only be the result of that particular feature ceasing to be beneficial or even becoming detrimental to surviving and reproducing in that particular environment.

Originally posted by andy1033
I think you will find, your statement here is wrong. Where do scienc often get its ideas. Just look at cern and the particle they are going after is, what george lucas descibed in star wars. Go back and listen how the film star wars described the force. Then goto and get the description, of teh particle that cern is after.I think george lucas, got it pretty right. You see plenty of science is into the occult, but they do not believe in god.

If something exists in nature, the scientists that first discover it are entitled to take full credit for it. When our species finally builds a spacecraft capable of traversing larges distances in space, one cannot simply say that they stole the idea from star trek. By the way, the "God Particle" is just a nickname and it has absolutely nothing in common with a fictional energy field known as the "Force" from a movie. Scientists don't publish articles in scholarly journals with citations to Star Wars.

Originally posted by andrewh7

Originally posted by The Alfer
We Evolved From the Monkey, huh?

I for one do not believe we evolved from monkeys, chimps or apes, even though there may be people I met and you probably met them to, that seem to be exceptions to the rule. Its probably more the other way around, monkeys devolved from us as (experimental?) mutations, more likey. Why are there monkeys still around if they became us? Don't get me wrong I'm not signing up for the religious explanation either. Sometimes I wonder if we were not originally better beings that worked their way down to some lower level, namely us today.

There's no such thing as "devolving." Every species are in a constant state of evolution and the process moves faster dependent on the extent to which portions of its population have separated and ceased to breed with one another.

You seem to think that the definition of evolution is the growth of intelligence. That is not the case - it is encouragement of any feature that makes a member of the species more successful at surviving and reproducing offspring. There's no natural incentive for losing valuable traits. If something like this happens, then it can only be the result of that particular feature ceasing to be beneficial or even becoming detrimental to surviving and reproducing in that particular environment.

My post was not meant to be taken seriuosly. It was more of a humorous piece. Yah, I forgot to use the little emoticons Oh darn!

I fully agree that there is no such word as devolving It sounded humourous.

I hope this helps to explain my post to you.

I'm new here and I suppose I should have realized some people here do take things a bit too seriously at times. That's OK. I'll try to be more exacting in my presentation next time, use the little emoticon things and that sort of thing.

Peace.

reply to post by The Alfer

Main Entry: de·volve
Pronunciation: \di-ˈvälv, -ˈvȯlv, dē-\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·volved; de·volv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin devolvere, from de- + volvere to roll — more at voluble
Date: 15th century
transitive verb
: to pass on (as responsibility, rights, or powers) from one person or entity to another
intransitive verb
1 a : to pass by transmission or succession b : to fall or be passed usually as a responsibility or obligation
2 : to come by or as if by flowing down
3 : to degenerate through a gradual change or evolution

SOURCE

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by The Alfer

 

Main Entry: de·volve
Pronunciation: \di-ˈvälv, -ˈvȯlv, dē-\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·volved; de·volv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin devolvere, from de- + volvere to roll — more at voluble
Date: 15th century
transitive verb
: to pass on (as responsibility, rights, or powers) from one person or entity to another
intransitive verb
1 a : to pass by transmission or succession b : to fall or be passed usually as a responsibility or obligation
2 : to come by or as if by flowing down
3 : to degenerate through a gradual change or evolution

SOURCE

I stand corrected, I guess there is such a word, cool. Thanks for the word research.

Originally posted by cavscout

No, micro-evolution is almost inarguable. Macro-evolution, however, has many problems, some of them dealing with the laws of the universe as we believe them to be.

Not arguing, just what exactly are we labeling micro compared to macro, what is the foundation for measuring what the threshold for each one is.

Semantics.

How is attacking the phrase “Human evolved from Apes” semantics. The statement is almost the exact opposite of the theory of evolution. Lol semantics.

Semantics would be arguing over what is a foul ball and a foul tip, or what is a computer monitor and what is a computer screen.

If you wrote a thesis on proving “Hot water can destroy skin cells”, then I question your thesis by first saying “How can you say hot water is good for skin cells?” That my friend, is not semantics.

I think that people inherently know right from wrong, truth from lies.

Speculation. This whole idea is still up for debate. The idea of right or wrong could be within the domain of our evolutionary history, which for humans involves not only physical characteristics, but mindal as well. The argument also could be made that knowing right and wrong is purely due to upringing, nurture. There have been plenty of people born in the world that aren’t given a chance when they grow up and exhibit no common human decency whatsoever.

Can I have some examples?

As I have said before I have not read the bible through and through, I stopped reading after coming to some of these scientific observations that were stated such as:

The world is flat
The world is 6000 years old
The universe is geocentric
The value of pi = 3

There were some interesting thoughts and calculated analysis on medicinal practices which have held somewhat true, but again the various versions of the bible have been altered throughout time. And the bible was written in the scope of time that was relevant, so the original authors, the Romans, Egyptians, Moors, whoever, were prosperous civilizations of the time and their knowledge of science, math, and medicine at the time was incorporated into the bible. Yet has since been dis-proven and should be treated as such. Just like some of Darwin’s findings have been dis-proven, mainly on his ideas of geology. Darwin’s thesis, however, still persists wholeheartedly in the spectrum of scientific truth.

Religious texts have probably undergone more changes than any other human endeavor in the history of mankind. And that may be speculation, but it is calculated speculation with some validity. There is a concept called hyperbole for affect, so I proclaim my right to invoke this concept for the sake of this post.

Pure speculation.

Your entire post is speculation.

Without death you would not appreciate life, nor would we be able to accomplish so much in our short times here.

This is idealistic nonsense. The possibilities and avenues to enjoy and appreciate life are almost supernumerary, without giving a moment's consideration to death.

Would you appreciate your whole bones if you did not know the possibility of breaking them? Would you be who you are without the experiences, both good and bad, that have molded you?

More empty rhetoric, and idealistic nonsense. Nice try though.

what is it if a baby falls out of a window? I doesn’t hurt so bad if you have true faith that it is not the end of the line for the baby, but just the beginning. We get 80 years here. 80 years in the face of eternity is nothing.

Why live a life living for death, waiting for death, or overly embracing the possibility of an afterlife. Some eternal Nirvana is as of yet nothing more than a mere fairy tale that has far exceeded its wont of reason.

Seems like an awful waste of effort for “God” to give us life just to die.

Originally posted by andrewh7

Originally posted by impaired
Ok, I have my mind made up and I carry a strong conviction of how we got here. I may or may not get into it that so much. Why? Because people have their own beliefs and nothing can change it or open people's eyes. And who's to say *I'M* right?

But seriously, if we came from the apes and the monkeys, then how come the apes and the monkeys are still here in their present form and how come THEY haven't evolved?

[edit on 11/26/2009 by impaired]

You obviously don't even understand the basics of evolution. I recommend you find yourself a biology textbook or simply search google. Every animal alive today evolved to become what they are today through gradual natural selection.

Evolution has never stated that Man evolved from Chimpanzees or any other currently existing ape. Rather, both Chimpanzees and humans shared a common ancestor millions of years ago. When the two populations of Species A separated (ceased to breed with one another), both began diverging from one another genetically to become Species B and Species C, possibly driven by the unique challenges of their differing environments (e.g., types of and availability of food, presence of dangerous predators, or random mutations). The apes are "in their present form" because that's their present form, but it certainly is not the form they had millions of years ago. The only species on Earth that one could argue has effectively stopped evolving is human. Medical science has meant those with debilitating medical problems that would have once killed them may now be cured, allowing them to raise children. Also, humans are especially active in interbreeding with those from different parts of the world, making it difficult for populations to become sufficiently isolated in a genetic sense.

Evolution is supported by both the fossil records and a genetic comparison of humans and other apes, such as the chimpanzee. In the same way a father can be determined from a paternity test, two species genomes can be compared to find similarities indicative of a common ancestor.

Rather than spewing a poorly-reasoned strawman argument based on an outright lie about the workings of evolution, I suggest you find out what evolution actually is.



[edit on 27-11-2009 by andrewh7]

And I suggest you read the entire thread before flaming me like that. How many times do I have to type it in this thread? I have already admitted that I was wrong MORE THAN 3x already. I understand the deal about the common ancestor, now.

I'm NOT retyping it all yet again. Either read my previous posts or stop posting. Seriously. I have clarified myself enough already.

Read my others posts and then come back with the argument that I am going for. Hint: IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MONKEY'S so much!

Originally posted by impaired
I'm NOT retyping it all yet again. Either read my previous posts or stop posting. Seriously. I have clarified myself enough already.

Read my others posts and then come back with the argument that I am going for. Hint: IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MONKEY'S so much!

Here's an idea. Why don't you try doing 2 minutes of research before posting a stupid topic that you know absolutely nothing about? Then, you'll save all of us the time having to tell you that you're wrong over and over again. If you don't like large groups of people setting you strait, I suggest you keep your mouth shut.

How many retarded anti-evolution threads do I have to shoot down before these people learn how to open a book or use Google? Ignorant people seem to enjoy being spoon fed because they're too lazy or dumb to educate themselves. Then, after realizing their mistake, they complain about other people rather than taking personal responsibility for their failings. It's pathetic.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by andrewh7]

reply to post by andrewh7

How many retarded anti-evolution threads do I have to shoot down before these people learn how to open a book or use Google?

If you don't like wiping the drool from the chins of retards, then don't get on the short bus.

Don't get me wrong, bravo on the excellent work so far, but you'll run out of patience long before they can run out of idiocy. It takes far longer to verify a fact, than it does to just invent some bull^$#@. Even that's too hard for many of them, so instead they simply parrot the same tired misconceptions over and over and over as many times as it takes for you to give them the finger and walk away.

And they have the audacity to claim that YOU'RE the one losing your cool and resorting to ad-homenim attacks. What do they expect when we're the ones who have to do all the work of not just trying to explain the theory to them, as well as provide a functional explanation of why their criticism (no matter how nonsensical) is invalid based on the evidence for that functional understanding.... and the whole time they're just playing mad-libs and spinning the ignorance wheel tell them which thing that they don't understand to use next when attacking that other thing they don't understand.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by Lasheic]

Originally posted by andrewh7

Originally posted by impaired
I'm NOT retyping it all yet again. Either read my previous posts or stop posting. Seriously. I have clarified myself enough already.

Read my others posts and then come back with the argument that I am going for. Hint: IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MONKEY'S so much!

Here's an idea. Why don't you try doing 2 minutes of research before posting a stupid topic that you know absolutely nothing about? Then, you'll save all of us the time having to tell you that you're wrong over and over again. If you don't like large groups of people setting you strait, I suggest you keep your mouth shut.

And once again. I said I was here to learn, and 2: Admitted being wrong about the monkey. -But the premise is the still the same! Whether it was common ancestor or monkey, it's still all about the missing links - the common ancestor that HASN'T been found yet, and what ARE "Gods" really, and how the bible ties in with all that plus ET's. So yeah, you're head seems like it's going to explode because you're so hell-bent on principals and semantics. Take a chill pill! Why so angry and defensive in the first place? You DID NOT read my other posts because you're STILL not acknowledging what I'm getting at here! Get on to what the REAL topic is here and shoot me your argument about THAT! Not what I have already admitted to being wrong. That point is moot right now.

How many retarded anti-evolution threads do I have to shoot down before these people learn how to open a book or use Google? Ignorant people seem to enjoy being spoon fed because they're too lazy or dumb to educate themselves.

A lot of name-calling and speculation right there. Get over my first mistake. It's done. Get on with the real topic.
And what the hell are you talking about with this? : "Then, after realizing their mistake, they complain about other people rather than taking personal responsibility for their failings. It's pathetic."
Are you kidding me?? Still didn't anything in it's entirety? I really think you're knee-jerking over here.

And once again. Just a bunch of name-calling and put-downs. Even after the OP admits his mistake on a certain issue. But the thread goes on. Either tell me how the theory I presented is so ridiculous, or don't even bother with the belligerence.

I have not seen any good argument, imho. I have see some Christians use the book as proof of their story, and others just eating me alive other a misconception that I fell for.

Once again - common ancestor or not - hasn't been found yet. We're light years beyond any other creature on this planet - even ones who have been here for way longer than us.
The technology boosts, the seemingly ET implications in the bible, the extreme probability of life (if not intelligent) out there. Put that all together and you have the actual topic that is here for discussion in this thread.



And I'm not ANTI-EVOLUTIONIST! Read the thread! WOW!

[edit on 11/29/2009 by impaired]

reply to post by Lasheic


Ok......

What's YOUR theory on how we got here? Is it straight out of the textbooks? If it is, then they are all theories anyway - am I right about that?

What's wrong with trying to interpolate some things?

If you don't like my conjecture (because that's all it is - I NEVER said it was anything more), then please. You fill in the blanks in the theory of evolution - then get back to me with yours instead of basically calling me a moron (for thinking outside of a box )

I'm trying to put science and religion together - seeing how it fits and presenting my interpretation. That's all, I'm not forcing anyone to believe it. But you just want to attack instead of actually coming up with your own thoughts on that subject!

So what's it going to be??? Whatcha got????

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, humans were made by the Anunnaki long ago. DNA testing goes all the way back to one woman in Africa and this woman is a bio-engineering creation of the Anunnaki.

Originally posted by sphinx551
Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, humans were made by the Anunnaki long ago. DNA testing goes all the way back to one woman in Africa and this woman is a bio-engineering creation of the Anunnaki.

Could it be possible that the Annunaki are what Jehova is in the bible? Jehova and Satan - could they be Enlil and Enki - respectively? The same entities? Just different names?

This is kinda what I'm getting at. These mythical stories and religious stories seems to have a lot of parallels.

I don't think we were made from scratch, so to speak. It does say that in the bible - that we were made from dust, but that could literally be anything.
I think there was some other creature that we were spliced with.
Perhaps this COMMON ANCESTOR was the intermediary. 1/2 of this "Common Ancestor" and 1/2 of "God"/Jehova/Annunaki (Anu/Enki/Enlil), etc. = US.

At least that's how I see it.

The bible could very well possibly be explaining true story, but it seems it was written from a biased perspective and lots of things have been lost in translation - plus certain things couldn't be explained for what could really have been.

Plug science and astronomy into it and it makes this Annunaki theory a little more credible. Like I said - whether it was this "Annunaki" or Jehova (and his gang of Angels), or some generic ET group, our creation story is suspect.

[edit on 11/29/2009 by impaired]

Before I get into anything, I read the topic start, and a few random posts on the first page. So I did not read the whole thing. I have a couple of things to say.

Everyone that is a logical thinker, whether they know the truth or not, probably will not disagree with the opening post.

The next I want to tackle is the monkeys/not monkeys debate. In school, they teach everyone, how humans evolved from monkeys. You can jump around and say it's not true, but you actually get a picture of a monkey, a chimpanzee if you like, and show transitions to the human. Ill even post a pic in here to show it.



Basically every book has this picture or a similar picture teaching children. Of course, in reality, it's supposed to be an ancestor of both current monkeys and us. But then, how come we evolved in this way, and they all stayed so hairy eating bananas in the jungle? And then, how do they explain all the creatures that did NOT evolve, like crocodiles? The excuse is usually, that they had no need.. But evolution is supposed to be RANDOM mutations and is not based on the needs in the first place.. So.. What's the deal? I think that in the end the whole monkey/not monkey debate is not relevant. It's just an excuse to label someone as ignorant because they don't want to tackle the real problem. Evolution has way too many holes in it, especially when it comes to us humans. And i'll throw this pic in as well for you to ponder at..



And another thing.. The evidence for alien visitation is everywhere. If you look in any religion, be it from today, or 5000 years ago, it's basically still the same. Look at the Egyptians, Chinese tribes, or even Sumer. Then there's the pyramids, the Nazca Lines etc.. In the end, there's no denying it, and I think, this is actually a known fact that is not supposed to leak to the public.. And another thing.. This article is interesting for anyone claiming that it would not be possible for them to visit because we can't go faster than the speed of light blah blah.. In short, scientists suspect aliens could be using Black Holes to travel, if they are visiting.

www.newscientist.com...

Too bad most people today are so closed minded.. And sadly, there are so many movies and cartoons out there that show this.. Look at a movie like The Day the Earth Stood Still.. It's a perfect example of how retarded people actually all are.. Typical sheep behavior. Or, if you want something else, look at DragonBall Z when the humans are supposed to give their energy for Goku to use it to destroy Kid Buu.. There are many other examples.. You just need to open your eyes to see it.. The evidence for everything is all around you.. You just need to sit down, and let go of EVERYTHING you currently believe in, and then look at things from a fresh perspective, and, you will have the same conclusion as the one who started this thread....

Edit: And oyeah, I forgot, the whole "we're 98% monkeys" part, or whatever percentage it is.. It's totally not true, because they looked at 2% of our DNA and concluded that. The rest was labelled as "junk DNA". But now, we know that the supposedly junk DNA is not junk after all, and in that aspect we're totally different from monkeys...

[edit on 29-11-2009 by vasaga]