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.
Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
Several of these so called ancient men have turned out to be human remains from people who suffered various bone deficiencies such as rickets, arthritis, and genetic abnormalities. Thats why we havent found mass examples of them around the world (we would have if they were the missing links, there would be millions of examples globaly). Also, several examples of so called "missing links" have turned out to be primate remains or animal remains. Examples are the Piking Man, Piltdown Man, etc. If there were truly missing links like these in the evolutionary stages, we would be seeing millions of fossils around the world and not just these single or handfull of skeletons.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
Several of these so called ancient men have turned out to be human remains from people who suffered various bone deficiencies such as rickets, arthritis, and genetic abnormalities. Thats why we havent found mass examples of them around the world (we would have if they were the missing links, there would be millions of examples globaly). Also, several examples of so called "missing links" have turned out to be primate remains or animal remains. Examples are the Piking Man, Piltdown Man, etc. If there were truly missing links like these in the evolutionary stages, we would be seeing millions of fossils around the world and not just these single or handfull of skeletons.
i love how this post was ignored, when it is the most accurate. i find more and more on ats that the best threads are ignored because no one wants to risk being wrong. the same goes for posts. i believe you are right, many of them have turned out to be either fakes, or deseases/abnormalities.
i challenge all of you to pursue the truth, no matter where it takes you. don't be afraid of being wrong. try to disprove what you believe with all your heart.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
Several of these so called ancient men have turned out to be human remains from people who suffered various bone deficiencies such as rickets, arthritis, and genetic abnormalities. Thats why we havent found mass examples of them around the world (we would have if they were the missing links, there would be millions of examples globaly). Also, several examples of so called "missing links" have turned out to be primate remains or animal remains. Examples are the Piking Man, Piltdown Man, etc. If there were truly missing links like these in the evolutionary stages, we would be seeing millions of fossils around the world and not just these single or handfull of skeletons.
i love how this post was ignored, when it is the most accurate. i find more and more on ats that the best threads are ignored because no one wants to risk being wrong. the same goes for posts. i believe you are right, many of them have turned out to be either fakes, or deseases/abnormalities.
i challenge all of you to pursue the truth, no matter where it takes you. don't be afraid of being wrong. try to disprove what you believe with all your heart.
"Speaking by and large, we only tell the general truth when we declare that no indubitable cases of species forming, or transforming, that is, of descent, have been observed...For my part, it seems better to go back to the old and safe ignoramus standpoint."
He does not seem to know of a single new species within the last 6,000 years.
"I do not know how to answer your questions...None of us know just what a species is.... It is difficult to say just when a new species has arisen from an old."
"From every point of view, your short note of Aug. 22nd raises questions, which no scientific man can possibly answer. We have very little knowledge as to just when any particular species of animal arose."
"I have no idea whether the number of species which have arisen during the last 6000 years is 1 or 100,000."
"If the theory of evolution be true, then, during many thousands of years, covered in whole or in part by present human knowledge, there would certainly be known at least a few instances of the evolution of one species from another. No such instance is known."
Originally posted by novastrike81
Have our scientists been able to create life from a non-life or does that violate the theory since it wasn't done 'naturally'? Or by using human intervention have scientists been able to create a new species that was able to reproduce. I guess you could technically call a cross between a horse and a donkey a new species but they are sterile and are not able to reproduce, to my knowledge.
Originally posted by hippomchippo
There have been several cases of speciation, but not abiogenesis, especially in plants, here's one for you, courtesy of talkorgins.org.
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
Fascinating stuff.
Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by ashanu90
If human beings didn't evolve from apes, if we were created, why do we share undeniable physical, genetic and behavioral similarities with apes?
Originally posted by novastrike81
Originally posted by hippomchippo
There have been several cases of speciation, but not abiogenesis, especially in plants, here's one for you, courtesy of talkorgins.org.
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
Fascinating stuff.
So it seems to prove that we as a human species can create new species but does that prove evolution? I found the definition to say evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. So technically it doesn't prove anything for such an accomplishment in the field of science.
Originally posted by hippomchippo
Originally posted by novastrike81
Originally posted by hippomchippo
There have been several cases of speciation, but not abiogenesis, especially in plants, here's one for you, courtesy of talkorgins.org.
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
Fascinating stuff.
So it seems to prove that we as a human species can create new species but does that prove evolution? I found the definition to say evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. So technically it doesn't prove anything for such an accomplishment in the field of science.
I know you want to disregard evolution in the face of evidence, explain to me then, why simple life forms appeared on the earth long before complex ones, was God warming up?
Originally posted by novastrike81
Have our scientists been able to create life from a non-life or does that violate the theory since it wasn't done 'naturally'? Or by using human intervention have scientists been able to create a new species that was able to reproduce. I guess you could technically call a cross between a horse and a donkey a new species but they are sterile and are not able to reproduce, to my knowledge.
Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by novastrike81
You are right though, the physical similarities cannot, by themselves, prove common ancestry BUT when combined with the fossil record, the fact that we are genetically most similar to apes and behaviorally most similar to apes there can be no other conclusion. Right now Evolution is the only conclusion which has the evidence to back up its claim. The DNA is the key, because genetics is all about ancestry.
Originally posted by ashanu90
Originally posted by novastrike81
Have our scientists been able to create life from a non-life or does that violate the theory since it wasn't done 'naturally'? Or by using human intervention have scientists been able to create a new species that was able to reproduce. I guess you could technically call a cross between a horse and a donkey a new species but they are sterile and are not able to reproduce, to my knowledge.
or maybe you will have yourself a tree octupus in your backyard
This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.
Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by novastrike81
This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.
The barrier is only one of time and by the way the mutations are not generally random but are driven by environmental stimuli for the most part. For instance, human beings used to, due to malnutrition, be short and scrawny, ever notice how small the doors are on a REALLY old house? Now our environment is rich with easily accessible food and we've grown larger. This isn't actually direct evolution until the environmental factor is ongoing enough to alter our genetics and given that this increase in prosperity has only been in the last 200 years it makes sense that we are only seeing the very beginning of how our species will change (immediate environmental effects).
Also, you are aware we did not evolve from chimps or gorillas or any living ape, we are only related to them. That is why we are not genetically identical, if we were we'd be the same species, but we are genetically similar. There is no alternate explanation for this. And, as I said before, when combined with all the other evidence it can lead to only one conclusion, we evolved. Whether there is a God or not we evolved. If there is a God and he did create us Evolution was the process by which that was achieved.